Help:Practical guide on stakeholder involvement

PLEASE NOTE: This page is being restructured. See for the revision below

PRACTICAL GUIDE ON STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The purpose of this page is to provide you some guidance on the management of stakeholder involvement. A stakeholder is a person or organisation that has (may have) some interest in your project. As you will notice, it is all about common sense. The benefit of this guide hides in the explicification of stakeholder management issues. By answering the lead questions, you will become aware of these issues.

Why should you involve stakeholders? This first somewhat philosophical question is often not explicitly answered. The decision to involve stakeholders can be made for several reasons: (1) It is ethical just to involve people and organisations, when your work influences their interests. (2) Stakeholders have a plurality of view and often inside-information, which are important to your work. (3) Stakeholders can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of your work; stakeholder involvement increases common understanding, and the acceptability and usefulness of the project output.

IDENTIFICATION PHASE

This guide distinguishes two phases: the identification phase and the involvement phase. During the identification phase, stakeholders are identified, their wants and expectations in relation to your work are mapped, as well as your own wants in relation to the stakeholder. Lead questions for identification and mapping are:

Who are the stakeholders?

If there is decided to involve stakeholders, you need to identify them. You can make a list of people and organisations that can influence or can be influences by your project work. Consider both positive and negative influence. For example, in a risk assessment of coal-industrial pollutants, the involvement of the industry can facilitate data collection and policy measure acceptance (stakeholder's positive influence) and the involvement of "the money" is crucial to secure financial resources (stakeholder's negative influence). You could also ask stakeholders who else they consider to be a stakeholder, so that you do not overlook someone.

What does each STAKEHOLDER wants from us?

Each stakeholder has its own expectations concerning your work, because he/she/it has some stake in your project. For example, stakeholders could want to maintain the status quo, and thus expect the project to leave their interest untouched. They could also want to be actively involved in a particular matter. Stakeholders could want to be informed, so that they can react to any inconvenient developments. Stakeholders could expect to be heard, so that they can express their views. By answering "what does each stakeholder want from us?” you identify, estimate and group stakeholders' expectations in relation to your work. Several subquestions, such as: "what is the stakeholder's view on our project, and why?", "does the stakeholder see the same problem(s) as we do, and why (not)?" or "what is the stakeholder’s role in our project, and why?" can be helpful in estimating stakeholder wants. Nota bene, stakeholder wants can be estimated wrongly; asking stakeholder for their views on the project/problem provides better insight in stakeholders' wants and expectations.

WAYS OF IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDER WANTS:

Depending on the scale of the project, the budget and time limits, you can map stakeholder wants in several ways. You could organise within the unit/department a brainstorm session, in which you will estimate stakeholder wants. The advantage of a brainstorm session is that it is relatively fast and cheap. Its disadvantage is that it yields estimations of wants and expectations. You could also organise hearings, for which stakeholders are invited and in which they can present their expectations. The advantage of a hearing is that all stakeholders’ expectations are heard at the same time. Its disadvantage is that with a large number of stakeholders the hearing last forever and is difficult to arrange (time and date planning, transport, location, etc.). With a large number of stakeholders, (group) interviews in which stakeholders are asked for their views and expectations are more convenient. The disadvantage of interviews is that it requires a lot of time. Surveys can also be used for mapping stakeholder wants and expectations. The advantage of a survey is that you can question a large number of stakeholders without relatively much effort. Its disadvantage is that certain expectations/wants may not be named, because the questionnaire limits answers to the questions.

What do WE want from each stakeholder?

The answer to this question is closely related to the reason(s) for stakeholder involvement. For example, do you just want to inform stakeholders or do you want stakeholders' input, i.e. their views, information, data, etc.? Do you want stakeholders' commitments, i.e. their participation in the project objectives formulation and the work process? Do you want their protection or do you want them just to be satisfied and silent? By answering "what do we want from each stakeholder?” you identify, articulate and discriminate your needs in relation to stakeholders.

INVOLVEMENT PHASE

Once you have identified and mapped your and the stakeholders' wants and expectations, the stakeholders can be involved in your work. This requires organisation. The following lead questions will direct the organisation process of stakeholder involvement:

Who SHOULD we involve? -- stakeholder power

Particular stakeholders can play an important role, because they have stakeholder power, i.e. the ability to obstruct or to accelerate the project process. As in the example of the risk assessment of coal-industrial pollutants: the industry could facilitate data collection and policy measure acceptance (stakeholder's positive power) whereas the financing party could cut of the financial resources (stakeholder's negative power). By answering the question "who should we involve?" you identify the powerful stakeholders in the project.

Who CAN we involve? -- practical reasons to restrict openness

All stakeholders can be involved, but not all can participate due to capacity limitations. The openness of your project is restricted to ensure efficiency of the work process, either by you or through a natural selection process. For example if the issue-framing phase in a project is totally open for stakeholder participation, it might be that 35 different stakeholders want to participate. It is impossible to achieve within a reasonable time limit consensus on the purpose, scope and content of the project, because all these stakeholders have different psychological schemas that are not aligned (Jehn, Chadwick & Thatcher 1997). The lack of progress demotivates participants and consequently they withdraw disillusioned. It depends on the project organisation and capacity how many stakeholders can participate. By asking "who can we involve", you prioritise the participation of particular stakeholders.

Who should NOT be involved? -- ethical reasons to restrict openness

This is a question opposite to those of "who should and who can we involve", because it springs from an ethical point of view (instead of a practical). When science cannot provide an impartial source of facts upon which policy decisions can be based, Liberal principle demands the involvement of stakeholders in order to make legitimate policy decisions (INTARESE 2006). This implies that anyone interested has the right to be involved and that they in principle cannot be excluded for practical reasons. By answering the question "who should NOT be involved?" you become aware of this ethical dilemma and, as a solution to it, you can chose an other way of involving stakeholders.

When do we involve particular stakeholders? -- planning

Your project most probably has several phases/stages/steps/etc. (of which one is the stakeholder identification phase). In each phase particular stakeholders can play an important role due to their power or input. Take as example the first phase of the risk assessment of coal-industrial pollutants; the assessment process starts with issue-framing, where the purpose, scope and content of the assessment are specified, as well as the basic indicators. In this phase, policy maker involvement is important, because they are supposed to use the assessment output (user role). The involvement of experts is important, because their knowledge is required for indicator determination (expert role). Public involvement is important, because laymen might raise important practical issues that policy makers did not thought of (role of practical critic). By asking "when do we involve particular stakeholders?” you allocate certain stakeholders to particular phases in the project. Nota bene, the involvement of a stakeholder does not have to be restricted to one particular phase; he/she/it can of course be involved in several phases of the project.

PICTURING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Once the questions of who should and who can we involve in which phase are answered, it is possible to draw a diagram/table of the stakeholder involvement in the project process. In this diagram/table the project phases are pictured and the potential participating stakeholders are allotted to one or several phases. The benefit of such an diagram/table is that it provides an overview on the stakeholders (potentially) involved per project phase. Table 1. gives an hypothetical example:

	phase 0: stakeholder identification	phase 1: issue framing	phase 2: key variable indicator	phase 3: full chain approach	phase 4/5: tentative/coherent causal network	phase 6: assessment product
stakeholders that should be involved:	n/a	experts policy makers CLEAN AIR NOW! (pressure group)	experts	experts	experts	experts policy makers CLEAN AIR NOW! coal industry
stakeholders that can be involved:	n/a	Xunta d'Ovieu (municipality) coal industry	policy makers CLEAN AIR NOW! Xunta d'Ovieu coal industry residents	policy makers CLEAN AIR NOW! Xunta d'Ovieu coal industry residents	policy makers CLEAN AIR NOW! Xunta d'Ovieu coal industry residents	Xunta d'Ovieu residents

What are the barriers to stakeholder involvement?

Persuading stakeholders to become involved in your project could be difficult. For example, stakeholders could perceive the problem as your problem and not theirs. May be, they do not see the benefits of your project. Perhaps, stakeholders distrust governmental organisations. They do not speak your language (jargon). They have an overwhelming amount to read. The documents are not to the point. The discussion is too technical. Perhaps, they believe that they cannot or should not influence the project issue, or stakeholders could simply lack time. It is likely that stakeholders cannot be involved directly but that they have to be prepared for involvement. By asking "what prevents stakeholders to become involved?" you pin-point possible barriers to stakeholder involvement, which in turn enables you to decrease or remove them.

How do we involve each stakeholder?

Each stakeholder can be involved, as long they have the opportunity of involvement and practical barriers do not withhold them. All the answers to the previous questions converge on this question of "how do we involve stakeholder?". Taking into account stakeholders' wants, expectations and power, your needs, project phases and capacities, and the possible barriers to stakeholder involvement, you can opt for several ways of stakeholder involvement. These can be groups in the 3 categories: passive involvement, active involvement, and evaluation involvement.

WAYS OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT:

1. Passive involvement refers to taking stakeholders' views and opinions into account during a phase of the project without the direct participation of the stakeholder in that phase. Passive involvement methods are most suited for the expression of view, wants and expectations in case of (1) powerful stakeholders, in the negative meaning, who are not interested in active involvement, and (2) large numbers of non-powerful stakeholders who expressed interest in the project. For example, if the financing party is not interested in direct participation but only in controlling whether its money is spend in the proper way, it does not have to be involved in meetings, etc.; your compliance to its requirements is enough. Another example, if a large number of citizen pressure groups have expressed interests but due to capacity they cannot participate in meetings, then hearing each of their opinions would provide a good alternative. As already explained in the methods for identifying stakeholder wants, brainstorm sessions, hearings, interviews and surveys are suited ways for mapping views and opinions. Briefings, reports, information on the project website or the issuing of a communiqué are ways to inform stakeholders about the status of the project, how their stakes and expressed concerns are reckoned with, et cetera.

2. Active involvement: A stakeholder is actively involved, when in one of the project stages he/she/it participates in a gathering (with reciprocal communication), for example in a meeting, conference, task force, focus group, or workshop. Active stakeholder involvement methods are most suited in case of powerful stakeholders, who want to be involved. For example, the decision makers are invited to participate in a meeting for defining their information needs, or industry representatives are invited for a meeting to express their opinion.

3. Evaluation involvement refers to providing stakeholders the opportunity to comment and critise the project results/outcomes. Nota bene, evaluation concerns stakeholder involvement post factum, i.e. at the end of a project phase. Evaluation requires information. Attention to stakeholder issues in concept reports and on the project website, or debriefings could be a way to inform stakeholders about the results of the project, how their stakes and expressed concerns were reckoned with, which future events related to the project are planned, etc. Stakeholders can also be invited to provide feedback, comments, and criticism in a questionnaire, interview, or on the project website (for example in Wiki).

Three golden tips from the field

• Express what you expect from stakeholders: What would you like to discuss? What kind of input do you need? What would you like to have decided at the end of a meeting? et cetera

• Explain the reasons for decisions, so that stakeholders who become involved later on understand the project situation. For example: Why are there certain focus groups for measurement V, W, and X? Why is impact valuated by methods Y and data Z? et cetera

• Indicate the effect of stakeholders' contributions to the project: What was achieved with the aid of stakeholder X? Who would you like to thank for his/her/its co-operation? (stakeholder power) What has been changed after stakeholder remarks? et cetera

Related matters

• How do we deal with stakeholder conflict?

Sources

• EPA (2003) "Public involvement policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."

• EPA (2002) "Stakeholder involvement & public participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons learned, barriers, & innovative approaches."

• EPA (2000) "The model plan for public participation."

• EPA (1998) "EPA stakeholder involvement: Action plan."

• EPA Public Involvement Brochures

• INTARESE (2006) "Deliverable 7: Uncertainty Report" retrieved from official INTARESE website

• Jehn, K., C. Chadwick & S. Thatcher (1997) "To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on work group outcomes." in International Journal of Conflict Management 8(.) pp.187-205

• Kloprogge, P. & J. van der Sluis (2006) "The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change." in Climatic Change 75(.) pp.359-389

• RIVM/MNP (2003) "Guidance for uncertainty assessment and communication: Mini-checklist & quickscan questionnaire."

• SP1 WP1.1 paper 2 "Towards a practical appraisal framework for complex environmental health problems." LINK INVOEGEN --Sjuurd 17:33, 1 June 2007 (EEST)

---

REVISED VERSION: UNDER CONSTRUCTION --Sjuurd 16:39, 7 August 2007 (EEST)

(1) Why should you involve stakeholders?

"History shows us that the common man is a better judge of his own needs in the long run than any cult of experts." (L. Gulick, 1937)

The question that precedes the practical issues of stakeholder involvement is why should you involve stakeholders? The answer reflects in all stakeholder involvement issues; it determines the openness of the integrated risk assessment, the organisation of stakeholder involvement, and the type of stakeholders you invite. It is therefore important that you make explicit your reasons to involve stakeholders.

Reasons for stakeholder involvement

Fiorino (1990) grouped the arguments for stakeholder involvement in to three categories; he distinguishes substantive, normative and instrumental arguments for stakeholder involvement. Substantive arguments are practical arguments, like: Non-experts see problems, issues, and solutions that experts miss. (Isacson, 1986) More inclusive procedures enrich the generation of options and perspectives, and are therefore more responsive to the complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity of the risk phenomena (International Risk Governance Council 2006) And a more intensive stakeholder processes tends to result in higher-quality decisions. (Beierle, 2002) Stakeholder involvement because stakeholder involvement is the norm and thus expected is a normative argument. The instrumental argument states that stakeholder involvement may increase the acceptance and usability of the integrated risk assessment process and outcome. (INTARESE, 2007a) To wit, stakeholder involvement can increase public trust in research and government institutions and possibly decrease conflict. In addition to Fiorino’s substantive, normative and instrumental arguments, a fourth group of stakeholder involvement reasons can be distinguished, namely ethical reasons. Stakeholder participation is a mean to manage the legitimacy problem, which is caused by uncertainty about the evidence of harm. And owing to the Liberal foundation of the regulatory system, evidence of harm is key to justifying regulatory interventions. (INTARESE, 2006) Another ethical reason to involve stakeholders is that government should obtain the consent of the governed. (Stern & Fineberg, 1996)

(2) Who are the stakeholders?

A stakeholder is a person or organisation that has (may have) some interest related to the issues of the integrated risk assessment.

Stakeholder involvement starts with stakeholder identification and selection. A stakeholder is a person or organisation that has (may have) some interest (i.e. stake) related to the issues of the integrated risk assessment. In practice, you can think of stakeholder groups in different ways:

Thinking of stakeholder in different ways:
i. You can identify stakeholders based on their relation to the risk (Briggs & Stern, in press).	ii. You can identify stakeholders based on their roles in the integrated risk assessment.	iii. You can identify stakeholders based on the different perspectives they represent (e.g. Hage & Leroy 2007; Kloprogge & Van der Sluijs 2006).
Think of: People and organisations who (possibly) create the risks (risk generators). People or organisations who transmit the risks to other persons and/or organisations (risk purveyor). People or organisations who are effected by the risks (victims). People or organisations who benefit from the risks (risk beneficiaries). For example, companies who financially gain from the risks, because the risk (negative externality) is not included in the price of their products. Agents that hold the formal responsibilities to anticipate, reduce or manage risks, for example emergency services, planners, and regulators. Agents that hold the formal responsibility to deal with the consequences of risks, for example health services, insurance companies, and employers. People, organisations and institutions that inform about the risks (informants), for example, the media, scientists and monitoring agencies.	Think of: People, organisations and institutions that initiate the integrated risk assessment (initiators), for example policy makers, ministry, parliament, experts, research institutes, universities, industry, etc. People and organisations who perform the dose-response assessment, the exposure assessment, and the risk characterisation (assessment executors). People and organisations who can provide data, specific information, inside information, critical views, etc. to the integrated risk assessment (input providers and issue-framers), for example pressure groups, local residents, industry, research institutes, monitoring agencies, etc. People and organisations who can provide feed-back on the integrated risk assessment issues, process and outcomes (critics and users), for example, exposed local residents, experts, policy makers, journalist, industry, etc. People and organisations who can facilitate the integrated risk assessment by providing resources, such as money, researchers, laboratories, and meeting rooms and coffee (facilitators), for example research institutes, agencies, and governments. People and organisations who can obstruct the success of the integrated risk assessment (obstructers).

Tools for identifying stakeholders:
Brain Storming	Mapping	Snowball Method	Argumentation Analysis
In a brainstorm session you try to answer the lead-question: who are the stakeholders in this integrated risk assessment? All suggestions are written down. When no one can come up with unidentified stakeholders anymore, the list can be discussed.	With the mapping technique, stakeholders are allocated to a group, for example stakeholders are grouped per role or risk relation.	The snowball method is very useful to identify unrecognised stakeholders. You ask each stakeholder who they consider to be a stakeholder in integrated risk assessment. You continue doing this, until no new names pop up.	You can use the argumentation analysis, when you identify stakeholders based on the different perspectives. You list all possible perspectives on the issues of the integrated risk assessment and subsequently search for persons or organisational representatives who have such a view.

It can be difficult to identify the interested and affected parties, when there is no clear picture of integrated risk assessment issues. The best solution to this problem is to identify representatives of the more general public and/or environmental or community groups. Do ask yourself however: How representative are the stakeholder representatives?

(3) What do we expect from each identified stakeholder?

Most likely, you want stakeholder input (e.g. their views, information, data, etc.) or their commitments. However, it could also be that you want stakeholder protection or money or you just want them to be satisfied and silent.

Identifying and articulating your preliminary expectations about the possible contributions of each identified stakeholder has several benefits. Firstly, your expectations provide you guidance in organising stakeholder involvement; you should organise the stakeholder involvement in such a way that stakeholders can make their contributions (6). Secondly, they can lead you in the selection of participants for in the integrated risk assessment process (see xxx). Thirdly, your expectations form the basis of your stakeholder management strategy; if you expect a major contribution or an obstruction, you know that you should remain on good terms with them.

Stakeholders' possible contributions: (not exhaustive)

framing input: perspectives, critics, and suggestions assessment input: knowledge, information, and data comments: critics and suggestions (during the process) feed-back: critics and suggestions (after the process) facilitation: mediation skills, negotiation skills, meeting rooms, website maintenance, money, etc. obstruction (negative contribution): going to press - publishing critics without internal deliberation, refusal to co-operate, etc.

(4) Whom should we involve for sure?

Particular stakeholders can play an important role in the integrated risk assessment process, because they have the ability to obstruct or accelerate the process, they hold valuable knowledge, information or data, or they can provide resources for facilitation. Based on your preliminary expectations about the stakeholders' contributions (see 3), you can list the stakeholders you should involve to benefit from their contributions.

Try to collect a plurality of stakeholder views on the different integrated risk assessment issues. This increases the usability of the integrated risk assessment process and output, and the possibility of their acceptance.

Stakeholders that should be involved for sure
It depends on the type of integrated risk assessment, which stakeholders you should involve for sure. No conclusive general list can be given. The involvement of a particular stakeholder can be redundant in the first integrated risk assessment, but the same stakeholder can make a major contribution to the second integrated risk assessment. You yourself should consider which stakeholders to involve for sure. You can take the following stakeholder groups in consideration. (Note that this list is not exhaustive and important stakeholders could be missing.)
risk assessors policy makers (from the ministry, municipality, etc.) experts in the issues addressed in the integrated risk assessment non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as environmental protection organistions local residents (representatives) or community (representatives) pressure groups industry (representatives) agriculture and fishery (representatives) commerce (representatives) educational institutions medical community employer and employee unions ...

(5) Who should not be involved?

Perhaps this question strikes you as awkward, but it addresses the default assumptions of stakeholder involvement in integrated risk assessment (assumptions that influence the openness of the integrated risk assessment). The default assumption of this guide is that integrated risk assessment is in principle open; anyone who wants to be involved should be involved. This means that you should have good arguments to exclude stakeholders from involvement.

Two opposing default assumptions on stakeholder involvement in integrated risk assessment

The assumption of Closed integrated risk assessment The classical default assumption on stakeholder involvement is that there is in principle no need to open up (i.e. involve stakeholders in) the integrated risk assessment. If stakeholders are involved in the integrated risk assessment, their involvement is of a passive nature (i.e. stakeholders do not participate in the integrated risk assessment) and the inclusion of their perspectives is based on a top-down approach (i.e. stakeholders do not articulate their own perspectives, but risk assessors derive theoretical stakeholder perspectives from the general classification of ideas). (e.g. Kloprogge & Van der Sluijs, 2006) The assumption of Open integrated risk assessment This default assumption on stakeholder involvement states that integrated risk assessment is open to anyone who wants to be involved. It made its debut in the nineties of the twentieth century together with the introduction of post-normal science. Stakeholder involvement springing from this default assumption is more active in nature and the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives in the integrated risk assessment is based on a bottom-up approach; stakeholders participate in the integrated risk assessment and articulate their own perspectives on the issues. (e.g. Kloprogge & Van der Sluijs, 2006; Craye, Funtowicz & Van der Sluijs, 2005; Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993; Ravetz, 1999; Van der Sluijs, 2002)

(6) How to do we involve the identified stakeholders, so that they can make their contributions?

== (?) Whom do you invite for participation

keuze criteria goed verloop participatief proces

References

Beierle, Thomas C. (2002) - The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. - in Risk Analysis 22(4) pp.739-749

Briggs, David & Richard Stern (in press) - Risk response to the environmental hazards to health: Towards an ecological approach. -

Craye, Matthieu & Silvio O. Funtowicz (2005) - A reflexive approach to dealing with uncertainties in environmental health risk science and policy. - in International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 5(2/3/4) pp.216-236

Fiorino, Daniel J. (1990) - Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. - in Science, Technology and Human Values 15(.) pp.226-243

Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Jerome R. Ravetz (1993) - Science for the post-normal age. - in Futures 25(September) pp.739-755

Gulick, L. (1937) - Notes on the theory of organization. - in Papers on the Science of Administration, L.Gulick & L. Urwick (Eds.) New York: Institute of Public Administration

Hage, Maria & Peter Leroy (2007) - Leidraad stakeholderparticipatie voor het Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau: Praktijkwijzer. http://www.mnp.nl/nl/publicaties

INTARESE (2006) - Deliverable 7: Uncertainty report.

INTARESE (2007a) - Deliverable 16: Risk characterisation protocol.

International Risk Governance Council (2006) - White paper No.1: Risk governance; Toward an integrative approach. Geneva: IRGC

Isacson, Peter (1986) - Pollutant regulation and public sensibility. - in Environmental Impact Assessment Review 6(3) pp.229-232

Kloprogge, Penny & Jeroen P. van der Sluijs (2006) - The inclusion of stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in integrated assessment of climate change. - in Climatic Change 75(.) pp.359-389

Ravetz, Jerome R. (1999) - What is post-normal science. - in Futures 31(.) pp.647-653

Sluijs, Jeroen P. van der (2002) - A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment. - in Futures 32(.) pp.133-146

Stern, Paul C. & Harvey V. Fineberg (Eds.) (1996) - Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press