Implementation Manual

The People In Aid Code of Good Practice:
Implementation Manual
Contin uo u si
Contents
Introduction to this manual and the implementation process The People In Aid Code and the Social Audit Process
ov pr
en em
Co m
S e 3 ta
ge
4 Sta
m it
Stage1
Commitment
Aim Key roles Key outcomes Key steps Do Dont Roles and responsibilities Timelines FAQs
&
au diti ng
r lde o h Stake
Factsheets
Social Audit Factsheet Building a Business Case Process for awarding the rst kitemark
Stage2
Stakeholder engagement
Factsheets
Stakeholder mapping Using questionnaires Benchmarking
Practical tools
Mapping organisational objectives against Code Reviewing objectives, policies and activities against the Code Aspects and benets of various stakeholder dialogue methods Engaging Stakeholders: Action Planning Sheet Selecting Engagement Methods Questionnaire on the Principles of the People In Aid Code
Stage3
Reporting and auditing
Aim Key roles Key outcomes Key steps Do Dont Roles and Responsibilities Timelines FAQs
People In Aid 2006
Contents | i
en ga gem
2 Sta
en t
m
en
ge
1 Sta
ge
in ort Rep
Stage4
Continuous improvement
Glossary of terms
Key to symbols
Tip or guidance
Caution requires further consideration
Document or article
Practical tool
Publication eg handbook or manual
Internet based resource
ii | Contents
People In Aid 2006
Introduction to this manual and the implementation process

The People In Aid Code of Good Practice is an internationally recognised management tool that enables organisations to improve the way in which they manage their people. It can be used in your organisation to: evaluate the implementation and monitoring of your existing human resources policies assess whether your managers are trained in how to work with a policy identify where you need, or wish to make improvements in policy demonstrate to your key stakeholders that you consider those who work for you to be critical in fullling your organisations mission. The purpose of this manual is to assist organisations that choose to implement, report on, and embed the People In Aid Code using the social auditing process. The social audit model has been adopted as the methodology for implementation and evaluation because its values (participation, accountability and transparency) align closely with those of the humanitarian relief and international development sector. It provides a comprehensive and ongoing framework for action. The process of implementing the Code is a continuous cycle and can be portrayed through a process map. This manual guides you, step-by-step, through the activities and outcomes of each stage of the process map.
How to use the manual

The manual is comprehensive and acts as a useful resource in its own right. However, People In Aid provides additional support and guidance where required and also facilitates workshops where the issues are discussed in depth with experts in both the Code, and the process of social auditing which is used to evaluate it. Additional information that complements this manual, including slides from recent workshops and more detailed summaries of the processes involved, can be downloaded from our website. The manual is divided into discrete sections. It begins with an explanation about the process map and an overview of the 4 stages involved in implementing the People In Aid Code. In the subsequent sections, each stage in the process map is detailed in a step-by-step format designed to guide you through implementation and evaluation. In addition, a number of Factsheets offer more in-depth background information, while the Practical tools provide you with templates and formats which may be used to collect, analyse and present data and information at each stage of the process. We hope you will nd the manual a valuable resource. If you have any comments or feedback then we want to hear from you please contact us at info@peopleinaid.org Ben Emmens People In Aid www.peopleinaid.org
People In Aid 2006 Introduction | Page1
The People In Aid Code and the Social Audit Process

What is social audit?
Social auditing is a way of measuring an organisations performance against its values and objectives as an organisation and the expectations of those it affects or is affected by - its stakeholders. Although the term auditing is used, it describes a wider process of accounting for and reporting on social performance that is then externally veried. In this way organisations can build a clearer picture of how their stakeholders view them and build more mutually benecial relationships with them. They can also anticipate any concerns that stakeholders have, manage consequential risks and let stakeholders know how they are performing through the social report. The report produced following consultations with stakeholders (social accounting), is externally veried to enhance the credibility of information presented. In this way social auditing is analogous to nancial reporting - the organisation produces the accounts, which are then audited by an independent third party. Social Audit Fact Sheet www.accountability.org.uk
Page2 | Introduction
People In Aid 2006
The process of implementing and evaluating the People In Aid Code

Social auditing can be relevant to all organisations as a way of measuring social performance. However for voluntary and aid organisations that have social performance at the heart of their operations, social auditing can have even greater relevance. It is a way of building crucial relationships and assessing the impact that a voluntary organisation has. For organisations that choose to implement the People In Aid Code, the social audit process has 4 distinct stages: Stage 1: Commitment Stage 2: Stakeholder Engagement Stage 3: Reporting and Auditing Stage 4: Continuous Improvement Commitment involves scoping the implementation process; planning for reviewing organisational practices; and ensuring senior management commitment and resources for the process of implementing the Code. The Stakeholder Engagement stage involves reviewing an organisations current vision, values and policies, as well as any measurement that is taking place. It also involves identifying and consulting with stakeholders and generating commitment to the process of review and actions resulting from it. This is when the bulk of the data-gathering occurs. Through this process of stakeholder engagement key issues are identied. The Principles and Indicators of the People In Aid Code provide a framework for the review. The organisation collects information regarding these indicators and allows full dialogue with the stakeholders. The information is then analysed and targets for improvement are set. In the Reporting and Audit stage, a full report is prepared by the organisation. This clearly shows how the organisation has performed against its values, targets and objectives, and includes a plan for future action. This is then externally audited and communicated to stakeholders. The audit process looks for accuracy of data, balance of presentation and a true and fair reection of performance. Finally, in the fourth stage, Continuous Improvement, the organisation works to establish systems to embed the process, monitoring achievements against objectives, and continues to collect information and audit in accordance with the social audit cycle.
People In Aid 2006
Introduction | Page3
Implementing and evaluating the People In Aid Code a Process Map

A process map is a graphical representation of the end-to-end implementation process for the People In Aid Code. The process map highlights the 4 stages of implementation and each stage will then be broken down into specic activities within that stage. The objective of the process map is to enable you to understand where you are within the implementation process and how the work you are doing within any stage feeds in to the overall process. The 4 stages of implementing the Code are depicted graphically below. As you can see, the last stage feeds back into Stage 1 and creates a cycle of implementation and improvement within the organisation.
em ov pr
ent
Co m
Contin uo u si
3 Sta e g
4 ge
Sta
m it
&
au diti ng
Sta
r lde o keh
Each stage depicted in the process map has distinct activities, participants and outcomes which will be described in the subsequent sections.
Page4 | Introduction
en ga gem
People In Aid 2006
en t
m
en
ge
1 Sta
ge
2 Sta
in ort Rep
Key Steps to Ensure Success

Success in implementing and evaluating the Code depends on: 4 Engagement of senior managers 4 Identifying a Board-level champion 4 Appointing an implementation manager 4 Creating a project team 4 Planning and resourcing the project 4 Effective communication with managers and staff about the process and regular updates on progress 4 Two-way dialogue with stakeholders 4 Recording the process accurately 4 Collection and analysis of data leading to target-setting and action planning 4 Integration with existing strategies, plans and systems
How long does the process take?

It is difcult to establish a generic timescale for the process of initial implementation and evaluation against the People In Aid Code, as it is very agency-specic. Some organisations take a whole year to generate buy-in for the process, whereas others can instigate the dialogue process and report on ndings within 6 months. On average, the social reporting process (for the People In Aid Code) takes between a year and 18 months. There is no pressure on you in terms of the time taken, but it is important to record the time period of the whole process.
Estimated time range (months) 1 2 3 4 5
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Key
Estimated minimum timeline Estimated maximum timeline
People In Aid 2006
Introduction | Page5
S e 3 ta
Stage1
Commitment
Aim
Commitment to the People In Aid Code and the social audit implementation process by senior management.
ent em ov r p
Co m
Contin uou si
ge
4 Sta
m it
&
au diti ng
er old h e Stak
Key roles
Human Resources Implementation manager Senior management (e.g. Board) People In Aid
Key outcomes
1. Business case made 2. Scope dened 3. Agreement on timelines for the project 4. Senior management / Board level buy-in obtained 5. First kitemark awarded by People In Aid
Key steps
Making a business case
Identify your organisations objectives in implementing the Code and the benefits Create a project team (preferably cross-functional)
Defining scope
Senior Management Buy-in

Get the senior management to buy-in to the project and its deliverables Identify a sponsor at Board level Confirm implementation manager and project team
Kitemark
Define the implementation process for your organisation Identify scope based on objectives as well as resources available
Check compliance with criteria Award of first People In Aid kitemark
People In Aid 2006
Stage1 | Page1
en ga gem
2 Sta
en t
m
t en
ge
1 Sta
ge
in ort Rep
Case study Establishing a project team In order to bring on board senior programme staff and gain their commitment to implementation, the Leprosy Mission ensured that their implementation team, led by a senior HR advisor, comprised a number of programme managers / representatives as well as senior HR managers from strategically important country programmes. In addition, to promote the cohesion of the implementation team, the Leprosy Mission took advantage of an annual senior managers forum to formally launch the implementation process and engage programme and senior HR managers. A People In Aid advisor joined this event and spent half a day with participants, presenting and explaining the process in more detail, and answering queries and concerns.
Making a business case for the Code and its evaluation

The business case for good people management practices incorporates a number of factors: Staff satisfaction and increased morale Recruitment and retention benets Management of risk associated with staff in the eld Productivity gains from good management practice Positive impact on other stakeholders, through well managed staff delivering a better service to beneciaries and donors alike Building relationships to enable better decision making incorporating views from the frontline into wider business decisions Implementing the Code enables organisations to benchmark performance and HR management practices with other agencies. In addition to the generic business benets listed above, your organisation can also identify specic business benets which you would want to achieve through the process. Dissemination and acknowledgement of all these benets builds the case for investment and commitment of time. In terms of cost benet analysis, some specic calculations can be made for aspects such as recruitment and retention where the benet of increased retention (evidenced by monitoring gures) can be linked to reduced recruitment costs, induction and training costs, costs of temporary staff (in some cases), staff training time etc. Building a business case It will be necessary for one or more advocates to lead the process at this stage. It is recommended that if more than one, they are drawn from different functions within the organisation as this will help you to obtain a wider overview of the benets, as well as the challenges, to the organisation. You will then be in a better position to formulate the business case and to address issues at implementation stage. Some organisations have set up project teams from the outset, although this may be deferred until after a rm decision to implement the Code has been made. To achieve the rst People In Aid kitemark it is necessary to have a project team in place by the end of Stage 1.
Creating a project team

Whether you choose to form a project team in the initial phase of championing the Code, or later on in Stage 1, there are a number of factors to consider: Composition of the team Capabilities / competencies required Roles within the team Committing resources time allocation, administrative support etc Remote members / virtual team Frequency of meeting
Page2 | Stage1
People In Aid 2006
Dening scope
Although there are clear steps to the process (as seen in the process map), the actual methodology and timing for implementing the Code needs to be developed to complement each organisations own structure, function, stakeholders and systems. In tailoring the process to your agency a key element of the planning phase is to agree the scope of the process. The scope will need to be discussed with People In Aid as part of your preparation to implement the Code and it is recommended that you get in touch with People In Aid early on in stage 1 to do this. The discussions could be held over the telephone or face to face. Points that you should consider are: Whether to include all staff or only certain groups for example, Head Ofce only, or particular regions Rationale for inclusion / exclusion What the implications will be as regards methods of consultation, gathering data, involvement of line managers Resources required Proposed timing for each stage Remember that decisions about scope will have implications for the practical aspects of engaging with stakeholders in Stage 2.
Case study Scoping the implementation process Although implementing the Code clearly benets the whole organisation, and the process of stakeholder dialogue typically includes all staff, larger organisations may feel that their size makes engaging with every single stakeholder prohibitive. Concern decided at an early stage that given the large number of widely dispersed employees, it was preferable to identify a representative sample from their workforce and engage with them, as part of the Code implementation process. To ensure adequate representation across the organisation within the sample, staff were grouped by eld, region and staff category, and from that, Concern used a simple computer programme to identify how many of each group should participate and then randomly select individuals for the process of stakeholder engagement.
Producing a project plan

When the scope has been dened the project team will need to develop an implementation plan, taking into account the scope, timing, resources and involvement of key stakeholders. Measures for communicating the project both internally and externally will also need to be built into the plan. Communication is an important feature of the entire process. Effective communication with all members of the organisation: Promotes understanding of the implementation process and its objectives, the various stages involved and everyones role Builds momentum, ownership and commitment Helps to integrate the implementation and evaluation process with organisational strategy, objectives and activities at all levels Close attention should be given to the most appropriate method of communication at each stage, utilising existing media wherever possible.
Senior management buy-in

Project planning is a vital component in designing the process and optimising resources and budget. It is important that project planning is undertaken in conjunction with the Directors and Managers responsible for each identied stakeholder group (see Stage 2 Stakeholder Engagement). Internal ownership and buy-in is vital if the Code is to become embedded within the organisation. Care should be taken to ensure that consultation is appropriately timed. Gaining commitment from senior managers usually involves: Making sure that you have top level engagement Appointing a senior management sponsor
People In Aid 2006 Stage1 | Page3
Case study Creating an implementation plan Implementing the People In Aid Code is an organisational commitment akin to an HR programme, rather than a one off HR project. However, project management skills are essential for a successful implementation process, and the creation of a costed, scoped and resourced project plan at the outset will signicantly enhance an organisations chances of success and also help achieve buy in from senior managers. People In Aid encourages all implementing agencies to develop a project plan which can be as succinct, for example, as the one prepared by Oxfam Australia, who described the project in two parts - the project itself and the project objectives: The Project Project team Background Justication Project Objectives Implementation Benets Specic objectives Resources required Or, as another example, and on a much larger scale, it can be as comprehensive as the plan developed by the British Red Cross, who considered every aspect in detail and included the following headings: Introduction Project denition Organization Project phases and phase outputs Development strategy Progress plan Progress control Quality assurance Risk management Training and consultancy Resource planning Future development
Getting buy-in from key people, including those that will need to deliver performance improvements against the Code, such as line managers Identifying and establishing a project team to run the process of implementing and evaluating the Code. This also needs to incorporate key people from different parts of the organisation Producing a project plan
Kitemark Committed to the People In Aid Code

The nal element of Stage 1 is achieving the rst kitemark, which is awarded by People In Aid when the following criteria are met: The Chief Executive or Chair has made a written and public commitment to the People In Aid Code of Good Practice The agency has given responsibility and appropriate authority for implementing the People In Aid Code to a named project manager and team The agency has informed staff that the agency is committed to the People In Aid Code When you believe you have met the criteria, contact People In Aid to discuss the award of the rst kitemark Committed to the People In Aid Code. Once the rst kitemark has been awarded by People In Aid an additional annual contribution becomes payable (to People In Aid) by the implementing agency. This contribution is towards the support provided during the implementation process and the independent audit fees when they are incurred. The process for awarding the rst kitemark People In Aid Code of Good Practice, p. 23
Page4 | Stage1
People In Aid 2006
Do
4 Be clear about the benets to your organisation 4 Engage key people and get their commitment 4 Plan and ensure sufcient resources are assigned to the project 4 Use champions at the front line 4 Build cross-functional links 4 Have a committed steering group or project team who will keep the project on track 4 Involve people on your project team who can effect change and get things done
Dont
6 Focus only on problems look at successes too 6 Hold the project solely within HR
Roles and responsibilities

Human Resources
Be the driving force behind the project Take ownership of implementing the Code and the social audit process Become subject-matter experts within the organisation on the Code and social audit Invest effort into developing a detailed project plan (with timelines, resources required, communication plans etc.) for implementing the Code and the social audit Ensure that Human Resources and the project team have clarity of purpose and understand the organisational priorities and challenges in implementing the Code Ensure that they have adequate time and resources as well Encourage and promote organisation wide commitment to the process Establish a process for tracking and problem-solving at a senior level during the implementation process
Senior Management
Timelines
Estimated time range (months) 1 2 3 4
Engagement of key personnel Making the business case Defining scope Senior management buy-in Kitemark
Key
People In Aid 2006
Stage1 | Page5
FAQs
How do we enthuse people, from management to National staff? Generating enthusiasm for the Code is a matter of realising the benets of positive people management and the principles of the Code. The audit process presents an opportunity for management to evaluate staff satisfaction levels, and to identify areas where they are strong in terms of people management and where improvements could be made. For staff more broadly, it is about offering them the opportunity to feedback on organisational performance and inuence change. Enthusing people is generally achieved through a combination of communication and action. Tailoring communication to specic groups for example, making the business case to management; focusing on wider benets of the Code to staff and using existing mechanisms such as briengs, newsletters, email etc, will increase its effectiveness. It is important to ensure that ndings resulting from the process are acted upon and improvements made. How do we get management to see the business case for implementing the Code? Building a business case Stage 1 How do we get feedback from various staff groups? Feedback from staff should use a combination of measures. The Code states that existing mechanisms should be in place for consultation with staff and this should be incorporated into the dialogue process. Then there are additional dialogue processes using qualitative and quantitative mechanisms. This is addressed in more detail at Stage 2. How do we balance the inclusive versus pragmatic approach? Inclusivity is an important aspect of social reporting and organisations should aim to be as inclusive as possible within the bounds of practical possibilities. Any signicant primary stakeholder groups that are omitted, such as international staff, will need to be justied to the auditor. Practical and resource difculties will be taken into account. It is recommended that organisations focus initially on those areas of HR activity relating to their most pressing HR issues and organisational objectives. Although completely discounting certain principles of the Code is not recommended, prioritising one or two of the principles, whilst generally covering the others, will be acceptable. In terms of pragmatism, organisations should seek to maximise use of existing research and dialogue systems such as de-brieng sessions, existing surveys, appraisal processes etc. How do we identify a champion? There are two levels of champion Board / Director level sponsorship and champions at a local level.
Page6 | Stage1
People In Aid 2006
The Board level champion / sponsor clearly needs to be at Director level. They need to be sufciently inuential to champion the People In Aid Code, and the evaluation process that goes with it, in the board room and also to be interested in and committed to the process. They will not tend to be involved in the day-to-day implementation of the process, but will ensure that it maintains a prole with your Directors. Champions are also recommended at a more local level. For example, each geographical region can benet from having a local champion of the Code, who meets with other champions to learn from each other about the Code and the process of social auditing and drives the process in their local area. These champions need to be people who make things happen and get things done; enthusiasm and ability to inuence will also help. In several organisations, potential dissenters have also been engaged as champions in order to win them over and remove potential barriers. How big should a project team be? A team might comprise 3 to 6 people, depending on the size of your organisation. Members should be drawn from different functions / divisions and would normally include a representative from the programmes or international section, as well as human resources. The project team will be led by the implementation manager. How do we identify an implementation manager? This role is best played by a human resources manager or adviser, someone with credibility at senior management level and largely in charge of their own time. Ideally the individual would have experience of project management. The role should not be confused with that of champion and it is best not given to an intern, volunteer or administrator as they might lack the authority, capacity or continuity to successfully manage the implementation process.
People In Aid 2006
Stage1 | Page7
Page8 | Stage1
People In Aid 2006
Stage1
Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
Stage1 Factsheets |
Social Audit Factsheet

(Chapter 1: summary of social audit process) Social accountability or social audit, as it is also known, rst appeared in academic literature in the 1940s. It was developed further by the UKs New Economics Foundation and fair trade agency Traidcraft plc. Originally undertaken by ethical companies, social accountability is seen as equally applicable to non-prot organisations that want to conduct a reality check on how well they are performing. Traidcrafts sister organisation Traidcraft Exchange, like the Irish Agency For Personal Service Overseas, have also used it to measure and improve performance against social and ethical objectives. Now a number of charitable organisations have taken it up, to look at their wider performance. Social accountability is dened as a way in which individuals and organisations report on and are held responsible for their actions. It consists of ve elements: Agreement about roles and responsibilities Taking action in accordance with agreed roles and responsibilities Reporting on action taken Responding to the needs and views of stakeholders Complying with agreed standards of performance
AA1000 Process of Social Auditing

There is a standard process of social reporting, accounting and auditing known as AA1000. This is an ongoing process of dialogue and continuous improvement that should become embedded in the way an organisation works. AA1000 entails planning, accounting and information gathering and then auditing and reporting. Planning involves reviewing an organisations current vision and values, as well as any measurement that is taking place. It also involves the identication of stakeholders and generating commitment to the process of review and actions resulting from it. Planning is followed by the accounting phase, which is when the bulk of the data-gathering occurs. Through this process, issues are identied through stakeholder engagement. The advantage for those using the People In Aid Code is that the Principles and Indicators, which dene the scope of the audit, have already been established for you as a framework to work through. The organisation then goes on to collect information regarding these indicators and allows full dialogue with the stakeholders. This information is then analysed and targets for improvement are set. A full report is then prepared by the organisation. This clearly shows how the organisation has performed against its values, targets and objectives. This is then externally audited and communicated to stakeholders. The audit process looks for accuracy of data, balance of presentation and a true and fair reection of performance. Finally the organisation works to establish systems to embed the process, monitoring achievements against objectives and continues to collect information and audit. Social auditing can be relevant to all organisations as a way of measuring social performance. However for voluntary and aid
ii | Stage1 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
organisations that have social performance at the heart of their operations, social auditing can have even greater relevance. It is a way of building those crucial relationships and assessing the impact that a voluntary organisation has.
AA1000 Assurance Standard

The AA1000 assurance standard sets objective criteria for assessing an organisations performance and reporting, as follows: Completeness. The agency should monitor and report all signicant information about relevant impacts on stakeholders in relation to the People In Aid Code, and in the areas stakeholders consider to be important. The assurance provider will report signicant gaps. Scope. The report should cover all its relevant activities, services, and elds of operation, or identify and explain omissions. Materiality. The assurance provider will test the extent to which the agency monitors and reports on issues identied as relevant by its stakeholders and that the information is relevant to the timeframe of the reporting period. Inclusiveness. The agency should recognise the interests, concerns and information needs of all its stakeholders in relation to its implementation of the People In Aid Code and include them in its accountability and reporting processes. Responsiveness. The agency and its report should demonstrate the changes in policies, decisions and actions it has made in response to stakeholders interests and concerns and the requirements of the People In Aid Code. Evidence. The assurance provider will look for adequate evidence to support the accuracy, completeness and balance of claims, data and statements made in the agencys report. Systems and control. The assurance provider will base any judgement about the reliability of information in the report not only on the accuracy of data, but also on the effectiveness of the agencys management information systems and controls. Understanding, comparability and objectivity. The assurance providers opinion about the agencys report will be affected by whether the agency reports to stakeholders regularly and in a way they nd useful for understanding the agencys performance. This will be helped if the agency compares its performance with earlier years and with other agencies in its sector. The assurance provider will also consider whether any information has been overemphasised (usually the good stuff) or under reported (the bad stuff).
Assurance Statement
Following the audit, an organisation receives from the auditor an assurance statement, which contains the following information: Who the assurance provider is and his qualications to carry out the assignment A statement that the assurance provider does not have any relationship with the agency or with its stakeholders that may compromise his ability to make impartial and objective judgements about the report and the agencys management systems. In particular, the assuror should not have been
People In Aid 2006 Stage1 Factsheets | iii
involved in designing the accountability systems or in writing the report That the agencys Directors are responsible for the content of the report That the assurance providers primary responsibility is to consider the interests of stakeholders and not those of the agencys managers A short description of the reporting and assurance standards the assurance provider has used, the scope of the assurance work and the methods used to assess the agencys report and management systems A statement of the assurance providers opinion. This is produced after carrying out investigations and tests, and states whether the report provides a reliable, complete and balanced view of the agencys implementation of the People In Aid Code and its impact on the relevant stakeholders
Social Audit and the People In Aid Code

Performance against the People In Aid Code is demonstrated through external audit and disclosure of your work on the Seven Principles. The process of reporting is a means, not an end, in this process of continuous improvement. However, it helps add authority to agency claims about commitment and performance, particularly in humanitarian assistance where increasingly real accountability is sought. Social accountability and auditing offers People In Aid members a systematic link between their values, as stated in the Code, and the increasingly widespread concern about quality and accountability in aid. Social accountability encourages organisations to start from where they are, reviewing and building on existing information systems. There is no pass or fail: instead of a nishing line, each organisation can move at its own speed to implement a continuous cycle of improvement. Social accountability emphasises institutional learning, as well as training for individual staff, and regular assessment of performance through stakeholder dialogue, rather than reaction to systems failure. The work of People In Aid pilot agencies, for example, could be compared over time, or with human resource standards and benchmarks drawn from the experience of others in the sector or from statutory regulations. Social accountability aims to incorporate the views of as many stakeholders as possible in the assessment of an organisations performance but, more importantly, recognises their interrelationship. Stakeholders are all those individuals and organisations affected by the outcome of the organisations activities. In humanitarian or development agencies, these could include beneciaries, staff, donors, partner agencies, supporters, UN agencies, host country governments, the press, etc. The People In Aid Code, however, focuses on a specic group of stakeholders: head ofce staff, staff working internationally, national staff, volunteers and even consultants. In the context of emergency response or limited development budgets, it is easy for staff to be a low priority. The Code recognises that people are a top priority for those agencies whose main service to poor and vulnerable communities is the experience and commitment of their staff. It also brings to the fore the need to look after, protect and develop these people.
iv | Stage1 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
The social auditing process evaluates the extent to which agencies are performing in relation to their staff stakeholders and therefore focuses on dialogue with and perceptions of this group.
People In Aid 2006
Stage1 Factsheets |
Building a business case

There are a number of studies that demonstrate a positive correlation between workplace practices and performance. These range from looking at specic practices to linking an overall approach on HR and the workplace with nancial performance. A sample of studies evidencing these gains are summarised below. Although these focus on a general business audience, some of the ndings will resonate within all organisations. A relatively comprehensive list has been given, in order that you can select any that you nd appropriate for making the business case within your agency. Improved nancial performance A US study of 150 executives linked 40 workplace practices and programmes (incorporating child care, exibility, diversity, well-being and others) to 16 business results where costs were reduced. These included lower absenteeism, reduced turnover, enhanced employee and customer satisfaction and reduced health care costs (Whirlpool Foundation, Working Mother magazine and Work & Family Newsbrief, 1997) The Institute of Employment Studies (IES) research into a retailer, with 90 outlets across the UK, estimates that a one point rise (out of ve) in employee satisfaction will lead to a sales increase of 200,000 a month per unit for the company Employers of Choice (listed on best companies to work for list) have been shown to grow 4 times more than others (generating 800,000 jobs) and earned just under $40b more (Contented cows give better milk, Catlette & Hadden 1998) Productivity and employee satisfaction Sears Service-Prot chain establishes the relationship between prot, customer loyalty and employee satisfaction on the basis that more satised staff will deliver a better service to the customer and will therefore enhance customer loyalty. Customer loyalty then drops down to the bottom line. The study shows that a 5 point improvement in employee satisfaction leads to a 1.3 point rise in customer satisfaction, providing a 0.5% improvement in prots (equating to additional sales of $65M) Research done by NOP, for Investors in People UK, links aspects such as employee recognition and training with productivity. This survey asked 1,567 UK employers to identify enablers and barriers to productivity. The primary enablers were staff having the right skill set, good training, clear management structures, good resource planning and regular praise. Personal development opportunities and exibility were also cited. Unsurprisingly, lack of training, lack of positive feedback, incorrect resourcing and stress were thought to be barriers to productivity by the majority, as were a lack of development opportunities and poor work-life balance. Most of these factors are all part of the good work proposition that is a critical part of being a socially responsible organisation. In addition, stress can be alleviated if individuals feel that they are working towards something that aligns with their values Attracting and retaining talent More than 40% of people under 24 are prepared to move jobs if they do not like their working environment. A quarter (25%)
vi | Stage1 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
of workers have quit a job within a month because they felt unhappy, while half (50%) of young workers have left a position because they did not like the company, the boss, or their future prospects An Industrial Society study (now The Work Foundation) showed that 82% of UK professionals would not work for an organisation whose values they did not believe in and 73% take social and ethical considerations into account when selecting a job Increased loyalty and reduced absence Family programmes in a US nancial services company have saved $500,000 in reduced turnover and absence A WFD study, with MORI, showed that 9 / 10 workers considered the ability to balance home and work life a key factor in determining their commitment to their employer A study from The Work Foundation and The Future Foundation showed that employee loyalty is higher in organisations where they are perceived to be better corporate citizens by their workers The business case and internal commitment to the process is built by using research such as this, combined with the specic case for both the Code, the need for evaluation and the agency-specic issues that it addresses.
The benets of implementing the Code

The implementation process brings opportunities and benets - the process will highlight any area of policy or practice where stakeholders feel improvement/s could be made. It also communicates some important messages for you as an organisation. It tells your staff and volunteers that you are serious about listening to their views and about improving the ways in which you support them. It also tells the wider community, including your peers and donors, that you are following a standard which is widely recognised in the sector. The internal benets for your agency are many, but depend on what you want to get out of the process and where you discover you need to do most work. Some benets may be general (such as involving staff in improving the organisation) and some may be very specic. Specic benets are often generated by the discovery of a gap in policy or practice or from becoming aware of improvements which could be made. Benets relating particularly to the process of implementation include: Framework for analysis: the Code provides a comprehensive overview of the human resources issues affecting agencies in relief and development Identifying gaps: during the implementation process your implementation team may identify gaps in policies, practice, training or monitoring Prioritisation: by focusing on seven principles, the Code assists in categorising issues under key areas of human resource management and in prioritising workplans accordingly Stakeholder participation: your staff will be involved in the process and will feel that their voice is being heard Collaboration: implementation requires that human resources and operational staff work together; and more widely, your
People In Aid 2006 Stage1 Factsheets | vii
agency will benet from the experiences of other implementing agencies As mentioned, the external benets relate to stakeholder groups that are important to you and to whom you are ultimately accountable, and these stakeholders will include donors, staff and of course, beneciaries.
Recognition brings benets

Implementing the Code gives evidence to internal and external stakeholders of the quality of your human resource management and the improvements your agency is committing to making. Staff and volunteers will recognise the efforts the agency is making to improve the support and management provided to them, irrespective of their position, status or location Potential staff and volunteers will recognise your agency as an employer of choice Donors will see evidence of a commitment to strengthening internal capacity and systems to improve quality of aid delivery Peers will recognise your agency has taken care over its support and management structures, leading to more effective programming work Partners will be able to draw on enhanced expertise and raise the quality of their own systems and procedures. Your engagement with partners through the social accounting and auditing process also demonstrates your willingness to cooperate and learn Beneciaries will have the assurance that you are monitoring the impact and delivery of your programme and that their needs are being met by competent and supported staff
viii | Stage1 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
Process for awarding the rst kitemark
Verbal commitment from agency
Clarify criteria / possible evidence with agency
Three criteria The Chief Executive or Chair has made a written and public commitment to the People In Aid Code of Good Practice. The agency has given responsibility and appropriate authority for implementing the People In Aid Code to a named project manager and team. The agency has informed staff that the agency is committed to the People In Aid Code. Internal checklist of possible evidence Senior Management Team to give guidance on acceptable evidence, by phone or email or face to face. These are the type of things agencies have offered us Signed statements (CEO) Extract from board / SMT minutes or strategic plan Copies of staff newsletter or emails Print from intranet Project / implementation plan Etc.
Information received from agency
People In Aid review evidence against criteria
Clarification required?
1st kitemark awarded

People In Aid actions Decision logged on database and website Letter of confirmation issued including kitemark details and guidance on usage, and draft press release for People In Aid and Agency Newsletter piece prepared Permission to use extract from CEOs statement obtained Follow up planning meeting scheduled
Implementation continues
Check list of possible evidence for the rst kitemark. The items listed are alternatives. Criterion 1: Chief Executives commitment: a statement signed by the Chief Executive / Chair in such as annual report, supporter newsletter, website. if it is conned to an intranet or staff newsletter then it would be preferable for People In Aid to have a signed copy agreement for People In Aid to quote from the statement we receive Criterion 2: Authority given to team extract from Board minutes which conrm the authority and a name letter from most senior HR person in the organisation to People In Aid, preferably naming senior operational managers as involved
People In Aid 2006 Stage1 Factsheets | ix
project proposal to the Board, or senior appropriate authority, with endorsement in either of the above forms extract from organisational or departmental strategy and / or workplan extract from budget Criterion 3: Staff informed copy of staff newsletter intranet notes of team meetings copies of Board minutes copy of memo from Chief Executive or senior HR person
| Stage1 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
S e 3 ta
Stage2
Stakeholder engagement
Aim
Consultation and involvement. Obtaining the employees perspective.
ent em ov r p
Co m
Contin uou si
ge
4 Sta
m it
&
au diti ng
er old h e Stak
Key roles
Human Resources Implementation manager Identied stakeholders (e.g. employees)
Key outcomes
1. Stakeholder buy-in achieved 2. Performance measures identied 3. Analysable data collected 4. Action plans drawn up
Key steps
Identifying stakeholders
Define categories of stakeholders Identify key stakeholders relevant to the Social Audit process Agree with senior management
Management review
Evaluate existing organisation vision and values Evaluate current policies and practices concerning / affecting the stakeholders Review current audit practice Identify key areas for measurement Develop performance measures Begin data collection
Stakeholder dialogue
Identify most relevant and applicable method of dialogue with the stakeholders Engage with stakeholders / gather data Receive feedback
Analysing the data
Analyse the data from the dialogue process Define targets and action plans
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 | Page1
en ga gem
2 Sta
en t
m
t en
ge
1 Sta
ge
in ort Rep
Case study Stakeholder analysis At Tearfund our concern was to make the audit process as participatory as possible to ensure information was gathered from as wide a group as possible, to support the ongoing work of personnel managers and to encourage ownership of the nal recommendations. To this end an analysis was done of interested parties. The analysis recognised that some parties had a far greater interest than others, so categorised the stakeholders into three categories: Primary Stakeholders, Secondary Stakeholders and Other Interested Parties. The Primary Stakeholders have been closely involved in providing the information on which the audit recommendations are based. The Secondary Stakeholders have been briefed about the project and kept informed at periodic intervals. The Other Interested Parties have not been directly involved in the audit, but a copy of this report will be made available to them on request.
Identifying stakeholders
Stakeholders are those groups or individuals who impact upon, or are impacted by, an organisation and / or its products and services. Stakeholders can be categorised as primary or secondary, and this division is useful in prioritising stakeholders and the way that you deal with them. With regard to the People In Aid Code, the primary stakeholders are the organisations managers and its workers, paid or voluntary. Secondary stakeholders, who may have an interest in HR policies and practices, will include: partner organisations working in the eld; People In Aid; current and prospective funding bodies; potential recruits; public supporters and donors; other development and humanitarian relief agencies and the news media. The list of stakeholders will vary between organisations and you will need to dene, in consultation with senior managers, who your own stakeholders are. It may be helpful to map them to assist with the process of understanding and prioritising the relationships between stakeholders and the organisation, their impact on each other, and the needs of each stakeholder group. The focus will be on core stakeholders that relate to human resources and this will dictate the prioritisation process. The major stakeholder in the People In Aid Code process is staff. For the majority of agencies this will include: International staff and managers National / local staff and managers Head ofce staff and managers Families of international staff
Staff are consulted during the process to ensure that decisionmakers and policy-writers both in HR and operational departments have data and opinion on which to base their work.
Stakeholder mapping an example from Tearfund

Primary Secondary
Overseas Staff UK Personnel Team (national and expatriate) Disaster Response Government Funding Team Team
Other interested parties

Department for International Development European Union - Departments for Overseas Aid
International Personnel Other members of the Job Applicants Team People In Aid Steering Group / Piloting Agencies Regional Teams Leadership Team Tearfunds Overseas Partners Director of Personnel and Development Related Organisations (such as EA, EMA, EPRO, CEEAA, IRDA, RedR) Tearfund Supporters
Page2 | Stage2
People In Aid 2006
Management review
Vision, values and existing policies
The process of reviewing the organisations vision, values and policies aims to identify specic areas where the People In Aid Code currently supports organisational objectives and where there is potential for support to be strengthened. The rst step is to review the overarching vision and values of the organisation to assess whether they incorporate the principles of valuing staff and having effective measures in place to support this. Where these principles are not in evidence it may be necessary to revise mission / vision and values statements in consultation with the relevant stakeholder groups. The next step is to review organisational objectives against the Principles of the Code, using the indicators in the Code to assess the degree of alignment. Use of a mapping technique will help to identify gaps that are not currently addressed by existing strategies or policies and areas where the organisational response could be strengthened. Finally, individual HR policies need to be reviewed against the Code and may be mapped as before. Mapping organisational objectives against the Code Reviewing objectives, policies and activities against the Code
Case study Organisational review In the Pilot implementation phase, Tearfund used a matrix format to map organisational objectives against the Code. The matrix is contained in the Practical Tools section. Case study Auditing current practice For their social audit process RedR incorporated the following sources of their current audit practice: Appraisals Debrieng Post assignment assessment forms AGM forum sessions Informal contact with members Newsletter Annual review Annual budget Feedback from training courses Information gathered at workshops Report on activities to committee (later changed to Board of trustees)
Current audit practice

To make efcient use of audit practices that already exist in your organisation you will need to review the way in which you currently evaluate your HR management systems. This will enable you to integrate implementation of the Code with existing procedures and avoid duplication. You should identify: What you report on already Existing record keeping Discussions and meetings that already occur Surveys and questionnaires of staff
Potential information gaps in current activities Current systems that might be in place include: Annual reports / reviews AGMs Members / supporters forums Management information / reports Proposals Evaluations / donor reports Newsletters Regional / country reports Technical reports Exit interviews Each of these provides potential sources of information for evaluation against the Code. If they are used, it is important to record the sources for the use of the auditor.
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 | Page3
Identifying key areas for measurement

The People In Aid Code contains generic indicators that will direct you to look at specic aspects of HR practice. These are all covered in the Employee Stakeholder Review Questionnaire. Employee Stakeholder Review Questionnaire It is important, however, that your organisation determines at this stage of the process the key areas that it needs to focus on and measure: they are likely to be those areas that will have a signicant impact on wider organisational objectives. Start dening key performance areas as soon as possible to ensure that the relevant data is available from the start of the reporting period. Limit the areas to a manageable number, concentrating on those aspects that give a clear picture of the impact on organisational performance. Having identied the key areas you should start to develop performance measures. This process of dening measures will generally continue through the period of stakeholder dialogue and data analysis as new information emerges. The measures you develop may be: Organisational evaluating the extent to which the organisation fulls its commitments in relation to its policies and objectives Stakeholder measuring the extent to which the organisation lives up to the expectations of the stakeholder group Benchmarks comparisons either within the organisation, over time, or with the performance of other organisations. It is important that measures are developed in conjunction with the relevant managers in order to promote ownership and commitment to continuous improvement. Some of the issues important to stakeholders may be difcult to measure; for example, trust, respect, or fairness. Simply asking respondents questions such as To what extent do you trust the organisation? can provide comparative data to show whether trust has increased or decreased over time, but will not provide information about how to improve trust. Qualitative consultation can be used to uncover the aspects of the organisations performance that inuence trust and, by measuring these, will enable the organisation to improve its performance in these areas. Benchmarking
Measurement and data gathering

Once the key areas for data gathering have been identied, collection of the data should begin. Much of the information will already be available. In some cases investigation will be necessary to nd the source, and in others new collection mechanisms may be required in order to provide some of the data. Responsibility for collection of the data should remain with those responsible for that area; this will promote ownership, help to ensure completeness of the data and will strengthen the commitment to any remedial or developmental action that may be appropriate following analysis of the data.
Page4 | Stage2
People In Aid 2006
Stakeholder dialogue
Choosing a type of stakeholder dialogue
The relationship between stakeholders and the organisation can be explored in two ways: Qualitatively: Using discussion to discover stakeholders perception and key issues (e.g. focus groups) Quantitatively: Numerical measurement that can be compared against targets or benchmarks (e.g. questionnaires) Ideally both methods should be used for all stakeholder groups, but this may not be feasible, practical or appropriate. It is important to select the most appropriate methodology for the consultation. There are several different methods to choose from: Interviews Focus groups Panels Questionnaires Big stakeholder meetings Telephone research
Case study Methods for stakeholder engagement When Concern Worldwide originally implemented the Code it decided that with a wide range of staff dispersed around the world, many hired locally and having a limited grasp of English, some of the stakeholder dialogue should be in the form of focus groups held in the local language or dialect, rather than in the form of a global universal survey or questionnaire. With that in mind, a framework for dialogue was developed and focus groups were used to complement the survey itself, and provide an opportunity for different levels of staff to respond in an appropriate manner. Care was taken to ensure issues such as management hierarchy, age, ethnicity and gender were respected and posed no barriers to dialogue. The content of the focus groups mirrored that of the survey to provide as much consistency as possible with regard to data collection. For their stakeholder review in 2005, Concern successfully used a global questionnaire which it translated extensively to ensure that locally hired staff could respond in their own language.
The method selected will vary according to the target stakeholder group and the situation in which it is being used. For practical or logistical reasons it may be necessary to use a sampling technique rather than involving the entire stakeholder group. In this case it is important to ensure there is adequate representation in the sample population, whichever consultation method is selected. Further guidance on sampling is available from People In Aid Aspects and benets of various stakeholder dialogue methods Engaging Stakeholders: Action Planning Sheet Selecting Engagement Methods People In Aid Employee Stakeholder Review Questionnaire Using Questionnaires
Analysing the data

There are a number of levels against which you should analyse the data you collect.
Step 1
For questionnaires the information needs to be data processed this involves: Inputting the data into a spreadsheet for example Excel or an analysis package such as SPSS. Outsourcing the data processing may be cost effective if there is high volume, while small surveys may be analysed in-house. People In Aid is continually developing resources and practical support in this area.
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 | Page5
Having input the data it should be checked for quality we recommend a minimum of 20% random checking to ensure that the data is accurate The questionnaire needs to consider cross breaks the differences in results according to role, location etc any questions asked in the classication section. This allows agencies to develop actions accordingly It is recommended that the data is presented in tables to allow for clear analysis in stage two Graphical representation of the data is highly recommended in the nal report For focus groups the results need to be reviewed in an objective way and brought together to reect the most common ndings. A degree of quantitative analysis may be possible depending on the structure used and the content.
Step 2
On the basis of the information collected through the dialogue and review process (questionnaires or focus groups), you will need to: Review performance against vision, values and targets set Review performance against each of the Principles of the Code Identify any issues that have been missed Review cross stakeholder issues Use the evaluation of performance to develop targets for improving future performance
It is inevitable that an organisation will focus on particular ndings and / or Principles and this weighting should aim to be as objective as possible to ensure a balanced, unbiased view. The independent auditor has an important role in ensuring that the report which presents the data is balanced, and will offer additional feedback once the report has been compiled by the organisation.
Developing targets
Having analysed the data you should have a clear picture of: Aspects of the Code that you are performing well on and simply need to maintain Aspects of the Code that you are not doing so well on and are a priority for your organisation Aspects of the Code that you are not doing so well on and are less of a priority for your organisation Aspects of the Code that you are not addressing at all Other issues that may be of concern to you or your staff in terms of people management This will give you a structure for prioritisation of target setting and subsequent action planning. Both actions and targets need to be SMART specic, measurable, achievable, realistic, timely. The independent auditor will give you feedback on whether your targets are sufciently challenging or too much so. In addition, the targets should be developed in conjunction with the person / people accountable for their delivery they too will have a view of how SMART they are. When developing targets keep in mind that the Code and the social audit process are continuous
Page6 | Stage2
People In Aid 2006
improvement tools and therefore performance areas should be stretching, to allow for growth and development.
Action planning
Action planning needs to be done in conjunction with target development and like targets, actions need to be SMART. The action plan will need to be integrated with other organisational planning processes. It will be included in the report and forms the basis for continuous improvement activity in Stage 4.
Key factors to consider when action planning are:

Managing expectations Communicating results Alignment with existing initiatives Confronting issues on which there will be no change Prioritising (see above) Incorporating quick wins and longer term gains Organisational action and local action are important Involving your staff in development of actions they will have something to offer Setting objectives and using the social auditing process to measure against the Code on an ongoing basis Communicating progress regularly Linking action to feedback from the dialogue process
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 | Page7
Do
4 Be clear about the benets to your organisation 4 Ensure effective consultation with international / eld staff 4 Manage stakeholder expectations keep them updated 4 Be clear about who your stakeholders are and understand how they relate to organisational strategy 4 Consider practical aspects of consulting various groups and in different regions 4 Allocate sufcient resources for data analysis 4 Capture learning as you go through the process 4 Ask People In Aid for guidance during this stage 4 Think about the timing of consultation, either linking in with, or avoiding, other initiatives or internal events 4 Incorporate time and resources for implementation of actions
Dont
6 Underestimate the time and effort required for stakeholder consultation 6 Overlook cultural factors, or make assumptions about them 6 Forget to plan how you will feed back the ndings to stakeholders 6 Create a separate, additional system of auditing that does not complement the organisations operations 6 End the process once the data has been collected, failing to incorporate action planning

Human Resources
Be the driving force behind the stakeholder dialogue Take ownership of identifying stakeholders, designing tools for dialogue, managing the overall process, analysing the data and generating insights and action plans Participate fully in the dialogue process and provide honest and objective feedback Follow-up and monitor progress as per agreed deliverables and timeframes Ensure problem-solving happens as and when required by the project team Take ownership of gathering relevant data and dening performance measures
Stakeholders Senior Management

Departmental Managers
Page8 | Stage2
People In Aid 2006
Timelines
Identify stakeholders Management review, identify key areas and define performance measures Select method and plan stakeholder dialogue Stakeholder dialogue Analyse data Defining targets and Action planning
Key
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 | Page9
FAQs
How do we get feedback from people working short-term? The audit period (normally a year) needs to be specied and the measurement relating to that period is a snapshot of your organisation at that time, so should be representative of staff that are employed during that period. Short-term and contracting employees need to be incorporated into any dialogue or questionnaire you are undertaking. You should also think about other mechanisms to capture views of short-term and contracting staff on an ongoing basis. Many organisations already use post-assignment reviews and exit interviews and this information should be incorporated into the social audit ndings. How do we deal with concerns about condentiality? Engaging with stakeholders can result in very sensitive feedback being given, and therefore its important to give, and abide by, assurances that data will be anonymised and will not be attributed. Ways of ensuring condentiality might include, making sure that raw data is only received and handled by, for example, one member of HR accustomed to observing condentiality. Put appropriate safeguards in place to keep the data secure, and inform people what these measures are. Care should be given to preparing the report, and how data will be presented in a way that preserves anonymity. Where can I get guidance on sampling, administering my survey, running focus groups, analysing data? People In Aid has a range of resources available and if you dont have the relevant expertise within your organisation we can also put you in touch with experts in these elds.
Page10 | Stage2
People In Aid 2006
Stage2
Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 Factsheets |
Stakeholder mapping
Accountability is about explaining the organisations policies, decisions, actions and their impacts to the people who are affected or who otherwise have a material interest in the organisations behaviour. These people may be described as stakeholders. In the case of the People In Aid Code of Good Practice, the primary stakeholders are the organisations managers and its workers, paid or voluntary. Secondary stakeholders, who may have an interest in HR policies and practices, will include: partner organisations working in the eld; People in Aid; current and prospective funding bodies; potential recruits; public supporters and donors; other development and humanitarian relief agencies and the news media. If the organisation is to be accountable for its actions to its stakeholders it is necessary for managers to have a clear understanding of: i. who the stakeholders are ii. how they relate to the organisation iii. whether, and how, different categories of stakeholders relate to one another iv. the importance of the relationship both to the organisation and to each category of stakeholders v. key parameters of the relationship in terms of the type of impact the behaviour of the organisation might have on stakeholders and the behaviour of stakeholders might have on the organisation, e.g. nancial impacts, impacts on the organisations ability to deliver against its mission and objectives; impacts on the daily lives and human rights of individuals or communities; environmental, health and safety impacts. A useful way of describing these relationships is a stakeholder map. Rather than merely listing stakeholder categories and the parameters of their relationships, a stakeholder map provides a graphic visualisation of the organisation, as a whole, including its stakeholders. The gures below illustrate some different approaches to stakeholder mapping. Some include pictorial representations of the organisations activity or are based on its logo. None are authorised representations of the organisation named, but are selected from workshops conducted with the organisation.
Simple stakeholder map

Clients/women
Community
Mahila Kalyan
Employees
Donors
ii | Stage2 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
The simple stakeholder map gives a rather atomistic view of the organisation as something almost self-contained relating to its stakeholders as quite separate, independent entities.
Complex stakeholder map

Permeable boundary map of stakeholders
Natural Environment
Village Workers Banks Group Leaders
Donors
Management Board Staff
Government Funding Agencies Youth
Clients
Other local NGOs Panchayat District Offices
Womens Groups
Community
Womens Communities
In the reality of most organisations, and especially NGOs and peoples organisations, these hard boundaries between different players do not exist. Very often we nd it difcult to be at all precise about the denition of our organisations who is part of the organisation and who is outside it. A better illustration is the one below, with a permeable organisation boundary. The boundary can shift to include more or fewer of the stakeholders. More complex maps of stakeholder relationships also help us visualise better where relationships and interests overlap and how power works within the organisation.
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 Factsheets | iii
Using questionnaires
Questionnaires are a good way of gathering qualitative data from a large sample. The majority of agencies piloting the Code used questionnaire research to give them a clear indication of performance levels relating to each Principle. This section outlines general rules of thumb when using questionnaires. People In Aid has also developed a generic questionnaire, relating to the Code, for agencies to adapt to their needs. (See Practical Tools) Guidelines on questionnaire design 1. Carry out initial interviews among different groups of employees, to learn their language and ways of looking at the issues the survey will cover. Remember if the survey is all in your terms and not in theirs, the information you gain will not truly represent their views 2. Beware of ambiguous words: e.g. read a publication does this mean see, glance through, read one article, read half of it, read every word, read each issue or read some issues? 3. Avoid phrasing questions as if there were a right and a wrong answer e.g. when did the last issue come out? Rather, make it clear throughout that you are seeking respondents own opinions and experiences 4. Avoid emotive words and leading questions 5. Be careful of negative questions, especially using double negatives 6. Be conscious of respondents tendencies to try to please the interviewer and to ascribe high prestige views or habits to themselves 7. Be polite. Ask, rather than order at every stage in the questionnaire 8. Rotate the order of options on multiple choice questions where there are more than seven options 9. Keep questions short and use ordinary words 10. Make the questions look attractive and easy to follow 11. Most importantly of all, pilot it. Initially, use small groups covering a cross-section of the population to be surveyed. Ask them to complete the draft questionnaire and afterwards question them: a. to see if they read the questions as you intend b. whether there are any ambiguities or things that were difcult to understand c. check the replies to make sure that they answered as you expected in open ended questions d. ask the respondents whether the multiple choice options represented their views e. try analysing the results. Check that they are giving you the information you seek f. time questionnaire completion. If it takes more than twenty minutes to complete respondents concentration will wane, adversely affecting replies, and if completed questionnaires are to be mailed back, the response rate will be low.
Source: Surveys and Consultancy Diagnostic Unit, The Work Foundation
iv | Stage2 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
Benchmarking
Benchmarking may be dened as a systematic, rigorous, ongoing examination of an organisations products, services, processes, practices and performance measured against those organisations identied as the best. It involves searching for industry best practices which lead to superior performance. There are no limitations on the search; the more creative the thinking the greater the potential reward.
Why Benchmark?
Learning from others Best Practice Using comparative information to convince the Board Comparisons to put results in context and ensure correct priorities To make you feel comfortable with your results To set goals (e.g. to become world class) that are realistic as they have already been achieved by someone else Benchmarking is complex and can be done at a number of levels. The way that you benchmark will depend on what you want to compare and why. Benchmarking can be done internally and externally
Internal benchmarking can provide:

Historical comparisons this trend tracking is valuable when looking for improvement or evaluating a change. For example, how well informed people feel before and after introducing a communication strategy Departmental comparisons to share best practice across the organisation
External benchmarking
Gives you comparisons with other organisation(s). This can be done on a number of levels (as can internal benchmarking), but for the Code we envisage that this will focus on two areas: Benchmarking data. Making comparisons based on common data collection methods between People In Aid members Benchmarking specic processes. e.g. using process maps to track how individual agencies enhance HR performance against the Code Typical areas for HR benchmarking are recruitment, training, retention and absenteeism. A recruitment benchmarking survey will measure things like cost, time and speed of hiring a candidate; a training benchmarking exercise might count the number of training days per employee. In some cases the statistics relating to the selected areas will be readily available, but in others the source will need to be identied and a data collection system put in place. For more information on HR benchmarking see www.peopleinaid.org
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 Factsheets |
vi | Stage2 Factsheets
People In Aid 2006
Stage2
Practical tools
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 Practical tools |
Mapping organisational objectives against Code

Tearfunds objectives mapped against the original Code of Best Practice (1997)
Corporate Training Team IPT Objectives Objectives Objectives Principle 1

4 2 2 Corporate recognition (implicit rather (Appendix 4, (Objectives that people integral to than explicit) pp 37 & 38) 1 & 4) success
DRT Objectives
UK Personnel Objectives
4 1 (Implicit in (Appendix 3, Objectives 3 & 4 p.30) and headline 2)
Principle 2
HR policies aim for Best Practice
3 2 (References to staff under Personal Touch but could be more explicit)
1 (Appendix 3, p.11 and Purpose & Vision)
4 (Implicit in objective 4 and headline 3)
Principle 3
2 2 3 4 HR policies aim to be (pp.9, 14 & 15) (Emphasis on effective, efcient, fair effectiveness & & transparent efciency, but no transparent feedback)
Principle 4
Consult eld staff on HR policy development
2 4 (pp.8, 9 & 10 - could be more explicit)
3 (Objective 4; appendix 4, p.15)
Principle 5
3 3 1 2 Plans & budgets reect (p.9 & training (signicant responsibilities to budget) budget eld staff allocation)
Principle 6
3 2 3 4 Provide appropriate (p. 14) (Objective 3) (Implicit in (Implicit, but training & support objectives could be more 2 & 4) explicit)
Principle 7
4 3 Take all reasonable steps to ensure staff security & well-being
Well-being 1 Security 4
Key: 1 = excellent 2 = good 3 = satisfactory 4 = poor 5 = very poor
ii | Stage2 Practical tools
People In Aid 2006
Reviewing objectives, policies and activities against the Code

Matrix of current performance against the People In Aid Code of Good Practice scores are for illustration only
Mandate, Strategic Mission & Value Objectives statements

3 3
HR Strategy
HR policy
HR Activity
Guiding Principle
People are central to achievement of our mission
Principle 1
Human Resources Strategy
3-4
Principle 2
Staff Policies and Practices 2 2 1
Principle 3
Managing People
Principle 4
Consultation and Communication 2 2 3
Principle 5
Recruitment and Selection
Principle 6
Learning Training and Development 2 5 4
Principle 7
Health, Safety and Security Key: 1 = excellent 2 = good 3 = satisfactory 4 = poor 5 = very poor 2 4 3
Matrix designed by Mission East
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 Practical tools | iii
Aspects and benets of various stakeholder dialogue methods

Consultation Method
Interviews
Methodology
Usually 1:1 discussions Follow a discussion guide, but allow free owing discussion
Used for:
Exploring new subject areas In depth discussion of issues Policy development Providing a stakeholder view of controversial issues, perhaps while the strategy is under development
Focus Groups
Facilitated discussion for between 8 and 12 participants Follow a discussion guide, but allow free owing discussion
Exploring new subject areas In depth discussion of issues Resolving tensions between stakeholder groups Providing a stakeholder view of controversial issues, perhaps while the strategy is under development Identication and prioritisation of key issues Enables stakeholders to be broken down into sub groups (for example by demographic prole)
Panels
Facilitated groups that meet more than once Often comprising of representatives of a stakeholder group
Developing opinions on key issues over time Providing a stakeholder view of controversial issues, perhaps while the strategy is under development Indicator development and target setting
Questionnaires
Can be quantitative, qualitative or, more usually, a mixture
Measurement against indicators Benchmarking Assessing the views of a wide / diverse / inaccessible population Allows broad and deep classication of stakeholders
Big Stakeholder Meetings Facilitated meetings across stakeholder groups
Resolution of particular issues / conicts Exploration of cross stakeholder solutions
Telephone Research
Mixture of open questions and rating questionnaire type approach
Allows access to stakeholders in their own environment with limited time Very resource intensive Particularly good for inuencing groups / secondary stakeholders
iv | Stage2 Practical tools
People In Aid 2006
People In Aid 2006
(used with the permission of the Environment Council)

What are the most effective ways to engage them in the Code? What barriers to engaging your stakeholders do you anticipate, and how can you overcome them? What is your next step, and when will you do this?
Engaging Stakeholders: Action Planning Sheet
Who are your key stakeholders?
Stage2 Practical tools |
Selecting Engagement Methods

In order to engage your stakeholders effectively, it is important to identify the critical environmental factors within your organisation that may help or hinder your ability to engage. For example, is your organisational culture receptive to participative ways of working? Using the table below: 1. Think about your organisation and the critical environmental factors that may help or hinder your initiative. The list below is not exhaustive there is space for you to add factors particular to your organisation. 2. Think about the ways in which you might maximise the factors that are helpful, and minimise the factors that are hindrances. 3. Consider which engagement tools and methods are most likely to succeed in your organisational environment. Critical Environmental Factors
Organisational culture and values Language Size of the organisation Budget available Time available Infrastructure
Help
Hindrance
vi | Stage2 Practical tools
People In Aid 2006
Questionnaire on the Principles of the People In Aid Code

The questionnaire below is a generic survey on the People In Aid Code principles. It is the approved questionnaire for agencies auditing their performance against the People In Aid Code. Using this questionnaire will assist in establishing a benchmark database held by People In Aid. Core or pulse questions enable at a glance analysis of Code implementation, and subsequent mini (or pulse) surveys provide useful indicators of implementation progress, and benchmarks for external comparison with other organisations.
Adapting the questionnaire

This specimen questionnaire gives you a comprehensive range of questions that should be included in an employee engagement survey designed to evaluate the implementation of the People In Aid Code. The questions do not have to appear in the order given in the specimen questionnaire, but, in this version, and for ease of reference, the code principles and question sub-coding have been included to demonstrate how detailed analysis can be gathered on relevant themes. In addition to core questions, it is recommended that individual agencies take the opportunity to incorporate additional questions on specic topical issues, as this is a good way of getting wider feedback on performance. Equally, if other surveys are being undertaken during the period of the review, these questions should be incorporated into those questionnaires.
Condentiality
Engagement survey responses should be condential, and any comments kept unattributed.
Support available?
People In Aid is continually adding to the range of resources available to assist agencies with employee engagement - for an electronic copy of the latest template questionnaire, and user guidance, please email info@peopleinaid.org.
People In Aid 2006
Stage2 Practical tools | vii
Employee stakeholder review questionnaire

Pri Ques nc tio ipl n e # Qu es Su tio ns bC od Co ing Str No on V tv gly Do ery Im . im i re D n m gly D p i t p s i N /P s o po K a A o ag a e uls ree gree ithe gree gree now rtan rtant rtant e t r Str on
PERCEPTION IMPORTANCE
P1 P1 P1
1 2 3
I am proud to tell people that I work for this agency I feel that my work contributes to the organisations performance I would wholeheartedly recommend this organisation to my friends as a good place to work People here are treated equally irrespective of ethnicity, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion The agency demonstrates by its actions that it cares about its staff The agency has strong values and operates to high ethical standards This agency inspires loyalty and commitment amongst its staff The agency strikes the right balance in meeting its obligations to staff, beneciaries and other stakeholders I am clear how my role contributes to the agencys objectives
engagement pulse meaning engagement pulse
P1
culture
P1 P1 P1 P1
5 6 7 8
culture culture engagement culture
pulse
P1 P1 P1 P1 P2
clarity
core/pulse core
10 The agency is committed to the People code In Aid code 11 The agency is concerned with learning from past experience and improving 12 I feel my contribution at the agency is valued 13 I am fairly rewarded compared to others in the organisation who do similar work culture meaning reward
core/pulse
P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P3 P3 P3
viii | Stage2
14 I am fairly rewarded for the contribution reward I make in my job 15 My pay is competitive compared with other similar organisations 16 The agency tries to do more than the basic minimum for staff 17 I am familiar with agency policies and procedures which affect me 18 I am aware of the disciplinary and grievance procedures 19 I have the authority that I need to do my job reward culture policies policies discretion
pulse
core core
pulse pulse pulse
20 Job demands do not conict more with pressure my private life than I expected 21 Colleagues trust and respect each other 22 I feel that I make a positive impact through the work that I do 23 I have a close relationship with colleagues at work colleagues meaning colleagues
People In Aid 2006
Pri Ques nc tio ipl n e #
Qu
es
Su tio ns
bC
od
Co ing
Str No on V tv gly Do ery Im . im i re D n m gly D p i t p s i N /P s o po K a A o ag a e uls ree gree ithe gree gree now rtan rtant rtant e t r Str on
P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
24 I receive support and encouragement from colleagues at work 25 I trust and respect my immediate manager 26 I understand the performance standards that are expected of me 27 My manager consistently behaves with integrity 29 My manager provides me with regular timely feedback that helps me improve my performance 30 My manager trusts me to use my judgement and experience 31 My work is nor subjected to excessive scrutiny and checking 32 The judgements made about my performance are fair and unbiased 33 My work objectives are clear to me 34 I feel supported in my role by my manager 35 I am given the tools and information necessary for me to do my job effectively 36 I am not afraid to openly express my views and opinions 37 The agency listens to my views 38 My manager is open to new ideas and suggestions 39 My manager makes sure I am up to date with what is happening elsewhere in the organisation
colleagues manager clarity manager pulse
28 My manager inspires me to do my best manager manager pulse
P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P4
discretion discretion manager clarity manager capability
pulse
core/pulse core/pulse core/pulse core/pulse
P4 P4 P4 P4
culture culture manager manager
core/pulse core
pulse
P4 P4 P4 P4 P5 P5 P5 P5 P5
40 The agency practices open and honest culture communication and shares information 41 The People In Aid Code has been communicated to all staff 42 I understand the People In Aid Code 43 I believe the agency will act on the ndings of this survey 44 Doing this job makes me feel good about myself 45 I feel that I can be myself at work 46 I receive prompt acknowledgement and recognition for doing good work 47 My health sometimes suffers because of pressure at work 48 My personal values are not compromised by the work that I do
People In Aid 2006
code code culture identity identity manager pressure identity
core core
pulse
Stage2 Practical tools | ix
Pri Ques nc tio ipl n e #
Qu
es
Su tio ns
bC
od
Co ing
Str No on V tv gly Do ery Im . im i re gly Ne Disa Disa nt K mpo por por /P A a t gre gre ith gre gre no rta t uls w nt ant ant e e er e e e Str on
P5 P5 P5 P5 P6 P6 P6
49 The agency has a written procedure for policies recruiting staff 50 The recruitment process shows the agency is committed to diversity 51 The selection process is fair 52 Promotion is decided on merit alone 53 My role allows me to make full use of my talents and experience 54 My manager is committed to my learning and development 55 I have spent time with my manager to identify my learning and development needs 56 This agency provides staff with good opportunities for promotion and advancement 57 My induction gave me a good understanding of the agency 58 I have received any necessary training to do my job 59 The agency provides relevant learning and development opportunities for staff 60 I believe the agency is committed to helping staff develop their individual potential culture process process capability development development core core core pulse
P6
development
P6 P6 P6
process capability development pulse core
P6
development
pulse
P7 P7 P7 P7
61 The agency gives a high priority to staff health & welfare, health, safety and security safety 62 The agency takes debrieng seriously 63 I feel able to share any concerns with my manager 64 I have received a thorough brieng on security, personal health, insurance and emergency procedures 65 I receive briengs on new equipment and updated security situations 66 I am aware of my own responsibilities inside my team regarding the risks around me 67 I know how to report an accident or injury 68 The agency makes good use of the information from debrieng 69 I am satised with time-off arrangements during current/most recent contract 70 I often work longer than my contracted hours 71 The agency strives to help staff achieve a meaningful work / life balance policies manager health & safety health & safety policies
core
core
P7 P7
P7 P7 P7
health & safety policies policies
core
P7 P7
pressure policies
72 Open question: Do you have any ther comments relating to how you are managed, general human resources issues or the People In Aid Code?
| Stage2 People In Aid 2006
S e 3 ta
Stage3
Reporting and auditing
Aim
Communication. Feedback to stakeholders, the organisation and People In Aid.
ent em ov r p
Co m
Contin uou si
ge
4 Sta
m it
&
au diti ng
er old h e Stak
Key roles
Human Resources Senior Management (e.g. Board) Implementation manager Independent auditor People In Aid
Key outcomes
1. Report for auditor prepared and submitted 2. Audit process undertaken 3. Feedback communicated to stakeholders 4. Second kitemark awarded by People In Aid
Key steps
Preparing the report
Collate the data Decide the format Identify key issues Write the report
Verification of the process

Prepare for the audit before the auditor comes During the audit After the audit
2nd kitemark
Communication
People In Aid decision on award of second kitemark, on the basis of the auditors statement and the agencys report.
Awareness Ownership Feedback
People In Aid 2006
Stage3 | Page1
en ga gem
2 Sta
en t
m
t en
ge
1 Sta
ge
in ort Rep
Preparing the report

The purpose of the report is to inform people, who are interested in, employed by or otherwise involved in, or affected by your organisation, about how you manage your staff and the extent to which the organisation complies with the principles of the People In Aid Code of Good Practice. The report should be as brief as possible - actual writing begins with collating the data that has been collected. It tends to be more manageable to report on each stakeholder or Principle in turn, although it is important to review cross stakeholder / Principle issues. This process involves: 1. Assigning a writing team this is usually led by the implementation manager and involves those who have been close to the dialogue process and understand the issues. 2. Final collation of data 3. Identifying key issues these need to be done for each stakeholder from the dialogue process. Performance on these issues should also have been reviewed as part of the process and these ndings need to be presented in the report (predicted versus actual, the management perspective and the stakeholders perspective). Any additional indicators outside the People In Aid Code that may evolve from the dialogue process should also be reported, with a commitment to measure against them in subsequent social audit review cycles. 4. Writing the report in an accessible form combining data, tables, quotes and examples. 5. Developing recommendations and targets for moving forward. This needs to happen in conjunction with the senior management team to ensure their buy-in and ownership of actions to be taken. These commitments should also be incorporated in the report.
Key factors to consider when writing a report for People In Aid

Consider your key HR issues in relation to the principles of the Code Decide on the basic format of the report Keep the language simple and accessible think about the stakeholder audience for the report Focus on the report as a method of communication Include a mechanism for gathering further feedback Think about sourcing additional information the web is generally used for this, but some organisations also produce stakeholder specic documents, utilising existing mechanisms etc. Incorporate some measures of success Include comparative information, where possible, against previous performance and external benchmarks against the Code Include actions to be taken to address areas for improvement Make a clear commitment to ongoing reporting, with a timescale (1 year, 2 year cycle etc) Reect back against the Principles of the Code, this will often support the reporting format
Page2 | Stage3 People In Aid 2006
Consider how the report will be circulated, how many copies are required, etc. A summary version may be more appropriate for some stakeholders Consider how the design may enhance the messages conveyed by the report Utilise existing resources, if possible, e.g. annual reports Remember that once the report has been veried, the independent auditors statement will be incorporated into the report During the reporting process it is also useful to reect on the principles of social and ethical accounting from the AA1000 process, which are described in the Social Audit Fact Sheet Social Audit Fact Sheet (see stage 1) The principles provide a summary of the components that make a report of this nature complete and effective and will help when the auditor reviews the report.
Case study Producing the report Tearfund included a complete account of the ndings and the documentation involved. They felt that this ensured that the report was comprehensive and transferable across the organisation and gave a full reection of what happened. This enhanced its usefulness internally. The following appendices were included: Sample questionnaire Sample internal survey Questionnaire results Overview of questionnaire results Overall results from eld staff questionnaire Internal survey of Tearfund personnel managers (internal questionnaire) Comparison of eld staff responses by category Report on trends in de-briengs Attrition rates Insurance tables Review of corporate objectives against Code Mission and values statement Terms of reference Minutes of pilot group meetings
Format of the report

Although there are some elements that every report should include (detailed below), the format is exible, dependent on the organisations focus. The key decision is whether to approach it from a stakeholder or Principle perspective. It is generally simpler to take each Principle and look at the specic measures and issues. However there will be cross-cutting issues that need to be considered. Segmentation can be on the basis of: Stakeholder Issue Principles of the People In Aid Code Geographical region Organisational values and objectives Other appropriate methods Executive summary Summary of recommendations Background to the audit Details of your organisation Stakeholder analysis The process that you went through Additional feedback on performance not linked to specic principles
You should consider including the following elements:
A Report Template is included in the Toolkit for this section. Report template Incorporating links to samples of the documentation used during the process will enable you to present a complete record of what happened and also helps you and the auditor when it comes to the process of verication.
Key things the auditor looks for and possible stumbling blocks
Key things the auditor is looking for That the process of consultation with employees is sufcient to provide a fair reection of performance against the Code
The quality, extent and sources of the data on which the report was based The completeness of the response to the People In Aid Code The embeddedness of the data collection systems Whether the report gives a reliable and balanced view of the agencys performance Possible stumbling blocks Failing to incorporate improvement measures (continuous improvement is the key driver for auditing against the Code) Lack of a clear denition of the audience of the People In Aid Code in your organisation (structures vary and consultation must reect those structures) Lack of cross referencing where the Code overlaps (e.g. where one piece of data covers several of the principles laid out in the case) Insufcient records of sourcing information, benchmarks, meeting minutes etc Omitting key pieces of information from the report relating to performance
Verication of the process

The purpose
An independent auditor provides People In Aid with assurance that the report submitted by organisations using the People In Aid Code: covers all signicant aspects of their performance in relation to the People In Aid Code is a fair and balanced presentation of this performance shows that there is reasonable evidence to support the statements made.
The audit process

People In Aid contracts the auditor, or assurance provider. When you feel ready, call People In Aid who will help you arrange for the auditor to contact you, review your draft report and plan a visit to your ofce. An audit normally takes around 4 days, i.e. a day of desk based preparation before the visit, a couple of days for the audit itself (spent at your organisation) and a day to prepare and agree the audit report (or assurance statement). The audit process is then as follows: 1. Auditor receives a draft copy of the report. 2. Auditor reviews draft - any issues or queries are addressed by the organisation prior to the audit visit itself. 3. Auditor visits to: interview the People In Aid implementation manager and other senior staff (HR and operations) about the contents of the report consult stakeholder representatives to corroborate stakeholder survey ndings or their interpretation by the agency review and where considered appropriate by auditor, examine in detail the evidence supporting claims in the report understand the system for generating People In Aid Code performance data Identify any further evidence and documentation for later examination.
Page4 | Stage3 People In Aid 2006
4. Auditor makes recommendations on changes to report / need for additional information. 5. Auditor prepares an audit report (following re-draft) giving an overview of the audit process and ndings.
The auditors role

The auditor veries the process of evaluation against the Code and provides People In Aid with assurance on the quality of that process and of the report. The overall judgement of the auditor will vary, but generally reects a combination of: Quality assurance (with consideration to the fairness and accuracy of pieces of information included in the report, for example, reviewing questionnaire statistics to ensure that data presented is correct. This is important for hard data such as employment statistics) Qualitative review of the scope and quality of the process, including a review of levels of performance of the organisation against the People In Aid Code: for example, reviewing and commenting on any stakeholder groups that have been omitted Consideration of the inclusivity of the process and reporting Feedback on the balance of the report The auditor will write an assurance statement that reects their view of the quality of the report and any caveats to the assurance process. For more information on the reporting process and the role of the auditor, see the slides on Auditing People In Aid Reports. Auditing People In Aid Reports
Preparing for the auditor

Before the audit Maintain a robust audit trail: Keep a record of all the data that you collect and its sources Record where all related data comes from (reference documents, HR records etc) Record when data was recorded / collated and any timeframes that it relates to Keep records of key decisions e.g. meeting minutes Be prepared to share relevant background information with the auditor: for example, annual reports, publicity material. For the audit visit Send a draft nal report to the auditor Provide information on your audit trail Gather all data, sources, references that relate to data in the report Prepare to be interviewed by the auditor and arrange for him to see other senior staff members in HR Be available on the day in order to source other information that the auditor might need After the audit Consider the recommendations from the auditor Re-draft the report incorporating recommendations and send it to the auditor
Case study Effective communication Mission East took care to use every available communication channel to inform and update stakeholders on the process of implementation, with their Managing Director taking the lead and initiating the communication process. A letter to all staff introduced People In Aid and the implementation plan, and the regular weekly e-bulletin from Head Ofce kept staff up to date and informed. Early in the process, a People In Aid advisor contributed an article to the internal newsletter to help sell the benets, and answer any queries and concerns, and this also triggered some useful internal debate. Regular updates were posted on Mission Easts public website and information briengs were circulated to key staff members. The special edition of the internal newsletter as well as external magazines complemented that information. All staff were made aware of emerging information and results generated by the implementation process by way of presentations, written reports and a specially designed PowerPoint presentation for use in eld locations. Effective communications helped staff expectations to remain realistic, and kept all stakeholders informed about and committed to the implementation process.
Check factual information when the report is returned to you, by the auditor, with his audit statement. The auditor will send a copy of the report and their assurance statement to People In Aid.
Kitemark Veried compliant with the People In Aid Code

Once the audit has taken place, People In Aid will review the organisations report and the auditors assurance statement. The decision as to whether the second kitemark may be awarded depends on the evidence presented to show that the organisation is complying with the Code, and takes into account the following criteria: Has the auditor conrmed compliance? Is the organisation complying with membership criteria, including payments? Is there evidence that the criteria for the rst kitemark have been met? The organisation will be informed verbally of People In Aids decision, and the decision conrmed in writing. The kitemark is awarded for a period of 3 years at which point the organisation is expected to submit a new report to People In Aid for review, based on a new cycle of stakeholder engagement.
Communication
Communication with all members of the organisation remains crucial during this stage of the cycle, in order to maximise the benets and outcomes of consulting with stakeholders. The three objectives of this communication are: Awareness: building on the earlier communications about the implementation process, to inform everyone of the purpose and timetable of the independent audit and how it ts into the overall process. Ownership: ensuring that the organisation as a whole take ownership of the outcomes of the audit. In order for the stakeholder consultation to be truly effective it must be seen as an integral element of the organisations strategy, rather than a peripheral, short-lived initiative. Feedback: of the outcomes of the consultation process and proposals for action to address the key issues identied. Face to face brieng by a senior manager or Director is an effective method of demonstrating the importance with which the organisation views the social audit: it also enables further dialogue with opportunities for questions and clarication.
Page6 | Stage3
People In Aid 2006
Do
4 Keep accurate records 4 Ensure the report is complete, balanced and transparent 4 Integrate communication on the Code with existing processes / media
Dont
6 Omit key evidence from the report 6 Overlook any aspects of the original scope as dened in Stage 1 6 Avoid or hide difcult issues

Human Resources
Write the report / coordinate and vet the report-writing process to ensure that the report is accurate, detailed and representative Share the report with the relevant people internally Evaluate the report and understand the ndings and implications Communicate the ndings in the report and the audit ndings to stakeholders Reviews the report, undertakes the audit and makes their recommendation to People In Aid Reviews the agency report and audit report / assurance statement from the independent auditor, and awards the second kitemark as appropriate
Senior Management

Independent Auditor People In Aid
Timelines
Collate records on key performance measures Action planning Report on performance Audit by independent auditor and decision by People In Aid Communication and disclosure
Key
People In Aid 2006
Stage3 | Page7
FAQs
The term Audit is considered a turn off, especially in Human Resources. Why is it important and can we call it something else? Social auditing is a developing methodology that has been tailored to assess performance against the Code. The process of implementing the Code incorporates evaluation of performance against the Principles and Indicators through consultation with stakeholders. This concludes with a report which provides the basis for future actions - and an audit. The audit itself is a verication of the evaluation. So the verier will want to establish whether the process is robust, where the data came from and if it is accurate etc. The term verication is predominantly used, rather than audit. However, you should not be alarmed by the term audit, as it adds robustness to the process and makes it more credible to insiders and outsiders alike. How do we communicate around the audit / get people to understand what its all about? There are two key issues in relation to communication: the messages you need to get across the mechanisms you can use to communicate them The messages In terms of the messages, you should aim to inform all staff of the process as early as possible. This should give an overview of the Code and what it means to all staff and predict that there will be a review of the Code in due course. This then needs to be followed up with a clearer picture of the process of evaluation who is being consulted and how etc. Communication on progress and outcomes then needs to follow. And most importantly all staff need to be told about what they said and what is going to be done about it. The mechanisms We always recommend using existing mechanisms of communication to get messages across, whether this be through the management line, during briengs and de-briengs, email or newsletters. A combination of complementary approaches is generally most effective. What is an assurance statement? Its simply another way of describing the auditors report provided to People In Aid, i.e. the auditor is assuring People In Aid (or otherwise) that your organisation is complying with the People In Aid Code.
Page8 | Stage3
People In Aid 2006
S e 3 ta
Stage4
Continuous improvement
Aim
A demonstrable and sustained improvement in the quality of human resources management
ent em ov r p
Co m
Contin uou si
ge
4 Sta
m it
&
au diti ng
er old h e Stak
Key roles
Human Resources Senior managers All employees
Key outcomes
1. Action plan implemented 2. Aligned HR strategy 3. Social audit process embedded 4. Documented evidence of progress and achievements 5. Benchmarks identied 6. Re-audit, and performance benchmarked
Key steps
Implement action plan
Develop HR strategy Align with organisational strategy
Monitor progress
Re-audit
Benchmark performance Review progress regularly Maintain momentum Communicate
Plan and budget Recommit (Stage 1) and begin scoping a new cycle of stakeholder engagement
People In Aid 2006
Stage4 | Page1
en ga gem
2 Sta
en t
m
t en
ge
1 Sta
ge
in ort Rep
Implement action plan

Continuous improvement in respect of the Code is concerned with aligning the action plan arising from the social audit process with an existing or new HR strategy. Where an HR strategy doesnt exist, this phase of the process offers a systematic approach to HR management and the prioritisation of HR management activities. HR managers should review the action plans produced at Stage 2 following the stakeholder dialogue and included in the report, and integrate them with the ongoing HR strategy. They will need to create, develop or review HR strategy and build measurable targets into workplans. HR strategy should complement or t organisational strategy so some internal alignment is required. Dialogue or discussion with other senior managers or staff in general may be necessary to rene the prioritisation of the action plan, and also to ensure they are equipped to implement where appropriate. An action plan might be for a period of 12 or 18 months or 2 years, depending on where the organisation was in its organisational planning cycle when it was rst audited. Time and other resources will need to be allocated to the implementation. HR managers will also need to ensure the organisation learns from its experiences of implementing the action plan so that this information is fed back into the cycle. To ensure this happens, a key aim for the implementation manager is to keep the process documented so that if they, or key people, leave the organisation the learning is not lost. Throughout the implementation phase continue to engage with stakeholders. This will provide one of the methods of obtaining feedback and will contribute to monitoring progress. Consider which methods are most appropriate and best t with existing organisational commitments and structures.
Review action plans Prioritise Integrate into HR strategy (if it exists) or create HR strategy Check/negotiate alignment with organisational strategy Secure resources Consult/engage continuously with key players Implement strategy Obtain feedback Review
Guidance on developing an HR strategy is available from People In Aid
Page2 | Stage4
People In Aid 2006
Monitor progress
Aim for steady progress in implementing the action plan over time, in order to maintain the momentum Ensure that you continue to communicate what is happening to your key stakeholders Review progress regularly and evaluate it against the indicators in your HR strategy Benchmarking the HR function and HR management performance is possible by pooling data with other agencies that have gone through a similar process, and People In Aid offers support in this area.
Review benchmarks from Stage 2 Retain or research and set new ones Gather data on implemented actions Assess impact review plan
Some organisations may choose to schedule an interim stakeholder engagement process (eg a survey) before the next re-audit indeed some have an annual commitment to survey. This can be helpful, although once every 3 years may be enough for others, supplemented by smaller, more focused surveys held annually or on a two year cycle. Some support is available from People In Aid for organisations that choose to survey on an ongoing basis. You will need to decide when and how frequently you will carry out an interim review, and this will depend on what is appropriate for your own organisation.
Re-audit
Organisations that have implemented the Code are normally re-audited after 3 years. The Continuous Improvement stage leads into planning and a renewed commitment to audit, which is effectively the entry point to the cycle of implementing the People In Aid Code. It is helpful to keep the re-audit in mind from the beginning of the Continuous Improvement stage, especially with regard to ongoing stakeholder engagement, benchmarking and reviewing / recording progress. Remember to allow sufcient time ahead of the re-audit due date to complete Stages 1 and 2, and to prepare the report. A similar process of planning and resourcing is required for a reaudit, and Stage 1 usefully encourages a renewed organisational commitment and facilitates the scoping process for re-audit, by helping determine which areas will be the focus of a renewed stakeholder dialogue.
People In Aid 2006
Stage4 | Page3
Do
4 Create a realistic time frame for your action plan 4 Incorporate some quick wins in your action plan, as well as longer term targets 4 Carry on engaging with staff, through meetings, general communication, a stakeholder survey, or other means 4 Integrate your HR activity arising from the action plan with other planned HR activity (and with HR strategy) 4 Secure buy-in from line managers on ongoing engagement 4 Regularly evaluate your progress against the action plan 4 Benchmark your agency against others, and share good practice arising 4 Communicate progress widely in the organisation 4 Bring issues to the debating table and discuss them with colleagues 4 Begin planning for the next audit right away
Dont
6 Keep the action plan within HR 6 Be too ambitious in your workplan 6 Lose sight of the next due audit

Human Resources
Review action plan and integrate with HR strategy Liaise with other senior managers on priorities and alignment with organisational strategy Benchmark and monitor progress Commitment of support and resources to implementing the action plan Ongoing communication
Senior Management

Timelines
Estimated time range (months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Implement and monitor action plan
10 11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24
Key
Page4 | Stage4
People In Aid 2006
FAQs
How do we implement policy throughout the organisation? Implementing policy throughout an organisation is dependent on four factors: Top level leadership making it clear that it is important Making specic people accountable these may be champions or managers in each area / region Communicating widely throughout the organisation the clear and specic case for the Code and its evaluation Ensuring that the evaluation process includes all areas and regions over time, so that areas of high and low performance can be identied and acted upon. How do we make policies work in practice? Making the principles of the Code and the policies that relate to them work in practice involves a number of factors: Identifying key activities required against the Code the social auditing process and commitment to action as a consequence of the data collected will deliver pragmatic progress rather than simple policies If policies are developed in conjunction with the people who will be impacted by them it is far more likely they will become embedded into the way the organisation works Managers need to be made aware of how a certain policy works and what the implications are in terms of performance Senior management need to demonstrate commitment to policies that are in place and also indicate by word and action the importance of implementing them Communication on policies and subsequent procedures should be made to all staff so that they are aware of what to expect and how to behave How do we maintain momentum? By integrating the action plan as closely as possible with the HR strategy momentum can be maintained. The implementation manager and implementation team should ensure that knowledge and learning is shared with colleagues throughout the organisation, to ensure as much continuity as possible when the cycle of stakeholder engagement begins again.
People In Aid 2006
Stage4 | Page5
Glossary of terms
Accountability the ability of an organisation to provide an account of its activities, both as an explicit record of them, and as an acceptance of responsibility for them. Assurance statement another way of describing the audit report provided by the independent auditor to People In Aid. Audit trail a record of all the research, data collection and sources, and dialogue processes that provides the organisation and the auditor with a robust evidence base for evaluation against the Code and supporting documentation for the report and the decisions that were made. Benchmarking involves the comparison, ranking or rating of different business processes, units or companies against standards. It aims to identify ways of improving the performance of operations, systems and processes. Benchmark indicators these are comparisons either within an organisation over time, or with the performance of other organisations. They enable you to calibrate how well you are doing compared with best practice and with other aid organisations committed to the People In Aid Code. Corporate social responsibility (also known as corporate citizenship) encompasses all the ways in which an organisation and its activities interact with society, balancing the right to trade freely with the duty to act responsibly. It addresses the way that an organisation behaves in relation to its key impacts and stakeholders. In the broadest sense it is an attitude of mind which informs behaviour and decision making throughout the business. Embeddedness the appropriate incorporation of accounting processes, consultation and audit ndings into the strategic managerial practice and policy and operational levels of the organisation. Ethics the science of morals in human conduct, moral philosophy, moral principles and rules on conduct. Inclusivity consultation with all stakeholders, irrespective of their contractual status or normal place of work. Measurement the process of quantifying past action. A performance measurement system enables informed decisions to be made and actions to be taken because it quanties the efciency and effectiveness of past actions. Organisational indicators indicators that measure that extent to which the organisation fulls its commitments in relation to their policies. Many of these indicators will already be in existence (e.g. staff turnover) but others will need to be dened and the data collated. Risk signicant risks are those related to market, credit, liquidity, technology, law, health, safety, environment, reputation and business probity issues. Perceived risk is usually a complex, volatile mix of hazard and outrage. Experts argue that companies minimise the risk of outrage when they engage stakeholders in the development and operation of major projects.
People In Aid 2006
Glossary of terms | Page1
Risk management ability to pick up and amplify weak signals in a business environment that depends on internal controls, composition of the Board and the role of nonexecutive Directors. Social accounting the process of gathering data and measuring social performance (generally through stakeholders). Social auditing is a means of evaluating an organisations social performance through dialogue with stakeholders and development of key performance indicators. Developed to describe the overall process used to understand, measure and report on an organisations social report. Social capital a measure of the ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups and organisations. A key element of social capital is a sense of trust. Social reporting reporting on an organisations policies, procedures and impacts with respect to stakeholder groups employees, communities, suppliers, customers and the environment. For People In Aid, social reporting is concentrated on staff stakeholder groups. Stakeholders those groups or individuals who impact upon, or are impacted, by an organisation and / or its products and services. Stakeholder dialogue the process of two way conversations with an organisations stakeholders. Seeking to gather feedback, build mutual understanding, resolve conicts and evaluate performance. This can be undertaken using a variety of mechanisms, but it is essential that it is a conversation, rather than a piece of market research. Stakeholder indicators the key stakeholder issues and priorities will have been identied during the stakeholder dialogue. The stakeholder indicators measure the extent to which the organisation lives up to the expectations of the stakeholder group. Values over time, human and social values change. Core values are those values of an organisation which are dened within the organisation and which it attempts to realise. Verication certication by an external auditor of the validity, meaningfulness and completeness of an organisations records, reports or statements.
Page2 | Glossary of terms
People In Aid 2006

Implementation Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Implementation Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementation Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The People In Aid Code of Good Practice:

People In Aid 2006

Caution requires further consideration

Publication eg handbook or manual

Internet based resource

People In Aid 2006

Introduction to this manual and the implementation process

How to use the manual

The People In Aid Code and the Social Audit Process

People In Aid 2006

The process of implementing and evaluating the People In Aid Code

People In Aid 2006

Implementing and evaluating the People In Aid Code a Process Map

Key Steps to Ensure Success

How long does the process take?

People In Aid 2006

Senior Management Buy-in

Check compliance with criteria Award of first People In Aid kitemark

People In Aid 2006

Making a business case for the Code and its evaluation

Creating a project team

People In Aid 2006

Producing a project plan

Senior management buy-in

Kitemark Committed to the People In Aid Code

People In Aid 2006

Roles and responsibilities

People In Aid 2006

People In Aid 2006

People In Aid 2006

People In Aid 2006

People In Aid 2006

Social Audit Factsheet

AA1000 Process of Social Auditing

People In Aid 2006

AA1000 Assurance Standard

Social Audit and the People In Aid Code

People In Aid 2006

People In Aid 2006

Building a business case

People In Aid 2006

The benets of implementing the Code

Recognition brings benets

viii | Stage1 Factsheets

People In Aid 2006

Process for awarding the rst kitemark

Verbal commitment from agency

Clarify criteria / possible evidence with agency

Information received from agency

People In Aid review evidence against criteria

1st kitemark awarded

People In Aid 2006

Analysing the data

People In Aid 2006

Stakeholder mapping an example from Tearfund

Other interested parties

People In Aid 2006

Current audit practice

Stage2 Practical tools |

Stage2 Practical tools |