The problem stems partly from differences in meaning between Polish and English. The Polish word „wpływ” is almost inextricably linked to the concept of „having an influence,” which means directly affecting or being able to affect something. Meanwhile, in English, particularly in the context of due diligence, „impact” can exist even if we do not exert a direct influence. Impact is a phenomenon that occurs and with which we may or may not be associated through business relationships within our value chain.
It is worth taking a look at UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, specifically Rule 13, in particular point b).
„13. Responsibility for respecting human rights requires that companies:
(a) avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their activities (sic) and take corrective action when necessary,
(b) take measures to prevent negative impact on human rights directly related to their activities, products, or services through their business relationships or mitigate such impact, even if they themselves did not contribute to it.”
A negative impact may therefore exist if we are linked to it through business relationships in the value chain, even if we as a company have not contributed to its creation.
In such cases, the question usually arises: But how can that be? Why should I be responsible for something I did not contribute to? However, we are talking about responsibility for respecting human rights within the framework of due diligence.
How does this work in practice? I will use an example close to my heart, as it concerns the activities of MATERIALITY.
At MATERIALITY, we use computers and phones for work. These are electronic devices, and the components used in their production are made, among other things, from conflict minerals (e.g., tin), i.e., minerals that are often mined in conflict zones, which has a negative impact on human rights. MATERIALITY is therefore commercially linked through the value chain to these negative impacts on human rights. It does not matter that there are probably 20, 30, or even 50 stages in the value chain between MATERIALITY and the entity operating a tin mine in Myanmar or Indonesia – the commercial link exists. It does not matter that MATERIALITY uses only about thirty computers and a similar number of telephones, while large companies use hundreds or thousands, and large multinational corporations use tens or hundreds of thousands of computers – MATERIALITY has a business link through the value chain to this specific negative impact.
However, when conducting a materiality assessment, we must prioritize negative impacts and focus on the most serious ones. We should therefore carry out a risk analysis and, as part of this, consider, among other things, the extent to which we are able to influence this impact:
- Are we able to give up using computers and phones at MATERIALITY? No, they are essential for our operations.
- Can we contact our computer and phone supplier to exert influence on tin mines through them? We can, but MATERIALITY's purchasing power is small; we cannot force Apple to sign our code of conduct for suppliers, submit to our audit, or implement specific measures in relation to Apple's suppliers. However, we read what Apple writes about the materials used to manufacture their equipment and see that it is slightly better and more careful than the market average. It's not perfect, but they are doing something. For example, every year they increase the share of recycled raw materials, which means that they use less tin from mines in conflict zones in their components.
- What else can we do? We take care of the quality of our equipment and ensure it is used properly (we have rules for this in our internal regulations for employees) so that it lasts as long as possible and, in the event of a breakdown, is repaired (rather than replaced with new equipment). Thanks to this, we also contribute, as far as we can, to reducing the demand for newly mined tin. And it makes good business sense, because repair costs are lower than the cost of buying new computers and phones.
As a result of this analysis, we recognize that there is a negative impact on human rights associated with MATERIALITY's use of electronic equipment manufactured with raw materials extracted in a manner that harms human rights, but at the same time we assess that this impact is insignificant. At the same time, we will not cease the activities we are already conducting (described in the second and third points above). We are not doing all this because we are required to do so by any Polish or EU law or because we are threatened with sanctions. We are doing this out of due diligence with regard to human rights and because it is consistent with our business model.
When analyzing various influences at one of the initial stages of the materiality assessment, if you encounter this type of „influences over which you have no control,” you will not find any clear-cut, black-and-white answers in the ESRS or other standards and guidelines. It is impossible to create them because the number of combinations of companies and circumstances in which they operate is enormous. In this situation, it is worth asking yourself a few questions, such as:
- Is my company linked to this impact through business relationships in the value chain?
- Can I change my behavior so that this connection no longer exists? How would my business model have to change so that I no longer use products or services associated with this negative impact?
- Can I directly or indirectly influence this impact so that it is reduced or eliminated? If my influence is too small, can I do something in cooperation with other companies in my industry or region, or perhaps with the help of other organizations that deal with this type of impact?
- How do these measures relate to other areas of my company's operations? Which of these measures could simultaneously contribute to reducing operating costs or would be financially neutral?
And it's worth being stubborn about it. The first answers to most of the above questions will be „it's impossible,” „we can't change anything,” „everyone does it this way,” „it definitely won't pay off.” That's because it's easiest to do things the way they've always been done. Change is uncomfortable. Let's dig deeper, ask questions, try things out, and see how others do it. It's always possible 😊
P.S. (1) MATERIALITY is currently recruiting for the position of Senior Sustainability Specialist. If you or someone you know is looking for further development in the field of sustainability, wants to deal with interesting topics and work in a great team, then I cordially invite you to apply 😊 The announcement is available at this address, and recruitment will continue until October 2, 2025.
P.S. (2) Today is the last day to submit comments as part of EFRAG's public consultation on the draft simplified ESRS standards. I encourage you to participate! You can find all the information on how to do so at on the EFRAG website with drafts of new standards i in my post dated August 11, 2025.
Polish
English