Follow

8. Post Verification Survey

Policy Title:        Post Verification Survey  

Policy Number:   VPM - 006

Issue Date:         January 31, 2018

Authorization:    SAC Vice President - Higg Index

Distribution:       Internal – All

                            External – All potential and current Eligible FEM Verifiers

 

Table of Contents

1     General Information

2     Purpose

3     Process

4     Survey Process Flow

5     Survey Questions

 

1     General Information

The SAC wishes to have a Verification Program that ensures that accuracy and comparability of Higg Index FEM scores. Verifiers are used to verify self-assessments conducted by manufacturing facilities.  After each Verification is completed, a survey is sent to the Facility that underwent verification to gather feedback about their experience with their selected Verifier(s) and the Verification process as a whole.  This information is used to continually drive improvements in the program and within the Verification body.     

2     Purpose

  1. The purpose of the survey is to:
    • Provide an opportunity for Facilities to report on their experience Verifier(s) that conducted the Verification
    • Provide a mechanism for Facilities to easily report ethical concerns or issues
    • Provide a mechanism whereby Facilities can provide feedback that can be used to improve the Higg FEM Verification program and process
    • NOTE: The intent of the survey is not to:
      • Provide an opportunity to challenge findings
      • Provide training, consulting or additional information on a circumstance or situation in a Facility during a specific Verification event
      • Discuss or gain insight into or dealings with the financial or contractual relationships between the Verifier(s) or the Verification Company and the Facility

3     Process

  1. After the Verification is complete, all challenges resolved (if any), and the data is uploaded into Higg.org, the VPM sends a survey to the Facility
    • The Survey is sent to the contact information contained in Higg.org
    • The survey is sent within 10 days after the Verification is uploaded onto Higg.org
  2. The Facility completes the Survey
  3. If the Facility does not complete the Survey
    • A reminder is sent to the factory 7 days after the first request was sent
  4. The VPM reviews each survey received
    • If there are any Ethics-related concerns or allegations, the Ethics program and investigations begin
    • If there are issues that may indicate the verification was a ‘Bad Verification’, an investigation will take place to determine if the Verification is valid
    • If there are other issues noted, the VPM acts accordingly:
      • If there are issues that require training with the Verifier, the VPM will require that training
      • If there are issues noted but do not require additional conversations, the VPM will use this information to score the Verifier and manage the Eligible Verifier List
  1. On a periodic basis, the VPM analyzes the information, attempting to determine:
    • If there are gaps in Verifiers skills or abilities, generally; if so:
      • Additional training may be required by currently eligible Verifiers
      • Future training may be adjusted
      • Technical Bulletins may be created and released to the Verifiers
      • Other actions may be taken to address the identified gaps
    • If there are groups of Verifiers or Verifications that are experiencing specific issues in which training or improvements may be implemented by the SAC or VPM to mitigate those issues
      • These groups may include facility types, geographical locations, or other groupings
      • These groups may include Verifiers with more limited technical knowledge (i.e. lack of knowledge on certain laws) or soft skills (i.e. interviewing techniques or respect of workers)

4     Survey Process Flow

 Picture8.png

 

5     Survey Questions

  1. Factory Information
    • Name of Facility
    • Facility Address
    • Higg ID
  2. Name and Contact information for person filling in survey
  3. Verification information
    • Verification Dates
      • Date(s) of on-site portion of Verification
      • Date Verification was uploaded
    • Verification Company
    • Name of Verifier(s)
  4. Survey Questions:
    • How prepared was the verifier for conducting on-site verification?
      • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        • If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) that did not follow the protocols.
        • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and how they followed the Higg FEM Verification Protocols
      • Based on what you know, how well did the Verifier follow the Higg FEM Verification Protocols?
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) that did not follow the protocols.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and how they followed the Higg FEM Verification Protocols
      • In your opinion, how well did the Verifier know, understand and apply the correct scoring to the Verification questions?
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) that that showed they Verifier did not know, understand or apply the correct scoring to Verification questions.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and how well they knew, understood and applied the correct scoring to the Verification questions.
      • How professional was the interactions of the Verifier with the factory (including management and workers)? [NOTE: ‘Professional’ includes showing proper respect, acting properly, etc.]
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) to show a lack of professionalism.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and their professionalism.
      • How well did the verifier meet your expectations with timeliness (including report submittal, communication before and after the Verification, and all other issues related to timeliness)?
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) to not meet timeliness expectations.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and their timeliness.
      • Did the Verifier accept, ask for, or otherwise indicate that they wanted or were willing to take a bribe, gift, money or anything else to impact the score, or did the Verifier act unethical in any manner?
        • Score: Yes, Possibly, No, Unable to Answer
          • If Yes, explain the circumstances that indicate there was an ethical concern
          • If Possibly, explain what was done (or not done) to indicate there may be an ethical concern.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and their ethics.
      • How strongly would you recommend this Verifier to other Facilities who are looking for Verifiers?
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain why you would not recommend them to other Facilities.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about why you would or would not recommend them to other Facilities.
      • Are there any other comments you would like to provide the SAC or the VPM about the Verifier?
        • Score: Yes/No
          • If yes, allow comments to be written
      • How prepared were you for the Verification?
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain what you lacked that would have helped you be more prepared for your Verification.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments about what the SAC can do to help Facilities be more prepared for Verifications.
      • Are there any changes you would like SAC to make to the Higg self-assessment, the self-assessment process or How to Higg guidance to better prepare you for verification?
        • Score: Yes, No
          • If yes, allow comments to be written
      • How well did the Verification, as a whole, meet your expectations?
        • Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
          • If 3 or less, explain what was lacking to not meet expectations.
          • Any Score – Please add any comments about what the SAC can do to improve the Verifications process.
      • Are there any other comments you would like to provide the SAC or the VPM about the Higg FEM Self-Assessment and Verification process?
        • Score: Yes, No
          • If yes, allow comments to be written

 

Was this article helpful?
0 out of 0 found this helpful
Have more questions? Submit a request

0 Comments

Article is closed for comments.