Meet our team - Lisanne Hekman

Hi Lisanne, can you tell us a bit about yourself? 

I started two months ago as a human rights consultant at 2Impact. Before that, I worked at various non-profit organisations, all with a focus on sustainable value chains and human rights. For example, I was involved in the Accountability Framework initiative, an international coalition of NGOs that helps companies address deforestation and human rights violations in their value chains. I also worked on projects such as the “Behind the Barcodes” campaign at Oxfam Novib and was active in the business and human rights project of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights. So I have always worked at the intersection of human rights and international value chains. 

You specialise in Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD). What exactly does this topic entail? 

HRDD is the process through which companies can identify and address human rights violations and risks. It is not just about what happens within their own organisation, but especially about what takes place throughout the entire value chain, because that is often where the biggest risks lie. 
The process consists of six steps. It starts with developing policies and integrating them into management systems. Then, you identify the risks, followed by taking actions to address those risks. Next, you monitor whether those actions are actually effective. You report on the results, and if a violation has occurred, you provide remediation. 

There are a number of international standards that guide this process, such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for MNEs. 

How did you become involved in the topic of human rights, and what attracted you to it? 

I studied cultural anthropology, where I was already engaging with topics such as power relations, inequality, and the impact of societal systems on individuals and communities. I find it very interesting that behind the products we buy here in supermarkets or clothing stores, there are entire chains of people and processes. What happens within those chains is strongly influenced by how companies take responsibility. Their choices determine whether people, for example, earn a fair wage, can work in safe conditions, or are subjected to exploitation and human rights violations. As consumers, we can also indirectly contribute to situations of exploitation and violations. I want to contribute to solutions for these problems.  

What steps should companies take to effectively identify human rights issues? 

As a company, you first need to map your value chain to understand where your products come from and what risks are associated with those products and the countries they originate from. This includes engaging in dialogue with your suppliers. In addition, there is already a lot of existing information available, such as from NGO reports, so you do not have to investigate everything from scratch. If you want to fully go through the process, it is also important to talk to rights-holders, the people whose human rights may be impacted by the company’s activities. 

How do you deal with limited data or indirect impacts, for example within the supply chain? 

That is a major challenge, especially in complex and lengthy value chains. Still, it is important to stress that companies do have a responsibility to address human rights violations, as laid out in international human rights frameworks.

This does not mean you need to know everything perfectly or solve everything immediately, but you do need to take steps towards addressing the risks and/or violations. One of the first steps is mapping out your value chain. You can also seek collaboration, for example through sector initiatives or multi-stakeholder initiatives. These collaborations often hold a lot of knowledge about where certain risks are and how best to address them. Fortunately, we are seeing more and more companies joining such initiatives. 

Do you have an example of a best practice? What developments are you seeing in the business world in this area? 

What I consider a good general practice is that companies choose constructive cooperation with their suppliers to tackle human rights risks. In practice, companies still often just pass down their requirements to their suppliers, who in turn pass them on to theirs. That is a logical starting point, but if that is all you do, you risk shifting your own responsibility. What really works is to look for solutions together with suppliers. So not just saying what needs to happen, but also asking: what can we as a company do to help improve the situation? For example, by reviewing your own purchasing practices or offering support to your suppliers.  

What are the biggest misconceptions around HRDD? 

A common misconception is that human rights and environmental issues can be tackled separately. In practice, they are deeply intertwined. Deforestation, for example, often goes hand in hand with land grabbing and violations of the rights of local or indigenous communities. So you cannot really solve one without addressing the other. Still, in many companies, human rights and environmental issues are handled in separate tracks, with different teams and processes for social and environmental concerns. But it is much more effective to approach these topics in an integrated way. Many of the systems you set up for human rights due diligence—such as risk analyses, monitoring, and stakeholder dialogues—can also be used to address environmental risks. By combining these two tracks, you work more efficiently and can create greater impact.  

Recently, the European Commission introduced the Omnibus proposal, which includes changes to the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). What is your view on this?

I find it unfortunate that the proposed changes would bring the CSDDD less in line with the UNGPs and the OECD Guidelines, which the legislation was originally well aligned with. 
According to best practice, companies should focus on the most significant risks in their value chains and tailor their due diligence efforts accordingly. However, the revised proposal emphasises direct suppliers, even though the biggest risks often lie further down the chain. The idea behind this change is to reduce the administrative burden for companies, but by obligating them to screen suppliers where there may be few risks, it could actually undermine efficiency and distract from the real risk hotspots.

I also think the change that allows companies to monitor only once every five years, instead of annually, is a missed opportunity. Monitoring is essential for continuously improving the due diligence system. That is why it remains important for companies to carry out HRDD based on the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. These have been used successfully by many different companies for years, and they are practical, logical, and provide solid guidance. These frameworks not only help companies conduct due diligence effectively, but also ensure they meet the growing expectations of stakeholders when it comes to human rights. 

Read more about the Omnibus proposal and the proposed changes in our article here. 

How can we as 2Impact support companies in setting up an HRDD system? 

We offer various services related to HRDD. For instance, we conduct gap assessments, where we compare a company’s current practices to best practices as described in the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. Based on that comparison, we identify gaps that can be closed. We also support companies in writing or rewriting their human rights policies, since strong policy is the foundation for further action. In addition, we provide training to help companies increase their knowledge of human rights and HRDD. Lastly, we offer risk assessments to help companies identify and prioritise their human rights risks. If a company is looking for support with another aspect of the human rights due diligence process, they can always contact us for tailor-made services. 

Read more about our services related to human rights here.