{"id":1381,"date":"2025-09-29T13:26:00","date_gmt":"2025-09-29T11:26:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/materiality.astrotea.pl\/?p=1381"},"modified":"2025-12-03T19:24:42","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T18:24:42","slug":"influences-over-which-we-have-no-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/materiality.pl\/en\/wiedza-i-praktyka\/wplywy-na-ktore-nie-mamy-wplywu\/","title":{"rendered":"Influences beyond our control"},"content":{"rendered":"

The problem stems partly from differences in meaning between Polish and English. The Polish word \u201ewp\u0142yw\u201d is almost inextricably linked to the concept of \u201ehaving an influence,\u201d which means directly affecting or being able to affect something. Meanwhile, in English, particularly in the context of due diligence, \u201eimpact\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is worth taking a look at UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<\/a>, specifically Rule 13, in particular point b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201e13. Responsibility for respecting human rights requires that companies:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(a) avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their activities <\/em>(sic) and take corrective action when necessary,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(b) take measures to prevent negative impact on human rights <\/strong>directly related to their activities, products, or services through their business relationships<\/strong> or mitigate such impact, even if they themselves did not contribute to it<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How does this work in practice? I will use an example close to my heart, as it concerns the activities of MATERIALITY.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u2013 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 \u2013 MATERIALITY has a business link through the value chain to this specific negative impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n