83 Q 88. What would count as “severe” impact? The commentary to Guiding Principle 14 states that the severity of human rights impacts “will be judged by their scale, scope and irremediable character”. This means that both the gravity of the impact and the number of individuals that are or will be affected (for instance, from the delayed effects of environmental harm) will be relevant considerations. “Irremediability” is the third relevant factor, used here to mean any limits on the ability to restore those affected to a situation at least the same as, or equivalent to, their situation before the impact. For these purposes, financial compensation is relevant only to the extent that it can provide for such restoration. It is not necessary for an impact to have more than one of these three characteristics to be reasonably considered “severe”. That said, it is often the case that the greater the scale or the scope of an impact, the less it can be remedied. In addition, Guiding Principle 24 highlights the fact that a delay in addressing a certain impact may itself make it less remediable and that this should be taken into account in the prioritization. For example, if workers are unfairly dismissed, an extended delay in remediation may oblige them to move in search of other work, making their reinstatement more difficult. If an adverse impact is potential rather than actual, standard approaches to risk management suggest that the probability of it occurring becomes a primary factor, alongside its severity. However, a low probability of a severe human rights impact alone cannot justify reducing the priority of efforts to mitigate the risk. Instead, the remediability of the potential impact must be a key factor in determining the legitimacy of delaying such efforts. In sum, in the context of risks to human rights, the severity of actual or potential risks must be the dominant factor. In many cases it may be self-evident what kind of impact is “severe” or “irremediable”, for example impact on the right to life and health of individuals or which fundamentally affects the welfare of entire groups or communities. And in cases where an enterprise has identified that it risks being involved in gross human rights abuse addressing this risk should always be given priority. In other situations it may be less clear what human rights impact should be considered most severe or what factors might affect its remediability. Moreover,