1. Proposed Model for Ranking Business Response to HIV/AIDS Private Sector Conference on HIV/AIDS November 2008 Presented by Gavin George

2. Project Scope and Objective The aim of the project is to create a mechanism that improves business accountability against their own commitments in the response to HIV /AIDS. The ranking system will be developed based on extensive dialogue with stakeholders and experts to ensure the ranking’s relevance and credibility

3. Background and Motivation Business stands to benefit from a rating system in several ways, including: Proof for top management, board, and key stakeholders that HIV is being managed effectively Protect or increase brand value by placing well in the rating Better managing risks and opportunities with HIV internally Attract and maintain investors concerned about HIV risk Improve employee and community relations through a culture of openness and cooperation

4. Existing Context Global Context –GRI: aim of initiative is to assist reporting organizations and stakeholders to describe overall contributions of organisations to sustainable development Regional Context: South African Context –The King II Report recommends reporting on what the company is doing to mitigate the impact of HIV –SANS 16001:2007 - The South African National Workplace Management System Standard –The JSE launched the SRI Index in South Africa in May 2004 related to Environment, Society, Governance and sustainability concerns Sector Ranking Initiatives –International Finance Corporation “Scorecard”

5. Assumptions and Constraints Recognized that different businesses have different responsibilities and roles to play Project is restrained to holding companies accountable for the commitments they have made – not the commitments that their stakeholders would like to see them make

6. Framing the Ranking Model Methods of evaluation vary, as does depth of research and degree of diligence and few things are worth noting about this particular ranking: Having a policy on a particular issue is not enough as many companies under closer scrutiny do not follow the principles laid out by their policy Lack of transparency is nearly fatal as far as these rankings A number of firms will get credit for impressive community programmes and investment. But no information can be gathered on past injustices which could have lead to susceptible and vulnerable communities in the first place. In other words, there is no room for retrospective analysis on corporate behaviour having influenced current practice.

7. Introducing the Model Companies can (probably should) be evaluated and scored on four key areas: community and society, corporate governance, impact on employees (behaviour change through prevention activities) and treatment of HIV+ employees The combined scores convey the overall impact of a company's HIV/AIDS initiative on employees and communities, as well as the company's success in tackling ongoing health issues. The scoring criteria are weighted differently for each sector giving some indication of a company's performance relative to those companies in other regions and their size.

8. Ranking Tool Version 1.1 Country (RED =1, ORANGE=2, YELLOW=3) Company Size (MNC=1,LARGE=2,MEDIUM=3,SMALL=4) Weighted MarkYes(1)/No(2)Score Governance5 Activities700 Prevention5 Activities800 Treatment and Care3/5 Activities900 3 Outputs (to be scored as a %) Social Outreach5 Activities1000 Total Score0 Adjusted Score (Country Only)0 Adjusted Score (Country and Company Size combined) 0

9. Ranking Tool: Key Country Categorisation –Countries categorised according to prev.: where prev is between 0 - < 1% (YELLOW), those countries which have a prevalence of 1% but smaller than (<) 5% (ORANGE) and those countries with a prevalence of over 5% (RED). –Weighted positively and negatively Size Categorisation –Categorised in MNC, Large, Medium and Small –Weighted positively and Negatively

10. Ranking Tool: Key cont. Activity –5 per section Critical Success Factor’s (Output Activity) –All treatment related Weighted Mark Allocation –Starts at ‘7’ to avoid negative mark allocation – Rationale Example: If a MNC only had a policy and was operating in a ‘RED’ country their score would only reflect one (1). The benchmark would have to be a small company operating in a ‘YELLOW’ country who did nothing – their score would then reflect minus one (-1). It would be unfair for any company who did anything (even if only one indicator was captured) to be ranked below a company who did nothing. Should a MNC in a ‘RED’ country do nothing their score would read minus six (- 6).

11. Thank You Should you have any feedback please write to Gavin George: georgeg@ukzn.ac.za georgeg@ukzn.ac.za