Scoring Appeal Process

As part of CHRB’s systematic process, we have set up a scoring appeal process where companies are able to appeal a scoring decision.

CHRB scoring appeal process for the 2019 Benchmark Results  


  1. If a company has evidence or believes evidence exists that public information has not been evaluated in considering the company’s scoring in the CHRB, or their score has not been calculated according to the CHRB Methodology, they should raise it with CHRB via within 4 weeks of the benchmark publication (i.e. by 13th December 2019). They can raise it informally to seek clarification or can specify that they would like to appeal the score and have it reviewed by the Appeals Committee. For the scores that they wish to formally appeal, companies should use this Appeals Form and send it to, using one form for each indicator they wish to challenge. 

  1. Please note that companies that did not formally engage with the CHRB during the engagement and feedback phases of the assessment can only appeal formally in relation to manifest errors, not differences of opinion or interpretation. If the manifest error occurred in the second review, the CHRB will review the appeal and change the assessment as appropriate and according to the rules outlined below (on the basis that the company could not have raised the issue during the engagement phase). However, if the manifest error occurred in the initial review, the CHRB will acknowledge the error to the company, make a note for the assessment to be updated in 2020, but will not address the issue publicly unless doing so would change the company's score by 2 points or more.  

  1. In appealing, the company must explain why it thinks there has been an error and must specify the indicator, relevant evidence provided and an explanation as to why the company is appealing for a rescore. 

  1. CHRB will make an initial judgment about whether the claim would result in a change in the company’s score of at least two (2) points or cause the company to change its banding within the benchmark. If the appeal is about limited issues that could not change meet either of those tests, then CHRB will reply to the company with an explanation of the scoring and address the concerns with the company directly. This first step screening process is meant to limit demands on the independent Appeals Committee members out of recognition that they have volunteered their time to support CHRB and so their assistance should be reserved for allegations of more widespread errors in scoring.  

  1. If the claim meets the threshold test in point 4, the CHRB Appeals Committee will review the claim in light of the CHRB methodology and research guidance developed for the researchers. The company will be notified that the request has been sent to the Appeals Committee which will address the issue within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the written appeal. 

  1. If needed, the Appeals Committee can interact directly with the company making the appeal. 

  1. The CHRB Appeals Committee will review the information and decide whether the scoring should be corrected. In either case, it will explain the scoring decision and how the decision was determined via email or on a phone call. 

  1. If a new score is agreed this will be updated online within a month of the appeal being resolved and there will be a small news item placed on the CHRB website explaining the change. 

  1. The Appeals Committee decision on whether a re-score is appropriate is final. 


The CHRB Appeals Committee is made up of 6 members:  


  • Margaret Wachenfeld, independent director of the CHRB and co-chair of the Methodology Committee (but has not been directly involved in the research and engagement process in 2019). 

  • Peter Webster, Project Director for the research (from Vigeo EIRIS and the EIRIS Foundation), co-chair of the CHRB Methodology Committee and a director of the CHRB. 

  • Daniel Neale, CHRB Programme Director and member of the Methodology Committee.  

  • Lise Smit, Associate Senior Research Fellow in Business and Human Rights and Director, Human Rights Due Diligence Forum, British Institute of International and Comparative Law 

  • Nadia Bernaz, Associate Professor of Law, Wageningen University, the Netherlands 

  • Tara Van Ho, Lecturer and Co-Director, Postgraduate Taught Programmes in Human Rights, School of Law, University of Essex, UK