Grangemouth - draft Just Transition Plan: consultation analysis

Part 5: Monitoring and Evaluation

The Monitoring and Evaluation chapter of the Grangemouth Just Transition Plan outlines the proposed framework to assess the Plan’s progress over time. It sets out specific outcomes aligned with the Plan’s objectives, to be tracked using both quantitative and qualitative indicators selected for their relevance, validity, and practicality, including data availability and update frequency. In Part 5 of the consultation document, the Scottish Government invited the public’s views on 9 questions related to the proposed monitoring and evaluation framework. Respondents were asked whether the outcomes align with the National Just Transition outcomes, whether alternative publicly available indicators should be considered, and if they felt any changes to the current outcomes or indicators were needed. Questions also explored potential challenges to the monitoring approach, views on the frequency of monitoring, the effectiveness of the Grangemouth Future Industry Board as a forum for community input, and how the Grangemouth Future Industry Board could be strengthened to oversee progress. This section summarises the thematic analysis of responses, structured according to the specific questions asked.

31. Do you think that the outcomes are correct as in reference to the National Just Transition outcomes as defined in ‘Just Transition for the Grangemouth cluster?

Most of the respondents did not answer whether or not they agreed that the outcomes are correct in reference to the National Just Transition outcomes. Among those who answered, 86% of the respondents agreed with this statement with 14% disagreeing. Respondent types who answered and agreed included respondents from wider industry, local council, port operator, training provider and trade body/professional associations. Engagement with this question among Grangemouth community members was similar, with 50% of community respondents not answering. Among Grangemouth community members who did respond, 55% said they thought the outcome and indicators were correct while 45% did not know.

Despite limited engagement by respondents on this question, several respondents provided their views on the subject. It is worth noting that most of these views did not relate specifically to the alignment of the Grangemouth JT plan outcomes with national Just Transition outcomes, but rather related more generally to the Grangemouth JT plan outcomes.

In providing views, respondents from wider industry, non-profit, and Government departments commonly expressed positive sentiments about the outcomes. These respondents felt that the outcomes are clear and suitable, with one respondent noting that the outcomes are balanced and cover the relevant themes. Another respondent praised the outcomes for focusing on sustainable economic growth, community empowerment, equitable opportunities and environmental resilience.

Some respondents provided suggestions on how to improve the outcomes and ways to achieve them. One port operator respondent felt that the Government needs to ensure the proper framework is in place to achieve certain outcomes in community engagement and the environment. The respondent wrote:

“Yes, these are well balanced and cover the relevant themes. Some aspects relating to Community engagement and the environment do need to be fully considered from the perspective of framework that is required to facilitate and support these.” (port operator)

Another respondent stated that the outcomes should be linked to the proposed actions in the plan so their appropriateness could be better assessed. Similarly, Grangemouth community respondents suggested that outcomes be made into SMART outcomes.

Finally, a minority set of respondents provided specific suggestions on improving the outcomes. For instance, one Government department respondent had specific suggestions about outcome 5, suggesting that the SG should consider using the term ‘climate resilience’ rather than just ‘resilience’, as well as explore the optimisation of land use to provide services and resources. Moreover, this respondent suggested that the SG should consider including a specific indicator around flood risk.

32. Do you know of any other publicly available data indicators that could be used to track the Grangemouth Just Transition outcomes?

Most respondents did not provide suggestions on publicly available data indicators. Respondents who did provide suggestions include respondents from wider industry, non-profit/charity, local council, Government departments and individual respondents.

Respondents commonly suggested that labour market indicators should be used to track the outcomes. This suggestion was commonly provided by respondents from the non-profit/charity, local council and government departments and individual respondents. The specific labour market indicators suggested are the number of jobs and the unemployment percentage. One respondent from the non-profit sector, specifically suggested that the SG should use OPITO’s tool for labour market intelligence and strategic forecasting to help track perceptions and progress relevant to people and skills workstreams.

A few respondents from the wider industry and individual types suggest that some environmental indicators should be used to track the outcomes. One individual respondent specifically suggested using data that shows evidence of climate breakdown, such as rising temperatures, increased storm intensity, and environmental degradation assessments.

One local council respondent suggested that the outcomes should be linked to community indicators. Specifically, besides the unemployment percentage, respondents suggested that the outcome should be linked to community health (NHS) figures and SIMD indicators.

One wider industry respondent also mentioned Project Willow, suggesting that the initial report of Project Willow should feed into the outcomes when published.^[9]

33. Are there any changes that you would make to the outcomes in their current form (for example condensing themes together)?

Respondents provided a diverse range of suggestions on potential changes they would want to make to the outcomes. Respondents who provided suggestions contextualised these against some criticisms of outcomes. These criticisms include the perceived lack of direction for the current outcomes, the absence of a baseline against which to measure them, and some outcomes being perceived as too broad or overlapping with each other.

Accordingly, key suggestions provided by respondents can be grouped into the following categories for ease of analysis: measurability and clarity, combination of outcomes, differentiation of outcomes, and developing specific outcomes. Suggestions around improving measurability and clarity, and combination were most common, while only one respondent felt that the current outcomes need to be more differentiated/specific.

• Measurability and clarity: For suggestions focusing on measurability and clarity, a few respondents from the training provider and local council groups reiterated that outcomes need to be made SMART for them to be measurable. One respondent wrote:

"The points within each outcome have a level of overlap therefore, these could be simplified and streamlined so the Vision has fewer outcomes - removing any vague statements. For example “communities are empowered” – this is not a SMART outcome and difficult to measure." (training provider)

A few respondents also suggested that the specific outcomes need to be linked to indicators and the specific agencies tasked with their governance. The same respondent also sought specific clarifications on some of the outcomes, including clarification on whether outcome 3 refers to Net Zero Supply Chain; clarification on how the indicators for outcome 7 would be generated; clarification on the link between outcome 10 and its indicators; and clarification on whether outcome 11 is about using industrial heat to heat homes. This indicates a need to improve clarity of the outcomes.

• Combination of outcomes: Suggestions on combining outcomes were aimed at eliminating overlapping themes. For instance, one wider industry respondent suggested that under the ECON theme, outcome 1 and outcome 2 could be combined as ‘thriving businesses’ and ‘diverse economy’ could potentially be combined. Similarly, one Government respondent suggested combining outcome 2 and outcome 3 as both outcomes mention advancing equality and reducing regional inequality. For the COMM and EQUI themes, one wider industry respondent suggested combining outcome 8 and outcome 10 as they have overlapping elements.
• Differentiation of outcomes: In contrast, one Government respondent suggested the outcomes should be more differentiated to solve overlapping issues as well as some outcomes being too vaguely defined. This respondent specifically referenced outcome 6, which mentions a) improved coordination of structural levels and b) impacts of these developments on stakeholders are known and addressed. They felt that ‘b)’ could be an outcome on its own due to its complexity and due to being an outcome that may potentially be achieved at a later stage. To make the outcomes more specific, the respondent suggested linking the outcomes to proposed actions.
• Specific outcomes: A few respondents from the wider industry and training provider groups also suggested changes in outcomes to make them more specific and clearer. They noted that when the outcomes become more specific and measurable, the indicators (addressed in the following question) for them will also be clearer. Specifically, outcomes in ECON could specify what type of “fair” jobs it aims to support and outcomes in ENVT could include specific biodiversity targets.

Grangemouth community members who engaged with this question, provided suggestions from a community perspective. In doing so, they highlighted the general and overarching need for transparency and accessibility for the community through monitoring, timelines, and more effective communication with local people. Finally, one industry respondent noted that they would make no changes to the current form of outcomes.

34. Would you suggest changing any of the indicators?

Most commonly, respondents felt that no changes are needed for the indicators. This view was shared among non-profit/charity, wider industry, individual and trade body/professional association respondent types.

Some Government and non-profit respondents felt that the indicators need to be reviewed for their effectiveness. Specifically, one Government department respondent suggested that baseline data should be added for indicators where available. In their view, this would help to identify the data gaps, the geographic scope and limitations of each indicator and support consistent measurement in future years.

A few other respondents suggested specific changes to the indicators. For instance, it was suggested that the indicator for unemployment for outcome 2 should focus on the local community members, and that indicators such as “PHS data for health outcomes” could be more specific.

35. Do you foresee any difficulties in the monitoring approach?

Respondents identified a wide range of potential difficulties in the monitoring approach. For ease of analysis, these specific foreseen challenges have been organised into four broad themes: data challenges, outcome challenges, external challenges, and inherent biases. Difficulties identified under data challenges and outcome challenges were most common, followed by those identified in relation to external challenges and inherent bias.

Data-related challenges were commonly reported by wider industry and non-profit/charity respondent groups. These respondents foresaw problems relating to data availability, quality and interpretation of data. One respondent wrote:

"Monitoring is integral to ensuring the success and accountability of projects and processes. One foreseeable challenge surrounds quantitative analysis and the speed at which data can become out-dated.” (non-profit/charity)

Another wider industry respondent foresaw that the large volume of metrics used to track the progress of Just Transition may cause delays and inaccuracies.

Outcome-related challenges were commonly reported by individual respondents, non-profit and training provider respondent groups. Specifically, these respondents felt that the JT plan outcomes lack substance and do not translate into effective actions that help workers. These respondents felt that if the desired outcomes are not clearly defined or aligned with the overall goals of the project, the data collected for monitoring may not be useful or relevant. One respondent wrote:

"Workers have expressed disappointment with regards to both climate targets in Scotland and renewable job objectives. A key problem with the monitoring approach is turning reviewing targets into action that is highly visible in terms of shaping future work, energy production and manufacturing activities." (individual)

External challenges were commonly reported by port operator respondents and Government department respondents. Respondents noted that such difficulties may arise when monitoring requires input from industry partners. Another respondent noted that there are other factors and initiatives aimed at transitioning to Net-Zero, making it challenging to isolate the specific effect of the Just Transition project.

Inherent biases were also reported by an individual respondent. This respondent expressed concern that the monitoring itself would be biased in favour of fulfilling the Net Zero goal.

A smaller number of respondents from wider industry, local council, and Government departments, provided suggestions on how to improve the monitoring process. Most commonly, these respondents suggest that the SG need to improve the clarity of the monitoring approach. Specifically, these suggestions include employing a SMART approach to monitoring, providing information on the lead agencies, sources of data, and the reporting timescales of the monitoring approach, and utilising well-established and publicly available data sources for the metrics used in monitoring to enhance trust with stakeholders. One respondent wrote:

"Overall, and similar to the Action Plan, the Framework would assist from a SMART approach, identification of lead agencies and source of data and reporting timescales." (local council)

One respondent also suggested that the SG needs to have an ongoing review and correction process for its monitoring approach and to maintain close dialogue with the industry to ensure its data for monitoring is up to date.

36. To what extent do you agree with the proposed monitoring framework to review the Just Transition Outcomes and Indicators outlined in the Plan?

Most respondents did not engage with this question. Among respondents who answered the question, 60% of the respondents agreed with the monitoring framework, 30% were neutral, and 10% strongly disagreed. No respondents either disagreed or strongly agreed (see figure 9).

A few respondents elaborated on the challenges they foresee in relation to the monitoring framework. One non-profit respondent suggested that consultations regarding monitoring and evaluation be conducted in a timely and frequent manner. The respondent wrote:

“It is important that the consultation around monitoring and evaluation is conducted in a timely manner, and frequently to ensure currency of information and to allow for early identification of risks and issues. It is agreed that key information around defined goals will be required to be completed as a priority.” (non-profit/ charity)

Another local council respondent expressed concern that the Plan has no baseline for assessment.

Some respondents also provided suggestions to improve the proposed monitoring framework. For instance, one wider industry respondent specified that the SG should ensure the data collection is feasible within the resource constraints, that the monitoring process includes diverse stakeholders’ perspectives, and the framework has a mechanism for community feedback and adaptation. One local council respondent suggests the SG use the SMART approach for their monitoring and evaluation framework as well. One trade union respondent suggested that it is important for the SG to ensure they are able to monitor the progress towards creating jobs for workers that are of equal value to the ones they lost from Just Transition.

37. Progress will need to be monitored at regular intervals – for example once a year, once every two years. What would a sensible monitoring system look like for this plan?

Respondents provided a range of views on what they felt a sensible monitoring system would look like for this plan. Their views related to frequency of monitoring, monitoring process, and flexibility of the system.

Monitoring system and processes: Respondents provided suggestions on what the monitoring system should include. One wider industry respondent suggested that it should include annual data collection, stakeholder surveys, progress reports, and key performance indicators aligned with Just Transition objectives. One Government department respondent suggested that, in addition to the annual formal assessment, it’s important to include regular meetings to discuss current progress and potential future roadblocks.

Monitoring frequency: Most commonly, respondents provided suggestions on the frequency for monitoring progress. Suggestions on frequency were varied. Some of the respondents suggested the SG should adopt an annual monitoring approach. This view was shared by respondents from wider industry, Government, and local councils. Other respondents argued for the SG to adopt a more frequent monitoring system (most specified it should be more than once a year, while some have not). This view was shared by wider industry, non-profit/charity and port operator respondent groups. Among those who suggested progress should be monitored more than once a year, some suggested this should be done every six months, while others suggested that it should be done quarterly. Other suggestions were more specific – with one industry respondent suggesting the project should undergo regular reviews with more frequency at the outset, and another industry respondent suggesting that monitoring intervals should differ between different areas, with shorter monitoring gaps for areas that are more urgent. Moreover, it was suggested that there should be an online resource for monitoring and reporting progress in real-time. The respondent wrote:

"Ideally, the progress will be monitored and reported as part of an online resource or tool. This would ensure that live progress can be monitored. Scottish Government should also seek to give regular progress updates themselves, and gather stakeholders together when this is to be done." (non-profit/ charity)

Grangemouth community members suggested even shorter monitoring timelines, preferring that progress be monitored and evaluated every 3-6 months.

Unlike other suggestions, one trade body/professional association respondent suggested the progress should only be monitored once every two years, with a thorough review every ten years.

Flexibility of monitoring framework: One wider industry respondent suggested that a sensible monitoring framework needs to be flexible enough to allow for updates and improvements, while one local council respondent suggested that the SG need to monitor both the progress on business-related outcomes and the community wellbeing-related outcomes. One training provider respondent suggested that the progress needs to be monitored with both qualitative and quantitative data.

Transparency and clarity of communication: A few respondents from the wider industry and training provider groups suggested that there should be clear and consistent communication on progress towards outcomes to stakeholders. One Government respondent outlined that the SG needs to provide more clarity on the current monitoring system. Specifically, in their view, the framework should include details on who is responsible for data collection and publication, as well as the expected frequency of monitoring for each indicator. This suggestion was shared by Grangemouth community members, who feel that regular updates would help build confidence and community interest in the process.

Grangemouth community suggested a range of measures to stay updated on progress

Grangemouth community members were asked about how they would like to be updated on the progress. Most respondents suggested social media or a community app, traditional media (print and digital), and community events available in various mediums, all using accessible language to ensure it is available to all age groups.

Notably, a few respondents flagged concerns that could impact the implementation of an effective monitoring system. One local council respondent referred to a previous plan, Future Grangemouth Vision 2025, which was reviewed only once during its 10-year period, and focused solely on the economic impacts on businesses. Separately, another Government respondent cautioned that the monitoring system is dependent on the frequency of data releases, and timely monitoring could be challenging as some economic datasets have a time lag. This respondent wrote:

"Provided the MEF clearly specifies where data is sourced from, it should be possible and not too much work to do an annual update. However, this will partly depend on how frequently data is released. The expected frequency of monitoring can be stated against each indicator in the MEF. For example, most of the economic data is available annually, albeit with a time lag that varies by data set (e.g. business count is available annually from NOMIS with a one-year time lag, GVA is available annually from SABS with a 2 to 3-year time lag)." (Gov agency/dept)

38. To what extent do you agree that the Grangemouth Future Industry Board is an effective forum for community to voice concerns regarding industrial transformation?

Only 20% of all respondents engaged with this question. Responses were evenly split between those who agreed and those who disagreed or strongly disagreed. Those in agreement were typically representatives from the wider industry or non-profit organisations, while those who disagreed were primarily individuals or local authorities.

The most commonly expressed view was that the Grangemouth Future Industry Board (GFIB) is an effective platform that convenes a broad range of stakeholders and remains vital for both the transition and the successful development of the industrial cluster. The second most frequently raised view focused on the limited involvement of the local community in the GFIB’s work. Respondents stressed the need for change, citing that community concerns do not appear to be a priority for the Board. As one respondent noted:

“[…] the Board is a useful forum to bring together a range of stakeholders involved in the Just Transition, it is probably not the most relevant forum to voice community concerns.” (Training provider)

Some additional points were raised. These included suggestions for GFIB to engage more proactively with local communities or to participate in existing forums such as Community Councils or the Grangemouth Community Hub. One respondent welcomed the recent restructure, particularly the inclusion of trade union representation. However, another raised concern is that the current GFIB Board membership includes corporations historically linked to environmental harm. A further suggestion proposed that restructuring GFIB into a model with Scottish Enterprise-led sub-groups (focusing on industry, skills, and regulation) which would report to a central steering committee, could enhance efficiency.

39. How can the Grangemouth Future Industry Board be suitably mobilised to monitor progress against this plan?

Several suggestions were put forward by respondents regarding how the Grangemouth Future Industry Board (GFIB) could be effectively mobilised to monitor progress against the plan. The most commonly cited suggestions centred around three key areas: the introduction of a regular reporting schedule, the establishment of clear objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs), and greater involvement and support from stakeholders.

• With respect to reporting, some respondents emphasised the need for a structured reporting schedule to support consistent monitoring. They suggested this could include quarterly or biannual progress reports produced by relevant stakeholders.
• In relation to KPIs, some respondents highlighted the importance of defining specific, measurable indicators that are aligned with the objectives of the plan. Establishing clear milestones for delivering expected outcomes was considered essential. It was suggested that a constitution or trust could provide the necessary framework to define and agree upon these deliverables.
• Some respondents also stressed the importance of stakeholder involvement in both monitoring progress and providing feedback. Suggestions included seeking input from experts and making use of industry-led working groups. It was also proposed that the GFIB include a diverse mix of industry representatives with practical, on-the-ground knowledge to ensure comprehensive oversight. Additional recommendations included encouraging partners to submit statements outlining their contributions to delivering positive outcomes for the region, and incorporating regular surveys or hosting forums to gather input from both the community and industry. As noted by one respondent:

“[…] Where necessary, the Grangemouth Future Industry Board should look to experts to support, with the support of industry workgroups. (Non profit or charity)

A few respondents, however, were of the view that the GFIB should not be responsible for monitoring progress directly. Instead, they suggested the GFIB should concentrate on reviewing and revisiting the plan in cases where actions have not been completed.

Other less common suggestions provided by respondents included the implementation of a standardised project control framework; the creation of specialised sub-committees to focus on key areas such as industry, skills and the environment; the development of a centralised system for data collection and analysis; and the scheduling of structured review meetings to assess progress and identify areas for improvement.