Consultation: ISEAL Good Practice Guide on Verification of Jurisdictional Claims

Using a jurisdictional or landscape approach to address sustainability issues at scale holds great potential. ISEAL is developing a good practice guide to help ensure that sustainability claims made by jurisdictional initiatives* and the companies that source from or support them, are credible.

The guidance we are consulting will be a tool and reference point for existing or emerging jurisdictional initiatives or frameworks. The aim is to complement ongoing efforts, not too develop a new 'standard'.

Before answering the survey, it's recommended you read the consultation draft of the Good Practice Guide. For more information, visit the consultation webpage. There are 22 questions in the survey, which should take about 20min - feel free to skip any questions.

*NOTE: Jurisdictional initiatives are a type of landscape approach that is developed within the administrative boundaries of sub-national or national governments, usually with engagement or leadership from government in public policy and land-use planning. While this guidance is tailored specifically to jurisdictional initiatives, much of it remains valid for other landscape approaches that are not strictly tied to administrative boundaries.

Question Title

* 1. Name and affiliation
(please write 'anonymous' if you want to remain so)

Question Title

* 2. I want to be kept up-to-date of the results of this survey and receive follow-up information

Yes

Question Title

* 3. Enter your e-mail if you want to receive follow-up information

Question Title

* 4. I work for / I am involved in;

supporting or developing a jurisdictional / landscape initiative

a company interested in investing in jurisdictional / landscape initiatives

interested in the development of jurisdictional / landscape initiatives

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 5. The Jurisdictional Claims guide is structured around three types of claims:

process claims: relating to actions and processes within a jurisdiction (or landscape) by governmental or other actors

supporting action claims: relating to the contribution of supply chain companies

performance claims: about concrete sustainability outcomes that have been achieved

Are these the right categories of claims?

Yes, that captures it

If not, please elaborate;

Question Title

* 6. How important are the following principles to the integrity of jurisdictional claims?

	Not important	slightly important	quite important	very important
Truthful: communicates clear, accurate and substantiated information	Truthful: communicates clear, accurate and substantiated information Not important	Truthful: communicates clear, accurate and substantiated information slightly important	Truthful: communicates clear, accurate and substantiated information quite important	Truthful: communicates clear, accurate and substantiated information very important
Relevant: addresses material or significant sustainability issues and does not distract from more important issues	Relevant: addresses material or significant sustainability issues and does not distract from more important issues Not important	Relevant: addresses material or significant sustainability issues and does not distract from more important issues slightly important	Relevant: addresses material or significant sustainability issues and does not distract from more important issues quite important	Relevant: addresses material or significant sustainability issues and does not distract from more important issues very important
Proportional: places the claim in context of the relative scope and scale of progress	Proportional: places the claim in context of the relative scope and scale of progress Not important	Proportional: places the claim in context of the relative scope and scale of progress slightly important	Proportional: places the claim in context of the relative scope and scale of progress quite important	Proportional: places the claim in context of the relative scope and scale of progress very important
Transparent: makes performance data and information behind claims freely available and accessible	Transparent: makes performance data and information behind claims freely available and accessible Not important	Transparent: makes performance data and information behind claims freely available and accessible slightly important	Transparent: makes performance data and information behind claims freely available and accessible quite important	Transparent: makes performance data and information behind claims freely available and accessible very important
Robust: is based on a sufficiently rigorous process that results in good quality, trustworthy data	Robust: is based on a sufficiently rigorous process that results in good quality, trustworthy data Not important	Robust: is based on a sufficiently rigorous process that results in good quality, trustworthy data slightly important	Robust: is based on a sufficiently rigorous process that results in good quality, trustworthy data quite important	Robust: is based on a sufficiently rigorous process that results in good quality, trustworthy data very important

Consultation: ISEAL Good Practice Guide on Verification of Jurisdictional Claims

Question Title

* 1. Name and affiliation (please write 'anonymous' if you want to remain so)

Question Title

* 2. I want to be kept up-to-date of the results of this survey and receive follow-up information

Question Title

* 3. Enter your e-mail if you want to receive follow-up information

Question Title

* 4. I work for / I am involved in;

Question Title

Question Title

* 6. How important are the following principles to the integrity of jurisdictional claims?

* 1. Name and affiliation
(please write 'anonymous' if you want to remain so)