Key Performance Indicators to criteria 17

Key Performance Indicator GRI SRS-412-3: Investment agreements subject to human rights screenings
The reporting organization shall report the following information:

a. Total number and percentage of significant investment agreements and contracts that include human rights clauses or that underwent human rights screening.

b. The definition used for ‘significant investment agreements’.

100 percent of the strategic and nominated INPACS suppliers have signed the INPACS Supplier Code of Conduct confirming by this the protection of Human Rights according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Resolution 217 A (III) of 10.12.1948). 

The corresponding specifications are also part of the relationships to members, as constituted in the INPACS Company Policy and the Code of Ethics.

Key Performance Indicator GRI SRS-412-1: Operations subject to human rights reviews
The reporting organization shall report the following information:

a. Total number and percentage of operations that have been subject to human rights reviews or human rights impact assessments, by country.

At the time of reporting, 25 INPACS members including the central organisation have published an EcoVadis scorecard, representing 68% of the network and scoring a total average of 52 points (bronze). Human rights and labour standards, especially with regard to the prohibition of child labour, are given particular weight in the evaluation by EcoVadis.

Key Performance Indicator GRI SRS-414-1: New suppliers subject to social screening
The reporting organization shall report the following information:

a. Percentage of new suppliers that were screened using social criteria.

100% of the newly on-boarded suppliers were subject to social screening. 
One new supplier has been evaluated using the EcoVadis platform, five personal factory audits have been conducted. 

Key Performance Indicator GRI SRS-414-2: Social impacts in the supply chain
The reporting organization shall report the following information:

a. Number of suppliers assessed for social impacts.

b. Number of suppliers identified as having significant actual and potential negative social impacts.

c. Significant actual and potential negative social impacts identified in the supply chain.

d. Percentage of suppliers identified as having significant actual and potential negative social impacts with which improvements were agreed upon as a result of assessment.

e. Percentage of suppliers identified as having significant actual and potential negative social impacts with which relationships were terminated as a result of assessment, and why.

At the time of reporting, 22 suppliers, representing about 43 % of the global procurement volume of INPACS network, have published an EcoVadis scorecard. The average score of these suppliers is 56 points (silver status).

So far we have no evidence of significant actual or potential negative social impacts. A single supplier with a noticeably poor rating is already undergoing the reassessment. It can be assumed that the shortcomings are caused by the evaluation process itself, not by business conduct.

In case of the identification of substantial sustainability risks as part of poor evaluation results, a personal on-site audit will be carried out (cf. criterion 17).