Complaints & whistle-blowing mechanism
Examines the systems for handling complaints (dissatisfaction with service, fundraising, or decisions) and whistleblowing (public interest disclosures of wrongdoing), distinct from personal grievances. Crucial for upholding *Amānah* (trust) and ensuring *Maẓālim* (redress), these mechanisms protect stakeholders from injustice, mitigate operational risk, and build a culture of integrity. The system must include clear routing: safeguarding concerns trigger immediate escalation under the Safeguarding Policy, while employment disputes follow HR grievance procedures unless public-interest wrongdoing is alleged.
| Metric | Speak-up Effectiveness Scorecard |
|---|---|
| Target | Ack >90%; Closure <30 days (high severity); Training >95% |
| Frequency | Quarterly |
| Method | Composite of: % acknowledged <2 days, median closure time, % substantiated, # retaliation reports, % training complete. |
| Unit | Mixed |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Complaints are handled informally and inconsistently. No formal whistle-blowing channel exists. Processes are reactive, with no distinction between complaints, grievances, and safeguarding.
Level 2: Developing
A basic, documented policy exists, but lacks clear triage or SIR integration. A designated point of contact exists, but awareness is low and processes are not consistently applied.
Level 3: Established
Formal policies with a clear triage matrix (Complaints/Whistleblowing/Safeguarding/HR) are in place. Anonymous reports are accepted. Staff are trained, and handoffs to correct procedures are documented.
Level 4: Advanced
Effectiveness is monitored via KPIs (timeliness, outcomes). Retaliation is actively monitored for 6-12 months post-disclosure. Regular GDPR compliance checks (retention/access) and case file quality audits are conducted.
Level 5: Optimizing
Strategic culture of safety; independent effectiveness reviews (audit/external) conducted every 2 years. Board approves an annual 'speaking up' statement. Advanced analytics drive systemic improvements and 'Hisbah' culture.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | partial | Basic complaints process and Serious Incident Reporting (SIR) awareness are mandatory, but formal triage matrices, HR handoffs, and third-party channels are disproportionate for volunteer-run groups. |
| Small | partial | Requires simple documented complaints and whistleblowing policies. Complex decision trees, formal triage matrices, and multi-language/third-party channels are generally exempt. |
| Medium | partial | Requires formal policies, clear triage (HR vs safeguarding), and SIR logs. However, dedicated third-party reporting hotlines and extensive multi-language systems may still be disproportionate. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- The organization has staff, volunteers, or stakeholders who could potentially raise concerns or complaints
- The organization needs to demonstrate accountability and transparency to its stakeholders
- The organization wants to create a safe and ethical environment
Not Applicable When
- The organization is a sole proprietorship with no employees, volunteers, or subordinate contractors, where all activities are performed by the owner.
- The organization is a non-operating entity (e.g., a passive holding company, a private family trust) with no employees or volunteers, and its sole function is to hold assets on behalf of its owners/trustees.
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.