Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Ranking and rating reports have been increasingly used by human rights practitioners to publish information about the behaivors and operations of governments, politicians, corporations, etc., regarding any set of concerns. With forethought and a clear agenda, such a system can become a powerful tool to capture attention, awareness, pressure, and progress all at once. Closely related to boycotts, ranking or rating tactics can vary in characteristics, depending on what the agenda of the organization is, how large their subject group is, and who the target audience is. Greenpeace, Genocide Information Network, Friends of Maldives, and the Human Rights Capaign Foundation all have their own unique ranking or rating systems which will be described below, highlighting how their different contexts and agendas result in different ways of using this technique.

Greenpeace has been ranking the environmental politicies and practices of more than a dozen electronics companies for the past few eras. Their rankings place these companies on a spectrum in relation to each other, basing their findings on a handful of factors (waste, chemical management, filtering out carcinogenic material use, etc.). The information used in these studies is collected from both publically available information and through direct contact with the companies that they are rating. This direct contact is one of two very important characteristics that shape Greenpeace's tactic because it creates a positive communication between the parties, which can be utilized to achieve progress. Additionally, Greenpeace's ranking is uniquely done three to four times a year, creating an enormous continuation of their results, and therefore a large incentive for progress on behalf of the companies. For a fairly large organization, like Greenpeace, this tactic of frequent, thorough, cooperative ranking lists is very effective, resulting in continuation, accountability, and incentives for progress.

Genocide Information Network started their own ranking system, called Darfur Scores, that rates the voting and sponsoring actions of U.S. politicians regarding Darfur legislation, with the overall goal of ending genocide in Darfur. Their advocacy has gathered significant attention and is respected as an authority regarding the politics of Darfur legislation, however it doesn't have the same direct contact with its subjects as the Greenpeace initiative does, and it must be noted that choosing politicians (or governments) as subjects for a ranking system makes the advocacy more difficult, becuase politicans must justify their actions within their party and to their constituents. What this means, in a practical sense, is that the information provided by Darfur Scores is ideally utilized by constituents to hold their elected politicians responsible for their voting records, whereas the Greenpeace strategy is more primarily to act as an incentive for companies to progressively attain environmental standards, rather than act as an information source for consumers.

The Friends of Maldives (FOM) organization utilized a boycott tactic in 2005 to unveil issues of corruption and human rights violations by members of the government which had been in power for nearly 30 years. The boycott included a number of hotels and resports that FOM urged tourists to refrain from visitng because of the involvement of governmental officials in these hotels and resorts. Although this is not an actual ranking or rating system (becuase it fials to incorporate a spectrum or tracking of progress) it is still helpful to understand how different goals and circumstances lead to different adaptation of tactics. FOM was a small organization addressing a small number of targets to a relatively small but effective audience (tourists). Therefore, a boycott of listed resorts was not only organizationally possible, but also effective if the information could be widely spread to tourists (which it was thanks to the support of Lonely Planet and the Times). Since the targeted politicians were owners or partners of these reorts, it would have likely been ineffective to establish a system to promote ending financial support to the government in this case. Although this effort dramatically ended with the bombing of Male, it illustrates how contexts need to be taken into account to determine what the best tactic is for the situation. 

Finally, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (HRC) has been ranking corporations on their 'Equity' towards Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transvestite (LGBT) employees. Their most recent ranking evaluated nearly 600 corporations, with 260 corporations attaining perfect scores. This report is by far the most widely published ranking system in human rights, doing an excellent job of gathering media attention, and therefore creating incentives to change policies and treatments towards LGBT employees. In addition they have created a 'Best Places to Work' acknowledgment for the corporations who score perfect in the rankings, utilizing a very easy to use PR device and incentive for their subjects. The only shortfall of their sutdy is that it fails to report statsitcs in a way that shows progression and comparison throughout the years. Also, since it is done on a yearly basis, it has less of a sense of urgency than the Greenpeace initiative. Overall, however, HRC has done a thorough and well publicized job of ranking these corporations and advocating the development of LGBT equality in the corporate world by understanding that they must target the corporations' self-development rather than try to create consumer awareness which would have been impossible for a scope of nearly 600 corporations.

To conclude, it is essential for organizations to keep their subjects, target audience, and goals in mind when developing their own ranking/rating tactic. Addressing whether gaining consumer or voter awareness is easier than the creation of direct incentives for corporations or politicians results in the difference between a cooperative ranking system like Greenpeace's and a boycott like the FOM used. If it is not possible to use boycotting tactics, then incentives for progress within the corporation need to be created. The size of one's organization determines how often it is able to evaluate its subjects and create new rankings, whereas the venues for progress (changes in legislation, changes in company policy, changes in the materials companies use, etc) determine the relevancy of frequent assessments. Finally, a core set of factors which are easy enough to attain information about and are good indicators of the practice taht is being encouraged or discouraged needs to be assembled. These are all issues of context which must be addressed in order for a ranking and rating system to work for your organization, but if done properly, this can be a great tactic for your advocacy.

How have you implemented ranking/rating tactics in your campaigns? Please share your stories by adding a comment below!