breadth(how many stakeholder types participated) and depth(whether participation substantively influenced out­comes. 11 It also evaluates whether baseline assessments adequately examined labour rights situations and la­bour-related gender inequalities using relevant data sourc­es and expertise. Dimension Two: NAP BHR Content Responsiveness This dimension assesses whether NAP BHR content sub­stantively addresses labour and labour-related gender chal­lenges, going beyond mere mentions to evaluate actiona­ble provisions. 12 For labour, it examines whether the NAP BHR explicitly recognises challenges such as inadequate wages, unsafe conditions, barriers to collective bargaining, discrimination, precarious employment, and informal sec­tor exclusion 13 and whether they include specific commit­ments with clear responsibilities and timelines. For gender, it assesses whether the NAP BHR addresses gender wage gaps, occupational segregation, sexual harassment, mater­nity protection, barriers in male-dominated sectors, and un­paid care work’s impact on labour participation. 14 The anal­ysis also evaluates whether the NAP BHR reflects interna­tional and regional labour and labour-related gender standards and includes adequate remedial mechanisms that enable workers to claim their rights. Dimension Three: NAP BHR Implementation Structures This dimension examines whether implementation struc­tures sustain stakeholder engagement and ensure account­ability. 15 It assesses whether labour and gender stakehold­ers have meaningful roles in implementation bodies with genuine decision-making power, not merely advisory func­tions. The analysis evaluates if M&E frameworks include specific labour and gender indicators enabling progress tracking and course correction, 16 monitoring is participatory rather than relying solely on government self-reporting, and resources support sustained stakeholder engagement. It also considers whether capacity-building enables stake­holders to understand NAP BHR content, engage effective­ly, and hold duty-bearers accountable. This dimension also measures the impact of the five NAPs BHR in their respective countries . While some NAPs are new and have yet to be fully implemented, others have been in operation for some time. This indicator assesses the impact on the NAP, where available, of policies, regula­tions, the ratification of labour conventions, and behaviour­al change by corporate actors. Assessment Indicators and Rating System The methodology employs seven discrete indicators organ­ised in pairs examining each dimension for both labour and labour-related gender issues. 17 A seventh indicator is added to the third dimension to measure the impact of each NAP BHR: → Indicator 1: extent and quality of labour stakeholder consultation and input during NAP BHR development → Indicator 2: extent and quality of gender stakeholder consultation and input during NAP BHR development → Indicator 3: substantive responsiveness of NAP BHR content to labour rights deficits and challenges → Indicator 4: substantive responsiveness of NAP BHR content to gender inequalities and challenges in labour contexts → Indicator 5: extent and quality of labour stakeholder in­volvement in NAP BHR implementation structures and processes → Indicator 6: extent and quality of gender stakeholder in­volvement in NAP BHR implementation structures and processes → Indicator 7: extent of the positive impact of the NAP BHR on policy, legislation, international convention rati­fication, and behavioural change by corporate actors Each indicator is evaluated using a three-tier rating sys­tem— high , medium , and low —reflecting qualitative assess­ments based on multiple criteria. 18 High indicates excep­tional performance with comprehensive, substantive atten­tion: Diverse stakeholders are engaged meaningfully throughout development; NAPs BHR include specific, de­tailed commitments with clear responsibilities and time­lines; and stakeholders have formal implementation roles 11 Smit, L., Bright, C., McCorquodale, R., Bauer, M., Deringer, H., Baeza-Breinbauer, D., Torres-Cortés, F., Alleweldt, F., Kara, S., Salinier, C., and Tejero Tobed, H.(2020). Study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain. European Commission. 12 Nolan, J.(2013). The corporate responsibility to respect human rights: Soft law or not law? In S. Deva& D. Bilchitz(Eds.), Human rights obligations of business: Beyond the corporate responsibility to respect?(pp. 138–161). Cambridge University Press. 13 Anner, M.(2012). Corporate social responsibility and freedom of association rights: The precarious quest for legitimacy and control in global supply chains. Politics& Socie­ty, 40(4), 609–644; Transitioning from the informal to the formal economy.(2015). International Labour Organization. 14 Anner, M.(2012); Transitioning from the informal to the formal economy.(2015) 15 Buhmann, K.(2016). Public regulators and CSR: The‘social licence to operate’ in recent United Nations instruments on business and human rights and the juridification of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 699–714. 16 Martin-Ortega, O.(2018). Human rights risks in global supply chains: Applying the UK Modern Slavery Act to the public sector. Global Policy, 9(4), 512–521. 17 Lund-Thomsen, P., Lindgreen, A.,& Vanhamme, J.(2021). Industrial clusters and corporate social responsibility in developing countries: What we know, what we do not know, and what we need to know. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 9–24. 18 Methven O’Brien, C., Mehra, A., Blackwell, S.,& Bloch Poulsen, C. B.(2016). National action plans: Current status and future prospects for a new business and human rights governance tool. Business and Human Rights Journal, 1(1), 117–126. 12 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.