Archives: Resources

Business, Human Rights and the Sustainable Development Goals: Forging a Coherent Vision and Strategy

Also read: News announcement for this report | Our short framework for action on how any company can and should contribute to the SDGs

Update: In January 2017 the Business and Sustainable Development Commission, which commissioned this report, published its position paper on business’s role in sustainable development, Better Business, Better World. That position paper draws on this report and strongly supports its message that respect for human rights must be at the heart of any company’s efforts to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals.

The summary below is excerpted from the report.

Summary

The United Nations Guiding Principles (UNGP) on Business and Human Rights set the global standard for what companies need to do to address negative impacts on people’s human rights connected with their business. The Guiding Principles look at how companies make their profits, not how they spend them. They are not a sign-up proposition, nor an optional extra, but an expectation of all companies everywhere and increasingly viewed as part of soft law.

Yet the UN Guiding Principles are often cast as simply a ‘do no harm’ requirement, a matter of compliance or ‘just the starting point’ en route to more mature or innovative approaches to responsible business. This overlooks their tremendous potential to drive positive change for hundreds of millions of the poorest and most marginalised people in our societies – those least able to enjoy the fruits of development.

One of the most transformative aspects of the UN Guiding Principles is their recognition that a company’s responsibility to respect human rights is not just about what happens in their own operations where they largely control outcomes, but it extends also to human rights impacts connected to their products and services through their networks of business relationships. This often means creating and using leverage in those relationships to bring about greater respect for human rights. For many human rights challenges – particularly those that sit in global value chains – that means collaborating to drive change. This is the key to how business can, and should, make its largest positive contributions to the ‘people part’ of sustainable development.

This paper makes the case for the Business and Sustainable Development Commission (BSDC) to take a lead in changing the current outdated discourse on business and social development, by recognising and harnessing this unique potential of the UNGPs. First it reviews some statistical evidence of the scale of populations across global supply chains that are exposed to abuses of their human rights. It then reviews the evidence of the strong and growing convergence between these severe risks to people and risks to business itself – operational, financial, reputational, legal or in staff recruitment and retention. The subsequent sections explore the increasing attention of international leaders – including in the G7, International Labour Organization (ILO), European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – to human rights risks in global value chains and to the role that implementation of the UNGPs must play if we are to accelerate change. Following a brief review of the UNGPs, the paper explores the evolution in initiatives that use collective leverage to advance respect for human rights. It highlights a new generation of such initiatives in the form of “joint action and accountability platforms”, which focus on specific human rights challenges, involve the key agents of change in setting action-oriented targets that address the issues holistically and incorporate accountability for progress in meeting them.

The final sections of this paper explore why the current discourse on the role of business in social development has skipped over the tremendous scale of positive impacts to be achieved through advancing respect for human rights. They look back at the historical focus on philanthropy and social investment and the more recent preoccupation with new business innovations and models such as “shared value”. The paper argues that while these approaches can bring hugely valuable benefits to societies as well as the companies concerned, they will always remain constrained to certain market opportunities and policy environments.

The paper concludes that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present an opportunity not just to update our vision of the role of business in sustainable development, but to change it fundamentally. There is no more pressing or more powerful way for business to accelerate social development than by driving respect for human rights across their value chains. The proposition that all companies not only can contribute at scale to development through these networks of business relationships, but that they have a responsibility to do so, is the quiet revolution that sits at the heart of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The paper closes with a set of specific recommendations about how to embed this vision at the heart of how business gets done.

Business and Human Rights in New Zealand

This series took place the week of August 8, 2016 as part of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission inaugural Business and Human Rights Forum. 

In collaboration with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, Shift is pleased to have delivered an education and awareness series about the Guiding Principles for government representatives, parliamentarians, investors, directors, CEOs, company practitioners and civil society representatives in New Zealand. The series took place in August 2016.

Topics that were addressed during the weeklong series in Wellington and Auckland include global uptake of the Guiding Principles, various governments’ actions on business and human rights including in the areas of procurement and disclosure, sharing of leading practices by investors in assessing human rights risks, the role of board directors in overseeing their company’s management of human rights, and exploration of specific business and human rights risks in the New Zealand context. The Australian Human Rights Commission also participated in the program as part of their collaboration with the Commission of New Zealand.

ESG Toolkit for Fund Managers: Briefing Note on Human Rights

This resource, developed with support from Shift, explains the relationship between human rights and traditional environmental and social due diligence. It aims to provide fund managers with a practical introduction to human rights issues that may be relevant to their investments. It gives fund managers:

  • A clear understanding of what human rights risks and impacts are, why they are important and how they relate to traditional environmental and social (E&S) risks and impacts;
  • A practical approach to integrating human rights lens into existing E&S due diligence approaches, aligned with international standards.

IBA Practical Guide on Business and Human Rights for Business Lawyers

Shift General Counsel and Senior Advisor John Sherman chaired the IBA Business and Human Rights Working Group that developed the guide over an 18-month global consultation process.

The text below is excerpted from the resource. For more information on this guidance, see our news announcement on its publication and our Guest Viewpoint from IBA President David W. Rivkin.

Also see: International Bar Association Handbook for Lawyers on Business and Human Rights (July 2017)

Introduction 

At its Annual Conference in Vienna in October 2015, the IBA Council adopted its Business and Human Rights Guidance for Bar Associations (‘Bar Association Guide’). The IBA noted that its founding in 1947 had been inspired by the vision of the United Nations, with the aim of supporting the establishment of the rule of law and the administration of justice worldwide. It described the unanimous endorsement by the UN Human Rights Council of the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs), drafted by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Business and Human Rights (SRSG), Professor John Ruggie. It recalled the IBA’s significant contributions to and support of the SRSG’s UN mandate, and noted that governments have evidenced strong support for the UNGPs as an authoritative policy framework, including through the development of national action plans to implement them. It described the reflection of the UNGPs in international and industry specific standards. And it noted the growing recognition of a strong business case for respecting human rights and the management of risks, including legal risks, resulting in the need for lawyers to take human rights into account in their practice of law.

In order to help bar associations and lawyers better understand these issues, the IBA committed to prepare a Practical Guide for Business Lawyers on the Guiding Principles (the ‘Practical Guide’) that would ‘set out in detail the core content of the UNGPs, how they can be relevant to the advice provided to clients by individual lawyers subject to their unique professional standards and rules (whether they are in-house or external counsel acting in their individual capacity or as members of a law firm) and their potential implications for law firms as business enterprises with a responsibility to respect human rights themselves.’

At the conference, the IBA Council also adopted a resolution approving the Bar Association Guide, looking forward to the Practical Guide’s presentation for approval in May 2016, and stating that ‘in line with the provisions of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers as resolved by the UN General Assembly in its ‘Human rights in the administration of justice’ resolution of 18 December 1990 (Basic Principles), nothing in the Guidance for Bar Associations or in the IBA Practical Guide for Business Lawyers (once approved) shall be interpreted as reducing respect for the fundamental human right of effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal profession to all in need of such services, including that all lawyers should always be able to fulfill their duties and responsibilities and enjoy the guarantees provided for by the Basic Principles, consistent with their legal and professional responsibilities.’

This Practical Guide has been prepared to fulfill these purposes. 

Contents of the Practical Guide

The Practical Guide is intended to provide an accessible summary of a complex and nuanced subject by assisting internal and external lawyers who are involved in advising businesses globally through:

  • Explaining the background and core content of the UNGPs, which are also incorporated into other relevant human rights and responsible business practice standards and approaches, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the IFC Performance Standards, ISO 26000 and supports the UN Global Compact responsible business principles (Section 2, infra);
  • Exploring how the UNGPs may be relevant to the advice and other services they – both in-house and external lawyers – provide to business clients (Section 3, infra);
  • Explaining the implications of the UNGPs for the clients’ right of access to, and representation by, independent legal counsel (Section 4, infra);
  • Exploring the opportunities and challenges that the UNGPs present for lawyers who advise businesses, including both internal and external legal counsel (Sections 5 and 6, infra).

Reference Annex

In November 2016, the IBA published additional guidance to support users’ implementation of the Practical Guide. Click here to see the Reference Annex to the Practical Guide.

Improving Accountability and Access to Remedy for Victims of Business-Related Human Rights Abuse

Shift supported two rounds of workshops with member states that fed into this report’s development, particularly the recommendations on cross-border cases. The overview below is excerpted from the report.

Overview

The present report sets out guidance to improve accountability and access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses, following the Accountability and Remedy Project of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and in response to the request by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 26/22.

The report comprises two parts. The first part provides an introduction to the guidance, including an explanation of its scope, potential usage and important cross-cutting contextual issues. This is followed, in the annex, by the guidance itself, which takes the form of “policy objectives” for domestic legal responses, supported by a series of elements intended to demonstrate the different ways in which States can work towards meeting those objectives in practice. The report is complemented by an addendum (A/HRC/32/19/Add.1), prepared as a companion to the guidance, providing additional explanation and context drawn from the two-year research process of OHCHR.

Accountability and access to remedy: the urgent need for action

Business enterprises can be involved with human rights abuses in many different ways; because of the adverse impacts that business enterprises may cause or contribute to through their own activities, or by virtue of their business relationships. Ensuring the legal accountability of business enterprises and access to effective remedy for persons affected by such abuses is a vital part of a State’s duty to protect against business-related human rights abuse.

At present, accountability and remedy in such cases is often elusive. Although causing or contributing to severe human rights abuses would amount to a crime in many jurisdictions, business enterprises are seldom the subject of law enforcement and criminal sanctions.

Human rights impacts caused by business activities give rise to causes of action in many jurisdictions, yet private claims often fail to proceed to judgment and, where a legal remedy is obtained, it frequently does not meet the international standard of “adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered”.

State-based judicial mechanisms are not the only means of achieving accountability and access to remedy in cases of business-related human rights abuses. Other possibilities may include State-based non-judicial mechanisms and non-State grievance mechanisms, such as operational level grievance mechanisms. However, effective State-based judicial mechanisms are “at the core of ensuring access to remedy”.

Those seeking to use judicial mechanisms to obtain a remedy face many challenges. While those challenges vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there are persistent problems common to many jurisdictions. These include fragmented, poorly designed or incomplete legal regimes; lack of legal development; lack of awareness of the scope and operation of regimes; structural complexities within business enterprises; problems in gaining access to sufficient funding for private law claims; and a lack of enforcement. Those problems have all contributed to a system of domestic law remedies that is “patchy, unpredictable, often ineffective and fragile”.

The challenges are exacerbated in cross-border cases. While many domestic legal regimes focus primarily on within-territory business activities and impacts, the realities of global supply chains, cross-border trade, investment, communications and movement of people are placing new demands on domestic legal regimes and those responsible for enforcing them. 

The experiences of those seeking remedy suggest that there remain serious deficiencies in the implementation by many States of their international obligations with respect to access to remedy. The right to an effective remedy for harm is a core tenet of international human rights law. The obligations of States with respect to this right have been reflected in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework in terms of a “State duty to protect” against business-related human rights abuses, of which providing access to an effective remedy is an integral part.

Rectifying these deficiencies — which, in many cases, are rooted in wider social, economic and legal challenges — will not be straightforward. It will require concerted and multifaceted efforts from all States, encompassing actions relating to law reform and legal development, improvements to the functioning of judicial mechanisms, law enforcement, policy development and closer international cooperation. However, this is essential work towards realizing the imperatives of accountability and remedy for business-related human rights abuses.

Corporate Accountability for Human Rights Abuses: A Guide for Victims and NGOs on Recourse Mechanisms

The summary is excerpted from the resource.

Summary

With this guide, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) seeks to provide a practical tool for victims, and their (legal) representatives, NGOs and other civil society groups (unions, peasant associations, social movements, activists) to seek justice and obtain reparation for victims of human rights abuses involving multinational corporations. To do so, the guide explores the different judicial and non-judicial recourse mechanisms available to victims.

In practice, strategies for seeking justice are not limited to the use of recourse mechanisms, and various other strategies have been used in the past. Civil society organisations have for instance set up innovative campaigns on various issues such as baby-milk marketing in Global South countries, sweatshops in the textile industry profiting multinationals or illicit diamond trafficking fuelling conflicts in Africa. Such actions have yielded results and can turn out to be equally (or even more) effective than using formal channels. While this guide will not focus on such strategies, they are often used alongside and reinforce the use of recourse mechanisms. The main focus of this guide is violations committed in third countries by or with the support of a multinational company, its subsidiary or its commercial partner. Hence, the guide focuses in particular on the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction to strengthen corporate accountability.

This guide does not address challenges specifically faced by small and medium-size enterprises. While all types of enterprise play a crucial role in ensuring respect for human rights, we focus on multinational groups. At the top of the chain, it is considered that they have the power to change practices and behaviours, that their behaviour conditions the rest of the chain and that they are in a position to influence their commercial partners, including small and medium-size enterprises. The guide is comprised of five sections. Each examines a different type of instrument.

The first section looks at mechanisms to address the responsibility of States to ensure the protection of human rights. International and regional intergovernmental mechanisms of quasi-judicial nature are explored, namely the United Nations system for the protection of human rights (Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures), the International Labour Organisation complaint mechanisms and regional systems for the protection of human rights at the European, Inter-American and African levels, including possibilities provided by African economic community tribunals.

The second section explores legal options for victims to hold a company liable for violations committed abroad. The first part analyses opportunities for victims to engage States’ extraterritorial obligations, e.g., to seek redress from parent companies both for civil and criminal liability. The section then goes on to explore the promising yet still very limited windows of opportunity within international tribunals and the International Criminal Court. The guide sets out the conditions under which courts of home States of parent companies may have jurisdiction over human rights violations committed by or with the complicity of multinationals. The obstacles that victims tend to face when dealing with transnational litigation — which are numerous and important — are highlighted. While this section does not pretend to provide an exhaustive overview of all existing legal possibilities, it emphasizes different legal systems, mostly those of the European Union and the United States. In addition to practical considerations, this choice is also justified by the fact that parent companies of multinational corporations are often located in the US and the EU (although many are now based in emerging countries); the volume of legal proceedings against multinationals head-quartered in these countries has increased; and, these legal systems present interesting procedures to hold companies (or their directors) accountable for abuses committed abroad.

The third section looks at mediation mechanisms that have the potential to address directly the responsibility of companies. With a particular focus on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the National Contact Points countries set up to ensure respect of the guidelines, the section looks at the process, advantages and disadvantages of this procedure. The section also briefly highlights developments within National Human Rights Institutions and other innovative ombudsman initiatives.

The fourth section touches upon one of the driving forces of corporate activities: the financial support companies receive. The first part reviews complaints mechanisms available within International Financial Institutions as well as regional development banks that are available to people affected by projects financed by these institutions. Largely criticized by civil society organisations in the last decades, these institutions have faced increased pressure to adapt their functioning for greater coherence between their mandate and the projects they finance. Most of the regional banks addressed in this guide have gone through recent consultation processes and subsequent changes of their policies, standards and structure of their complaint mechanisms. Their use presents interesting potential for victims. The second part looks at available mechanisms within export-credit agencies, as public actors are being increasingly scrutinized for their involvement in financing projects with high risks of human rights abuses. Not forgetting the role private banks can play in fuelling human rights violations, the third part of this section addresses one initiative of the private sector, namely the Equator Principles for private banks. The fourth and last part of this section discusses ways to engage with the shareholders of a company. Shareholder activism is an emerging trend that may represent a viable way to raise awareness of shareholders on violations that may be occurring with their financial support. Even more important, the increasing attention paid by investors (in particular institutional investors) to environmental, social and governance criteria can be a powerful lever.

Last but not least, the fifth section explores voluntary initiatives set up through multistakeholder, sectoral or company-based CSR initiatives. As mentioned above, various companies have publicly committed to respect human rights principles and environmental standards. As far as implementation is concerned, a number of grievance mechanisms have been put in place and can, depending on the context, contribute to solve situations of conflict. Interestingly, such commitments may also be used, including through legal processes by victims and other interested groups such as consumers to ensure that companies live up to their commitments. This section provides an overview of such avenues.

Business and Human Rights: A Five-Step Guide for Company Boards

Also see: Our Viewpoint | Launch press release

This resource was developed by Shift and the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission. It reflects input from directors and other senior corporate officers. The summary below is excerpted from the resource.

What is the aim of this publication?

This guide is primarily for boards of companies, particularly those in the UK (it is published by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission, the National Human Rights Institution of the UK). It sets out five steps boards should follow to satisfy themselves that their companies identify, mitigate and report on the human rights impacts of their activities. These steps will also help boards to reflect their leadership and fiduciary duties.

This guide also provides advice on how boards can meet the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the global standard, which outline the role of business and governments in respecting human rights. The Guiding Principles do not create any new international legal obligations on companies, but they can help boards to operate with respect for human rights and meet their legal responsibilities set out in domestic laws.

The five steps

[The Equality and Human Rights Commission] recommends that boards should follow five steps to ensure that their company is fulfilling its responsibility to respect human rights in a robust and coherent manner that meets the expectations of the UN Guiding Principles and UK statutory reporting obligations. Boards should be aware of the company’s salient, or most severe, human rights risks, and ensure the company:

  1. Embeds the responsibility to respect human rights into its culture, knowledge and practices;
  2. Identifies and understands its salient, or most severe, risks to human rights;
  3. Systematically addresses its salient, or most severe, risks to human rights and provides for remedy when needed;
  4. Engages with stakeholders to inform its approach to addressing human rights risks;
  5. Reports on its salient, or most severe, human rights risks and meets regulatory reporting requirements.

Human rights due diligence: questions for boards to ask of their executive teams

(see p.17 of the resource)

Board members may find these questions useful to guide discussions with senior management about the company’s salient human rights issues.

1. What is the company doing to make respect for human rights a part of how it does business?

  • Do company functions that pose risks to human rights have sufficient resources and responsibility to manage and mitigate those risks?
  • Is there a senior manager actively leading on human rights in the company?
  • Are there procedures for human rights risks and impacts to be escalated to the board?
  • How are staff encouraged to raise human rights risks and take steps to mitigate and manage them? How are staff rewarded for doing so?
  • What indicators assess the effectiveness of human rights risk management processes?
  • Does a member of the executive team have expertise on human rights? Is there a board champion for human rights?

2. How does the company know what negative impacts it may have on people’s human rights?

  • Does the company assess its human rights risks across its operations and supply chain, geographic locations and decision making processes?
  • What has the company identified as its salient human rights issues and on what basis? Has it drawn on the experience and knowledge of a broad range of stakeholders?
  • How do senior management know whether the company’s policies and processes related to human rights are effective?

3. What steps is the company taking to reduce and mitigate its risks?

  • How does the company use its influence to reduce risks to human rights in its supply chain and other business relationships?
  • What does the company do to ensure it is not contributing to human rights impacts through its own actions and decisions?
  • Does the company work with others in the industry, or with multi-stakeholder groups to address human rights risks?
  • What is the company doing to provide remedy if its own actions or decisions lead to impacts on human rights?

4. How does the company engage with stakeholders to help it understand and address human rights risks?

  • Does the company engage with a broad range of stakeholders across its business to inform its understanding of human rights risks and its progress in reducing these risks?
  • How do people inside or outside the company raise concerns about human rights impacts, and how does the company know whether these channels work?

5. Does the company explain which human rights issues it is reporting on and why?

  • Does the company provide sufficient information to explain its human rights challenges and provide examples of how its actions are improving human rights outcomes?
  • Does the report include indicators or other metrics to provide evidence of progress over time?
  • Do senior management have enough information to meet regulatory reporting requirements?

About the IDT

CLICK HERE TO START USING THE INDICATOR DESIGN TOOL

The Indicator Design Tool provides a simple way for business practitioners –and other stakeholders, to develop targets and indicators focused on better outcomes for people.

The Indicator Design tool helps users learn about what is working and why in order to make evidence-based decisions on how to allocate resources, adjust programs and ultimately, deliver improved outcomes for workers, consumers and communities. The Tool can be applied to a wide range of efforts aimed at preventing, mitigating and remediating human rights impacts, regardless of industry, operating context or human rights issue.

Here are a few hypothetical examples:
NOTE: These quotes are fictitious and are offered with the purpose of illustrating potential ways in which the Indicator Design Tool can be used.

The Methodology

At the core of this tool is an approach known as Theory of Change thinking: a well-established monitoring and evaluation practice from the fields of international development and public policy.

About Theory of Change

About Theory of Change

Theory of change models follow an “if/then” logic along the sequence from inputs to activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts: if these inputs are in place, then we can do these activities; if we do these activities, we will deliver these outputs, and so on. This is a simple way of thinking that addresses the, often unexamined, space between what we do (activities, programs, initiatives) and the ultimate goals we want to achieve. It forces clarity on what is required at each step to achieve results.

A theory of change model stretches us to think about indicators and information needs at all stages in an intervention, and the relationship between them. The resulting inter-related set of indicators and real-word data then allows us to see the actual relationships of cause and effect across the theory of change. This provides an evidence base to identify how our activities relate to the change we are trying to deliver.

The theory of change framework used in the Indicator Design Tool is shown in the diagram below. This framework has been adapted from traditional theory of change models to suit the realities of business and human rights challenges.

This version of the theory of change adapts the typical model in three ways:

We’ve added ‘practices and behaviors’ between ‘outputs’ and ‘outcomes’

It can be relatively easy to measure the outputs of an activity such as knowledge gained by participants in a training event, or corrective actions identified through an audit process. Both activities may aim to improve the treatment of workers in factories, but will by no means necessarily achieve that outcome. Yet measuring the actual outcome for workers consistently over time can be difficult and resource-intensive.

The category of ‘practices and behaviors’ provides a midpoint of evaluation that focuses on the desired changes in human behavior. For instance, it shows whether knowledge acquired or a corrective action identified actually changes what gets done in the workplace and how. This is a much stronger indication of whether workers are likely to be treated better than we get from outputs alone. Practices and behaviors can often be more easily and consistently measured than can the ultimate outcomes themselves. Once a clear and replicable connection between practices/behaviors and outcomes is established, they can be valuable and scalable indicators of likely outcomes.

The focus is on “outcomes for people”, not on general impacts.

This model omits the category of ‘impact’ that is often placed after ‘outcomes’, and represents a higher-level societal benefit that is desired over a longer period of time, such as ‘increasing median wages by 20% in the next 15 years’. It can be helpful to have this kind of higher-level impact in mind when thinking about a theory of change. However, given the number of factors involved, it is particularly difficult to evaluate how one company, or even industry, has contributed to it. Therefore, it did not seem useful to include in this model.

We’ve emphasized the distinction between ‘outcomes for people’ and ‘outcomes for business’

The aim of responsible business initiatives and practices is to improve outcomes for people (and/or planet). However, it can be helpful to show where these efforts also bring benefits to the business itself – for example in cost savings, reputational improvements, or new business opportunities. This builds the case for embedding these practices routinely into how business gets done. At the same time, positive outcomes for business are not necessarily positive outcomes for people. For example, a company may eradicate forced labor from its own supply chain, but the workers concerned may simply have been pushed into other jobs in which conditions of forced labor persist. This distinction, therefore, requires us to evaluate the two types of outcomes separately.

This tool alone won’t work if you don’t engage with stakeholders

Stakeholder engagement is a critical aspect of using this tool successfully. Stakeholders should include internal issue owners and subject-matter experts; affected stakeholders and/or their legitimate representatives; and where appropriate, companies (such as peers, suppliers, partners or customers) that are an integral part of achieving the outcomes you are seeking to achieve.

Why engage with stakeholders?

Why engage with stakeholders?

Each company will decide the most effective and robust way to do this, for example: via one-to-one consultations, workshops on specific parts of the process, or sharing draft content for inputs. Regardless of the method used, engagement will tend to offer numerous benefits:

  • Informing new ideas about how to achieve change by building on the company’s own experience, and leading practices of other companies.
  • Understanding what needs to change for the better from the perspective of affected groups, as well as their views on how that change might be achieved.
  • Establishing a full and complete understanding of contextual factors that will impact the effectiveness of interventions, including internal organizational dynamics such as incentives, and local legal or cultural issues;
  • Building internal and external buy-in for indicators and support with data collection, and
  • Increasing the chances that stakeholders will view disclosure of data about progress and impact as credible.

Learn More

Ready to use the Indicator Design Tool?

START USING THE TOOL
DOWNLOAD TEMPLATES