Home > The Principles > Principle 4: Proportionality
Principle 4: Proportionality
Do the risks and impacts justify the intended benefit?
Not all decisions require the same level of intervention, investment, or response. Use the evidence available to weigh potential benefits against risks, opportunities, costs, and impacts, considering both the business implications and the effects on people, communities, and the environment.
4.1 Significance of the Issue
The scale of the response should reflect the significance of the issue being addressed. Consider the nature, severity, likelihood, and extent of the risks, opportunities, and impacts identified, together with the strength and quality of the available evidence.
4.2 Justification of the Response
The expected environmental, social, or ethical benefit of a proposed action should be sufficient to justify the risks, costs, burdens, and impacts that may result. Decisions should take account of both direct and indirect consequences, including impacts that may occur elsewhere in the system.
4.3 Identifying Alternatives
Where significant impacts or burdens have been identified, alternative approaches should be considered. Seek solutions that achieve the intended outcome while minimising negative impacts, unintended consequences, and costs to those affected.
4.4 Improvement Before Replacement
Where suppliers face barriers to meeting new requirements, organisations should consider whether support, engagement, capacity building, or phased implementation could achieve the desired outcome before alternative sourcing options are pursued. Maintaining established supplier relationships may, in some circumstances, achieve the intended objective while reducing disruption, preserving livelihoods, strengthening resilience, and avoiding unintended consequences.
4.5 Choosing the Least-Harm Option
Where multiple options are available, preference should be given to approaches that achieve the intended objective while creating the fewest negative impacts and unintended consequences. Organisations should be transparent about the trade-offs involved, explaining what has been prioritised, what risks remain, and why the chosen approach is considered the least harmful and proportionate option.
4.6 Flexibility and Adaptation
Decisions should recognise differences in circumstances, capacities, and levels of risk. Where appropriate, measures should allow for flexibility, phased implementation, adaptation, or differentiated approaches rather than applying a single solution in all situations.