Incorporating human rights into investment strategies: 2014 Non-Financial Rating of the 28 EU Member...

8/9/2019 Incorporating human rights into investment strategies: 2014 Non-Financial Rating of the 28 EU Member States

1/52

y

Incorporating Human Rights into Investment

Strategies: 2014 Non-Financial Ratingof the 28 EU Member States

EU MEMBER STATESUNDER THE SPOTLIGHT

rticle 1: All human beings are born free and equal in

gnity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

rticle 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as

ce, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore,

o distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which

person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3: Everyone

as the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall

e prohibited in all their forms. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,


2/52

2 / Titre du rapport – FIDH

Cover photo: Communities victims of forced eviction protesting outside the ICCPR/IESCRmeeting, February 2013. Copyright: TAHR.


3/52

PART I: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 6

1. Scope of the study .............................................................................................................. 6

Geographical scope............................................................................................................ 6

Human rights issues ........................................................................................................... 6

Protection of the environment and human rights............................................................... 7

2. Structure of the study ......................................................................................................... 7

3. Choice of indicators and method of calculation ............................................................... 8

Identifying human rights-based indicators ........................................................................ 8

Scoring system ................................................................................................................... 8

Overall weighting and ranking .......................................................................................... 9

Data collection process ...................................................................................................... 10

PART II: INDICATORS AND RESULTS ......................................................................... 11

Section A: States’ respect for human rights at the domestic level ......................................... 11

Criterion 1: Equality between men and women and women’s rights. ............................... 11

Criterion 2: Non-discrimination (except sex-based discrimination) ................................. 15

Criterion 3: Rights of migrants and refugees ..................................................................... 18

Criterion 4: Corruption and governance ............................................................................ 20

Criterion 5: Social cohesion/ economic and social rights .................................................. 22Criterion 6: Judicial system (right to a fair trial, torture and prison administration) ........ 25

Criterion 7: Freedom of expression and right to information ............................................ 27

Criterion 8: Labour rights .................................................................................................. 29

Section B: Respect for human rights at the international level .............................................. 31

Criterion 9: International justice and human rights promotion ......................................... 31

Criterion 10: Overseas development assistance/ nancial contributions to the UN .......... 33

Criterion 11: Arms control ................................................................................................. 35

Criterion 12: Promoting corporate responsibility at home and abroad ............................. 38

Section C: States’ respect for the environment and sustainable development ....................... 40

Criterion 13: Environmental exposure .............................................................................. 40

Criterion 14: Environmental management ........................................................................ 43

Annex .................................................................................................................................... 46

FIDH – EU MEMBER STATES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT / 3


4/52

4 / EU MEMBER STATES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT – FIDH

EU MEMBER STATES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHTIncorporating Human Rights into Investment Strategies: 2014 Non-Financial Rating of the 28 EU Member States

FIDH, worldwide movement for human rights is pleased to present this 2014 report on the non-nancial rating of the 28 European Union (EU) Member States. The publication of this reportmarks our continuing commitment to the promotion of responsible business and investment.

Non-nancial concerns have become an important element of strategic decision-making formany investors. ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) criteria are increasingly integratedinto decision-making processes regarding investments and divestments in and from companies.The adoption of the ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ by the United Nations’Human Rights council in 2011 and the Council’s recent decision to move towards the elaborationof a binding international instrument in this area are two key land-marks in the global responseto the impacts of economic activities on human rights.

Concern to support responsible business practices has focused primarily on the performanceof business enterprises. Little attention has been paid to the non-nancial performance ofsovereign states. FIDH has persistently highlighted this crucial area of interest for investmentpurposes. Since establishing its own ethical mutual fund “Libertés & Solidarité” and devisinga screening methodology for selecting both bonds and shares in 2001, FIDH has published anon-nancial rating of EU states every two years.

Numerous countries have yet to overcome the effects of the global nancial crisis. FIDHconsiders that economic, social and environmental crises can only be overcome by placinghuman rights at the centre of economic and political decisions. Focusing on short-term nancialobjectives cannot guarantee stability. On the contrary, it can have severe human rights andenvironmental consequences, especially for the most vulnerable.

On what criteria should investment decisions be made? How should states rank when it comesto non-nancial information? What indicators should be used? The objective of the presentstudy is to establish a methodology and classication system that will allow investors to takeinto account how states are fullling their obligations to respect, protect and promote humanrights in their decisions, both at home and abroad. FIDH’s approach is rooted in internationallaw and aims to stimulate discussion between states, investors and civil society.

Choosing human rights indicators is a particularly difcult challenge given the lack of dataavailability. States and international organisations still collect insufcient relevant quantitativeand qualitative data to allow for the systematic comparison of states’ policies and performancein the eld of human rights.

We hope that through its methodology, data and identication of data decits, this study willcontribute to the development of human rights indicators by states and the inclusion of humanrights in investment decisions.


5/52


2014 Non-Financial Rating of the 28 EU Member States

Countries Final ranking

Sweden 1

Finland 2

Denmark 3

Slovenia 4

France 5

Austria 6

Netherlands 7

Ireland 8

Germany 9

Luxembourg 10

Estonia 11

Lithuania 12

United Kingdom 13

Spain 14

Slovakia 15

Croatia 16

Portugal 17

Czech Republic 18

Belgium 19

Italy 20

Hungary 21

Latvia 22

Romania 23

Poland 24

Bulgaria 25

Greece 26

Cyprus 27

Malta 28


6/52


7/52


specic aspect of the legal and social reality of EU Member states, as well as risks of humanrights violations, such as those linked to discrimination or social exclusion.

Protection of the environment and human rights

The inclusion of a specic section on protection of the environment is in line with FIDH’sapproach and mandate. FIDH promotes and defends the indivisibility of human rights andrecognises the extent to which our future is dependent upon securing a sustainable environmentfor all. FIDH recognises the intrinsic relationship between environmental preservation and theprotection of human rights, as well as the urgent need to address the issue of climate change.The inclusion of environmental criteria in this study was therefore inevitable. However, themethodology used for this section differs from the rst two sections. Due to the specicities ofthis component, FIDH relied on external expertise to choose and evaluate the relevant criteria,issues and indicators. Although FIDH would have favoured an integrated approach by whichenvironmental criteria could be directly integrated into the study’s human rights criteria, this isnot presently possible, because there are still very few experts working on both human rights andenvironmental standards, and there continues to be a lack of reliable and sufciently objectivequantitative data for measuring this relationship. FIDH has therefore worked in collaborationwith MSCI ESG Research to incorporate indicators designed and documented by the ratingagency. When examined through the lens of a human rights approach, their methodologypresents certain shortcomings: in addition to limited sources of information, some indicatorsmight not sufciently capture the possible human rights consequences of environmentaldegradation and climate change. The inclusion of these indicators in the study neverthelessremains highly relevant and essential as they afford a perspective on state efforts regardingenvironmental protection.

2. Structure of the study

In total, twelve human rights and two environmental criteria were chosen as markers to gaugestate performance in these areas.

Section A. States’ respect for human rights at the national level

I. Equality between men and women and women’s rightsII. Non-discriminationIII. Rights of migrants and refugeesIV. Corruption and governanceV. Social cohesion/ economic and social rightsVI. Judicial systemVII. Freedom of expression and right to information

VIII. Labour rights

Section B. States’ Respect for Human Rights at the International Level

IX. International justice and human rights promotionX. Overseas development assistance/nancial contributions to UNXI. Arms controlXII. Promoting corporate responsibility at home and abroad

Section C. States’ respect for the environment and sustainable development

XIII. Environmental exposureXIV. Environmental management


8/52


3. Choice of indicators and method of calculation

Identifying human rights-based indicators

The indicators used within each of the 12 human rights criteria are derived from the contentof internationally recognised human rights, taking into account legally-binding human rightsobligations and principles inherent to all human rights. As such, this study promotes a humanrights based approach (HRBA) to policy-making in ensuring that both human rights standardsand principles are integrated into state decisions. The HRBA is often translated into a set ofprinciples known as “PANTHER”: Participation – Accountability – Non-discrimination –Transparency – Human dignity – Empowerment – Rule of law. Each indicator selected to someextent embraces these principles.

Despite being more difcult to measure (in numbers at least), it was decided that somequalitative indicators should be kept as these are often the only indicators capable of reecting

specic human rights dimensions. The present study attempts to apply the aforementioned basicparameters as consistently as possible.

– Indicator categories

The methodology adopted makes a distinction between three indicator categories: structural,process and outcome. This methodology is commonly used, for instance by the Ofce ofthe United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), to “assess the stepsbeing taken by states in addressing their obligations: from commitments and acceptance ofinternational human rights standards (structural indicators) to efforts being made to meet theobligations that ow from the standards ( process indicators) and on to the results of thoseefforts (outcome indicators)”.2

This distinction not only contributes to clarity, but also provides the user with reference points inrespect of how far the process of implementation has evolved in a given country. It also, at leastpartly, prevents the favouring of countries with greater nancial resources at their disposal tothe detriment of poorer countries that are nevertheless showing a willingness to make progress.Wherever possible, at least one indicator from each category has been included under each criterion.

– Obstacles and challenges

Whilst it has always been possible to identify relevant indicators under each criterion, theresearch team faced a number of obstacles linked to the lack of available, up-to-date andcomparable data. The unavailability of data represents a major challenge, in particular withregard to obtaining information for process indicators. Despite conducting extensive research

and expert consultations with academics and international human rights professionals, data forsome of the indicators could not be collected due to the simple fact that such data is not compiledby the government (or any other known entity). In other cases, data had been compiled but notin a format that allows for comparison.

A number indicators from previous versions of this study could also not be reused due to thelack of update of relevant sources. The lack of updated and/or available data makes it hard tocapture recent policy or legal changes impacting human rights.

Scoring system

The method of calculation (MoC) used to score the quantitative indicators in the 2014 report

was largely based on the method adopted in the 2012 report. The scores for each indicator were

2. See OHCHR, “Human Rights Indicators - Main features of OHCHR conceptual and methodological framework”, http://

www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/framework.aspx


9/52


transformed into a scale with the mean score for countries on that indicator acting as the mid-point of the scale.3 The intervals and upper and lower ends of the scale were then determinedon the basis of two factors:

a) A normative judgement of the minimum protection to be accorded by states for theright under consideration, and ;

b) Ensuring that the score for a point between the upper and lower end points on the scaleaccounts for an equal number of units as other points on the scale.

Using the EU country average facilitated the use of a less biased middle score and allowsfor substantively meaningful interpretation. The MoC for the environmental indicators wascalculated in a manner similar to the quantitative indicators.

The MoC of qualitative indicators used in the 2012 report was also adopted in the 2014 report.This category of indicators included measures of state ratication of international or regionaltreaties on human rights. In accordance with FIDH’ stance of encouraging ratication anddiscouraging reservations, states were rewarded for ratication and penalised for reservationsor non-ratication. With the exception of the indicator measuring implementation of theConvention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, all other indicators were limited inscope to structural rather than process aspects of measuring a right. Other qualitative indicatorsincluded in the study captured the existence and scope of legislation, policies and programmessuch as legislation legalising same-sex partnerships, programmes educating women about allforms of violence, etc. The scoring of these indicators was based on a normative judgementof the minimum standards that states should adhere to. Whenever possible, we also sought tocapture variations in policies and the implementation of these policies by the states includedin the study by assigning scores on a linear progression of the basic protection to a progressiverealization of these rights.

Countries have not been penalised for lack of data availability. The scores on the indicatorshave been marked as ‘n/a’ and counted as zero. These scores have been reconsidered if there isevidence to show that the state has deliberately not collected the data or made available accessto the data with the aim of manipulating its human rights record. Thus, the exception to thescoring rule has been the indicator measuring the transparency of the state’s budgetary processand the access that citizens and non-citizens have to this information. Since transparency andaccess to data is the content of the indicator, we assume that lack of data availability is adeliberate act on the part of the state to prevent access. States that have not made data availablefor this indicator have been penalised in this case.

The scores for each criterion were added together and this criterion score was converted to ascale of 0-10. This conversion is an approach adopted in order to standardize the scores and

ensure that each criterion has equal weight in the scoring. However, it was decided that theweight of four human rights criteria should be halved – namely, the scores for the national judicial and penal system, freedom of expression and the right to privacy, nancial assistanceto states and to the United Nations, and the promotion of corporate responsibility abroad. Thisis because each of these criterion had fewer than four indicators and countries scoring wellon these criteria would have been given an unfair advantage in the scores. These criteria wereconverted to scores from 0-5. Thus, each state could score a maximum of 100 and a minimumof 0 on the 12 human rights criteria and between 20 and 0 on the two environmental criteria.

Overall weighting and ranking

The human rights and environmental criteria scores were converted along a 70:30 ratio whenthey were incorporated into the nal scores. This is consistent with the approach included in the

2012 report and reects the human rights emphasis of the study whilst giving due importance

3. With an exception for the maximum detention length for irregular migrants


10/52


to environmental rights and protection. Countries were ranked from 1 to 28 based on these nalscores.

Data collection process

Given the need to base this report on objectively accurate and reliable sources, the vastbulk of the data collection process consisted of on-line research of a comprehensive rangeof authoritative data-bases and data sets. Where necessary, internationally recognised humanrights professionals were also consulted, including academics, UN Special Rapporteurs andrepresentatives of leading NGOs.

Online research was conducted using a variety of sources such as Eurostat, the informationportals of inter-governmental (e.g. European Commission, Council of Europe, FRA, OSCE,OECD, OHCHR, UNHCR, ILO, WHO) as well as non-governmental organisations andinstitutions (e.g. Reporters without Borders, ICC Coalition, Transparency International, Centrefor Law and Democracy, International Trade Union Confederation, Center for Reproductive

Rights, Tax Justice Network, ILGA, Access Info).


11/52


PART II:

INDICATORS ANDRESULTS

This section compiles the indicators which were used for the 2014 edition along with aclassication table for each criterion. Each of the applied indicators or group of indicatorsis accompanied by a short description of the indicator’s content and rationale, the method ofcalculation (MoC) and the main sources of information.

Section A: States’ respect for human rights at the domestic level

Criterion 1: Equality between men and women and women’s rights

As previous reports have consistently demonstrated, discrimination against women remainswidespread across Europe and is inadequately addressed by many governments. Gender equalityand women’s rights are considered a central issue that is commonly applied transversally to anyhuman rights study. Five main issues have been identied: political participation of women,gender and employment, gender and education, violence against women and reproductive rights.

• Issue 1 – Political participation of women

The rationale behind these ve indicators is to examine the representation of women in all threebranches of government: legislative, executive and the judiciary.

Indicator 1.1. Percentage of women in the national parliament (Upper and Lower Houses) MoC: >40%: +2 / 33-40%: +1 / 21-32%: 0 / 13-20%: -1 / 29%: +2 / Quota 40%: +2 / 33-40%: +1 / 21-32%: 0 / 13-20: -1 / < 13%: -2Source: European Commission, Justice, Section Politics 2014

Indicator 1.4. Percentage of women in level 1 administrative position in ministries orgovernment departments

MoC: >40%: +2 / 33-40%: +1 /21-32%: 0/ 13-20%: -1 / 45%: +2 / 36-45%: +1 / 25-35%: 0/ 15-24%: -1 /


12/52


• Issue 2: Gender and employment

These two indicators track the continuing pay gap between men and women and the representationof women on the boards of commercial businesses.

Indicator 1.6. Size of Gender pay gap at the national level MoC: 25%: -2Source: European Commission, Eurostat 2012

Note: Figures are rounded up before scoring

Indicator 1.7. Percentage of women in the highest decision making body (board members)in the private business sector

MoC: >35: +2 / 26-35: +1 / 20-25: 0 / 10-19: -1 / 92%: +2 / 87-92: +1 / 80-86%: 0 / 74-79: -1 /


13/52


Indicator 1.11. Ratication of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combatingviolence against women and domestic violence

MoC: Ratication or accession with no reservations: +3/ Ratication or accession

with reservations: +2/ Signature: +1/ No signature, ratication or accession: -2Source: Council of Europe, Accessed July 2014

• Issue 5: Reproductive rights

The indicator examines whether the state is committed to nding a balance between the rightto life and women’s reproductive freedom that, in particular, sufciently honours the basicprinciples of individual reproductive self-determination and non-discrimination.

Indicator 1.12. De-criminalisation of abortion MoC: Legal for up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without restriction to reason: +1

Legal for up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without restriction to reason but parental or spousal authorization required: 0

Legal for up to 10 weeks of pregnancy without restriction to reason OR upto12 weeks of pregnancy on socioeconomic grounds and to save the woman’slife, physical health and mental health: -1

Legal to preserve physical or mental health or the woman’s life: -2Prohibited altogether or allowed to save the woman’s life: -3

Source: Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, World Abortion Laws 2013


14/52


E q u a l i t y b e t

w e e n m e n a n d w o m e n a n d w o

m e n ’ s r i g h t s

C O U N T R I E S

I N D I C A T O R S

P e r c e n t a g e

o f w o m e n i n

t h e n a t i o n a l

p a r l i a m e n t

( 1 . 1 )

Q u o t a s f o r t h e

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

o f w o m e n

i n c l u d e d i n

t h e e l e c t o r a l

s y s t e m (

1 . 2 )

P e r c e n t a g e

o f w o m e n

i n t h e s e n i o r

m i n i s t e r

p o s i t i o n s

o f n a t i o n a l

g o v e r n m e n t s

( 1 . 3 )

P e r c e n t a g e

o f w o m e n

i n l e v e l 1

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

p o s i t i o n i n

m i n i s t r i e s o r

g o v e r n m e n t

d e p a r t m e n t s

( 1 . 4 )

P e r c e n t a g e

o f w o m e n i n

t h e h i g h e s t

j u d i c i a l b o d y

( 1 . 5 )

S i z e o f

G e n d e r p a y

g a p a t t h e

n a t i o n a l l e v e l

( 1 . 6 )

P e r c e n t a g e

o f w o m e n i n

t h e h i g h e s t

d e c i s i o n

m a k i n g

b o d y ( b o a r d

m e m b e r s ) i n

t h e p r i v a t e

b u s i n e s s

s e c t o r ( 1 . 7 )

P e r c e n t a g e

o f t h e f e m a l e

p o p u l a t i o n ( 2 0

- 2 4 y e a r s ) h a v i n g

c o m p l e t e d a t l e a s t

u p p e r s e c o n d a r y

e d u c a t i o n , p o s t

s e c o n d a r y n o n -

t e r t i a r y , r s t a n d

s e c o n d s t a g e

t e r t i a r y ( l e v e l s 3 - 6 )

( 1 . 8 )

N a t i o n

a l

s u r v e y

f o c u s i n g o n

t h e p r e v a l e n c e

a n d e f f e c t s

o f a l l f o r m s

o f v i o l e n c e

a g a i n s

t

w o m e n ( 1 . 9 )

E x i s t e n c e o f

p r o g r a m m e o r

a c t i v i t i e s t o

e d u c a t e c h i l d r e n

i n p u b l i c s c h o o l s

a t a n y l e v e l o f

s c h o o l i n g a b o u t

v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t

w o m e n ( 1 . 1 0 )

R a t i c a t i o n

o f t h e C o u n c i l

o f E u r o p e

C o n v e n t i o n

o n p r e v e n t i n g

a n d c o m b a t i n g

v i o l e n c e

a g a i n s t

w o m e n a n d

d o m e s t i c

v i o l e n c e

( 1 . 1 1 )

D e -

c

r i m i n a l i s a t i o n

o

f a b o r t i o n

(

1 . 1 2 )

R a w s c o r e

C o n v e r s i o n

t o 1 0

R a n g e

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 1

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 1 t o - 1

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 1 t o - 3

A u s t r i a

0

0

0

0

0

-

1

- 1

1

- 1

1

3

1

3

5 , 6 5

B e l g i u m

1

2

1

- 2

- 1

1

- 1

0

- 1

1

1

1

3

5 , 6 5

B u l g a r i a

0

- 1

1

0

2

1

- 1

0

- 1

1

- 2

1

1

5 , 2 2

C r o a t i a

0

0

- 1

0

1

0

- 1

2

- 1

1

1

0

2

5 , 4 3

C y p r u s

- 1

0

- 2

0

- 1

0

- 2

2

- 1

1

- 2

- 1

- 7

3 , 4 8

C z e c h R e p u b l i c

- 1

0

- 1

- 1

- 1

-

1

- 1

1

2

1

- 2

0

- 4

4 , 1 3

D e n m a r k

1

- 1

1

- 2

0

1

0

- 1

- 1

1

2

0

1

5 , 2 2

E s t o n i a

- 1

- 1

1

0

- 2

-

2

- 2

1

1

0

- 2

1

- 6

3 , 6 9

F i n l a n d

2

- 1

2

0

0

0

1

1

- 1

1

1

- 1

5

6 , 0 9

F r a n c e

0

2

2

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

1 1

7 , 3 9

G e r m a n y

1

0

1

0

- 1

- 1

0

- 1

0

1

1

1

2

5 , 4 3

G r e e c e

0

2

- 2

2

0

1

- 2

1

- 1

0

1

0

2

5 , 4 3

H u n g a r y

- 2

0

- 2

- 1

2

0

- 1

0

- 2

1

1

1

- 3

4 , 3 5

I r e l a n d

- 1

2

- 1

- 1

- 2

1

- 1

1

- 1

1

- 2

- 3

- 7

3 , 4 8

I t a l y

0

0

2

0

- 1

2

- 1

0

0

0

3

0

5

6 , 0 9

L a t v i a

0

- 1

1

2

2

1

1

1

- 2

1

- 2

0

4

5 , 8 7

L i t h u a n i a

0

0

- 2

0

0

1

- 1

1

1

1

- 2

1

0

5 , 0 0

L u x e m b o u r g

0

0

0

- 2

2

2

- 1

0

2

- 1

1

1

4

5 , 8 7

M a l t a

- 1

0

- 2

- 1

- 1

2

- 2

0

2

1

1

- 3

- 4

4 , 1 3

N e t h e r l a n d s

1

0

1

0

- 1

0

0

0

2

1

1

1

6

6 , 3 0

P o l a n d

0

2

- 1

2

- 1

2

- 1

2

1

1

1

- 2

6

6 , 3 0

P o r t u g a l

0

2

- 1

0

- 2

0

- 2

- 1

- 1

0

1

0

- 4

4 , 1 3

R o m a n i a

- 2

0

- 1

2

2

2

- 2

0

2

- 1

3

1

6

6 , 3 0

S l o v a k i a

- 1

0

- 2

0

2

-

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

5 , 2 2

S l o v e n i a

0

2

- 1

2

1

2

0

2

2

- 1

1

0

1 0

7 , 1 7

S p a i n

1

2

1

1

- 2

0

- 1

- 2

2

1

3

0

6

6 , 3 0

S w e d e n

2

0

2

2

1

0

1

1

2

1

2

1

1 5

8 , 2 6

U n i t e d

K i n g d o m

0

0

- 1

- 1

- 2

0

0

0

2

0

1

- 1

- 2

4 , 5 6


15/52


Criterion 2: Non-discrimination (except sex-based discrimination)

Besides issues of sex-based discrimination addressed in the rst criterion, the prohibition ofdiscrimination on the basis of race, religion, language, political opinion, national or social origin,

sexual orientation, gender or any other identity status is a basic human rights principle whichrequires according particular attention to vulnerable groups and marginalised communities.This section specically addresses discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, genderidentity, belonging to a minority, disability and age. Our previous indicator evaluating states’legal recognition of racial motivation as an aggravating element in criminal law could howevernot be included for lack of updated data.

• Issue 1: Protection of sexual orientation and gender identity

These three indicators measure discrimination against homosexual couples regarding marriageand adoption and gauge the extent to which offences related to homophobia or gender identityare punished by law.

Indicator 2.1. Existence of legislation recognising the legality of same-sex partnerships MoC: Marriage in all or most regions: +3 / Registered partnership with similar

rights to marriage only: +2 / Registered partnership with limited rights only:+1 / Cohabitation only: 0/ No: -2

Source: ILGA 2014. Information on legislation in Croatia was taken from online newssources.

Indicator 2.2. Legislative provisions concerning adoption by same sex couples MoC: Both second parent adoption and joint adoption: +2 / Second parent adoption:

+1 / No adoption rights but some parental authority and responsibilities forsame sex couples: 0 / No adoption rights: -2

Source: ILGA 2014.

Indicator 2.3. Criminal law provisions concerning offences related to sexual orientation andgender identity

MoC: One point for each of the following laws: Hate crime law (sexual orientation) / Hate speech law (sexual orientation) / Hate crime law (gender identity) / Hatespeech law (gender identity)

No laws but only policies tackling hate crimes related to sexual orientationand/or gender identity: 0

No laws or policies: -2Source: ILGA 2014

• Issue 2: Protection of national minorities and Roma people rights

The rst two indicators examine whether the state is legally committed to the protection of

national minorities and their special interests. The remaining two indicators aim to examinewhether state authorities act against political, social and economic marginalisation of Romapeople.

Indicator 2.4. Ratication of the Framework Convention for the Protection of NationalMinorities


with reservations: +2/ Signature: +1/ No signature, ratication or accession: -2

Source: Council of Europe, accessed in July 2014

Indicator 2.5. Ratication of the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages MoC: Ratication or accession with no reservations: +3/ Ratication or accession

with reservations: +2/ Signature: +1/ No signature, ratication or accession: -2Source: Council of Europe, accessed in July 2014


16/52


Indicator 2.6. Measures taken by states to ght discrimination against Roma MoC: One point for each of the measures taken by states: Enforcing anti-discrimination

legislation at the local level / Raising awareness on discrimination against Roma / Increasing awareness among Roma about their rights / Tackling multiple forms

of discrimination against Roma women / Fighting against human trafcking andlabour exploitation of children

States that have not undertaken any of these measures: -2 States that have been identied for the worst forms of discrimination despite

undertaking the measures listed above: -2 (These states will not be awarded positive points for the measures taken)Source: European Commission, Steps Forward in Implementing National Roma Integration

Strategies, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/les/com_2013_454_en.pdf

On worst forms of social exclusion: European Commission, Report on Discrimination of Roma Children in Education, October 2014

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/les/roma_childdiscrimination_en.pdf

Indicator 2.7. Measures taken by states to monitor the effect of policies for the socialinclusion of Roma

MoC: Points assigned on any of the following measures taken by states: Mappingof the situation of the Roma / A monitoring system to measure the results andimpacts of the national strategy / Identication of areas with extremely poor

Roma communities / Involvement of all major stakeholders in the monitoringand evaluation process / Cooperation with National Statistical Ofces /

Planned regular reporting and evaluation States that have not undertaken any of these measures: -2 States that have undertaken at least one measure: 0

1 bonus point for each additional measure undertaken States that have been identied for the worst forms of discrimination despite

undertaking the measures listed above: -2 (These states will not be awarded positive points for the measures taken)

Source: European Commission, Steps Forward in Implementing National Roma Integration Strategies, 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/les/

com_2013_454_en.pdf

On worst forms of social exclusion: European Commission, Report on Discrimination of Roma Children in Education, October 2014

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/les/roma_childdiscrimination_en.pdf

• Issue 3: Social inclusion of persons with disabilities

The indicator reects the level of a state’s legal commitment to the aims of the UN Convention onthe Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ratication of the Optional Protocol merits one bonus point.

Indicator 2.8. Ratication of UN Convention on rights of persons with disabilities

MoC: Ratication or accession with no reservations: +3/ Ratication or accessionwith reservations: +2/ Signature: +1/ No signature, ratication or accession: -2

Source: OHCHR / UN Treaty Database (as of July 2014)

• Issue 4: Protection against age discrimination

The two indicators examine to what degree older persons and minors are at risk of economicand social exclusion.

Indicator 2.9. At risk of poverty rate for persons 65 years and older after social transfers MoC: 40: -3Source: European Commission, Eurostat 2012

Note: Figures were rounded up before scoring

Indicator 2.10. At risk of poverty rate for persons less than 18 years old after social transfers MoC: 30: -3Source: European Commission, Eurostat 2012

Note: Figures were rounded up before scoring


17/52


N o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( e x c e p t s e x - b a s e d d i s c r i m i n a t i o n )

C o u n t r i e s

I N D I C A T O R S

E x i s t e n c e o f

L e g i s l a t i o n

r e c o g n i s i n g

t h e l e g a l i t y

o f s a m e - s e x

p a r t n e r s h i p s

( 2 . 1 )

L e g i s l a t i v e

p r o v i s i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g

a d o p t i o n b y

s a m e s e x

c o u p l e s ( 2 . 2 )

C r i m i n a

l l a w

p r o v i s i o

n s

c o n c e r n

i n g

o f f e n c e s r e l a t e d

t o s e x u a l

o r i e n t a t i o n a n d

g e n d e r i d e n t i t y

( 2 . 3 )

R a t i c a t i o n

o f t h e

F r a m e w o r k

C o n v e t i o n f o r

t h e P r o t e c t i o n

o f N a t i o n a l

M i n o r i t i e s

( 2 . 4 )

R a t i c a t i o n o f

t h e E u r o p e a n

C h a r t e r f o r

R e g i o n a l

o r M i n o r i t y

l a n g u a g e s

( 2 . 5 )

M e a s u r e s t a k e n

b y

s t a t e s t o g h t

d i s

c r i m i n a t i o n

a g a i n s t R o m a

( 2 . 6 )

M e a s u r e s t a k e n b y

s t a t e s t o m o n i t o r t h e

e f f e c t o f p o l i c i e s f o r

t h e s o c i a l i n c l u s i o n

o f R o m a ( 2 . 7 )

R a t i c a t i o

n o f U N

C o n v e n t i o

n o n r i g h t s o f

p e r s o n s w i t h d i s a b i l i t i e s

( 2 . 8 )

A t r i s k o f p o v e r t y

r a t e f o r p e r s o n s

6 5 y e a r s a n d

o l d e r a f t e r s o c i a l

t r a n s f e r s ( 2 . 9 )

A t r i s k o f

p o v e r t y

r a t e f o r p e

r s o n s l e s s

t h a n 1 8 y e

a r s o l d a f t e r

s o c i a l t r a n

s f e r s ( 2 . 1 0 )

R a w s c o r e

C o n v e r s i o n

t o 1 0

R a n g e

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 4 t o - 2

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 5 t o - 2

+ 5 t o - 2

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 3

+ 2 t o - 3

A u s t r i a

2

1

1

3

3

3

0

3

1

0

1 7

7 , 2 2

B e l g i u m

3

2

4

1

- 2

- 2

1

3

0

0

1 0

5 , 9 3

B u l g a r i a

- 2

- 2

- 2

3

- 2

- 2

- 2

3

- 1

- 2

- 9

2 , 4 1

C r o a t i a

2

- 2

4

3

2

- 2

- 2

3

0

- 1

7

5 , 3 7

C y p r u s

- 2

- 2

- 2

3

3

- 2

- 2

2

- 1

1

- 2

3 , 7 1


2

- 2

- 2

3

3

- 2

- 2

3

2

1

6

5 , 1 9

D e n m a r k

3

2

2

3

3

3

- 2

3

1

1

1 9

7 , 5 9

E s t o n i a

- 2

- 2

1

3

- 2

1

1

3

1

0

4

4 , 8 2

F i n l a n d

2

1

2

3

3

2

4

1

0

1

1 9

7 , 5 9

F r a n c e

3

2

4

- 2

1

1

1

3

2

0

1 5

6 , 8 5

G e r m a n y

2

1

0

3

3

- 2

- 2

3

1

0

9

5 , 7 4

G r e e c e

- 2

- 2

2

1

- 2

- 2

3

3

1

- 2

0

4 , 0 8

H u n g a r y

2

- 2

4

3

3

- 2

- 2

3

2

- 1

1 0

5 , 9 3

I r e l a n d

2

- 2

1

3

- 2

1

- 2

1

1

0

3

4 , 6 3

I t a l y

0

- 2

- 2

3

1

1

2

3

1

- 2

5

5

L a t v i a

- 2

- 2

- 2

3

- 2

2

1

3

1

- 1

1

4 , 2 6

L i t h u a n i a

- 2

- 2

2

3

- 2

1

2

3

0

- 1

4

4 , 8 2

L u x e m b o u r g

1

- 2

- 2

1

3

- 2

- 2

3

2

- 1

1

4 , 2 6

M a l t a

2

2

4

2

1

- 2

- 2

1

1

- 1

8

5 , 5 6


3

2

1

3

3

1

0

1

2

1

1 7

7 , 2 2

P o l a n d

- 2

- 2

- 2

3

3

- 2

1

2

1

- 1

1

4 , 2 6

P o r t u g a l

3

- 2

4

3

- 2

1

0

3

1

- 1

1 0

5 , 9 3

R o m a n i a

- 2

- 2

1

3

3

2

3

3

1

- 3

9

5 , 7 4

S l o v a k i a

- 2

- 2

1

3

3

- 2

- 2

3

2

- 1

3

4 , 6 3

S l o v e n i a

1

1

2

3

3

2

2

3

0

1

1 8

7 , 4 1

S p a i n

3

2

4

3

3

1

2

3

1

- 2

2 0

7 , 7 8

S w e d e n

3

2

2

3

3

2

3

3

0

0

2 1

7 , 9 6

U n i t e d K i n g d o

m

3

2

1

3

3

- 2

0

2

1

0

1 3

6 , 4 8


18/52


Criterion 3: Rights of migrants and refugees

In a context of economic, political, social and environmental crises, the human rights of

migrants are increasingly threatened by diverse legislative and political measures taken byEuropean governments. The protection of migrants’ rights, including refugees’ rights, is anessential component of this assessment of the extent to which EU Members states are meetingtheir international obligations.

• Issue 1: Rights of refugees

The indicator measures the extent of asylum applications approved, in the rst and secondinstance, in the context of a sharp decrease of refugee recognition rates by European states inthe past decades.

Indicator 3.1. Percentage of asylum applications approved at nal decisions MoC: >50%: +3 / 41-50%: +2 / 31-40%: +1 / 21-30%: 0 / 11-20%: -1 / 1-11%: -2

/ 0: -3Source: Eurostat 2012

• Issue 2: Rights of migrants

The rst two indicators respectively examine whether the state demonstrates its willingness toinclude non-national residents in political decision processes and to enable them to exercisetheir economic and social rights by entering the labour market. The third indicator examinesto what extent the state is committed – in line with article 15 of the Directive 2008/115/EC ofthe European Parliament and of the EU Council – to protect foreign nationals without legalresidence status from arbitrary and disproportionate measures depriving them of their personalfreedom and dignity. The standard set by the aforementioned directive is a maximum of 6months in detention, as a measure of last resort. Given the fact that alternatives to detention are

insufciently utilised by states, no positive scores are awarded for this indicator.

Indicator 3.2. Ratication of the Convention on the participation of foreigners in public lifeat local level


with reservations: +2/ Signature: +1/ No signature, ratication or accession: -2

Source: Council of Europe (accessed July 2014)

Indicator 3.3. Percentage of third country immigrants having access to the regular labourmarket

MoC: >72%: +2 / 68-72%: +1 / 63-67%: 0 / 58-62%: -1 / 12 months: -3Source: www.asylumineurope.org and Global Detention Project, Europe Proles

Data: 2013-2014


19/52


R i g h

t s o f m i g r a n t s a n d r e f u g e e s

C o u n t r i e s

I N D I

C A T O R S

P e r c e n t a g e o f a s y l u m

a p p l i c a t i o n s a p p r o v e d a t n a l

d e c i s i o n s ( 3 . 1 )

R a t i c a t i o n o f t h e C o n v e n t i o n

o n

t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f

f o r e i g n e r s i n p u b l i c l i f e a t

l o c a l l e v e l ( 3 . 2 )

P e r c e n t a g e o f t h i r d

c o u n t r y

i m m i g r a n t s h a v i n g

a c c e s s t o

t h e r e g u l a r l a b o u r m

a r k e t ( 3 . 3 )

M a x i m u m a d m i s s i o n l e n g t h o f

d e t e n t i o n f o r d e p o r t a t i o n ( 3 . 4 )

R a w s c o r e

C o n v e r s i o n t o 1 0

R a n g

e

+ 3 t o - 3

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

0 t o - 3

A u s t r i a

- 1

- 2

0

- 2

- 5

2 , 7 8

B e l g i u m

- 2

- 2

- 2

- 1

- 7

1 , 6 7

B u l g a

r i a

3

- 2

- 2

- 3

- 4

3 , 3 3

C r o a t i a

0

- 2

- 2

n / a

- 4

3 , 3 3

C y p r u

s

- 2

1

2

- 3

- 2

4 , 4 5

C z e c h

R e p u b l i c

- 2

1

2

- 1

0

5 , 5 6

D e n m

a r k

0

3

0

- 3

0

5 , 5 6

E s t o n i a

- 3

1

2

- 3

- 3

3 , 8 9

F i n l a n

d

3

3

0

- 3

3

7 , 2 2

F r a n c e

- 1

- 2

- 1

- 1

- 5

2 , 7 8

G e r m a n y

- 1

- 2

0

- 3

- 6

2 , 2 2

G r e e c

e

1

- 2

2

- 3

- 2

4 , 4 5

H u n g a r y

0

- 2

1

- 3

- 4

3 , 3 3

I r e l a n

d

- 2

- 2

- 1

- 1

- 6

2 , 2 2

I t a l y

3

3

1

- 3

4

7 , 7 8

L a t v i a

- 2

- 2

1

- 3

- 6

2 , 2 2

L i t h u a n i a

- 3

1

2

- 3

- 3

3 , 8 9

L u x e m

b o u r g

- 3

- 2

1

- 1

- 5

2 , 7 8

M a l t a

- 2

- 2

1

- 2

- 5

2 , 7 8

N e t h e

r l a n d s

- 1

3

- 1

- 3

- 2

4 , 4 5

P o l a n d

- 2

- 2

1

- 2

- 5

2 , 7 8

P o r t u g a l

- 3

- 2

2

- 1

- 4

3 , 3 3

R o m a

n i a

- 1

- 2

n / a

- 3

- 6

2 , 2 2

S l o v a k i a

- 1

- 2

n / a

- 1

- 4

3 , 3 3

S l o v e

n i a

- 3

1

2

- 2

- 2

4 , 4 5

S p a i n

- 2

- 2

2

- 1

- 3

3 , 8 9

S w e d e n

- 2

3

0

- 2

- 1

5 , 0 0

U n i t e d K i n g d o m

2

1

0

- 3

0

5 , 5 6


20/52


Criterion 4: Corruption and governance

Corruption and good governance are directly related to human rights to the extent that the

protection of human rights is directly undermined by corrupt ofcials and poor governance.Thus, corrupt practices and the lack of transparent institutional decision-making processeswithin governmental structures are undoubtedly recognised as determining factors contributingto the perpetration of human rights abuses. A state’s good governance practices act as positiveprerequisites for the respect of human rights.

• Issue 1: Corruption

The rst indicator examines corruption in the public sector and in politics. It is based on theperception of informed observers. The second and third indicators reect the views of andexperiences with corruption of a representative sample of each country’s population in the areasmentioned above.

Indicator 4.1. Corruption perceptions index, public sector MoC: >80: +2 / 71-80: +1 / 61-70: 0 / 51-60: -1 /


21/52


C o r r u p t i o n a n d g o v e r n a n c e

C o u n t r i e s

I N D

I C A T O R S

C o r r u p t i o n p e r c e p t i o n s

i n d e x , p u b l i c s e c t o r ( 4 . 1 )

P u b l i c c o v e

r a g e o n t h e g l o b a l

c o r r u p t i o n B a r o m e t e r f o r

P a r l i a m e n t /

L e g i s l a t u r e ( 4 . 2 )

P u b l i c C o v e r a g e o n t h e g l o b a l

c o r r u p t i o n b a r o m e t e r f o r

p u b l i c o f c i a l s / c i v i l s e r v

a n t s

( 4 . 3 )

O p e n B u d g e t I n d e x S c o r e s

( 4 . 4 )

F i n a n c i a l S

e c r e c y

S c o r e ( 4 . 5 )

R a w s c o r e

C o n v e r s i o n t o 1 0

R a n g e

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 4 t o - 2

+

2 t o - 2

A u s t r i a

0

n / a

n / a

- 2

- 2

- 4

2 , 7 3

B e l g i u m

1

- 1

- 1

- 2

0

- 3

3 , 1 8

B u l g a r i a

- 2

- 1

- 1

2

n / a

- 2

3 , 6 4

C r o a t i a

- 2

- 1

- 1

2

n / a

- 2

3 , 6 4

C y p r u s

0

- 2

- 1

- 2

- 1

- 6

1 , 8 2


- 2

- 1

- 1

3

n / a

- 1

4 , 0 9

D e n m a r k

2

1

1

- 2

1

3

5 , 9 1

E s t o n i a

0

0

0

- 2

n / a

- 2

3 , 6 4

F i n l a n d

2

0

0

- 2

n / a

0

4 , 5 5

F r a n c e

1

- 1

0

4

0

4

6 , 3 6

G e r m a n y

1

0

0

3

- 1

3

5 , 9 1

G r e e c e

- 2

- 2

- 1

- 2

n / a

- 7

1 , 3 6

H u n g a r y

- 1

- 1

0

- 2

1

- 3

3 , 1 8

I r e l a n d

0

n / a

n / a

- 2

1

- 1

4 , 0 9

I t a l y

- 2

- 2

- 1

1

1

- 3

3 , 1 8

L a t v i a

- 2

- 1

- 1

- 2

- 1

- 7

1 , 3 6

L i t h u a n i a

- 1

- 2

- 1

- 2

n / a

- 6

1 , 8 2

L u x e m b o u r g

1

0

0

- 2

- 2

- 3

3 , 1 8

M a l t a

- 1

n / a

n / a

- 2

0

- 3

3 , 1 8


2

n / a

n / a

- 2

0

0

4 , 5 5

P o l a n d

- 1

n / a

n / a

1

n / a

0

4 , 5 5

P o r t u g a l

0

- 1

0

2

1

2

5 , 4 6

R o m a n i a

- 2

- 1

0

0

n / a

- 3

3 , 1 8

S l o v a k i a

- 2

- 1

- 1

2

n / a

- 2

3 , 6 4

S l o v e n i a

0

- 1

- 1

3

n / a

1

5 , 0 0

S p a i n

0

- 1

0

2

1

2

5 , 4 6

S w e d e n

2

n / a

n / a

4

1

7

7 , 7 3

U n i t e d K i n g d

o m

1

- 1

0

4

- 2

2

5 , 4 6


22/52


Criterion 5: Social cohesion/ economic and social rights

One demonstrable consequence of the responses to the global nancial and economic crisisis the exacerbation of poverty and socio-economic inequalities, which result in violations ofseveral key human rights, particularly for vulnerable groups. The issue of social cohesion andrespect for economic and social rights should be at the forefront of any analysis of states’human rights records. Indeed, irrespective of its economic resources and choices, each statehas committed to take steps towards progress in the eld of economic and social rights. Thissection examines states’ efforts to protect the most vulnerable groups through a comprehensiverange of indicators which address key contributory factors to social and economic deprivation.

• Issue 1: Legal protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR)

The indicators measure whether states have recognised the justiciability of economic, socialand cultural Rights before UN and European complaint procedures.

Indicator 5.1. Ratication (and signature) of the Optional Protocol to the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

MoC: Ratication or accession and have placed declarations recognizing the

competence of the Committe under Articles 10 and 11: +3/ Ratication or

accession but no declarations under Articles 10 and 11: +2/ Signature: +1/ Nosignature, ratication or accession: -2

Source: United Nations Treaty Collection, Accessed July 2014

Indicator 5.2. Ratication of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charterproviding for a System of Collective Complaints


with reservations: +2/ Signature: +1/ No signature, ratication or accession: -2Source: Council of Europe Treaty Ofce, Accessed July 2014

• Issue 2: Right to social security

The indicator examines the state’s commitment to protect its vulnerable groups through nancialassistance.

Indicator 5.3. At risk of poverty rate after social transfers MoC: 20: -2Source: European Commission, Eurostat 2012

Note: Figures rounded up before scoring

• Issue 3: Right to educationThe indicator examines whether the state’s efforts to provide its population with the opportunityfor education are effective.

Indicator 5.4. Percentage of total population (25-64) having completed at least uppersecondary education

MoC: >90: +2 / 81-90: +1 / 71-80: 0 / 60-70: -1 /


23/52


24/52


S o c i a l c o h e

s i o n / e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l r i g

h t s

C o u n t r i e s

I N D I C A T O R S

R a t i c a t i o n o f t h e

O p t i o n a l P r o t o c o l o f

t h e I C E S C R ( 5 . 1 )

R a t i c a t i o n o f t h e A d d i t i o n a l

P r o t o c o l t o t h e E u r o p e a n

S o c i a l C h a r t e r ( 5 . 2 )

A t r i s k o f p o v e r t y r a t e

a f t e r s o c i a l t r a n s f e r s ( 5 . 3 )

P e r c e n t a g e o f

t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n

( 2 5 - 6 4 ) h a v i n g

c o m p l e t e d a t

l e a s t u p p e r

s e c o n d a r y

e d u c a t i o n ( 5 . 4 )

P e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l

p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g

w i t h a l e a k i n g r o o f ,

d a m p w a l l s , o o r s

o r f o u n d a t i o n , r o t i n

w i n d o w f r a m e s o r o o r

( 5 . 5 )

P e r c e n t a g e o f

h o u s e h o l d s w i t h

a h e a v y n a n c i a l

b u r d e n d u e t o

h o u s i n g c o s t s

( 5 . 6 )

D e p t h o f

f o o d d e c i t

( 5 . 7 )

G i n i

c o e f c i e n t

o f i n e q u a l i t y

( 5 . 8 )

H e a l t h y l i f e

y e a r s f o r

f e m a l e s a t b i r t h

a s a p e r c e n t a g e

o f t o t a l l i f e

e x p e c t a n c y

( 5 . 9 )

O u t o f p o c k e t

e x p e n d i t u r e

a s a

p e r c e n t a g e o f

t o t a l h e a l t h

e x p e n d i t u r e

( 5 . 1 0 )

R a w

s c o r e

C o n v e r s i o n

t o 1 0

R a n g e

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 3 t o

- 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 3

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 2 t o - 2

+ 3 t o - 2

+ 3 t o - 3

A u s t r i a

- 2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

8

6 , 5 2

B e l g i u m

3

3

0

0

0

0

2

1

2

0

1 1

7 , 1 7

B u l g a r i a

- 2

n / a

- 2

1

1

- 2

- 3

n / a

3

- 3

- 7

3 , 2 6

C r o a t i a

- 2

3

- 2

0

1

- �

Incorporating human rights into investment strategies: 2014 Non-Financial Rating of the 28 EU Member...

Documents

Transcript of Incorporating human rights into investment strategies: 2014 Non-Financial Rating of the 28 EU Member...