Guide d'audit et de mise en œuvre des Normes Universelles de Gestion de la Performance Sociale et Environnementale

Dimension 1 - Social Strategy

Dimension One of the Universal Standards focuses on social strategy. Starting with strategy is important because the first step to achieving good performance is defining what “good” performance is, and then developing a strategy to achieve it. Integrating a social element into the strategy is also important, given the increasing recognition that better customer outcomes strengthen the overall sustainability of the business, and therefore “good” performance must include creating some type of benefits for customers.

Note that each financial service provider (the “provider”) is setting its own social goals. Many different types of benefits for clients are possible. The essential step is for the provider to define its own “social goals,” in line with its vision/mission, capabilities and resource availabilities. They refer the specific benefits that its products and services are expected to create for clients. Then the provider must collect data on its progress toward those goals and use those data to guide decisions.

Dimension One has two standards:

Resources for Dimension 1

Standard 1A. The provider has a strategy to achieve its social goals

Your strategy should specify your target clients, social goals, and a description of how your institution will use products and services to achieve its social goals. It must also define indicators and targets to measure your progress toward your social goals. Each social goal needs to be broken down by at least one target to make it more operational. Each target needs to be measurable by at least one smart indicator.  The reason for defining specifically in your strategy whom you are trying to reach and what you are trying to achieve is that all other decisions that you make, including what expenses to approve in the budget, how to define job responsibilities, whom to hire or promote, and what products and services to offer, all build from the strategy. This guide discusses each element of the strategy below.

Resources for Standard 1A:

This standard has 2 essential practices:

1.A.1 The strategy specifies the provider's target clients, social goals, and how the provider will achieve those goals.

1.A.1.1 The strategy defines the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of target clients.

Different segments of clients face different obstacles and have different needs. For example, income levels, gender, location (rural/urban), and literacy, all affect the types of products, services, and delivery channels that are best suited to a client.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider’s strategy mentions its client segmentation approach with specific demographic and/or socioeconomic characteristics of the client segments it wants to serve and if the board and senior management have a clear and consistent understanding of this.
  • Score “partially” if the strategy mentions at least basic elements of client segmentation with at least one characteristic of each client segment the provider wishes to serve (e.g., “economically-active,”), but does not detail fully its target client segments.  Also score “partially” if the provider has a clear mission statement that mentions target client segments with basic characteristics, but the strategy itself does NOT mention them.  
  • Score “no” if the strategy lacks basic elements of client segmentation with no or unclear demographic and/or socioeconomic characteristics of the clients the provider seeks to serve or if board / senior management cannot share their view on this.
  • To verify consistency among answers to this social audit, compare the scoring here to the scores and comments for the Essential Practice 2B1 (“The provider includes social goals in its operational plan and the CEO/Managing Director holds senior managers accountable for achieving social targets.”)  
Sources of information

Strategic plan / Business plan / provider’s website / board member/CEO interviews

Evidence to provide

Search in the strategic plan and/or the business plan and the provider’s website for any mention of target clients or client segments and how they are described and identified. If not, a mission statement, if available, may offer some information about the type of clients to be served. Cross-check the information identified with the understanding by a board member and the CEO.

If the provider intends to serve all residents (i.e. both men and women, of all income and formal education levels and ages, including ethnic and religious minorities) and/or businesses in terms of size (micro, small, medium or large), maturity (established, new, start-ups), and formality (informal or legal entities) in some or all regions (i.e. in urban, semi-urban, and rural areas) of the country, the strategy must define clearly whom and how the provider wishes to serve (e.g.; offering deposit products to all residents, incl. youth savings accounts, but loans only to established informal and formal micro, small and medium-sized businesses in all sectors, except in agriculture, fisheries and forestry).

If the definition of target clients includes terms such as “marginalized,” “excluded,” or “poor,” use the strategy to clarify what is meant by these labels. For example, “exclusion” can be political, social, geographic, ethnic/racial, religious or economic. The definition of “poverty” may refer to low and/or unstable income, limited assets and limited or no access to healthcare, education, sanitation, or other basic needs.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation

Your strategy should define the characteristics of the people you want to reach. Defining your target market will make it easier for your institution to tailor products and services to client needs and preferences and to set realistic targets for client-level change. Define for example these characteristics:

  • Demographics (e.g., male/female, urban/rural, age)
  • Socio-economic status (e.g., income level, level of education)
  • Access to financial services (e.g., banked/unbanked)
  • Business activity (e.g., agriculture/trade, new businesses/existing businesses)
Resources for indicator 1.A.1.1

1.A.1.2 The strategy identifies the benefits that the provider seeks to create for clients, such as:

  • providing access to the previously excluded
  • reducing vulnerability to shocks
  • building assets / Investing in economic opportunities
  • creating jobs
  • strengthening the roles of women in their household and their local community

The Universal Standards are relevant to every financial service provider that is interested not only in profitability but also in creating benefits for clients. However, not every provider will focus on the same type of benefits. This indicator simply requires the provider to be clear about the type of benefits it is seeking to create as each type of benefit will require its own specific strategy and set of activities.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider’s strategy mentions specific types of benefits that it wishes to create for specific client segments and if the board and senior management have a clear and consistent understanding of this.
    • Note: “Providing products and services” is not sufficient. The strategy must answer “for what?” For example: to invest in economic opportunities, to provide a safe place to save, etc.
  • Score “partially” if the strategy mentions some specific elements but with no reference to specific client segments and/or vague client benefits, such as “improve the quality of life” that do not specify what will improve for specific client segments.  
  • Score “no” if the strategy contains only vague benefits the provider wishes to create without reference to specific client segments or if board / senior management cannot share their view on this.
Sources of information 

Strategic plan / Business plan / provider’s website / board member/CEO interviews

Evidence to provide 

Search in the strategic plan and/or the business plan and the provider’s website for any mention of target clients or client segments and how they are described and identified. If not, a mission statement, if available, may offer some information about the type of clients to be served Note any mention of social goals, outcomes, impact, or benefits for clients described in the strategy. Cross-check the information identified with the understanding by a board member and the CEO.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation

The benefits you wish to provide for clients, also called your “social goals,” describe what positive changes you expect to happen with your chosen target group thanks to the use of your particular products and services. Broadly, there are two types of social goals to consider—outputs and outcomes. Your institution’s output goals describe the actions you will take to improve client well-being (e.g., trainings provided, loans made, savings products proposed). Your institution’s outcome goals describe how your clients, community, or environment will benefit from your products and services (e.g., improvement in business skills, increase in household assets).  

It is important to be clear on whether your goals are output goals or outcome goals. Output goals are typically much easier to measure, but they provide little or no information about changes in clients’ lives. Mostly, they describe access or outreach—the number of clients who are being served with financial and non-financial services. And it is possible for clients to have increased access and also be worse off, for example, if greater access to loans leads to over-indebtedness. Measuring outcomes is more complex, because it requires the use of harder-to-measure indicators related to change, such as empowerment or increased income. However, if your social goals include creating positive change for clients or at least not harming them, then your organization should measure client outcomes too.

Resources for indicator 1.A.1.2

1.A.1.3 The strategy describes how the provider's products and services create positive change for clients.

Whereas indicator 1.A.1.2. focuses on what specific benefits the provider seeks to create, this indicator focuses on how the provider plans to achieve them. The idea is to define what specific products and services will lead to what specific activities and behavioural changes by clients which will, in turn, result in what types of outcomes for clients. This can also refer to the provider’s “theory of change.” The ultimate purpose is to encourage responsible financial inclusion, improve capacity to cope with risks and vulnerability, and contribute to an improved economic situation.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider’s strategy or annual report states how clients will use its products and services, and how, in turn, that will result in positive changes in clients’ lives and if the board and senior management have a clear and consistent understanding of this.  
  • Score “partially” if the strategy or annual report mentions either only step of the chain of activities that ultimately results in benefits for clients (e.g., the provider offers savings products with no minimum fee and therefore poor people open a savings account), but does not mention all the steps in the process (e.g., omits that after clients open savings accounts, then they spend less impulsively because the money is not immediately available in their home, and then they are more able to cope with shocks because they have savings when a shock occurs).  
    • Note: If the strategy is not fully formalized in strategy documents, but is clear for the board and management, then the answer can be a “partially.”
  • Score “no” if no document mentions the how the provider’s products and services create change, or if board / senior management cannot share their view on this.
Sources of information
  • Strategic plan
  • Annual report
  • Interviews with board member/ CEO
 Evidence to provide 

Read the available documents mentioned above. Note any mention of the provider’s theory of change, meaning any causal links it defines between its products/services/activities and outcomes for clients. For example, the strategy might specify in what way the product and service mix (financial and non-financial) and the delivery channels have been designed to reduce financial exclusion, vulnerability, client transaction costs, and/or to promote investment in economic opportunities. Cross-check the information identified with the understanding by a board member and the CEO.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation

The ultimate purpose of delivering products and services is to achieve your social goals, also known as benefits for clients. Your institutional strategy should make it clear how your products, services, and delivery channels are designed to create benefits for clients. In the financial inclusion sector, the types of benefits often sought are reducing barriers to financial inclusion, reducing client vulnerability, and increasing capacity to invest in economic opportunities, but other social goals are possible. Each provider will choose which specific benefits it seeks to create. See here for examples of how a provider can articulate the relationship between its products/services and its social goals.  

For some providers, the process of articulating this relationship will raise questions about whether products/services/delivery channels should be modified to better support the provider’s social goals. For example, your institution might realize that one or more of its social goals will be difficult to achieve given the current product offerings. If this is the case for your institution, you can either modify your social goals so that they are realistic given what you offer to clients, or you can modify your product offerings.

The definition of what inputs and outputs lead to what short- and long-term changes is sometimes called the “theory of change.”  A theory of change is a useful framework for thinking about the sequence of activities that the provider implements in order to achieve short-term and longer-term outcomes.

Resources for indicator 1.A.1.3

1.A.1.4 The provider defines a “do no harm” strategy that articulates how it will mitigate the social risks connected to the use of its products and services:

1.A.1.4.1 Negative effects on clients and their households
1.A.1.4.2 Human rights violations
1.A.1.4.3 Corruption and bribery

Providing access to financial products and services - notably to credit, if the provider fails to assess loan repayment capacity adequately - can harm clients. This is especially true if providers care only about profit, but even providers who sincerely seek to create benefits for clients can create unintentional harm. To mitigate these risks, the provider should define in its strategy the protective measures it can implement to protect clients from negative outcomes related to their income/assets, stress level, well-being of themselves or other household members, human rights violations, corruption, etc.

Scoring guidance 

For each subject in the details:

  • Score “yes” if the strategy mentions clearly protecting the client or household from harm and how the provider is integrating these measures into its operations and if the board and senior management have a clear and consistent understanding of this.  The provider should have a client protection policy and a conduct of conduct to that staff, managers, and board members have to abide to.
  • Score “partially” if the strategy does not or not sufficiently define how it is avoiding harming clients in its strategy, but does implement activities that specifically either seek information from clients on harm they might have experienced or mitigate the risk of client harm (e.g., training staff on client protection, ethical behaviour and rules against corruption in the code of conduct, or seeking client feedback specifically on obstacles, abuse of human right or negative outcomes they have experienced)  
  • Score “no” if the strategy does not or very insufficiently spell out on how to avoid harming clients and no activities implemented by the provider directly relate to reducing risk of clients’ experiencing harm or if board / senior management cannot share their view on this.
Sources of information 
  • Strategic plan
  • Board minutes
  • Reports on client complaints
  • Code of conduct and related trainings
  • Client satisfaction surveys, data from the complaint's mechanism
  • Client outcomes data
  • Board member/ CEO interviews
Evidence to provide

Read the strategic plan, board minutes, and reports that management and/or the board read related to client complaints and client satisfaction. Analyze client outcomes data collected by the provider. Note any evidence of steps taken in advance to avoid harm related for example to over-indebtedness, fraud, violations of data privacy, theft due to insufficient cybersecurity (refer to 4D), but also child labor and domestic violence. Note also the mechanisms implemented to identify harm when it has occurred and to take corrective action. Cross-check the information identified with the understanding by a board member and the CEO.

Detail 1.A.1.4.2

Describe the strategy to avoid adverse impacts on human rights. If there is no explicit commitment or strategy, check if there are major gaps with regards to the relevant indicators of 2.A.3, 2.B.2, 3.B.3, 4.A.1, 4.B.1, 4.C.1, 4.C.3, 4.D.1 and 4.E.1 and/or non-compliances with national client protection laws (if these exist and are robust).

Detail 1.A.1.4.3

Financial Service Providers (regulated and unregulated) are supervised by national authorities according to national AML/FT law. Check if the provider has appropriate anti-money laundering systems and policies (this is also part of the KYC/Know Your Client check) in place to comply with regulatory provisions (e.g. screening of controversial transactions and borrowers in sanctions list or PEP/Political Exposed Person identification) or also internal controls to prevent corruption and bribery from employees (e.g. misappropriation of assets, frauds).

Field examples / Guidance for implementation 

The risk of unintended harm is linked to providing financial services (notably to credit), and even greater when clients are poor or vulnerable, because often they are not as able as others to understand terms and conditions, to advocate for their rights, to recognize and avoid fraud, or even to distinguish among various product offerings to select the one best adapted to their needs.

Evidence shows that the types of harm that clients have experienced due to use of financial products and services include over-indebtedness, loss of productive assets, loss of funds due to corrupt employees or agents, loss of funds due to fraud, abusive land seizure, abusive detention in case of default of payment, bribery, increased child labor, gender-based violence, reduced access (for example, if non-repayment of a loan leads to blacklisting), depression, and stress.

Human rights violations occur when actions of actors violate, ignore or deny basic human rights (including civil, political, cultural, social and economic rights). Corruption includes practices such as bribery, facilitation payments, fraud, extortion, collusion, and money laundering. It also includes an offer or receipt of any gift, loan, fee, reward, or other advantage to or from any person as an inducement to do something that is dishonest, illegal, or a breach of trust in the conduct of the enterprise’s business. This can include cash or in-kind benefits, such as free goods, gifts, and holidays, or special personal services provided for the purpose of an improper advantage, or that can result in moral pressure to receive such an advantage.

OECD MNE Guidance:

Develop and adopt adequate internal controls, ethics and compliance programs or measures for preventing and detecting bribery, developed on the basis of a risk assessment addressing the individual circumstances of an enterprise, in particular the bribery risks facing the enterprise (such as its geographical and industrial sector of operation). These internal controls, ethics and compliance programs or measures should include a system of financial and accounting procedures, including a system of internal controls, reasonably designed to ensure the maintenance of fair and accurate books, records, and accounts, to ensure that they cannot be used for the purpose of bribing or hiding bribery. Such individual circumstances and bribery risks should be regularly monitored and re-assessed as necessary to ensure the enterprise’s internal controls, ethics and compliance program or measures are adapted and continue to be effective, and to mitigate the risk of enterprises becoming complicit in bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion.  

Prohibit or discourage, in internal company controls, ethics and compliance programs or measures, the use of small facilitation payments, which are generally illegal in the countries where they are made, and, when such payments are made, accurately record these in books and financial records. making public commitments against bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion, and disclosing the management systems and the internal controls, ethics and compliance programs or measures adopted by enterprises in order to honor these commitments. Enterprises should also foster openness and dialogue with the public so as to promote its awareness of and cooperation with the fight against bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion.

Resources for indicator 1.A.1.4

1.A.2 The strategy defines indicators and targets to measure the provider's progress toward social goals.

1.A.2.1 The provider has at least one measurable indicator for each social goal

To hold itself accountable to its social goals, the provider must collect specific quantitative and qualitative data, including client output and outcome data, to monitor its performance relative to those goals.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider has defined at least one smart indicator for each of the targets that specify each of its social goals that the provider seeks to achieve, as defined in its strategy, to track progress towards its social goals.
  • Score “partially” if the provider has defined at least one smart indicator for some but not all of its targets that specify some, but not all, of its social goals that it seeks to achieve.
  • Score “no” if the provider has not defined any smart indicators for its social targets and goals and/or has defined only vague indicators to track progress toward its social goals.
    • Note: For consistency, if the provider scores no for EP 1A1, meaning it does not define its social goals, then it should also score no for EP 1A2.
Sources of information 
  • Business plan/ strategic document/ operational plan
  • MIS
  • Client surveys
  • Annual report
  • Social performance dashboards reviewed by the board of directors
  • Social performance dashboards reviewed by management
Evidence to provide 

Note if the provider has a written set of outcomes indicators in any of the documents that management reviews, or if the provider’s MIS has fields that collect and store data on outcomes. Also see if reports that the board and/or management review include social data. And check whether client feedback mechanisms, such as focus groups or satisfaction surveys also include questions about client outcomes.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation

When selecting indicators, consider how well they meet each of the following criteria: relevance, usability, clarity, feasibility, and comparability. Click here for examples of indicators that meet the criteria.

Resources for indicator 1.A.2.1

1.A.2.2 The provider has at least one measurable output and/or outcome target for each social goal.

Targets allow the provider to quantify or better qualify its social goals and/or to better identify selected aspects of rather broad goals, and measure progress towards them. Without the help of concrete and clearly measurable targets, the progress towards the social goals cannot be well tracked so that they lose their operational relevance.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider has defined at least one smart output and/or outcome target for each social goal, but at least two smart client outcome targets that are measured at least annually.
  • Score “partially” if the provider has defined smart output and/or outcome targets for some social goals only and/or no or just one smart client outcome target.
  • Score “no” if the provider has not set any smart targets for its social goals.
Sources of information 
  • Business plan/ strategic document/ operational plan
  • MIS
  • Client surveys
  • Social performance dashboards reviewed by the board of directors
  • Social performance dashboards reviewed by management
Evidence to provide

Search any of the above-mentioned documents for any definition and explanation of targets used to measure each social goal and give examples of precise quantitative targets found. Targets are expressed in quantitative terms, however, they can express qualitative aspects, like satisfaction expressed by clients by scoring. Check whether the targets are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound.

Resources for indicator 1.A.2.2

Standard 1B. The provider collects, analyzes, and reports data that are specific to its social goals.

A provider does not know whether its products are creating benefits for clients unless it collects and analyses data about it. Frequently, providers answer questions about client benefits by showing just easily available transactional portfolio data like numbers of accounts and loan repayments. These data s can look satisfactory, like client outreach, loan portfolio, and deposits (in the case of deposit-taking FSPs) are increasing, loan repayments are mostly on time. However, these transactional data inform about outreach and access only, but not on client outcomes.  Do the use of financial and non-financial services lead to behavioural changes of clients in managing better their household budget and their family businesses, in saving more than before for the education of the children, in seizing economic opportunities to grow their family businesses, in improving their housing conditions, in accessing better health care and so forth? How do such positive client outcomes vary among different client segments?  Are there also negative client outcomes for specific client segments of becoming over-indebted in terms of eating less, reducing the use of health care services, and taking children out of school in order to meet loan repayment obligations and/or loosing household and business assets pledged?

For achieving its social mission, the provider must monitor positive and negative outcomes for all of its client segments and understand how outcomes vary among them. If client outcomes are limited or even negative, the provider should use that information to improve its products/services and their distribution channels in order to improve client outcomes. In summary, regular and solid client data collection and analysis gives managers the information needed to make informed decisions and track progress toward social goals.

Resources for Standard 1B:

This standard has 3 essential practices:

1.B.1 The provider collects data on outcomes for clients and their households.

The data collection is related to social client outcomes whereas the indicator 7.A.2.1 refers to environmental outcomes.

1.B.1.1 The provider has protocols for social performance data collection that identify who collects the data, how, and when.

Accurate and timely data collection happens only when the roles and responsibilities are very clear for who does what, and when. This requires also regular checks on data accuracy by internal control/operations and internal audit.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider collects a range of client outcomes data consistently and regularly at least annually for tracking progress on all social targets and their corresponding goals. For efficiency reasons the client outcomes data are entered into the MIS, with regular data quality/accuracy checks by operations/internal control and internal audit, and job descriptions reflect employees’ responsibilities regarding client outcome data collection and quality/accuracy checks.
  • Score “partially” if the provider has established protocols for client outcomes data collection, but employees implement them inconsistently and/or do not carry out data quality/accuracy checks, or if the provider has collected client outcomes data as follows: (1) as a one-time activity; (2) some data collected on paper but not captured in MIS or databases to be used and analyzed; (3) collection of one or two types of client outcomes data only.
  • Score “no” if the provider does not collect client outcomes data in a consistent and regular way that data can be used and analyzed.
Sources of information
  • MIS
  • Job description
  • Data protocols
  • Interviews with IT department
  • Interviews with field officer/ front office employees
Sources of information 
  • MIS
  • Relevant job descriptions
  • Data protocols
  • Interviews with IT department / Internal audit / branch staff (tellers, field staff)
Evidence to provide 

A formal system refers to a system based on written procedures, that staff are trained on, that is explicitly referenced in the strategic or operational plans, that generates reports used by senior management and/or board of directors. Discuss with MIS and Operations managers if/how the provider collects social performance data, and the regularity of data collection. Make sure to assess the MIS and identify which social data are available and at which frequency. The MIS must produce regular, reliable information.

Often social data, gender, location is collected through loan or savings applications, so it is important to talk to front-office employees to see how data is collected, and then stored, and analyzed. It also allows the auditor to verify that the reality on the ground matches the provider’s data protocols. A verification of the job descriptions can reveal if data collection responsibilities are included for relevant staff and staff interviews can reveal whether they understand their data collection and quality control tasks.

A good practice for providers is to collect notably quantitative client outcomes data at least annually through statistically representative client satisfaction and/or client perception surveys.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation 

A provider must put in place strong systems in order to ensure efficiency and accuracy in the collection

and capture of data. This involves all of the following:

  • Designing the data collection format
  • Piloting the data collection
  • Choosing the data collection team
  • Training and incentivizing the data collection team
  • Capturing – and retaining – digital data

Data protocols should integrate:

  • Who defines the indicators to be collected
  • Who collects the data
  • How the data are collected  
  • Where the data are stored  
  • Who analyzes the data  
  • Who verifies the accuracy of the data  
  • How the data are reported  
  • To whom the data are reported
Resources for indicator 1.B.1.1 

1.B.1.2 The provider ensures the accuracy of the social performance data that it collects.

1.B.1.2.1 Employees in relevant positions receive specific training on social performance data collection and entry.
1.B.1.2.2 The provider validates client data by periodic internal audit or management review, including some field-level checks.

Only accurate data are not useful. Data accuracy requires good data quality and completeness based on regular data checks by both internal control/operations and internal audit.

Scoring guidance

Detail 1.B.1.2.1

  • Score “yes” if the provider has trained and motivated effectively of relevant staff (branch staff, notably tellers and field officers, IT team, internal audit etc.) on accurate social performance data collection and data entry as verified by internal control and/or internal audit reports.
  • Score “partially” if training is not systematically/effectively done for all relevant staff (branch staff, notably tellers and field officers, IT team, internal audit etc.).
  • Score “no” if staff has not been trained in the collection and entry of social performance data.

Detail 1.B.1.2.2

  • Score “yes” if both internal control/operations and audit procedures require regular checks of the quality of client data collection and data entry at branch and head office unit level as verified by respective internal control and audit reports.  
  • Score “partially” if internal control/operations and audit procedures are only partially in place to verify regularly the accuracy of client data collection and data entry but they are not comprehensive enough to ensure accuracy of all client data.
  • Score “no” if the provider has not implemented an internal control and audit system to check the accuracy of client data collection and data entry and thus not correct errors of client data collection and data entry, as needed, or when client data from the MIS cannot be used due to lack of accuracy.
Sources of information
  • Staff training materials
  • Interview with internal audit, IT manager, and branch staff
  • Operational client data collection and data entry manuals
  • Internal control and audit reports of the past year
  • Review of quality and completeness of MIS data based on a sample of client data
Evidence to provide 

Analyze the social performance data chain from the source of the information (clients, employees) via the accuracy check of data collection and data entry, the analysis of client data up to the reporting of analyzed client data. Verify that this chain is coherent, with no missing link to ensure high quality, complete and timely social performance data. Specify how and when employees such as field officers or tellers / data entry clerks are trained on data collection and data entry. Discuss with internal audit team and with the branch managers how the quality of client data is verified. Specify how (incl. sampling methodology) and when client data are validated. If possible, add how many clients or what % of clients are included in these checks.

You can ask the IT manager to print out a sample of client data and see if any important fields are empty or with many nonsensical data (e.g., number of children is 100 or age is 2).

Field examples / Guidance for implementation

The provider should regularly and consistently validate social data, just as it validates financial information. This includes evaluating employees on how well they adhere to the institution’s process for collecting quality social data. Validation techniques, that can be used by the internal audit team, may include the following:

  • Field level checks
  • Visiting or calling a random sample of clients to confirm that interviews with branch employees happened
  • Observing the data collector in action and providing feedback on his/her performance.
  • Data verification
  • Verifying a random sample of data entered by the data entry personnel to confirm accuracy.

The MicroLoan Foundation Malawi case study includes information on how MicroLoan verifies the accuracy of the social performance data that its staff collect.

See also the field example from VisionFund International.

Resources for indicator 1.B.1.2

1.B.1.3 The provider collects data on an ongoing basis to measure whether it is achieving its social goals.

1.B.1.3.1 The provider collects quantitative data that measures both positive and negative changes for clients and their households. Minimum frequency: annually
1.B.1.3.2 The provider collects qualitative data that measures both positive and negative changes for clients and their households. Minimum frequency: annually

Quantitative data and qualitative data both have unique value but also limitations. It is relatively easy to verify the accuracy of quantitative data, and it is much easier to aggregate quantitative data for analysis, but quantitative data tell you only what is happening, not why. When collecting both quantitative and qualitative client outcome data and conduct analysis on positive but also negative changes, the provider gains the most insightful and useful information about clients’ changing behaviours and is able to know with more confidence whether it is achieving its social goals, but also what steps it needs to take to address any weaknesses that the data reveal.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider collects consistently and regularly (at least annually) a range of both quantitative and qualitative client outcomes data, including also analysis of negative changes. The quality of data collection and data entry is assured by regular internal control/operations and audit checks.
  • Score “partially” if any of the following are true:
    • The provider does not collect client outcomes data annually, but does analyze systematically the data it has on its clients’ financial transactions based on previous outcomes surveys to continue and look for trends that might indicate whether certain client segments are having better or worse outcomes.
    • The provider collects consistently and regularly either quantitative or qualitative data on client outcomes, but not both.
    • The provider collects consistently and regularly some data on outcomes but it is insufficient to understand whether the provider is creating the types of benefits for clients that it seeks or to understand any negative changes.
    • The provider has collected both quantitative and qualitative outcomes data on clients but did so as an isolated activity. It does not do this on an annual basis.
  • Score “no” if the provider does not collect any data on client outcomes consistently and/or regularly (at least annually).

Note: Collecting data on outputs (e.g., number of loans provided, PAR, outreach, and so forth) does NOT constitute client outcomes data.

Sources of information
  • MIS information
  • Client surveys and narrative reports
  • Loan application forms that include questions on client outcomes
  • Focus group discussions with clients and client exit interviews
  • Annual reports
Evidence to provide

Look in the MIS for client outcomes data that are stored electronically. Look at data from all mechanisms the provider has to receive feedback from clients (e.g., call centers, focus groups, satisfaction surveys, outcomes surveys, complaints/suggestions mechanisms, client exit interviews, other client surveys) and check whether the provider is gathering data on client outcomes.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation 

Quantitative data can tell you that a client withdrew savings, or deposited more this month than last month, or has not taken out a loan in two years, but it will not tell you why. On the other hand, qualitative data are exactly suited to learn how clients are doing. What outcomes have they experienced? What stresses have they encountered? Why did the choose or not choose to use a certain financial service? But qualitative data has its limitations. Foremost among them are that memory is faulty and clients may not be comfortable revealing uncomfortable and very personal information about their financial lives to a stranger.

Many financial service providers collect both quantitative and qualitative data on client outcomes. See field examples for any of the following :

  • AMK
  • Fondo Esperanza
  • Friendship Bridge
  • Genesis Empresarial
  • IDEPRO
  • Juhudi Kilimo
  • MicroFund for Women
  • SEF
Resources for indicator 1.B.1.3

1.B.2 The provider analyzes outcomes data by client segment.

1.B.2.1 The provider stores data on social performance in its management information system (MIS) in a way that allows for combined analysis of a client's financial and social data.

The purpose of collecting client outcomes data is both to demonstrate current level of performance and to improve weaker areas. For the improvement work, it is necessary for the provider to analyze both financial and social performance simultaneously, so that the provider can see which clients, using which types of products and services, are experiencing which types of outcomes.

Scoring guidance 
  • Score “yes” if the provider collects and stores a range of quantitative and qualitative client outcomes data electronically, and if each client has some unique ID that allows the provider to match social performance data records to financial records.
    • Note: Though it is easier for analysis for the MIS to store both social and financial data, it is not required. As long as a unique client ID exists, the provider can merge data from two different databases when doing analysis.
  • Score “partially” if the provider stores quantitative and qualitative client outcomes data but does not have a unique identifier that allows for a simultaneous analysis of a client’s social and financial data.
  • Score “no” if the provider does not collect client outcomes data or collects it, but stores it only in paper files.
Sources of information
  • MIS  
  • All other databases the provider has
  • Reports on client outcomes analysis  
Evidence to provide

Ask if the provider has a unique client ID. Put in the comments section whether that is a national ID or a telephone number or some ID built by the provider. Read reports on client outcomes produced by the provider to see if the reports jointly discuss financial and social data for clients.

Resources for indicator 1.B.2.1

1.B.2.2 The provider analyzes outcomes for different segments of clients according to their profile and financial behavior. Minimum frequency: annually

1.B.2.2.1 By client profile: gender; age; location (urban/rural); poverty/income level
1.B.2.2.2 By financial behavior: types of products or services used; tenure with the provider
1.B.2.2.3 Other segments that are relevant to the provider's social goals (please specify)

 

Different types of clients are likely to experience different outcomes even when using the same product. Analyzing averages only obscures the fact that some client segments are doing better than others. The provider therefore gets the most useful insight from its data when it segments its analysis by demographic and socio-economic characteristics and financial behaviour.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider analyzes client outcomes by all above-listed segments of clients.
  • Score “partially” if the provider does some segmentation of clients in its analysis, but not according to all of the segments listed above. For example, if it segments by economic activity (e.g., agricultural vs retail), but not by gender.
  • Score “no” if the provider analyzes outcomes for its entire client database without segmentation or have no outcomes data.
Sources of information
  • MIS
  • Interview with IT manager
  • All other databases the provider has
  • Reports on client outcomes analysis  
Evidence to provide 

Read reports on client outcomes to establish whether the provider is monitoring outcomes by client segment. Also ask the IT department what demographic and socioeconomic data the provider collects on clients.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation  

At minimum, the provider should collect the following information about each of its clients: gender, age, location (e.g., rural/urban/peri-urban), and poverty or income level.  It may also have other characteristics that are relevant to track based on its particular goals, for example outreach to disabled persons or outreach to refugees.  Because it has this information, the provider is able to segment all analysis it conducts of client outcomes and monitor whether different groups of clients are doing better or worse. This in turn drives strategic decisions. If the results for a certain group are good, the provider might invest more in expanding its offer of that product or service to that group. If the results are poor, the provider will investigate why the outcomes are not strong and take corrective action.

Resources for indicator 1.B.2.2

1.B.3 The provider reports social performance data internally and externally.

1.B.3.1 The provider conducts a social audit. Minimum frequency: every three years.

An external social audit at minimum every three years allows the provider to track progress on building strong social performance management practices, and to remain aware of its current level of implementation of the Universal Standards.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” the provider had an external SPI audit or a social rating within the last three years.
  • Score “partially” if the provider had an external SPI audit or a social rating or a client protection certification, but the most recent one occurred more than three years ago, but no longer than five years. Score “partially” if the provider has conducted a self-assessed SPI audit or an external client protection assessment within the last three years.
  • Score “no” if the provider had never an external SPI audit or a social rating or an external client protection assessment during the last five years.
Sources of information 
  • CERISE SPI database
  • Raters websites
  • Cerise+SPTF client protection website section (for certification and CP assessment)
  • Provider’s website
  • check with the provider if they conducted an audit, rating, CP assessment or certification
Evidence to provide

Share the links or references to any SPI social audits, social ratings, client protection assessments or certification conducted in the last 5 years.

Resources for indicator 1.B.3.1
  • SPI technical website
  • SPI audit guide
  • SPI online training videos

1.B.3.2 The provider publishes a report that includes social performance data. Minimum frequency: annually

Reporting makes the provider accountable to its social goals, both internally and externally. It also shows the provider transparency to report on and willingness to allow its social performance to influence its public reputation. Refer to 7.A.2.2 regarding the internal and external reporting on the provider’s environmental performance.

Scoring guidance
  • Score “yes” if the provider publishes its social performance data - as well as key findings and recommendations of external SPI audits and social ratings at least annually on its website, in an annual report, or in any other format.
  • Score “partially” if the provider publishes very brief and incomplete information about its social performance, where “incomplete” means the information reported do not address all of the benefits to clients that the provider is trying to achieve, as stated in its strategy. Or if the report is not published annually but every 18 or 24 months. Or if the reports are not public, but can be provided to investors and other stakeholders on request.
  • Score “no” if the provider does not publish information about its social performance. Or if the last report is 3 years or older.
Sources of information
  • Website
  • Social media channels
  • Annual report
  • Social audit report
  • Social rating report
Evidence to provide 

Look at all reports, both public (e.g., on the website and through social media channels) and private (e.g., external social audits or social ratings) that the provider can furnish to stakeholders upon request.

Resources for indicator 1.B.3.2

1.B.3.3 The provider discusses social performance results with employees. Minimum frequency: annually

There are multiple benefits to the provider of discussing social performance results with employees: it is motivational to employees to know that their work leads to positive outcomes for clients, it creates a culture where employees understand that members of the leadership team value good social performance, and it gives employees an opportunity to provide feedback that might help the provider achieve even better social performance in the future.

Scoring guidance 
  • Score “yes” if there is evidence of pro-active and regular (at least annually, if not quarterly) communication with employees about findings on client outcomes, such as a staff meeting where the team discusses results or an email informing employees of results.
  • Score “partially” if there is passive sharing of findings on client outcomes at least annually, such as posting them to the website, but without an effort to make sure all employees are aware of them.
  • Score “no” if the provider does not share findings on client outcomes with employees, or does not have any reports on client outcomes.
Sources of information
  • Minutes from annual shareholder meetings
  • Agendas or notes from staff meetings
  • Staff awards
  • Announcements via social media
Evidence to provide

The way in which the provider communicates with employees about findings on client outcomes can vary. It could be in person or electronically. It could even be tied to trainings, celebrations or awards or acknowledgement of good job performance. The essential is to see whether management has communicated the information and whether employees have responded in any fashion, proving that they received and understood the information provided.

Field examples / Guidance for implementation  

Juhudi Kilimo in Kenya shares update on its social performance results every year in July for its “SEPM training month”with 2 virtual sessions with all field staff and branch managers, based on content developed by its SEPM committee.