Principle 3
Occurs in a timely manner (‘right time’).

Example key performance indicators

Indicator 3.1: number/percentage of stakeholder engagement activities conducted during each stage of the project/activity life cycle

The KPI is a lagging indicator based on data obtained during the engagement process. The KPI seeks to provide insight as to the distribution of engagement activities conducted throughout the project/activity (as appropriate) life cycle. It can be measured periodically based on the current stage of the project/ activity and where deficiencies are identified, help inform future stakeholder engagement activities via amendment to the stakeholder engagement strategy/plan.

Indicator 3.2: average length of time stakeholders are provided notification for a particular type of stakeholder engagement activity over a designated period

This lagging indicator intends to provide clarity around the timeliness of stakeholder engagement facilitation, and the respectfulness of the company of stakeholder time. In addition, if the average length of time is longer, there is greater potential that the engagement conducted has been more thoroughly planned out/designed and less of a ‘last minute’ consideration, however, this will be dependent on the local context.

Indicator 3.3: frequency of delays/cancellations in stakeholder engagement activities over a designated period

This KPI is complementary to Indicator 3.2 in that it is a lagging indicator which helps companies to understand the respectfulness of the company towards stakeholders involved in a project/activity. Where there is greater frequency in delays and/or cancellations of stakeholder engagement activities or events by the company there is the potential for stakeholder participation to reduce and attitudes/trust to be eroded (refer to the KPIs for Principle 1).

Indicator 3.4: average initial time stakeholders are provided with information/ documentation subsequent to a request

The KPI is a lagging indicator which provides companies with an understanding of the delay experienced by stakeholders in relation to provision of requested information. The length of time between a request and information/documentation provision may provide insight into document release processes and how the company views stakeholders. KPI outcomes may also provide rationale for reduced positive attitudes and/or trust between the company and stakeholders (refer to KPIs for Principle 1).

Indicator 3.5: percentage of complaints/grievances received that are resolved within the timeframe agreed to as part of the grievance mechanism

While the number of complaints/grievances received is considered as a KPI for Principle 6, the percentage of resolved grievances within the timeframe publicly specified in the grievance mechanism is a lagging indicator which will assist a company to remain committed and focused on prompt resolution of complaints/grievances.

Indicator 3.6: average resolution time for complaints/grievances received, with a designated period

While Indicator 3.5 provides information related to the resolution of complaints/grievances within the designed timeframe in the grievance mechanism, this lagging indicator looks to understand the average resolution time more broadly – i.e. are grievances being resolves quickly and efficiently or are they being resolved at a slower average rate (but within the designed period)? The KPI should be tailored to the period of time desired by the company (e.g. quarterly/annually) and will draw data from the complaints/ grievances data received/managed internally.

Indicator 3.7: extent of deviation (length of time) from the stakeholder engagement timeframe required by the guiding legislation/regulation

Stakeholder engagement timeframes can be mandated under local legislation/regulation. Understanding the extent of deviation from the requirements can provide an indication as to whether engagement has been conducted to meet timeframes, has exceed requirements, or has fallen short of requirements. While this lagging indicator will not necessarily provide confirmation as to whether that engagement was meaningful independently, it will provide an understanding of the investment a company has made into the process.

Indicator 3.8: percentage of stakeholders who are satisfied with the timeframe in which engagement has been conducted, within a designated period

This indicator seeks to understand the perception of stakeholders in relation to when they have been engaged by the company for a project/activity. KPIs for other principles will relate to the satisfaction of the engagement itself, however, this lagging indicator looks to understand whether engagement was conducted within a timeframe deemed appropriate by stakeholders. The KPI should be tailored to the period of time desired (e.g. quarterly/annually) and will require data from ongoing engagement activities conducted (e.g. CPS).

LightbulbTip: As with all KPIs, but of particular relevance to ‘average length of time’ indicators, the company and local context needs to be considered when setting any specific targets and when analysing the data associated with the KPI. The KPI target will vary according to the nature of the stakeholders engaged and the type of stakeholder engagement activity.
LightbulbTip: There is a direct correlation between a practitioner/company following through with meeting a previously identified commitment (e.g. responding to a complaint/grievance with the designated timeframe) and building trust with stakeholders (Principle 1)

E-mail alerts

Sign up to receive Ipieca's e-news
Climate
Nature
People
Sustainability
Marine spill
Please confirm that you are happy to receive newsletters from Ipieca: