Human Rights Commitment

People come before systems.

Lancashire Solutions works with AI, automation, digital robotics, physical robotics, software, data, and operational technology. This commitment explains how we seek to respect human rights across our own operations, projects, services, procurement, and value chain.

See our assessment process Use the templates
The line we follow before technology reaches people
See the personWho could be affected by the decision, system, supplier, or deployment?
Name the riskCould it affect privacy, safety, access, fairness, work, participation, or trust?
Build the safeguardHuman oversight, accessibility, privacy, safety, testing, training, and clear accountability.
Keep the door openConcerns can be escalated, reviewed, recorded, remediated, and learned from.
Our public commitment

Respect is not an afterthought.

Responsible business practice means more than avoiding legal breaches. It means actively considering how decisions may affect employees, customers, suppliers, end users, affected stakeholders, communities, and people connected to the value chain.

Reference point

United Nations Guiding Principles

We seek to avoid infringing on the rights of others and work to address negative human rights impacts where we cause, contribute to, or are directly linked to them.

Reference point

International Bill of Human Rights

Our commitment is grounded in the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international human rights standards.

Reference point

ILO fundamental principles

We respect freedom of association, collective bargaining, elimination of forced labour, abolition of child labour, non-discrimination, and safe and healthy working environments.

Behind every workflow, dataset, robot, supplier, and project is a person who may feel the outcome.

That is why this policy follows the impact, not just the contract.
Scope

Where the commitment applies

This commitment applies to Lancashire Solutions’ own operations and value chain, including employees, workers, contractors, consultants, delivery contributors, suppliers, delivery partners, customers, client organisations, users, affected stakeholders, and communities connected to offices, suppliers, customers, investments, and project delivery locations.

  • AI, automation, digital robotics, and physical robotics
  • Software, data, workflow automation, and public communication
  • Recruitment, supplier selection, procurement, and project delivery
Potential positive outcomes

When technology helps people

Responsible AI, automation, and robotics can improve access to information, reduce administrative burden, make systems easier to use, support operations, improve participation and independence, and make some tasks safer or more effective.

Potential risks

When technology can harm people

Poorly designed systems can exclude people, reduce human oversight, create privacy or confidentiality concerns, lead to unfair or inaccurate outcomes, enable unsafe deployment, encourage over-reliance on automation, or create unclear accountability.

Expected conduct

How people should be treated.

Employees, workers, contractors, suppliers, and delivery partners acting for or with the company are expected to support respectful and responsible conduct.

Dignity and respect

Avoid discrimination, harassment, intimidation, exploitation, degrading treatment, and unfair conduct.

Privacy and confidentiality

Respect personal, client, supplier, stakeholder, and confidential information, especially where data-driven systems are involved.

Responsible technology use

Use AI, automation, and robotics responsibly, with human oversight and escalation where there is a risk of harm.

Safe working practices

Support fair, safe, and respectful working practices across employment, project work, and supplier relationships.

Stakeholder interests

Consider affected people in relevant decisions, especially where access needs, protected characteristics, or dependency may increase risk.

Speak up early

Escalate concerns where there may be harm, exclusion, unsafe deployment, privacy risk, unfair treatment, or weak accountability.

Client and project assessment

The point before “yes”.

A human rights client and project assessment should be completed before the company accepts or begins material work with an organisational client. The depth of assessment should be proportionate to the nature, scope, and potential impact of the work.

Step 1

Record the client name, organisation type, sector, location or operating area, relationship to Lancashire Solutions, previous assessment status, and whether a group assessment is appropriate.

Identify the client

Step 2

Record the project, services, technology, users or affected stakeholders, location, and whether the work involves AI, automation, robotics, data processing, physical deployment, or decision support.

Identify the project

Step 3

Consider possible impacts on privacy, fairness, access, oversight, safety, monitoring, responsibility, technology misuse, suppliers, environment, reputation, law, or ethics.

Name the impacts

Step 4

Assess who may be affected, seriousness, likelihood, reversibility, barriers to raising concerns, company connection, and company influence.

Assess severity

Step 5

Proceed, proceed with mitigation, change scope, require safeguards, require commitments, seek more information, escalate, or decline the work.

Decide responsibly

Proceed Proceed with mitigation Change scope Seek further information Escalate Decline
Risk lens

What we look for.

The company prioritises the most severe potential impacts, even where they are less likely. This is especially important where affected people may face barriers to raising concerns.

When assessment is especially important

Before material work
  • AI, automation, robotics, or decision-support technology
  • Physical robotics or technology deployed into a physical environment
  • Public-sector services, public-facing systems, or sensitive information
  • Systems affecting access to services, work, information, mobility, participation, or decision-making
  • Workplace monitoring, productivity management, safety, security, surveillance, privacy, or data protection risks

Potential negative impacts

People first
  • Privacy, confidentiality, or inappropriate data use
  • Unfair, inaccurate, or opaque decision support
  • Reduced human oversight where human judgement is needed
  • Exclusion from services, information, work, or participation
  • Unsafe physical deployment, inappropriate surveillance, unclear accountability, or misuse of technology
Mitigation

Safeguards must have owners.

Where potential or actual negative human rights impacts are identified, Lancashire Solutions sets proportionate mitigation actions with an owner, target date, required evidence, and an effectiveness review.

Change the work

Change project scope, delivery approach, deployment model, or supplier use where the risk needs reducing.

Add human oversight

Document where AI or automation supports decisions but does not replace accountable human judgement.

Protect data

Strengthen privacy, confidentiality, cyber security, and data protection controls where needed.

Improve accessibility

Improve usability, plain-language communication, testing, staged deployment, and safeguards for access needs.

Clarify accountability

Set clear roles between Lancashire Solutions, the client, suppliers, users, and other accountable parties.

Monitor after deployment

Use feedback, pilots, issue logs, grievance records, near-miss records, supplier reviews, and evidence of safeguards to check effectiveness.

Procurement

The value chain is part of the promise.

The company considers actual and potential human rights impacts in material procurement decisions, including cloud services, AI tools, software, robotics hardware, electronics, professional services, subcontracted delivery, cybersecurity, hosting, infrastructure, and other supplier relationships.

Annual review of material procurement

At least yearly

At least once each year, Lancashire Solutions identifies and reviews its three most material procurement decisions. If fewer than three material decisions apply, all applicable material decisions are reviewed and recorded.

  • Materiality is not based on cost alone
  • Lower-spend decisions may still be material if they present serious risk
  • Severity should outweigh likelihood when prioritising risks

Procurement considerations

Direct and lower-tier
  • Employment, labour, health and safety, modern slavery, equality, and human rights practices
  • Risks relating to forced labour, child labour, discrimination, unsafe working conditions, unfair treatment, or modern slavery
  • Risks involving privacy, surveillance, data rights, access, safety, fair treatment, or technology use
  • Supplier transparency, subcontractors, manufacturers, logistics, communities, grievance routes, and contractual controls
Remediation and grievance routes

A concern should have somewhere to go.

Where the company identifies that it has caused or contributed to a negative human rights impact, it will seek to provide or support appropriate remediation. Where the company is directly linked to a negative impact through a business relationship, it will seek to use appropriate influence to prevent, reduce, or address the impact.

Public route

Raise a human rights concern

Stakeholders may raise concerns through the company’s published grievance procedure by emailing complaints@lancsol.com.

Email complaints@lancsol.com

Protection from retaliation

The company protects stakeholders from retaliation in line with its grievance procedure. Concerns may relate to employees, workers, contractors, suppliers, customers, end users, affected stakeholders, communities, privacy, safety, access, fairness, responsible technology use, procurement, or delivery decisions.

  • Concerns are reviewed through the published grievance route
  • Material risks can be escalated to the Managing Director
  • Lessons learned may lead to changes in policy, delivery, supplier management, or controls
Governance

Clear roles keep the commitment alive.

Human rights governance is shared across leadership, people, technical delivery, project work, procurement, and day-to-day conduct.

Managing Director

Approves the commitment and ensures respect for human rights is considered in company governance and material business decisions.

Head of People & Culture

Maintains the commitment and supports communication to employees and relevant stakeholders.

Technical Director

Supports responsible technology delivery, including human rights risks linked to AI, automation, robotics, data, safety, access, and human oversight.

All workers

Employees and workers are expected to act consistently with this commitment in their work.

Records and review

Evidence matters.

Lancashire Solutions maintains proportionate records of assessments, mitigation actions, effectiveness reviews, supplier information, grievance records, project reviews, stakeholder feedback, and approval records. This commitment is reviewed at least annually and when material changes affect services, operations, stakeholders, suppliers, project delivery, legal obligations, or risk profile.

What may be retained as evidence
  • Client and project human rights assessments
  • Mitigation action and effectiveness records
  • Procurement assessments and annual review records
  • Supplier responses, documentation, contractual commitments, and performance reviews
  • Project review notes, feedback, testing or pilot results, issue logs, incident or near-miss records
  • Grievance records and evidence that safeguards were implemented
When escalation to the Managing Director is required
  • The project could create a serious negative impact on people
  • The project involves sensitive use of AI, automation, robotics, or data
  • The project may affect access to services, work, information, safety, privacy, or participation
  • The issue relates to protected characteristics, access needs, fair treatment, or weak mitigation
  • The client or supplier has known human rights, legal, regulatory, ethical, or stakeholder concerns
  • The project may conflict with the company’s public purpose or human rights commitment
Assessment templates

Copy-ready internal tools.

These templates convert the policy into practical records for client, project, and procurement decisions. They are intended for internal use and should be kept proportionate to the nature, scope, sensitivity, and risk of the activity.

Client and project human rights assessment template

Use this before accepting or beginning material work with an organisational client.

A. Client assessment
Client name:
[Insert client name]
Client type:
Business / public-sector organisation / civil society organisation / charity / education provider / other
Sector:
[Insert sector]
Location or operating area:
[Insert location]
Is this client part of a wider group assessment?
Yes / No
If yes, describe group relationship:
[Insert details]
Has this client been assessed before?
Yes / No
If yes, date of previous assessment:
[Insert date]
Any known human rights, legal, ethical, regulatory, or stakeholder concerns?
[Insert details]

B. Project assessment
Project name or description:
[Insert project name or description]
Project location or delivery environment:
[Insert location/environment]
Services to be provided:
[Insert details]
Technology involved:
AI / automation / digital robotics / physical robotics / software / data processing / workflow automation / other
Intended users or affected stakeholders:
[Insert details]
Could the project affect access, safety, privacy, fairness, working conditions, participation, or stakeholder trust?
Yes / No / Unsure
If yes or unsure, describe:
[Insert details]

C. Potential negative human rights impacts
Potential impact:
[Insert impact]
Who may be affected:
[Insert group]
Severity:
Low / Medium / High
Likelihood:
Low / Medium / High
Company connection:
Cause / Contribute / Directly linked / Unsure
Notes:
[Insert notes]

D. Mitigation actions
Risk or impact:
[Insert risk]
Mitigation action:
[Insert action]
Owner:
[Insert owner]
Target date:
[Insert date]
Evidence required:
[Insert evidence]
Status:
Open / In progress / Complete

E. Decision
Decision:
Proceed / Proceed with mitigation / Change scope / Seek further information / Escalate / Decline
Decision rationale:
[Insert rationale]
Approved by:
[Insert name and role]
Date:
[Insert date]

F. Effectiveness review
Date of effectiveness review:
[Insert date]
Evidence reviewed:
[Insert evidence]
Was the mitigation effective?
Yes / Partly / No / Too early to assess
Further action required:
[Insert details]
Review completed by:
[Insert name and role]

Procurement human rights assessment template

Use this for the annual review of the three most material procurement decisions, or fewer where fewer are applicable.

A. Review details
Review period:
[Insert financial year or twelve-month period]
Date of review:
[Insert date]
Reviewed by:
[Insert name and role]
Approved by:
[Insert name and role]

B. Procurement decision summary
Procurement decision:
[Insert decision]
Supplier:
[Insert supplier]
Goods or services:
[Insert details]
Direct supplier or lower-tier consideration:
Direct / lower-tier considered / both
Why material?
Spend / volume / strategic importance / human rights risk / other

C. Human rights impact review
Procurement decision:
[Insert decision]
Actual or potential human rights impact considered:
[Insert impact]
Who may be affected:
[Insert stakeholder group]
Severity:
Low / Medium / High
Likelihood:
Low / Medium / High
Notes:
[Insert notes]

D. Mitigation action record
Procurement decision:
[Insert decision]
Mitigation action required?
Yes / No
Mitigation action:
[Insert action]
Owner:
[Insert owner]
Target date:
[Insert date]
Evidence required:
[Insert evidence]
Status:
Open / In progress / Complete / Not required

E. Effectiveness review
Procurement decision:
[Insert decision]
Date reviewed:
[Insert date]
Evidence reviewed:
[Insert evidence]
Was mitigation effective?
Yes / Partly / No / Too early to assess / Not applicable
Further action required:
[Insert details]

F. Final decision
Were the three most material procurement decisions reviewed for actual and potential human rights impacts?
Yes / No
If fewer than three material procurement decisions were reviewed, explain why:
[Insert explanation]
Key findings:
[Insert summary]
Actions to carry forward:
[Insert actions]
Approved by:
[Insert name and role]
Date:
[Insert date]