Methodology

The Due Diligence Dashboard applies three different methodologies to assess human rights risks human rights risks and environmental risks in agricultural value chains. Human rights risks are assessed through a dedicated human rights methodology, while environmental risks are assessed using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and spatial analysis. These methodologies have been meticulously developed and continually refined since 2020 to ensure robustness and relevance.

Jump to the environmental methodologyjump to answer

Human rights methodology

A human right means that “people have a right to be treated with dignity” (United Nations Global Compact). The dashboard assesses 8 human rights risk themes across 9 commodities and 34 countries: child labour, forced labour, discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, occupational health and safety, insufficient remuneration, access to land and material resources, and violence and harassment. The selection of these themes is based on relevant United Nations declarations and ILO conventions.

The methodology focuses on risks in the first stages of agricultural supply chains: at farm level and during on-farm processing. These stages often involve vulnerable workers, including women, children, migrants, and minorities. Oversight and inspection mechanisms are also often more limited at these levels, increasing the risk of violations.

The human rights methodology combines quantitative indicators, national and subnational datasets, commodity-specific weighting, literature reviews, and expert reviews to assess the likelihood of human rights risks occurring in agricultural supply chains.

How are the human rights risk scores calculated?

Using the example of discrimination risks related to coffee and beef production in Colombia, the methodology below illustrates how the risk scores are developed.

Step 1. National risk score

We calculate the national risk score for discrimination in Colombia.

• We select relevant indicators: legal protection from workplace discrimination, social institutions and gender discrimination, and Country Policy and Institutional Assessments for social inclusion and gender.
• We benchmark each indicator so that they are all on the same scale from 0 (no risk) to 5 (very high risk).
• We decide on indicator weights based on a statistical factor analysis.

Step 2. Subnational risk scores

We calculate subnational risk scores by adjusting the national score for differences in subnational indicators between the departments.

• We add additional indicators available at regional or department level: relative difference between men and women in terms of being employed, and relative difference between men and women in terms of land ownership.
• Each department or region receives its own risk score.

Step 3. Preliminary discrimination risk score for coffee and beef

We calculate preliminary commodity-specific risk scores for coffee and beef.

• We use production quantities per department as weighting factors.
• We calculate new commodity-specific national scores using weighted averages of these production quantities.

This step reflects the fact that risks may differ between commodities within the same country.

Step 4. Commodity-specific qualitative assessment

We assess the commodity-specific risk context for coffee and beef through qualitative research.

• We conduct a standardised literature review to account for production systems, cultivation methods, and workforce composition.
• We combine commodity production data with literature findings.
• We verify scores through inter- and intra-country checks.
• We apply standardised assessment criteria to ensure consistency.

This step helps determine how the risk profile differs between commodities and production contexts.

Step 5. Final risk score calculation

We combine the quantitative and qualitative results into final commodity-specific risk scores at the national level and, where the methodology and data allow this, at the subnational level.

This produces the final discrimination risk scores for coffee and beef in Colombia.

Download full methodology

Looking for the complete methodology, indicators, weighting approach, and data sources? Download the full human rights risks methodology(externe link).

Human rights methodology infographic

Download the infographic(externe link) for a visual overview of the human rights methodology.

An environmental risk is a harmful effect on the environment resulting from the cultivation and trade of an agricultural commodity. The environmental methodology consists of two separate approaches. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used for four risk themes: acidification, climate change, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication. For these LCA-based themes, risk scores are calculated at the national level only. Spatial analysis is used for three risk themes: biodiversity, deforestation, and water stress. For these spatial themes, risk scores are calculated at the national level and at the subnational level. To better understand these approaches, including how data sources are selected and assessed, read our full environmental risks methodology(externe link).

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life Cycle Assessment is a widely used scientific method for quantifying environmental impacts across the life cycle of a product. LCA approaches are commonly used in EU policy frameworks and sustainability reporting. In the Due Diligence Dashboard, LCA results are translated into commodity-specific risk scores. This allows users to compare countries for the same commodity. To compare different commodities, users can refer to the absolute environmental impacts.

How are the LCA-based risk scores calculated?

Using climate change risks for coffee production in Colombia as an example, the steps below show how LCA results are translated into national environmental risk scores.

The climate change assessment includes four sub-indicators:

• Fossil emissions
• Peat oxidation
• Land use and land use change
• Biogenic emissions

Step 1. Goal and scope definition

We define the scope, system boundary, functional unit and objectives of the LCA. The functional unit serves as the reference unit for assessing the product's performance. We calculate environmental impacts based on domestic production and do not account for trade flows or market mixes of raw materials. The system boundary determines which life cycle stages and processes are included in the assessment.

Step 2. Life cycle inventory

We collect and quantify data on the inputs, outputs and emissions associated with the product being evaluated.

Step 3. Life cycle impact assessment

We assess the potential environmental impacts of the inputs and outputs collected during the inventory phase, such as emissions and waste. We group these impacts into environmental themes, known as impact categories. Each impact category uses its own characterisation model to calculate environmental impacts. Together, these categories provide a comprehensive view of key environmental issues in agricultural commodity value chains.

Step 4. Interpretation of environmental impacts

We evaluate the results and ensure that the conclusions are well substantiated. We present results for each impact category and translate them into risk scores to support risk identification and evaluation. Risk scores range from 1 (low risk) to 5 (high risk). These scores are relative, which means countries can only be compared within the same commodity category, such as soy with soy or maize with maize.

LCA methodology infographic

Download the infographic(externe link) for a visual overview of the LCA methodology.

Spatial analysis

Spatial analysis is used as a separate methodology to assess biodiversity, deforestation, and water stress risks. Unlike the LCA approach, spatial analysis can provide both national and subnational risk scores for these three environmental themes, and the final risk scores are comparable across different commodities. The methodology uses spatial datasets to identify areas where agricultural commodity production overlaps with environmental risk areas. This makes it possible to assess how risks differ between regions within the same country.

How are the spatial risk scores calculated?

Using the example of deforestation risks related to coffee and beef production in Colombia, the methodology below explains how spatial risk scores are developed at national and subnational level.

Step 1. Collecting theme-specific data

We start by selecting relevant public data sources for each theme: biodiversity loss, deforestation and water stress. The methodology is based on secondary data from independent third-party sources.

Step 2. Processing the data

Before we analyse the data, we prepare the datasets so they can be compared. This includes cleaning and filtering the data and converting them to the same spatial resolution. Spatial resolution refers to the smallest area on the ground that a dataset can reliably represent.

Because the original datasets differ in format and level of detail, we standardise all data sources to global coverage and a resolution of approximately 1 × 1 km.

Step 3. Overlaying and aggregating spatial data

We then overlay the theme-specific information with data on commodity production patterns. This allows us to calculate risk scores for the production area of each commodity.

We aggregate the results to the highest level of subnational administrative divisions, known as ADM1, such as states in the USA. For each subnational unit, we calculate the share of land that falls into each risk class, ranging from very low to very high.

Step 4. Determining the final risk scores

We determine the final risk score by calculating a weighted average of the share of land in each risk class. Harvested area is used as the weighting factor, so areas with more commodity production have a stronger influence on the final score.

This gives us a risk score for each commodity and subnational unit. We also calculate a national risk score by weighting the subnational results according to each unit’s share of the national harvested area.

Each score is scaled from 0, indicating no risk, to 5, indicating high risk.

Spatial methodology infographic

Download the infographic(externe link) for a visual overview of the spatial methodology.

Download full methodology

Looking for the complete LCA and spatial methodology, datasets, and technical documentation? Download the full environmental risks methodology(externe link).

FAQ

Risk themes

What definitions of the risk themes do you apply?

The definitions of the risk themes applied in the dashboard are outlined in the full methodology document(externe link).

What is the rationale for selecting these themes?

The selected themes were chosen to, combined, cover the most relevant sustainability risks in global agricultural supply chains. They are aligned with major international standards and (regulatory) frameworks in the field of Corporate Sustainability Reporting and Responsible Business Conduct, such as the UN Guiding Principles, OECD Guidelines, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), and the EU due diligence legislation (CSDDD).

Data and methodology

How are indicators selected, and how is data quality assessed?

The selection of the indicators depends on the availability of data. When there are no direct indicators available, we use proxies instead. In addition to relevance to the theme, indicators are also required to meet three other criteria.

First, we rely on data sources which have a history in data collection, are transparent about their methods, and provide updates regularly - this is important as a risk assessment also needs to be updated on a regular basis.

Second, we look for data sources that are independent, as far as possible, meaning government (UN, ILO, World bank, OECD), research centres (World Policy Center), or a consortium of NGOs and government.

Third, data should preferably cover more than 100 countries, which is important for upscaling of the number of countries and commodities covered. Furthermore, we check the indicators for reliability, as well as for the reference year. If we find highly outdated data entries, defined as more than 10 years old, then we exclude them from our analysis.

The methodology is developed with the most reliable and up-to-date scientific knowledge, and has been validated by thematic and methodological experts.

Why aren’t all risk themes assessed at the subnational level?

For 7 risk themes, we do not have subnational risk scores. This is because subnational risk scores require suitable secondary data at the subnational level. By suitable, we mean data that is reliable, relevant to the theme and available for at least about 100 countries to ensure sufficient coverage.

Subnational risk scores are available for 8 risk themes: child labour, forced labour, discrimination, insufficient remuneration, occupational health and safety, water stress, biodiversity loss and deforestation.

Read our protocol(externe link) to learn more about the data selection criteria.

How do you keep the scores up to date?

The current risk scores are based on the 2026 update. The next update is expected to follow in 2028. Future updates may include newly available data, changes in data sources and/or methodological refinements. Users will be notified when updated country-commodity combinations become available and will receive information about the option to acquire them. Once purchased, users retain perpetual access to the selected risk scores.

Using the risk scores

How should I interpret the risk scores?

A risk score indicates the likelihood of a risk for a specific commodity in a particular region. The human rights risk scores are benchmarked to a single score between 0 and 5, where 0 indicates no risk at all, 1 indicates a very low risk, and 5 indicates a very high risk. The human rights risk scores can be compared across different commodity sectors and various regions within a country. It is important to note that risk scores on the lower end of the scale, for example a risk score of 2, still require further assessment.

The environmental risk scores also range from 0, indicating no risk, to 5, indicating very high risk. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used for four risk themes: acidification, climate change, ecotoxicity and eutrophication. For these themes, scores can be used to compare different countries within the same commodity sector. They should not be used to compare different commodity sectors.

Spatial analysis is used for three risk themes: biodiversity loss, deforestation and water stress. For these themes, risk scores can be compared across commodities, regions and countries.

Why are risk scores missing in my dashboard?

When risk scores are not shown in your dashboard for a specific theme within a country-commodity combination, this means that data is missing for crucial indicators. As a result, no meaningful assessment can be made for this risk theme. We are currently working on adding contextual information to the dashboard.

Data usage

What are your usage restrictions?

The use of our Due Diligence Dashboard is subject to several restrictions. For a detailed overview of these restrictions, please refer to Article 3.2 (Use Restrictions) of our Terms of Services.

What is our licensing policy?

Subject to the terms and conditions outlined in our Terms of Service, you are granted a limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable license to access and use our Due Diligence Dashboard for internal business purposes, with certain jurisdictional exceptions. For further details, please refer to Article 4 (License to Services) of our Terms of Services.

How should data be cited?

When using data from our Due Diligence Dashboard, proper attribution to Wageningen Food Views Due Diligence Dashboard must be provided in accordance with Article 3.2 (ix) of our Terms of Services, e.g., “Wageningen Food Views Due Diligence Dashboard”.