Involvement Definitions: Caused, Contributed To, Directly Linked To

Reference document defining the three levels of organisational involvement with adverse ESG impacts, derived from the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the Debevoise & Plimpton / Enodo Rights interpretive analysis (2017).

These definitions are generalised beyond human rights to apply across all ESG domains including carbon emissions, biodiversity, labour practices, pollution, and supply chain impacts.

Source: Debevoise & Plimpton, Practical Definitions of Cause, Contribute, and Directly Linked to Inform Business Respect for Human Rights (Discussion Draft, February 2017), prepared by the Debevoise Business Integrity Group in collaboration with Enodo Rights. Original document

Two Axes of Involvement

The three involvement terms do not sit on a single continuum. They rest on two distinct foundations:

1. Caused

Definition

An organisation causes an adverse ESG impact when its activities (including omissions) materially increase the risk of the specific impact which occurred (or may occur) and would be sufficient, in and of themselves, to result in that impact.

Key Characteristics

• The organisation's own activities alone could produce the adverse outcome
• No third-party action is required for the impact to materialise
• The organisation exercises sufficient control over the conditions that it could cease or prevent the impact

Practical Test

1. Is there an actual or potential adverse ESG impact?
2. Do the organisation's activities materially increase the risk of that specific impact?
3. Would those activities, in and of themselves, be sufficient to result in the impact?

If all three are YES → the organisation caused the impact.

Expected Response

• Cease the activity responsible for the impact
• Prevent recurrence
• Remedy the impact

Examples

2. Contributed To

Definition

An organisation contributes to an adverse ESG impact when its activities (including omissions) materially increase the risk of the specific impact which occurred (or may occur), even if they would not be sufficient, in and of themselves, to result in that impact.

The contribution must be substantial — meaning an activity that causes, facilitates, or incentivises another entity to cause an adverse impact. Minor or trivial contributions are excluded.

Key Characteristics

• The organisation's activities raise the probability of the impact but require the actions of another entity for the impact to materialise
• There is a causal connection between the organisation's activities and the impact, but the organisation does not have sole control
• The operating context matters: the same activity may or may not constitute contribution depending on whether it is necessarily and strongly correlated with the adverse impact in that context

Practical Test

1. Is there an actual or potential adverse ESG impact?
2. Do the organisation's activities materially increase the risk of that specific impact?
3. Would those activities, in and of themselves, be sufficient to result in the impact?

If answers 1 and 2 are YES but 3 is NO → the organisation contributed to the impact.

Expected Response

• Cease the contributing activity
• Remedy the impact to the extent of the organisation's contribution
• Use leverage to mitigate any remaining impact

Examples

Remoteness Principle

There is a critical distinction between increasing the probability of a legitimate business activity and increasing the risk of an adverse impact flowing from that activity.

If the activity could reasonably have been performed without the adverse impact, facilitating that activity does not constitute contributing to the impact. For example:

• A bank lending to a company to build a factory does not contribute to the company's use of forced labour in construction — the loan increases the likelihood the factory is built, but not the risk that it would be built with forced labour.
• A pharmaceutical company distributing a drug with clear health information does not contribute to a pharmacy repackaging it without safety data — the distribution increases availability but not the risk of information suppression.

3. Directly Linked To

Definition

An organisation is directly linked to an adverse ESG impact when it has established a relationship for mutual commercial benefit with a state or non-state entity, and, in performing activities within the scope of that relationship, that entity materially increases the risk of the impact which occurred (or may occur).

Key Characteristics

• Not based on risk creation — the organisation's activities do not need to increase the probability of the impact
• Based on benefit — the organisation derives commercial value from a relationship in which the impact occurs
• The connection must be mutual (both parties benefit commercially), direct in form (the benefit retains consistent type through the value chain), and within scope (the impact occurs in the course of activities performed to deliver the benefit)
• Can pass through multiple intermediaries and still be "direct" as long as the form of the benefit is consistent

Practical Test

1. Does the organisation have a relationship for mutual commercial benefit with the entity?
2. Does the benefit provided by the entity retain consistent form (goods remain goods, financial returns remain financial) as it is transmitted to the organisation's products, operations, or services?
3. When acting within the scope of that mutually beneficial relationship, did the entity materially increase the risk of the adverse impact?

If all three are YES → the organisation is directly linked to the impact.

Expected Response

• Use or seek leverage to prevent or mitigate the impact
• No obligation to provide remedy (unlike caused or contributed to)

What "Directly" Means

"Directly" conditions the type of benefit, not the number of intermediaries. A benefit is direct if it retains consistent form from origin to destination:

What Breaks the Link

• The benefit changes form as it passes through the value chain (goods become services become financial returns)
• The entity is acting in a public capacity rather than conferring a private commercial benefit
• The relationship is an "extremely loosely connected association" with no mutual commercial intent

Examples

Cross-Cutting Principles

Knowledge and Foreseeability Are Irrelevant

Whether an organisation knew about, or could have foreseen, an adverse impact does not determine its involvement. An organisation can be involved with an impact it did not foresee. Conversely, knowing about an impact does not in itself create involvement.

This principle exists because tying involvement to knowledge would create a perverse disincentive to conduct due diligence — the less you know, the less responsible you would be.

The Threshold Is "Material"

For all three involvement types, the increase in risk must be material — meaning non-negligible and substantial. Minor or trivial connections do not establish involvement.

Prospective Application

All definitions can be used prospectively by replacing "which occurred" with "which may occur". This enables organisations to identify potential involvement during due diligence, before impacts materialise.

Summary Decision Tree

Is there an actual or potential adverse ESG impact?
│
├─ NO → No involvement
│
└─ YES
    │
    ├─ Do the organisation's OWN activities materially increase the risk?
    │   │
    │   ├─ YES
    │   │   │
    │   │   ├─ Sufficient on their own to cause the impact?
    │   │   │   ├─ YES → CAUSED
    │   │   │   └─ NO  → CONTRIBUTED TO
    │   │   │
    │   └─ NO
    │       │
    │       ├─ Is there a relationship for mutual commercial benefit
    │       │  with an entity whose activities (within the scope of
    │       │  that relationship) cause or contribute to the impact?
    │       │   │
    │       │   ├─ Does the benefit retain consistent form through
    │       │   │  the value chain?
    │       │   │   ├─ YES → DIRECTLY LINKED TO
    │       │   │   └─ NO  → No involvement
    │       │   │
    │       │   └─ NO → No involvement
    │       │
    │       └─ No involvement

Response Matrix