The scope of stakeholder engagement is primarily defined by impacts rather than proximity. Sites have a responsibility to identify and engage

Box 3A.5 Area of Influence

The scope of stakeholder engagement is determined by the Area of Influence, defined as the area affected by:

• the site’s activities and facilities that are directly owned, operated or managed (including by contractors or third parties acting on the site’s behalf).
• the impacts from planned and unplanned developments caused by the site that may occur later or at a different location. These could include developments led by the site (including contractors) to support ongoing operations (e.g. stay-in-business (SIB) projects, Life of Asset developments, etc.), as well as predictable developments that are not managed by the site; e.g. expansion of a nearby town owing to site-induced in-migration. They also include cumulative impacts.
• the indirect impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services upon which local communities’ livelihoods are dependent; e.g. loss of fisheries resulting from water contamination.
• the site’s primary labour-sending and money-spending area(s); i.e. the towns and communities that are likely to experience economic benefits from the project.
• surrounding areas that could potentially benefit from the project, such as sites of high biodiversity, protected areas, etc.
• associated facilities, which are facilities that are funded separately by the company or a third party (e.g. government) but whose viability and existence depend (almost) exclusively on the operation, and without which the operation would not be viable.

The Area of Influence is defined (or revised) during sites’ five-yearly Review and planning (see Section 2).

with all stakeholders affected by their activities. Stakeholder engagement should aim to include all impacted, as well as interested, stakeholders, to varying degrees.

Stakeholder mapping and analysis

Stakeholder analysis is a process of gathering and studying information about stakeholders to determine with whom to engage, about what, with what level of intensity, and with what frequency. It helps determine who to prioritise for engagement and which stakeholders require a tailored engagement approach e.g. vulnerable groups or those with high levels of influence.

One of the aims of stakeholder analysis is to understand people’s underlying motivations and analyse the root causes of stakeholder concerns or aspirations (though the cause does not alter the level of importance of the issue). Individuals have a variety of motivations for engaging with a site, ranging from wanting the best for their community through to a desire for personal or group gain. Understanding these motivations supports the design of relevant and effective engagement approaches.

Stakeholder analysis should also aim to understand:

• how the stakeholder may be affected by site activities
• the stakeholder’s level of interest in or expectations from the site and what these relate to
• the stakeholder’s history with the site, including previous engagements, involvement in SED projects, history of grievances or incidents
• the stakeholder’s level of influence on the site, via their influence on other stakeholders or directly e.g. through decision-making around permitting
• which other individuals or groups the stakeholder may legitimately represent
• any areas of knowledge, expertise or capacity the stakeholder holds that may be relevant to the site in relation to managing potential social and human rights impacts and risks, or delivering opportunities. This includes capacity for mediation and conflict resolution.
• any potential constraints to the stakeholder’s participation in engagement activities (see section below on assessing vulnerability)
• stakeholder preferences and responsiveness to different types of engagement and communication techniques. This may be based on cultural preferences, education levels, demographic factors or physical location
• Stakeholders’ direct or indirect involvement or association with any conflicts and the nature of this involvement (see Section 4J. Conflict Management for further guidance on conflict analysis); and
• Stakeholder attitudes and positions on different issues and towards other stakeholders

An impact v. influence/interest map provides an initial understanding of priorities for engagement. Table 3A.2 provides guidance on how to rate a stakeholder’s level of impact and influence/interest. Greater weighting should be given to vulnerable stakeholders, who are likely to be disproportionately affected by impacts (see below for vulnerability assessment).

While this type of map provides useful guidance on engagement priorities, Social Performance teams should continuously review whether all stakeholders are being heard, and ensure disproportionate attention is not being given to those 'shouting the loudest'.

Table 3A.2 Stakeholder mapping: Impact and Influence/Interest ratings

Impact rating	Definition
High	The site has a potentially significant impact (positive or negative) on the stakeholder or stakeholder group and/or the stakeholder is highly sensitive to certain impacts.
Medium	The site has a potentially moderate impact on the stakeholder. The stakeholder is moderately sensitive to certain impacts.
Low	The site potentially has a minor impact on the stakeholder. The stakeholder is not considered sensitive to the site’s impacts.

Influence/Interest rating	Definition
High	The stakeholder or stakeholder group is considered highly influential and/or has a strong interest in the site and may have the capacity to halt or delay the site’s operations or shape the site’s reputation locally and/or internationally.
Medium	The stakeholder is considered to have moderate influence over, and/ or moderate interest in the site, with some capacity to influence the site’s operations or reputation.
Low	The stakeholder is isolated and/or has limited interest in the site and limited capacity to exert influence over the site.

Figure 3A.3 provides an example mapping matrix. Sites can use this technique to map all stakeholders or ‘zoom in' to produce separate maps for stakeholder sub-groups or specific issues/activities. The map provides a better idea of the level of effort (time, resources) to allocate to the stakeholders in each quadrant.

Stakeholder maps are fluid: people's relationships and attitudes vary over time, and stakeholders may come and go. Social performance teams should review stakeholder maps on a regular basis.

Click to get a closer look

Zoom out

Figure 3A.3 Example stakeholder mapping matrix

Box 3A.6 Site-related vulnerability – Social Way definition

Communities, groups or individuals who may be:

• excluded or inhibited from meaningful participation in sites’ engagement and decision-making processes
• differently and/or more severely affected by a site’s impacts
• less able to take advantage of a site’s benefits.

Assess vulnerability in relation to engagement

Anglo American is committed to identifying and engaging with vulnerable individuals and groups. During the five-yearly review and planning (see Section 2), sites are required to identify systemic vulnerability amongst communities, groups and individuals and include the assessment in the SMP. This supports a more precise identification of site-related vulnerability (see Box 3A.6 above).

Vulnerability in relation to specific impacts is assessed through SHIRA (see Section 3C) and vulnerability in accessing benefits is considered in sites’ SED planning (see Section 4A).

From the perspective of stakeholder engagement, the priority is to identify the extent to which individuals or groups might be at risk of exclusion from the site’s engagement processes. This may be because:

• they are marginalised from mainstream societ and not normally included in community activities and discussions (e.g. recent migrants, ethnic minorities, nomadic groups, certain livelihood groups)
• power dynamics may mean they are not welcome or vocal at group gatherings or that they are wary of expressing their views owing to fear of repercussions or reprisal or because of an ingrained sense of inequality or inferiority
• they face barriers to attending meetings (cost, distance, disability, illness, domestic or work tasks)
• they face barriers to accessing information (e.g. illiteracy, isolation, no internet access, no mobile phone etc.)
• they face language barriers (e.g. minorities, migrants, refugees)
• Their residency status or their livelihoods are considered illegal or informal

Sites can use Table 3A.3 to link the systemic vulnerability analysis summarised in the SMP with engagement planning.

Table 3A.3 Assessing vulnerability status and engagement priorities

Stakeholders	Systemic vulnerability (see Section 2 for definitions of Capitals)	Priority engagement issues	Individuals or sub-groups more likely to be excluded from participation
Community A	Economic Capital	Based on the ratings (determined as part of the systemic vulnerability assessment done as part of Section 2), describe those issues that should be prioritised in engagement processes For example, if Natural Capital is rated High, it would suggest that questions of land, clean air and water or bio-diversity may be particularly sensitive for this community	Drawing on the analysis in Section 2, and with reference to Political and Social Capital in particular, list those stakeholders within the community most at risk of exclusion Low access to Political and Social Capital within a community is the best guide to vulnerability in relation to participation and representation
	Political Capital
	Social Capital
	Physical Capital
	Natural Capital

Stakeholder register

Sites should capture the results of stakeholder identification, mapping and analysis in a stakeholder register that is updated regularly, at least quarterly and more frequently if there are significant changes or developments. The register should be part of a stakeholder database, which will also include a consultation log and will be maintained on the site’s integrated Information Management System (see 3A.2 Guidance, Task 7).

Box 3A.7 Data protection

Any personal data must be managed in accordance with the Anglo American Group Data Protection Policy. Data must be processed:

• Appropriately: only process data when we have a lawful reason to do so; take extra care with very sensitive data; recognise and respect the rights of the people (data subjects) whose information we hold.
• Transparently: we must tell individuals when we are collecting their data and what we are going to do with it; we can only use personal data for the purpose it was intended. If we want to use it for something else then we need to go back to the ‘data subject’ and tell them.
• Securely: We must protect personal data from harm, whether accidental or malicious loss, destruction, damage and unauthorised disclosure. If there is a breach then we must act quickly, and report it to [email protected] immediately. We must not share personal data with anyone, unless this is deemed necessary. If it is, we must make sure the person or organisation we are sharing it with will give it the same protection we do. If it is with an external party a data sharing agreement may be needed.
• Responsibly: We must only collect and use the personal data we need. If it does not help to achieve our intended business objective, then it is off limits. We must make sure the personal data we process is accurate and kept up-to-date. We cannot keep hold of personal data forever. We can only store and process it for as long as it is required and then delete it.

The stakeholder register should cover the categories outlined in Table 3A.4:

Table 3A.4 Stakeholder register

Stakeholder details
Local /national/international level stakeholder
Stakeholder category (e.g. local authority, traditional leader, service provider, local community)
Name of stakeholder representative or group
Location of stakeholder and contact details
Stakeholders represented (who/number)
Sphere/extent of influence
Level/extent of impacts from the project/site on the stakeholder
Stakeholder mapping position (link to stakeholder mapping matrix)
Vulnerability status
Other key demographic information (as required for purposes of improving engagement): gender, languages spoken, age, ethnicity, livelihood/profession, literacy level, etc.

Summary of engagement
Overview of engagement (current and previous)
History of issues raised, incidents and grievances and how they were addressed (link to the incident and grievance register for full details)
Summary and status of commitments relevant to this stakeholder (link to the commitments register for full details)
Links to benefits or partnerships in relation to SED activities (local supplier to the site, CSI project beneficiary, programme partner, etc.)
Priority issues for engagement
Frequency of engagement
Methods of engagement
Anglo American key contact point