SRSG Consultation >> Tracking and reporting performance

You can register to reply to this topic

Tracking and reporting performance

Updated 26 April 2010: The Special Representative has been collecting views and feedback; here he aims to test some of the propositions that are emerging.

As with any other business issue, tracking performance on human rights is essential to knowing and showing whether policies are being effectively implemented and to driving improvement. Tracking performance creates a critical feedback loop for companies, and reporting enables stakeholders to better understand and engage with companies and compare performance within and across industries.

Both tracking and reporting performance require good metrics, or key performance indicators, whether qualitative or quantitative. Some metrics might be more useful for tracking performance within a company; other information might be more useful for communicating performance to external stakeholders.

Companies are beginning to experiment with more dynamic formats of reporting than the traditional process of collecting data that gets printed in an annual report, for example online dialogues and stakeholder review panels. Some of these methods may enhance participation and inclusion, both of which are important human rights principles.

Questions for discussion:

Are the following propositions reasonable? What is missing?
What are the most important elements and principles of tracking and reporting human rights performance, whether initiated by business or required by states or other parties? What examples would you cite as good practice?
Publicly-listed companies all over the world are accustomed to some form of external reporting. Are there specific considerations or noteworthy good practice for privately-held companies or state-owned enterprises that the Special Representative should take into account?

Propositions:

Companies should track and report their impacts on human rights, including through their relationships, in order to demonstrate that human rights policies are being implemented.
In tracking and reporting human rights performance, companies should include both qualitative and quantitative measures, and report on both processes and outcomes.
In order to meet the requirement that companies ‘know and show’ that they are respecting human rights, reporting processes should incorporate some form of verification. Verification should enhance credibility, and ensure that a balanced picture is being presented and that the views of those affected by the business have been taken into account.

You can register to reply to this topic

Discussion

posted by: lizumlas on Wednesday January 6, 2010

Ratings Relevance: 5

Agreement: 4

In addition to the above-mentioned important elements oftracking and reporting (e.g. candor, stakeholder voices, etc.), good reporting also requires that the reporter step back and consider the big picture regarding its human rights impact. That is, how do actions or factors such as lobbying, political relationships, purchasing practices or even business models themselves affect human rights both locally and globally? This is not an idle or abstract question, particularly for large multinational corporations. It is one that some companies have begun to examine, but it is an area in which public reporting is particularly weak. To the extent companies are willing to discuss these fundamental issues with stakeholders (such as human rights organizations,social investors and others), and to the extent corporate human rights reporting brings to light both these discussions and any changes they engender in corporate behavior, there will be progress in the dialogue about how to reduce negative impact on human rights.

You can register to reply & rate this response

posted by: Annabel Short on Wednesday March 31, 2010

Ratings Relevance: 2

Agreement: 2

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has just published its updated list of "Selected company reports" - 14 of the better corporate reports on human rights issues: http://www.business-humanrights.org/ToolsGuidancePortal/Reporting/Selectedcompanyreports . At the top of that page we list the criteria for selection. Those criteria encapsulate what in our view are key components of a good corporate human rights report:

Overview of the company's human rights issues
Policies and governance
Practical implementation: details of impact assessment, training, management, complaints mechanisms etc.
Impacts, in particular: specific challenges (concerns raised about the company and how the company has dealt with them); positive initiatives; and broader public policy contexts and actions
Engagement with stakeholders / involvement in collaborative initiatives
Commitments & targets for future improvement
Monitoring & verification

You can register to reply & rate this response

posted by: baseswiki on Monday April 26, 2010

Ratings Relevance: 2

Agreement: 2

I'm interested in drawing out the distinction between 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' human rights reporting for a moment:

- What facts, statistics, and metrics should be included in quantitative reporting? It seems to me that establishing consensus on this question will be critical to pushing the human rights framework closer to the point of widespead implementation.

- What would 'qualitative reporting' look like, and how would the reporting be assessed? Are "case stories", understood as in-depth reporting on how a given company handled a human rights dispute in a specific situation, be a good model for this type of reporting? Does gathering multiple / diverse perspectives on human rights policies provide a means for improving the neutrality and inclusiveness of qualitative reporting?

You can register to reply & rate this response