This page gives you the scoring logic the Directive expects, not a generic vendor scorecard.
Use it to justify prioritization decisions and to direct deeper assessment where it matters most.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
Article 8 requires identification and assessment of actual and potential adverse impacts. Article 9 requires prioritization where not every impact can be addressed at once. That means the scoring method has to be risk based, evidence linked, and capable of explaining why some suppliers or activity clusters received immediate attention.
Severity should capture scale, scope, and irremediable character. The question is not just how likely a problem is, but how serious the consequence would be for the affected people if it occurs or continues.
Use a written scale that forces the assessor to explain why a case is low, medium, high, or critical rather than just assigning numbers.
Likelihood should consider the probability that an impact exists already or may arise, based on available evidence and risk indicators. This includes partner history, sector exposures, geographic context, public reporting, grievance data, and the strength of local law enforcement.
Do not treat missing data as low risk. Missing data is often a reason to increase scrutiny, not to lower the score.
The recitals point to several risk factor categories companies should consider, including company level, business operation, geographic, product and service, and sectoral risk factors. Purchasing and pricing practices can also matter where they contribute to pressure in the chain.
These factors should not replace severity and likelihood. They should help explain why the same raw signal may be more worrying in one context than another.
The scoring template should produce more than a red amber green label. It should show the chain activity involved, the rationale for the score, the current evidence base, and the required next action such as deeper assessment, corrective action, increased monitoring, or remediation review.
That way the prioritization register can stand up to internal challenge and external review.
Research Copilot can take EU CSDDD (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) Supplier human rights risk scoring template from reusing this material inside a governed evidence system to a reusable workflow inside Sorena. Teams working on EU CSDDD (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) can keep owners, evidence, and next steps aligned without copying this guide into separate documents.
Start from EU CSDDD (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) Supplier human rights risk scoring template and answer scope, timing, and interpretation questions with cited outputs.
Review your current process, evidence gaps, and next steps for EU CSDDD (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) Supplier human rights risk scoring template.