Boycotters vs. Stakeholders
“Stakeholder participation is most effective when key choices concerning the risk have yet to be made” (p. 301). My public relations training thus far (combined with a minute amount of common sense) has convinced me that including stakeholders in the decision-making process is an essential action.
I explicitly agree with the assessment that “[e]veryone involved with the risk assessment and risk management process…must believe that stakeholders have a right to be and can be involved. If anyone has reservations, those reservations will be apparent to the stakeholders and spoil any chances for meaningful interaction” (p. 303).” Although I did not see an instance in which activist groups were being listed separately from “the public” in the chapter (This does not mean it’s not there. Feel free to correct me if that is the case.), the point that people who could be affected by the organization’s actions should have a place in the list of stakeholders leads me to include activist groups (even those who generally oppose entire industries based on principle) when the term “the public” is used. What I have noticed in my perhaps limited experience so far is that some organizations may not really want to have dialogue with outsiders, especially when they are not popularly considered to be stakeholders.
In particular, I am thinking about the question of whether a social movement that boycotts an industry can be considered a stakeholder, especially within risk management. Unfortunately, the animal agriculture industry and the animal rights movement do not have a good record of positive dialogue. Instead, because animal rights activists often do not eat animal products, they are often not considered to be stakeholders. Last Thursday, pork processor Smithfield Foods Inc. announced that it will phase out gestation crates within ten years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16812499). According to Smithfield, this decision was not based on pressure from consumers or activist groups. Instead, they chose to do this because, even though it will consist of a large financial commitment, it is “the right thing to do.”
For several years, PETA has been pressuring large purchasers of pork such as McDonalds and Burger King to demand that its suppliers (such as Smithfield Foods) to stop using gestation crates based on their inhumane qualities. The European Union is in the process of eliminating them entirely and ballot initiatives in Florida and more recently Arizona have demanded that the use of gestation crates by pork producers be phased out. In this situation, should animal rights groups concerned with the mental (yes, mental) and emotional well-being of an animal raised to be slaughtered be considered a stakeholder group?
I explicitly agree with the assessment that “[e]veryone involved with the risk assessment and risk management process…must believe that stakeholders have a right to be and can be involved. If anyone has reservations, those reservations will be apparent to the stakeholders and spoil any chances for meaningful interaction” (p. 303).” Although I did not see an instance in which activist groups were being listed separately from “the public” in the chapter (This does not mean it’s not there. Feel free to correct me if that is the case.), the point that people who could be affected by the organization’s actions should have a place in the list of stakeholders leads me to include activist groups (even those who generally oppose entire industries based on principle) when the term “the public” is used. What I have noticed in my perhaps limited experience so far is that some organizations may not really want to have dialogue with outsiders, especially when they are not popularly considered to be stakeholders.
In particular, I am thinking about the question of whether a social movement that boycotts an industry can be considered a stakeholder, especially within risk management. Unfortunately, the animal agriculture industry and the animal rights movement do not have a good record of positive dialogue. Instead, because animal rights activists often do not eat animal products, they are often not considered to be stakeholders. Last Thursday, pork processor Smithfield Foods Inc. announced that it will phase out gestation crates within ten years (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16812499). According to Smithfield, this decision was not based on pressure from consumers or activist groups. Instead, they chose to do this because, even though it will consist of a large financial commitment, it is “the right thing to do.”
For several years, PETA has been pressuring large purchasers of pork such as McDonalds and Burger King to demand that its suppliers (such as Smithfield Foods) to stop using gestation crates based on their inhumane qualities. The European Union is in the process of eliminating them entirely and ballot initiatives in Florida and more recently Arizona have demanded that the use of gestation crates by pork producers be phased out. In this situation, should animal rights groups concerned with the mental (yes, mental) and emotional well-being of an animal raised to be slaughtered be considered a stakeholder group?
posted by Nadya at
1/28/2007 08:54:00 PM
2 Comments:
It is said that the public will be more supportive of decisions made through stakeholder participation process, despite the fact that they did not have any personal part in it. For this and other various reasons, chapter 17 asserts that during a risk situation, stakeholder participation is becoming the premier way to communicate in order to build consensus and establish a risk plan (p.302). This chapter illustrates the requirements for successful stakeholder participation, specific types of stakeholder participation, and advices on how to choose a form of stakeholder participation.
The organization and stakeholder both must be comfortable with their interactions. From here, it takes certain factors for successful stakeholder participation. First of all, the organization must realize that the stakeholder’s participation is totally righteous. Organizations are reluctant to include stakeholders within the risk communications process because they fear that they might loose control over the situation. Nevertheless, it is important to bring them in during the early stages in decision making not only because this can prevent out of control situations for the organization, but also because stakeholders may have a different perspective that may have value to aid the risk situation. Stakeholders too must have certain aspects for successful participation. Since it is important to build a level of consensus, stakeholder participation is mostly limited to 10 people or less. Stakeholders also must be congenial towards the organization. Distrust and anger towards the organization dealing with a risk situation is not going to help at all.
It is important to acknowledge various stakeholders activates and choose the most appropriate form that will be most effective to the risk situation facing the organization. Each has its own strength and weakness. While formal hearings are easy to implement and allow geographically dispersed groups to participate, it can raise hostility and leave dissatisfaction due to its minimum level of information release. Self-help groups motivate audience to act, but this cannot happen with audiences engaged in short-term relationships. Focus groups are small in number so they are easy to organize and in-depth in context, but may not represent the whole audience because of its small number. Workshops are effective in terms that they educate the stakeholders and attempt to reconcile dispersed opinions, but it requires high technical knowledge and teaming between the organization and the stakeholder. This may not be possible in a hostile relationship. Advisory groups allow stakeholders to learn about the risk and develop their own opinion since they have a longer time frame, but this requires more resource compared to the other forms and may not be as effective over time. Risk assessment interactions provide a credible review or the risk communication process, but this requires too much technical knowledge that it may even seem like a “challenge” to some people. Decision-making interactions are the highest form of involvement, but may not be legal in certain situations. Finally, Risk management interactions educate and empower the stakeholders about the risk but this is only effective if the audience can actually affect the risk (p.329~330).
As Wes stated in his reaction blog, who are these stakeholders? Sure we know they are interest groups who holds money or property while its owner is still being determined, but some how this doesn’t ring the bell: especially in a public relations risk communication process. If these were stakeholders, why would the “general public” (I’m sorry Dr. Robinson,I know you hate this word but I had to use it) care more if the stakeholders participated during the risk communications process? For me, it would cause more trouble since I’ll be thinking “Of course, all you care is about the money and the people related with it.” Maybe I’m thinking of the definition in a much too narrow sense, or maybe my understanding of the chapter was not enough. I can certainly see what an effective stakeholder communication can do to an organization during a risk situation but what how that would benefit average Joe’s like me seems a bit out there for now.
By
Min, at 12:23 AM
Nadya and others:
Public participation is good, but should be symmetric; that is, I'm waiting for NGOs, interest groups, and ideologically motivated groups like the HSUS, Sierra Club, NRA, AARP, Animal Agriculture Alliance, etc. to open their doors to inclusion and "public" participation. I understand that a 501(c)3 is not under any obligation to do this, but it's a bit hypocritical and self-serving to demand access to the dark, evil corridors or corporate America whil denying such access ourselves.
By
Wes Jamison, at 9:01 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home