.
Close
Menu
Add title here
Download
Mega Nav Image
The Social Way Toolkit
Find out more
Add title here
Download
Mega Nav Image
Main Content

Team size

Contents in this section:

1.3 Social performance resourcing

Roles

Skills required in social performance team members

Team size

Social performance team performance metrics

Awareness-raising and training

Budget

External consultants and how to manage effectively

Save this section to my downloads
Remove this section from my downloads

Save this section to my downloads

Related content

Resources

Managers responsible for recruitment should consider the following factors when deciding on the optimum team size:

  • Work management – in accordance to the OM, work is planned as accurately as possible and scheduled and resourced against this. This process of planning defines the amount of time required for tasks and the suitable team size (staff or contracted) to be developed and resourced.
  • How well integrated is social performance across the business? The greater the level of integration and understanding, the fewer resources required within a Social Performance team.
  • What formal requirements have been placed on the site in the form of legislation, permitting requirements (e.g. project-related ESMPs) and other commitments such as community agreements?
  • What level of stakeholder expectations exists for shared socio-economic development, and by whom?
  • What business objectives will the social performance team be required to support? For example, capital projects will likely have extensive engagement requirements.
  • How complex/volatile is the local community context? See box 1.1 for a simple checklist of factors that will increase complexity and therefore resourcing requirements.

BOX 1.1 Factors influencing complexity of external environment and resulting resourcing requirements1

  • Multiple recognised stakeholders competing for political power, authority, influence and benefit capture
  • Complex traditional leadership structures, representation and decision-making
  • Legacy issues, including those created by other extractive companies not operating to the same international standards of environmental and social performance as Anglo American
  • History of limited success of external groups ‒ e.g. other international companies, donor organisations ‒ in delivering SED programmes
  • History of challenging national, regional and local government relationships, and/or recent changes in distribution of authorities, e.g. devolution of powers to regional authorities
  • Limited integration of area of influence economy with mainstream economy, and/or lack of familiarity with cash-based economy
  • Weak governance and enforcement of rule of law
  • Lack of trust

Indicators that help site leadership teams recognise whether a social performance team may be insufficiently resourced include:

  • The team is preoccupied by 'fire-fighting' and is not able to take a long-term, proactive approach to building and maintaining community relationships;
  • If the team has fallen behind in maintaining consultation logs and management reporting of common engagement themes;
  • If the team is overly focused on demanding external stakeholders, at the expense of spending time internally to raise awareness of social performance and to understand the engagement priorities of other departments;
  • If social impacts recorded in the site's risk register are not regularly reviewed and updated;
  • If monitoring of social and human rights impact management is not undertaken and/or no corrective actions have been taken even when issues are highlighted;
  • If monitoring and evaluation of impact mitigation measures and SED programmes/projects are not conducted;
  • If a site is continuing to fail to deliver on its long term objectives and / or strategic social performance outcomes; and
  • If lessons learnt from social incident and grievance management are not recorded and communicated as learning opportunities with site leadership.

______________________________________

1 Gerrits, Lasse and Verweij, Stefan and (2018) The Evaluation of Complex Infrastructure Projects: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3416103 [Accessed December 2019]

Prev

Next

1. Governance

1.2 Leadership and culture

Role of leadership in delivering the Social Way requirements

Embedding a multi-disciplinary approach

Performance management

1.3 Social performance resourcing

Roles

Skills required in social performance team members

Team size

Social performance team performance metrics

Awareness-raising and training

Budget

External consultants and how to manage effectively

1.4 Social performance management committee

SPMC purpose and scope

SPMC discussion topics

1.5 Monitoring and evaluation

What is meant by monitoring versus evaluation – how do they differ?

Aligning monitoring and evaluation with operational risk management language

Considerations in monitoring and evaluation approach

Setting indicators

Considering vulnerable groups in monitoring and evaluation

Participatory monitoring and evaluation

1.6 Tools

1.Governance | 1.3 Social performance resourcing
1.Governance  |  1.3 Social performance resourcing