Example key performance indicators
Indicator 6.1: number of complaints/grievances received from stakeholders associated with the project/activity over a designated period
A lagging indicator which provides an understanding of the complaints or grievances received for a project/activity within a period defined by the company (e.g. monthly, quarterly, annually). This is the most prevalent indicator for most companies as data is readily available (and received directly by the company) which allows for the tracking of trends that may indicate negative performance.
Indicator 6.2: percentage/frequency of complaints/grievance issues received in relation to a project/activity, over a designated period
The KPI allows for an understanding of the specific make-up of complaints and/or grievances that have been received by the company and in doing so, provides greater clarity in relation to the potential impacts experienced by stakeholders. Understanding the composition of complaints and grievances via this lagging indicator will help to expand on Indicator 6.1 and ascertain whether there are certain activities that need to be adjusted to reduce the impact on stakeholders. Data should be readily available (received directly by the company) as part of the grievance mechanism.
Indicator 6.3: trends in the complaints/grievances received, by type, in relation to a project/ activity over a designated period
While Indicator 6.1 and Indicator 6.2 provide data in relation to the overall number or frequency of complaints/grievances received, this lagging indicator will enable the company to understand the trends emerging within an affected community as relevant to the types of complaints/grievances (i.e. related to a specific issue/concern). If a trend is identified, this will allow the company to better understand its impacts and target a resolution that addresses the concern/issue for the benefit of the company and stakeholders. Data will be obtained from complaints/grievances received directly by the company.
Indicator 6.4: number of reoccurring complaints/grievances received in relation to a project/activity over a designated period
This lagging indicator provides data in relation to the overall number of complaints or grievances received and allows the company to understand whether there are ongoing, accumulating or reoccurring concerns/issues that need to be addressed for the benefit of the company and stakeholders. Data should be readily available (received directly from the company) as it relies upon analysis from previously collected data.
Indicator 6.5: trends in the repeat complaints/grievances received, by type, in relation to a project/activity over a designated period
While Indicator 6.4 provides data in relation to the overall number of repeat complaints/grievances received, this lagging indicator will enable the company to understand the trends emerging within these repeat complaints/grievances (i.e. related to a specific issue/concern). Similar to Indicator 6.3, if a trend is identified, this will allow the company to better understand its impacts and target a resolution that addresses the concern/issue for the benefit of the stakeholders and company. Data will be obtained from complaints/grievances received directly by the company.
Indicator 6.6: percentage of complaints/grievances received that are considered by stakeholders to be satisfactorily resolved as part of the grievance mechanism
The percentage of satisfactory resolved grievances is a lagging indicator which will assist a company to remain committed to the resolution of complaints/grievances to the satisfaction of stakeholders. The KPI will require input from ongoing engagement activities (e.g. CPS, pulse surveys) in order to understand the level of satisfaction experienced by stakeholders.
Indicator 6.7: number of social incidents related to a project/activity over a designated period
This lagging indicator provides an understanding of the social incidents documented for a project/ activity within a period defined by the company (i.e. monthly, quarterly, annually). Social incidents differ from stakeholder concerns/grievances in that they are usually defined by predetermined company and/or regulatory criteria and are to be reported. While social incident reporting is less common than environmental or health and safety related incident reporting, it does provide a metric by which a company can determine the impact a project/activity is having on stakeholders. Data will be derived from stakeholder complaints/grievances received directly by the company.
Indicator 6.8: percentage/frequency of social incident categories related to a project/ activity over a designated period
This lagging indicator allows for an understanding of the specific make-up of social incidents reported to the company, and in doing so, provides greater clarity in relation to the potential impacts experienced by stakeholders. Understanding the nature of the types of social incidents experienced will help to expand on Indicator 6.7 and ascertain whether there are certain activities that need to be adjusted to reduce the impact on stakeholders. Data should be readily available (received directly by the company) as part of the grievance mechanism.
Indicator 6.9: number of reoccurring social incidents related to a project/activity over a designated period
While Indicator 6.7 provides data in relation to the overall number of social incidents, this lagging indicator allows the company to understand whether there are ongoing, accumulating, or reoccurring incidents that need to be addressed for the benefit of the company and stakeholders. Data should be readily available (received directly from the company) as it relies upon analysis from previously collected data.
Indicator 6.10: number of court cases initiated/ongoing associated with the project/activity over a designated period
This lagging indicator looks to understand stakeholder sentiment in relation to the project/activity via means of identifying whether there is new and/or ongoing litigation (initiated by stakeholders) against the project/activity. It is unlikely that a project/activity that has a number of active court cases is well liked by stakeholders, with this indicator acting a barometer as to whether there has been a breakdown in stakeholder trust between stakeholders and the company, and/or if stakeholder engagement has been effective. Data to inform this KPI should be available from direct sources (e.g. court filings or issued legal documentation).
Indicator 6.11: number of positive traditional and electronic media stories related to the project/activity over a designated period
The purpose of this lagging indicator is to understand how a project/activity is perceived in the context of the media. While the number of positive stories related to a project/activity may not directly correlate to the quality of the stakeholder engagement techniques/tools used or the communication methods/ channels, it does provide a window that companies can use to track perception of a project/activity, with indirect linkages to stakeholder trust and attitudes considered in Principle 1. Data can be obtained via the tracking of traditional and electronic media by practitioners or media monitoring over a specified period of time (e.g. weekly, monthly, quarterly).
Indicator 6.12: number of negative traditional and electronic media stories related to the project/activity over a designated period
Similar to Indicator 6.11, the number of negative traditional and electronic media stories may not directly correlate to the quality of the stakeholder engagement process or decision-making, however this lagging indicator will provide an understanding as to how stakeholders may be perceiving a project/activity – linking to Principle 1. Data can be obtained via the tracking of traditional and electronic media by practitioners or media monitoring over a specified period of time (e.g. weekly, monthly, quarterly).
Indicator 6.13: percentage change in stakeholder perception of impacts associated with the project/activity (i.e. positive or negative) over a designated period
The change in stakeholder perception of impacts is a leading indicator which will allow companies to understand whether the stakeholder engagement process conducted/being conducted is contributing to the perception of the project/activity amongst stakeholders. The KPI should be tailored to the period desired (e.g. quarterly/annually) and will require input from ongoing engagement activities (e.g. CPS).
Indicator 6.14: percentage change in stakeholder perception that the company is managing impacts associated with the project/activity in a suitable manner over a designated period
Similarly to Indicator 6.13, the change in stakeholder perception in relation to how the company is managing impacts on stakeholders is a leading indicator which will facilitate understanding as to the information communicated to stakeholders via various methods/channels are contributing to perception of project/activity impact management amongst stakeholders. The KPI should be tailored to the period desired (e.g. monthly/quarterly) and will require input from ongoing engagement activities (e.g. CPS, pulse surveys).
Indicator 6.15: percentage change in stakeholder concern in relation to impacts associated with the project/activity over a designated period
While not a direct indicator, the change in stakeholder concern in relation to project/activity impacts is still a leading indicator as it will help to provide insight as to whether a company’s ongoing engagement with stakeholders is providing a suitable level of comfort to assuage concerns of stakeholders. The KPI is linked to Indicators 6.13 and 6.14 but also to the indicators identified for Principle 1. The KPI should be tailored to the period desired (e.g. quarterly/annually) and will require input from ongoing engagement activities (e.g. CPS).