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.
| Metric | Compassion Lens Composite Score |
|---|---|
| Target | ≥95% coverage; ≥80% quality |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Method | Combination of coverage %, quality audit score, and escalation timeliness |
| Unit | Percentage / Count |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Discussions on stakeholder wellbeing are informal and ad-hoc; no structured Compassion Impact Lens exists.
Level 2: Developing
Compassion is acknowledged, but application is inconsistent (<60% coverage). No defined triggers or escalation pathways exist.
Level 3: Established
Documented Compassion Impact Lens used on ≥60% of material decisions. Triggers defined, and at least annual verification sampling occurs.
Level 4: Advanced
Lens applied to ≥90% of material decisions with quarterly monitoring. Wellbeing metrics defined, and mitigations are tracked to completion.
Level 5: Optimizing
Lens applied to ≥95% of material decisions with independent assurance. Public reporting includes case studies and learning loops; stakeholder co-design is evidenced.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Formal frameworks, RACI matrices, and DPIA interlocks are highly disproportionate for volunteer-run groups. |
| Small | exempt | Too bureaucratic; lacks the executive and specialist staff required for this level of formal impact assessment. |
| Medium | partial | Can implement simplified impact assessments, but full RACI, DPIA interlocks, and specialist reviewers are likely too resource-intensive. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- The organization has a formal decision-making structure involving a board or equivalent governing body
- The organization engages in activities that impact stakeholders
- For micro/small charities (<£250k income), use a light-weight CIA (1–2 page) and minimal KPIs; for international/supply-chain operations, extend Lens to partners/suppliers and cross-border safeguarding.
Not Applicable When
- The organization operates as a sole proprietorship or informal collective without a formal board or equivalent governing body.
- The organization is a dormant entity with no active operations, decision-making, or stakeholder impact.
- The organization's sole purpose is the passive management of a non-operational asset (e.g., a holding company, a patent trust) with no direct service delivery or public engagement.
- Where decisions are purely administrative with no stakeholder impact below defined thresholds.
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.