Rationale for Change
- 26 May 2022
- 2 Minutes to read
- Print
- PDF
Rationale for Change
- Updated on 26 May 2022
- 2 Minutes to read
- Print
- PDF
Article Summary
Share feedback
Thanks for sharing your feedback!
Introduction
We created an article last week about the evolution of scoring methods. We have got many questions based on the white paper. In this article, we are answering them as approved by the research team and the online report available to us.
Note: We have still not verified the answer from the team yet and these answers are the best of our knowledge
Why these changes were made to the methodology? (asked by Sustainable Outcomes Analyst)
There were 5 Key outcomes that were suggested during the review and stakeholder dialogues based on which the changes were made.
- A sharper focus on the measurement areas, and fewer indicators
- Removing indicator categories from measurement areas
- Cancelling the option of providing data under non-disclosure
- Continuing to focus on food crops
- Adding questions on the implications of COVID-19 for seed business activities
You can read more about it on page 22 of the methodology document.
How the impacts of making changes were managed? (asked by Sustainable Outcomes Analyst)
The following things were considered for impact
There was no direct comparison the older results were linked in the ranking table here
Interesting to see the results for 2021 and 2019 and the reduction. Wondering if it’s due to Covid? (asked by ESG Consultant)
No, Covid did not have an impact on reduction. The reason for the reduction is given in question 1. However, To determine the impact of COVID-19 on seed businesses, the index survey will include questions about the implications of pandemic lockdowns in relation to relevant indicators. However, the data collected will not be used for company assessment.
Why were the Categories of indicators removed in the latest methodology? (asked by Director of Technology)
Categorising indicators in each measurement area in four categories – commitment, performance, transparency and leadership – was rather complex. To simplify the methodology, the indicator categories were removed. Depending on data requirements, the former categories are still embedded in the indicators, albeit less explicitly and mainly focused on action-oriented data. Removing indicator categories has been the main driver of reducing the number of indicators.
What are the primary reasons to reduce the number of indicators so drastically? (asked by Director of Technology)
Evaluation of the 2019 index and feedback from key stakeholders proposed reviewing the measurement areas and reducing the number of indicators. A significant outcome of the review is the combination of two measurement areas – genetic resources and IP – with fewer but more focused indicators within the combined measurement area. Further proposed adjustments benefit the alignment with WBA and the role of the 2021 index as a spotlight benchmark under WBA’s food and agriculture transformation. The alignment of the index with the Food and Agriculture Benchmark is mainly reflected in the governance and strategy measurement area. Overall, 27 indicators were removed, taking the total number from 59 to 32.
- The alignment with WBA and the role of the 2021 index as a spotlight benchmark under WBA’s food and agriculture transformation
- Mainly focused on action-oriented data which means the performance of the companies
- WBA seeks to promote the importance of increasing the transparency and accountability of the private sector
- The 2021 index will only assess companies for their activities in providing access to quality seed for food crops
What did it mean for comparability year-on-year, etc.? (asked by Sustainable Outcomes Analyst)
Interesting to see the results for 2021 and 2019 and the reduction. Wondering if it’s due to Covid? (asked by ESG Consultant)
No, Covid did not have an impact on reduction. The reason for the reduction is given in question 1. However, To determine the impact of COVID-19 on seed businesses, the index survey will include questions about the implications of pandemic lockdowns in relation to relevant indicators. However, the data collected will not be used for company assessment.
Why were the Categories of indicators removed in the latest methodology? (asked by Director of Technology)
Categorising indicators in each measurement area in four categories – commitment, performance, transparency and leadership – was rather complex. To simplify the methodology, the indicator categories were removed. Depending on data requirements, the former categories are still embedded in the indicators, albeit less explicitly and mainly focused on action-oriented data. Removing indicator categories has been the main driver of reducing the number of indicators.
What are the primary reasons to reduce the number of indicators so drastically? (asked by Director of Technology)
Evaluation of the 2019 index and feedback from key stakeholders proposed reviewing the measurement areas and reducing the number of indicators. A significant outcome of the review is the combination of two measurement areas – genetic resources and IP – with fewer but more focused indicators within the combined measurement area. Further proposed adjustments benefit the alignment with WBA and the role of the 2021 index as a spotlight benchmark under WBA’s food and agriculture transformation. The alignment of the index with the Food and Agriculture Benchmark is mainly reflected in the governance and strategy measurement area. Overall, 27 indicators were removed, taking the total number from 59 to 32.
Other questions we would like to get answers to are
Is there any particular research to simplify scoring so much, something that is not published?
What was one thing you wish you could have included in the scoring method but were not able to and why?
Was this article helpful?