Archives: Resources

Measuring Quality of Relationships: Using ICMM’s “Understanding Company-Community Relations” Toolkit

Securing and maintaining a social license to operate is central to the strategies of many companies for which the long-term success of their operations depends on a positive relationship with host communities. While the need for good relationships between companies and their host communities is widely recognized, there is very little clarity on how to assess if a company is achieving this goal. The International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), has developed the Understanding Company-Community Relations Toolkit as a structured approach to measuring the quality of relationships between mining companies and their host communities, with the ultimate goal of using the information to improve them.

Use this tool to:

  • Monitor how relationships with host communities evolve over time based on the voices of community members themselves.
  • Distinguish and measure different aspects of relationships and identify those aspects that need improvement.
  • Explore external factors that shape company-community relationships.

Cultivating Voice in Relationships: Using Regular Micro-surveys at Scale to turn Stakeholder Experience and Perceptions into Actionable Data

This note profiles Constituent Voice (CV): a way to engage and learn from large numbers of people about how company, government and funders’ programs and activities impact them. CV, developed by Keystone Accountability uses a small number of simple questions (micro-surveys) asked at scale and over time in order to generate real-time insight that helps companies and their stakeholders to quickly and easily identify, foster and monitor improvements.

Use this resource to learn about a methodology that can help you:

  • Engage and learn from large numbers of people about how they experience their relationship with a company.
  • Compare data within and across different geographies and sites.
  • Foster rapid learning and action with reduced time spent on data collection and analysis.

Ten Years After: From UN Guiding Principles To Multi-Fiduciary Obligations

Ten years on from the UN Guiding Principles, the soft law of human rights due diligence has helped provide a path beyond shareholder primacy towards stakeholder governance. This is now influencing hard law, particularly in Europe. In this paper, Shift’s Chair, Professor John Ruggie, and our two co-founders, Caroline Rees and Rachel Davis explain the journey.

The paper is divided into five parts. The first recaps the current debate regarding the purpose of the corporation, which centers on whether and how stakeholder governance should and could supersede shareholder primacy. The second provides a brief backstory on shareholder primacy versus stakeholder governance. The third introduces the elements of HRDD and demonstrates that even in its soft law form it is bringing stakeholder concerns and corporate practice into closer alignment. Section IV describes how this experience with soft law is informing national and supranational legal requirements in a growing number of jurisdictions, with knock-on effects for corporate governance. The conclusion endeavors to draw some lessons from how, a mere decade after UN endorsement of the Guiding Principles, they have turned the idea that companies are responsible for preventing and addressing adverse impacts of their business on people’s basic dignity and equality into a mainstream proposition with significant implications for corporate governance while acknowledging that large gaps remain in the BHR space.

GO TO RESOURCE

Beyond Pride: The Rights of LGBTI People and the Corporate Responsibility to Respect

In every region of the world lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people face some degree of violence, persecution or discrimination.

From what is said around a family dinner table to who gets to compete in a sports contest; from who is welcome in a bathroom to who is sentenced in a court room; to forced sterilization and harmful medical procedures; and from who gets an apartment, job offer or promotion to who gets imprisoned, flogged or sentenced to death. The contexts for such violence and discrimination are as varied as the people in the LGBTI acronym, and pose a wide range of human rights risks for companies.

Businesses have a responsibility – under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) – to understand and address how their actions, decisions, omissions and business relationships can lead to negative impacts on people. In the case of LGBTI people, that means considering how they could be adding to the risk that they already face on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC).

Use this resource to:

  • Learn how business activities and relationships can exacerbate risks faced by LGBTI people. 
  • Understand why risk can vary depending on geographical and cultural context, and what that means for global businesses.
  • Explore how companies can understand the particular vulnerabilities experienced by LGBTI people to better identify risks and prioritize action. 
  • Review what companies are doing to address risks to the rights of LGBTI people, and where the gaps are in existing practice. 
  • Consider meaningful ways in which companies can engage with LGBTI stakeholders and use their leverage with peers, partners, suppliers, governments and others 

Using Relationship Data to Improve Business Practices: Measuring Company-Community Relationships at a South African Mine

This is a case study about how Gold Fields, a global mining company, has assessed its relationship with communities around the South Deep Gold Mine in the West Rand, South Africa. Three assessments, in which the company gathered extensive community perceptions via surveys and focus groups, were conducted between 2014 and 2019.

This case study:

  • provides an overview of the methodologies applied by the company, including the indicators that were assessed, how data was gathered, and the ways in which the data has been analyzed by the company to inform actions; and
  • outlines the steps the company has taken to improve its practices based on the insights from the community shared in the assessments. These range from board allocation of resources to adjustments in how the company engages with local communities.

The case study is a good example of how measuring the quality of company-community relationships can not only shed light on the nuanced realities that feed into a company’s overall social license to operate. It also enables data-driven company discussion and decision-making, including among senior leaders and the board.

“At a very early stage of the work, we realized that we needed to listen and understand how our communities really felt about us. Initially, this was an uncomfortable process as we learned about the differences between how we thought the communities felt about our presence and their experiences on the ground. Given strong board-level support and visibility on this new way of engagement, our teams on the ground felt that it was critical to measure the strength of our relationships. Even though there were no readily available tools at the time we got started – a crude windsock would be better than nothing. Much has evolved since those early days with the relationship tools now more developed and providing insights for our long journey ahead in building trust with a key stakeholder. As the saying goes, if it is important, you need to manage it – what you can measure, you can manage.”

Naseem Chohan, EVP Sustainable Development and South Deep Gold Mine board member

Resource Structure

There are a total of 22 indicators, divided into two categories: 
(To see an overview chart with all 22 indicators, click HERE)
And each indicator is organized into three levels: 

Level One: Overview

This includes:

  • Explanation or an overview of the indicator and its relevance for embedding organizational behaviors, and robust due diligence practices that support respect for human rights;
  • Key Questions for leaders to ask or be asked to aid initial analysis of whether the governance or leadership practice is present in the organization; and
  • Connection to Culture that shows the link back to features of a rights-respecting culture.

Level Two: Application

This discusses:

  • Types of Application highlighting the types of use, whether inside a company or by those outside a company, to which this indicator particularly lends itself; and
  • Sources of Evidence signaling where information related to the indicator might be found, whether in documentation or by soliciting the perspectives of stakeholders.

Level Three: Supporting Indicators

The insight gained from using a single indicator in isolation – however well designed – will have its limits. These limits typically arise from assumptions behind the indicator, for example about pre-existing knowledge, motivations or the practices of others. Users can therefore validate the insight offered by an indicator by combining it with one or more others that address those assumptions. This section provides guidance on which indicators can be used in combination to meet this aim.

DOWNLOAD THE RESOURCE STRUCTURE

Menu of L&G Indicators

How to use this resource

There are 10 Governance Indicators and 12 Leadership Indicators. You may use the purple bar below to filter them by each of the four features of corporate culture: authenticity, empathy, accountability and organizational learning. Hover over the “i” next. to each indicator to preview its full title. Once you’ve picked the ones you want to download, select them by clicking on the circled number of each indicator and choose ‘Download All Selected’. You may also choose to download the full series or to download a high level menu. To learn more about how each Indicator is structured, please see this page. For support, please contact communications [at] shiftproject [dot] org.

TO SELECT MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS TO DOWNLOAD, CLICK ON THE CIRCLED NUMBER on the left.

Download Menu

Governance Indicators

THE MOST SENIOR GOVERNING BODY AND/OR ITS RELEVANT SUB-COMMITTEES…

Reviews company’s business model

i
Reviews and challenges the company’s business model and strategy to ensure any inherent human rights risks are identified and addressed.

Discusses progress and challenges

i
Regularly discusses progress and challenges in addressing the company’s salient human rights risks, informed by related complaints or grievances from the workforce or external stakeholders, root cause analyses of major human rights-related incidents and knowledge of current. leading practice.

Reviews coherence of lobbying

i
Reviews and challenges the company’s efforts to influence public policy and regulation to ensure they do not undermine human rights.

Seeks views from across the workforce

i
Has systems in place to regularly hear the experiences and views of people across the workforce about how they are affected by the business, and informs the workforce about how these inputs have influenced company decision-making.

Seeks views from external affected stakeholders

i
Has systems in place to regularly hear the experiences and views of external stakeholders about how they are affected by the business, and informs them about how their inputs have influenced company decision-making.

Ensures cross-functional collaboration

i
Ensures that cross-functional processes are in place to share information about human rights risks; agree actions to address human rights risks; and monitor progress against those actions.

Request and reviews root cause analysis

i
Requests and reviews a root cause analysis of any incident resulting in severe human rights impacts, in order to ensure that systems, processes and practices are adapted to avoid their recurrence.

Ensures positive performance incentives are in place

i
Ensures that performance incentives for top management are in place that reflect the company’s salient human rights issues; are supported by relevant KPIs; and are given reasonable weight in compensation schemes.

Challenges negative performance incentives

i
Challenges any top management performance incentives that may promote behaviors that undermine respect for human rights.

Approves high-level targets

i
Approves high-level targets for assessing progress in addressing salient human rights risks.

Leadership Indicators

SENIOR LEADERS AT CORPORATE, REGIONAL, COUNTRY AND BUSINESS UNIT LEVELS…

Affirm commitment; discuss challenges and opportunities

i
Talk regularly – both internally and publicly – about the company’s commitment to address risks to people across the company’s operations and value chain, and key challenges and opportunities for achieving this goal.

Promote and model treating people with respect and dignity

i
Regularly affirm that all stakeholders must be treated with respect and dignity, and model this in their interactions with the company’s workforce.

Seek insights and critique from experts

i
Pro-actively and regularly seek the insights and critique of credible experts to inform the company’s understanding of and responses to human rights issues.

Seek views from across the workforce

i
Routinely seek out the experiences and views of people across the company’s workforce about how they are affected by the business, and inform them of how their inputs have influenced company decision-making.

Seek views from external affected stakeholders

i
Routinely engage with external stakeholders to understand their experiences and views about how they are affected by the business, and inform them of how their inputs have influenced company decision-making.

React constructively to allegations

i
Engage constructively with affected stakeholders or their representatives with regard to any allegations that the company is involved in major human rights related incidents in its operations or value chain.

Champion internal human rights leads

i
Signal the importance of the internal function(s) or role(s) that lead(s) on human rights by ensuring their insights are integrated into decision-making processes.

Avoid pressures on people to not respect rights

i
Proactively seek to understand and avoid pressures on employees or contractors to act contrary to the company’s responsibility to respect human rights.

Support raising of questions and concerns

i
encourage the workforce to raise questions or concerns about the company’s impacts on co-workers or external stakeholders.

Praise positive, and call out negative, actions

i
Praise actions and decisions that advance the company’s commitment to respect human rights, and call out any that run counter to it.

Collaborate to address systemic issues

i
Collaborate with business peers and other stakeholders to address systemic issues underpinning the company’s salient human rights risks, based on clear action plans, agreed targets and accountability measures.

Support learning from progress and setbacks

i
Encourage the sharing of problems and setbacks, as well as progress and successes, to support improved management of human rights risks and impacts.

Evaluating Child Labor Programs: Uncovering How Local Norms Impact Field-Level Relationships Between Farmers, Workers and Children

Using participatory evaluation to address the root causes of an issue

This case study is part of a collection developed under the Quality of Relationships stream of Shift’s Valuing Respect Project. It explores how Philip Morris International (PMI), a global tobacco company, used participatory evaluation tools to gather information in order to address the “root causes of the most prevalent and persistent issues that keep surfacing” – specifically child labor in their agricultural supply chain. 

Also Read
December 2020 |

Assessing whether Behavior Change Training can Improve Relationships Between Supervisors and Workers

Read

Over the years, PMI has been gathering data through regular assessments and farm visits, which help the company to monitor the implementation of its labor standards, including zero child labor. However, it is its latest strategy, Step Change, that has provided complementary information about local awareness challenges, customs and societal attitudes that normalized children working on tobacco-growing farms. In driving this change, PMI has set itself an ambitious target to eliminate child labor from its leaf supply chain by 2025. Addressing incidences of child labor is important due to the hazardous nature of the agricultural work, which can pose increased health and safety risk to children. This case study describes how a combination of participatory methods allowed local and affected people to express in their own terms any local realities that run counter to the company’s efforts to reduce the use of child labor on farms.  

Specifically, the evaluation uncovered that:

  • workers are more accepting of children working on farms than farmers; 
  • child labor is seen as part of a widespread societal norm of communal work; and 
  • strong cultural beliefs ingrained in the society including of some local leaders, educators and community representatives weakening the company’s messaging about child labor. 

“We asked ourselves: ‘Why aren’t we seeing positive change?’ That is when we decided to take a deep dive, speak to the farmers and workers directly to uncover root causes which were preventing us from achieving desired outcomes.” “


JOANNE LE PATOUREL, MANAGER SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY LEAF, PMI