Independent Maẓālim panel active
This criterion assesses whether the organization has established and maintains an active independent panel based on the Islamic Maẓālim tradition to address grievances, particularly those involving power imbalances. It evaluates the organization's commitment to just conflict resolution through a mechanism that provides impartial review of complaints against leadership or the organization itself. The panel interfaces with HR grievances, safeguarding, and whistleblowing frameworks through a documented triage protocol that establishes strict primacy for statutory safeguarding and criminal investigations to prevent interference, while ensuring accountability and redress for those who might otherwise lack voice or power.
| Metric | Maẓālim effectiveness dashboard |
|---|---|
| Target | Meet SLA (triage ≤5 days; closure ≤60 days); 100% implement or explain; 0 retaliation |
| Frequency | Quarterly and annual roll‑up |
| Method | Quantitative KPIs plus qualitative learning actions |
| Unit | Mixed (counts, %, days) |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Grievances against leadership are handled on an ad-hoc, informal basis. There is no formal, independent process, and outcomes are inconsistent.
Level 2: Developing
A basic grievance policy exists that mentions escalation against leadership, but the review body is not fully independent (e.g., composed of senior managers or major donors).
Level 3: Established
Formal, independent panel established with published ToR; meets at least quarterly; published in ≥3 formats (web, poster, leaflet) and ≥2 languages; triage map with statutory primacy rules in place; SLA: acknowledge within 5 working days.
Level 4: Advanced
Effectiveness reviewed quarterly against KPIs (timeliness, satisfaction, implementation rate, retaliation); annual Maẓālim Transparency Statement published (anonymised); lessons learned tracked to closure.
Level 5: Optimizing
Insights feed enterprise risk register and ethics training; scenario‑based training for leaders; periodic independent external review (e.g., every 3 years); public annual report with 3-year trend analysis and safeguards on confidentiality.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Highly disproportionate for volunteer-run groups; standard complaints handling by trustees suffices. |
| Small | exempt | Disproportionate resource burden; a basic complaints policy managed by the board is adequate. |
| Medium | partial | Can be scaled down to an independent reviewer or a simpler grievance sub-committee rather than a full external-majority panel. |
| Large | full | Required due to organizational complexity and staff size to ensure impartial grievance and whistleblowing handling. |
| Major | full | Essential at this scale for robust, independent dispute resolution and governance safeguarding. |
Applicable When
- The organization has employees or volunteers.
- The organization interacts with external stakeholders (clients, beneficiaries, community members, etc.).
- The organization has a structure where power imbalances can potentially arise.
Not Applicable When
- The organization is a very small, informal group with no hierarchical structure (e.g., a small group of friends organizing a single event).
- The organization has no employees, volunteers, or external stakeholders.
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.