Thank you very much for this opportunity to review the Supplement Guideline on Core Food and Agricultural Indicators for Measuring the Private Sector Contribution to the SDGs. I would like to make the following comments with regards to the adequacy of specific indicators (#6).
It is commendable that gender aspects are incorporated in various indicators, including the proportion of local procurement and the percentage of employees covered by collective agreements, across different (i.e., economic, social, and institutional) dimensions by asking to disaggregate data by sex. However, women’s empowerment perspectives can be further reinforced considering not just that women comprise over 37% of the world’s rural agricultural employment, but that women account for up to 80% of workers in the plantations or processing factories.
In this regard, it is particularly important that the private sector actors take gender-specific measures to mitigate health and safety risks for women, in particular pregnant and lactating women, including mental health and stress that is exacerbated by sexual harassments and assaults. It is not only a material topic of corporate social responsibility and the sustainability and stability of entity operations, but also a high financial risk given that more and more ESG investment funds consider gender equality as high priority.
The Indicator C.4.1 Expenditures on Employee Health and Safety exactly speaks to this point; however, it should be gender sensitive. It is currently a quantitative indicator that measures the entity’s related expenses, but entities could also report, for example, if they address the specific health, safety, and hygiene needs of women at work and while commuting to work with a qualitative indicator. (It would be difficult to disaggregate the expenditure data by sex.) Its methodology could build on the Women’s Empowerment Principles Gender Gap Analysis Tool of the UNGC (https://weps-gapanalysis.org/) (Q10, 11, and 12 are particularly relevant.)
Nozomi Ide
Thank you very much for this opportunity to review the Supplement Guideline on Core Food and Agricultural Indicators for Measuring the Private Sector Contribution to the SDGs. I would like to make the following comments with regards to the adequacy of specific indicators (#6).
It is commendable that gender aspects are incorporated in various indicators, including the proportion of local procurement and the percentage of employees covered by collective agreements, across different (i.e., economic, social, and institutional) dimensions by asking to disaggregate data by sex. However, women’s empowerment perspectives can be further reinforced considering not just that women comprise over 37% of the world’s rural agricultural employment, but that women account for up to 80% of workers in the plantations or processing factories.
In this regard, it is particularly important that the private sector actors take gender-specific measures to mitigate health and safety risks for women, in particular pregnant and lactating women, including mental health and stress that is exacerbated by sexual harassments and assaults. It is not only a material topic of corporate social responsibility and the sustainability and stability of entity operations, but also a high financial risk given that more and more ESG investment funds consider gender equality as high priority.
The Indicator C.4.1 Expenditures on Employee Health and Safety exactly speaks to this point; however, it should be gender sensitive. It is currently a quantitative indicator that measures the entity’s related expenses, but entities could also report, for example, if they address the specific health, safety, and hygiene needs of women at work and while commuting to work with a qualitative indicator. (It would be difficult to disaggregate the expenditure data by sex.) Its methodology could build on the Women’s Empowerment Principles Gender Gap Analysis Tool of the UNGC (https://weps-gapanalysis.org/) (Q10, 11, and 12 are particularly relevant.)