by Sarah Walkley | Oct 10, 2024 | Blog
What is nature?
It’s not a trick question. I’m inviting you to pause for a moment and think about what the word brings to mind. Chances are your head is full of images of wild landscapes or specific creatures. I’ll wager you didn’t put yourself or another human in the picture.
Well nor does the Oxford English Dictionary. It defines nature as ‘the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.’
Similarly, the Collins Concise Dictionary makes a distinction between humans and the rest of the natural world — a distinction that is not reflected in our growing scientific understanding that we are part of an intricately interconnected web of life.
We rely on healthy ecosystems for water, food, medicine, our general wellbeing and much more, while our activities have a significant impact (often negative) on the world around us. For Lawyers for Nature — the team that helped House of Hackney put nature on the board — the linguistic separation between humans and the natural world has resulted in ‘misconceived superiority over Nature [that] has contributed to the ecological crisis we find ourselves in today’.
Disconnection from nature has been described as possibly ‘the world’s greatest environmental threat’ in that it perpetuates an attitude where natural resources are to be taken, used and then disposed of. Conversely, building a deep-rooted emotional connection with nature offers far greater opportunity to affect broad-scale systems change. Those with the strongest connection to nature adapt how they interact with the world around them to make more efficient use of resources, are more likely to act to protect and boost biodiversity and tend to be healthier and happier — all behaviours we need to encourage to build a more sustainable future.
If language can divide us, it is also a great connector.
In April 2024, Lawyers for Nature began the fight back with a campaign to change the dictionary definition of nature to one that includes humans. But that is just one way that language could reconnect or bring us back together with the natural world.
But even using the phrase ‘nature connection’ is problematic for some — indicating just how much the words we choose to talk about the world around us matter. Nature connection describes our relationship with the natural world. It covers everything from a material reliance on natural resources to a deeper appreciation of the importance of nature and our place in the natural world. Using the word ‘connection’ implies that there are two entities — humans and nature — and that they are linked, though maybe only by the most fragile of bonds. It doesn’t suggest humans and nature are one. However, nature connection is probably the best phrase for describing the different relationships humans have with the world around them — leading to its growing popularity and use as a term.
There are many ways that we could build appreciation for the environment — by foraging for food and cooking it, painting the landscape or going out for a walk. Changing how we think and talk about the world could also make a difference.
Traditionally, we have seen ourselves in the landscape and felt a connection with the landscape within ourselves. It is reflected in the words we chose to describe our surroundings. In English, we refer to the ‘brow’ of the hill or the spine of a ridge. The Welsh describe parts of the natural landscape as a ‘cefn’ (back or ridge), ‘moel’ (bald, indicating a bare or barren hill), ‘pen’ (head or peak), ‘braich’ (arm or ridge), ‘esgair’ (an old Welsh word for leg or ridge) or ‘talcen’ (forehead or front of a hill). Shoulder is used in English, French (épaule) and Welsh (ysgwydd) to refer to a projecting ridge close to the top of a mountain.
All languages contain magic words. Not abracadabra, hocus pocus, or any spell or charm used by Harry Potter. But names. We give names to our children, our pets and our first car. Instantly they stand out from the crowd and become special to us.
One of Simon Barnes’ top tips to Rewild Yourself is to learn the names of different species — whether that is birds, trees, butterflies or any other plant or animal.
The same goes for natural features of the landscape. These days we tend to lump all waterways together as rivers, not making the distinction between a ‘brook’, a ‘beck’, an ‘estuary’, or a ‘stream’. In all probability, the last time you used the word ‘stream’, it was to refer to the latest thing you watched on Netflix, not to describe the landscape.
The Welsh have multiple words for hills and mountains. Iceland famously has 85 words for snow, while Scotland and Ireland excel at the number of different ways to describe rain. These variations were coined by people that have lived in the same place for so long that they notice and appreciate the differences.
Losing our ‘literacy of landscape’ can have profound consequences. Young people in parts of North Alaska no longer recognise the different Iñupiat and Yupik words for ice, making it hard for elders to warn them when they stray on to a dangerous patch of ice rendered unstable by rising temperatures.
We know the power of words. A good book has always been able to transport us to another realm. Perhaps if we pay greater heed to the words we use and what they mean, it could change our relationship to the physical world in which we live. It starts with changing the dictionary definition; who knows where it will lead.
by Talia Vicars | Oct 9, 2024 | Blog
Working in the field of sustainability, the world’s most pressing social and environmental challenges are front and center. In our day-to-day work we cover increasingly extreme weather phenomena, social injustices, and extinct species, to name a few.
Working with such proximity to this reality (as well as in other professions that focus on caring), can result in burnout. The Maslach Burnout Inventory describes three aspects of burnout, including emotional exhaustion (you’re tired), depersonalization (you’re becoming less yourself), and reduced personal accomplishment (you feel your contributions or work don’t really matter).
In sustainability, burnout may also be characterized as eco-anxiety. Eco-anxiety is a mishmash of the negative emotions we associate with anxiety – like worry, guilt, and sadness – but directly related to the environmental state of the world. It is defined by the American Psychology Association as “the chronic fear of environmental cataclysm that comes from observing the seemingly irrevocable impact of climate change and the associated concern for one’s future and that of next generations.”
In the wise words of the Bear Hunt nursery rhyme: We can’t go over it, we can’t go under it – we’re just going to have to go through it. So, how do we keep ourselves dedicated to the work, bringing positivity and optimism along the way?
When navigating and addressing the challenges of eco-anxiety and avoiding burnout, there are some skills and tools we can lean on. One of the great modern examples of turning this feeling into action is Greta Thunberg, who took her depression and drive to affect change and turned it into global activism.
At Context, we believe that positivity and joy are essential to progress. In the face of serious challenges, celebrating achievements is an important part of the journey. Below are some ways our team brings joy into our work and daily lives.
- Lean on community
- Be in nature
- Incorporate mindfulness practices
- Accept that change doesn’t happen overnight
- Know that knowledge is power
Lean on community
When down in the climate-related dumps, one of the ways to pull yourself up is by surrounding yourself with other folks who are also dedicated to conservation and sustainability. In fact, collective engagement with environmental issues can increase feelings of efficacy, leading to hope and wellbeing. To make this possible, we need to co-create spaces where people can imagine the kinds of lives we want to live and how to make them happen. Look for community spaces, like those provided through volunteering, to find your people.
Be in nature
Getting outside and spending time in greenspaces is actually linked to lower stress, anxiety, and depression than those who visit public greenspaces less often. A recent study of 20,000 people found that 120 minutes in nature per day was the hard threshold for folks to report feeling healthy and having a strong sense of well-being. Playing outside – regardless of occupation, ethnic group, socioeconomic class, and ability – had this impact.
Incorporate mindfulness practices
Harkening back to burnout, the first critical step to addressing it is acknowledging, with compassion, that feelings of burnout are happening and are an expected reality of this kind of work. One way to acknowledge this is through mindfulness—the practice of learning to focus with an attitude of curiosity, openness, and acceptance. Mindfulness-based stress reduction, which originates from Buddhist spiritual practices, can have broad antidepressant and antianxiety effects. You can use mindfulness apps, like Calm and Headspace, to help guide some simple mindfulness practices.
Accept that change doesn’t happen overnight
It’s no secret that waiting to see the fruits of our labor is tough. And this is common— difficulty delaying gratification can play a role in anxiety and depression. It requires time and patience to affect large scale systemic change. One way to learn how to sit with the discomfort of delayed gratification is through understanding this theory of change (ToC). ToC is a description of why and how change happens within a specific context. In the context of sustainability, the framework of ToC in Sustainability Science can be useful:
- Identify a goal or problem
- Identify the contextualized causes of unsustainability
- Explain how change may happen to address these causes and, in turn, the goal or problem.
- Bring in subject matter experts to fill gaps.
- Specify activities and pathways to lead to intended outcomes and impacts.
- Operationalize this process and repeat!
This process takes time, but it’s proven to lead to long-lasting and meaningful change.
Know that knowledge is power
It’s understandable to want to dig our heads into the sand ostrich-style and tune out the realities of the world. However, in addressing our eco-anxiety and burnout, we need to acknowledge how serious the situation is. Luckily for us (and the planet!), the climate crisis is becoming more visible in the West, and, as a result, we’re better suited to tackle it.
Google Ngram illustrates the popularity of certain words in general discourse. This chart shows a snapshot from Google Ngram, tracking a steady rise in discussions of conservation since the 1900s to the mid-2000s (which peaks correspond to major US periods of national legislation) and the rise of “sustainable” since the 1990s. It is becoming more and more part of our conversations, and the more we’re able to name the problem, the better suited we are to tackle it.
The Main Take-Aways
In the journey towards sustainability, it’s essential to acknowledge the weight of the challenges we face, but we can’t allow them to dampen our spirits. By cultivating joy, leaning on community, and embracing the slow and steady march towards progress, we can navigate the complexities of sustainability with optimism and purpose.
by Sarah Walkley | Sep 24, 2024 | Blog
Businesses have long recognised that they can and should make a meaningful contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). And there’s a big prize on offer for solving major economic, environmental and social challenges and delivering on the goals — an estimated $12 trillion in business opportunities.
Over 90% of members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development mentioned at least one of the 17 goals in their 2023 annual report. At least three-quarters of sustainability professionals believe their business is aligned with delivering the aims of the SDGs.
But in a growing number of cases, alignment is superficial, leading to accusations of SDG-washing — using the SDGs as a way to imply greater social and environmental impact. For example, the company mentions that it is partnering to deliver the SDGs (goal 17) because it has joined an industry body aimed at tackling deforestation, inequality, or another recognised sustainability challenge. Yet, it has not made any changes to its current sustainability strategy or ways of working.
Here are Context’s top tips for using the SDGs to drive meaningful change within your business.
1. Create a detailed map to guide your journey
For each of the 17 high-level goals, there are up to 12 targets — 169 targets in total. And for each target, there are between two and four indicators of progress. But many companies don’t look beyond the headline goals.
A comprehensive approach to SDG mapping requires companies to assess both their positive and negative impacts at the target level. It enables you to understand where the organisation can have the biggest impact, but also identify the trade-offs — where pursuing benefits in one area could cause harm in another. Building a new coal-fired power station improves access to affordable energy (goal 7), but also generates increased emissions slowing climate action (goal 13). A thorough evaluation also ensures no opportunities or risks are overlooked.
You will need to look at many of the same sources you use to identify and assess your company’s sustainability matters as part of any Double Materiality Assessment. Combining the two provides a rounded view of the company’s impacts, risks and opportunities.
2. Explore the full value chain
SDG mapping should cover the full value chain — not just the company’s own operations. A pharmaceutical company’s core focus on improving health and wellbeing (goal 3) may be undermined if new treatments can’t get to market. Looking upstream and downstream helps to identify the areas where partnership is essential for delivering on the aims of the SDGs (goal 17).
3. Adopt a less is more approach
With the exception of some multinational, portfolio businesses, few organisations can have an impact on all 17 SDGs. It is better to focus on just a few core goals without becoming blinkered to the company’s impacts — positive and negative — on other SDGs.
If impact is genuinely broader than just a few goals, you could reference linked goals where company actions create co-benefits. For example, providing better nutrition (goal 2) may help children to concentrate better in schools and enjoy the benefits of quality education (goal 4).
Transparency breeds trust. Stakeholders expect a company to explain its approach to prioritising the SDGs. That means showing the company has selected the areas where it can make the biggest impact and directly contribute to the target. A record of providing employee training does not represent a contribution to quality education (goal 4), though improving access in emerging markets to the textbooks the company produces might.
It also means acknowledging that the company can’t have a positive impact in all areas — and indeed in furthering one goal may generate trade-offs in another area.
4. Mind the gap
Companies should focus on the SDGs where they can have the greatest impact. But less scrupulous organisations have adopted the same approach with dubious motives.
Consider the soft drinks company that focuses on sustainable consumption and production (goal 12), but fails to address (or even acknowledge) its impact on good health and wellbeing (goal 3). Or how about the fossil fuel company that focuses on decent work and economic growth (goal 8), but overlooks climate action (goal 13).
These are deliberate instances of SDG-washing. But companies can face similar accusations when they fail to explain why they have chosen to put the focus on some areas and not others.
5. Integrate the SDGs into the core business
Some companies pepper their annual sustainability report with logos of the individual SDGs, but then the goals are not mentioned again until the following report. True impact only stems from integrating the goals and targets within the business.
Researchers at Stanford University have identified companies that have embedded the SDGs into everything they do. African technology company Safaricom has woven the goals into its statement of purpose, descriptions of team tasks and even personal objectives. This helps to explain how the finance team provides ‘transparency and visibility on our procurement practices and fighting corruption in all its forms (goal 16)’ or HR promotes decent work and good labour practices (goal 8).
Meanwhile, Danish biotechnology company Novozyme uses the SDGs as a lens to decide which new products to advance and which to shelve.
6. Measure and demonstrate progress
Impact is hard to measure, particularly in relation to systemic issues. Over 80% of business leaders have indicated that measurement challenges prevent progress towards the goals.
This is where comprehensive SDG mapping comes into its own. The Stanford researchers highlighted how Ramboll assessed revenues against its priority SDGs to identify which business units directly contributed to delivery of the goals and which didn’t. By shifting focus on to the business units with greatest impact, it was able to demonstrate progress towards the goals, while reducing negative impacts elsewhere.
7. Approach the SDGs as you would other reporting frameworks
Most companies mention their contribution to the SDGs in their annual sustainability reports, but rarely treat disclosures with the same level of thoroughness as other reporting frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the IFRS’s International Sustainability Standards.
Greater visibility is needed. If a company says it is contributing to the SDGs, its commitment and actions should be clearly connected to the SDGs targets — and supported by robust data. The GRI’s business reporting database provides guidance on how the SDGs align with common reporting frameworks, enabling the SDGs to be integrated into wider reporting activities. Done well, it reassures stakeholders that companies are serious about their social and environmental impact and build trusts.
Referencing the company’s contribution to the SDGs in the CEO’s introduction to the annual sustainability report demonstrates that the commitment comes from the top of the organisation.
Context supports companies to map their impacts and understand their contribution to the SDGs and their material issues. This provides the foundation for robust sustainability strategy, reporting and communications – beyond the addition of a few SDG logos to your report. If you would like to talk about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or helen.fisher@contexteurope.com.
Photo designed by Freepik
by Beth Sandford-Bondy | Aug 29, 2024 | Blog
The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is the new kid on the block for many large companies active in the EU: here are the key things you need to know now.
What is CSDDD?
The CSDDD (CS3D) is a new EU human rights and environment due diligence legislation that applies to large companies operating in the EU. It requires processes be embedded in the business to identify, prevent, reduce, and end negative human rights and environmental impacts in their operations, subsidiaries, and value chains — both inside and outside Europe.
Is your company subject to CSDDD?
Two types of companies need to comply:
- EU-based companies with 1,000+ employees and a global net turnover of €450+ million.
- Non-EU-based companies with a net turnover of €450+ million in the EU.
Companies must comply by 2027, 2028, or 2029 depending on number of employees, global turnover amount, and whether they’re based in the EU or not.
What are the key steps to implementation?
1. Integrate due diligence into corporate policies
Make sure that due diligence is integrated into all relevant policies and risk management systems. You also need to have a specific policy that ensures risk-based due diligence.
2. Map your value chain and assess risks
It’s crucial to get an understanding of where your company’s actual and potential impacts lie. Start by mapping your value chain to identify areas with adverse impacts and risks, and prioritise them based on likelihood and severity. Then companies must carry out in-depth assessments of individual suppliers in prioritised areas.
3. Take measures to prevent, mitigate, and end adverse impacts
Preventing and ending adverse impacts on human rights and the environment is the core of the CSDDD. Companies should implement the following:
- Human rights and environmental strategies.
- Responsible purchasing practices — including assurances to comply with minimum standards, and supplier screening and assessments.
- Corrective measures and termination of business relationship as a last resort.
- Employee and supplier training.
- Targeted and proportionate support for business partners who are SMEs, including fair and non-discriminatory contractual assurances.
4. Provide a complaints procedure
Companies must provide a notification system which is accessible to potentially affected stakeholders and their representatives — including NGOs and human rights defenders, for example. The complaints procedure should be fair, publicly available, accessible, and transparent. Workers and their representatives must be informed of the procedure.
5. Monitor the effectiveness of due diligence measures
Periodically assessing your due diligence measures will help you see if they’re suitable and effective. Update your due diligence policy and measures as needed.
6. Publicly report impacts and due diligence processes
Compliance with CSRD means compliance with CSDDD reporting requirements. Companies must produce a publicly available annual statement on the potential and actual adverse impacts identified and due diligence measures taken.
7. Have a climate transition plan aligned with 1.5°C
Combat climate change with a transition plan aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. If you’re complying with CSRD then your climate strategy is already ticked off the list.
What’s the connection to CSRD?
They are both new EU sustainability regulations covering social and environmental factors and applying to the operations and value chains of large companies. Both require public disclosure and a climate transition plan aligned with the Paris Agreement.
But while the CSDDD focuses on preventing and ending negative effects, the CSRD focuses on transparent disclosure.
For a more in-depth analysis of the overlap between CSRD and CSDDD, watch out for our upcoming blog on how they match up.
What can you do now to get started?
The first step is to familiarise yourselves with the CSDDD requirements to understand if, when and how you must comply. Assessing existing due diligence roles, policies and management systems will help you understand your gaps and establish any roles and responsibilities needed. The next step is to map your value chain to identify and prioritise risks based on likelihood and severity.
Once you understand where your biggest risks are, devise a plan to set up the necessary due diligence measures, engaging with both internal and external stakeholders. The strategy should include: in-depth supplier risk assessments, measures to prevent and mitigate impacts, grievance mechanisms, assessments to monitor due diligence processes, annual reporting, and a climate transition plan in line with the Paris Agreement.
Context is ready to support you with all your CSDDD needs — from value chain mapping and devising due diligence strategies, to writing policies and CSRD / CSDDD-aligned reports. If you would like to talk about your organisation’s needs, please get in touch via www.contextsustainability.com or helen.fisher@contexteurope.com.
by Sarah Walkley | Aug 6, 2024 | Blog
Language is a powerful — but often overlooked — tool in sustainability. It is how we shape ideas and understand the world around us. It helps us to connect with each other and with nature. By naming the things we value, we demonstrate what is important to us and to society as a whole.
Of course, language is also how we communicate knowledge about the social and environmental challenges we face ‘in a way that empowers people to take necessary actions for more sustainable lifestyles’, notes John Canning of Kingston University. And yet language figures very little in our conversations about sustainability. Neither culture nor language are explicitly mentioned within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), despite the UN considering both fundamental to achieving 14 of the 17 SDGs.
We also tend to overlook the fact that much of the conversation takes place in English. When theories and ideas are formulated in one language, they can become culturally-specific and potentially divorced from other ways of thinking about the world. Although some brands are attempting to engage Indigenous communities on land use and management, we in the English-speaking world are still missing out on much of the deep ecological knowledge embedded in Indigenous cultures.
There are no words for climate change in many languages, including Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa which are widely spoken in Nigeria — even though these communities are already feeling the impact of extreme weather events. Talk of ‘climate change’ can feel distant and elitist in the face of day-to-day problems.
Even within Europe, we have examples of concepts that have struggled to cross borders. In early versions of the Brundtland definition of ‘sustainable development’ first adopted by the United Nations in 1987, the term was mistranslated into French as dévéloppement durable (robust and durable) rather than dévéloppement soutenable (sustainable over the longer term).
At Context, writing is central to the work we do for our clients. We appreciate that it is sometimes hard to fully convey the sentiment expressed in one language when translating to another without losing some of the nuance and subtlety of the message.
Why does all this matter?
Given the scale of the climate and nature crises, we need to mobilise as many people to take action as possible. We have previously highlighted research indicating English-speaking consumers lack understanding of key concepts, creating a business-consumer sustainability language barrier. That challenge is multiplied for companies trying to engage with multinational teams — or work with suppliers, customers and other stakeholders across the world.
Companies may also be missing out on opportunities to identify regional best practice that could be rolled out across the business. Research into linguistic injustice by Tatsuya Amano of the University of Queensland has revealed that non-native English speakers are 2.5 times more likely to have their scientific papers rejected by a journal because they find it harder to express their ideas and convey the originality of their research in English. In the corporate world, similar linguistic challenges may translate to a shyness to speak up about local initiatives.
As Erika Darics of the University of Groningen points out, ‘specific communication strategies influence attitudes and behaviours towards sustainability issues’. The English lexicon of sustainability is dominated by terms such as ‘reduction’ and ‘efficiency’, which focus on the things we have to lose in moving to a lower-carbon world. It makes the transition feel hard and unappealing. Other languages may offer a better vision for the kind of relationship with the world we could create — something we want to move towards. As change management specialists will attest, we need to create the desire for change before we can do things differently.
The new world could be one of ‘hiraeth’ (Welsh: deep yearning for and connection with the land around us) or ‘lagom’ (Swedish: having enough or just what we need). We don’t need to be fluent in Welsh or Swedish to familiarise ourselves with these words, just as we don’t need to learn German to recognise ‘Schadenfreude’ or Danish to appreciate ‘hygge’. Getting to grips with just a few words can open our eyes to inspiration from other cultures.
Similarly, being mindful of these issues can help us to be better communicators. It is about making a conscious effort to explain strategies and concepts in clear and simple terms that won’t get lost in translation. It helps us to be more inclusive.
There are also potential benefits for brands. Research across 13 countries found that a whopping 88% of respondents wanted brands to demonstrate understanding and appreciation of national identity — and 93% wanted brands to speak to them in their own language. Sadly, only 23% of those surveyed believed that brands truly delivered. Stepping up to the mark by offering ‘engaging, culturally relevant’ messaging and customer services could be an important competitive differentiator. For Maria Schnell, Chief Language Officer at RWS, a company that develops artificial intelligence-enabled translation tools, it means layering human insight and expertise over machine translation.
There is no easy formula for how to achieve communication that is culturally relevant. The answers will vary between one organisation and the next. Developing an awareness of the issues, a deep understanding of context and focusing on stakeholder needs is a good place to start.
by Kyisin Aung | Jul 29, 2024 | Blog
Many companies operate, or conduct business with partners, in challenging contexts1 that can pose significant human rights risks. This is especially true for large multinationals with complex supply chains, where the threat of modern slavery and human rights violations are a very real concern.
Adopted in 2011, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) establish a globally recognized framework for business and human rights. The UNGPs rest on three pillars: 1) the state’s duty to protect human rights; 2) corporate responsibility to respect human rights; and 3) ensuring access to remedy for those affected by adverse impacts.
Operational grievance mechanisms (OGMs) are formal channels to receive complaints from stakeholders affected by a company’s business activities. By fostering two-way dialogue with these stakeholders companies can resolve grievances swiftly and fairly. Establishing effective grievance mechanisms, aligned with international best practice, should be a cornerstone of any company’s strategy to uphold human rights within its operations and supply chains.
While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to building an effective grievance mechanism, all companies should consider a set of criteria when developing their OGM:
- Fit for purpose: OGMs work best when tailored to the operating context. This involves specifying how and where grievances can be lodged, whether through an individual, a form, or an online platform to encourage stakeholders to use the mechanism when needed.
- Clarity: Clearly defined grievance procedures outline how complaints will be handled. Transparently communicating the steps involved in investigating grievances assures stakeholders of the legitimacy of the process.
- Objectivity: All complaints must be investigated objectively and thoroughly. This requires appointing trained individuals who can handle investigations impartially, without bias.
- Timeliness: Promptly acknowledging and addressing complaints is essential to maintain stakeholder trust in the grievance process. This involves setting clear timelines and milestones to provide feedback on investigation outcomes and resolutions to complainants.
- Confidentiality: Ensuring confidentiality and respecting the privacy of the complainant are fundamental aspects to the grievance process. Stakeholders must be assured that their identities will not be disclosed without their consent, except where necessary for investigation purposes.
- Documentation: Keeping accurate records of all complaints is crucial for accountability. This also enables to companies to identify trends, hotspots of concern, and proactively mitigate recurrences.
In May 2024, the European Union formally adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), setting human rights standards for large companies operating within the EU. The legislation mandates companies to monitor, prevent, or remedy human rights damages throughout their operations and downstream and upstream value chains. Companies can be held liable for human rights violations they cause and will have to provide full compensation.
Context supports efforts to research, develop, and implement fit-for-purpose strategies unique to companies’ operating environment. If you’d to discuss your organization’s needs, please get in touch by e-mailing us at kyisin.aung@contextamerica.com
1 The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights (OHCHR) defines challenging contexts as those with grave human rights situations due to conflict, political turmoil and/or systematic violations of human rights; those where national laws or regulations require businesses to take actions against internationally recognized rights; and those where states are not able to protect internally recognized rights.
