The undertaking says whether and how it talks directly with affected communities, their legitimate representatives or credible proxies and how what it hears from them shapes its decisions and actions on actual and potential impacts during the year, including how it learns the views of vulnerable or marginalised members (women, girls, migrants, persons with disabilities) where it does so. Where the communities are indigenous peoples it explains how its engagement respects their particular rights, including free, prior and informed consent over their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property, over activities touching their lands and territories and over legislative or administrative measures that affect them, and whether and how they had a say in how the engagement itself was designed. It sets out the routes by which communities can bring concerns or needs to it and get them dealt with, says whether a grievance mechanism exists and how it judges whether those routes work, and explains how it goes about providing or joining in remedy when it caused or contributed to a material negative impact on communities.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.