Tag Archives: Stakeholder engagement

Trusty tools of the trade: #5 stakeholder analysis

Allow me to be straight up on this one: listing your organisation’s key stakeholders is not stakeholder analysis. And it is not stakeholder engagement.

It is stakeholder identification.

And it’s a good start.

Stakeholder analysis is the process of identifying, categorising and then prioritising stakeholders in order to determine the impact and influence that individuals or groups will have on your ability to achieve your objectives. In the process, you will also identify and determine material issues.

After this is done, you can work out the most effective engagement approach for identified priority stakeholders, including tactics and tools, taking into consideration timing and the resources you have available. That’s stakeholder analysis in a nutshell.

And then you do what you said you’d do in those plans. And listen to feedback. And refine. And so on. That’s the engagement part.

Many practitioners and organisations skip stakeholder analysis – the thinking part – and jump straight into stakeholder engagement – the doing part.

The problem is, all the doing part without the thinking part can be a waste of time, money and resources because you are likely to a) stray from the business strategy and overall objectives b) go it alone and not engage your influential peers and colleagues who will be a determinant of success and c) miss the mark on measuring impact and success.

So, my advice is to think about your stakeholders before you engage with them.

It will make all the difference.

Trusty tools of the trade #3: inputs, outputs, outcomes

Leave a reply

Stay with me, I’m on a roll with my trusty tools of the trade series. Number one was the key message and number two was storytelling.

Onwards to number three - inputs, outputs and outcomes.

I know – measurement. Cue rolling eyes. I used to (still do sometimes). My career started out in journalism – a world away from any discussion about inputs, outcomes and outcomes. Yet as I progressed into consulting roles and then management, the realisation that what I was doing (inputs), created an immediate result (output) that would then result in some type of change over time (outcome) was a revelation to me.

Aha, it’s true. You can’t manage what you can’t measure.

Measurement is good management. It’s also self-preseveration; you’re a sitting duck if you can’t explain how you’re tracking against your KPIs and how your effort helps the organisation deliver on its overall business strategy and objectives.

The inputs, outputs and outcome model helps to:

Select the right measures: what does success look like? What are the quantitative or qualitative indicators that will be used over time to measure that success?
Allocate resources: who is going to undertake the activities in order to achieve that result and how much will it cost? If those resources are taken away or increased, what impact will it have on the outcome?
Influence peers: what are the key messages about strategy, resource allocation and performance that need to be communicated to decision-makers?
Monitor and evaluate: are you on the right track, if not, what can you change? Were you successful overall, if not, why not?

Speaking of evaluation, this is the third post in a series where I’m attempting to document the tools, approaches and methodologies that I’ve learnt and adopted into my professional practice over the years.

Let me know if they’ve been of any use to you.

Three big questions for every CSR Manager (and a few hints on the answers)

Leave a reply

So we’re off and running in 2012. Places to go, people to see. Work to do. Lots. So what should take priority for those with Corporate Responsibility reporting responsibilities? These three questions may help:

What are you doing to champion the value of integrated reporting within your organisation? It’s the latest push in the CSR/Sustainability field and for good reason. The case for greater integration between financial and non-financial performance is clear. Yet it’s always the how you go about adapting new concepts to your organisation’s strategy and culture that makes or breaks the change process. The IIRC’s discussion paper Towards Integrated Reporting includes some practical information on alternative pathways to integrated reporting (p20).
Is your materiality assessment process robust enough? Regardless of your approach to reporting (stand alone versus combined versus integrated), this is the cornerstone of any good report and it’s only as good as the inputs and the analysis and engagement process that supports it. Now is a good time to ask the hard questions: is your materiality assessment done frequently enough? Have you engaged the right people internally at the right time in the process? Have you linked your process to other strategic planning efforts within the organisation? Have you done our best to seek input from key external stakeholders? Can you prove it? Do you need to address gaps with further research? AccountAbility’s five-part materiality test is a good reference point for what information to consider and disclose as part of this process.
Are you communicating the right information to the right stakeholders in the right format and in the right forums? While the push towards integrated reporting is gaining pace, so too is the need to package up information for stakeholders that is relevant and accessible. So while the final reporting product is evolving into a more strategic, succinct and compelling performance narrative, there are additional demands to segment that story for key stakeholders. Communication planning is a core part of the CR reporting process and understanding stakeholder communication and engagement preferences should be a priority right from the start. What’s the point of all that work if no-one inside or outside your organisation uses the information?

If you’re still struggling with the answers to these questions and need a hand, let me know.

It’s what I do.

2012: Year of the Personal Brand

Leave a reply

I hereby declare 2012 The Year of the Personal Brand.

Over the holiday period, I lost count of the number of conversations with family and friends where the central topic was their personal online web presence, including their approach to all things social media.

Big business, small business, global or domestic, city or country, everyone gets it. Social media is here to stay. Your online presence in a service-based economy matters.

Regardless of your sector or business structure, professionals need to adapt.

If you’re the boss, for example, 2012 may be the year to establish or review company guidelines about how you expect your people to engage with social media. A first step may be to educate yourself about social media and the risks and opportunities it presents.

If you’re an employee, 2012 may be the year to establish or refresh your professional online profile. Perhaps it’s time to start a blog (if you do nothing else this year, include a recent and professional photograph of yourself on your LinkedIn profile. I can’t help it, I’ve got a real thing about really smart people opting to be shadows).

If you’re a senior executive, 2012 may be the time to understand how social media fits within your stakeholder engagement strategy. A first step may be mapping out which key stakeholders are influential within the social media sphere, including where, how and why.

If you run your own business, 2012 may be the year to incorporate social media into your business plan so you’re confident you’re keeping pace with your customers and their communication preferences.

If you’re looking for a new job or client, you should probably tick all of the above.

Regardless of your employment position or status, you’re the only person who can control and invest in your personal brand.

So what are you planning to do about it?

I’m planning a few things this year to enhance my personal brand. The key one is to blog more regularly about my areas of expertise so clients (and potential clients) know how I can help them achieve their goals and objectives.

One example is social media and leadership.

I collaborate with a fellow consultant, Steven Lewis, to develop and deliver social media strategy workshops for corporate leadership teams, senior executives or individual professionals.

The objective is to help leaders make sense of social media and how it can be integrated into their business strategy, in line with their corporate culture and brand. This can take a whole-of-organisation approach or remain project-specific.

Does your 2012 ‘to do’ list include increasing the value of your corporate and personal brand and integrating social media into it?

We can help (because we’ve done it and are still doing it).

If you still need convincing, here’s another way to look at it: you or your company are being Googled by prospective clients, customers, employees or employers anyway, so you and your personal brand can only gain by being proactive.

The five post(s) with the most: yours and mine

2 Replies

Dear readers

Thank you for your support during 2011. I really appreciate you sticking with me as I launched myself into the social media universe with this blog and my twitter account @thebriefingnote (by-the-by, most of you are fellow Aussies, half of you found me via Google, another 20 per cent found me via twitter or Linkedin referrals and the rest of you seem to know my URL. Perhaps these are my family members).

Engaging in social media has been and remains a very steep learning curve. I think that’s one of the main reasons why it’s become such a key area of interest for me.

In fact, I’ve evolved into a bit of an advocate for social media technologies as a learning and development, engagement and leadership channel for professionals.

I consult across a number of areas so my blog posts are varied in subject. According to my Google Analytics, the five posts you liked the most this year were:

Who Needs the King’s Speech When We Have Anna’s, which was about the speech Queensland Premier Anna Bligh delivered following the tragedy of the State’s extensive flooding;
Raising the Bar on Stakeholder Engagement, which was about AccountAbility’s Stakeholder Engagement Standard;
A Dozen Ways to Build a Better Corporate Culture (self-explanatory really);
Four Reasons Why Journalists Should Pay More Attention to Corporate Responsibility Reports; and (drum roll)
Material That Won’t Lose the Plot, which is about the importance of materiality in corporate responsibility strategy and reporting.

A highlight of the past year has been discovering the work of other bloggers. I’ve learnt so much from you all. The top five posts that I felt pressed my ‘Eureka’/great insight button over the past year are:

From a leadership, governance and social media perspective, Lucy P. Marcus’ post What it Means to be Connected Today (via HBR blog);
From a corporate responsibility reporting viewpoint, Elaine Cohen’s post Heretical Thoughts on Integrated Reporting;
From a blogging as a valuable personal and professional learning experience, Peter Bruce’s post Reflections on Blogging;
From a social media, leadership and career path perspective, Rosabeth Kanter’s piece (read in 2011, but written in 2009), On Twitter and in the Workplace, it’s power to the Connectors;
And for the ultimate reality check (and a quiet tear), Sally Sara’s piece on leaving Kabul, Afghanistan as the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent.

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas!

Alexis

Sustainability, the media and holistic performance: a conversation with the ABC’s Dr Mike McCluskey (Part 2 of 2)

Leave a reply

The media sector is far more comfortable asking the questions about business ethics and responsible business practices than being asked questions about its own. The GRI’s Media Sector Supplement (MSS) offers the media a framework through which to consider its unique societal impacts and improve transparency and disclosure on a number of key issues such as ownership, editorial independence, content and promotion of local creative talent in the workforce.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is represented on the GRI’s MSS international working group by Dr Mike McCluskey, the Chief Executive Officer of Radio Australia and former Head of Corporate Social Responsibility.

This post is the second part of an interview I conducted with Dr McCluskey recently where he described his experience as a member of the MSS working group and shared some of his thoughts on corporate responsibility.

On encouraging other Australian media organisations to examine the GRI Media Sector Supplement

It’s slightly disappointing – not just in Australia but internationally – in relation to the level of engagement and feedback for the GRI. I think there may be many reasons for that. But it is important to say that those involved with it think it’s very important. Media organisations have a very special and significant role in society because of the massive influence that we have.

Recent events in the UK [News of the World] would indicate that when the public finds out and the corporate world and governments in different countries find that their media has not been self regulating properly and not been accountable in terms of their social imprint being for the good of the community, then there’s wide dissatisfaction and wide backlash at the media organisations that haven’t been acting responsibly, as well as the ones that have been acting responsibly. Effectively being tarred with the same brush.

We tried to have one of the working group meetings here in Australia and host a stakeholder meeting yet unfortunately it proved too difficult to organise. That was disappointing because I think it would have engendered a great deal of interest and a lot more support for what we have been trying to achieve.

On the challenges of measuring social impacts in the media sector

That’s the area that’s hard [social impact] for media organisations to measure. Environmental impact and social impact are addressed through the GRI’s framework and can be measured reasonably well through your capacity to educate and provide equity to a community. It’s not necessarily easy to succeed in, but moderately easy to measure. However, it is not so easy when you try and measure brainprint and influence. It’s difficult to measure but perhaps as important to measure because we are having an impact on people’s lives on a daily basis.

The ‘brainprint’ concept was coined by debate in the UK and is used in the supplement; we adopted it like a footprint that is measuring environmental impact. Some of it is extremely subtle, some not so subtle. For example, the brainprint of a book publisher as opposed to a game publishing organisation. They have just as much responsibility to think about their social impact and influence as a news and current affairs organisation does.

The role of trust in an increasingly complex media environment and greater choice for audiences as consumers and content creators

Media organisations are faced with the issue of how we manage debate that at least goes through our portals and platforms. It’s complex. It’s not just about our editorial content, it’s about an editorial focus of engagement with the community and feedback from the community. We still have the capacity to influence people significantly.

What all that means is that’s it’s a much more complex world for media organisations to operate in, far more than it ever has been before.

It also comes back to the issue of trust. Who do you actually trust in the community – the media and their platforms of social engagement, or do you go outside these because you don’t trust the media and you want true social engagement? These are issues that media organisations have to come to terms with because we have to demonstrate to the public that we are valuable and trusted and the place to engage in this discourse and what we offer is educative, informative and valuable. That we are a safe and a trusted place to have this type of discourse and that you can air a huge diversity of views as part of this discourse.

On whether journalists should pay more attention to CR reports

During a visit to New York for one of the MSS meetings, and in discussions with CSR practitioners, I had the opportunity to meet with the head of CSR for New York City who oversaw the retirement funds for NYC. Their first principle is to look at the financial risk of an organisation, yet they also want to look at the sustainability risk as part of their investment purposes. Is an organisation socially and environmentally sustainable in the long-term? Do they have responsible business practices? And then they rank them. They analyse those [CSR] reports with a fine tooth comb.

If organisations with billions of dollars to invest are analysing social and environmental reports as a way of checking if their investments are secure, why wouldn’t media organisations be more interested in these issues? We should. And that’s not to undervalue financial and economic data and analysis. We should be focusing on a more holistic approach to performance.

The public consultation period for the final draft of the GRI MSS was between May and August 2011; release of the final supplement is expected in early 2012.

You can read my post Four reasons why journalists should pay more attention to CR Reports (May 2011) here.

Sustainability, the media and holistic performance: a conversation with the ABC’s Dr Mike McCluskey (Part 1 of 2)

Leave a reply

In the wake of the News of the World phone hacking scandal in July this year, I wrote a post suggesting media organisations would do well to explore the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) draft Media Sector Supplement (MSS). Why? Because it contains some important and timely signposts in areas such as governance, content quality and product responsibility that if adapted, could point some media organisations in the direction of building or rebuilding trust between themselves and their audiences.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Chief Executive Officer, Radio Australia and former Head of Corporate Social Responsibility, Dr Mike McCluskey became a member of the MSS Working Group at its inception in 2009.

I spoke with him recently about the experience of participating in a GRI multi-stakeholder process and why he thinks the MSS is a valuable tool for assessing the sector’s performance through a more holistic framework.

How the ABC got involved with the GRI’s Media Sector Supplement

The ABC was involved with the Corporate Responsibility Index (CRI) through the St James Ethics Centre, and at that time while we were undertaking that Index I got to know a number of people. The St James Ethics Centre was asked if they knew any Australian media practitioners who would be interested in participating in the MSS. I didn’t know anything about it at that time and was put in touch with a number of people who were from the GRI and some associated organisations to see if the ABC would be interested. We discussed it extensively to see if there was merit in the ABC participating and agreed that there was.

What it’s like to participate in the GRI’s multi-stakeholder process

I found it to be particularly good, actually. I think if we work in the media, we deal with multiple stakeholders every day. Whether it’s more than any other industry, I can’t say. But what I can say is that our total business is involved with stakeholder involvement and engagement one way or another. I think it’s tremendous for us to be considering the impact of media in its broadest context by considering the opinions of a wide stakeholder group. Is it wide enough or truly representative of the wider community or is it specific interest groups? Only time will tell but I think every effort is being made by the GRI and the working group to reflect as broad a cross section of stakeholder interests as possible.

We’ve had some wonderful debates and conversations that assisted us in addressing issues that some of us might not have thought about. While sometimes we may have got down into a narrow focus on a specific area, and even though many people come with a specific vested interest from a stakeholder group, what they bring to the table is a viewpoint that could be applied in a variety of different ways.

On the impact of the multi-stakeholder process on his approach to corporate responsibility

I’ve learnt an enormous amount. I think I’ve learnt a lot not just about how we operate in Australia but how the media operates universally. I learnt a lot about the struggles that many media organisations have in trying to be transparent, trying to apply the principles of ethics, independence, accountability, accuracy and balance. All easy words to say. Yet put yourself in a country where journalists’ families may be threatened if they do a story and it’s a totally different ballgame.

Here in Australia we have high governance principles at the government and corporate sector, we have open and huge debates when that governance is shown to be wanting, but in many countries that isn’t the case. Media organisations struggle to have that level of transparency, independence and accuracy; even finding people willing to talk is extremely difficult in some countries. So I think there’s nothing wrong with us understanding that it’s not a level playing field in the media across the world – it’s quite healthy for us to understand.

Nevertheless, it’s also important for us to acknowledge that the principles we aspire to are identical. We all aspire to have independent content that is accurate, balanced and demonstrates the plurality of thought that might be in our countries. Now I can’t say every country of the world and every media organisation, but everyone at the table shared that view and they wouldn’t be participating if they didn’t share that view. That was easy – coming up with the principles. The hard part is working out how you actually measure the impact of media organisations. We’re not just talking about news and current affairs, but a very broad cross section of diverse media organisations as well from gaming to entertainment organisations.

Part 2 of my interview with Dr McCluskey will be published on The Briefing Note soon.

The ABC’s Corporate Responsibility performance is included in its 2010/11 Annual Report.

The public consultation period for the final draft of the GRI MSS was between May and August 2011; release of the final supplement is expected in early 2012.

Communicating change: the never-ending story

Leave a reply

Whether you’re launching a new sustainability initiative, announcing (another) major change with big ramifications for your employees or batting up a new idea to your senior leadership team – communicating change to the people who have a stake in it is the never-ending story of our time.

The story has to begin with the characters that make that story engaging. Your stakeholders.

As I’ve blogged about in previous posts, stakeholder is not a catch-all, generic throwaway label. It should be segmented into specific groups or individuals that mean something to your business. Those stakeholders should be assigned to a strategy and engagement plan. An accountable relationship manager. And you should understand their issues and communication preferences and what this in turn means for the way you engage with them.

Which brings me to the communication strategies that support change, the never-ending story so-to-speak.

The success of a communication strategy won’t depend entirely on the savviness of your communication tools or the sophistication of your branding or imagery. It certainly helps.

Whether or not you use traditional or new communication channels won’t be the final arbiter of success either. It’s likely to be a combination of the two.

It will depend on your ability to understand your stakeholders and engage with them in a manner and with a message that encourages them to listen, participate and engage. And then anticipating how these needs are changing and adjusting your strategy and so on.

Never-ending.

How to put stakeholder engagement on the board agenda, and keep it there

Leave a reply

Does your board of directors join the dots between quality stakeholder engagement, good governance, resilient reputation and robust corporate performance?

Or are you struggling to advocate the value of stakeholder engagement at the board level?

Tabling or presenting a board paper on the value of stakeholder engagement is one thing; demonstrating how you measure it — and track progress and performance over time –is another thing altogether.

This quote from the President of Oxfam America, Ray Offenheiser, quoted in The Ceres Roadmap for Sustainability (p25), sums it up for me:

“To operate successfully in a complex global business environment, forward-looking companies need to open their doors to diverse stakeholders and incorporate these perspectives into strategic decisions and sustainable development initiatives”.

So how do you get started or change course in order to educate the board on the value of stakeholder engagement and its relationship to overall strategy and organisational performance? Here are five suggestions:

Suggest the relevant board committee’s charter is expanded to include stakeholder engagement. For example, this may be the Corporate Responsibility or Sustainability committee. An foundation piece of work may be a policy or strategy outlining how senior leadership intends to engage with your most influential stakeholders and why.
Establish or review appropriate consultative or advisory bodies to assist management and the board broaden their perspective on material issues. I say ‘appropriate’ because every organisation is different and what’s fit-for-purpose varies by industry and organisation size and structure.
Present the results of stakeholder and reputation research. This used to be considered bold stuff, but in the age of transparency, 24/7 media and social media, it should be the norm on an annual or bi-ennial basis.
Present the outcome of an annual or bi-ennial materiality assessment process. This is already a key component of the GRI sustainability reporting framework and should be aligned with other strategic planning initiatives such as corporate plans; it should also be linked to the research mentioned in point #3.
Invite a key stakeholder (or two) in. Hearing a key stakeholder’s opinion on the risks and opportunities facing the organisation in a confidential environment can be powerful – for both parties. It can also send a clear message about the culture of the board and the organisation overall which is ‘we’re keen to listen and learn’.

A demonstrated willingness to listen to, and learn from stakeholders will allow organisations to move from a defensive/risk business case approach for stakeholder engagement to one of opportunity and innovation.

Are you a board director? Do you think these five suggestions have merit or would you suggest other avenues for influence?

10 things I like about mecu’s winning report

Leave a reply

The 2011 Australasian Annual Reporting Awards were announced recently and their special awards category for Sustainability Reporting was won by Australian credit union mecu (142,877 members, $2.43b in assets, $26.8m net profit before tax, 371 staff and 33 service centres across Australia). This is the second time mecu has won this award.

Here are 10 things I like about mecu’s 2009/10 Sustainability Report structure and approach:

This is their sixth Sustainability Report. Chairman Peter Crocker’s introductory statement references mecu’s commitment to responsible banking and I think it’s important to hear this message from a credit union via their corporate reporting given the dominance of the big four banks in Australia.
Their Sustainability Covenant. A series of commitments have been made between mecu and the Victorian State Government agency EPA Victoria in a voluntary covenant arrangement, which is reviewed regularly and renewed every three years. To my mind, this partnership and agreed goals and commitments (and public accessibility of the document) further ups the ante on transparency and accountability. This can only be a good thing for management in both organisations as they strive to achieve stated goals.
Things you can do. The Covenant includes a goal to assist members to live more sustainable lifestyles and there is a neat theme through the report which reinforces practical tips in a ‘be the change you want to see in the world’ kind of way across the categories of communal, food, garden, goods, house, recreation, services, transport, waste and work.
Sustainability governance. mecu’s Board structure includes a Sustainable Development Committee which meets quarterly. This is best practice and in line with one of the 20 key expectations for the 21^st Century Corporation as outlined in Ceres’ excellent Roadmap for Sustainability which states “a committee of the board will assume specific responsibility for sustainability oversight within its charter”. Governance also includes a staff Sustainability Reference Group called ‘Footprints’ which indicates a commitment to integration of sustainability principles throughout the organisation.
Global commitments. mecu is a signatory to the UN Environment Program Statement by Financial Institutions on the Environment (UNEP FI), the UN Global Compact and the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI). It appears mecu aims to leverage these leadership initiatives for responsible investment accreditation for some of its products, which would be a good move in order to promote innovation and product differentiation.
Their honesty. In the ‘reporting structure’ section which describes how mecu sought feedback on its 2008/09 report, the company conceded a low response rate to the reporting section of its online Sustainability Strategy and Reporting Survey with “the majority of questions only answered by three respondents”. Ouch. That must have been difficult to disclose. However, what I would hope for as a reader is that mecu seeks to find other ways to engage their stakeholders to obtain a more robust level of feedback in the future.
Only five of mecu’s 142,877 members reportedly lost their cards in 2009/10 – impressive! The Card Fraud table under ‘Ethics and Governance’ discloses the total cost of reported fraud at $307,659 which impacted on 312 of its members. The significant line item in the table is ‘fraudulent use of card number’, affecting 238 members at a total cost of $156,576, which explains why mecu invests in fraud awareness training with its staff and participates in public awareness campaigns to reduce their members vulnerability to fraud.
Hyperlinked materiality table. The materiality assessment is segmented by environment, community, workplace and marketplace and is hyperlinked to the relevant section of the report which makes it easy to cross-reference and investigate further. There doesn’t appear to be any external stakeholder involvement in determining material issues, which is something I advocate to clients to ensure internal assessments of what’s important to the future of the business is compared and contrasted with expectations of key stakeholders.
Its brevity. The report is succinct, easy to read and written in a plain English style. Report navigation is good, aided by the break out headings on the right hand side of the page. A separate summary report is available as well.
If it wasn’t for their Sustainability report, I wouldn’t know as much about mecu as I do after reading it. mecu’s Victorian heritage is strongly reflected in its membership base with only 5% of its members residing in my home state of New South Wales. We Aussies tend to be a parochial lot. Sustainability reports can fulfil an important reputation and branding role in the marketplace, which has certainly been the case for me in the case of this organisation.

I referred to the hyperlinked material issue table in point #8. It was a shame the GRI G3 Content Index didn’t follow this format as it’s very handy when you’re benchmarking company performance. Next year perhaps.

Who doesn’t love to bask in the warm glow of peer and industry recognition for a job well done? Have you won a report for your sustainability report lately or read any award winning reports you think warrant a look?