In reviewing the recently published exposure draft of AccountAbility’s
Stakeholder Engagement Standard (EP7, issue 6, p10), Hilary Sutcliffe makes some useful
points. She describes it as ‘rigorous’ and ‘comprehensive’, and says a
standard ‘must be all of these things’. She goes on to say it is
‘very well written, considered and thorough’.
We agree with Hilary on this. These are the qualities of a good
standard. Sadly, for Hilary they also make the standard too demanding.
But let’s be clear: the AccountAbility Stakeholder Engagement Standard
is a ‘gold standard’. Its purpose is to improve the quality of
stakeholder engagement rather than simply reflect current practice. And
there is support in it for users to achieve incremental progress.
It is difficult to get the right balance between theory and practical
application, as Hilary points out. Hundreds of experts involved in
developing the standard have worked hard to address this. Finding this
balance is an iterative process, which is one reason why we published
the standard as an exposure draft. It needs to be used, challenged and
improved. We need to make the best of a good thing.
Though if being rigorous, thorough, comprehensive, well written and
considered makes the standard a ‘dog’s breakfast’, then I know
many people who are ready to eat!
