Help:Practical guide on stakeholder involvement

PLEASE NOTE: This page is under construction.

PLEASE NOTE: This page is the revised Practical Guide on Stakeholder involvement. For the old version click here.

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 is helpful to scan the media or to use a top-down approach for perspectives on the issues of integrated risk assessment. With a top-down approach, you derive from story lines or general cultural theories the possible perspectives. (Kloprogge & Van der Sluijs, 2006)

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 (see 7). 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 organisations 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) What are the barriers for stakeholder involvement?

"Research since the 1970's suggest that the tendency of non-state actors to participate - and thus to invest time and other resources - is primarily a function of the degree to which an actor perceives a problem to touch his own interests, combined with the degree of perceived chances to influence the output of the decision process." (J. Newig, 2007)

Asking stakeholders what refrains them from being involved and/or considering the (possible) barriers for stakeholder involvement enables you to act upon it. You can endeavour to eliminate or lower the barriers that stakeholders encounter in their involvement. Discuss (organisational) solutions for the possible barriers in an internal meeting.

Barriers to stakeholder involvement
Barriers related to problem perception and power to influence The most difficult barriers to stakeholder involvement relate to the stakeholder's problem perception (context) and power to influence. (Newig, 2007) These barriers are the most difficult to decrease, because perception is not easily changed.	Barriers related to involvement facilitation Other barriers to stakeholder involvement relate to the disorganisation, a lack of proper involvement facilitation, or a lack of resources. (U.S. EPA, 2001) Good involvement organisation and facilitation takes these barriers away by taking them into account.
For example, stakeholders do not wish to be involved, because: They perceive the problem (from which the integrated risk assessment springs) as your problem and not theirs. (And they are not willing to solve your problem.) Stakeholders see not the benefits of being involved. Stakeholders mistrust (semi)governmental organisations. (And they think you are from a (semi)governmental organisation.) Stakeholders believe that authorities do not take their concerns and opinions seriously. (And they see you as authority representative.)	For example, stakeholders involvement is distorted, because: Stakeholders are unaware of the risk assessment. Stakeholders do not have enough time. Information is inadequate: chaotic, too detailed, too broad, not to point, etc. The discussions are too technical for stakeholders to be understandable. Experts use too much jargon in the discussions (and there is nobody who translates this for non-jargon speakers).

(?) 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

Newig, Jens (2007) - Does public participation in environmental decisions lead to improved environmental quality? - in Communication, Cooperation and Participation 1(April) pp.51-71

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001) - Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA: Lessons learned, barriers, and innovative approaches.