## ***1.Evaluation context***

IOM is currently implementing the project [*Migration, Business and Human Rights in Asia*](https://mbhr.iom.int/en)*: Promoting Corporate Responsibility and Migrant Workers’ Rights in Global Supply Chains (MBHR Asia)*, which is jointly funded by the Government of Sweden and the European Union and is a continuation of IOM’s Corporate Responsibility in Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking project which was implemented from 2017 to 2023. The MBHR Asia project runs from January 2024 to December 2028, with Sweden’s financial support concluding in June 2026, marking the mid-point of implementation. After this phase-out, the programme will continue under EU funding until December 2028.

The project targets major labour migration corridors in Asia, including Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam, where IOM engages governments, private sector actors, and civil society partners at the country level. In parallel, IOM implements a comprehensive regional component, that brings together Asia-wide stakeholders, including ASEAN and regional migrant and civil society networks, along with industry associations and private sector partners, to advance coherent migration governance and responsible business practices at a regional level.

Businesses contribute financially through targeted projects aligned with MBHR Asia’s theory of change. These collaborations not only advance ethical recruitment, decent working conditions, and inclusive workplaces within business supply chains, they also enable IOM to directly support companies in fulfilling their responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. This combination of business investment and IOM’s technical assistance is a unique feature of the programme and reinforces its role as a trusted partner in driving responsible business conduct across the region.

The project objective is to ensure the protection of human and labour rights of migrant workers within supply chains in Asia. The logical framework is aligned with the UNGPs and seeks to realize the priority goals identified within the [UNGPs 10+ Roadmap for the next decade](https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ungps10plusroadmap.pdf), ensuring that migrants are not left behind in the implementation of the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework of the UNGPs by governments and business.

- **Outcome 1 (Protect):** Strengthen labour migration governance and policy reforms through advocacy, research, and multi-stakeholder dialogue, ensuring rights-based and gender-responsive approaches.
- **Outcome 2 (Respect):** Enhance corporate human rights due diligence, ethical recruitment, and inclusive workplace practices, engaging both multinational enterprises and SMEs.
- **Outcome 3 (Remedy):** Improve migrant workers’ access to state and corporate grievance mechanisms, supporting civil society and legal aid networks to overcome barriers to justice.

The project itself is guided by a theory of change as well as complementary strategies on:

- Mainstreaming Climate Change, Environmental Change and Labour Migration
- Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion
- Private Sector Engagement
- Communications

Further, MBHR Asia project is anchored in international standards and frameworks, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), Global Compact for Migration (GCM) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It also aligns with regional cooperation strategies such as the ASEAN-EU Plan of Action (2023–2027).

## ***2.EVALUATION PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE***

The mid-term external evaluation aims to assess the extent to which the project has achieved its aims and objectives at the halfway point in relation to the coherence, relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency, and sustainability of project outcomes as well as the extent to which the dedicated project strategies have been mainstreamed into activities.

The specific objectives of the mid-term utilization-focused evaluation are:

- Assess the extent to which the MBHR Asia programme has achieved its intended objectives and outcomes at mid-point, including the integration of cross-cutting priorities. This will serve as a summative assessment of Sweden’s contribution within the jointly funded first phase (2024–June 2026).
- Establish lessons learned from the project’s implementation and provide clear, specific, and prioritized recommendations to strengthen implementation, impact, and sustainability during the second half of the programme (2026–2028).

IOM abides by the [norms and standards](https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/about-iom/evaluation/UNEG-Norms-Standards-for-Evaluation-2016.pdf) of the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) and expects all evaluation stakeholders to be familiar with the [ethical conduct guidelines](https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/about-iom/evaluation/UNEG-Ethical-Guidelines-2008.pdf) of UNEG and the consultant(s) with the [UNEG codes of conduct](https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/about-iom/evaluation/UNEG-Code-of-Conduct-2008.pdf).

The final report will be made publicly available, and IOM will share the results with the intended users of the report, including the IOM MBHR implementing missions, relevant departments in IOM Headquarters, and the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG). The ERG is expected to include:

1. IOM representatives including the MBHR Asia joint management team (Project Manager, Pillar leads, Communications Officer, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer), Regional Thematic Specialists; Representatives from Private Sector Partnerships (PSP) in IOM Headquarters;
2. Donor representative(s) from the Government of Sweden and European Union.

## ***3. Evaluation Scope***

The mid-term external evaluation will cover the implementation period from 01 January 2024 to 30 June 2026, representing the first half of the MBHR Asia programme jointly funded by the EU and Sweden. The scope includes:

- Geographic: All activities implemented under MBHR Asia, including regional workstreams and country-level interventions in Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
- Funding: Results attributable to EU and Sweden funding as well as IOM-led projects with private sector partners that are reported under MBHR Asia and contribute to achieving programme outcomes and objectives.
- Cross-Cutting issues: Integration of project strategies (Mainstreaming Climate Change, Environmental Change and Labour Migration; Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; Private Sector Engagement; and Communications) across programme activities.

## ***4. Evaluation criteria and questions***

The following key OECD/DAC main evaluation criteria plus cross-cutting issues will guide the evaluation. These should be adapted/supplemented as needed by specific sub-questions by the Evaluator in consultation with the ERG before undertaking the evaluation.

**Evaluation Criteria:**

- **Relevance:** Extent to which the project’s objective and intended results remain valid as originally planned or modified.

**Evaluation Question:**

1. To what extent is the project aligned with regional frameworks (e.g., ASEAN), national policies, international standards, roadmaps and donor priorities including the UNGPs 10+ Roadmap for the next decade?
2. How should MBHR Asia’s strategies and activities evolve to remain relevant to emerging migration and business and human rights challenges in Asia?
3. How should MBHR Asia’s strategies and activities be shaped to best support the preparedness of key stakeholders to emerging relevant national and international legislation, such as national due diligence legislation, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) and Forced Labour Regulation?

- **Coherence:** The compatibility and complementarities of the project with other activities and interventions in the sector by IOM and/or other organization.

**Evaluation Question:**

1. How well has IOM used and facilitated interlinkages with and between relevant external stakeholders (businesses, business associations, civil society organizations, governments, migrant representatives, IGO partners)?

1.1 How has the MBHR Asia project managed to build on the CREST project and sustain momentum?
2. Are there any gaps or untapped opportunities that IOM could explore to strengthen the role of the private sector, public sector or civil society in contributing to project’s objectives?

- **Effectiveness:** The extent to which the project achieves its intended results.

**Evaluation Question:**

1. What results have been achieved at the mid-point of the project and which approaches and partnerships have delivered the most significant results so far?
2. How has the project adapted to political, regulatory, and operational challenges in the region and different countries? What strategies have been most effective in overcoming identified barriers?
3. How effective is the overall management of the project (e.g., project team composition and roles, coordination and decision making, partner engagement, monitoring, and communication)?

3.1 What has been the key progress achieved through regional and country level coordination mechanisms (e.g., Joint Management Team including Pillar Leads, IOM Project Advisory Board, Regional Programme Advisory Meeting)?

- **Efficiency:** How resources (human, financial) are used to undertake activities and how well these are converted to outputs.

**Evaluation Question:**

1. Have activities, both core programme activities and private‑sector‑funded projects, been delivered in a timely and cost-effective manner?
1. 1. To what extent do these two streams interact and reinforce (or strain) overall programme efficiency?

- **Impact:** How the project intervention affects the outcomes and whether these effects are intended or unintended.

**Evaluation Question:**

1. What intermediary positive or negative, intended, or unintended, higher-level effects (policy, corporate practices, migrant worker protections) – or indications of such effects - has the intervention generated?
1. 1. To what extent have the regional workstreams and each national workstream contributed to achieving the intended results?

- **Sustainability:** If the project’s benefits will be maintained after the project ends.

**Evaluation Question:**

1. To what extent have businesses or governments introduced or modified processes to ensure that the results generated by the project continue beyond its end?
2. What strategies should be prioritized to ensure sustainability of results, particularly in private sector engagement and policy influence?

- **Cross-Cutting Issues**

**Evaluation Question:**

1. To what extent has the intervention integrated and applied its cross-cutting strategies in the following areas

- Mainstreaming Climate Change, Environmental Change, and Labour Migration
- Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion
- Private Sector Engagement
- Communications and Visibility

1. In what ways can implementation of the strategies be enhanced during the remaining implementation period?

## ***5. Evaluation methodology***

This evaluation will be externally conducted by a company qualified and experienced in conducting project evaluations and that is independent of the project design, planning, and implementation. Initial indications on the methodology are presented below. However, the complete mixed-methods approach should be further developed by the Evaluator(s) and the IOM management team during the inception phase of the evaluation.

Efforts shall be exerted to ensure the inclusivity and engagement of relevant stakeholders to bring out their voices on how they perceived the implementation and results of the project. The sampling method will be purposive, and sample size will be determined during the inception phase. Document review and data collection will be conducted in English.

**Document review**

Desk review of relevant project documents, project reports, meeting minutes, publications and other materials identified:

- **Project documents**: proposal, budget, annual work plans, project amendments
- **National, regional or international strategies or policies or relevant to MBHR**
- **Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning tools**: Annual narrative and financial reports, MBHR monthly activity relays, activity reports, monitoring frameworks, annual audit reports
- **Project strategies**: Mainstreaming Climate Change, Environmental Change and Labour Migration; Gender Equality, Diversity and Inclusion; Private Sector Engagement; and Communications
- **IOM strategies**: [IOM Private Sector Engagement Strategy 2023-2027](https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/Private-Sector-Strategy_1.pdf), IOM global MBHR approach
- **Proposals, deliverables and project reports from private sector projects**
- **Visibility and communication**: press releases, project website, newsletters, social media, external publications from private sector partners mentioning IOM
- **Knowledge products and deliverables produced under the project**

**Data collection**

To capture the experiences, perspectives, and potential benefits of various groups involved in the project, online key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) should be conducted with:

a. Implementers (IOM staff managing and implementing activities across all project countries)

b. Donor representatives from the Government of Sweden and the European Union as well as private sector partners supporting projects under MBHR Asia

c. Stakeholders involved in the project and beneficiaries in countries and at the regional level where the project was implemented (including migrant workers, civil society organizations, private sector actors including brands, business associations, employers, suppliers and labour recruiters, research institutes, regional partners (i.e. ASEAN focal points), government agencies, and UN agencies)

d. Implementing partners, service providers and consultants

e. Relevant stakeholders implementing similar interventions in the same context and geographical scope

## ***6.Ethics, norms and standards for evaluation***

The evaluation processes shall be in line with IOM [Data Protection Manual](https://publications.iom.int/books/iom-data-protection-manual), do no harm principles, and the [norms and standards](https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/about-iom/evaluation/UNEG-Norms-Standards-for-Evaluation-2016.pdf) of UNEG as well as the [ethical conduct guidelines](https://evaluation.iom.int/sites/evaluation/files/documents/2020%20Ethical%20Guidelines%20for%20Evaluation.pdf) of UNEG and with the [UNEG codes of conduct](https://www.iom.int/sites/default/files/about-iom/evaluation/UNEG-Code-of-Conduct-2008.pdf). IOM Viet Nam will provide technical support and guidance during the process. The M&E Officer at IOM's Regional Office in Bangkok will be consulted when deemed necessary.

## ***7. Evaluation deliverables***

1. The selected evaluator should develop an **inception report**, [using an IOM template](https://iomint.sharepoint.com/sites/IOMMEGuidelines-Resources/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FIOMMEGuidelines%2DResources%2FShared%20Documents%2FChapter%205&viewid=34bc2c00%2D9fc9%2D425a%2Dbb47%2D992a67c2552c), including an evaluation matrix, list of stakeholders to be interviewed and data collection tools to describe their understanding of the ToR and how they will conduct the evaluation including any revisions to the methodology as required. This should be submitted to the evaluation manager following the document review phase, for comments and discussion with the evaluator to finalize plans prior to data collection. To schedule interviews, the evaluator will be expected to:

a. Share a draft email for selected interviewees for IOM to send out which includes a link to a meeting booking system allowing participating stakeholders to select a timeslot within their working hours.

b. Send confirmation emails to participants and provide interview questions ahead of time if requested.
2. Based on the inputs from discussions and analysis of interviews with key stakeholders, the evaluator should prepare a **draft evaluation report (not exceeding 30 pages excluding annexes)**, [using an IOM template](https://iomint.sharepoint.com/sites/IOMMEGuidelines-Resources/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FIOMMEGuidelines%2DResources%2FShared%20Documents%2FChapter%205&viewid=34bc2c00%2D9fc9%2D425a%2Dbb47%2D992a67c2552c).The draft evaluation report will be sent to the Evaluation Manager for a methodological review. Then it will be shared by the Evaluation Manager with the Evaluation Reference Group with a request for their comments and inputs within a window of 5 working days. The evaluation manager will be responsible for compiling comments/feedback. The evaluator will then finalize the report based on the comments/feedback received (up to 3 rounds of review).
3. The evaluator should deliver 2 virtual briefings on preliminary findings per criteria, conclusions lessons learned and recommendations along with an accompanying PPT to IOM staff and representatives of the Evaluation Reference Group for validation and clarification.
4. The **final evaluation report**, [using an IOM template](https://evaluation.iom.int/technical-reference),shall be written in English, proofread and laid out well. The report will follow the same presentation logic and include, at a minimum, the information described in the IOM Project Handbook template for evaluation reports:
- Executive summary
- List of acronyms
- Introduction
- Evaluation context and purpose
- Evaluation framework and methodology
- Findings (organized by evaluation questions, integrating case studies where relevant and including a comparative analysis of each pillar (Protect, Respect, Remedy) and each country, highlighting unique challenges, innovations, and lessons.
- Conclusions
- Lessons learned
- Recommendations, organized by stakeholder group and priority

Annexes should include the TOR, inception report or evaluation matrix, list of documents reviewed, list of persons interviewed or consulted, data collection instruments, as well as any other relevant information. the Evaluator(s) will draft the evaluation report. The Evaluator(s) will prepare the draft report for comments, including the lessons learned and recommendations. The final report should meet the standards laid out in the UNEG [Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports](https://evaluation.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl151/files/documents/UNEG_Eval_Report_1.pdf).

1. The evaluator will develop **a two-page evaluation brief,** [using an IOM template](https://evaluation.iom.int/technical-reference), to summarize key findings, conclusions and recommendations for the main intended evaluation users. IOM will provide a template as guidance, which can be adapted by the evaluator, but which should be no longer than two pages.
2. The evaluator will provide one final presentation on the evaluation findings, lessons learned and recommendations.

Further information can be found in [IOM’s guidance for evaluators](https://evaluation.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl151/files/documents/Guidance%20for%20Evaluators%20FINAL.pdf).

## ***8. Specification of roles and responsibilities***

**Management:** The MBHR M&E lead based in IOM’s Ho Chi Minh City sub-office will manage the final external evaluation and act as the primary focal point for the selected Evaluator(s). The Project Team will provide the Evaluator(s) with the list of documents and suggested interviewees. The Management Team will also organize a kick-off meeting with the Evaluator(s) once selected and will be responsible for the final approval of all the deliverables.

**Reference group:** A Reference Group will be created to provide technical advice to the Evaluator(s) during the evaluation. The reference group will have the specific functions of reviewing the deliverables and providing feedback throughout the process. The Reference Group is also expected to review the lessons learned and actionable recommendations identified by the Evaluator(s). Furthermore, the Reference Group members will act as advocates for ensuring that the evaluation recommendations are integrated into IOM’s subsequent programming.

**Evaluator(s):** The selected vendor will be responsible for completing the evaluation according to the present TOR and the deliverables set out therein. All deliverables will need to be approved by the Management and coordinated with the Reference Group.

## ***9. Time schedule***

The assignment is expected to commence as soon as the contract is signed and take 30 working days with the final report expected by 31 August 2026. The Evaluator(s) should be able to undertake some of the tasks concurrently to fit within the planned time-frame without compromising the quality expected.

**Key milestones**

**Tentative timeline**

Inception meeting to clarify ToR and discuss the timeline: Upon signing of the contract

Development and submission of the Inception Report including detailed work plan, tools, stakeholder mapping, evaluation matrix, and outline for the final report: **20 April 2026**

Data collection & analysis: **30 April – 30 June 2026**

Submission of the draft Evaluation Report: **13 July 2025**

Incorporation of feedback and resubmission of draft Evaluation Report (up to 3 rounds of feedback); and Briefing on preliminary findings and PPT (the evaluator will be expected to submit the PPT 3 days prior for review by IOM): **13 July – 31 August**

Submission of the final Evaluation Report, two-page Evaluation Brief and final online presentation: **31 August 2026**