Stakeholders supported to influence major changes
Assesses whether the organization actively supports stakeholders to influence major decisions and changes through structured, inclusive consultation and participation. This aligns with UK governance expectations (e.g., Charity Commission CC3, UK Corporate Governance Code Provision 5) and sector standards. For this criterion, ‘major change’ is defined by a Board-approved threshold (reviewed annually) and includes: changes to mission/strategy; service closures/launches; location moves; restructures/redundancies; policy shifts affecting rights/access; data processing changes of high risk (requiring DPIA); mergers/partnerships; governance changes (reserved matters); and financial triggers (e.g., unbudgeted capital spend >£25k or >5% of annual expenditure, whichever is lower). In emergencies requiring immediate action, a ‘rapid consultation’ or retrospective review within 30 days is expected.
| Metric | Stakeholder Engagement Composite Score |
|---|---|
| Target | Defined by Board |
| Frequency | Annual |
| Method | Assessment of Coverage, Influence, Equity, Timeliness, Accessibility |
| Unit | Composite Index |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Stakeholder influence is ad-hoc and reactive. No formal process or non-compliant with mandatory consultation duties.
Level 2: Developing
Informal or inconsistent mechanisms exist. Feedback is collected but rarely influences decisions. Tokenistic engagement.
Level 3: Established
Formal process followed; ≥50% major decisions include input; basic legal compliance (H&S, GDPR) met; outcomes communicated but linkage to decisions is inconsistent.
Level 4: Advanced
Proactive co-design; ≥70% decisions with input; clear evidence of influence (changes or reasoned affirmations); Gunning principles followed; ‘you said – we did’ published within 30 days.
Level 5: Optimizing
Participatory governance embedded: representative councils with advisory rights on reserved matters; ≥80% decisions with input and ≥40% materially changed or affirmed with mitigations; equity evidenced; independent facilitation for high-stakes changes.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Formal documented procedures, stakeholder maps, and legal matrices are entirely disproportionate for volunteer-run groups. |
| Small | optional | Good practice to consult stakeholders informally on major changes, but formal documented triggers and matrices are disproportionate. |
| Medium | partial | Requires basic stakeholder mapping and engagement plans for major changes, but complex legal trigger matrices can be scaled down. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- The organization has stakeholders (e.g., members, beneficiaries, donors, employees, community)
- The organization makes major decisions that affect stakeholders
- The organization seeks to operate ethically and responsibly
Not Applicable When
- The organization's legal or religious charter explicitly vests all decision-making authority in a closed body (though advisory consultation remains best practice).
- The organization is under formal dissolution/liquidation governed by statutory requirements.
- The organization is a sole proprietorship without a governing body.
- Note: In immediate emergency response phases (e.g., disaster relief), full consultation may be suspended, but retrospective review and accountability are required.
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.