On 8 November 2011 corporate responsibility group BITC gave a seminar in London to promote the BITC Public Reporting Guidelines: Employee Wellness and Engagement (My-Linh Ngo, above, was one of the speakers, photographed by Alastair Fyfe) . These guidelines were launched in March 2011 and aim to help organisations report to investors and other stakeholders on how well they are managing employee wellness and engagement. The CIPD is a partner with BITC on the initiative.
If you have an interest in public reporting or HR metrics I would like your help with an article I am writing which will be published on Personnel Today over the next couple of weeks. You can contact me by commenting here or by contacting me at noel.oreilly@rbi.co.uk. Go to the end of the article to see the questions I am looking to answer.
The guidelines do not at this stage include metrics that show a return on investment on activities. It is important for their credibility in future that this is addressed. As BITC's commentary on the guidelines says:
"Demonstrating the business case is not straightforward, and finding the appropriate corresponding "proxy" metrics can be difficult. However, companies should continue to explore this as the ability to show a win-win in terms of employee satisfaction and strong business performance is worth working towards."
There's a danger with the world economy in crisis that the time- and resource-hungry activities suggested by these guidelines will be parked. Irwin Lee, vice president and managing director of Procter & Gamble UK and Ireland, and chair of the leadership team of BITC's Workwell campaign, thinks this would be a mistake. Lee explained why to delegates:
"Working against contracting markets you have to fight for every growth point. The only antidote to this challenge is innovation. Public reporting will have a role to play to drive the agenda forward."
Lee sees a natural link between "wellness" and employee engagement:
"Wellness can sustain or erode levels of engagement. Combining these two is a conscious effort in this model."
The main audience for the reporting guidelines is the investment community and Henderson Global Investors is a partner with BITC on the guidelines. My-Linh Ngo, associate director, SRI Research, at Henderson told delegates at the seminar that the feedback overall from investors was that current public reporting on this area was not good. Ngo said this was,
"... both in terms of the low level of reporting, as well as the quality of what was reported, as well as the lack of consistency in what was reported which prevented benchmarking efforts."
The need to standardise on the metrics is a priority. Unless there is some degree of standardisation organisations cannot benchmark against relevant other companies.
Another issue which the guidelines highlight is the need for qualitative "narrative reporting" to give the metrics context and make them meaningful. Combined with metrics which show trends over time a narrative can show the journey an organisation is making towards better practice.
Ngo said investors were looking for reporting that was:
-
Public.
-
Clear about audience purpose and scope.
-
Regular.
-
Systematic.
-
Focused.
-
Comparable.
-
Reflective but also forward looking.
-
Frank and honest - about what is both good and bad.
-
User friendly.
If you have views on any of the following questions please comment here or contact me at noel.oreilly@rbi.co.uk.
-
Does it make sense to link wellness and engagement in this way?
-
Are the metrics included in the reporting guidelines the best ones for the purpose?
-
What metrics could demonstrate a business case for programmes aimed at improving employee wellness and engagement?
-
Is public reporting the best way to improve employee wellness and engagement?
-
Are the reporting guidelines heading in the right direction?
(A definition of wellness is included in the commentary on the guidelines).
| Tweet |
|
| Permalink | Email this |
