AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard
Revision Process
The world's first standard for stakeholder engagement

This is the place to post your comments and thoughts around the revision as well as issues relating to current practice and the future role of stakeholder engagement.

POSTED BY BASTINE, PAUL on 9 October 2009
ISEAL ALLIANCE MEMBER

Congratulations to new revision. Very effective, relevant, practical.

My suggestion: “Responsiveness” is not enough. It should be implemented.
How to implement?
For this QFD (Quality Function Deployment) Developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Engineering and practised worldwide as a leading Quality Management system,  can be adopted.

Philosophically: Stake Holder Engagement will tell ” What to do”?
But not “How to do”?

The answer is: QFD

QFD integrate both “What to do?” and “How to do?”
Its an integrated approach system. This correlates both idea and action or both theory and practice.This includes both:
External Stakeholders and
Internal Stakeholders such as
Designers, Engineers, Creative Thinkers, Innovators, Marketing Managers,  Quality Managers, Production Mangers and all other concern parties.

This gives completeness. “Responsiveness” is a positive sign but doesn’t give completeness.
I further suggest:

CSAP program of IRCA this has to be included:

IMPLEMENTATION OF STAKEHOLDER IDEAS BY SUSTAINABILITY QFD - 1 DAY

The idea sounds excellent.
In my opinion keeping an interesting level of quality might be a challenge, in that sense moderation might be wellcome: resources might be an issue.
In order to promote participation I would suggest everybody to make an effort on communication, I mean contextualize and make language very clear and simple. It is often very time consumming to make the follow-up of a network when everyone speaks his own English in his own context. This issue is particulary important on AA1000 where we can get into very complex ideas.

I like the idea of indicators (we have developed our own tool on this and it might be interesting to share ideas with the rest of the participants and AccountAbility too)
•  ; A database of worked examples and cases in three sections: organization, projects and public sector; this is always very useful
•    A resource of country and regional adaptations addressing the local context and dynamics; we would love to contribute to this with our own Italian experience
•    A resource of sector adaptations addressing sector specific issues and dynamics; extremely useful – materiality is always the starting point
•    A database on how AA1000SES relates to and can be used with other standards, codes and guidelines; I beleive the main issue here is with GRI
•    A database of other relevant tools and approaches to stakeholder engagement. Yes but the new standard should integrate all of them,or not?

As discussed in March meeting, the AA1000SE wiki Hub will be a valuable resource. But to keep the sanctity, the entries will be hosted not on a public domain, but after somebody looks into it and confirms that it is a good practice to share, should be hosted on the public domain. Ensuring participation may not be big issue with the kind of network which has been established.

•  The need for simplicity. As one of the wiki comments says, making it simple is genius. I very strongly feel, the more summarized and condensed the ideas the more applicable it will be for all organizations to use it, small or big, one-off projects, public or private. I feel the length of the document is about right, albeit if we could summarize it a bit more it might gain further simplicity.
•  I feel that the focus of the AA1000SES should allow the possibility that it can be used for one-off projects or a specific area of engagement. I wonder if that is clear in the current drafting, and if it does not read more like you have to do it for the whole organization
•  2. Commitment to integration:  This section is key to the standard, and yet I feel something is missing/failing to fully explain how the stakeholder engagement process is integrated/built on the principles. Although I understand it, I find it difficult to explain to others and furthermore, wonder if it should clearly spell out that it is an organization’s responsibility to manage the stakeholder engagement process. Possibly the drafting might improve if it first focuses on the reason (organizational strategy, purpose of engagement and operational management) and then the process (plan, prepare, engage and respond). Here I feel it would be clearer to summarize the fourth step in one Word, my suggestion being respond, since effectively acting, reviewing and improving after engaging is a response.
•  4.1.1. Map stakeholders: I feel that examples shouldn’t be included in the standard since, if this is to be a standard that can be used by any organization, there will always be cases where the examples are of no use. Hence I feel it is better to leave them out altogether, this will have the advantage of reducing the length of the standard making it simpler to read and use. Also the guidance notes could be focused to different user groups e.g. Large corporations, SME, public and other types of organizations, and here the examples could be those normally relevant to them.
JOHN SCADE

This article is very beautiful, I really get very beyendım text files manually to your health as you   very beautiful and I wish you continued success with all respect ..

This section is key to the standard, and yet I feel something is missing/failing to fully explain how the stakeholder engagement process is integrated/built on the principles. Although I understand it, I find it difficult to explain to others and furthermore, wonder if it should clearly spell out that it is an organization’s responsibility to manage the stakeholder engagement process.
Facebook apps

To promote participation I would suggest everybody to make an effort on communication, I mean contextualize and make language very clear and simple. It is often very time consum to make the follow-up of a network when everyone speaks his own English in his own context.

This section is key to the standard, and yet I feel something is missing/failing to fully explain how the stakeholder engagement process is integrated/built on the principles. Although I understand it, I find it difficult to explain to others and furthermore, wonder if it should clearly spell out that it is an organization’s responsibility to manage the stakeholder engagement process

square peg web