KAMPALA PRINCIPLE 5:CSOs_SUBP 5.D

Sub-principle 5.D

Establish provisions to mitigate and manage risks

 

Why is it important?

 

International CSOs

Local CSOs

Due diligence and risk management are important to avoid and address adverse impacts related to workers, human rights, the environment, bribery, communities, reputational damage and governance. International CSOs should ensure that PSE programmes and partnerships operate in line with the tenets of presumed full disclosure and transparency, the principles of accountability, the provision for public oversight, a public consultation mechanism and a publicly communicated complaints mechanism, including public reports on the outcomes of complaints and in line with due diligence principles and guidelines. When taking decisions as part of managing risk, it is about managing uncertainty to achieve objectives that should include social, environmental and economic objectives. Risk is also circumstance-specific and must be dynamic, iterative and responsive to change. Risk is usually considered in terms of both threats and opportunities. Domestic CSOs need to hold to account PSE programmes and partnerships so they operate in line with the tenets of presumed full disclosure and transparency, the principles of accountability, the provision for public oversight, a public consultation mechanism and a publicly communicated complaints mechanism, including public reports on the outcomes of complaints and in line with due diligence principles and guidelines.
 

Colour code:

Yellow = implementation role

Orange = watchdog role

Black = implementation and watchdog role

Self-reflection questions
Discover Tool

International CSOs

Local CSOs

  • Is the monitoring of risks integrated into project implementation? Have enough resources been dedicated to monitoring? 
  • Are there mechanisms in place to deal with conflicts of interest – where a decision or action is right for the partnership but maybe at odds with individual companies’ interests or certain stakeholders over others? 
  • Have you developed a risk mitigation strategy? Is there an exit strategy?
  • Is there a clear risk mitigation strategy for the PSE project? Is this strategy in the public domain and open to regular revision?
  • Has the government outlined a role for domestic and local CSOs to be part of monitoring risk across all PSE projects and policies? 
  • In the event a PSE project or investment is causing environmental, social or governance harm, are there mechanisms in place to correct course (such as by renegotiating a contract to rebalance and manage risk; readjusting a project’s aims, partners or activities)?

Actions to consider
Discover Tool

International CSOs

Local CSOs

  • Participate in regular risk assessments.
  • Start small: seek out initial pilot studies to scope out potential risks, provide initial adjustments, and offer more confidence to the private sector and other partners through the demonstration effect. 
  • Ensure governments regularly update and monitor risk assessment frameworks.
  • Anticipate, manage and mitigate conflicts of interest.
  • Ensure governments regularly update and monitor risk assessment frameworks.
  • Participate in regular risk assessments.
  • Anticipate, manage and mitigate conflicts of interest.

Pitfalls to avoid
Discover Tool
International CSOs Local CSOs

      DON’T…

  • Refuse to push CSOs to have a key role in monitoring risk both at the strategic, policy and local level.
  • Ignore if risk mitigation strategies do not recognise risks for all partners involved, most notably for those furthest behind.
  • Stay silent if guidelines are not published on acceptable levels of risk. 
  • Miss to call it out if there is a concerted effort to shrink civic space, including consistent negative rhetoric in the public discourse, rhetoric that criminalises activism, smear campaigns or rumour-spreading on organisations or activists in media or social media.

      DON’T…

  • Refuse to push CSOs to have a key role in monitoring risk both at the strategic, policy and local level.
  • Ignore if risk mitigation strategies do not recognise risks for all partners involved, most notably for those furthest behind.
  • Stay silent if guidelines are not published on acceptable levels of risk. 
  • Stop communicating openly with partners, staff and stakeholders about the partnership’s approach to conflict of interests. 
  • Miss to call it out if there is a concerted effort to shrink civic space, including consistent negative rhetoric in the public discourse, rhetoric that criminalises activism, smear campaigns or rumour-spreading on organisations or activists in media or social media. 

COUNTRY-LEVEL EXAMPLES

Managing Risk through Economic Development, implemented by Mercy Corps, Nepal. The project showcases a unique hybrid of market systems approaches and resilience-building approaches aimed at disaster risk reduction. The project worked in agricultural market systems in the Far West Terai region of Nepal with high potential to boost incomes while reducing exposure to floods and droughts. As part of the market analysis, the project team identified a number of systemic constraints for this remote part of Nepal, including access to capital, financial literacy, markets and extension services.

Browse further guidance