The current suite of standards is pitched at a very high level of generality. The evaluation team reviewed in detail the Impact Standards for bond issuers. The relevant document sets out several dozen principles across four thematic areas: strategy, management approach, transparency, governance. Many of these principles relate to organizational culture in general, or to measurement and data questions that are well known. None of this is contentious in an SDG context. But given the well documented difficulties associated with setting, verifying and monitoring consistency with (for example) human rights standards, it is difficult to see an added value.
BOX 6. An illustration of the management approach for bond issuers* Taken from the UNDP SDG Impact Standards for bond Issuers 2.1.1 The Issuer embeds respect for human rights in line with the UNGPs, planetary boundaries, and other responsible business practices in its organization-wide policies and practices, including: 2.1.1.1 I ntegrating accountability into organizational culture, business operations, day-to-day roles, cross-functional teams and decision-making processes 2.1.1.2 D emonstrating sufficient diversity across gender, race and other dimensions at the appropriate level of seniority and authority to influence decision-making 2.1.1.3 I mplementing effective grievance and reparation mechanisms with whistle-blowing safeguards for affected stakeholders 2.1.1.4 Ensuring visibility of senior leadership’s commitment throughout the organization, including monitoring performance and conformance and driving a culture of continuous improvement 2.1.1.5 A voiding or reducing negative impacts and promoting respect for human rights in line with the , planetary boundaries and other responsible business practices in supply and value chains * https://sdgimpact.undp.org/assets/Bond-Issuers-Standards_1.0.pdf
Moreover, the standards appear to duplicate approaches to decision-making and management that are widely promoted through other channels. These include United Nations agencies and partnerships (the Principles for Responsible Investment, the UNEP Finance Initiative, the Global Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development), the International Standards Organization (ISO) and a range of private sector actors. Many of the tools deployed by these and other actors working actively with companies, investors and organizations appear to address the same purpose as the Impact Standards. The standards are considered to “build on and complement existing work undertaken by other industry-led initiatives on impact management and measurement”.171 However, respondents to our evaluation operating in creditor agencies and bond markets questioned the value of introducing more standards and principles into a crowded playing field of apex standard-setting agencies (see box 6) at a time when international efforts are focused on the consolidation of standards and reporting systems (see section 5).
171
UNDP, About the SDG Impact Standards, https://sdgimpact.undp.org/assets/About-the-SDG-Impact-Standards.pdf
CHAPTER 5. THE UNDP FINANCING TOOLKIT
65
