Actions extracted from: Engaging affected stakeholders: The emerging duties of board members

Actions:

1. Build human-rights fluency across the board

Provide directors with structured training and expert briefings to deepen understanding of human-rights principles and affected-stakeholder vulnerabilities. This supports informed decision-making and ensures the board can recognise and respond to salient risks (pp. 6–7, 14).

2. Integrate relevant expertise into board composition

Recruit directors with experience in human rights, stakeholder engagement, or lived-experience insight. This helps the board anticipate harms, strengthen oversight, and reflect the diversity needed for responsible governance (pp. 6–7).

3. Assess board performance on human-rights oversight

Include human-rights considerations in annual board-effectiveness reviews. Embedding these criteria signals accountability and helps identify capability gaps that may hinder effective stewardship (p. 14).

Actions extracted from: A practitioner’s perspective – from obstacles to outcomes: Enhancing effectiveness in stewardship and engagement

Actions:

1. Ensure clear objectives for ESG-specific stakeholder engagement are defined and reviewed at board level

Structure engagement objectives that link stakeholder input to real-world outcomes. Applying this principle can strengthen legitimacy, align engagement with organisational purpose, and prevent “engagement-washing” (pp. 8–9).

2. Oversee regular dialogue with key stakeholders through board briefings, delegated engagement, or selective direct board participation

Design engagement processes centred on purposeful, two-way communication. Use this as a prompt to review how your current engagement practices support trust, mutual understanding, and ESG alignment (pp. 12, 14–15).

3. Review engagement KPIs and outcomes as part of board oversight of stewardship effectiveness

Develop measurable ESG engagement KPIs linked to targeted outcomes. Practitioners can use this approach to track progress, enhance transparency, and demonstrate meaningful contribution toward stewardship goals (pp. 11, 17–18).

Actions extracted from: AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard

Actions:

1. Assign stakeholder oversight to a board committee

Assign oversight of stakeholder engagement to a designated board committee. This embeds engagement within governance structures and decision-making processes, integrating stakeholder input into strategy and operations (p. 12).

2. Define management’s role vs. board’s role in engagement

Define clear roles for management and the board in stakeholder engagement. This ensures coordinated governance, with management leading operational engagement and the board providing oversight and strategic direction (pp. 12, 33).

3. Disclose governance roles in annual reports

Disclose stakeholder engagement governance roles in annual or sustainability reports. This promotes transparency and accountability, showing how oversight supports credible engagement and assurance processes (pp. 34–35).

Actions extracted from: Stakeholder engagement: A good practice handbook for companies doing business in emerging markets

Actions:

1. Require management to set up accessible grievance channels

The resource highlights that grievance mechanisms must be accessible, understandable, and culturally appropriate. Use this guidance to require management to establish channels such as hotlines, local meetings, or liaison officers to ensure inclusive access and awareness (pp. 69-74).

2. Review regular reports on grievances and resolutions

The resource emphasises maintaining grievance logs and regular reporting to build trust. Apply this principle by requiring management to provide periodic reports on complaints received, actions taken, and resolutions achieved (pp. 70-76, 166).

3. Ensure mechanisms meet fairness, transparency, and cultural relevance standards

The resource notes that fairness and transparency require clear procedures, third-party mediation, and culturally appropriate communication. Use this insight to ensure grievance mechanisms respect local contexts and provide equitable participation in resolution processes (pp. 70-73, 77).

Actions extracted from: Elevating stakeholder voices to the board: A guide to effective governance

Actions:

1. Include stakeholder input in board discussions and decision-making

Review stakeholder perspectives in board papers and allocate time for stakeholder presentations. Integrating ESG-relevant insights into board deliberations strengthens strategic alignment and accountability (pp. 8, 22–24, 26).

2. Expand director training to cover ESG and stakeholder engagement principles

Embed stakeholder and ESG expertise into board skill matrices and induction programs. Strengthening director capability in ESG governance supports informed oversight and responsible stewardship (pp. 9, 14–15).

3. Establish stakeholder advisory committees or panels to inform ESG priorities

Form advisory groups including stakeholder representatives and director observers. Creating structured forums enhances the board’s access to diverse ESG insights for decision-making and long-term sustainability (pp. 22–25).

Actions extracted from: Linking stakeholder engagement to profitability through sustainability-oriented innovation: A quantitative study of the minerals industry

Actions:

1. Collect stakeholder insights on sector risks

Integrate external stakeholder knowledge into ESG risk identification to align with investor expectations and uncover innovation opportunities that enhance long-term financial performance. Stakeholder engagement provides access to technological, market, and social risk intelligence, strengthening the firm’s social license to operate (pp. 3, 6).

2. Consult affected groups on ESG hotspots

Engage communities, NGOs, and local stakeholders in identifying ESG-sensitive areas and high-impact risks. Two-way consultation enhances social license to operate, supports proactive risk mitigation, and reinforces responsible investment and sustainable finance principles (pp. 3–4, 11–12).

3. Compare stakeholder risk assessments with internal models

Validate internal ESG risk analysis against stakeholder-informed assessments to improve accuracy, transparency, and investor confidence. Benchmarking external and internal perspectives strengthens credibility in ESG disclosures and supports data-driven decision-making (pp. 6–7, 9).

Actions extracted from: Handbook on BRI Stakeholder Engagement for Financial Institutions

This handbook can be used as a starting point when approaching stakeholder engagement for the first time, or as a refresher when revising an existing engagement strategy.

Actions:

1. Establish grievance mechanisms to surface risks early

Strengthen ESG risk assessment by institutionalising grievance mechanisms that capture stakeholder concerns in real time. Embedding these systems improves early risk identification, mitigation, and oversight of environmental and social impacts (pp. 12–13, 28).

2. Involve stakeholders across full project lifecycle management

Engage stakeholders throughout project phases—from design to decommissioning—to build trust and detect risks early. Continuous participation enhances compliance, transparency, and alignment with international responsible finance standards (pp. 9, 11–12, 36–37).

3. Embed stakeholder engagement procedures within ESMS frameworks

Integrate stakeholder consultation, grievance handling, and disclosure into Environmental and Social Management Systems. Institutionalising engagement within ESMS ensures consistency, accountability, and robust risk governance across financial operations (pp. 27–29, 32–33).

Actions extracted from: Nature investor toolkit: Understanding nature-related risks and opportunities and supporting investors to assess, engage and take action

Actions:

1. Conduct materiality assessments involving key stakeholder groups

Identify and manage nature-related risks and opportunities by engaging affected stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. Incorporating their knowledge through FPIC principles enhances materiality assessments and strengthens responsible investment practices (pp. 11–13, 22).

2. Apply sector and location-specific ESG metrics

Use sectoral and geospatial tools such as ENCORE, IBAT, and WWF Water Risk Filter to assess environmental dependencies. Combining these metrics provides granular ESG risk mapping and improves portfolio-level prioritisation (pp. 13–15).

3. Align analysis with global frameworks (TCFD, GRI, TNFD)

Integrate disclosure and monitoring practices consistent with TCFD, GRI, and TNFD frameworks. Alignment ensures transparent, comparable, and credible ESG reporting that supports investor confidence and regulatory compliance (pp. 29–30, 37).

Actions extracted from: The future of investor engagement: A call for systematic stewardship to address systemic climate risk

Actions:

1. Align stewardship strategies with systemic climate risk frameworks

Improve stewardship effectiveness by aligning investor engagement with stakeholder-driven climate goals. Integrating systemic climate risk frameworks enables investors to address cross-sector risks, support just transition efforts, and enhance long-term resilience (pp. 4–7).

2. Co-develop engagement strategies targeting climate change policy and value chain transformation

Collaborate with stakeholders, regulators, and companies to shape policy and sectoral change. Joint engagement uncovers shared challenges, accelerates decarbonisation, and aligns stewardship with system-level climate objectives (pp. 17–22).

3. Identify systemic economic, technological, and/or regulatory hurdles obstructing decarbonisation processes

Analyse structural barriers such as policy gaps, cost constraints, and technology limits. Understanding these systemic factors enables investors to advocate for reforms that advance 1.5 °C-aligned pathways (pp. 9–13, 19).

Actions extracted from: ESG and responsible institutional investing around the world: A critical review

Actions:

1. Join investor coalitions advocating for stakeholder priorities

Collaborate through investor coalitions, working groups, and joint campaigns to elevate stakeholder concerns and influence corporate behaviour. Collective action enhances credibility, policy impact, and alignment with responsible investment principles (pp. 13, 27).

2. Participate in PRI working groups on stakeholder themes

Engage in PRI Collaboration Platform initiatives that unite investors around shared ESG priorities. Pooling engagement resources strengthens company performance, mitigates the free-rider problem, and drives more effective active ownership (pp. 34, 40, 48).

3. Coordinate engagement campaigns with peers

Benchmark and align engagement efforts with peer investors to reinforce consistent ESG expectations and improve performance outcomes. Coordinated campaigns amplify influence and foster best-in-class standards across industries (p. 39).

Actions extracted from: ESG shareholder engagement and downside risk

Actions:

1. Collect data on engagement progress

Track and disclose stewardship outcomes using structured data collection and milestone tracking. Recording engagement stages—from concern raised to action taken—enhances transparency, accountability, and progress measurement toward ESG goals (pp. 484–485, 488–489).

2. Select the most effective engagement types for reducing downside risk

Prioritise environmental and climate-related engagements that demonstrate the highest success rates in mitigating downside risk. Focusing on impactful themes strengthens both financial resilience and stakeholder confidence (p. 485).

3. Track progress against stakeholder-defined goals

Measure engagement success by achieving milestones such as acknowledgment and action (M2–M3). Linking these outcomes to stakeholder priorities demonstrates meaningful impact and improved ESG risk performance (p. 494).

Actions extracted from: Handbook on BRI Stakeholder Engagement for Financial Institutions

Actions:

1. Validate data through community feedback

Verify impact data by engaging communities through feedback loops tailored to local contexts. Co-creating assessment frameworks and addressing concerns transparently strengthens credibility, accountability, and alignment with responsible finance standards (pp. 11–12, 34–35).

2. Involve stakeholders in verification processes

Enable stakeholders to participate in verifying project performance through structured consultations and grievance mechanisms. Shared monitoring enhances transparency, ensures effective mitigation, and promotes continuous ESG improvement (pp. 36–37).

3. Disclose limitations of verification

Communicate verification boundaries clearly, including data gaps, confidentiality constraints, and methodological limitations. Transparent disclosure fosters stakeholder trust and reinforces integrity in impact reporting (pp. 10, 12–13, 30).

Actions extracted from: Access bank: Driving inclusive growth through responsible banking

Actions:

1. Set sustainability targets through portfolio review that reflect stakeholders’ concerns

Develop impact objectives by reviewing products and services alongside feedback from clients, employees, community groups and investors. Integrating these insights into portfolio priorities strengthens alignment with societal needs and supports transparent, stakeholder-relevant decision-making.

2. Conduct external verification and stakeholder-inclusive ESG screening

Use independent reviewers and stakeholder-informed ESG criteria to validate targets and assess eligible projects. Combining external assurance with inclusive screening enhances credibility, ensures materiality, and supports consistent, comparable verification practices.

3. Integrate stakeholder input into product design, programme delivery and reporting

Apply ongoing feedback from customers, communities, NGOs and internal teams to refine impact objectives and performance criteria. Incorporating this input into programme updates and annual reporting promotes continuous improvement and reinforces transparency and accountability.

Actions extracted from: Poverty Footprint

Actions:

1. Establish a formal multi-stakeholder partnership

Form a structured partnership with a trusted CSO and agree on shared objectives for defining poverty-related impacts. Building trust, jointly setting goals, and creating a governance process ensures inclusive dialogue and collaborative oversight of the assessment (pp. 25–29).

2. Apply the “5 by 5 Poverty Framework” to co-define indicators

Use the framework’s five poverty dimensions and five corporate practice areas to jointly prioritise topics and select impact indicators. Working through the 5×5 model with partners enables meaningful, stakeholder-aligned metrics that reflect real community needs (pp. 39–40).

3. Co-author and disclose findings and recommendations

Develop a transparent public report with partners that presents findings, lessons, and agreed recommendations. Schedule periodic progress reviews to validate performance against selected indicators and demonstrate shared accountability (pp. 60–65).

Actions extracted from: OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct

Actions:

1. Review stakeholder expectations against UN/OECD guidance

Align responsible business practices with stakeholder expectations by referencing UN and OECD standards on human rights, disclosure, and due diligence. Embedding these principles enhances transparency, comparability, and regulatory confidence (pp. 10–13, 14–17, 25–29).

2. Map engagement processes to ISSB/GRI standards

Ensure engagement and reporting processes align with global ESG frameworks such as ISSB, GRI, and TCFD. Integrating stakeholder engagement outcomes into disclosure practices strengthens credibility and alignment with science-based targets (pp. 21–26, 33–40).

3. Disclose global alignment progress

Report on progress toward alignment with international ESG goals, including due diligence, remediation, and climate-related commitments. Providing accessible, transparent, and assured disclosures builds stakeholder trust and investor confidence (pp. 21–26, 33–40).

Actions extracted from: Valuing Better Engagement: An economic framework to quantify the value of stakeholder engagement for infrastructure delivery

Actions:

1. Quantify engagement value and disclose results

Strengthen stakeholder confidence by applying recognised engagement valuation frameworks. Quantifying benefits such as cost savings, risk reduction, and avoided contingencies demonstrates transparency, accountability, and tangible ESG outcomes (pp. 6–8, 24–25).

2. Track stakeholder trust levels over time

Monitor trust-building through transparent, inclusive, and integrity-based engagement practices. Mapping progress against the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum provides a structured benchmark for assessing trust maturity and collaboration (pp. 13, 15, 17).

3. Apply a framework for valuing engagement

Use defensible, repeatable frameworks that quantify engagement outcomes and link stakeholder satisfaction to performance incentives. Combining economic valuation with KPIs or KRAs embeds accountability and recognises engagement as a measurable business value driver (pp. 20–23, 26).

Actions extracted from: The Global GHG Accounting and Reporting Standard for the financial industry

Actions:

1. Compare engagement against peers

Benchmark ESG and climate performance using standardized emission intensity metrics such as economic, physical, and weighted average carbon intensity (WACI). Normalized metrics enable peer comparison and inform stakeholder dialogue on climate transition progress (pp. 21–22).

2. Use stakeholder surveys for benchmarking

Apply stakeholder-driven tools like CDP and TCFD questionnaires to gather comparable data across portfolios and sectors. Survey-based benchmarking enhances transparency, supports accountability, and aligns with global disclosure practices (pp. 24–26).

3. Identify leaders and laggards

Assess data quality to distinguish verified, high-performing institutions from those relying on proxies or incomplete information. Reporting verified emissions data demonstrates leadership, builds stakeholder confidence, and strengthens responsible investment credibility (pp. 21–22, 42, 122).