Bonsucro – human rights prioritisation tool review
Bonsucro is the leading global sustainability platform for the sugarcane sector, working with producers, traders, brands, and civil society organisations to drive better social and environmental outcomes throughout the sugarcane supply chain.
The challenge
Bonsucro had developed a human rights prioritisation tool designed to help companies and certified producers systematically identify, assess, and prioritise human rights risks across their operations and supply chains. The tool is intended to inform decision-making, resource allocation, and strategic planning in line with international standards – including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.
Before rolling the tool out, Bonsucro needed an independent expert review: rigorous enough to stress-test the methodology and credible enough to stand behind, whilst also being time-bound and action-oriented. They engaged Inherently Human to conduct a rapid review and provide practical recommendations for improvement.
What we did
With a rapid turnaround required, we conducted a focused, structured desk-based review across the following areas:
Document review. Reviewed the Human Rights Prioritisation Tool alongside related guidance materials and background documentation provided by Bonsucro, building a clear picture of the tool’s intended purpose, design logic, and user context before moving to assessment.
Methodological assessment. Examined the tool’s prioritisation logic in detail – reviewing the criteria, indicators, and weighting applied, and assessing how concepts central to human rights due diligence, including severity, likelihood, scale, scope, and remediability, were incorporated and operationalised. We identified where the decision logic was sound and where assumptions warranted further scrutiny.
Standards alignment. Assessed the tool’s consistency with the UN Guiding Principles, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, and relevant sector-level standards – and where we identified deviations or risks of misalignment, set these out clearly alongside their implications.
Usability and practicality. Evaluated the tool from the perspective of its intended users, assessing the clarity of guidance and definitions, accessibility, and ease of application in practice. A prioritisation tool is only as useful as its uptake allows; we considered both what the tool asked of users, and whether it gave them sufficient support to respond well.
