Archives: Resources

This fact sheet summarizes findings from research by the University of Fordham Law Clinic into the current use of metrics in the human rights reporting of 25 companies in the extractives and oil equipment sector included in the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Database.

The research was conducted form mid 2018 to early 2019, and has informed the direction and focus of the Valuing Respect project.

A QUICK LOOK AT OUR FINDINGS

After reviewing the disclosure of 25 extractives and oil equipment companies in the UNGP Reporting Database, we found that the majority of metrics and data provided by the group fell within the categories of activity and outcomes for people in the areas of fatality and injury rates, internal and external audits and grievance mechanisms.

Further, while nearly all of the companies in these sectors provide data that indicates outcomes for people -such as reporting on safety performance metrics- it was not always clear how these metrics were linked to the companies’ inputs, activities and outputs. Few companies provided any data indicating practices and outcomes for the business.

OBSERVATIONS

Also Read

September 2019 | Research

The Use of Metrics in Human Rights Reporting in the Food and Beverage Sector

Read

1. The majority of the companies reviewed reported various input indicators about the allocation of human resources to address human rights issues.
2. Metrics on training are mainly activity indicators (i.e. the number of training hours/employees trained, with a focus on health, safety and human rights)
3. Reporting about audits and assessments is dominated by indicators of activities having taken place, with some signals about the results of the activities.
4. Companies provide data about workforce gender diversity, unionization and participation in LGBT programs. This tends to be in the form of activities and outputs, though they might be excellent leading indicators of improved outcomes for people that flow from company interventions.
5. In the area of health and safety, companies do provide (almost always downward) trend data about fatalities and injuries (outcomes for people) and related outcomes for the business, such as lost-time injuries.
6. Reporting on community engagement is provided, and focuses on resources and actions (inputs and activities) to gather and consider community feedback. Some positive outlier examples describe practices/behaviors, though they still lack supporting data.
7. Information on the disruption and displacement of local communities is occasionally provided, with a focus on business practices of relocating, resettling or compensating communities and some reference to the numbers of people/beneficiaries of such efforts that reflect outcomes for people.

For the extended description of each finding, please download the full report below.

This fact-sheet summarizes findings from research conducted by the University of Fordham Law Clinic into the current use of metrics in the human rights reporting of 12 companies in the Internet and Communications (ICT) sector included in the UN Guiding Principles Reporting Database.

The research was conducted from mid-2018 to early 2019. It has informed the direction and focus of the Valuing Respect project.

A QUICK LOOK AT OUR FINDINGS

After reviewing the disclosures of 12 ICT companies in the database, the analysis revealed that inputs, activities, and outputs were the most frequently reported types of indicators. This was the case in a number of areas such as employee training on social responsibility, information security as well as supplier audit results for code of conduct compliance.

Some information was disclosed to provide insight into practices and behaviors, such as responses to copyright and government information requests. Other information addressed outcomes for people, usually derived from employee surveys. Outcomes for business was the least reported indicator type among the companies reviewed. 

observations

Also Read

September 2019 | Research

The Use of Metrics in Human Rights Disclosure in the Extractives and Oil Equipment Sector

Read

1. Reporting about training on social responsibility and related issues is dominated by indicators of activities that took place and not the results of those activities. 
2. A small number of the reviewed companies reported data around government requests or demands for privacy information. 
3. Data is provided on the requests received from copyright owners to remove content. 
4. Reporting on supplier audits tends to use output indicators, with little disclosure on the impact of such audits’ insight. 
5. One ICT company reported about its sanction mechanism for noncompliance with its standards and policies. This reporting was around input, activity, and output indicators, with some examples of practice. 
6. One company disclosed the number of companies that it was able to galvanize to take collective action. These are outputs from an activity not often reported. 

To read the extended version of these observations, please download the full report below.

This report summarizes findings from research into the current use of metrics by Polish companies in their human rights related reporting. The research is a contribution to the Valuing Respect project research stream, to build empirical evidence for how businesses currently track the progress and effectiveness of their efforts to respect human rights.

The research was conducted in collaboration with the Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business, from mid 2018 to early 2019, and has informed the direction and focus of the Valuing Respect project.

A QUICK LOOK AT OUR FINDINGS

OBSERVATIONS

Also Read

September 2019 | Research

The Current Use of Metrics in Company Human Rights Reporting South Africa

Read

• Company reporting is focused on input, activity and output data with 78.8% of all information falling into these indicator categories. Even then, detailed information about inputs and activities is rarely provided. This holds true across all the industries analyzed; across areas that could be said to be more mature (such as diversity and health and safety); and company reporting that one might assume is more mature (for example, because they follow an international reporting standard). At the same time, it is important not to discount reporting on these issues as they might ultimately be leading indicators of better business practices and good outcomes. 
• With regard to the dominant category of outputs, about 80% of these are reported in numerical form, and often presented as a snap-shot for the reporting period, without a narrative of what the company concluded or did as a result of that data. PIHRB considers that this might reflect that data included in monitoring and reporting is driven more by external requirements and pressures than by its perceived value for business decisions.
• The most complete disclosures are those that show the connection across the pathway from inputs to activities all the way through to outcomes for people and business. This is not common but a few positive exceptions were found in the research. 
• Some companies share data about outcomes for business that seem to relate to human rights outcomes for people, but they rarely make this relationship explicit or address the nature and quality of outcomes for people.

For a detailed description of our findings, please download the full report below.