Professional Documents
Culture Documents
T UN
RI
G
TA
E
INT
BILIT Y
BEN
T
EC
EF
IC
EN S
P
CE RE
ETHICAL
GUIDELINES FOR
E VA L UAT I O N
TA B L E O F CO N T E N T S
1. INTRODUCTION 3 UNEG would like to thank its members who
devoted their knowledge and expertise to
Rationale4
this revised Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.
UNEG definition of ‘ethics’ 4 Particular thanks go to: Gabrielle Duffy
Purpose of this document 5 (WFP) and Tina Tordjman-Nebe (UNICEF),
co-authors of this document and
Target audience 5
co-Conveners of the UNEG Working
Accountability for implementation 6 Group under which the update was
drafted; co-authors Simon Bettighofer
(ITC) and Deqa Ibrahim Musa (UNDP);
2. PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS IN EVALUATION 7
peer reviewers Aditi Bhola (OHCHR),
INTEGRITY 7 Sabrina Evangelista (UN Women),
ACCOUNTABILITY 8 Arild Hauge (UNDP), Marcel van Maastrigt
(UNHCR), Josephine Mwenda (UNOCT) and
RESPECT 9
Alejandro Sousa Bravo (OLA). A special
BENEFICENCE 10 thanks goes to Leslie Groves-Williams for
advising the Working Group, facilitating
3. G
UIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING the writing process, contributing to and
1
“T he ethical principles of In 2008, the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) formally approved its Ethical Guidelines
in Evaluation and Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System.1 This document constitutes
integrity, accountability, the revised Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. The ethical principles outlined below are firmly
respect and beneficence grounded in, and build on, the 2016 UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation that provide
are forward-looking and the agreed normative principles to be upheld in the conduct, management and governance
of evaluation.2
help UNEG members fulfil
The ethical principles of integrity, accountability, respect and beneficence are
their common mission,
forward-looking and help UNEG members fulfil their common mission, in support of
in support of the 2030 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and for the good of the world’s peoples.
Agenda for Sustainable The principles are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. They underpin and inform the
application of the 2016 UNEG Evaluation Competency Framework and the 2014 UNEG guid-
Development and for the ance on integrating human rights and gender equality in evaluations. They are based on
good of the world’s peoples.” the recommendations from the 2019 UNEG Mapping and Review of Evaluation Ethics.
These revised guidelines are consistent with the standards of conduct in the Charter of the
United Nations, the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations, the Standards of Conduct
for the International Civil Service, and the Regulations Governing the Status, Basic Rights and
Duties of Officials other than Secretariat Officials, and Experts on Mission as appropriate.3
They are also consistent with the United Nations’ core values of integrity, professionalism
and respect for diversity, the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality
and independence and the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
1
The United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) is an inter-agency professional network of evaluation units and offices of the UN system, including UN departments, specialized
agencies, funds and programmes and affiliated observers.
2
These guidelines support implementation of several UNEG norms and standards, while relating very specifically to Norm 6 Ethics, and Standard 3.2 Ethics.
3
These guidelines do not supersede the obligations and guidance under the Charter of the United Nations (or relevant constituent documents), the staff regulations and
rules and duly promulgated administrative issuances issued thereunder. To the extent that the guidelines are in conflict with the Charter of the United Nations (or relevant
constituent document), the staff regulations and rules and duly promulgated administrative issuances issued thereunder, the Charter of the United Nations (or relevant
constituent document), staff regulations and rules and duly promulgated administrative issuances issued thereunder shall prevail.
E
dynamic circumstances. There is often UNEG specifically, ethics is defined as:
the evaluation cycle can have adverse
an unspoken assumption that evalua-
{Ethics}
consequences for those intended to benefit
tors and commissioners share common
from the evaluation and those involved
ethics and will therefore resolve an ethical
in the United Nations mandate areas.
dilemma in a particular way. Yet ethics are
culturally specific. Different individuals, It is therefore essential that ethical /’eTHiks/ noun
communities and organizations have their principles inform the decision making of
t he r ig ht or ag reed
own definitions of what is culturally ‘right’ UNEG members, observers, contractors
p r i n c i pl e s a n d v a l u e s
behaviour. The ‘right’ or ‘ethical’ course and subcontractors around what broadly
t h a t g ove r n t h e
of action is therefore subject to differing constitutes ‘right’ behaviour at every step
b e h a v i o u r of
interpretations and judgements. of the evaluation cycle. Systematic and
an i ndividual
ongoing ethical thinking will ensure regular
In the diverse contexts in which the United withi n the specif ic,
reflection and help evaluators question
Nations operates, it is particularly important cult u rally def i ned
assumptions and behaviours; it will enable
to define principles of ethics and expected context withi n
appropriate adaptation and response to
ethical behaviours. Within global develop- wh ich an evalu at ion
emerging situations and crises. This will
ment, peacekeeping and humanitarian is com m issioned
better enable those involved in evaluation
work, power disparities are vast and atti- or u nder t a ken.
to hold themselves and others account-
tudes, beliefs and behaviours result from
able to expected standards of behaviour
a complex web of interlinked factors. The
and deliver ethical evaluation, even in the
priorities of all those involved in evalua-
ever-changing and complex contexts in
tion can vary greatly. Differences can be
which the UN operates. This is essential as
particularly accentuated in crisis situations.
part of the UN’s risk management strategy
and critical for upholding the UN values.
4
Instead, ethics are defined through the United Nations core values of integrity, professionalism and respect for diversity.
5
This includes leadership of the United Nations, its funds and programmes and the specialized agencies.
ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
All UNEG members commit to applying the ethical principles outlined in this document to
bring a consistent and harmonized approach to the continual improvement of the United
Nations evaluation system over time.
While there is no formal enforcement mechanism for implementing these guidelines, there are
a number of accountability mechanisms that UNEG members should consider. An illustrative
list of suggestions is provided below:
• Establish an external review body • Use the organization’s existing rules of • Integrate these principles into the UNEG
responsible for ensuring that the guide- conduct to take disciplinary actions Competency Framework and into
lines are implemented (Institutional against behaviour deemed unethical. personal performance appraisals.
Review Board or other).
• Ensure a regular dialogue in which these • Ensure directors and heads of evalu-
• Integrate ethics into the UNEG peer principles and their concrete applica- ation review and sign the Pledge of
review exercise and template. tion are discussed and reflected upon, Ethical Conduct in Evaluation upon
possibly jointly signing the Pledge of appointment. For each evaluation,
• Integrate these guidelines into Ethical Conduct. evaluation commissioners, managers
entity-specific ethics mechanisms. and those who conduct evaluations
• Ensure that there is a standing item on should review and sign the Pledge of
• Integrate the guidelines into entity-specific ethics (application of these guidelines) at
quality assurance mechanisms. Ethical Conduct in Evaluation, discuss
UNEG Annual General Meetings. its implications and commit formally
and publicly to the principles laid down
in these guidelines. The detachable
Pledge can be found in Annex 1.6
6
The Pledge of Ethical Conduct does not have the force of law. It is simply a guide to the kind of professional and personal behaviour which is expected of all those undertaking
evaluations. However, failure of staff to comply with the Pledge may amount to misconduct, if by any action or omission the staff member has violated a staff regulation or rule,
taking into account all the circumstances of the case. It is noted that some entities may already have their own such document, which could be updated in line with the new
UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.
INTEGRITY
essential for responsible • Independence, impartiality and incorruptibility. These are interdependent and mutually
evaluation practice. reinforcing. They mitigate or prevent conflicts of interest, bias or undue influence of others,
which may otherwise compromise responsible and professional evaluation practice.
ACCOUNTABILITY
the obligation to be • Transparency regarding evaluation purpose and actions taken, establishing trust and
increasing accountability for performance to the public, particularly those populations
answerable for all decisions
affected by the evaluation.
made and actions taken;
• Responsiveness as questions or events arise, adapting intentions and plans as required.
to be responsible for
Where corruption, fraud, sexual exploitation or abuse or other misconduct or waste of
honouring commitments, resources is identified, it must be referred to appropriate channels.
without qualification or • Taking responsibility for meeting the evaluation purpose and for actions taken, for
exception; 7 and to report exercising due care and for ensuring redress and recognition as needed.
potential or actual harms • Justifying and fairly and accurately reporting to stakeholders (including affected people)
observed through the decisions, actions and intentions.
appropriate channels.
7
Adapted from UN General Assembly Resolution 64/259.
RESPECT
with all stakeholders of • Access to the evaluation process and products by all relevant stakeholders – whether
powerless or powerful – with due attention to factors that can impede access such as
an evaluation in a way
sex, gender, race, language, country of origin, LGBTQ status, age, background, religion,
that honours their dignity, ethnicity and ability.
well-being and personal
• Meaningful engagement and fair treatment of all relevant stakeholders in the evaluation
agency while being processes from design to dissemination, so they can actively inform the evaluation approach
responsive to their sex, and products rather than being solely a subject of data collection.8
gender, race, language, • Fair representation of different voices and perspectives in evaluation products.
country of origin, LGBTQ
status, age, background,
religion, ethnicity and ability
and to cultural, economic
and physical environments. 8
8
This principle should be balanced and coherent with the principle of integrity, particularly in terms of independence, impartiality and incorruptibility.
BENEFICENCE
• Ensuring evaluation makes an overall positive contribution to human and natural systems
and to the mission of the United Nations.
9
Harms can be immediate or long-term; physical, social, emotional or psychological; and can relate to the welfare and security of an individual,
institution or group or the natural environment.
B O X 1 : W O R K I N G W I T H S T A K E H O L D E R S
AND ‘DO NO HARM’ (NON-MALEFICENCE)
Beneficence means that it is necessary plus additional consideration to avoid
to achieve a compromise between the further perpetuation of exclusion, unmet
risks an evaluation exposes stakeholders expectations and distress.
to, on the one hand, and maintaining
Beyond harm to participants, the ’do no
the social change objectives of the
harm’ principle also requires consider-
evaluation on the other. Every possible
ation of potential harm to evaluators
measure should be undertaken to
themselves, particularly in terms of
ensure that no stakeholder be put in
safety, potential trauma, culture shock
danger through an evaluation. There There are m a n y types
and availability of emotional support.
are many types of harm to anticipate
o f h a r m to anticipate
and consider in evaluations. Examples Conversely, there may be situations
include discomfort, embarrassment, where powerful stakeholders seek to and consider in evaluations.
intrusion, devaluation of worth, unmet divert evaluator attention away from Examples include
expectations, stigmatization, physical potentially confronting or examining
injury, distress and trauma. Political uncomfortable areas or truths under discomfort, embarrassment,
and social factors may also jeopar- the guise of ‘do no harm’. Evaluators intrusion, devaluation of
dize the safety of participants before, need to apply professional scepticism
during or after an evaluation. While worth, unmet expectations,
and watch out for risks, but also proceed
‘do no harm’ applies to all settings and without fear or favour and carefully, stigmatization,
all stakeholder groups, it is a partic- respectfully and intelligently uncover
physical injury,
ularly important concept in conflict those truths. In turn, evaluators must
settings and when working with the ensure that they use the principle distress
least powerful. In these circumstances, appropriately and not in order to shy and trauma.
a double safety net needs to be in place. away from difficult conversations.
This involves the usual considerations
The responsibilities for an entity’s leadership and its governing body are laid out below.
INTEGRITY
• Independence: Provide the evaluation • Organizational culture: Promote and and ensure regular professional
function with sufficient organizational ensure an organizational culture that training and development for all staff,
independence by positioning it separately is firmly rooted in and fully embodies and in particular those organizing or
from management functions and by ethical principles. This is achieved through conducting evaluations.
entrusting it to an empowered Evaluation measures such as: leading by example;
Head who can work with the necessary promoting a culture of fairness, transpar- • Competence: Ensure excellent evaluation
competence of those responsible for
independence (see Box 2) and ensure that ency and learning; and aligning structures
the organization’s evaluation function,
those conducting evaluations are able and processes of the organization so
including the mastery of evaluation ethics.
to do so free from undue pressure. This they are truly guided and inspired by
requirement should be clearly laid down in ethical considerations. Ensure that ethics
the entity’s Evaluation Policy. is embedded in induction programmes,
ACCOUNTABILITY
• Embedding ethics: Ensure that • Use: Demonstrate commitment to publish, appointing a sufficiently senior ethics
ethics is embedded in the evaluation use and act on evaluation evidence focal point/reporting body with the
framework, including in evaluation and recommendations as part of public primary responsibilities of a) providing
policies, charters and strategies. accountability and drive positive change advice to stakeholders and staff members
within the organization and beyond. on issues relating to the indepen-
• Organizational culture: Promote dence of evaluations and other ethical
an organizational evaluation culture • Resourcing: Invest adequate resources concerns and b) reporting complaints10
that values ethical conduct as a (human, financial and physical) to from stakeholders and staff members
basis for accountability, learning and ensure that the evaluation function can with respect to the independence of
evidence-based decision making. fulfil its mandate and meet established evaluations and other ethical concerns.
ethical standards. This should include
10
If a complaint refers to a case of work by combined evaluation, audit and inspection offices, then the complaint should not go through audit or inspection.
RESPECT
• Resourcing: Allocate sufficient resources • Institutional environment: Establish
to the evaluation function to ensure a conducive institutional environment
an appropriate and inclusive repre- that highlights and prioritizes the
sentation and treatment of the various rights and dignity of evaluation partic-
stakeholders in the evaluation process. ipants, including those managing and
conducting evaluations, as per inter-
national human rights conventions.
BENEFICENCE
• Consistency: Consistent with the broader the organization; c) drafting manage- • Standards: Ensure that all staff are
mandates of UNEG member entities, ment responses; and d) implementing aware of and reflect on organizational
require that evaluation functions work management response actions. standards for doing no harm, including
towards the realization of human non-discrimination policies and zero
rights, gender equality and achieve- • Resourcing: Provide the evaluation tolerance for sexual harassment, abuse
function with adequate resources (finan-
ment of the SDGs in collaboration with and exploitation and stigmatization;
cial, human, time) to allow for participatory
other functions within UN entities. and implement awareness-raising
and empowerment approaches in
These outcomes should be enshrined measures, including around available
evaluation (co-creation, two-way feed-
in respective evaluation policies. reporting mechanisms and processes.
back, promoting human rights, gender
• Risks and benefits: Consider risks equality, equity and social justice). • Carbon neutrality: Require that
and benefits when a) requesting that all evaluation activities become
certain themes or contexts be evalu- • Support: Where relevant, ensure progressively carbon-neutral by
physical, psychological and medical
ated; b) endorsing evaluation policies, 203011 and establish organiza-
support are available for stake-
strategies and plans at all levels of tional and division/department-wide
holders and evaluation personnel targets for reducing travel costs.
during the course of an evaluation.
11
Carbon neutrality means making no net release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This can be done by, for example, offsetting emissions by planting trees or simply
eliminating carbon emissions altogether. This is also known as ‘having a net zero carbon footprint’. Carbon neutrality and reduction of travel should be addressed from an
organization-wide perspective, noting that burdensome travel can even inhibit an evaluator’s capacity to adequately perform their task.
INTEGRITY
• Working culture: Promote and ensure standards of conduct, reviewing them to ensure the evaluation is conducted in
that the working culture and interpersonal regularly and reflecting continuously a competent manner, including knowl-
dynamics among people involved in the on how best to live up to them. edge of ethical guidelines. This includes
evaluation are in line with ethical princi- being aware of our own biases and
ples. Nurture an atmosphere characterized • Ensure own competence: Continually how these affect selection processes.
undertake professional development and
by honesty, fairness and respect. Be aware
of and reflective about how people treat exchange to strengthen qualifications • Independence and conflicts of interest:
and expertise for competent and ethical Avoid conflicts of interest, both for oneself
each other. Where helpful, exchange
evaluation practice. This can be achieved and staff/consultants to be hired. Conflicts
views with others to build consensus.
through formal training, professional of interest should be prevented to the
• Adherence to principles and stan- exchange, supervision or informal colle- greatest extent possible, including those
dards: Ensure that the conduct and gial discussions, particularly in relation to related to possible future developments.
work of those performing evaluation ethical challenges in evaluation. Where conflicts of interest are apparent
activities are guided by and adhere to or evolving, they should be disclosed
ethical principles and professional stan- • Ensure evaluators’ competence: Only and dealt with honestly (see Box 2).12
recruit evaluators with the required
dards. This requires being fully aware
qualifications, expertise and experience
of ethical guidelines and professional
12
This is also in line with provisions on conflicts of interest of the Staff Regulations and Rules of the United Nations (ST/SGB/2018/1), in particular under section 1.2 (m).
B O X 2 : T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N I N D E P E N D E N C E ,
IMPARTIALITY AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Independence and impartiality prevent whether they are staff or consultants,
bias and are therefore essential for the may therefore be compromised in their
credibility of an evaluation. The main assessment by such factors as money
difference between the two is that inde- or career prospects. This could lead
pendence relates to external pressure evaluators, for example, to provide a
or influence on those who organize more positive analysis than what is
or do evaluations, while impartiality actually deserved. It is recognized that
is an attitude towards the evaluated conflicts of interest generally carry a
subject. In other words, independence high risk of bias and must therefore
means that the evaluator should be be avoided to the extent possible.
able to work freely and without outside
To avoid conflicts of interest, particular
interference, while impartiality means
care should be taken to ensure that
that the evaluator should not be biased
independence and impartiality are
with respect to what is being evaluated. I n d e p e n d e n c e means
maintained. For example, evaluators
Conflicts of interest are typically should not evaluate subjects for which that the evaluator should be
identified by a lack of independence they have worked or had responsibility
or a lack of impartiality. These in the recent past, or in which they have able to w o r k f r e e l y and
conflicts occur when a primary been financially involved. Similarly, they without outside interference,
interest, such as the objectivity of an should not evaluate any organization,
while i m p a r t i a l i t y
evaluation, could be influenced by a department or team to which they are
secondary interest, such as personal presently applying or where there is a means that the evaluator
considerations or financial gains. significant possibility of being hired in
should n o t be biased
the near future. Conflicts of interest,
Evaluators are particularly exposed with respect to what is
however, may go beyond such basic
to potential conflicts of interest since
rules. They can be manifold and often being evaluated.
their assessment could have major
ambiguous. It is therefore all the more
consequences on the evaluated subject,
important to stay aware of any apparent
such as changes in programme imple-
or potentially arising conflicts of interest
mentation or impacts on organizational
and to respond to them adequately.
reputation or funding. Evaluators,
ACCOUNTABILITY
• Apply principles: Ensure systematic • Quality assurance: Ensure an explicit of the evaluation unit). This mechanism
application of the UNEG ethical prin- assessment of ethical risks and mitigation would be able to address concerns
ciples included in evaluation policies, proposals in inception and evaluation and provide support and advice.
charters, strategies and guidance reports and consider a due-diligence
throughout the evaluation process, post-evaluation ethics check during • Transparency: Communicate openly and
transparently, in accessible forms and
starting with their inclusion in the the quality assurance process.
languages, with evaluators and other
evaluation terms of reference.
• Resourcing: Allocate adequate stakeholders throughout the evalua-
• Ethical review: Apply informal or resources (human, financial and tion process, to keep all fully informed
formal ethical review processes prior physical) for conducting the evaluation about expectations, processes and
to conducting an evaluation, partic- and ensure their responsible use. findings. This includes ensuring that
ularly when planning primary data the evaluation review and validation
collection with potentially vulnerable • Data management: Apply clear process is conducted in a transparent
organizational protocols for responsible
people or in sensitive contexts. manner that facilitates feedback
data management to ensure that the
while safeguarding independence.
• Ethics expertise: Ensure that evaluation ethical principles of integrity, respect and
officers within the entity’s evaluation beneficence are honoured (see Box 3). • Working culture: Create and ensure
function are trained in ethics. In addi- an environment where ethical issues,
tion, a staff member could be designated • Redress: Establish clear and accessible including challenges to independence,
as ethics focal point to provide support procedures to report conflicts of interest, can be raised and addressed safely
to both evaluation managers and abuse, misconduct or other serious ethical and where teams and participants are
those conducting evaluations (whether concerns identified during an evalua- aware of relevant complaints channels.
internal or external) when an ethical tion and to seek redress where relevant
dilemma requires discussion to find (e.g., through establishing referral path-
the most appropriate way forward. ways for a complaint mechanism outside
B O X 3 : E T H I C A L A N D R E S P O N S I B L E D A T A M A N A G E M E N T 13
Responsible data management should • Secure and safe data collection,
include specific guidelines on: storage and use, with careful
management of data leakage or
• Collecting only data that are actually
breaches of confidentiality.
needed and will create value.
• Data usage that is responsible and Managing data
• The protection and privacy of
impartial and respects, protects
personal data in any form, processed r e s p o n s i b l y means
and promotes human rights and as
in any manner, with particular caution
appropriate international standards. making sure data is collected,
when processing data of vulnerable
This includes eliminating bias and not
or marginalized individuals or groups. stored and used securely and
discriminating based on gender, race,
• Data governance to clarify data roles, religion or any other factor. safely. Consider risks of data
responsibilities, standards and proto- leakage or breaches of confi-
• Other aspects of data management,
cols and to ensure accountability for
as applicable, with reference to dentiality that could harm
data assets, insights and actions.
the Personal Data Protection and
vulnerable people.
• Transparent management of Privacy Principles adopted by the
data and analytical products by United Nations High-Level Committee
ensuring that evaluation outputs are on Management.
comprehensible and traceable.
13
United Nations, Data Strategy of the Secretary-General for Action by Everyone, Everywhere with Insight, Impact and Integrity 2020-22, 2020
RESPECT
• Resourcing: Invest sufficient resources • Addressing power imbalances: Recognize • Meaningful dissemination: Ensure
and time to ensure an appropriate and and attempt to address power imbalances. evaluation designs incorporate
inclusive representation and treatment of Make sure evaluation design allows the plans to meaningfully disseminate
various stakeholders, including the least voices of the most vulnerable to be heard. evaluation findings to participants,
powerful, at all stages of the evaluation particularly intended beneficiaries of
process (including in design and validation • Confidentiality and anonymity: interventions being evaluated, in an
Respect the evaluators’ obligations to
phases) where feasible. This includes not accessible format and language.
safeguard sensitive information that
deliberately under-budgeting at the outset.
participants do not want to disclose • Collaboration: Work in a collaborative
• Diversity and representation: Ensure to others, ensuring confidentiality manner, respecting the knowledge
evaluation teams include an appro- and anonymity within their limits. and experience of participants
priate representation with regard to and stakeholders.
sex and a broad mix of backgrounds,
skills and perspectives, including
national and international expertise.
BENEFICENCE
• Clear benefits: Position the evaluation and mitigation measures. Carefully weigh and international evaluators. This includes
as an intervention working towards the harms and benefits throughout the zero tolerance for sexual harassment,
realization of the greatest good for people evaluation process, e.g., the benefits of stigmatization, abuse and exploitation.
and planet. Clearly identify these benefits remote data collection (in terms of effi- Evaluations should not proceed where
(e.g., in the evaluation terms of refer- ciency, carbon-neutrality, adaptability to mitigation of harm is not possible. Where
ence), pledge to provide them and make situations where movement is restricted, unanticipated harm has been identified,
new knowledge accessible as a global etc.) vs. the need to capture the views ensure redress channels are triggered.
public good. Ensure that every evalua- of the most powerless and marginalized
tion has a clear purpose and is relevant. (which might be hard to capture remotely).
• Carbon neutrality: Progressively phase
in carbon neutrality of all evaluation
• Weighing harms and benefits: • Do no harm: Avoid causing injury or activities, e.g., by seeking to do as much
Continuously assess and try to anticipate discomfort through acts of commission or as possible remotely where this is profes-
intended and unintended consequences omission – using particular diligence when sionally feasible, working with local
of the evaluation process and results, at working in sensitive contexts and with evaluators, using innovative tools for
systemic (including environmental), organi- vulnerable populations (link with data/ data collection and ensuring the optimal
zational and programmatic levels. This privacy). Ensure safety and security of number of people travelling if they must.
should be part of ongoing risk assessment informants and their data and of national
INTEGRITY
• Alignment with ethical principles: that may have occurred. Negotiate • Competency: Only conduct evaluations
Ensure that your conduct and work honestly when estimating the neces- within existing competencies. Evaluators
are guided by and aligned with ethical sary amount of work, related payment should be transparent and honest
principles and professional standards. and workload actually performed. about their methodological or tech-
This requires ensuring that you are fully nical knowledge. They should not make
aware of ethical guidelines and profes- • Professional development: Continually claims outside their field of expertise.
undertake professional development
sional standards of conduct, review
them regularly and reflect continu- and exchange to strengthen qualification • Avoid conflicts of interest: Conflicts
and expertise for competent and ethical of interest should be prevented
ously on how best to live up to them.
evaluation practice. This can be achieved to the greatest extent possible,
• Communication: Communicate truth- through formal training, professional including those related to possible
fully and openly with clients and exchange, supervision or informal colle- future developments. Where such
relevant stakeholders concerning gial discussions, particularly in relation conflicts of interest are apparent or
aspects of the evaluation, such as find- to ethical challenges in evaluation. evolving, they must be disclosed and
ings, procedures, limitations or changes dealt with honestly (see Box 2).
ACCOUNTABILITY
• Redress: Ensure participants know • Resources: Manage resources (human, • Wrongdoing: Be aware of and follow
how to seek redress for any perceived financial and physical) allocated to established policies and protocols related
disadvantage or harm suffered from the evaluation team in a cost-effective to serious wrongdoing, particularly
the evaluation and how to register a and time-efficient manner. financial wrongdoing, abuse and harass-
complaint concerning the unethical ment and report significant problems
conduct of those involved in the conduct • Transparency: Communicate openly through the appropriate channels.
and transparently with commissioners
or organization of the evaluation.
and other stakeholders on all aspects • Data management: Apply protocols
• Evaluative judgements: Demonstrate in of the evaluation process, including for responsible data management as
the inception and evaluation reports that limitations. This includes raising ethical prescribed by the commissioning entity.
the evaluation is conducted in a rigorous, dilemmas for discussion and/or action
fair and balanced way and that any judge- at the earliest possible opportunity • Adherence: Closely follow all ethical
principles and ensure they are being
ments made are based on sound and and communicating in the evaluation
followed throughout the process.
complete evidence that can be verified. reports and other products how ethical
considerations are handled.
RESPECT
• Inform: Ensure prospective participants that sensitive information cannot be participation of members of vulnerable
in the evaluation know what they are traced to its source so that individ- groups, evaluators must be aware of and
being consulted on and why; what the uals are protected from reprisals. comply with international and national
intended outputs are; and have sufficient legal codes governing respecting and
and adequate information for informed • Inclusion and non-discrimination: Ensure protecting the rights of these groups
equitable participation and treatment
consent. This includes explicitly noting (e.g., guidelines on researching and inter-
of all participants and their opportu-
their right to skip questions or withdraw viewing children and young people).14
nity to voice their perspectives. Respect
consent at any stage of the evalua-
tion process without fear of penalty. differences in culture, local customs, • Show empathy: Empathize and work
religious beliefs and practices, personal collaboratively with all stakeholders,
• Confidentiality: Respect participants’ interaction, gender roles, ability, age and treating evaluation participants, eval-
right to provide information in confi- ethnicity, and be mindful of the potential uators and evaluation commissioners
dence and ensure that participants implications of these differences when in a way that honours their profes-
fully understand the scope and limits of carrying out and reporting on evalua- sional expertise and personal dignity.
confidentiality. Evaluators must ensure tions. Where the evaluation involves the
BENEFICENCE
• Clear benefits: As far as possible, • Addressing power imbalances: Make • Do no harm: Ensure that ongoing risk
position the evaluation as an interven- sure the voices of the most vulnerable assessments clarify and mitigate poten-
tion working towards the realization are heard, including when data collec- tial and actual harms that may arise and
of human rights, gender equality and tion is remote. Recognize, report on that go beyond what participants have
achievement of the SDGs and be clear and attempt to address or mitigate consented to. This risk assessment must
about the implications of this positioning. potential power imbalances within the be ongoing and evaluations should not
Push for and fully implement participa- evaluation approaches adopted. proceed where mitigation (through, for
tory and empowerment approaches and example, use of alternative methods) is
other forms of stakeholder consultation not possible and harm will ensue. Where
to maximize potential benefits to the unanticipated harm has been identified,
evaluation and those involved in it. ensure redress channels are triggered.
(See Box 1 for examples of ‘harm’.)
14
See also the August 2014 UNEG guidance on integrating human rights and gender equality in evaluations.
While these guidelines target leadership and those responsible for organizing
and conducting evaluations, they are also helpful for those who are the objects
of an evaluation, i.e., the evaluand. Box 4 highlights some considerations for the
evaluand to ensure that they also apply ethics in the evaluation process.
I commit to playing my part in ensuring that evaluations are conducted according to the Charter of the United Nations and the ethical requirements laid down
above and contained within the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. When this is not possible, I will report the situation to my supervisor, designated focal
points or channels and will actively seek an appropriate response.
This checklist is a support tool to consider. Its use is not mandatory. We recommend, however,
that it be used systematically during each evaluation phase to ensure that you are working to
ethical expectations. If you are not sure of the answer, please discuss with others, define your Tables legend:
response and then check ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. You will need to balance responses to different questions INTEGRITY
and then use ethical thinking to decide on the most appropriate ways forward. If you respond ACCOUNTABILITY
‘No’ you should be prepared to justify your ‘No’ within the evaluation reporting processes and RESPECT
with the team, including reporting officers/line managers. BENEFICENCE
1. C O M M I S S I O N I N G , P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N ( C O N T ’ D ) Yes No
Do your evaluation plans and terms of reference allocate sufficient resources and time to ensure all relevant stakeholders
are engaged throughout the evaluation in providing feedback on its design and implementation approach?
Do your evaluation plans and terms of reference identify appropriate audiences for evaluation findings and allocate
sufficient resources for dissemination in appropriate channels and formats?
Have you identified and articulated clear benefits likely to arise from the evaluation? Do these benefits (to participants, the
UN community, other stakeholders, the environment and society at large) justify the current evaluation?
Has your ongoing risk assessment identified any substantial harms that could be anticipated from participation in
this evaluation for informants, evaluators or the environment and have mitigation measures been put in place? Risks
can by physical, social (e.g., loss of privacy, loss of status, loss of reputation, stigma) or psychological/emotional (e.g.,
loss of self-confidence, psychological trauma, stigma, etc.) that could be anticipated for informants and evaluators from
participation in this evaluation.
Are there other harms to participants, the broader community or the environment that can be anticipated?
Have you established that the evaluation will stop in the event that benefits to the participants are outweighed by
harms that cannot be fully avoided/mitigated?
Do the benefits of the evaluation outweigh the risks?
Are protection protocols needed (e.g., relevant supports, referrals, protections and services for both vulnerable populations
and evaluation personnel)?
Have you participated fully in required awareness-raising measures, such as ethics and protection against sexual
exploitation and abuse (PSEA) courses?
3. REPORTING
Yes No
Have you made it clear to those responsible for drafting reports their obligations to provide a clear and transparent
accounting of the findings?
Are quality assurance processes in place to ensure that the final report fully represents the findings and conclusions of the
evaluators and has not been amended without their consent?
Does the inception report include an explicit assessment of ethical risks and proposed mitigation actions? Is this assessment
further elaborated in the evaluation report to describe ethical issues arising and mitigating actions taken, as appropriate?
Have you outlined how stakeholders were engaged throughout the evaluation process in your evaluation approach or
methodology outline?
Do the findings of the report appropriately reflect the various perspectives and voices of the various stakeholders involved?
Are potential negative impacts of evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations explicitly considered? Have
benefits and harms been weighed?
Where evidence of wrongdoing was uncovered, have you discreetly reported it to the relevant competent body
and/or representative?
5. E
THICAL ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT
ACROSS ALL PHASES OF THE EVALUATION CYCLE
Yes No
Are you promoting and ensuring a working culture shaped by ethical principles, such as honesty, fairness and respect? Are
you and your team aware of and reflective about how you treat others? Do you seek dialogue in order to build consensus?
Are your communication and actions honest and truthful? Are they consistent and in accordance with ethical principles and
professional standards?
Do you and any staff supervised by you have the required qualifications, expertise and experience for your evaluation
work, including awareness and knowledge of ethical guidelines?
Did you make use of professional exchange on ethical challenges, for example through collegial discussions or debriefings
with field staff?
Do you ensure that conflicts of interest are being avoided to the extent possible, both for yourself or for any staff you
supervise, also regarding possible future developments? Do you disclose and deal with them honestly where apparent
or evolving?
Is the identity and confidentiality of evaluation participants protected throughout the evaluation process – including
during qualitative and quantitative data collection, data storage, analysis and reporting?
Is there open and transparent communication throughout the evaluation process to ensure all stakeholders are fully
informed of the evaluation purpose, expectations, processes and findings?
Do you promote and ensure evaluation teams develop a culture of mindfulness of differences in societal values
and cultures?
Have (intended and unintended) consequences of the evaluation process and results – on human subjects involved in the
evaluation, on pre-existing programmes and services, and on the environment – been monitored and addressed? Have
overall benefits outweighed risks?
Have mechanisms to prevent and address the safety and security of informants and evaluators been put in place (including
mechanisms to highlight and address potential sexual harassment, stigmatization, abuse and exploitation)?
This checklist is a support tool. Its use is not mandatory. We recommend, however, that it be
used systematically during each evaluation phase to ensure that you are working to ethical
expectations. If you are not sure of the answer, please discuss with others, define your response
and then check ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. You need to balance responses to different questions and then
use ethical thinking to decide on the most appropriate ways forward. If you respond ‘No’ you
should be prepared to justify your ‘No’ within the report and with the team, including reporting
officers/line managers.
1. C
OMMISSIONING, PLANNING AND DESIGN,
INCLUDING THE SELECTION AND COMPOSITION OF EVALUATION TEAMS
Yes No
Do you have the required qualifications, expertise and experience to competently conduct the evaluation,
including awareness and knowledge of ethical guidelines?
Did you negotiate honestly when estimating the necessary amount of work and related payment?
When accepting the assignment, did you make sure to avoid conflicts of interest and address issues of independence, also
regarding possible future developments? Did you disclose and deal with conflicts of interest honestly where apparent or
potentially evolving?
Have you identified, assessed and made explicit ethical risks and mitigating actions in the proposed approach/
methodology? And/or have you outlined a clear protection protocol identifying these issues and mitigation strategies?
Have you identified and agreed on clear protocols for identifying and reporting unethical behaviour or other wrongdoing
and for adhering to the ethical guidelines?
Does the proposed design address the intended use of the evaluation? Does the methodology represent the most effective
use of financial resources and team expertise?
Have you participated fully in required awareness-raising measures, such as ethics and protection against sexual
exploitation and abuse (PSEA) courses?
1. C O M M I S S I O N I N G , P L A N N I N G A N D D E S I G N ,
I N C L U D I N G T H E S E L E C T I O N A N D C O M P O S I T I O N O F E VA L U AT I O N T E A M S ( C O N T ’ D )
Yes No
Do evaluation plans and terms of reference reflect systematic stakeholder analysis, identifying all relevant stakeholders of
the evaluation and power dynamics between these stakeholders?
Do evaluation plans and terms of reference allocate sufficient resources and time to ensure all relevant stakeholders are
engaged during design and implementation of the evaluation?
Do evaluation plans and terms of reference identify appropriate audiences for evaluation findings and allocate sufficient
resources for dissemination in appropriate channels and formats?
Have you clarified the potential benefits and harms that may arise from the evaluation intervention and agreed on
mitigation measures? For example, have you asked the commissioner to minimize your carbon footprint when making
travel arrangements (e.g., by opting for train travel where available or carbon offsetting air travel)?
3. REPORTING
Yes No
Did you disclose potential conflicts of interests and how they were dealt with in the final report?
Are the data verifiable? Have the methodology, data collection, analysis and limitations been clearly explained?
Have you conducted an explicit assessment of ethical risks and proposed mitigation actions and included a description
of these in the evaluation report?
Are you confident that the evaluation has been conducted in a rigorous, fair and balanced way? Can the evaluation findings
and conclusions be verified and backed up by sound evidence?
Does the evaluation report explain the procedures undertaken to adhere to ethical guidance and any breaches of
this guidance?
Does the evaluation report explain and provide justifications for and implications of exclusion of relevant stakeholders
from the evaluation’s consultation process?
Is the identity and confidentiality of participants protected in the evaluation report and other products?
Have you explicitly considered potential negative impacts of evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations?
Have you weighed benefits and harms before drafting?
Where evidence of wrongdoing was uncovered, have you discreetly reported it to the relevant competent body
and/or representative?
Are the findings being communicated to relevant stakeholders, ensuring that limitations are clearly noted?
Are the results of the evaluation presented in a balanced way, in clear and simple language that can be easily understood
by stakeholders?
Are the evaluation findings presented in an appropriate format and channel for the audience?
Have you clearly articulated the benefits that arose from the evaluation (or are likely to arise in the future) to participants,
the UN community, other stakeholders, the environment and society at large, and how these justify the evaluation in the
face of risks and harms?
5. E
THICAL ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT
ACROSS ALL PHASES OF THE EVALUATION CYCLE
Yes No
Are your communications and actions honest and truthful? Are they consistent and in accordance with ethical principles
and professional standards?
Have you continuously adhered to the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation as well as other policies regarding ethical
behaviour, including zero tolerance for sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse, as well as safety and security in the field?
Are you promoting and ensuring that you and your team have a culture of mindfulness of differences in societal values
and cultures?
Are you communicating clearly to stakeholders throughout the evaluation about the purpose and use of the evaluation,
as well as its methods and approaches, including limitations?
Have you continuously considered the (intended and unintended) consequences of the evaluation process and results;
both on human subjects involved in the evaluation, on pre-existing programmes and services and on the environment?
Have the overall benefits outweighed the risks?