AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

2016 ACCOUNTABILITY
REPORT TO THE INGO
ACCOUNTABILITY CHARTER
Table of Contents

1. Strategic Commitment to Accountability ...................................................................... 3

2. Organizational Profile ................................................................................................. 4

3. Report Parameters ..................................................................................................... 7

4. Governance, Structure and Key Stakeholders ................................................................ 8

I. Programme Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 12

NGO1: Involvement of affected stakeholder groups ...................................................... 12

NGO2: Mechanisms for stakeholder feedback and complaints ....................................... 14

NGO3: System for programme monitoring, evaluation and learning ................................ 15

NGO4: Measures to integrate gender and diversity ....................................................... 16

NGO5: Advocacy positions and public awareness campaigns ......................................... 18

NGO6: Coordination with other actors ......................................................................... 19

II. Financial Management ............................................................................................. 21

III. Environmental Management .................................................................................... 23

IV. Human Resource Management ................................................................................. 25

V. Responsible Management of Impact on Society........................................................... 29

VI. Ethical Fundraising ................................................................................................. 31

1
1. Strategic Commitment to Accountability

1.1 Statement from the most senior decision-maker of the organization.

Amnesty International is a founding member of the INGO

Accountability Charter and with this ninth report, as with all previous
ones, we welcome the opportunity to publically reflect on our
understanding and practice of accountability. In our most recent
accountability reports we shared our efforts to adapt and evolve
Amnesty through our Global Transition Programme, which meant
distributing the power of our International Secretariat to 14 strategic
locations across the world, and through developing a new global
strategic plan that saw us consult with thousands of activists, citizens
and partners around the world.

This year Amnesty International is embarking on its new global

strategy (Taking Injustice Personally: Strategic Goals 2016-2019 -
https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/how-were-run/strategic-plan/) that seeks to address the biggest
challenges the human rights movement is facing today. As I write these lines, we are launching new global
campaigns to respond to the refugee crisis and to defend civic spaces across the world at a time when they
are increasingly under threat. We are doing so as a globally distributed yet integrated organization.

Our commitment to mount a forceful response to these crises drives us to learn, to innovate and to steadily
adapt the way we approach and win human rights change. The defining processes of global transition and
global strategy development have further crystallized our approach to both human rights impact and
accountability. It is an approach that emphasizes and balances: agility and persistence, expertise and
collective power.

The recently launched ‘I Welcome’ campaign is a case in point: we are elevating our capacity to respond
quickly and effectively to crises – be it through tactical advocacy or analysis of satellite imagery to evidence
the violations suffered by refugees trapped in out of reach locations. At the same time, we are scaling-up
approaches that will create rights respecting societies in the long run: our Massive Online Course on refugee
rights has received 12.456 subscriptions and counting. We are expertly engaging states during negotiations
for increasing the numbers of refugees they take in while encouraging shared responsibility for changing the
narratives of xenophobia by asking every citizen to pledge ‘I welcome’. We commit to doing all our work in
ways that strengthen the wider human rights movement - our partners, communities and networks - and our
joint capacity to create sustainable change at local, national, global levels.

To keep us in check as we walk this path, our newly launched Impact and Learning system will accompany
the delivery our programmes of work at all levels: national, regional and global. The system features annual
deep-dive reviews with our partners and other stakeholders and global strategic groups charged with trends
scanning responsibilities. It is designed for increasing strategy adaptation, collaborative analysis of
successes and failures, and external feedback. As a first step regional advisory groups that provide an
external perspective for ongoing strategy adaptation have been set-up for each of our regions. Our renewed
focus on impact and learning goes alongside a set of other initiatives and learning schemes - many of those
outlined in this report - that support Amnesty’s boards, staff, volunteers and activists to develop key
capabilities: support equality, diversity and inclusion, leverage technology, develop leadership skills and
apply participatory approaches in key aspects of their work.

In this way we aim to enhance our accountability, to use our resources in the most strategic ways to
strengthen the human right movement and to know how to make the rights choices to achieve human rights
impact at the right time.

Salil Shetty, Secretary General

2
2. Organizational Profile

2.1 Name of the organization

Amnesty International

2.2 Primary activities

Amnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. In pursuit
of this vision, Amnesty International seeks to investigate and expose the facts, whenever and wherever
abuses happen. Through lobbying governments, and other powerful groups such as companies, it makes
sure they keep their promises and respect international law. By telling the powerful stories of those at the
sharp end of human rights abuses, Amnesty International aims to mobilize millions of supporters around the
world to campaign for change and to stand in defense of activists on the frontline. A key strategy to achieve
that is through supporting people to claim their rights through education and training.

For the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2019, the International Council adopted five Strategic
Goals to prioritize the work of the Amnesty International movement:

1. Reclaiming freedom: A world in which everyone knows and can claim their rights
2. Securing equal rights for all: A world in which human rights and justice are enjoyed without
discrimination
3. Responding to crises: A world in which people are protected during conflict and crises
4. Ensuring accountability: A world in which human rights abusers are held accountable
5. Maximizing our resources and engagement: We will be a truly global human rights movement of people
defending human rights for all

Details on these organizational priorities are described in the Strategic Goals section of our website
(https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2016/01/amnesty-goals-2016-2019/)

2.3 Operational structure of the organization

The Amnesty International global movement comprises national entities (sections, structures, national
offices) and the International Secretariat.

The International Secretariat is structured in a distributed model, with regional offices in the following
locations:

 Africa: Dakar, Nairobi, Johannesburg

 Americas: Mexico City, Lima
 Asia: Hong Kong, Bangkok , South Asia(*)
 Europe and Central Asia: London, Brussels, Moscow
 Middle East and North Africa: Beirut, Tunis and East Jerusalem(**)

(*) The South East Asia Regional office is currently operating across London and Bangkok, due to registration and work permit
issues following the 2014 political coup in Thailand. The South Asia Regional Office is also operating out of London pending the
establishment of a physical South Asia office in early 2017, location still tbc.
(**) The offices in Tunis and East Jerusalem are due to open before the end of 2016.

The International Secretariat also has presences in Geneva, New York, Washington D.C., Madrid, Paris and
Oslo. A further national office in Jakarta will be operational in early 2017. Location details are included in
2.4, 2.5 and the governance structure in 4.1.

3
National entities carry out work to promote human rights in their own countries/territories in accordance
with Amnesty International’s Statute (https://www.amnesty.org/1en/about-us/how-were-run/amnesty-
internationals-statute/).

The International Secretariat provides key research, advocacy and campaigning and communications
functions and coordinates Amnesty International’s day-to-day work at the global and regional levels. It is
structured by directorates, each headed by a member of the Senior Leadership Team:

i. Office of the Secretary General (governance, strategy and evaluation, national offices and entities)
ii. Global Operations (Regional Offices including country research and campaigns)
iii. Campaigns and Communications (global campaigns, media, publishing)
iv. International Law and Policy (policy formulation and analysis)
v. Research (global thematic research and crisis response)
vi. Global Fundraising and Engagement (fundraising and membership development)
vii. People and Services (finance, IT, facilities, legal, procurement, human resources and organizational
development)

2.4 Location of organization’s headquarters

As described in 2.3, the International Secretariat follows a distributed model. The registered headquarters
is in London, and is located at 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK. Regional Offices are currently
located in Hong Kong, Dakar, Nairobi, Johannesburg, Mexico City, Lima, Beirut, Moscow, London and
Brussels. Offices in Tunis and East Jerusalem are due to open before the end of 2016 and in Bangkok and
Jakarta in 2017.

2.5 Number of countries where the organization operates

As of October 2016 Amnesty International had offices in the following countries/territories:

Global South (33 countries/territories): Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Cote D'Ivoire,
Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Russia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Global North (36 countries): Australia, Austria, Belgium Fl., Belgium Fr., Canada En., Canada Fr., Czech
Republic, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico,
Slovenia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, USA.

In 2012, Amnesty International reviewed its classification of Global South and Global North, based on
classifications used by multilateral institutions. The new classification, applicable from 2013, includes
Bermuda, Czech Republic, Faroe Islands, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico,
Slovakia, South Korea and Taiwan in the Global North.

2.6 Nature of ownership and legal form

Amnesty International is a global movement based on worldwide voluntary membership and composed of
independent legal entities (national offices and entities), the International Secretariat, international
networks, affiliated groups and international members.

The work carried out through the International Secretariat is delivered through two legal entities, in
compliance with United Kingdom law. These are Amnesty International Limited and Amnesty International
Charity Limited.

4
Amnesty International Limited undertakes charitable activities on behalf of Amnesty International Charity
Limited, a registered charity (UK Charity Registration Number: 294230). For charity statuses of national
entities, contact information can be found at www.amnesty.org/en/countries/

2.7 Target audience

Amnesty International is a global movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human
rights to be respected and protected for everyone. We aim to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights
and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated. We believe in taking injustice personally
and that human rights abuses anywhere are the concern of people everywhere, and work to improve people’s
lives through research, campaigning and international solidarity, as described in 2.2. For details on
geographies we cover, see section 2.8.

2.8 Scale of the reporting organization

As at December 2015, Amnesty International had over 7.8 million members, supporters and activists. Of
this, 27% are from the Global South, compared to 34% the previous year, reflecting decreases in the
Americas after a peak in 2014 during the Stop Torture and World Cup campaigns in Mexico and Brazil.
That said, Amnesty International Ghana and South Africa are among the top ten fastest growing entities.
Europe remains our largest overall constituency (52%), followed by the Americas with 25% and Asia with
18%. We had a total of 2,626 staff and 2,889 office volunteers (see LA1).

We are engaging with more gender diverse constituencies – 52% of people we reached in 2015 identified
themselves as women (compared to 40% in our 2014 report). However the figures vary significantly across
regions, with only 34% and 37% of constituencies in Asia and the Middle East, respectively, identifying as
women). During 2015, almost 6 million activists around the world took part in actions (such as letter
writing, signing petitions, demonstrations, lobbying, blogging, street theatre and road shows) sponsored by
Amnesty International.

Amnesty International's 2015 global income was €278.3m (2014: €247.2m) and global expenditure was
€260m (2014: €234m). Amnesty International's net assets at the end of 2013 were worth €146.0m
(2012: €145.1m), of which €96.3m was held as cash (2012: €98.3m).These consolidated figures include
financial data for 68 Amnesty International entities.

In 2015, Amnesty International organized 230 research missions (5,194 person-days) to investigate and
document human rights abuses covering 89 countries/territories. In 2014, Amnesty International organized
236 (5,159 person days) to investigate and document human rights abuses covering 92 countries/territories.
Numbers of research missions and country coverage fluctuate from year to year depending on internal
resourcing capacity and on external developments and opportunities for impact. As more Regional Offices
(ROs) become operational, we will be able to report on changes to our research approach including
engagement with partners. While new ROs are being established, a number have been operational for two
years, providing the opportunity to assess how their work, developed for and within region, is changing our
approach to research and our engagement with partners and rights holders. These questions are central to a
review of Amnesty’s Global Transition Programme (GTP) currently underway.

To publicize human rights abuses around the world, in 2015 Amnesty International published 104 reports
and briefings (of which 67 are publications of 10 pages or longer). This represents a decline in comparison
with the previous accountability report (140 reports and 131 shorter documents where registered for 2013).

The decrease in output production can be attributed to both strategic and operational factors. A renewed
emphasis on outcomes rather than outpus and a sharpened analysis of when and what type of products can
be used most effectively for impact has prompted teams to utilise diverse tools (statements, online actions,
social media content, advocacy-focused missions) as relevant. Operationally, reductions in numbers may
also be linked to high levels of staff turnover experienced during the GTP.

This shift helps to demonstrate how our ways of working are increasingly evolving and moving away from a
strong emphasis on volume, to give way to a more strategic approach to challenging human rights abuses
5
worldwide. It is also worth noting that in 2015 Amnesty International was often faster and more agile with
messaging and outputs and mobilized quickly on the ground in many occasions. A prime example of this is
the creation in 2015 of the Research and Crisis Response Unit and the Crisis Response Protocol.

These initiatives, while not necessary seeing the resolution of crises, boosted Amnesty’s agility and speed of
response lead to tangible impacts on people’s lives. For example, in our work on the SOS Europe campaign
(http://www.soseurope-amnesty.com/) quick mass mobilization in coordination with strategic national
entities, led to a key contribution to establishing search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean
between January and June 2015. Similarly, effective reactive work in South East Asia, combined with
deeper analysis in a report released in October, contributed to Malaysia and Indonesia temporarily
accepting refugees, and helped build the narrative that has forced an increase in discussion among ASEAN
governments on how to deal with irregular migration.

Urgent actions (UAs) represent another longstanding means by which Amnesty International calls for rapid
activist action. They are issued when a person or a community is in imminent danger of human rights abuse
and create public pressure on the authorities responsible through letter writing, fax or SMS action. In 2015,
we issued 290 new UAs and 339 Follow-ups on UAs,bringing the total number of UAs to 629 UAs overall.
Successes were reported for 53 of these cases. Additionally 32 new long term cases were opened, 23
closed and had good news on 23 cases.

It is important to note that the vast majority of the UAs are on men (414 male vs 87 female) and they tend
to be concentrated on ‘traditional’ violations with Freedom of Expression coming first (264 out of 629). If
taken as a proxy indicator of gender and diversity mainstreaming, the demographic breakdown of the UAs
suggest the need to make more concerted efforts to increase the diversity of the people we work for and
with (for more on this see NGO4).

UAs were issued most frequently in the following countries: Iran (40 UAs), Egypt (40 UAs), USA (32 UAs),
Russian Federation (28 UAs), Myanmar (27 UAs) and Angola (10 UAs). The least frequent countries in
each region (1 UA each) were: Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Yemen, Argentina, Guatemala, Honduras, Australia,
Cambodia, Nepal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, France, Greece, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain,
Niger, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.

In 2015, Amnesty International piloted ‘super UAs’, an integrated rapid response on cases aligned to our
global campaigns (Stop Torture and My Body My Rights). We saw positive developments in three out of five
of those cases. For example, the campaign for Raif Badawi helped stoke international outrage, leading to a
number of striking outcomes, including Sweden cancelling an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the first
ever EU parliamentary resolution to criticize Saudi Arabia’s human rights

2.9 Significant changes during the reporting period regarding size, structure, or
ownership

 Amnesty International continued the transition to a distributed International Secretariat in 2015, and
is due to complete the Global Transition Programme in 2017when we will have established Regional
Offices in 14 locations globally. See SO1 for further information related to Regional Offices.
 The Movement Building Directorate was restructured in June 2014 and the Senior Director moved
into the Office of the Secretary General.
 A new Global Fundraising and Engagement Directorate was established in October 2014.
 The Organizational Services Directorate and Organizational Development and Human Resources
Directorate were merged to become the People and Services Directorate in July 2016.

2.10 Awards received in the reporting period

In November 2015, amnesty.org won ‘Best Not-for-Profit website’ at the User Experience UK awards. The
award recognizes excellence in user-focused digital design. The judges noted the highly collaborative
process Amnesty International used to develop the site, and commended the use of typography and the
long-form story pages.
6
Amnesty International ranked 6th in the Global Go To Think Thank Index Report released by the University
of Pennsylvania.

3. Report Parameters

3.1 Reporting period for information provided

Calendar year of 2015. Changes occurring in 2016 mentioned where relevant.

3.2 Date of most recent previous report

Submitted October 2014, covering the calendar year of 2013. In December 2015 we submitted an interim
improvement analysis covering the calendar year of 2014.

3.3 Reporting cycle

Every two years.

3.4 Contact point for questions regarding the report or its contents

Catherine Power, Director of Strategy and Evaluation, catherine.power@amnesty.org

3.5 Process for defining report content and using reporting process

Amnesty International’s submission to the Charter is based on analysis and inputs from International
Secretariat staff and from our national entity reporting mechanisms (Standard Action Reports and Core
Standards). One Senior Director is responsible for each key accountability area of improvement, as
identified in the 2014 feedback from the Independent Review Panel (participation, gender, anti-corruption,
governance). The Senior Directors discuss updates twice a year (linked to the Panel’s feedback and the
analysis of internal global reporting).

Key messages from the last feedback provided by the Panel to Amnesty International were used in the State
of the Movement report for the International Council Meeting (ICM) in 2015 and the lessons resulting from
the internal accountability reporting were distributed to the entire movement through online platforms and
offline gatherings. Issues of participation, gender, diversity and coordination with other actors were
streamlined in all key organizational processes (Planning and Minimum Standards for project development,
Impact and Learning System).

These are positive steps but we are aiming to do more. Specifically, we are looking to develop an improved
understanding of organizational performance and accountability, and to that end we have begun to bring
together a common framework of organizational capabilities, which, once fully operational will be shared
with the movement and entities to improve alignment and prioritization of organizational development
projects.

3.6 Boundary of the report with regard to regions and operations

Unless stated otherwise, this report covers the entire movement of Amnesty International, including all legal
entities globally (national offices and entities and the International Secretariat).

3.7 Material content limitations of the report

None
7
3.8 Basis for reporting on national entities, joint ventures, subsidiaries, outsourced
operations or other entities

As reported in previous years, all Amnesty International entities submit a Standard Action Report (SAR)
containing information on their activities, campaigns and growth and accountability measures for the past
year. The SAR data is collated and analyzed to support global planning and measurement of the
movement’s performance against stated plans. Data is analyzed and communicated by the Strategy and
Evaluation Unit. The process is also relevant for our governance processes, with certain entity voting rights
links to membership data. The SARs have therefore been one of the main sources of information for this
and previous reports to the INGO Accountability Charter. This year’s report is based on data from 68 SARs
(up from 66 in 2014) which accounts for over 99% percent of the movement’s entities.

With respect to financial information, all legal entities of Amnesty International are expected to adhere to
local generally accepted accounting principles in preparing their own statutory financial reports. For
consolidation purposes, Amnesty International’s entities report quarterly financial results under a common
charter of accounts and reporting mechanism, which is compliant with International Financial Reporting
Standards principles. This financial information is analyzed and used for the production of our internal
global management accounts and external global financial report (available on the global amnesty.org
website).

3.10/3.11 Significant changes from previous reporting periods in the boundary, scope,
time frame or measurement methods applied in the report

None

3.12 Reference Table

Reporting against all GRI components is covered in this document.

4. Governance, Structure and Key Stakeholders

4.1 Governance structure and decision making process at governance level

Amnesty International is a movement based on global voluntary membership; it consists of self-governing

and locally registered national entities, and international members united by a central structure and by
shared core values, vision and mission. The following graph represents Amnesty International’s main
governing bodies and management structures, their functions and level of authority at national and
international level. More information can be found in the Amnesty International Statute. A Global
Management Team is also in place with representatives from national entities to provide advice to the
Secretary General and assist with cohesion and coordination at a management level across the movement.

The effectiveness of Amnesty International global governing bodies is to an extent dependent on the
effectiveness of national governance bodies. The implementation of Core Standards aims to ensure quality
governance at international and national level encouraging national entities to identify areas in need of
improvement and act on them. The first round was carried out in 2014 with an overall report presented to
the International Council Meeting (ICM) in 2015. The International Secretariat and International Board also
carried out a self-assessment and has shared the results with all national entities. An external verification of
the Core Standards has been piloted in 2015 and showed that a lot of learning can be achieved by peer
reviews. Most national entities have addressed weaknesses in action plans during 2015. For example, one
entity revised its statute to clarify the role of the Director in relation to the elected Board, and another have
developed its Human Resources policies and procedures.
8
Amnesty International’s decision-making process is based on the democratic principle. Voting rights are
weighted to reflect the number of members in that country or from the international membership. Members
of national entities or the International Board can propose changes in policies, procedures and vision and
mission through resolutions to the International Council Meeting where they are discussed and voted on.

Solid lines: formal accountability

Dotted lines: informal accountability
Section highlighted in blue shows highest level of accountability

This exercise of democracy – which is crucial to the movement’s accountability and transparency – can be
in tension with effectiveness as it can sometimes lead to slow and inflexible decision-making. Since 2013
the movement has started a governance reform process to improve our democratic decision-making,
increase quality participation of the different parts of the movement, and enhance accountability. A new
governance structure and process to make decisions has been developed and extensively discussed by the
movement through several rounds of consultation. A key debate has been on the voting rights system to
ensure it supports what the movement is trying to achieve through governance reform. The movement will
make a final decision on the governance reform at the 2017 ICM.

Amnesty International has a global International Risk Assessment and Action Plan which identifies major
potential risks, explores their potential impacts and develops actions to mitigate or manage them. Risk
management is a compliance requirement of the Core Standards adopted in 2013 by the International
Council. The International Board receives a dashboard report which includes the top five risks and there are
plans to further formalize the International Board’s role and oversight of the risk register. The Finance and
Audit Committee is also closely monitoring the main risks.

4.2 Division of powers between the highest governance body and the management and/or
executives

The Chair of the International Council is non-executive and elected by the previous International Council
Meeting. Members of the International Board are non-executive and elected at International Council
Meetings, and its chair elected by the Board members at their first meeting following the International
Council. Amnesty International’s day-to-day affairs and implementation of International Council decisions
9
are conducted by the International Secretariat headed by a Secretary General under the direction of the
International Board. The International Board appoints, supervises and evaluates the Secretary General. The
relationship between them is regulated by a protocol that defines the principles for the relationship, roles,
responsibilities and relations, and how to solve potential disputes. This protocol was updated in 2015 to
reflect all aspects of the relevant core standards. The Chair and the Secretary General also have regular
calls to update and discuss emerging issues.

4.3 Please state the number of members of the highest governance body. How many are
independent and/or non-executive members?
The current International Board has 11 unpaid non-executive members (9 elected and 2 co-opted
members). The International Council is at its meeting composed of 4-6 people per national entity and
usually one of these is the entity Director (paid staff). Details of these 11 International Board members can
be found at: www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/international-board/

4.4 Mechanisms for internal stakeholders to provide recommendations or direction to the

highest governance body

Members can contact the International Board and are guaranteed a response
[internationalboard@amnesty.org]. Employees have also had opportunities to meet with members of the
International Board around the time of Board meetings at the International Secretariat. Chairs of national
entities have been able to speak with the International Board through conference calls organized throughout
2015, and Chairs and Directors at a meeting in March 2015 and the International Council Meeting in
August 2015.

The majority of members' resolutions and recommendations are channeled through their national entities’
representatives to the International Council Meetings. Key topics discussed at the International Council
Meeting in 2015 focused on the new strategic framework for increased human rights impact, human rights
policy development, finance accountability, core standards, and governance reform. Entities had submitted
17 resolutions for discussion and decision and they were all given the appropriate time and space for
discussion.

The movement also routinely consults members and staff on key policies and strategies between
International Council Meetings using a wide range of channels, from formal written submissions to face-to-
face forums. See also NGO5.

4.5 Compensation for members of the highest governance body, senior managers and
executives (including departure arrangements)

Members of the International Board are not remunerated, but expenses that are incurred as part of their
governance role are reimbursed. The International Board Payments Committee is an ad-hoc advisory
subcommittee of the International Board. The Committee is responsible for approving payments within
agreed limits requested by International Board members to make up for demonstrable loss of income as a
direct consequence of their duties as International Board members.
The International Board has a Remuneration Committee that is accountable to the International Board. In
2015 the Remuneration Committee has:

• Ensured that the Reward Frameworks for the Secretary General and Senior Leadership Team is fit for
purpose; monitored salary increase information within the sector and other relevant comparators, and
monitored salary levels.

• Reported on the information required annually by the International Council on transparency of

compensation and complied with the UK’s National Council for Voluntary Organizations recommendations
10
 on the transparent provision of detailed information on pay available on the Amnesty International.org
website (under the Finances and Pay section) which supplements the high-level information on senior
management remuneration included in annual statutory accounts of Amnesty International Limited.

• Received an update on the Secretary General’s annual appraisal and monitored the performance of the
Senior Leadership Team. The committee has also monitored the agreed mechanisms for exceptional
arrangements, including exit payments and compromise agreements for staff.

4.6 Processes in place for the highest governance body to ensure conflicts of interest are
identified and managed responsibly

The conflict of interest and conflicts of duty policy applies to all decision-makers within Amnesty
International, including the International Board. Every decision-maker should avoid being in a situation
where there is a conflict of interest or duty, and withdraw completely from the decision-making process if
she or he has an actual conflict or might reasonably be perceived as having a conflict. The policy framework
presents definitions and standards for what constitutes conflicts of interest, and sets out procedures or
‘rules’, such as documentation of incidents. The avoidance of any conflict of interest is a compliance
requirement of the Core Standards adopted at the 2013 International Council Meeting. The International
Board has procedures in place to implement the conflict of interest and conflicts of duty policy. This policy
has been in force for ten years and is part of leadership induction programmers. If there are credible
allegations that the policy has been violated, this triggers a set of procedures to investigate and take action.

4.10 Process to support the highest governance body’s own performance

The biennial International Council Meeting elects the members of the International Board to office. The
International Board members’ four-year terms are staggered, with half the roles up for re-election at each
International Council Meeting. Each member is eligible for re-election for a maximum of two consecutive
terms. The International Board meets at least two times a year (in practice four times a year) and is
accountable to the International Council.
The International Nominations Committee refined the Competency Assessment Framework for the
International Board in 2015 and used it to help ensure the elected International Board had a suitable mix
of skills, experience, abilities and backgrounds. All candidates made a self-assessment of their
competencies and a summary was shared with the International Council delegates.

In 2015, the International Board members reflected on their individual and collective performance during a
Board retreat. Monitoring the effectiveness of the Board’s performance and adopting processes that ensure
that relevant skills, experience and diversities are represented in the Board are compliance requirements for
the Core Standards. In 2015, the International Board started the process for co-opting an individual with
strong capacity in digital engagement to complements its competency in this area.

The 2015 Board retreat identified four strategic priorities for its work for the coming two years and will
assess its performance in relation to achievements in those areas. For this period the priorities are: impact,
governance reform, growth and the Global Transition Programme (GTP).

The Governance Programme at the International Secretariat has been supporting the International Board to
develop its skills, to ensure a greater clarity between governance and management, and to improve internal
accountability.

4.14 Stakeholder groups of the organization

Amnesty International’s key stakeholders are individuals at risk and their families, human rights defenders,
non-governmental and community organizations and coalitions, members and supporters, activists and
11
volunteers, boards and staff. For more information about how we relate with partners, communities and
individuals in our common struggle for human rights see NGO1 and NGO6.

Amnesty International’s stakeholders include also the governments, intergovernmental organizations and
non-state actors (corporations, armed groups, media organizations) that we seek to influence through our
campaigns and advocacy work. For more information on how we decide what to advocate on and who to
target see NGO5. Other stakeholders include our financial supporters.

4.15 Process for identification, selection and prioritization of key stakeholder groups

Individuals at risk, human rights defenders and communities that we work with (arising from human rights
violations or threats that they have experienced) are identified through our research, contacts and partners
at national level. In the first instance this is usually by the research country teams of the International
Secretariat, or by our national entity staff.

Country-level partners are identified and supported by country and/or regional teams. Criteria for
relationships are based on our shared priorities and agreed plans for joint work that is mutually reinforcing
and of added value to partners and the human rights goals we share (see also NGO6).

We target key governments and intergovernmental bodies to pressure them to promote human rights or to
expose how their actions undermine respect for human rights. We work with key international and regional
human rights bodies and mechanisms such as the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, UN treaty
bodies and special procedures, and the regional human rights courts and mechanisms.
Additionally we engage political and legal bodies such as the UN Security Council and the International
Criminal Court as well as the European Union, the African Union, the Organization of American States,
Council of Europe, ASEAN and Arab League among others. Our engagement with each of these institutions
is based on our priorities and assessment of the impact these institutions can have in the promotion of
human rights.

Performance Indicators
I. Programme Effectiveness

NGO1: Involvement of affected stakeholder groups in the design, implementation,

monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs.

A wide range of relationships continued to be managed across the movement with the people whose rights
we seek to advance – human rights defenders, affected rights-holders, and members of local partner
organizations. The manner of engagement varies depending on the context and scale of the work, and takes
place through online and offline meetings, project planning and project review discussions and - in the
context of research – interviews. It also depends on the nature of the work as collaboration or involvement is
in some cases practically unachievable (cases of disappearances, death-row inmates, incommunicado
detainees etc.) and then Amnesty International teams strive for coordination with the individual’s family or
relevant community networks.

The International Secretariat internal impact review of human rights project work over 2015 demonstrated
that a high proportion (approximately 79%) of all projects report having involved rights holders at some
level either during project planning or implementation. That said, this data does not allow us to make a
meaningful assessment of ‘who’ we are involving (if we are going beyond the usual partners) or the level and
quality of this participation (‘informing’, ‘consulting, or ‘joint decision-making’). Consultation is the very
minimum to be expected, and the impact review confirmed that out of the three levels, consultation is
overall the most frequent scenario.

12
A smaller proportion of projects will engage rights holders or partners in structured project reviews. Amnesty
International’s new Impact and Learning system, designed in 2015 and launched in early 2016, places
renewed emphasis on increasing and innovating in the ways and frequency with which we collect feedback
from partners and rights holders.

Engagement of Affected Stakeholders % of entities

1: We never engage with rights holders 3%

2: We only involve rights holders in the implementation of our campaigning and activism 16%

3: When planning our campaigning and activism, we consult with relevant rights holders 31%

4: In addition to participation in the implementation of campaigning and activism, rights

holders also actively participate in either planning, or evaluation of our campaigning and 22%
activism

5: Rights holders participate in the whole cycle of planning, implementation and

22%
evaluation of our campaigning and activism

In terms of the movement wide picture, information from the 2015 national entity annual reporting (SARs)
indicates that overall, engagement with key stakeholders has consistently increased since 2011, reflecting
the growing take-up of participatory approaches within the movement.

We now need to focus on the quality of engagement and the link between stakeholder engagement and
impact. This means increasing active participation - which based on Amnesty International’s definition goes
beyond informing or involving others and aims for legitimate consultation, joint-decision making or people-
led work - to ensure relevance of our projects for those who stand to gain from them.

There is still work to be done in articulating at the operational level those links between stakeholder
engagement and impact. That said, the positive trend noted in the previous report towards a more
participatory culture (in our research, campaigning, advocacy, and human rights education activities), has
continued during 2015, with examples of good practice in all regions.

For example, in the case of Amnesty International India’s work on violence against women, relationships
established with state-level authorities in Karnataka ensured that key policies were put in place so that the
police could be trained to be more responsive to women reporting sexual violence. This was achieved
through facilitation of workshops with women and police to discuss perceptions and barriers related to
reporting. The team learned that this has resulted in the police taking steps to develop more responsive
police stations to address these types of reports. The Commissioner of Police took a pledge publicly, and
senior police officials have also come on board for the project. This was an interesting example of how
Amnesty India was able to bring together a group of organizations who were working on these issues to talk
about under-reporting of sexual violence and it causes, also taking the lead in raising awareness with the
public through online and on-ground methods.

Also, in 2015 we found that local level mobilization was key to raising awareness on refugee issues, getting
people used to the idea of resettling refugees, and giving people the sense that there was something that
they could do to support refugees particularly in countries where they felt that national governments were
not doing enough. This demonstrates that it is strategic to focus on interventions that drive support and
mobilization not only at national, but also local levels. Amnesty teams have consistently reported that for
these types of interventions to work, it is crucial to invest in greater participation of rights holders in all

13
stages of our campaigns, something that is now a clear mandate of our Strategy (Strategic goal outcome
5.2).

The Activism and Youth Unit in the International Secretariat has championed a number of targeted
interventions to this effect, aimed at deepening the quality and the breadth of participatory approaches to
the design of campaigns, engaging more diverse constituencies such as rights holders and young people.
Some key initiatives from this team to promote this mandate have included:

- Development of targeted materials, including a comprehensive guide, to support staff in enabling the
participation of rights holders, partners and activists in the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of our campaigns.
- Utilizing existing training platforms such as the 2015 Activism Skill share to develop sub-groups that
have continued to work on these issues at the organizational level.
- Promotion of a series of additional global, regions and national level workshops on strategic campaign
planning (seven workshops were conducted in 2015 across different locations and bringing together
team members from diverse functional areas). The key aims of the workshops were for participants to
develop an understanding of the principles of participatory approaches, and to develop skills and learn
about attitudes and behaviors required to implement participatory approaches and tools in their work
with partners, rights holders, activists and young people. The workshops also offered opportunities for
staff to learn from good practices within the movement. Several staff who took part in the workshops
have subsequently reported that they are increasingly using participatory approaches and tools to engage
with stakeholders in their day to day work.

NGO2: Mechanisms for stakeholder feedback and complaints to programmes and policies
and in response to policy breaches

Specific data about mechanisms for stakeholder feedback and complaints, and in response to policy
breaches is now gathered through a bi-annual self-assessment process (Core Standards) developed and
signed off by the International Council Meeting in 2013. The first data collection moment under this
process took place at the end of 2014 (and was reported in our last report to the INGO charter). The next
self-assessment process is currently underway (data is expected by the 31st of December 2016 and results
will be available to the movement in March 2017).

That said, through our national entities reporting mechanism we have continued collecting information on
complaints filed and resolved. Below we show this breakdown for the last five years:

Complaints Filed
2011 (4513) 2012 (1478) 2013 (2867) 2014 (4071) 2015 (28,518)
Individuals at Risk & Human Rights Defenders 3 8 41 12 14
Partners 1 5 2 2 27
Members/supporters/volunteers 2,785 896 1,993 3,361 2,711
General public 245 556 797 657 753 *
Staff 12 13 34 39 19
Others (no breakdowns) 1,467 0 0 0
Total 4,513 1,478 2,867 4,071 3,524

Complaints resolved
2011 (4461) 2012 (1425) 2013 (2834) 2014 (3818) 2015
Individuals at Risk & Human Rights Defenders 3 8 41 11 14
Partners 1 5 1 1 22
Members/supporters/volunteers 2,778 894 1,976 3120 1875
General public 204 505 796 657 287
Staff 8 13 20 29 17
Others (no breakdowns) 1,467 0 0 0
Total 4,461 1,425 2,834 3,818 2,215

2011 (4513) 2012 (1478) 2013 (2867) 2014 (4071) 2015

% of Complaints Resolved 99% 96% 99% 94% 63%

*AI Poland also received 25,000 signatures, which are not included here, in response to a petition against AI work on Sexual and Reproductive Rights in Ireland

I@R and HRDs: Individuals at Risk and Human Rights Defenders

14
As the nature of Amnesty International’s work is to report on human rights violations and campaign for
justice, this includes putting the spotlight on perpetrators, evidencing their culpability and calling for
redress. One of Amnesty International’s core principles is impartiality, yet when our work on one particular
issue is highlighted publicly it can create the impression that we are focusing on one implicated party
rather than another. This forms the basis for some of the complaints we receive.

In 2015 a number of complaints were related to our work in sexual health and reproductive rights,
including the development of our decriminalization of sex work policy (for details, see NGO5). We also
noted some complaints related to our door to door fundraising initiatives, which have been dealt with by
promptly responding to the concerns raised and by ensuring increased training and follow up with our
fundraisers. Amnesty International also frequently receives correspondence about our lack of attention to a
particular case or issue. We have finite resources and in our planning, implementation and review
processes, make difficult choices around priorities about how to deploy those resources.

To help the International Secretariat operate within our internal Complaints Guidelines, we draw a
distinction between communications which fall into the above categories – where we can evidence our
sources and the robustness of our analysis, or where we can point to our broader work on a particular issue
to demonstrate our impartiality – and complaints and feedback that fundamentally call into question our
analysis (such as factual inaccuracies) or our ways of working (informed consent, ethics, active participation
etc.). If valid it is reviewed, followed by an appropriate response and resolution. As per the policy we
endeavor to respond to formal complaints within 30 working days.

In this digital age, feedback and interaction with our key stakeholders increasingly takes place through our
social media channels and online communities. The Digital Engagement team started to develop policies to
ensure that contributions to these channels are respectful and follow Amnesty International content quality
and accountability standards. That said, we acknowledge this is an area to improve as for example our
website no longer hosts a feedback and complaints page, which was taken out after its latest redesign. This
decision was reached after recognizing that a clearer protocol and stronger ownership in this area was
needed to be able to cater to the changing needs of our decentralized model.

NGO3: System for programme monitoring, evaluation and learning

During 2015, Amnesty developed a new Impact and Learning system to accompany the Strategic Goals with
the support and feedback of colleagues around the world and partner NGOs. This new system is designed to
provide a more nuanced analysis of our work and to connect across project-based, region-wide and global
theory of change impact analysis. The creation of the new system has been motivated by an organizational
wide decision to prioritize impact assessment, as agreed at International Board level, and as relevant across
all parts of the movement.

The new system aims to embed the following principles

 Adaptation
 Innovation and problem solving
 Collaborative analysis
 External validation
 Accountability

A focus on outcome mapping will help us understand the change in behaviors, relationships and actions on
each of the stakeholder groups and organizations we work with and for or whom we seek to influence.
The system encourages project managers to produce quarterly reports aligned with financial forecasting, to
more systematically monitor whether projects are on track or at risk, to assess how that status affects the
health of each Strategic Goal, and to identify any course corrections that may be needed throughout the
year. Project teams, together with other internal and external stakeholders will also conduct a single deep-
dive annual impact review, to assess each project’s progress against its objectives and outcome indicators,
and to reflect on where, how and with whom the project is achieving its most significant change. This will
then inform regional and global analyses, which will help us to assess and communicate what impact we are
having on each of the five Strategic Goals.

15
Our impact assessment process maintains an emphasis on external independent evaluations of key areas of
work. In 2014 and 2015 this included evaluations of projects linked to Oil Pollution and Corporate
Accountability in the Niger Delta, Migrant Labour in Qatar, Protecting Somalia’s People on the Move, our
Human Rights Capacity Building Programme in Burundi and Northern Uganda, and Extractives Industries
and Indigenous Peoples work in Guatemala. Efforts to share results more widely have been promoted, for
example in 2015 we produced a very well received video explaining the impact of our work in the Niger
Delta: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEfJVpXegM. Learnings and recommendations from these evaluations
were discussed during Management Team Week in September 2015. Additionally, an evaluation of the
global Integrated Strategic Plan is underway to draw out learnings from across the six year period 2010-
2015. Lessons from all our internal reviews and evaluations are shared internally through a widely
distributed annual impact review report, an interactive presentation and other forums (all staff meetings,
directorate meetings etc.).

From 2016 the system for impact monitoring and assessment will be complemented by SPARK,Amnesty
International’s new learning programme aimed at solving specific impact challenges. SPARK will feature a
series of initiatives bringing together internal and external stakeholders to answer some of the most
challenging questions facing the human right movement (for example: how do we create narratives that will
build rights-respecting societies, what sorts of innovations are needed in our approach to advocacy to better
influence difficult governments, etc.). We are aiming to share these lessons widely and to publicly support
the broader human rights movement by creating a SPARK blog on our website.

NGO4: Measures to integrate gender and diversity into programme design and
implementation, and the monitoring, evaluation, and learning cycle

Amnesty International aspires to fulfil our commitment to inclusiveness and equality through gender and
diversity mainstreaming in every aspect and at every step of the planning, development, implementation
and evaluation of our human rights programmatic work, as well as in our organizational policies, processes
and culture.

Part of our human rights programmatic work is focused on issues specifically related to gender and diversity.
In this respect Amnesty International asserted our commitment to work on gender by selecting ‘My Body My
Rights’– a global campaign which focused on sexual and reproductive rights for women and girls as a
movement priority during 2014-2015 (see further below). Through Goal 2 ‘Securing Equal Rights For All’
of our new Strategic Goals, we are developing a body of work that aims to challenge and combat
discrimination, including intersectional discrimination, on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, race, ethnicity, Indigenous identity and other grounds under international human rights law.

Recent examples of success in combating discrimination include Amnesty International’s participation in

the campaign for equal marriage in Ireland, as well as a successful campaign on legal gender recognition
for transgender individuals in Norway. In early 2016, a bill almost entirely in line with our campaign
demands was adopted in the Norwegian Parliament. It is important to note that Amnesty International
worked closely with local and national organizations as well as human rights activists to coordinate
campaigning and advocacy efforts. Work on combatting discrimination against women and LGBTI
individuals in the context of the sex work policy (see NGO5) was also a major success.

Amnesty International collaborated with many organizations working on women’s rights and sexual and
reproductive rights to push for a progressive outcome from the 59th session of the Commission on the
Status of Women as well as lobbying for gender equality and sexual and reproductive rights to be among the
targets and indicators in the post-2015 development framework. We also worked for concrete positive
changes regarding maternal health and sexual and reproductive rights in several counties including Burkina
Faso, Ireland and El Salvador as part of our ‘My Body My Rights’ campaign.

Another key component of our efforts in this area focus on building the capacity of young people to
understand and claim their sexual and reproductive rights. For example, we developed a training module on
human rights education which was delivered to youth activists in the movement. We have also delivered

16
human rights trainings to professionals (women’s rights activists, lawyers) in Morocco addressing the issue
of violence against women.

We have worked to ensure that gender and diversity are incorporated in all human rights work regardless of
thematic focus, and throughout various stages of a project cycle. Our ‘Gender Integration Toolkit’ aims to
provide advice to project leads to improve their gender analysis by prompting them to consider various
questions related to gender when deciding on the focus of a project and subsequent project plans. Some
questions, for instance, help ensure that the project focus does not privilege or overlook specific groups of
individuals who – as a result of the impact of gender and other intersecting factors – may experience human
rights violations differently or disproportionately than others. The toolkit also advises for project plans to
identify how a gender dimension will be integrated at different stages, including project objectives, theory
of change, and activities.

Since 2013, Amnesty International has run a training on gender mainstreaming and combating gender
stereotypes in campaigns for new and existing staff within the International Secretariat, with the
involvement of some national entities. We are also currently in the process of finalizing gender-based
research methodology guidelines as well as guidelines on how to research intersectional discrimination. In
addition, direct support is available to project teams through the Gender, Sexuality and Identity (GSI)
programme – a global team that provides expert advice to the movement on areas of gender, sexual
orientation and gender identity and other identity issues such as Indigenous rights. The team also leads on
its own research projects and campaigns, most recently through focused research on the gender impact of
the refugee crisis on refugee women and girls from Syria in Lebanon. The programme also leads on internal
efforts to promote and recognize best practice in gender mainstreaming and holds the annual ‘Gender
Defender Awards’ which celebrates colleagues in the International Secretariat who have demonstrated a
strong commitment to integrating a gender analysis into their work.

Despite these measures, we also recognize gaps in ensuring that gender and diversity mainstreaming is
practiced across our programmatic work. For instance, despite being approved in 2011 by the Amnesty
International Board, the Gender Action Plan and Roadmap to Diversity remains to be resourced and
implemented. In addition, the potential of the IWHRN, a network of Amnesty women's rights and gender
activists, is still to be fully realised. It is our belief that promoting gender, diversity and inclusiveness in the
profile and culture of our organization is essential. Although Amnesty International monitors its
organizational profile with respect to gender and diversity in its staff, board and supporter base and has
organizational policies and processes that promote equality and inclusiveness, we often struggle to
implement those successfully across the organization. In addition, a diversity survey with more detailed and
open questions about gender, race sexual orientation, socio-economic background and other relevant
aspects of identity was rolled out in 2013 but not subsequently.

Amnesty International is continuing to work to improve our practices and organizational culture. In October
2014 we established an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Working Group and in 2015, we submitted
ourselves for assessment by the National Equality Standards Award (more under the Human Resources
section).

National entities also annualy report on their measures to integrate gender and diversity. It is a recognized
concern that 24% of those reporting do not have any measures or plans in this area, and this is something
that we aim to improve. In addition, only 13% have feedback and accountability measures in place to
ensure that gender & diversity is integrated in work.

NGO5: Processes to formulate, communicate, implement, and change advocacy positions

and public awareness campaigns.

In this reporting period, Amnesty International made important efforts to significantly increase stakeholder
engagement in the strategy setting process. Whilst developing our global strategy for 2016 to 2019, we
promoted a wide conversation throughout 17 months of consultation process within the movement and
beyond, running from January 2014 to end of May 2015, spanning across three phases and gathering in
total 98 submissions from national entities (32 from the Global South) and the International Secretariat
17
offices. An online discussion space (www.strategicgoalsanalysisbuilding.ning.com) was created and
attracted over 500 members of Amnesty staff / volunteers from 68 countries.

Amnesty International put special emphasis in increasing external engagement: i) sought engagement from
partner organizations, other movements (e.g. trade unions), journalists, academics, and other experts, with
many Regional Offices and national entities hosting their own consultation process with stakeholders to
inform the above mentioned submissions ii)launched an online strategy crowd-sourcing survey which
received over 26,000 responses from 197 countries including 7000+ from the Global South iii) hosted
seven meta-trend events with high profile external speakers to scan external trends and utilized the
Regional Advisory Groups (RAGs) as platforms to facilitate strategic-analysis building (as mentioned in the
2014 report, Amnesty has set up RAGs comprised of external independent experts for each region that
meet annually). In addition, we developed 12 global Theories of Change that will shape the implementation
of the Strategic Goals in the years to come and which were peer-reviewed by external critical friends. Both
mainstreaming gender and diversity and incorporating active participation and mobilization were elevated as
cross-cutting themes that have been reflected in all global Theories of Change. The strategy adaptation and
trends scanning is now re-conceptualised as an ongoing process through the new Impact and Learning
system (see NGO3).

A similar (but less intensive) approach is applied to all Amnesty International project work. Project
managers are expected to collaborate with other stakeholders, and plan for exit strategies in their project
plans. Annual reviews are undertaken with project managers and their teams critically evaluating project
progress, including reviewing project theories of change and objectives, and making changes where
necessary (see NGO3). Support and training is provided to project managers, including during review
processes, and auditing of project plans and reviews. For example the two Global Campaigns of the previous
operational plan 2014-2015, which were developed in consultation with national entities and with partners
and rights holders in target countries, have also created full exit strategies, and are currently undergoing a
final evaluation and lessons learned to be used in the development of Amnesty InternationaI’s forthcoming
Global Campaigns.

The processes described above relate to human rights work based on established policy positions and
situations. Amnesty International also regularly develops new positions and/or campaigns in response to
urgent, developing scenarios and to keep pace with emergent human rights norms and standards.

Advisers within the International Law and Policy Directorate will work with movement colleagues, rights
holders and external experts to develop analytically sound, evidence based positions. These positions are
subject to an approvals process overseen by the Senior Director of International Law and Policy.

In some instances, however, particularly on a new or controversial area of work, Amnesty International's
Secretary General and International Board may initiate a more extensive consultation and decision making
process. This approach engages the wider Amnesty International movement and external stakeholders
through consultation with members and with rights holder groups. It can result in extensive feedback and
therefore takes more time and may also require discussion and decision making at the International Council
Meeting, Amnesty International's highest decision making body, which meets every two years.

A relevant example relates to the development of the decriminalization of sex work policy. As described in
our last report to the Charter, Amnesty International led a robust consultation process emphasizing rights
holder engagement as a priority. After wide consultation via our national entities and partners, the
International Secretariat undertook four country based research projects in 2015 looking at the impact of
criminalization of sex work on the human rights of sex workers in the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Hong
Kong, Norway and Papua New Guinea. These research projects involved interviews with sex workers and
other key stakeholders in order to explore and document human rights abuses. The countries were chosen to
ensure a broad geographical representation and to enable exploration of the issue in high, middle and low
income country settings.

The research findings and feedback received through the consultation process (which lasted nearly 3 years)
were fed into a final discussion at Amnesty International’s August 2015 International Council Meeting.

18
Delegates from across the movement debated and voted on the key principles that the policy position would
outline.

The policy text was finalized based on the outcome of that vote and was published in multiple languages,
along with the research reports and other explanatory documents, on our website in May 2016:
www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/amnesty-international-publishes-policy-and-research-on-
protection-of-sex-workers-rights/

This approach proved to be a successful one as the new policy on sex workers’ human rights has resulted in
generally positive media coverage. Sex workers rights organizations have given us feedback that our policy
will be of great use to them. These organizations (as well as other allied organizations) also emphasized that
Amnesty International’s consultation process was exactly what they hoped to see from other organizations in
the future. Along those lines, both Amnesty International’s policy and the policy development process were
regarded as a huge success.

NGO6: Processes to take into account and coordinate with other actors.

Amnesty International proactively works with partners on all campaign initiatives and is increasingly aware
of the importance of being a convenor for civil society by creating or supporting the spaces where key and
diverse civil society actors can come together and create collaborative strategies for change. Our impact
review processes demonstrate many cases where proactive engagement through timely and ongoing
communications with other NGOs and institutions ensured that we strategically selected tactics to achieve
the desired impact.

For example, Amnesty International co-chairs the Transparency, Accountability and Participation for 2030
Agenda Network (TAP Network www.tapnetwork2030.org), which is a global network of over 250
organizations from over 70 countries. The network is supported by Open Society Foundation and Hewlett
Foundation and focuses on furthering transparency, accountability and participation in the Sustainable
Development Goals, with special focus on Goal 16 (Rule of law). We play an instrumental role in furthering
the agenda of TAP, and our participation in the network also helps us to expand our capacity to engage and
co-create this important global space for civil society participation. This works builds on our sustained
engagement with the Human Rights Caucus for the post-2015 development framework.

At the regional level, the new Regional Office model has noticeably improved engagement and coordination
with regional inter-governmental mechanisms and bodies. For example, our teams are reporting significant
increase in engagement with African regional mechanisms, associated relationships building, and a deeper
understanding of trends, dynamics and the way in which power functions within, and outside of, those
mechanisms. It has facilitated concrete outcomes, such as helping to support wider African civil society to
push back against the undermining of the International Criminal Court as an accountability mechanism.

From a national perspective, in DRC, during 2015 we supported a youth movement from Goma to travel to
the capital to undertake high level advocacy meetings and introduce themselves to the diplomatic
community, which has since provided them with better protection against human rights violations, due to
the increased legitimacy that their work gained as a result of this engagement. In South Africa, our
maternal health project brought together women from isolated communities and local authority health
officials to seek solutions to problems of access to services.

These examples have shown us that helping to increase legitimacy for less established parts of civil society
– a pivotal crosscutting emphasis of our new strategy - can contribute to strengthening their safety and
power. Therefore, our processes to coordinate with other actors translate into decisions that improve the
focus and target of our work, ensuring we leverage relationships with partners and that we strategically
support grassroots networks to achieve their human rights goals (see also NGO1).

Almost all of our national entities (99%, compared to 86% in our previous report) have processes in place
to coordinate with other actors, including local partners, which involve identifying potential areas of
alignment, overlaps, gaps and risks. When coordinating with other actors, activities are generally carried out

19
by groups and sometimes networks (including youth and women’s networks). At the local level, as reported
by Amnesty Morocco for example, coordination happens through mutual partnerships or thematic coalitions
that include different organizations (linked to work on the death penalty, torture and impunity, women’s
rights, ICC coalition, HRE etc.). 22% of our entities involve partners in the complete project cycle
(compared to 11% from the previous report)

The following table summarizes the level to national entities involve partners in their work:

Coordinating with other actors % of entities

1: We never engage with partners from outside Amnesty 1%

2: We only engage partners in the implementation of our

15%
campaigning and activism
3: When planning our campaigning and activism, we consult with
34%
relevant partners

4: In addition to participation in the implementation of campaigning

and activism, partners also actively participate in either planning, or 26%
evaluation of our campaigning and activism

5: Partners actively participate in the whole cycle of planning,

22%
implementation and evaluation of our campaigning and activism

Ensuring external engagement in the full project cycle is also key, with an emphasis on the planning stage
(jointly developing project strategies and theories of change) and the impact & learning stage (jointly
assessing the impact of projects and adjusting strategies).

One of the top three recommendations in the International Secretariat (IS) 2015 impact review report was
to ‘invest in deeper or new models of engagement with external stakeholders’. The SAR data further
confirms that this is an area for organizational-wide development. Linked to this, the Activism and Youth
Unit developed an ‘Activism Manifesto’ for Amnesty International, which includes a section on participation
and stresses the importance of engaging activists (which are often also affected by the issues we campaign
on) in all stages of the campaign cycle. We are relying on this initiative to help us address the issues
identified in the IS 2015 impact review. This resource has been widely shared internally and is consistently
used in staff and volunteers inductions and trainings.

Improvements in this area will require movement-wide leadership and consistent messaging on active
participation, co-creation with our stakeholders and the links to impact and growth are being embedded in
all communications with entities cutting across Fundraising and Growth, Youth and Digital Strategies. Steps
are also taken through a) piloting trainings on ‘what’s participation got to do with impact’ for key staff; b)
developing measurements for the quality of participation and empowerment of stakeholders through the
Impact and Learning System and c) mapping new activism organizing models that can increase activists’
participation. Additionally, specific directorates such as the Research Directorate are now monitoring the
extent to which researchers conduct ‘Strategic meetings with partners, activists and networks’, providing a
clear incentive to bring coordination into the heart of Amnesty International’s research. The Global
Transition Programme evaluation, currently underway, also includes a significant emphasis on assessing our
ways of working with others and will survey partners and stakeholders in target countries about Amnesty’s
methods of engagement, contribution and impact.

20
II. Financial Management

NGO7: Resource allocation, tracking and control.

The majority of Amnesty International’s funding comes from members and individual donors. A part of this
income (which is largely raised by Amnesty International national entities) is contributed to the
international movement according to a formula and system agreed by our members through the
International Council Meeting.

All entities allocate resources according to budgets developed through planning processes framed by our
globally agreed strategies. These are approved by the respective national entity boards, which have
oversight of spending. Internal financial controls within each national entity are in place to ensure that
expenditure is made in accordance with relevant legal requirements, as well as with internal operating
policies.

The international allocation of movement resources is approved by the Finance and Audit Committee and
International Board. This includes the budget for the International Secretariat and support to a range of
national entities, largely in the Global South.

All legal entities of Amnesty International are expected to adhere to local generally accepted accounting
principles in preparing their own statutory financial statements. These statements are independently
audited and published in the relevant jurisdiction. Copies of financial statements and auditors’
management letters are collected by the International Secretariat to ensure compliance.

To ensure effectiveness of our resource allocation, our common reporting mechanism includes quarterly
collection of financial figures and financial key performance indicators from national entities. This data is
then presented in our quarterly global management accounts.

In addition, we publish an annual global financial report on our website https://www.amnesty.org/en/2015-

global-financial-report/

NGO8: Sources of funding by category

In 2015, Amnesty International's global income was €278m (2014: €247m). Our main income categories
are as follows:

Sources of funding 2015 2014

€m % €m %
Membership fees and donations 199.9 71.8% 182.7 73.9%
from the public
Legacies and bequests 32.9 11.8% 23.8 9.6%
Trusts and foundations 22.2 8.0% 19.1 7.7%
Major donors 3.6 1.3% 2.7 1.1%
Government non-grant income 2.1 0.8% 1.7 0.7%
Corporations 1.2 0.4% 1.3 0.5%
Events and merchandise 6.6 2.4% 6.8 2.8%
Gifts in kind 0.1 0.0% 0.1 0.1%
Investment income 1.1 0.4% 1.0 0.4%
Other 8.5 3.1% 7.9 3.2%
Total 278.3 100% 247.2 100%

21
As Amnesty International’s independence from political institutions is key, we do not seek income from
governments or political organizations that may cause a conflict of interest in our human rights work. A
large majority of our income comes from small, individual amounts given by members of the public. As
such, 95% of our income in 2015 was unrestricted (2014: 95%).

Because so much of our income comes from small, individual amounts, our largest donors make up a
correspondingly small percentage of our total revenue, which guarantees independence from significant
influence over our policies or programmes of work.

In 2015, our five largest individual sources of revenue were:

Major Donors €m
Norwegian Telethon 5.3
Individual legacy (Sweden) 5.1
UK Gift Aid 1.9
Individual Legacy (Belgium) 1.8
Ford Foundation 0.9

Our total expenditure in 2015 was €260m (2014: €234m). The breakdown of spend was as follows:

Expenditure Category 2015 2015 2014

€m % €m
Human rights research, advocacy, campaigning, raising 137 52% 128
awareness and education
Raising funds for human rights work 40 15% 34
Building our supporter base 52 20% 43
Maintaining our democratic systems of governance 7 3% 5
Cost of functions facilitating delivery of our core work 24 10% 24
Total expenditure 260 100% 234

22
III. Environmental Management

EN16: Report on the total direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions by weight at the
organizational level

The overview of greenhouse gas emissions over the past five years is listed in the table below:

Estimated CO2 Emissions in Scope 2 Scope 3 Total

Metric Tonnes (Office) (Travel1)
2011* 3,167 3,547 6,714
2012 3,699 3,791 7,490
2013* 3,641 4,259 7,900
2014 4,159 4,082 8,241
2015* 3,224 4,606 7,830

*These were years that our International Council Meeting (ICM) was held leading to increased travel related
emissions. The 2015 ICM was in Dublin. There is some uplift in Scope 3 emissions from 2014 but the
proximity of Dublin to London meant that associate travel distance was lower for London-based staff than
for previous ICMs. The International Secretariat (London office) accounted for around 52% of all reported
Scope 3 emissions for 2015. Scope 2 emissions for the IS London is based on data from our utilities
companies and meter readings. The IS London continued to buy electricity from renewable sources in
2015.

Reported emissions in 2015

The method of calculating each entity’s emissions has remained the same as in recent years. The method of
calculating total emissions for the movement involves extrapolating the emissions of the 26 largest entities.
Of the 26 entities that are required to report on their 2015 emissions, 21 reported on office energy CO 2
emissions (three more than the previous year) and 20 on business travel CO 2 emissions (three more than
the previous year, although not every office that reported on Scope 2 emissions, also reported on their
Scope 3 emissions); the figures are as follows:

Scope 1: N/A
Scope 2: tCO2e = 1,973
Scope 3: tCO2e = 2,426

We then estimated the movement’s total CO2 emissions (all entities) in 2015 by dividing these two numbers
by the respective percentages of the movement’s total number of staff accounted by these reporting entities
(45% for office energy, 53% for business travel):
- Scope 2 or Office: 3,309 metric tonnes of CO2
- Scope 3 or Travel: 4,508 metric tonnes of CO2

2015 Estimated Total (office + travel): 8,417 metric tonnes of CO2 including ICM year travel
Regional Offices (ROs) are yet to report on their total emissions. Some have been in operation for a year or
so but some for only a few months, so their contribution to overall emissions is not likely to be significant.
There are plans to encourage and support ROs to report on their kWh and emissions in 2016/17.

1
IS London Travel data is downloaded from the Key Travel and covers a majority of the air travel undertaken by IS
London staff. Any travel booked directly with airlines will not be captured

23
EN18: Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the organizational level and reductions
achieved

Total emissions have increased from 2014 to 2015, mainly due to an increase in travel related emissions,
there was a reduction in Scope 2 (office) emissions (see EN16 for details). Some Amnesty entities have
taken steps individually and independently to reduce their Scope 2 emissions. The IS did send guidance to
some ROs which asked for help to reduce their emissions but there is still a need to have coherent, joined
up guidance or policies for all entities to help them take active steps to reduce their emissions and
environmental impact.

The refurbishment of No.1 Easton Street, IS London office (London Office Project – LOP) commenced in
October 2015 and is due to complete at the end of 2016. The refurbishment is focusing primarily on
changing the internal arrangement of space and how we use the building, most of the plant (i.e. the
machinery used to regulate the temperature, quality, and flow of air and water throughout No.1 Easton
Street) is remaining. We have sought to limit the environmental impact of the refurbishment itself by
submitting the project to a ‘Ska Rating’ 2 (initially targeting a Bronze award). We have also taken this
opportunity to install new low energy equipment and fittings where possible and practicable (budget
allowing) and have had the original remaining plant and equipment overhauled to optimize it as much as
possible. The preparation for and commencement of the LOP changes to the IS London in 2015 meant that
the focus on sustainability here was given to building infrastructure and systems that should reduce energy
consumption in the future but will be difficult to measure until 2017 as the LOP will not complete until the
end of 2016. Despite these changes, the IS London will still represent the biggest entity in the
organization in terms of building size and headcount so it is expected that energy use and subsequent
emissions will be the highest of the reporting entities.–
Maintenance and checking of the Building Management System (BMS) has continued and will be optimized
further as part of the LOP. Staff engagement and awareness has continued and with a focus on
printer/copier use, paper consumption, CO2 and waste impact.

The work on the EMS with global guidance is still in draft phase. Some guidance was given to a number of
ROs on energy and waste reduction.

EN26: Initiatives to mitigate environmental impacts of activities and services

The main environmental impacts of Amnesty International‘s activities are Scope 2 emissions from buildings,
Scope 3 travel, and waste from buildings and operations (water, recycling). Environmental assessments are
carried out prior to certain activities such as:

 Some building/plant works - refurbishments and replacement of plant

 Major building refurbishments designed and carried out to relevant environmental standards (SKA
Rating, BREEAM for example)
 Production of campaigning materials – t-shirts for example

Our Ethical Procurement Policy also requires consideration of human rights abuses and limiting
environmental impact in purchases goods and services.

Our approach to minimizing environmental impacts in our activities and services, include:

 Building and plant operation managed to reduce energy use and emissions
 Some contracts ask service providers to deliver the service with regard to the environment and
minimal impact

2Ska Rating is a tool for assessing fit-out projects against a set of sustainability good practice criteria:
http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/ska-rating-/about-ska-rating/ Online tool: https://ska-tool.rics.org/

24
  Some contracts ask for certification to ISO14001

IV. Human Resource Management

LA1: Size and composition of total workforce

The total staff number for Amnesty International in 2015 is 2,626 which is an 8.2% increase from 2014.
63.3 % are full-time employees. The largest concentration of Amnesty International staff (68.4%) are
located in the Europe region (which includes the London global office and AI’s largest national entities).
This is a small decrease from 2014 (3.6%) which may reflect the Global Transition Plan at the IS. The
smallest concentration of staff are located in the Middle East and North Africa region (2.09%, up from
1.6% in 2014). There are 2889 office volunteers– the vast majority on a part-time basis (72.7%). The total
numbers of volunteers and activists are far larger as described in section 2.8.

A graphical breakdown of year - year comparison over the last four years is represented below.

EC7: Procedures for local hiring and proportion of senior management hired from the
local community at locations of significant operation.

The recruitment strategy for Amnesty International remains to try to recruit locally wherever possible,
including for senior staff. Evidence from global staff statistics suggests that our local hiring works well in
practice, with 93% of directors having been recruited locally.

To ensure that local NGOs or the local public sector is not undermined by our hiring practices we conduct
local salary benchmarking exercises so that we are not out of step with the local market. As part of our
commitment to creating ‘One Amnesty’ we are moving to have all employees on the same salary scale (and
benefits) in each country irrespective of whether they are a local hire, or have relocated from another
Amnesty International office or country.

LA10: Workforce training to support organizational development

71% of national entities reported providing job related training to

staff in 2015. The average hours of job related training received per
staff member has increased slightly from 7.0% in 2013 to 9.3 in
2015 (see graph).

At the International Secretariat, training is offered at three levels:

organizational, directorate specific and personal development. With
the culmination of the Global Transition Programme and the opening
of Regional Offices, online training has become a key aspect of our

25
offer to enable colleagues located around the globe to access support when required.

The central learning & development budget is used to fund organization wide training initiatives, such as
induction, management development and personal effectiveness training for all staff. The development of
an e-learning platform (Totara) has been one of the key priorities, and the Learning Management System
(LMS) was launched in May 2016. In addition to e-learning, all face-to-face courses are recorded allowing
to more accurately report and monitor training undertaken across the IS in the future.

Other key initiatives from an organization wide perspective include the launch of a Leadership Development
Programme for middle-management, a joint global training between managers in the International
Secretariat and National Entities Directors; and the roll-out of Cultural Awareness training, which is vital
given the diversity of both the areas Amnesty International works and employees themselves.

Directorate-led training will continue to take place, for example training for researchers, campaigners, and
media spokespersons. Again with the introduction of an LMS these sessions will be recorded centrally to
allow us greater oversight of all the training offered. Sessions will be scheduled regularly and in line with
new Regional Office openings, as well as on an ad-hoc basis as identified by specific teams.

Personal development needs are identified throughout the year and formally recorded in the annual
appraisal. A training approval grid has been created to support managers in the decision making process
when identifying and approving training to meet personal development needs. Methods can include
attending external courses, work-shadowing, on-the-job learning, with the costs being covered by each
department’s training budget.

LA12: Performance reviews and career development plans

All staff are encouraged to systematically complete an annual appraisal of the previous year’s performance,
set objectives for the next year and discuss career development. When setting individual objectives, the
guidance for staff is that these should be linked with the organization’s and their department’s objectives.

The percentage of staff receiving performance reviews across national entities is 54%. This is a small
increase from 2013 (53%). For the International Secretariat the percentage of staff receiving a
performance review in 2015 was 93%, a further improvement on the previous rate of 89% in 2014.

The International Secretariat appointed a Learning and Development Manager in 2016 in order to develop
and coordinate our development activities more effectively. A major initiative has been the design and
implementation of a Leadership Development Programme, referenced above, which is targeted at second
level line managers in the International Secretariat and Directors of small and medium sized entities, in
part this programme focusses on performance management, giving feedback and the setting and managing
of objectives, all of which contribute to the quality of, and commitment to, the appraisal processes.

LA13: Diversity in your organization displayed in the composition of governance bodies

and employees

To ensure diversity and participation in our governance structures, our highest decision making body, the
International Council, is made up of about 250 representatives of the movement’s national entities. To
ensure a strong representation of the Global South each national entity can have a maximum of six
representatives with three guaranteed even for entities with a small number of members. This approach is
currently being reviewed as part of our governance reform process.

The 2015 International Council Meeting saw all Amnesty International countries represented and a balance
in terms of gender. One weak area is youth participation with only 9% of the participants being below the
age of 25. The elected International Board is diverse in terms of geography with all regions represented,
and is balanced in terms of disclosed gender. There are however no young people on the International
Board, nor on any of the elected governance committees. The specific issue of youth participation is a
26
central debate in the current governance reform process. While this indicator focuses only on composition,
it should also be noted that the governance reform aims to go beyond composition and also address the
issue of equal opportunities for participation for various groups and individuals as the current practice
seems to favor specific groups of people and meeting cultures.

For the employee group at the International Secretariat we have decided to roll our diversity survey of 2013
into our annual employee engagement survey, and for 2016 and going forward we will incorporate a number
of questions on diversity and inclusion together with demographic questions. This will allow a more
sophisticated level of analysis and include attitudes and opinions as well as workforce composition. It is
worth noting that women are represented in the leadership of all the Regional Offices.

In September 2015 the International Secretariat completed an ethnicity, diversity and inclusion audit of
practices and procedures accredited and externally assessed through the National Equality Standard
scheme. We achieved 70% of the standard and are implementing an action plan to address the remaining
30% which will be assessed in September 2016. To implement the action plan we have an engaged
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) working group with assigned tasks, each with an SLT sponsor. The
EDI group has superseded the Equality and Diversity Group established in 2014.

The EDI action plan has enabled wider involvement of employees in contributing towards and driving
initiatives. For example staff launched “Aziza” a new women’s network as well as various EDI related e-
learning packages in March 2016. We also have run a mental health awareness week with a number of
events and internal communications and awareness activities and introduced a Bullying and Harassment
policy.

We also closely monitoring the gender and diverstiy of our members, supporters, boards and staff across the
movement through annual reporting. Below are the gender and age diversity information for the movement
as at the end of 2015 (see 2.5 for our groupings of the Global South and Global North).

The proportion of female board chairs has remained the same when compared to the previous accountability
reports (42% in 2015), but we have seen a decrease in female directors (38% in 2015 versus 42% in
2014). Ethnic minorities are also represented in our governance bodies, and the representation of ethnic
minorities in our boards has increased slightly from previous years (14% in 2015 versus 12% in 2014 and
2013).

We are engaging with more gender diverse constituencies – 52% of people we reached (members,
supporters and activists) in 2015 identified themselves as women, however the figures vary significantly
across regions (in Asia and MENA, only 34% and 37%, respectively, of Amnesty InternationaI’s
constituencies identified as women).

27
Our constituency between 25 and 44 had a 3% growth and is now at 43%, though our engagement with
youth (people under 25) remained stagnant in 2015 (at 14%)

NGO9: Mechanism for your workforce to raise grievances and get response

The International Secretariat has the full complement of people-related policies which conform to relevant
legal and best practice standards. All staff have access to the formal and informal grievance policy which
can be found in the staff handbook. There is also formal recognition of Unite the Union which has collective
bargaining powers and is a vehicle for staff to raise complaints and grievances. Feedback can also be given
through directorate meetings, staff council and all staff meetings. Grievances can be raised with HR and
direct managers. Our ‘whistle-blowing’ policy allows reporting outside of the line of management in a range
of situations where disclosure is protected by law. In 2015 the International Secretariat negotiated a new
policy on Bullying and Harassment with the Trade Union and this has been implemented with training
course for senior managers and Regional Offices as well as creation of ‘bite-sized’ trainings available on a
new intranet based learning management system. Grievance cases are monitored and outcomes recorded. A
report is made on an annual basis to the Senior Leadership Team of the International Secretariat.

Reporting from national entities also reveals that they have multiple channels through which employees can
raise grievances. Apart from specific policies, there are examples of staff associations working with
management, direct channels of feedback to the board, escalating in progressive levels from line manager
to senior management and the board, annual appraisals, and satisfaction surveys. AI USA reports the use of
‘Ethics point’ to lodge complaints, and Amnesty IternationaI Turkey reports that complaints can be made to
the entity’s Ombudsman.

28
V. Responsible Management of Impact on Society

SO1: Impacts of activities on the wider community

As a campaigning organization, our ways of working do not include engaging with communities as service
deliverers in the way that is traditionally understood by “entering, operating in and exiting” communities.
We do, however, consider the scope, nature and effectiveness of our interventions and assess our impact on
communities. We understand impact as being about the consequences of our work on the external world.
These can be cumulative and aggregated, planned and unplanned, positive or negative, intended or not.

We have robust processes to assess and manage our global risks. We do this using risk registers for the
International Secretariat and the national entities, which are collated and reviewed annually to ensure that
our key top global risks are being well managed and surfaced to the Finance and Audit Committee and the
International Board. Each of our risks has a mitigation plan in place to reduce likelihood and/or impact. Our
top five 2016 global risks have been identified as follows. 1) Inability to achieve our ambitious fundraising
goals. 2) Lack of prioritization and coordination across movement to effect human rights change. 3) Failure
of research quality assurance. 4) Complexities of the sex worker policy. 5) Loss of institutional knowledge
arising from our major undertaking of recent years - the opening of new Regional Offices in strategic
locations.

The Global Transtion Programme (GTP) Interim Assessment, shared with the Amnesty International
movement in April 2015, explored the differences in the effectiveness and efficiency of our human rights
outputs due to delivering work from the first wave of Regional Offices (Johannesburg, Nairobi, and Hong
Kong) rather than from London. It supported our capacity to self-reflect and invite external parties to add
their critique and observations. A number of recommendations from the report have been implemented to
support the Regional Offices in the second and third waves of the GTP and improve ways of working it the
new distributed model.

The purpose of the GTP Final Assessment is to fulfil an accountability requirement to the movement, and to
our wider constituencies, in return for the investment by the movement as a whole to this transition process.
By supplementing the indicators developed by a working group of staff and managers from across the
International Secretariat with independent analysis, focus groups, interviews and surveys, this evaluation
will assess effectiveness and efficiency in terms of increased volume, quality, speed and relevance of
Amnesty International’s work as a result of the GTP. It will cover the full period of the GTP, from 2013-
2016.

While this is intended to be the final evaluation of the GTP it is expected that the assessment will generate
recommendations for our future planning and operations, and will form part of our business as usual
learnings and reflections cycle going forward.

SO3: Process for ensuring effective anti-corruption policies and procedures

In September 2013 the International Secretariat reviewed its processes in the areas of anti-bribery and
corruption. While we consider that the operation of our other internal policies - in particular staff expenses
and procurement policies - do operate as significant controls in these areas, following the review we
initiated a training / awareness raising initiative around the specific Anti-Bribery and Corruption policy to
include the delivery of a series of staff workshops with target groups (identified as such due to the operation
in high risk areas). The focus of the initiative and the staff workshops is as follows:

 to increase staff awareness of the policy

 to provide an open forum for discussion around issues connected with anti-bribery and corruption,
including how previous incidents were dealt with
29
  to provide guidance to staff on dealing with future incidents and to encourage the reporting of
situations / incidents in line with the policy

During 2015 we continued with the ‘workshop’ training approach to staff across our offices. In total, the
training programme reached over 140 staff members across our London and Regional Offices. It focused on
face to face sessions with high risk groups and included sessions with all staff in our regional offices in
Kenya and South Africa.

Progress was also made in sharing the IS approach with colleagues across the global Amnesty International
movement by including a presentation on this area to the annual meeting of Amnesty International Chair’s
Assembly and Directors’ Forum.

The training covers bribery as well as wider issues associated with corruption, including in the area of
procurement and recruitment practices. It has raised awareness of the relevant issues among staff who are
most likely to be affected, as well as ensuring that staff at our new regional offices have some basic
knowledge and guidance.

In addition to the training and meetings listed above, we also reviewed and re-issued the original anti-
bribery and corruption policy and uploaded new training and guidance materials on the staff intranet. As a
result of the programme of workshops, we received useful feedback from staff who used the sessions to
share their experiences and challenges informally. This has enabled us to incrementally improve our
training and guidance materials.

We have also continued to review and update the original risk assessment in the area of anti-bribery and
corruption, including on a quarterly basis as part of our global risk management processes. Controls and
processes also apply across the Amnesty International movement, including the mandatory Core Standards
introduced in 2013 which contain a requirement for all entity to have clear policies about zero-tolerance of
bribery and corruption.

SO4: Actions taken in response to incidents of corruption

Allegations of corruption in whatever form are always taken very seriously. Depending on the entity involved
the issue may be dealt with through different channels, including: national entities boards; the International
Secretariat Senior Leadership Team; the International Board.

No specific incidents were formally reported to the Finance Team at the International Secretariat in
accordance with its anti-bribery and corruption policy during 2015, however the process of holding
workshops has heightened the awareness of that policy and its reporting requirements, together with some
useful information on the types of risk areas arising in our day to day work. It is hoped that continuing with
the awareness raising initiatives described above and introducing new initiatives (we are currently designing
a new e-training module on anti-bribery), staff will be encouraged to provide formal reports under the policy
in future.

If reports were received, these would be recorded by the Finance team and shared with Legal Counsel for
escalation as appropriate. Any such incidents would be included in future INGO Accountability Charter
reports.

At national entity level, as a result of an evaluation of our partnership work between Amnesty International
Sweden and Amnesty International Sierra Leone, issues relating to governance systems and practices,
financial management and allegations of bribery were made. An independent investigation was carried out
addressing all issues. The review team found insufficient evidence to verify the allegations of bribery or
corruption in Amnesty International Sierra Leone. Having said this, many governance and financial
practices can be improved, and a detailed report was written outlining recommendations to improve
practice. For example, maintaining appropriate boundaries between board and staff was found to be
important in order to assist both in the relationships and human rights impact of the national entity.
Clarifying the roles of the Chair, Treasurer and Director in financial matters was also raised as important,
including clarity over responsibilities for budgeting and approvals.
30
Allegations affecting a national entity that are not resolved locally may be escalated to the International
Secretariat for response, via its Movement Support team. If the issue remains unresolved allegations will be
referred to the International Board. Results of a review are presented to the Secretary General and the
International Board for action. If allegations of corruption are substantiated and depending on the nature of
the issue, there are different possibilities for addressing this:

 Under the Amnesty International Statute, the International Board can impose sanctions including
suspension or termination of their membership with Amnesty International
 Funding to an entity can be restricted or stopped
 Dismissal/termination of staff, removal of elected officers

VI. Ethical Fundraising

PR6: Programmes for adherence to laws, standards, and voluntary codes related to ethical
fundraising, including advertising, promotion, and sponsorship.

Amnesty International works to agreed movement-wide fundraising guidelines. All restricted/designated

funds are strictly managed and reported on. We also adhere to these practices with donations received from
third parties. With regard to publicizing all major institutional gifts and gifts in-kind, and describing the
valuation and auditing methods used, this is done in line with the donor’s wishes and our contractual
obligations with them. No complaints have been received at the International Secretariat this year on
complaints or breaches in regard to our fundraising and communication activities.

The global fundraising strategy commenced in January 2016, in line with the new strategic plan. The
strategy commits all Amnesty International entities to strive for the highest standards of accountability and
transparency in our funding arrangements.

In 2016 after movement wide consultation we replaced our existing global policies with a single fundraising
policy document. We also issued a donor charter which contains details of our commitment to financial
supporters. The revised fundraising policy commits us to not accept funding for which we are not prepared
to be fully and publicly accountable to our members, donors, supporters and those on whose behalf we
work. We do not undertake fundraising and marketing activities that we cannot fully and clearly justify in
terms of outputs and outcomes. We do not sell or distribute merchandise that is banned in any markets.

These policies also include a commitment to reviewing our adherence to various laws, standards and
voluntary fundraising codes in countries where we are actively fundraising. Entities are strongly encouraged
to join local professional fundraising regulatory bodies and adhere to their standards.

GRI Self-Assessment Application Level

I hereby declare that to the best of my understanding this report fulfils the requirements
for a GRI G3 Application Level C.
Name: Catherine Power
Position: Director, Strategy and Evaluation
Date: 10 October 2016

Copyright and Trademark Notice

This document is copyright-protected by Stitching Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The reproduction and
distribution of this document for information is permitted without prior permission from GRI. However,
neither this document nor any extract from it may be reproduced, stored, translated, or transferred in any
form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded, or otherwise) for any other purpose
without prior written permission from GRI.
31
Amnesty International is a global movement of more than
3 million supporters, members and activists in more than
150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave
abuses of human rights.

Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights

enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
other international human rights standards.

We are independent of any government, political ideology,

economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our
membership and public donations.

32