the Universal Standards for Social Performance Management

Box 1: Dispersion of ResultsAggregate results, as shown in Figure 5 above, demonstrate that on average, MFIs performed best onSections 4 and 5 and worst on Section 1. However, this summary data obscures important individualvariations. The below charts reveal the relative ranking of each section (out of six), based on the reportedcompliance scores. They indicate a range of patterns. For example, even in Section 1, which had the lowestoverall score, a few MFIs scored very high. Further, Section 6 logged a high number of “lowest” scores,even though the average score for Section 2 was lower.These charts demonstrate that MFIs vary greatly in the areas in which they need work – no one section isuniversally easy or difficult.Figure 7: Compliance Rank by SectionFor reference: Section 1: Define and Monitor Social Goals Section 2: Ensure Board, Management, and Employee Commitment to Social Goals Section 3: Treat Clients Responsibly Section 4: Design Products, Services, Delivery Models and Channels that Meet Clients’ Needs andPreferences Section 5: Treat Employees Responsibly Section 6: Balance Financial and Social Performance11