A/HRC/4/74 page 5 14. After describing those baseline conditions, HRIAs should put forth a view of what is likely to change because of the business activity. This is a difficult and subjective exercise; one approach is to construct multiple scenarios, while another might predict outcomes based on varying levels of intervention. An HRIA might also consider community perceptions of what is likely to change; even though a new petrochemicals plant might produce no local pollution, community fears about air or water quality will necessitate action by the company. 15. HRIAs should then prioritize the human rights risks that the proposed business activity presents and make practical recommendations to address those risks. Such recommendations could include actions that can be taken by the company alone, such as modifying project design, but also options for collaboration with Governments, local communities, civil society organizations and other companies in the area. 16. Those recommendations should be incorporated into a management plan that includes provisions for monitoring the baseline indicators and revisiting the issues raised during the HRIA process. The management plan should include regular consultation with affected parties. 17. HRIAs should discuss applicable good practice, for example in the same business sector or region, or from similar situations in other industries or areas. 18. HRIAs should involve experts in the industry, local context, and human rights, whether such experts lead the HRIA or are heavily consulted. Both internal and external personnel should be considered: independent third parties may bring external credibility but may not have local or industry knowledge, while internal staff may not be familiar with human rights issues and best practices outside their sector. The credibility of independent assessors has been challenged when the company pays for their work (as it has been for auditors of corporate reports), but in the absence of other neutral sources of funding there is no other option, and the assessment should be judged on its merits. 19. Ideally, HRIAs would always be published in full but reasonable potential risks must also be considered and may force a partial or summary publication. For example, where the human rights record of State security forces is poor, companies may be reluctant to publish an HRIA that details that record, out of concern that this could create political or legal risks for the company - or in extreme cases, endanger staff.4 20. The process of carrying out an HRIA can be as or even more important than a final report. An impact assessment can serve as a convening mechanism to bring representatives of the company, community, and government together in dialogue. It is critical that HRIAs are based on consultation carried out in a manner that promotes genuine dialogue and relationship-building.5 4 5 Correspondence with Gare Smith of the law firm Foley Hoag in Washington, DC, May 2006. There are many resources on stakeholder engagement, for example The Stakeholder Engagement Manual by UNEP, AccountAbility and Stakeholder Research Associates Canada (http://www.unep.fr/outreach/home.htm) and the Collaborative for Development Action