Follow

8. Post Verification Survey

Policy Title: Post Verification Survey Policy Number: VPM - 006
Issue Date: December 12, 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:
   1.1.  Provide an opportunity for Facilities to report on their experience Verifier(s) that conducted the Verification
   1.2.  Provide a mechanism for Facilities to easily report ethical concerns or issues
   1.3.  Provide a mechanism whereby Facilities can provide feedback that can be used to improve the Higg FEM Verification program and process
   1.4.  NOTE: The intent of the survey is not to:
      1.4.1. Provide an opportunity to challenge findings
      1.4.2. Provide training, consulting or additional information on a circumstance or situation in a Facility during a specific Verification event
      1.4.3. 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
   1.1. The Survey is sent to the contact information contained in Higg.org
   1.2. 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
   3.1. A reminder is sent to the factory 7 days after the first request was sent
4. The VPM reviews each survey received
   4.1.  If there are any Ethics-related concerns or allegations, the Ethics program and investigations begin
   4.2.  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
   4.3.  If there are other issues noted, the VPM acts accordingly:
      4.3.1. If there are issues that require training with the Verifier, the VPM will require that training
      4.3.2. 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
5. On a periodic basis, the VPM analyzes the information, attempting to determine:
   5.1. If there are gaps in Verifiers skills or abilities, generally; if so:
      5.1.1. Additional training may be required by currently eligible Verifiers
      5.1.2. Future training may be adjusted
      5.1.3. Technical Bulletins may be created and released to the Verifiers
      5.1.4. Other actions may be taken to address the identified gaps
   5.2. 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
      5.2.1. These groups may include facility types, geographical locations, or other groupings              5.2.2. 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                                                     

Screen_Shot_2018-12-18_at_11.54.41_AM.png

5. Survey Questions                                                            

1. Factory Information
   1.1. Name of Facility
   1.2. Facility Address
   1.3. Higg ID
2. Name and Contact information for person filling in survey
3. Verification information
   3.1. Verification Dates
      3.1.1. Date(s) of on-site portion of Verification
      3.1.2. Date Verification was uploaded
   3.2. Verification Company
   3.3. Name of Verifier(s)
4. Survey Questions:
   4.1. How prepared was the verifier for conducting on-site verification?
      4.1.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.1.1.1. If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) that did not follow the protocols.
        4.1.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and how they followed the Higg FEM Verification Protocols
   4.2. Based on what you know, how well did the Verifier follow the Higg FEM Verification Protocols?
      4.2.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.2.1.1. If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) that did not follow the protocols.
        4.2.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and how they followed the Higg FEM Verification Protocols
   4.3. In your opinion, how well did the Verifier know, understand and apply the correct scoring to the Verification questions?
      4.3.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.3.1.1. 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.
        4.3.1.2. 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.
   4.4. How professional was the interactions of the Verifier with the factory (including management and workers)? [NOTE: ‘Professional’ includes showing proper respect, acting properly, etc.]
      4.4.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.4.1.1. If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) to show a lack of professionalism.
        4.4.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and their professionalism.
   4.5. 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)?
      4.5.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.5.1.1. If 3 or less, explain what was done (or not done) to not meet timeliness expectations.
        4.5.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and their timeliness.
   4.6. 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?
      4.6.1. Score: Yes, Possibly, No, Unable to Answer
        4.6.1.1. If Yes, explain the circumstances that indicate there was an ethical concern
        4.6.1.2. If Possibly, explain what was done (or not done) to indicate there may be an ethical concern.
        4.6.1.3. Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about the Verifier and their ethics.
   4.7. How strongly would you recommend this Verifier to other Facilities who are looking for Verifiers?
      4.7.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.7.1.1. If 3 or less, explain why you would not recommend them to other Facilities.
        4.7.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments (positive or negative) about why you would or would not recommend them to other Facilities.
   4.8. Are there any other comments you would like to provide the SAC or the VPM about the Verifier?
      4.8.1. Score: Yes/No
        4.8.1.1. If yes, allow comments to be written
   4.9. How prepared were you for the Verification?
      4.9.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.9.1.1. If 3 or less, explain what you lacked that would have helped you be more prepared for your Verification.
        4.9.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments about what the SAC can do to help Facilities be more prepared for Verifications.
   4.10. 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?
      4.10.1. Score: Yes, No
        4.10.1.1. If yes, allow comments to be written
   4.11. How well did the Verification, as a whole, meet your expectations?
      4.11.1. Score: 1-5 (1 is low or ‘bad’, 5 is high or ‘great’)
        4.11.1.1. If 3 or less, explain what was lacking to not meet expectations.
        4.11.1.2. Any Score – Please add any comments about what the SAC can do to improve the Verifications process.
   4.12. Are there any other comments you would like to provide the SAC or the VPM about the Higg FEM Self-Assessment and Verification process?
      4.12.1. Score: Yes, No
        4.12.1.1. 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.