September 2014

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The research was conducted via an online survey. The survey approach is outlined below:

A good response rate of 58% was achieved with 45 stakeholders completing the survey. Stakeholders were selected as organisation representatives, with one to two stakeholders invited per organisation. Stakeholders were asked to respond to the survey based on dealings they had had with EQC in a professional capacity, rather than based on any dealings related to personal matters.

Letter from EQC was sent to 69

stakeholders introducing the

survey, while 9 who had no address were sent an email (in total 78 stakeholders were

contacted).

Nielsen followed up this letter with an email invitation

containing the online survey link.

Reminder emails were sent to those

who had not yet completed the

survey.

Follow up calls were made to around 30

key stakeholders who had not responded.

A final reminder email was sent out encouraging those yet to respond to

complete the survey before the closing

date.

The overall objective of the research is to provide feedback on the experiences and views of key EQC stakeholders; and more specifically to understand the extent to which stakeholders:

• Rate EQC’s performance on their three core functions – research, education and natural disaster insurance.

• Believe that EQC is trustworthy, fair and competent.

• Perceive that EQC’s performance is improving

EQC also wants to ascertain what stakeholders perceive EQC currently does well, and what could be improved on.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHOBJECTIVES

APPROACH

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

3

KEY FINDINGSJust over half (54%) of stakeholders are satisfied with EQC’s overall performance (this decreases to 34% when looking only at those who rate performance as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ which should be the targeted response going forward).

Stakeholders have noticed a significant improvement in performance over the last 12 months (73% state that performance is better, 27% the same and 0% feel performance is worse).

They have identified some areas for further improvement, as outlined below:

• In terms of EQC’s three functions, there is a lack of knowledge about EQC’s role among stakeholders.

• Just over half of stakeholders perceive EQC to be a trustworthy organisation, fair and competent. As these are your key stakeholders that you have relationships with, these ratings are relatively low.

• Only a fifth (20%) of stakeholders are satisfied with how you communicate what you are doing. The verbatim comments acknowledge that there has been more communication over the past 12 months or so but suggest that stakeholders want communication to be more open and transparent.

• A quarter of stakeholders (26%) are confident in the direction that EQC is currently heading. The remaining stakeholders don’t lack confidence as such (rating between 2 and 7) but more needs to be done to convince them of EQC’s strategy.

Overall the verbatim comments are very positive providing further evidence for the suggestion that EQC’s performance has improved over the past 12 months. It is clear that the stakeholders want to work closely with you with the aim of forming collaborative and transparent relationships

OVERALL PERFORMANCE

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

5

OVERALL PERFORMANCE

Q4. Taking everything into consideration, how would you rate the overall performance of EQC?

Base: All Respondents, excluding those who said don't know, n=44

WHAT IS EQC DOING WELL?

Manages the disaster insurance area very well. Commits to disaster research very well. Assists with public awareness well.

(Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management)

EQC has responded to the Canterbury Earthquakes very well indeed. Although many people don't understand the difficulty of

the task. It has been a difficult job balancing a managed repair programme against the desire by homeowners to have their

homes fixed as soon as possible. Overall EQC has done exceptionally well. (Fletcher Building)

I believe that the performance of EQC overall has improved in recent times, specifically the connection with support agencies and working together to produce the best service that can be

provided to insured homeowners. (Canterbury Advocacy Group)

Call centre staff are on the whole empathetic and tolerant. The EQC website is a good source of information.

(TC3 Residents Group)

I think the EQC manages the risk portfolio for the country very well especially with reinsurance markets and in the leadership of

research. (Tonkin & Taylor)

Just over half (54%) of stakeholders are satisfied with EQC’s performance overall. However, 9% rate overall performance as ‘poor’ and a further 36% as just ‘fair’. The aim should be to have stakeholders rating performance as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’.

Series19%

36%

20%

20%

14%

Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

54% rate EQC’s performance as good, very good or excellent

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

6

Q7. And what, if anything, do you think EQC needs to improve on?

WHAT CAN EQC DO BETTER?

Communication and engagement with homeowners and those looking to

assist. A better joined up system would

benefit along with more transparency

around decision making and

application of policies to individuals .

(Residential Advisory Service)

I think the linkage between EQC and

Public is constrained by the Act. What people think of as

insurance and what the Act provides for are not the same in

my experience. Better tools to

communicate and interpret the Act with the public would assist.

(Tonkin and Taylor)

Timely decision making, clearer communication,

identifying ways to improve way of

partnering with the private insurers in a

disaster to minimise customer confusion, double

handling and costs.(IAG)

I think EQC needs to understand the

community and its expectations better to deliver a better service

and develop more appropriate education packages. I think it also needs to understand its

role in the context of other agencies better.

(Emergency Management Canterbury)

Communication to the wider world regarding its post-disaster claims

assessment and payment role,

particularly in respect of the interface with private insurers, and the constraints on the

exercise thereof.(Anonymous)

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

7

PERFORMANCE COMPARED WITH 12 MONTHS AGO

27%

73%

Worse The same Better

Q7. Overall, on balance, do you think that EQC is performing better than it was 12 months ago, the same as 12 months ago, or worse than 12 months ago?

Base: All Respondents, excluding those who said don't know, n=41

WHY HAS PERFORMANCE IMPROVED?Its people have made an effort to get out and engage with other agencies when EQC has got bad feedback. Staff have been put in extremely difficult and confrontational circumstances, and I hope

EQC is supporting its staff to do this work because they are a credit to the organisation. (Emergency Management Canterbury)

Improved communication, open interaction with the community and engagement. Greater transparency

with customers and community. (Fletcher EQR)

EQC’s presence on the ground showed people they were working in the area. Urgent situations were able to be assessed quickly. Payments flowed through quicker to enable repairs to

begin immediately. After CHCH - Cook Strait Seddon event - although much smaller, showed how (managed from one contact point) people had a place to go to get immediate

assistance from EQC assessors. (Awatere Community Trust Centre)

EQC has learnt from the actions it has had to take and progressively improved in areas where there were no

previous models to draw on. (Alchimie NZ Ltd)

No stakeholders rated EQC’s performance as worse compared to 12 months ago. In fact, three quarters of stakeholders (73%) perceive that EQC’s performance has improved, with the remaining 27% noting no change.

Note: 9% said ‘don’t know’ but have been excluded from this chart.

A CLOSER LOOK AT PERFORMANCE

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

9

PERFORMANCE IN THE THREE MAIN FUNCTIONS

Natural disaster insurance - protecting people against the

financial costs of natural disasters

Research - helping communities understand

what makes them vulnerable in natural disasters, and helping to reduce this

vulnerability

Education - encouraging communities to take steps to reduce the effects of natural

disasters

9%

16%

11%

2%

7%

2%

22%

22%

24%

29%

22%

38%

27%

20%

20%

11%

13%

4%

Don't know Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

Q3. How would you rate EQC's performance on each of its three functions?

Base: All Respondents, n=45

Overall, stakeholders are quite satisfied with EQC’s performance in providing natural disaster insurance (38% rated ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’). Among EQC’s three main functions, the performance of EQC in education is generally rated less positively by stakeholders (24% rated performance positively).When looking at the proportion that said ‘don’t know’ across the three functions, it is clear that there is a lack of knowledge of EQC’s role among stakeholders.

% rated excellent or very good

38%

33%

24%

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

10

PERCEPTIONS OF EQC

Is an organisation you trust

Is fair

Is competent

2%

2%

2%

11%

9%

9%

31%

36%

38%

38%

36%

44%

18%

18%

7%

Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Q10. To what extent do you agree or disagree that EQC….

Base: All Respondents, n=45

Just over half of stakeholders perceive EQC to be a trustworthy organisation, fair and competent, while the other half are indifferent or disagree. As these are your key stakeholders that you have relationships with, these ratings are relatively low.

In general, stakeholders with high trust in EQC and those who perceive EQC to be competent and fair (‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’) are more likely to be more positive about how well EQC communicates with stakeholders (‘very well’ and ‘extremely well’).

% strongly agree and

agree

56%

54%

51%

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

11

SATISFACTION WITH EQC’S COMMUNICATION

Series1

38%

42%

18%

2%

Extremely well

Very well

Quite well

Not very well

Not at all well

Q11. How well do you feel that EQC communicates with stakeholders (such as government agencies, local councils, businesses, etc) about what it is doing?

Base: All Respondents, n=45

Those who believe EQC does not communicate well with stakeholders (not very well or not at all well) are more likely to have contact with EQC on a more regular basis (Once a week or 2-3 times a month). They are also more likely to have a negative view of EQC’s performance in each of their three main functions.

A fifth (20%) of stakeholders are satisfied with how EQC communicates what it is doing. A selection of comments relating to communication are shown on the next slide.

20% say EQC communicates very well or extremely well

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

12

COMMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATION

Communication with homeowners. I believe it was a mistake not to inform homeowners when their house

could be fixed. Also, I believe EQC could make New Zealanders much more aware of what they do and

perhaps at the end of the programme, what they have done for Canterbury. (Fletcher Building)

I think they are starting to listen to people (e.g. this survey) and they have been communicating directly with our group which is appreciated and positive.

(Flockton Cluster Group)

Communicating better with public; overall performance better. (Anonymous)

Communications appear to be more frequent and better visuals on work in Christchurch. (Aon Benfield)

Requested information is on the whole more forthcoming and received in shorter timeframes - willingness to engage with community representatives/groups.

(TC3 Residents Group)

Human interface - communication, engagement, processes and procedures, transparency, integrity and auditing of staff and decision making, access to staff.

Communicating what EQC does other than claim settlement. Understanding the interface between EQC

and other agencies in a recovery setting. Clear procedures for interpretation of the EQ Act. (CANcern)

Continued connections with those that work with homeowners to ensure understanding of current phases of

recovery and how best to connect with the homeowners both face to face and by written communication.

(Canterbury Advocacy Group)

Community engagement - this is now more proactive. Ability to engage and front foot issues is critical to our

reputations. (Fletcher EQR)

Communication is better, there are not the "clangers" happening in the media and the job is getting done well.

(Fletcher Building)

Ability to connect to decision makers .More transparency of decisions/ open communication. More decisive around

decisions. (Residential Advisory Service)

HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION?POSITIVE COMMENTS

FUTURE DIRECTION

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

14

IS EQC HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

Q12. While you may or may not be totally happy with EQC at present, we would like to know whether or not, on balance, you are confident that they are heading in the right direction.

Base: All Respondents, n=45

A quarter of stakeholders (26%) are confident in the direction that EQC is currently heading. The remaining stakeholders don’t lack confidence as such (rating between 2 and 7) but more needs to be done to convince them of EQC’s strategy.

Series1 7% 2% 7% 4% 22% 31% 18% 4% 4%

0 - Not at all confident (0) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Extremely confident (10)

26%

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

15

WHAT SHOULD EQC DO DIFFERENTLY?

EQC could utilise training and workshops for all staff, especially regarding understanding clients under stress, communication and

staff care. EQC staff have a complicated job in Christchurch and it is clear they want to do the best they can for residents. It is important

the organisation supports them to do so. (Red Cross Christchurch)

Linking up on funding, linking up on purchasing, linking up on

resource. There is plenty we can start doing. It would pay to

engage now rather than waiting for an emergency.

(Accident Compensation Corporation)

Work with the private insurance sector to create protocols and ways of working in the event of

future disasters so we can have a smoother response for customers.

(IAG)

Regular updates or communications on actions that

EQC are progressing and the issues you are facing, so agencies can see if there are areas they may need to

know more of or be involved in.(Anonymous)

Ability to connect to decision makers. More transparency of decisions/ open communication.

More decisive around decisions.(Residential Advisory Service)

EQC has dealt with house land and contents in total isolation, I believe people where house claims are complicated by complex land issues

should have a separate team to manage their claims in a coordinated manner. EQC has set arbitrary rules about land claims which are

confusing and unfair. The people of Christchurch should not have to go to court to get a fair outcome post earthquake.

(Flockton Cluster Group)

I think employing some more specialists in community engagement and communication who are able to

help the whole organisation communicate better with agencies and

the general community would help EQC to do a better job.

(Emergency Management Canterbury)Continuing to work as one team

developing joint solutions to ensure success for both

organisations.(Fletcher EQR)

NEXT STEPS

Copy

right

©20

13 T

he N

iels

en C

ompa

ny. C

onfid

entia

l and

pro

prie

tary

.

17

CLOSING THE RESEARCH LOOP

COMMUNICATING KEY OUTTAKES FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS’ FEEDBACKStakeholders need to know that it is worth their while in taking the time to provide direct feedback for EQC. They need to know that their voice have been heard, listened to and will result in action. We recommend a communication to all stakeholders thanking them for their participation be sent as soon as possible. This should include some key outtakes and any actions that will be undertaken as a result.

INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDER’S FEEDBACKWhile this report allows EQC to understand the views of their stakeholders as a group, a key benefit of this research is the ability to delve into the views of each individual stakeholder and manage their relationship with this information in mind. In this report we have attempted to include a variety of feedback from individual stakeholders, however the dataset (for those who gave consent) is also provided for EQC to review the answers given by each stakeholder.