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.
- What formal processes and Board-approved triggers does the organization use to identify 'major changes' requiring consultation?
- Does the organization maintain a 'Legal Consultation Trigger Matrix' to distinguish between mandatory (e.g., ICE, H&S) and discretionary consultations?
- For the last 3 major changes, can you demonstrate compliance with the Gunning Principles (formative stage, sufficient reasons, adequate time, conscientious consideration)?
- How does the organization map stakeholders and ensure representation of marginalized groups (anti-capture controls)?
- Can you provide a 'Stakeholder Influence Statement' or board minute showing how feedback specifically altered a decision or led to documented mitigations?
- What 'pause-and-review' mechanisms are in place if significant dissent (e.g., >25%) or safeguarding risks emerge during consultation?
- How are safeguarding and trauma-informed practices implemented during participation, especially for sensitive topics?
- Major Change Engagement Procedure with Board-approved financial/impact triggers.
- Stakeholder Map & Engagement Plan including representation rules.
- Legal Consultation Trigger Matrix (mandatory vs discretionary).
- Stakeholder Influence Statement (SIS) templates attached to board papers.
- Minutes evidencing 'Reserved Matters' consultation prior to decision.
- Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA) and DPIAs with consultation notes.
- Pause-and-Review logs or governance intervention records.
- Participation Safeguarding Protocol and risk assessments.
- ‘You Said, We Did’ reports and communication logs.
- Accessibility plans and evidence of reasonable adjustments (Equality Act).
- Participant expense/compensation logs.
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Excellent: Embedded procedure, ≥80% input, ≥40% material influence or reasoned affirmation, representative panels. |
| 4 | 4/5 | Good: Procedure applied, ≥70% input, clear evidence of influence, Gunning principles followed. |
| 3 | 3/5 | Basic: Process exists, 50–69% input, limited change evidence, basic legal compliance. |
| 2 | 2/5 | Weak: Ad-hoc/late consultation, <50% input, tokenistic. |
| 1 | 1/5 | None: No process or non-compliant with mandatory duties. |
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.