Appendices


Appendices Appendix 1: Duty of Care Practices Checklist Development andValidation


The seven-step process used in the development and validation of the Duty of Care Checklist mirrors the established methodological process for scale validation and development19


. Step 1:Model development


This first step consisted of the development of a Duty of Care conceptual framework. The two underlying models (an integrated Duty of Care risk management model and the Duty of Care continuum) have been described earlier (See section: “Underlying Duty of Care Models”).


Step 2: Item generation


The second step consisted of creating a list of items (Duty of Care practices) that relate to each step of the model. The practices were collected from professionals at various levels and functions from different organizations having many employees working across borders, through a series of roundtables (in Canada, France, the Netherlands, South Africa, UK and USA) and webinars (in Australia, Asia-Pacific, New Zealand and Switzerland). It resulted in an original list of 87 items.


Step 3: Item refinement and sorting


These 87 items were then sorted by 19 MBA candidates to ascertain whether they were put in the appropriate category (or step) of the model. This was performed to ensure face validity of the items in the model. Items were refined, edited and rearranged based on sorting and qualitative comments of these judges. It resulted in a revised list of 110 items.


Step 4: Item importance


The next step consisted of rating the importance of the items by global security, medical and risk management experts. A total of 62 experts working for International SOS, Control Risks and MedAire participated in this process. These individuals were not only leading subject matter experts, but were based in 16 different countries20


capture the magnitude of the importance of each item, and (2) a fixed-sum weight rating of each category of items allocating 100% to different sets of related items. Based on this analysis, 10 items were deleted, resulting in a total of 100 items.


Step 5: Item grouping


An exploratory factor analysis was done on the items within each step of the model. Items that were highly correlated (showing unidimensionality) were considered to measure the same construct. This resulted in 15 Duty of Care indicators that were linked to a specific step of the model.


Step 6: Final checklist Step 7: Independent sample benchmark


A final set of 100 items was retained for the scorecard. These items were then converted into a “Yes/No” checklist, commonly used for risk management audits.


The last step consisted of administering the checklist to an independent sample of 628 global companies in this Benchmarking Study. The individual Duty of Care practices on the checklist (100 items), were then rolled up into 15 Duty of Care dashboard-like indicators, eight steps of the Duty of Care model and an overall Duty of Care company score. This was considered to be the Duty of Care baseline. The baseline was then further differentiated by a number of variables of interest to allow further benchmarking (e.g., Global 500, sector, company size, and geography).


19


The following articles, in different fields, have used a similar methodology with regard to scale development: Ding, Z. and Ng, F. (2008). A new way of developing emantic differential scales with personal construct theory. Construction Management and Economics, 26, 1213-1226. Hung, K.T and Tangpong, C. (2010). General risk propensity in multifaceted business decisions: Scale development. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22 (1): 88-106. Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vrat, P. (2006). SSQSC: A tool to measure supplier service quality in supply chain. Production Planning and Control, 17 (5): 448-463.


20 Australia, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan and Thailand. 41


. Two different measures of importance were used: (1) a seven-point scale to


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48