Compassion Impact Lens applied
Evaluates the formal application of a Compassion Impact Lens in decision-making, operationalizing the principle of *raḥmah* as a core governance duty. This ensures strategic choices consistently uphold the dignity and wellbeing of all stakeholders, fulfilling the organization's *amānah* (trust). The Lens includes escalation to safeguarding, whistleblowing, and Serious Incident Reporting where high-risk harms are identified, and commits to transparent communication of trade-offs and redress mechanisms. Crucially, the CIA complements (not replaces) risk assessments, Equality Impact Assessments, DPIAs, and H&S assessments, acting as a screening step that routes to these specialist processes when triggers are met.
- What are the defined mandatory triggers for a Compassion Impact Assessment (CIA), and how does the Board Secretary/Governance Lead enforce them?
- Can you show evidence (e.g., redlined board papers) where a CIA led to a material change in a decision, safeguarding referral, or SIR?
- How does the organization ensure marginalized stakeholders are consulted safely (method, compensation, trauma-informed practice)?
- Does the CIA template explicitly assess impacts on Maqāṣid al-Sharī'ah (Life, Dignity, Intellect, Wealth, Faith)?
- How are mitigations tracked post-decision (owner, deadline, residual risk) and reported back to the board?
- Governance policy defining CIA triggers, materiality, and RACI ownership.
- Board papers with completed CIA sections (including Maqāṣid analysis).
- Redlined documents or minutes showing decisions changed due to CIA findings.
- Escalation log showing referrals to Safeguarding, DPO, or Charity Commission (SIR).
- Internal audit reports showing sampling of CIAs and quality scores.
- Post-implementation review (PIR) reports for High/Critical risk decisions.
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Comprehensive framework with ≥95% coverage of material decisions; independent assurance; public reporting with learning cycles. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Good framework with ≥90% coverage; quarterly monitoring; defined wellbeing metrics and evidence of mitigations. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Basic framework with ≥60% coverage; at least annual verification sample; documented process but variable quality. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Minimal or informal consideration; <60% coverage; no structured triggers or escalation pathways. |
| 1 | 1/5 | No Compassion Impact Lens or severe deficiencies in application. |
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.