On October 3, 2024, I had the honor of participating at the invitation of Interim Management Development Foundation in the discussion panel during the conference Eco Transformations organized by Pro Progressio. The panel was moderated by Ewa Sowińska, Partner at ESO Audit, and was attended by Dominika Żwirbla-Kalman, ESG Representative of the Management Board at PORR S.A., Magdalena Hanuszewska, Sustainability Reporting Expert at mBank, and Jolanta Szydłowska, President of the Northern Employers Forum.
It was Jolanta Szydłowska who presented the results of her recent conversations with a dozen or so people managing small and medium-sized enterprises. None of them had heard of the concept of „materiality testing.” Only two people were familiar with the acronym „ESG.” However, all of them expressed concerns about the upcoming expectations of financial institutions and large business partners towards their companies. At the same time, all of these individuals were able to talk freely about many sustainability issues that they deal with in their companies, such as ensuring health and safety standards or providing employees with appropriate training and development opportunities.
This is a perfect illustration of the fact that difficult terms often conceal simple, even obvious issues. If we use terminology from ESRS standards in our dealings with stakeholders or business partners from the SME sector, we are on a direct path to failure. We will not be understood. The percentage of responses we receive from survey respondents will be low, or the quality of the data obtained will be distorted by the fact that only those who understand the questionnaires will respond. Or, even worse, those who only think they understand them.
Creating a questionnaire that will give us clear answers matching the classification of issues included in the ESRS standards and will also be understandable to a wide range of respondents is an extremely difficult task. Magdalena Hanuszewska from mBank spoke about her experiences in this area during the conference. Why is this the case? Because this is the very nature of questionnaires as a research tool. They only allow communication within the framework set by the creator of the survey. They do not usually allow for nuanced answers. And if they do, they become extremely lengthy, making them difficult to complete. In my opinion, questionnaires are primarily suitable for obtaining information from very narrow groups of experts.
Interviews are a much better way of obtaining information from stakeholders who are not professionally involved in sustainability issues. They enable two-way communication, clarification, and ongoing verification that the questioner and respondent have the same understanding of a given question or issue. Conducting interviews is time-consuming. However, it is time well spent, as it allows for a truly deep understanding of the positions, interests, and needs of the people we talk to. It is no coincidence that conversation is and will probably always remain the main element of any recruitment process, because only it allows the future supervisor and candidate to make sure that this is the right person for the right position. Periodic employee evaluations also always involve conversations. Simply put, if we care about someone, we talk to them. If our key stakeholders are truly key to us, we will also talk to them.
Questionnaires are useful in certain cases, but they must be used carefully and judiciously. Interviews are time-consuming, but they provide a much deeper understanding of issues that are important to stakeholders. In materiality assessments, as in other aspects of sustainability management, it is important to use both tools skillfully. And others, but that's a topic for another newsletter 😊
Polish
English