The primary purpose of this methodology is to document the current status of an engagement process and to evaluate the outcome of the dialogue with companies. It is important to emphasize that this is not a method for measuring impact. Rather, the approach serves to present the results of our engagement activities in a structured and transparent manner and to enable a verifiable assessment of progress in our dialogue with companies.

The methodology is based on the assumption that engagements can generally serve two different purposes. Depending on their focus, engagements can be classified as action-oriented or information-oriented.

Action-oriented engagements occur when, as part of the dialogue, a company not only exchanges information but also commits to specific measures or is already implementing measures to address a concern, a demand, or an identified problem.

Information-oriented engagements, on the other hand, focus on the exchange of information. In these cases, the company primarily provides explanations, background information, or clarifications without committing to specific actions. The emphasis here is on transparency and knowledge sharing.

Some engagements pursue only one of these objectives. Other engagements, however, may include both information-oriented and action-oriented objectives. In such cases, an engagement receives two separate ratings within the methodology: one for the level of information disclosure and one for progress on specific measures or commitments. This approach allows us to present the results of our engagement activities in a nuanced way, particularly when a dialogue leads to both increased transparency and concrete actions.

This two-part assessment often results from a step-by-step progression of the engagement. In the initial phase, the focus is often on gathering additional information and clarifying the facts. In a later phase, concrete actions are demanded or commitments to implement specific measures are sought. In these cases, the engagement receives two ratings: one for the level of information disclosure and one for the progress made on actions. Although both ratings refer to the same dialogue, they do not necessarily have to match. For example, a company may achieve full disclosure of information (A on the information scale), while the implementation of specific measures has only been partially completed (e.g., C on the action scale). The two ratings are therefore not directly comparable but reflect different aspects of the same engagement.

A scale from A to E is used to evaluate engagement results. A represents the best result, and E represents the lowest level of engagement. The scale makes it possible to transparently present progress in the dialogue with companies and to compare results in a consistent and structured manner.

Rating Scale for Action-Oriented Engagements

In the case of action-oriented initiatives, the assessment reflects the degree to which the company has committed to and implemented measures:

• A – Full Commitment to Action: A clear, dated commitment has been made, or the measure has already been fully implemented. Supporting documentation is available (e.g., a signed plan or a published report).
• B – Partial Commitment to Action: The company commits to specific partial measures and presents a defined timeline for their implementation. Initial evidence of planning or implementation may already be available.
• C – Acknowledgment Only: The company acknowledges the problem or comments on it in general terms without proposing specific measures or a timeline.
• D – Non-committal response: Although the company responds to the inquiry, it neither clearly acknowledges the problem nor indicates any intention to take action.
• E – No Participation: There is no response, or the company expressly refuses to participate in the dialogue.

Rating Scale for Information-Oriented Engagements

For information-oriented engagements, the scale assesses the degree of transparency and the quality of the information provided:

• A – Full Disclosure: The company provides comprehensive and clear information on the topics in question. The disclosure is structured and transparent, for example through published reports, guidelines, or detailed responses.
• B – Extensive Disclosure: Most of the required information is provided. The information is generally clear and helpful, even if some details may be missing or still unclear.
• C – Partial Disclosure: The company provides only limited or partially relevant information. The information is sometimes inaccurate and is insufficient to fully assess all material aspects.
• D – Minimal or Insufficient Information: Although the company responds to the inquiry, it provides only rudimentary and uninformative details that do little to help assess the issue.
• E – No Disclosure / Refusal: The company does not respond to the request or expressly refuses to provide relevant information.

Connection to the Theory of Change and to our engagement activities

This methodology allows us to align our engagement reporting with the logic of the Theory of Change. The inputs consist of the various engagement activities we carry out during the course of a dialogue, such as preparing engagement letters, sending cover letters and reminders, conducting discussions as part of corporate dialogues, and other follow-up activities.

The direct outputs of these activities are reflected in the engagement levels achieved and in the companies’ responses. These include, for example, milestones such as “Concern Raised,” “Concern Acknowledged,” “Information Disclosed,” “Action Announced,” “Action Partially Taken,” or “Action Successfully Implemented.” At the same time, the quality of the company’s response can be assessed, for example, as “Excellent,” “Good,” “Standard,” “Weak,” or “None.”

By tracking these milestones—for example, through company responses, discussions, or published reports—the results of the initiative can be systematically evaluated. The outcome evaluation thus provides a summary of the milestones achieved.

Dynamic Evolution of Engagement Assessment

It is important to keep in mind that the assessment of a commitment may change over the course of the dialogue, as long as it is still ongoing. For example, at the beginning of the dialogue, a company may initially acknowledge a problem, leading to an initial assessment. If the company later announces specific measures, the assessment may improve accordingly. If these measures are subsequently implemented and published, for example, in a sustainability report or annual report, this may lead to a further adjustment of the assessment.

As long as the dialogue with the company continues, the assessment may therefore evolve in line with the progress made. Only upon the formal conclusion of an engagement is the most recent assessment recorded as the final result of the engagement process.