1 - Scoring Methodology
- 11 Apr 2022
- 9 Minutes to read
- Print
- PDF
1 - Scoring Methodology
- Updated on 11 Apr 2022
- 9 Minutes to read
- Print
- PDF
Article summary
Did you find this summary helpful?
Thank you for your feedback
Scoring is the fundamental tool that is used to measure Corporate benchmarks, assessments, indexes, ratings and rankings. In this article, we will see the scoring methodology of 5 initiatives
Palm oil: ESG Policy Transparency Assessments
Introduction
SPOTT uses a detailed framework of indicators and scoring criteria to assess palm oil producers, processors and traders on their public disclosure regarding their organisation, policies and practices related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) best practices. This ensures a fair and consistent approach to assessing all companies on SPOTT. To gain points, a company must make the required information publicly available on its website; within its annual reports, sustainability reports, presentations or other public documents; on the websites of its parent company and/or subsidiaries (if applicable), or on specific third-party platforms (“External sources”).
SPOTT classifies indicators according to the following categories: Organisation, Policy and Practice. Within the practice category, SPOTT differentiates between data that is self-reported by companies and data that is externally verified.
In total there are 191 indicators and some samples are given below
| INDICATORS | ESG | DISCLOSURE TYPES | SCOPE | RULE | SCORE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sustainable palm oil policy or commitment for all its operations | ESG | Policy | N/A | Disabled if only a processor/trader. | [1 point] Yes [0.5 points] Partial [0 points] No |
| High-level position of responsibility for sustainability | G | Organisation | N/A | N/A | [1 point] Yes [0.5 points] Partial [0 points] No |
| Member of multiple industry schemes or other external initiatives to reduce negative environmental or social outcomes associated with palm oil production | ES | Practice | Comprehensive: Member of two or more schemes/initiatives. Limited: Member of only one scheme/initiative; or only subsidiary/parent company is a member of one or more schemes/initiatives. Insufficient: No membership. | N/A | [1 point] Yes [0.5 points] Partial [0 points] No |
| Commitment to biodiversity conservation applies to all suppliers | E | Policy | For growers, disabled if no suppliers including scheme smallholders and independent suppliers | [1 point] Yes [0.5 points] Partial [0 points] No | |
| Provision of personal protective equipment and related training | S | Organisation | Comprehensive: Evidence that company provides personal protective equipment (PPE) and related training in relation to palm oil operations... Limited: Only evidence of PPE or training; or data clearly does not cover all employees... No data; or data over five years old; or undated. | If only a trader, disable if does not have physical possession of the traded product | [1 point] Yes: [0.75 points] Partial: [0.5 points] Partial: [0 points] No: N.B. Companies may report practice in multiple ways but are awarded points for the highest-scoring category |
Total Score
Percentage of points out of 191.
Score by disclosure type: Organisation (39 indicators), Policy (76 indicators) and Practice (76 indicators)
Gender Equality Diagnostic Tool
Introduction
The Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s (‘WGEA’ or ‘Agency’) Gender Equality Diagnostic Tool (Diagnostic Tool) helps you to analyse the status of gender equality and pinpoint gender equality gaps within your organisation. It can be used with the Gender Equality Strategy Guide (the Guide) to assist with the development of a strategy for addressing inequalities. You can use this tool before you develop your overarching strategy or as part of a regular review process.
Begin by using the scoring process in this Diagnostic Tool to identify gender equality focus areas to prioritise. These may be areas that are relevant to your organisation that have a lower total score (indicating that there is still plenty of work to do). Use your judgement to determine where you should focus your actions. Use the scoring outcomes as a checklist and focus on developing goals and objectives in the areas where you would like to make improvements.
Focus Area 1 - Strategic alignment of gender equality and business priorities
| SCORE | |||
| A | Does your organisation have a current gender equality policy? | NO = 0 points YES for A = 1 point each YES for B = 2 points each YES for C = 3 points each YES for D = 4 points each | |
| B | Does your organisation have a current gender equality strategy? | ||
| B | Does your organisation hold regular gender equality events to profile your policy or strategy and planning process? | ||
| C | Is your gender equality strategy incorporated into your broader business strategy? | ||
| C | Does your gender equality strategy have a dedicated budget? | ||
| D | Does your organisation conduct regular monitoring and evaluation of your gender equality strategy? | ||
| D | Does your organisation report publicly on its performance against its time-specific gender equality objectives? | ||
| TOTAL SCORE | 0 | ||
There are in total 17 Focus Areas like the one mentioned above. The Overall Scorecard will the addition of all the scores in the 17 Focus areas.
Analysis of Results
| OVERALL SCORE | WHERE YOU ARE |
|---|---|
| 19 or less (or mostly ‘yes’ in A questions) | MEETING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS – it is important to be compliant with Agency reporting. However, moving beyond minimum requirements will help deliver positive change for employees and the organisation. |
| 20 – 87 (or mostly ‘yes’ in A and B questions) | ACTIVE – at this level employing a strategic approach will help turn ideas into actions. Clearly communicating your commitment to promoting gender equality will help gain employee support and prepare for the change process. |
| 88 – 183 (or mostly ‘yes’ in A, B and C questions) | STRATEGIC – you have successfully created an organisation-wide alignment between gender equality and business priorities. |
| 184 or more (or mostly ‘yes’ in all the questions) | LEADING PRACTICE – you have comprehensively addressed gender equality within your organisation, from compliance to an integrated and strategic approach. There is always more to do. The next step might involve reaching out through your networks, partners and even your customers to share your practice and help them to improve if they need to. |
Having completed the diagnosis process, you have done the work to identify areas where your organisation can focus on promoting gender equality.
Access to Seeds Index
Introduction
Overview of the measurement areas: The index will measure company activity in the six areas that are considered key for increasing access to quality seeds of improved varieties for smallholder farmers in the index regions. A: Governance and strategy B: Genetic resources and intellectual property (IP) management C: Research and development (R&D) D: Seed production E: Marketing and sales F: Capacity building
The index measures and compares the efforts of the world’s leading seed companies to enhance the productivity of smallholder farmers. Matching the expectations of stakeholders in and around the seed industry with company performance helps to clarify the role of the industry. It also brings transparency to the contributions of individual companies. Index findings contribute to an informed dialogue on how companies can step up their efforts.
| Measurement Areas | Number of indicators | Score Weightage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Governance and strategy | 3 | 10% |
| B | Genetic resources and intellectual property management | 6 | 15% |
| C | Research and development | 6 | 20% |
| D | Seed production | 4 | 15% |
| E | Marketing and sales | 8 | 25% |
| F | Capacity building | 5 | 15% |
Scoring approach
Scoring takes place at the indicator level. The index has used a three-point scale with one-point increments of 0, 1, and 2; and a five-point scale of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2. In each case, a score of 0 typically reflects no relevant disclosure and a score of 2 reflects leading performance.
Weighting approach
The allocation of weight across the six measurement areas was based on a consideration of the following. Stakeholder priorities: Extensive input on the methodology was received through stakeholder consultation, which contributed to revisions and updates to the measurement areas, and the relative importance assigned to each area. Business activities that have the greatest impact: Although seed companies engage in a variety of business activities that can have an impact on smallholder farmers, some of those activities have a greater impact than others.
Scoring guideline (1 Example)
A. Governance and strategy (Measurement Area)
A1. Access to seeds for smallholder farmers (Indicator)
| Scoring Criteria | Scores |
|---|---|
| The company does not disclose information regarding its access to seeds strategy, its objectives, and targets, nor its identification and prioritisation process. | 0 |
| The company has set objectives for ensuring access to seeds for smallholder farmers in index countries and discloses progress. | 0.5 |
| The company has a strategy for ensuring access to seeds for smallholder farmers in index countries, which includes an approach to identifying and prioritising at least three measurement areas. | 1 |
| The company has a strategy for ensuring access to seeds for smallholder farmers in index countries which includes an approach to identifying and prioritising at least three measurement areas AND the company discloses time-bound targets for its most relevant access to seeds topic. | 1.5 |
| The company has a strategy for ensuring access to seeds for smallholder farmers in index countries that include the company’s approach, for example, for the conservation of genetic resources and intellectual property rights management, research and development, seed production, marketing and sales and capacity building AND the company discloses time-bound targets for its most relevant access to seeds topic AND periodically reviews the strategy, objectives, and targets. | 2 |
The Responsibility100 Index
Introduction
The Responsibility100 Index is a ranking of the FTSE 100 companies’ social and environmental leadership. The initial framework of the Index was based on their contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It uses data from a range of sources including NGO research, the companies’ own annual and sustainability reporting, UK and US regulators and other publicly-available datasets covering all 100 companies.
All data is taken from companies’ annual and sustainability reports and 20 third-party data sources.
Weighting: They weigh each indicator using a combination of the following four factors
| Engagement | Impact | Relevance | Reliability |
|---|---|---|---|
| This weight is designed to reflect the level of engagement and effort involved. Each indicator is scored on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘low’ to ‘high’ | This weight is designed to reflect the significance of what this indicator entails, relative to the other indicators. Each indicator is scored on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘necessary’ to ‘existential’ to human existence. | This weight is designed to reflect the relevance this indicator has to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Each indicator is scored on a three-point scale, ranging from ‘in the spirit of’ to ‘explicitly referring to’ | This weight is designed to take into account the quality of the data captured by this indicator. Each indicator is scored on a five-point scale ranging from incomplete or unreliable to complete and reliable |
Final scores: Apply weightings to the normalised data in order to calculate two scores: - A normalised ‘Talk’ score, which takes into account those indicators identified as ‘reporting’ or ‘commitment’-related - A normalised ‘Walk’ score, which takes into account those indicators identified as ‘action’- related
| Score | Pillar | Indicator Count | Weight | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Talk | Memberships | 13 | 35% | 100% |
| Targets | 6 | 65% | ||
| Walk | Skills and Education | 9 | 8% | 99% |
| Poverty and Wellbeing | 12 | 11% | ||
| Justice | 13 | 14% | ||
| Good Business | 24 | 18% | ||
| Climate | 21 | 21% | ||
| Equality | 26 | 27% |
Ranking Digital Rights Index
Introduction
The 2020 RDR Index evaluates 26 companies on 58 indicators in three main categories: governance, freedom of expression and information, and privacy. Changes to the methodology resulted in significant score declines for most companies in our ranking, particularly U.S. platforms. The figure below shows the difference between the total 2019 and 2020 scores. This shows that despite some improvements, overall scores went down for the majority of the companies because of methodology changes.
| Categories | Indicator | Element | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| G: Governance (11 Indicators) | G1. Policy Commitment | Does the company make an explicit, clearly articulated policy commitment to human rights, including to freedom of expression and information? | Yes/full disclosure = 100 Partial = 50 No = 0 No disclosure found = 0 N/A excluded from the score and averages |
| G1. Policy Commitment | Does the company make an explicit, clearly articulated policy commitment to human rights, including to privacy? | Same as above | |
| F: Freedom of Expression (24 Indicators) | F1: Access to policies | Are the company’s terms of service easy to find? | Same as above |
| P: Privacy (23 Indicators) | P1(a). Access to privacy policies | Are the privacy policies available in the primary language(s) spoken by users in the company’s home jurisdiction? | Same as above |
Scoring: Companies receive an average score of their performance across all RDR Index indicators. Each indicator has a list of elements, and companies receive credit (full, partial, or no credit) for each element they fulfil. The evaluation includes an assessment of disclosure for every element of each indicator
Call To Action
If you are a leader and are interested in joining our community. Join our LinkedIn Group Sustainability Research & Analysis Community
References:
- Global Corporate Sustainability Benchmark | Assessment | Index | Rating | Ranking - https://73bit.com/MeasuringGlobalCorporateSustainability
- Palm oil: ESG policy transparency assessments - https://www.spott.org/palm-oil/
- Palm Oil Scoring - https://www.spott.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/dlm_uploads/2020/11/SPOTT-Palm-oil-scoring-criteria-2020.pdf
- Palm Oil Company Scorecard - https://www.spott.org/palm-oil/wilmar-international-ltd/
- Access to Seed Index - https://www.accesstoseeds.org/the-index/
- The Responsibility100 Index -
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/intelligence/responsibility/ - The Responsibility100 Methodology - https://www.tortoisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/10/R100-2.2-Methodology-Report-v1.pdf
- Australia's gender equality scorecard - https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2018-19-Gender-Equality-Scorecard_0.pdf
- Gender equality diagnostic tool - https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2019_WGEA_GE_Diagnostic_Tool_0.pdf
- Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index - https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2020/
- The Methodology for the 2021 Access to Seeds Index - https://assets.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/app/uploads/2021/03/WBA-AccesstoSeedsIndex-methodology2021.pdf
- 2021 Access to Seeds Index – Scoring guidelines - https://assets.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/app/uploads/2021/09/2021-Access-to-Seeds-Index-Scoring-guidelines.pdf
- Access to Seed Index Total Ranking - https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/publication/access-to-seeds-index/rankings/
- Ranking Digital Rights 2020 Indicators - https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2020-indicators/
- Ranking Digital Rights 2020 Indicators with guidance - https://rankingdigitalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020RDRIndicators.pdf
- Twitter Company Scorecard - https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2020/companies/Twitter
- Twitter Data and Sources - https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2020/excel/companies/Twitter.xlsx
Was this article helpful?