, 
Lessons from practice - GBI webinar summary
In a timely conversation on 22 April, given developments at EU-level, GBI’s first webinar in our What “good” looks like series gathered expertise and practitioner voices in business and human rights to explore how companies can embed meaningful stakeholder engagement in their human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) processes. The key takeaway was clear: meaningful stakeholder engagement isn’t about quantity or ticking boxes - it’s about quality, intent, and impact.
The session was hosted by GBI Director Sophia Areias and featured contributions from Andrea Shemberg, Linn Aakvik (Hydro), Lauren Brandi (Hydro), and Yann Wyss (Nestlé), each offering practical examples, challenges, and clear recommendations for policymakers and companies.
Meaningful engagement starts with purpose
Andrea Shemberg opened with a return to the fundamentals of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs): prevention, proactivity, and practicality. “Engagement isn’t about counting meetings,” she said. “It’s about shaping outcomes.” She underscored four key points where purposeful engagement is essential:
1. Understanding impacts – “Ask the people who will be impacted.”
2. Tracking performance – “Check if your work mattered.”
3. Accountability – “Report back to those who raised concerns.”
4. Grievance mechanisms – “They only work if people know about them, trust them, and can use them.”
She emphasised that “You don’t need blanket engagement - you need strategic, risk-based engagement with those most likely to be affected.”
From mapping to maintenance: Stakeholder engagement in practice
Hydro’s Linn Aakvik emphasised that stakeholder engagement is not a static activity – it should be a continuous process embedded throughout a company’s due diligence approach, noting that at Hydro “We dig deeper over time, moving from global and regional perspectives down to local realities.”
Lauren Brandi provided context to the processes with a detailed look at Hydro’s operations in Northern Brazil, where a large number of non-traditional and traditional communities live near mining infrastructure. “Power dynamics shift constantly,” she noted, citing local land conflicts, infrastructure challenges, and weak government presence and engagement. Hydro’s team uses tools like live stakeholder maps, structured dialogue plans, and localised grievance channels to build trust over time. “Predictability and presence are everything … our focal points in the field are the bridge.”
Yann Wyss of Nestlé shared the complexity of engaging with millions of farmers across a vast supply chain. “Identifying your stakeholders is just as important as the process itself,” he said. Through human rights impact assessments and on-the-ground engagement, Nestlé identifies key stakeholder groups - from farmers and contractors to consumers - and tailors its approach accordingly.
Recommendations for policymakers
All panellists emphasised the need for legislation that reflects the diversity of operational realities and doesn’t force a one-size-fits-all approach. Andrea Shemberg laid out a structured set of recommendations:
1. Recognise that stakeholder engagement is the heart of due diligence - “Legislation should reinforce prevention and proactive risk management—not just retroactive accountability.”
2. Incentivise creativity and context-appropriate approaches - “There’s no one right way to engage. What matters is whether the engagement improves outcomes.”
3. Avoid artificial limits that don’t reflect real-world risks - “Some sectors can engage directly; others rely on proxies or intermediaries. Laws must allow that flexibility.”
4. Build in reasonableness and reward purposeful engagement - “Where companies are making reasonable efforts, they should be supported - not penalised for not ticking boxes.”
5. Let practice shape guidance and enforcement - “There is over a decade of experience in this space. Use that. Let what we know works inform the legislation.”
6. Keep the focus on outcomes - “The test for meaningful engagement is: did it shape better decisions and relationships?”
Linn Aakvik added that enforcement agencies need sufficient staffing and expertise. “It’s not enough to mandate engagement - you must understand what good engagement actually looks like in different sectors.” She also cautioned against overwhelming documentation requirements. “We don’t want to lose the real value of stakeholder dialogue by forcing it into rigid templates. The best conversations don’t always happen on schedule.” Lauren Brandi, reflecting on Hydro’s work in Northern Brazil, summed up that “Legal clarity helps. But trust, relationships, and local knowledge - that’s what makes engagement meaningful.” Yann Wyss echoed this with a call for sector-specific guidance on prioritisation: “We work with millions of farmers. Give us tools to understand where and how to focus.”
As policymakers shape the future of mandatory HREDD, the message from practitioners is clear: align laws with real-world practice, support flexible implementation, and above all, keep the focus on what stakeholder engagement is really meant to do – prevent harm. Meaningful stakeholder engagement is more than a regulatory checkbox - it is a strategic tool for better outcomes. As Andrea Shemberg noted in the session: “When done well, it transforms due diligence from a risk exercise into a relationship.”
Access the What "good" looks like briefing on meaningful stakeholder engagement
Find out more about the series on our website and introductory video