Measurement Themes

""

A. Governance and Policy Commitments (10% of overall score)

This Measurement Theme 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 available statements 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. 

policy-snapshot.png

 

For more detail, see the Key Findings Report.


 

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. 
     

HRDD-Snapshot.png

 

For more detail, see the Key Findings Report.


 

 

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.

RemedySnapshot.png

 

For more detail, see the Key Findings Report.


 

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 are also split in relation to:

Agricultural ProductsApparelExtractives 

Either a Company’s own agricultural operations 

OR/AND

its supply chain

Either a Company’s own production or manufacturing operations 

OR/AND

its supply chain

A Company’s own extractive operations 

 

practices-snapshot.png

 

For more detail, see the Key Findings Report.


 

E. Performance: Responses to Serious Allegation (20% of overall score)

This Measurement Theme focuses on responses to serious allegations of 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 an allegation that an impact has occurred, and does not seek to assess the allegation itself.
 

serious-allegations-snapshot.png

For a company response to an allegation to have been considered in this Measurement Theme, it must have met a certain threshold of severity outlined in the CHRB Pilot Methodology. The 2017 results indicate that all of the leading companies, as well as the companies in the lowest bands, had serious allegations that met this threshold. In other words, the companies in the middle bands of the results tended not to be linked to allegations meeting this severity. 


A total of 41 companies had serious allegations that met the CHRB threshold, covering allegations reported during the period of May 2013 - May 2016. These 41 companies represent 42% of all the 98 companies benchmarked. 

 

 

Serious-allegations-1 copy.png

 

The vast majority of companies have just one allegation meeting the CHRB threshold. Of the 41 companies assessed, 29 have one allegation, 6 companies have two allegations, 4 companies have three allegations, 1 company has four allegations, and 1 company has five allegations that were considered.

The total number of allegations meeting the CHRB threshold was 62, constituting a somewhat even spread across the three CHRB industries (with companies assessed in the Agricultural Products and Apparel industries highlighted separately).
 

For more detail, see the Key Findings Report.


 

F. Transparency (10% of overall score)


This Measurement Theme seeks to recognise companies that disclose relevant information on human rights, regardless of whether the disclosed information is sufficient to meet a Score 1 or 2 in a CHRB indicator. ‘Disclosure points’ are awarded to companies that report relevant information related to a CHRB indicator against specific requirements under the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework (UNGPRF) reporting standards or equivalent standards. The rationale of this Measurement Theme is to encourage even poor performing companies to become more transparent, as a first step towards respect for human rights.
 

transparency-snapshot.png

Aside from the Responses to Serious Allegations Measurement Theme (which is scored in a different way from other Measurement Themes), Transparency is the highest scoring Measurement Theme for all industries. This indicates that companies are starting to disclose general information on human rights. However scores are still low overall, with an average of 30.2%, with only 16 companies scoring more than 50%, and 4 companies scoring 0 points in this Measurement Theme. 

These results signal the need for greater transparency by companies, and highlight the challenge for stakeholders – including investors – to be able to understand which companies are engaged on human rights, reward those demonstrating commitment and respect, and identify what interventions might be needed for those yet to start or not yet demonstrating their progress. 

For more detail, see the Key Findings Report.