Join our LinkedIn Group

This report provides a benchmark of the human rights policies and self-reported human rights due diligence (HRDD) practices of 30 of the largest Danish companies for the 2023 reporting period. The companies represent ten different sectors, are headquartered in Denmark and all have global operations and value chains. The benchmark repeats similar studies by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) published in 20201 and 20222 and the first one on financial institutions from 2023. As is the case for all other businesses, the covered companies have a responsibility to respect human rights. This entails maintaining an awareness of their negative impacts on human rights and publicly demonstrating what they are doing to avoid and address them. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the global authoritative standard on business and human rights, define this as the concept of a “corporate responsibility to respect human rights” which includes undertaking HRDD. This benchmark takes a closer look at the degree to which some of the largest Danish companies are able to demonstrate that they meet this standard. To enable comparison with similar benchmarks at the global level and those done in other countries the benchmark relies on the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark’s (CHRB) Core UNGP Indicator methodology. The study aims to contribute to an ongoing debate on how businesses can improve their respect human rights and publicly document their efforts. In recent years the European Union (EU) has introduced a range of regulatory initiatives which, in different ways, seek to address the impacts that businesses have on the enjoyment of human rights. Two of the main developments in this area relevant to the benchmark are the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which includes a mandatory due diligence obligation with respect to human rights and environmental impacts; and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which concerns disclosures on a range of sustainability matters and their management including human rights and due diligence. Although these regulations are yet to be legally binding on the companies covered in this analysis, their adoption is already impacting the companies’ behaviour. CSRD applies to the first set of companies in 2025 and CSDDD in 2027. Nonetheless, over half of the companies covered in the study refer to the CSRD in their 2024 annual report and note how the incoming regulation has influenced their sustainability reporting. This report facilitates an early consideration of the future impacts of these and related regulatory developments on benchmarks such as these. In a separate section, the report includes a short analysis of early effects of the CSRD and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) on the companies’ reporting as it relates to social sustainability including human rights (page 44). The CHRB Core UNGP Indicator methodology does not mirror the CSDDD articles and thereby incoming legal requirements on HRDD 1:1, but as both draw heavily on the UNGPs as the underlying normative reference point, the companies’ results in this study offer some insight into the companies’ CSDDD preparedness and highlight key areas for improvement. By applying the CHRB Core UNGP Indicator methodology, the benchmark measures the degree to which the largest Danish companies currently document alignment with the UNGPs, rather than whether their performance or impact management processes are in fact aligned with the UNGPs. The methodology, which was updated in 2021, includes 12 indicators covering three thematic areas: three indicators relating to Governance and Policy Commitments (Governance Indicators), six indicators relating to Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD Indicators), and three indicators on Remedies and Grievance Mechanisms (Remedy Indicators). For a list of the indicators see page 17. The CHRB Core UNGP Indicator methodology relies on information publicly disclosed by companies themselves – including formal policy documents, information from annual reports, as well as information on corporate websites. Looking at information provided by companies themselves – and not information made available in the media, by civil society organisations, affected stakeholders or their representatives, or through independent data collection and field work – has a number of limitations which should be kept in mind when assessing the results (for more on methodology and limitations see Annex 1). After the first benchmark of Danish companies in 2020, the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) did a revision of the CHRB methodology based on lessons learnt and stakeholder feedback. The 2021 methodology update has made it possible to shed light on some of the most central areas of concern by requiring additional disclosure on human rights impacts and how they are addressed, including through stakeholder engagement. Since then, the methodology has remained unchanged. This means that any comparisons between the Danish 2020 results and those of 2022 and 2024 must be made with caution. One of the reasons for repeating the benchmark every other year has indeed been to track whether the exercise can drive companies to develop stronger commitments and report more transparently on their procedures, and in addition, determine if laggards are catching up with their peers. As the CHRB methodology has not changed again since the last benchmark, this provides the opportunity to compare this years’ findings more closely to findings from 2022. While some improvements can be noticed in several important areas, such as remedy, the issues that have emerged from this year’s analysis, however, underline that the most significant areas of gaps remain the same.

Documenting Respect for Human Rights: A 2024 Benchmark of Large Danish Companies

Resource Key: WNZB79V5

Document Type: Report

Creator:

Author:

  • Danish Institute for Human Rights
  • EIRIS Foundation

Creators Name: {mb_resource_zotero_creatorsname}

Place: Copenhagen, Denmark

Institution: Danish Institute for Human Rights

Date: 2024

Language:

This report provides a benchmark of the human rights policies and self-reported human rights due diligence (HRDD) practices of 30 of the largest Danish companies for the 2023 reporting period. The companies represent ten different sectors, are headquartered in Denmark and all have global operations and value chains. The benchmark repeats similar studies by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) published in 20201 and 20222 and the first one on financial institutions from 2023. As is the case for all other businesses, the covered companies have a responsibility to respect human rights. This entails maintaining an awareness of their negative impacts on human rights and publicly demonstrating what they are doing to avoid and address them. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the global authoritative standard on business and human rights, define this as the concept of a “corporate responsibility to respect human rights” which includes undertaking HRDD. This benchmark takes a closer look at the degree to which some of the largest Danish companies are able to demonstrate that they meet this standard. To enable comparison with similar benchmarks at the global level and those done in other countries the benchmark relies on the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark’s (CHRB) Core UNGP Indicator methodology. The study aims to contribute to an ongoing debate on how businesses can improve their respect human rights and publicly document their efforts. In recent years the European Union (EU) has introduced a range of regulatory initiatives which, in different ways, seek to address the impacts that businesses have on the enjoyment of human rights. Two of the main developments in this area relevant to the benchmark are the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which includes a mandatory due diligence obligation with respect to human rights and environmental impacts; and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which concerns disclosures on a range of sustainability matters and their management including human rights and due diligence. Although these regulations are yet to be legally binding on the companies covered in this analysis, their adoption is already impacting the companies’ behaviour. CSRD applies to the first set of companies in 2025 and CSDDD in 2027. Nonetheless, over half of the companies covered in the study refer to the CSRD in their 2024 annual report and note how the incoming regulation has influenced their sustainability reporting. This report facilitates an early consideration of the future impacts of these and related regulatory developments on benchmarks such as these. In a separate section, the report includes a short analysis of early effects of the CSRD and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) on the companies’ reporting as it relates to social sustainability including human rights (page 44). The CHRB Core UNGP Indicator methodology does not mirror the CSDDD articles and thereby incoming legal requirements on HRDD 1:1, but as both draw heavily on the UNGPs as the underlying normative reference point, the companies’ results in this study offer some insight into the companies’ CSDDD preparedness and highlight key areas for improvement. By applying the CHRB Core UNGP Indicator methodology, the benchmark measures the degree to which the largest Danish companies currently document alignment with the UNGPs, rather than whether their performance or impact management processes are in fact aligned with the UNGPs. The methodology, which was updated in 2021, includes 12 indicators covering three thematic areas: three indicators relating to Governance and Policy Commitments (Governance Indicators), six indicators relating to Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD Indicators), and three indicators on Remedies and Grievance Mechanisms (Remedy Indicators). For a list of the indicators see page 17. The CHRB Core UNGP Indicator methodology relies on information publicly disclosed by companies themselves – including formal policy documents, information from annual reports, as well as information on corporate websites. Looking at information provided by companies themselves – and not information made available in the media, by civil society organisations, affected stakeholders or their representatives, or through independent data collection and field work – has a number of limitations which should be kept in mind when assessing the results (for more on methodology and limitations see Annex 1). After the first benchmark of Danish companies in 2020, the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) did a revision of the CHRB methodology based on lessons learnt and stakeholder feedback. The 2021 methodology update has made it possible to shed light on some of the most central areas of concern by requiring additional disclosure on human rights impacts and how they are addressed, including through stakeholder engagement. Since then, the methodology has remained unchanged. This means that any comparisons between the Danish 2020 results and those of 2022 and 2024 must be made with caution. One of the reasons for repeating the benchmark every other year has indeed been to track whether the exercise can drive companies to develop stronger commitments and report more transparently on their procedures, and in addition, determine if laggards are catching up with their peers. As the CHRB methodology has not changed again since the last benchmark, this provides the opportunity to compare this years’ findings more closely to findings from 2022. While some improvements can be noticed in several important areas, such as remedy, the issues that have emerged from this year’s analysis, however, underline that the most significant areas of gaps remain the same.

Download Document