Expressing proportions with the verb \"include\"

18:37 Jul 2, 2019 

You wrote "So I asked somewhere else including a British native speaker. He suggested (2). Another professional, bilingual translator friend suggested (3)." It would appear that the people who suggested 2 and 3 either didn't understand what KPIs are or had a very poor grasp of English grammar. KPI does NOT mean "key performance index". It is "key performance indicator". An indicator is not at all the same thing as an index and the difference does affect the grammar of your sentence.

However, the only one that comes close to making sense is 3. Possibly, you could amend it to read:
"This year the company included social value as an element in 50% of their KPIs."

Does that correctly translate your source text? I really don't know.

13:12 Jul 1, 2019 

The three options proposed are so wrong or unusual (and appear to suggest different things), that it is difficult to understand what the intended meaning is supposed to be. philgoddard has provided a lucidly explained Answer, but I cannot independently tell whether or not this matches the intended meaning — as indeed he too is basing his answer on an assumption or two and his prior experience with Korean documents.

If this either comes from an existing Korean source text, or can be expressed in Korean by you, then I suggest that you might more advantageously have asked for a translation from Korean into English, and requested that answers try to keep "the company" as the subject and use the verb "to include".

02:06 Jul 1, 2019 

And sorry I didn't choose any answers as helpful. This is because those answers are ones I already know.

01:42 Jul 1, 2019 

Indeed, a few people here said no to (1) but nobody gave me an alternative using "include". I wanted to check the use of "include" as far as I could. So I asked somewhere else including a British native speaker. He suggested (2). Another professional, bilingual translator friend suggested (3). But I was not completely sure about any of those. So I asked here. I included (1) because I presume not everyone has seen it. But the question is really about (2) and (3). Please let me know what I am doing wrong.

18:36 Jun 30, 2019 

that it's possible to just replicate some construction from your own language when translating into English - works sometime, but in this case obviously NOT.

In how many different ways and how many people have to say to you "no ways"?

Before you start complaining about "being aggressive", keep in mind that this is a very polite version ...

01:34 Jun 30, 2019 

Dear Asker. There is no need to be aggressive here. I am trying to understand the use of "include" because it fits nicely into the context of my translation. I got further suggestions from native speakers so I am trying to check them here. What's wrong with this? I am not forcing anyone to agree with me.

21:02 Jun 29, 2019 

I presume this refers to CSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibilit...

16:09 Jun 29, 2019 

As we have all said before, the use of 'by' here is totally wrong in all cases: it may be used with 'increeased / rose by...' and reduced / fell by...', but cannot be used with 'included'. In fact, the only problem here is your stubborn insistence on wanting to use 'include' at all here, which is inherently not natural in EN.

16:05 Jun 29, 2019 

You have already asked this question, and been given several answers by native speakers; yet you persist in asking advice about your own suggestions, all 3 of which are either plain wrong, or far from natural / idiomatic.
Do you imagine that by posting the same question again, you are eventually going to find someone who will agree with your suggestions?