Methodology

GMAP provides an early and high-level country and commodity-level evaluation of environmental and social risks associated with agro—commodity primary production. The criteria and indicators align with the IFC 2012 Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability, in particular the supply chain-related requirements of Performance Standard 2 “Labor and Working Conditions” and Performance Standard 6 “Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources”.

  • PS2

    Performance Standard 2

    Labor and Working Conditions

  • PS6

    Performance Standard 6

    Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources

All the data and information that goes into the GMAP is publically available and comes from reputable international and local sources, such as the International Labor Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. These sources are cited in the Analysis section of each report. Where possible, the research team has tried to capture sub-regional or local exceptions to higher risk ratings at the country level.

The research team is comprised of individuals with diverse educational and professional backgrounds and specialties, which supports a thorough research and peer review process. The team has collectively developed and designed a rigorous risk methodology aligned to the IFC 2012 Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Based on learnings from this extensive research, work with clients and pilot testing, the team has conducted multiple methodology improvements and continues to do so.

Risk Matrix

The methodology uses a traditional risk matrix to quantify production risk. A risk score for each indicator is derived from a combination of two factors

1

Probability of an occurrence

2

Severity of impact

A higher score on the matrix implies a higher probability of occurrence and severity of impact.

Thus, the higher the score, the higher the risk. The analysis can help to identify and prioritize areas for potential risk management.

20