Kimberly-Clark

Around a score of 4, Awareness typically looks like:

• ·Suffering Detection: Multiple channels, formal pathways, regular review
• ·Contextual Sensitivity: Differentiated processes for 3+ groups, community input
• ·Blind Spot Mitigation: Annual structured assessment, findings acted upon
• ·Signal Amplification: Structural role with genuine authority, regular reporting
• ·Anticipatory Awareness: Required for all major decisions, external communities consulted

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Empathy typically looks like:

• ·Affective Resonance: Consistent expectation, community confirms most feel heard
• ·Perspective-Taking: Embedded in major decisions, community names decisions changed
• ·Non-Judgment: Disparities investigated, community pathway to report
• ·Validation: Acknowledgment precedes investigation structurally
• ·Cultural Empathy: Multiple communities involved, confirmations are genuine

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Action typically looks like:

• ·Responsiveness: Response data published, urgency documented, frontline authority
• ·Proportionality: Documented augmented responses, unmet need tracked
• ·Efficacy: ≥1 program discontinued due to data, community confirms change
• ·Resource Mobilization: Annual review against need data, documented reallocation
• ·Follow-Through: Protocols applied consistently, longitudinal data

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Equity typically looks like:

• ·Universality: Coverage data for some populations, outreach attempts
• ·Priority for Vulnerable: ≥1 documented prioritization decision this year
• ·Bias Awareness: Disparities identified, formal investigation, corrective action
• ·Access Design: Access barrier mapping completed, ≥2 barriers removed
• ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Formal acknowledgment of ≥1 specific harm, community involved

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Boundaries typically looks like:

• ·Self-Sustainability: Turnover below sector average, structures actually used
• ·Autonomy Preservation: Autonomy outcomes measured, cases of stepping back documented
• ·Scope Clarity: Scope limitations communicated before commitment, warm referrals active
• ·Refusal Ethics: Warm referral in ≥80% of cases, outcomes tracked
• ·Consent Orientation: Consent verified as genuinely informed, withdrawal without penalty

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Accountability typically looks like:

• ·Harm Acknowledgment: Acknowledgment structurally prior to investigation
• ·Correction Willingness: Internal process reliably reaches leadership, correction documented
• ·Transparency: Annual report includes failures, gaps, corrective actions
• ·Systemic Learning: 3+ specific practices changed because of failure analysis
• ·Reparative Action: Co-designed with harmed parties, considered adequate

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:

• ·Root Cause Orientation: Explicit strategy, ≥1 documented case of reducing downstream need
• ·Long-Term Impact: Long-term outcome data influences strategy, theory of change published
• ·Interconnection Awareness: Cross-system effects systematically mapped in major decisions
• ·Structural Critique: Active advocacy documented, positions against short-term interest
• ·Coalitional Compassion: Joint outcomes, resource sharing with smaller organizations

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Integrity typically looks like:

• ·Consistency Under Pressure: Pattern of maintaining commitments, community describes trust
• ·Non-Performance: Community reports genuine care with no reputational stakes
• ·Internal Consistency: Staff culture broadly reflects stated values
• ·Values Alignment: Values alignment review part of major decision process
• ·Resilience of Care: Practices survive leadership change, this has been tested

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about Kimberly-Clark’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).