Objectivity: How we keep the rankings objective and free from bias

INTRODUCTION

Occasionally, we get asked by companies, funders, and other stakeholders how we address real or perceived concerns about biases, particularly in our core product, the Ranking of America’s Most JUST Companies. Maintaining the integrity and reliability of our rankings is of paramount importance to us, and our board of directors, and we are fully committed to keeping them free from perceived or actual bias.

We are an independent nonprofit organization with a diversified funding model inclusive of resources from a range of individuals, foundations, organizations, and companies. To prevent our funding strategy from conflicting with the reliability and independence of our rankings, we uphold the following key principles for our work:

• Transparency – we are accountable for the data we collect, the framework we adopt, and the rankings we publish through publicly accessible reference materials and full detailed disclosure of our methodology.
• Independence – we are committed to preserving the objectivity of our rankings by ensuring a clear separation between our data and rankings activities and our fundraising activities.
• Integrity & Good Governance – we strive to protect the quality of our research through ongoing internal and external checks that support responding to and managing any conflicts which may arise. 

OUR CURRENT PRACTICES

At JUST Capital, we have implemented the following robust practices to protect the integrity of our research and rankings process: 

Transparent Rankings Methodology

Every year, we publicly release an updated Full Rankings Methodology that details how companies are evaluated, the data sources used, and the criteria applied. This industry-leading practice allows stakeholders to understand the basis of our evaluations and have trust in the accuracy of our results.

Governance Policies

We have established internal policies, including a conflict of interest policy, a gifts acceptance policy, and a funder due diligence policy, that govern our practices and help manage potential issues. These policies are regularly updated as our organization evolves. 

Internal Training

The Data and Rankings teams oversee training for each employee that supports data collection. Data is collected within strict guidelines, and the data is validated through a robust quality assurance program. 

Quality Assurance Practices

We have multiple stages of quality assurance checks which are executed across various stages of the rankings process to ensure the outcome of our rankings are accurate and of the highest quality. These documented and standardized checks include ongoing data spot checks, automated quality assurance reports, and routine analyses to flag potential statistical bias and anomalies.

Role of the Independent Rankings Council (“IRC”)

The IRC is an independent body made up of a diverse group of academics and experts in the field. This group ensures the rankings process is objective and forward-looking by integrating best-practice research methods that are in line with how the field is evolving on the issues that we assess. As our organization evolves, we also intend for the role of the IRC to evolve to further mitigate or minimize any risk of perception or reality of bias.

Disputes Process

We have established internal channels where employees are able to raise or discuss potential or actual conflicts of interest related to the rankings process and/or commercial activities. This includes challenges to the rankings process and extends to the ability of employees to consult the Human Resources and Operations team should they need to discuss any concerns relating to internal processes 

Independent Operations

Our rankings-related personnel are organized into distinct teams—Data & Rankings-focused teams and Corporate Impact & Engagement-focused teams—each with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. This structure ensures the process of collecting data and evaluating companies is conducted independently and separate from the Corporate Engagement teams, minimizing the risk of undue influence.

We have also introduced further controls to ensure a clear distinction between the Data and Rankings teams and the Corporate Engagement teams of the organization. Some practices include recording interactions and anonymizing partner companies in circumstances where a team may require the expertise from another team.

ONGOING ASSESSMENTS OF PRACTICES 

We are committed to ensuring our rankings remain objective, and we recognize that the realization of this commitment is a work in progress, particularly as our funding sources grow and diversify. Our leadership and board remain focused on maintaining our objectivity. We will continue to revisit and refine our policies to ensure JUST Capital can grow while maintaining the integrity of our rankings. Upcoming enhancements to our objectivity controls that are currently under consideration include strengthening whistleblowing mechanisms and channels, expanding the role and influence of the IRC, enhancing our internal training procedures, and revising and publishing internal policies. We look forward to providing further updates on how we are continuing to renew and expand our commitment to the objectivity of our annual rankings.