Core Value
Commitment and Responsibility
Deep Dive
The following table includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of how Commitment and Responsibility can be demonstrated and examples of behaviours which are not aligned with this value, thereby undermining or challenging it. At the bottom are examples of behaviours which exceed the minimum standards set out in the Code.
Examples of how to demonstrate this
Explaining the Code clearly and accurately as minimum non-negotiable standards, applicable in all settings
Demonstrating an intention, understanding and ability to apply the Code to their work
Recognising the responsibility of information gathering and use, based on foundation of trust [MC 3.1, 3.6]
Honestly and realistically assessing purpose/objectives, capabilities, limitations, added value, risks/threats (informed by survivors, survivor networks, community-based actors, external experts) to inform mindful decisions [MC 4.1-4.6]
Prioritising safety and well-being of survivors over their own work/targets/deliverables/numbers [MC 1.4, 9.6]
A willingness to ask questions, test assumptions and review decisions regularly, [MC 4.7] and to make the decision not to do the work at that time in that place [MC 3.1, 5.3]
Being accountable for own decisions and actions (internally and externally) to those affected [MC 3.8]
Ensuring safe, confidential access avenues for people to raise concerns or complaints without repercussion or reprisal, and responding to concerns and complaints
Examples of non-aligned or challenging behaviour
Inaccurately referring to Code as guidelines or best practice or suggesting piecemeal adherence to only parts of the Code
Suggesting that commitments in the Code aren’t applicable to them or others (when they are)
Compromising on principles of the Code out of convenience or when ‘too hard’ without trying to find solutions or justifying failure to apply the principles of the Code based on ‘public interest’, ‘urgency’, ‘prevention’, ‘justice’
Saying that they are “Murad-Code compliant” without doing the work to integrate or review
Box-ticking: using the Code to tick boxes without substantive engagement and impact
Inability to provide examples of how provisions of the Code have been integrated into their work
Appearing unclear about responsibilities and obligations as a duty-bearer or failure to recognise themselves as duty-bearer
Making assumptions about the objectives or added value of work, which are either unrealistic or do not consider survivor perspectives and rights
Rushing decisions without all the necessary information or careful assessment
Making an initial responsible decision in relation to the work, but failing to review it in individual or day-to-day circumstances
Making decisions about work based on mandate, instructions of managers, project targets or donor appeasement rather than survivor needs
Failing to put in place any mechanisms, avenues or resources to allow follow-up communications, or a feedback loop for complaints or to understand repercussions
Refusing to be open and transparent about procedures, methodology or decision-making
Blaming others for impact of own failure to apply the principles in the Code or to make responsible decisions
Damaging potential evidence or otherwise negatively impacting a survivors’ or others’ rights [MC 3.7]
Examples of behaviours which go beyond minimum standards
Demonstrating belief and commitment to survivor autonomy and empowerment
Seeking to define activities into the Code, or extend its application beyond SCRSV
Encouraging others to apply the Code to their work
Providing creative solutions for applying the Code to work, context or resource challenges
Responding proactively when others act in an unethical way by promoting ethical and safe standards (reporting and escalating as necessary) and challenging decisions and behaviour which violate the principles of the Code and other ethical or legal principles
Contributing to the overall trust and credibility of the eco-system of actors working with survivors and gathering/using SCRSV information