Business – Assessment against evaluation criteria Criterion Indicator A Indicator B Indicator C Indicator D 10. Policy relevance: Disagreed with the option Audit is considered to be a good progress towards paper, stating there is a proxy for awareness, whereas Biodiversity 2020 relationship with the targets, sourcing is considered to be a targets (CBD, EU, UK, but that this is indirect. proxy for change or action country) costs are a proxy for reducing impacts of natural resource use 11. Biodiversity None of the criterion levels This is a proxy for awareness With the split of audit and None of the criterion levels relevant were considered to be but not change sourcing, sourcing could be were considered to be applicable seen as a proxy biodiversity applicable change 12. Cause-effect Disagrees with options paper in Felt that none of the criterion Suggested a tweak to the Theoretically there is a relationship that there will be an accepted levels were applicable. That indicator by stating ‘how much’ relationship, but it can’t be Characteristics theory of relationship between there is a need to tweak the sourcing is taking place, in order quantified (unlike Indicator A), indicator and issue of concern wording of the indicator, to demonstrate a relationship. A and companies may identify an (rather than an unknown because the number of questionnaire could capture issue but not necessarily be relationship) provided in-house companies with a policy won’t three levels of information: Is acting upon it. BSI does not Indicator expenditure presented as a change even if the business there a policy that requires an have a list of certified percentage of total operating impact does; thus either audit? Is there a policy that companies, but UKAS possibly cost reword ‘policy’ to capture requires Sourcing? Is there could SMEs or restrict sampling to information about actual large companies (noting there turnover of certified goods? A is a risk that they all have a list of biodiversity-relevant policy that may or may not be standards would need to be implemented for biodiversity) compiled
Business – Assessment against evaluation criteria Criterion Indicator A Indicator B Indicator C Indicator D Indicator Characteristics 10. Policy relevance: progress towards Biodiversity 2020 targets (CBD, EU, UK, country) Disagreed with the option paper, stating there is a relationship with the targets, but that this is indirect. costs are a proxy for reducing impacts of natural resource use Audit is considered to be a good proxy for awareness, whereas sourcing is considered to be a proxy for change or action 11. Biodiversity relevant None of the criterion levels were considered to be applicable This is a proxy for awareness but not change With the split of audit and sourcing, sourcing could be seen as a proxy biodiversity change None of the criterion levels were considered to be applicable 12. Cause-effect relationship Disagrees with options paper in that there will be an accepted theory of relationship between indicator and issue of concern (rather than an unknown relationship) provided in-house expenditure presented as a percentage of total operating cost Felt that none of the criterion levels were applicable. That there is a need to tweak the wording of the indicator, because the number of companies with a policy won’t change even if the business impact does; thus either reword ‘policy’ to capture SMEs or restrict sampling to large companies (noting there is a risk that they all have a policy that may or may not be implemented for biodiversity) Suggested a tweak to the indicator by stating ‘how much’ sourcing is taking place, in order to demonstrate a relationship. A questionnaire could capture three levels of information: Is there a policy that requires an audit? Is there a policy that requires Sourcing? Is there information about actual turnover of certified goods? A list of biodiversity-relevant standards would need to be compiled Theoretically there is a relationship, but it can’t be quantified (unlike Indicator A), and companies may identify an issue but not necessarily be acting upon it. BSI does not have a list of certified companies, but UKAS possibly could
Summary%20report%20-%20UK%20BIF7%20-%20July%202013%20-%20FINAL%20August%202013.docx