A. Governance and Policy Commitments (10% of overall score)
Measurement Theme A focuses on a company’s human rights related policy commitments and how they are governed. It includes two related sub-themes:
- Policy Commitments: These indicators aim to assess the extent to which a company acknowledges its responsibility to respect human rights, and how it formally incorporates this into publicly availables tatements of policy.
- Board Level Accountability: These indicators seek to assess how the company’s policy commitments are managed as part of the Board’s role and responsibility.
B. Embedding Respect and Human Rights Due Diligence (25% of overall score)
This Measurement Theme assesses the extent of a company’s systems and processes established to implement the company’s policy commitments in practice. It includes two related sub-themes:
- Embedding: These indicators seek to assess how the company’s human rights policy commitments are embedded in company culture and across its management systems and day-to-day activities, including within the management systems covering their business relationships.
- Human rights due diligence: These indicators focus on the specific systems the company has in place to ensure that due diligence processes are implemented to assess the real-time risks to human rights that the company poses, to integrate and act on these findings so as to prevent and mitigate the impacts, and to track and communicate those actions.
C. Remedies and Grievance Mechanisms (15% of overall score)
This Measurement Theme focuses on the extent to which a Company provides remedy in addressing actual adverse impacts on human rights. It covers a Company’s approach to providing or cooperating in remediation when human rights harms – actual human rights impacts – have occurred. The indicators aim to assess the extent to which a Company has appropriate processes in place so that grievances may be addressed early and remediated directly where appropriate. The indicators also test the Company’s willingness to participate in other remedy options and its approach to litigation concerning credible allegations of human rights impacts.
D. Performance: Company Human Rights Practices (20% of overall score)
This Measurement Theme focuses on selected human rights related practices specific to each industry. The indicators seek to assess the actual practices occurring within companies in order to implement key enabling factors and business processes and to prevent specific impacts on human rights particularly at risk of occurring given the industry in question. As such, not every focus area below was applied to every industry assessed.
The indicators also are split in relation to:
Either a Company’s own agricultural operations
its supply chain
Either a Company’s own production or manufacturing operations
its supply chain
A Company’s own extractive operations
E. Performance: Responses to Serious Allegation (20% of overall score)
This Measurement Theme focuses on responses to allegations of serious negative impacts a Company may be alleged or reported to be involved in by an external source. Indicators in this Measurement Theme seek to assess a Company’s response to the allegation and does not seek to assess the ‘truth’ of allegation itself.
For a company response to an allegation to have been considered in this Measurement Theme, it (the allegation) must have met a certain threshold of severity outlined in the 2018 CHRB Methodology.
A total of 48 companies (out of 101) had serious allegations that met the CHRB threshold, covering allegations reported during the period of January 2015 - December 2017.
The total number of allegations considered was 96. On average there were 2 allegations per company (for those companies with allegations). Given that this Measurement Theme focuses on the companies’ responses to allegations, it is important to note that the number of allegations does not impact a company’s performance in the Benchmark.
F. Transparency (10% of overall score)
The CHRB recognised that the Pilot Methodology approach to assessing transparency was overly burdensome and that the utility of the stand-alone section was not fully understood by many of the stakeholders interested in the Methodology. Theme F was considerably revised to maintain a standalone rating for transparency and to achieve the following aims:
- Reward companies that demonstrate a willingness to disclose information (F.1)
- Give credit to companies that use existing good practice reporting frameworks (F.2)
- Give credit to companies that meet criteria in specific indicators that represent high quality disclosures (F.3)