Social performance team performance metrics

Site leadership should ensure that team performance targets and metrics are in place and that progress is reported. The following table proposes site social performance indicators that could assist in tracking, analysing and improving team performance. Social performance targets and metrics, utilising processes like the BU scorecard and platforms like the operations’ Teams+ shared objectives, should be used to promote cross functional accountability.

Metrics are used as a means to measure performance and evaluate the success of a site in achieving a target or objective. The best performance metrics are those that are related to a specified outcome and should ideally be tied to social performance objectives. Metrics can include measures of inputs, outputs, outcomes and the impact of process (see Section 1.5 for further details) and may be:

Milestones: interim indicators of progress towards an outcome or result. These may be measures of progress towards inputs, outputs, outcomes and the impact of process and are often tied to a schedule (e.g. half way through a project implementation)
Performance metrics: indicators of completion of actions that can lead to a result. Performance metrics are typically used to track and assess the status of a process
Results metrics: indicators that a result or outcome has been achieved

Table 1.3 Potential social performance metrics for consideration

Position	Potential metrics to measuresocial performance team performance
Management	Percentage of social performance headcount positions filled On-time delivery of comprehensive social performancereports to SPMC and GM Budget expenditure against forecast Number of training and awareness-raising sessions,including on Human Rights, SPMC members, staff and contractors Percentage of all significant social incidents andgrievances, with supporting ‘lessons learned’ analysis Average grievance investigation, reporting and close-outtimes, as well as adherence to target Percentage of grievances that are repeats Percentage of incidents that are repeats Number of social-risk/impact reviews (including monitoringand evaluation) held during year, with corresponding changes to risk registeras required
Impact and risk	Input, output and outcome metrics related to social andhuman rights impacts and risks controls. Feedback metrics from community perception surveys used toevaluate outcomes of mitigation measures
Engagement	Percentage of community meetings held against SEP commitments Average grievance-response time (measuring supportingengagement rather than close-out) Percentage of engagements held with correspondingconsultation log Qualitativeindicators derived from feedback from CEF Input from SPMC sought prior to each CEF meeting Quantity andquality of reports to site leadership team with update on stakeholderengagement
SED	Presence of Monitoring Framework for SED programme andregular updates A Theory of Change exists with clearly articulated outcomeswith development outcome indicators Evidence of participation of the intended beneficiaries of SED projects in determining outcomes and their measurement Corrective actions implemented following identification of issuesduring periodic monitoring and evaluation Percentage of SED programmes achieving expected results Contribution of SED programmes to risk avoidance/mitigation Percentage of SED programmes managed to time and budget Percentage of SED projects that have been evaluated by athird-party (In addition, specific SED projects and programmes shouldhave their own metrics and reporting arrangements.)

1.3 Social performance resourcing

1.3 Social performance resourcing