Investments aligned with this Strategic Goal aim to improve occupational safety and health, as well as broader physical and mental well-being, among all workers and their families. This may include reactive measures to address workplace stress or gender-specific interventions focusing on areas such as violence at work, as well as proactive measures to improve job fulfillment and promote healthy lifestyles.
Investors interested in deploying this strategy should consider the scale of the addressable problem, what positive outcomes might be, and how important the change would be to the people (or planet) experiencing it.
Key questions in this dimension include:
Work impacts people’s health and well-being in many different ways. Some occupations or tasks may be laborious and carry the risk of injury, or worse; meanwhile, almost all jobs carry psychosocial risk, such as some level of stress or anxiety, including both physical and mental health challenges related to discrimination or prejudice. Keeping workers safe, mentally and physically healthy, satisfied, and engaged helps individuals—and the organizations for which they work—to maximize their potential and create positive working environments.
Stress and exposure to any form of violence in the workplace has negative implications for individuals, businesses, and society; workers may suffer mental and physical health impairments, sometimes with long-term effects. Witnesses or bystanders to bullying, harassment, and other types of violence may be affected when there is a climate of fear. This can negatively impact job satisfaction and commitment (1). Good health and well-being can therefore drive employee engagement and organizational performance (2). Conversely, companies that fail to mitigate employee stress and provide a violence-free environment could experience increased absenteeism from sickness, higher turnover rates, and reduced productivity. Such companies also face reputational risk (3).
Investments aiming to improve workplace well-being can support companies to:
Target stakeholders can then experience the following commonly sought outcomes, among others:
According to ILO estimates, every year close to three million people die as a result of occupational accidents or work-related diseases, alongside 374 million work-related injuries. In addition to the vast human cost of this daily adversity, the economic burden of poor occupational safety and health practices reaches an estimated 3.94% of global GDP (4). Global estimates of mental health and wellbeing are scarce, but work in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom has assessed their impact. A Deloitte study in Canada found that annual direct costs totaled around CAD 50 billion (roughly USD 38 billion), affecting 500,000 workers per week, and another in the United Kingdom estimated the annual costs around GBP 33 to 42 billion, with around 1,800 employees per 100,000 reporting stress, anxiety, or depression caused or made worse by work (5,6).
Investors interested in deploying this strategy should consider whom they want to target, as almost every strategy has a host of potential beneficiaries. While some investors may target women of color living in a particular rural area, others may set targets more broadly, e.g., women. Investors interested in targeting particular populations should focus on strategies that have been shown to benefit those populations.
Key questions in this dimension include:
Improving health and well-being at the workplace positively impacts workers and their families, as well as the enterprises at which they work. The following groups are most directly impacted.
The following are intermediate target stakeholders for this Strategic Goal.
The cost of work-related accidents varies by region. The highest losses as a percent of GDP are found in the low- and middle-income countries of Southeast Asia (4.5%), and the smallest losses are found in high-income countries (3.2%). In Africa, losses are estimated at 4% of GDP (15).
The results of a survey on working conditions in 31 EU countries indicated that 2% of workers (10 million) are subject to physical violence from people at their workplace, 4% of workers (20 million) are subject to physical violence from people outside their workplace, 2% of workers (10 million) are subject to sexual harassment, and 5% of workers (25 million) are subject to intimidation and bullying (17). These rates may underreported, as many survivors of harassment choose not to report for a variety of reasons. Rates of violence are higher for those in precarious employment, women are more exposed to sexual harassment, and work intensity seems to exacerbate tensions in the workplace (18).
Dimensions of Impact: CONTRIBUTION
Investors considering investing in a company or portfolio aligned with this strategy should consider whether the effect they want to have compares to what is likely to happen anyway. Is the investment's contribution ‘likely better’ or ‘likely worse’ than what is likely to occur anyway across What, How much and Who?
Key questions in this dimension include:
Organizations can consider contribution at two levels — at the enterprise level and at the investor level. At the enterprise level, contribution is “the extent to which the enterprise contributed to an outcome by considering what would have otherwise happened in absence of their activities (i.e. a counterfactual scenario).” To learn more about methods for assessing counterfactuals, see the Impact Management Project. At the investor level, organizations can use a number of strategies to contribute toward impact, and details specific to this Strategic Goal are below.
Investors in projects that improve health and well-being in the workplace can contribute toward solutions as follows.
Growing new or undersupplied capital markets. Enterprises and employers may find it difficult to see the returns on investments in workers’ health and well-being, which they perceive to be a cost rather than an investment (23). Investors can provide capital specifically for implementing changes in companies to systematically improve these aspects in the workplace, enabling impact that would otherwise not occur.
Providing flexible capital. SMEs, which comprise 90% of firms worldwide, frequently face higher transaction costs and interest rates compared to large enterprises, limiting their ability to obtain financing (24, 25). SMEs therefore may need affordable capital to implement improvements to their work environments.
Dimensions of Impact: HOW MUCH
Investors deploying capital into investments aligned with this strategy should think about how significant the investment's effect might be. What is likely to be the change's breadth, depth, and duration?
Key questions in this dimension include:
The ILO estimates that some 2.3 million women and men around the world succumb to work-related accidents or diseases every year, which corresponds to more than 6,000 deaths every single day (19). Worldwide, each year, there are around 340 million occupational accidents and 160 million victims of work-related illness.
Potential impact will vary according to the improvements targeted, which may include improvements in business infrastructure or machinery to improve safety, aspects of health (such as access to clean water and air), measures to improve the working environment (such as stress mitigation or anti-violence), or any combination of these. Some examples of the impact of improved health and well-being in the workplace include the following.
Key questions in this dimension include:
Impact risk factors for investments in line with this Strategic Goal include the following.
*For examples of country specific-mechanisms, see: ILO, Improving Safety and Health in Micro-, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An overview of initiatives and delivery mechanisms, 2020.
In general, these risks could lead to losses for the investee, investors, and, most importantly, for the target stakeholders, who suffer the most from an uncontrolled working environment in the form of long-term and negative social and economic impacts on their livelihoods and families. Investees and investors could also face reputational damage. Their intended impact may also not be achieved.
The ILO’s Social Finance flagship program, Microfinance for Decent Work, tested innovative approaches to foster social impact through the delivery of financial and non-financial services to MFI clients. The program worked with one MFI in India (BASIX) to enhance the client’s work environment, introducing training on productivity and increased workplace safety and health. The program’s impact evaluation showed that clients decreased workplace injuries and illnesses by 11%, reduced average daily work hours by 73 minutes, and improved monthly income by USD 37; moreover, 54% of clients increased adoption of new technologies and practices to, for example, ease physical labor (28).
One of the portfolio companies of Shinsei Bank Group's HATARAKU Fund, Unifa, is a technology company that provides AI- and IoT-powered childcare solutions to track the development of nursery children and improve the working environment in the nursery industry. By providing one-stop digital service to support nursery workers’ endless and labor-intensive work, Unifa breaks the vicious circle of overwork and mental strain that would otherwise worsen turnover and lead to less time dedicated to nursery children. As of December 2019, the company has contracted 7,450 childcare facilities hosting 350,000 children (out of 34,000 across Japan).
1
Helge Hoel, Kate Sparks, and Cary L. Cooper, The Cost of Violence/Stress at Work and the Benefits of a Violence/Stress-Free Working Environment (Geneva: ILO, January 2001).
2
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), Health and Well-Being at Work (London: CIPD, March 2020).
3
Hoel et al., Violence/Stress at Work.
4
5
Sarah Champan, Ariel Kangasniemi, Laura Maxwell, and Marie Sereneo, The ROI in Workplace Mental Health Programs: Good for People, Good for Business (Toronto: Deloitte Canada, November 2019).
6
7
Valentina Beghini, Umberto Cattaneo, and Emanuela Pozzan, A Quantum Leap for Gender Equality: For a Better Future of Work for All (Geneva: ILO, March 2019).
8
ILO, “Violence at Work in the European Union,” June 2009
9
Fundación ONCE and the ILO Global Business and Disability Network, Making the Future of Work Inclusive of People with Disabilities (Geneva: ILO, November 2019).
10
11
ILO Bureau for Worker’s Activities, From Precarious Work to Decent Work: Outcome Document to the Workers’ Symposium on Policies and Regulations to Combat Precarious Employment (Geneva: ILO, 2012).
12
13
Julia Kreis and Wolfgang Bödeker, Health-Related and Economic Benefits of Workplace Health Promotion and Prevention: Summary of the Scientific Evidence (Bonn: BKK Bundesverband and HVBG, 1996), 28.
14
15
Dietmar Elsler, Jukka Takala, and Jouko Remes, “An International Comparison of the Cost of Work-Related Accidents and Illnesses” (Discussion Paper, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, presented at the XXI World Congress on Safety and Health at Work, Singapore, September 8, 2017).
16
17
18
19
20
Drusilla Brown, Rajeev Dehejia, Ann Rappaport, Elyse Voegeli, Mary Davis, Raymond Robertson et al., Progress and Potential: How Better Work Is Improving Garment Workers’ Lives and Boosting Factory Competitiveness (Geneva: ILO, 2016)
21
22
CIPD, Health and Well-Being at Work.
23
Safeday, Workplace Stress: A Collective Challenge (Geneva: ILO, April 2016).
24
ILO, World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2017 (Geneva: ILO, January 2017).
Jan de Kok, Mario Berrios, and Merten Sievers, Small Matters: Global Evidence on the Contribution to Employment by the Self-Employed, Micro-Enterprises and SMEs (Geneva: ILO, October 2019)
27
Giuliana de Rosa, Bjarke Refslund, and Dafne Papandrea, Improving Safety and Health in Micro-, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: An Overview of Initiatives and Delivery Mechanisms (Geneva: ILO, March 2020).
This mapped evidence shows what outcomes and impacts this strategy can have, based on academic and field research.
Henke, R. M., Head, M. A., Kent, K. B., Goetzel, R. Z., Roemer, E. C., & McCleary, K. (2019). Improvements in an Organization’s Culture of Health Reduces Workers’ Health Risk Profile and Health Care Utilization. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 61(2), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001479
Xuezheng Qin, Jay Pan, Gordon G. Liu, Does participating in health insurance benefit the migrant workers in China? An empirical investigation,
China Economic Review, Volume 30, 2014, Pages 263-278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2014.07.009.
Kevin Daniels, Kevin Delany, Jennifer Napier, Martin Hogg, Molly Rushworth, The Value of Occupational Health to Workplace Wellbeing, 2019
Can better working conditions improve the performance of SMEs?: an international literature review / Richard Croucher, Bianca Stumbitz, Ian Vickers, Michael Quinlan, Wendy Banfield, Michael Brookes, Thomas Lange, Suzan Lewis, John Mcllroy, Lilian Miles, Daniel Ozarow, Marian Rizov, International Labour Office. – Geneva: ILO, 2013
Goetzel RZ, Henke RM, Tabrizi M, Pelletier KR, Loeppke R, Ballard DW, Grossmeier J, Anderson DR, Yach D, Kelly RK, McCalister T, Serxner S, Selecky C, Shallenberger LG, Fries JF, Baase C, Isaac F, Crighton KA, Wald P, Exum E, Shurney D, Metz RD. Do workplace health promotion (wellness) programs work? J Occup Environ Med. 2014 Sep;56(9):927-34. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000276. PMID: 25153303.
Seth A. Seabury, Sophie Terp, and Leslie I. Boden, Racial And Ethnic Differences In The Frequency Of Workplace Injuries And Prevalence Of Work-Related Disability, Health Affairs 2017 36:2, 266-273. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1185
Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees’ subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Human Relations, 70(8), 1017–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717693073
Each resource is assigned a rating of rigor according to the NESTA Standards of Evidence.
This starter set of core metrics — chosen from the IRIS catalog with the input of impact investors who work in this area — indicate performance toward objectives within this strategy. They can help with setting targets, tracking performance, and managing toward success.
Indicates the number of occupational fatalities and injuries of full-time, part-time, and temporary employees of the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote details about these occupational fatalities and injuries as well as plans on how to prevent similar fatalities in the future.
An occupational fatality occurs if an event or exposure results in the fatal injury or fatal illness of a person, either on the employer's premises while the person was there to work, or off the employer's premise while the person was there to work (or the event/exposure was related to the person's work or status as an employee). Organizations can refer to the following sources for additional guidance:
-United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
-International Labor Organization, Safety and Health Statistics
To understand the key indicator that will be used to measure the outcome (improved occupational safety), which is a critical step in measuring progress toward the Strategic Goal.
Indicates whether the organization has policies in place to monitor, evaluate, and ensure worker safety.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote details around the policies, including the practices in place to ensure compliance. See usage guidance for further information.
Worker safety entails placing and maintaining the worker in an environment adapted to the worker’s physiological and psychological capabilities, preventing health-related departures caused by working conditions, promoting and maintaining the physical, mental, and social well-being of workers in all occupations, protecting workers from health risks resulting from working conditions, etc.
Examples of relevant policy details to footnote include: the process in place to assess safety risks, the frequency with which the risks are assessed, the training and equipment provided to mitigate these risks, etc.
To understand whether the organization has a worker safety policy in place, which can be helpful in assessing whether the organization has the systems in place to support occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Indicates whether the organization implements a feedback system to solicit employee feedback and has an established procedure and/or committee to receive and handle employee feedback.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote the details on the process and frequency by which they obtain and handle employee feedback. See usage guidance for further information.
Aligned to GRI 403-4a. For further details on calculation and inclusions, see GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018.
For this strategic goal, organizations are encouraged to specifically describe in footnotes the processes for worker participation and consultation in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the occupational health and safety management system, and for providing access to and communicating relevant information on occupational health and safety to workers.
To understand whether the organization has an employee feedback system in place that appropriately allows for worker participation in occupational health and safety management, which can be helpful in assessing whether the organization has the systems in place to support occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Indicates the number of cases of recordable work-related ill health of full-time, part-time, and temporary employees of the organization during the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including the types of occupational illnesses and mitigation actions going forward. Organizations should also footnote which workers were included in the calculation.
Sourced from GRI 403-10.a.ii. For further details on calculation and inclusions, see GRI 403: Occupational Health and Safety 2018.
Occupational illness is a negative impact on health arising from exposure to hazards at work. Examples of work situations or activities that can cause occupational diseases can include stress or regular exposure to harmful chemicals. This definition is based on the International Labour Organization's Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems.
To understand the number of cases of occupational illness experienced by employees of the organization, which can be helpful in assessing employee mental health and well-being.
Percentage of days scheduled to be worked that were taken off of work by affected full-time, part-time, and temporary employees as a result of occupational illness or injuries during the reporting period.
(Total days lost within the reporting period / Total number of hours scheduled to be worked in the reporting period) x 100
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including the types of occupational illnesses and injuries that contributed to days taken off of work. Organizations should also footnote which workers were included in the calculation.
Sourced from GRI 403-2.
Lost Day Rate (NEW) can be calculated for a specific category of workers. This is specified in the respective disclosure in the GRI Standards, and can be measured using IRIS metrics including Permanent Employees: Total (OI8869) and Temporary Employees (OI9028).
To understand time off work by the affected workers who have experienced occupational illness or injury, which can be helpful in understanding occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Percentage of days scheduled to be worked during the reporting period in which full-time, part-time, and temporary employees were absent from work.
(Total absentee days lost / Total days scheduled to be worked in the reporting period) x 100
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including reasibs for absences, if available. Organizations should also footnote which workers were included in the calculation.
Sourced from GRI 403-2.
Worker absent from work because of incapacity of any kind, not just as the result of work-related injury or disease. However, Employee Absenteeism Rate (NEW) excludes permitted leave absences such as holidays, study, maternity or paternity leave, and compassionate leave.
Employees Absenteeism Rate (NEW) can be calculated for a specific category of workers. This is specified in the respective disclosure in the GRI Standards, and can be measured using IRIS metrics including Permanent Employees: Total (OI8869) and Temporary Employees (OI9028).
To understand absences from work, which can be helpful in understanding occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Yes/No
While the above core metrics provide a starter set of measurements that can show outcomes of a portfolio targeted toward this goal, the additional metrics below — or others from the IRIS catalog — can provide more nuance and depth to understanding your impact.
Number of full-time equivalent employees working for enterprises financed or supported by the organization as of the end of the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
While this metric requests full-time equivalent job information, organizations are encouraged to also provide the breakdown of this data for full-time and part-time positions supported/financed.
In calculating the number of full-time equivalent jobs, part-time jobs should be converted to full-time equivalent jobs on a pro rata basis, based on local definition (e.g., if the standard working week equals 40 hours, a 20 hour per week job would be equal to a 0.5 FTE job). Both full-time and part-time jobs should be calculated based on the number of employees employed as of the end of the reporting period. Seasonal or short-term jobs should be prorated based on the time worked throughout the reporting period (e.g., a full-time position for three months at any point during the reporting period would be equal to a 0.25 FTE job). Note that in the United States, the U.S. Treasury Department defines a working week as 35 hours. See glossary definition for more information on how to calculate full-time equivalent.
To understand number of jobs in enterprises directly supported by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing employees’ ability to find, grow and retain employment or work.
Number of full-time equivalent employees working for enterprises financed or supported by the organization at the beginning of the reporting period who remain at the organization as of the end of the reporting period.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. Organizations that report data using more than one reporting period should make very apparent which reporting period they are using for this metric. See usage guidance for further information.
Self employed individuals and owners of businesses should be counted as employees.
While this metric requests data on full-time equivalents, organizations are encouraged to also provide the breakdown of these data for full- and part-time positions supported/financed. Organizations can refer to the full-time equivalent glossary term for more detail, including notes on its calculation. In brief, in calculating the number of full-time equivalent jobs, part-time jobs should be converted to full-time equivalent jobs on a pro rata basis based on local definitions (for example, if the standard working week equals 40 hours, a 20-hour-per-week job would be 0.5 FTE). Both full- and part-time jobs should be calculated based on the number employed as of the end of the reporting period. Seasonal or short-term jobs should be prorated based on the time worked throughout the reporting period. (For example, a full-time position for three months at any point during the reporting period would be 0.25 FTE.) Note that, in the United States, the U.S. Treasury Department defines a working week as 35 hours.
Organizations may choose to disclose employment by function (examples: operations and maintenance, construction, land conservation).
To understand number of jobs maintained in enterprises directly supported by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing employees’ ability to find, grow and retain employment or work.
Net number of new full-time equivalent employees working for enterprises financed or supported by the organization between the beginning and end of the reporting period.
Many organizations may choose the beginning of the reporting period to be the time when the organization began its support/investment.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. Organizations that report data using more than one reporting period should make very apparent which reporting period they are using for this metric. See usage guidance for further information.
While this metric requests data on full-time equivalents, organizations are encouraged to also provide the breakdown of these data for full- and part-time positions supported/financed. Organizations can refer to the full-time equivalent glossary term for more detail, including notes on its calculation. In brief, in calculating the number of full-time equivalent jobs, part-time jobs should be converted to full-time equivalent jobs on a pro rata basis based on local definitions (for example, if the standard working week equals 40 hours, a 20-hour-per-week job would be 0.5 FTE). Both full- and part-time jobs should be calculated based on the number employed as of the end of the reporting period. Seasonal or short-term jobs should be prorated based on the time worked throughout the reporting period. (For example, a full-time position for three months at any point during the reporting period would be 0.25 FTE.) Note that, in the United States, the U.S. Treasury Department defines a working week as 35 hours.
Organizations may choose to disclose employment by function (examples: operations and maintenance, construction, land conservation).
To understand number of jobs created in enterprises directly supported by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing employees’ ability to find, grow and retain employment or work.
Describes the benefits that are provided to full-time employees of the organization during the reporting period
N/A
Organizations should footnote eligibility requirements for different types of benefits and the number of employees who enroll in each benefit offering.
Typical benefits provided to employees include health insurance, dental insurance, disability coverage, life insurance, maternity/paternity leave, paid time off, retirement provisions, stock ownership, and others.
For this strategic goal, organizations are also encouraged to footnote wellness programs, commuting/travel assistance, meals, vision insurance, telecommuting options, and other benefits focused on occupational safety, mental health, and well-being.
To understand what benefits are available to employees, which can be helpful in assessing occupational safety and employee mental health and well-being.
Percentage of a full-time employee’s healthcare premium that is covered. This should be based on benefits available to full-time employees as of the end of the reporting period
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
Benefits premiums could be covered directly by the organization or by regional governmental programs in the region of operations. Provide a weighted average based upon number of employees if percentage differs among full-time employees.
Subtracting this percentage from 1 (one) would give the percentage that employees were responsible for covering.
To understand what percent of health-related benefit premiums are covered by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Indicates whether the organization offers flexible work arrangements to full-time, part-time, or temporary employees of the organization.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote details of the flexible arrangements offered and the uptake of them. See usage guidance for further information.
Examples of flexible work arrangements may include choosing work shift, choosing flexible working hours (allowing freedom to vary start and stop times), working from remote locations (telecommuting), job-sharing, or other(report additional details).
To understand benefits offered to employees related to flexibility in work arrangements, which can be helpful in assessing employees’ mental health and well-being.
Indicates whether the organization has policies in place to monitor, evaluate, and ensure appropriate working hours of employees, as well as a system to monitor compliance.
Yes/No
Organizations should footnote all assumptions made, including details around the policies and systems in place to ensure compliance.
This metric is intended to capture whether the organization has a policy in place to screen for appropriate working hours of employees, as well as a system to monitor compliance. This metric may be used by organizations who want to screen for appropriate working hours at directly supported/financed enterprises or SME clients.
Given complexity of measuring hours worked by employees of SME client organizations, checking for a policy in place is a good alternative. This metric is focused on working hours of employees. For polices related to safety and working conditions of employees, refer to Worker Safety Policy (OI8001).
To understand conditions in place around work culture and environment within the organization, which can be helpful in assessing employees’ mental health and well-being.
Value of the costs incurred by the organization as a result of training provided to employees (full-time, part-time, or temporary) during the reporting period
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including what percentage of these costs come from trainings related to occupational health and safety.
These costs should not include salary/payroll expenses that are incurred during the training hours.
For this strategic goal, this metric should be disaggregated by those trainings focused on occupational health and safety training.
Training cost varies enormously depending on level of services provided to participants, whether an organization has staff dedicated to engage employer networks, the level of need in the community where the program is located requiring more outreach, or provision of financial support to participants, which can make comparisons in employee training costs across organizations problematic if not accompanied by additional metrics that specify level of services provided as well as level of local need. To address this issue, the IRIS+ system offers a core set of metrics than can help guide more comprehensive and industry-validated IMM.
To understand the organization’s investment in a key aspect of work culture and environment, which can be helpful in assessing occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Number of training hours provided for employees (full-time, part-time, or temporary) during the reporting period
N/A
Organizations should footnote the types of training provided, particularly those that lead to recognized certifications. For this strategic goal, organizations should also footnote the number of hours dedicated to occupational health and safety training.
This metric is intended to capture the sum of all training hours provided to employees. It is not intended to capture the average number of training hours per employee. Trainings may include both internal and external opportunities provided by the organization.
Training can be categorized as: (1) skills-based training to advance core job responsibilities (enhancing employees’ ability to do their jobs effectively); (2) skills-based training on cross-job functions (training beyond regular job responsibilities, enabling employees’ to advance in their professions); (3) training on literacy, communications, and other life skills; or (4) trainings related to diversity and inclusion (for example, training on implicit bias or sexual harassment). Organizations should footnote details on the training(s) provided, including the type.
To understand quantity of training provided that is focused on occupational health and safety.
Ratio reflecting score obtained of the organization’s full-time, part-time, and temporary employees who are likely to recommend working for the organization at the end of the reporting period, compared with those who are unlikely to recommend it.
(% employees who rank themselves as likely to recommend (9-10 on scale) ) -( % employees who rank themselves as unlikely to recommend (0-6 on scale))
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. Organizations should also note how data was collected. See usage guidance for further information.
This metric can also be understood as a Net Promoter Score. For further information and guidance on this calculation, see NetPromoter.com.
Organizations can use the question "How likely is it that you would recommend working for [organization] to a friend or colleague?" to collect data from employees against this metric. Respondents should rank their likelihood to recommend on a 0-10 scale, with 0 representing "not at all likely to recommend," 10 representing "extremely likely to recommend," and 5 representing "neutral." Employees ranking themselves as a 9 or 10 are considered "extremely likely" or "Promoters." Employees ranking themselves as a 7 or 8 are considered "Passives." Employees ranking themselves as 0-6 are considered "unlikely" or "Detractors."
To understand employees' satisfaction with the organization's work culture and environment, which can be important context in assessing occupational safety and employees' mental health and well-being.
Average tenure of employees of the organization as of the end of the reporting period.
Sum of each employee's tenure / Number of employees
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
Where applicable, footnote the date used as a start date for the tenure calculation such as: immediately upon employment, upon satisfactory completion of a probation period, etc.
To understand the average length of time an employee works at the organization, which can be helpful in assessing occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Ratio of the number of involuntarily departing permanent (full-time and part-time) employees, compared to the average number of permanent (full-time and part-time) employees at the organization during the reporting period.
(Departed Permanent Employees: Involuntary) / (Average Number of Permanent Employees during the reporting period)
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
The number of departed permanent employees should only include employees departing the organization involuntarily. Organizations can refer to Departed Permanent Employees: Involuntary (OI7225) for additional information on involuntary departures.
The average number of permanent employees can be calculated a number of ways. One example for organizations reporting on a yearly basis is to calculate the average number of permanent employees on a monthly basis.
To understand the rate of involuntary departures from the organization, which can be helpful in assessing occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Ratio of the number of permanent (full-time and part-time) employees that departed voluntarily, compared to the average number of permanent (full-time and part-time) employees at the organization during the reporting period.
(Departing Permanent Employees: Voluntary) / (Average Number of Permanent Employees during the reporting period)
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used. See usage guidance for further information.
The number of departed permanent employees should only include employees departing the organization voluntarily. Organizations can refer to Departed Permanent Employees: Voluntary (OI8431) for additional information on voluntary departures.
The average number of permanent employees can be calculated a number of ways. One example for organizations reporting on a yearly basis is to calculate the average number of permanent employees on a monthly basis.
To understand the rate of voluntary departures from the organization, which can be helpful in assessing occupational safety and employees’ mental health and well-being.
Net number of new full-time equivalent employees living in low income areas working for enterprises financed or supported by the organization between the beginning and end of the reporting period.
Many organizations may choose the beginning of the reporting period to be the time when the organization began its support/investment.
N/A
Organizations should footnote all assumptions used, including how low income areas are identified. Organizations that report data using more than one reporting period should make very apparent which reporting period they are using for this metric. See usage guidance for further information.
Organizations can refer to the glossary for additional information on defining low-income areas.
While this metric requests data on full-time equivalents, organizations are encouraged to also provide the breakdown of these data for full- and part-time positions supported/financed. Organizations can refer to the full-time equivalent glossary term for more detail, including notes on its calculation. In brief, in calculating the number of full-time equivalent jobs, part-time jobs should be converted to full-time equivalent jobs on a pro rata basis based on local definitions (for example, if the standard working week equals 40 hours, a 20-hour-per-week job would be 0.5 FTE). Both full- and part-time jobs should be calculated based on the number employed as of the end of the reporting period. Seasonal or short-term jobs should be prorated based on the time worked throughout the reporting period. (For example, a full-time position for three months at any point during the reporting period would be 0.25 FTE.) Note that, in the United States, the U.S. Treasury Department defines a working week as 35 hours.
Organizations may choose to disclose employment by function (examples: operations and maintenance, construction, land conservation).
To understand number of jobs created in low-income areas in enterprises directly supported by the organization, which can be helpful in assessing employees’ ability to find, grow and retain employment or work.