Chapter 17: Stakeholder Participation

Stakeholder participation has in recent years become a buzz word in the same way that 'democracy' or 'gender' have. This is partly due to stakeholders’ demands for a meaningful and increased participation in initiatives that directly and sometimes indirectly affects them. Most governments have also made stakeholder participation a legislative requirement. Occurrence and recurrence of notable risk events has also added to the quest for stakeholder participation (Kasperson, 1986). Lundgren & McMakin (2004) noted that while “many organization have realized that it is a good business practice to keep communities and interested parties aware of potential risks, risk communication is still often conducted as a result of law, regulation, or other government inducement” (p. 29).

The detailed Chapter 17, dealing with stakeholder participation is addressed to a number of issues relevant to ensuring effective and genuine stakeholder participation. The chapter outlines organizational and stakeholder requirements and guidelines for undertaking stakeholder participation activities. What simplifies the chapter the most is the checklist and summary tables provided in pages 329 – 333. I find the checklist to be very pragmatic, handy and useful for the risk communicator.

The dilemma with most organizations as far as stakeholder participation is concerned is fear to be marginalized by stakeholders and regulatory agencies if stakeholder participation is overlooked. I trust that if it wasn’t because of the legal obligations and the threats of stakeholders (who have grown vocal and powerful), most organizations would conveniently do without involving stakeholders in risk related communication. The other dilemma in public participation is presented by the ambiguity of the legislation in defining the nature and the process of stakeholder participation. This has resulted in participation to mean different things to different people and organizations. In the light of all these complexities, risk communicators should consider the following strategies for enhancing stakeholder participation as a risk communicator;
· Ensuring that there is a true organizational commitment to the process before undertaking stakeholder participation.
· Clarifying the scope and purposes of any stakeholder participation (e.g. education, consultation, etc.) to all participants.
· Clarifying whether participants will actually have a voice in the final decision or not.

These are critical because while participatory approaches are aimed at involving stakeholders, there are many different forms and models of public participation. The various types identified are tabulated in Table 17.1 with their respective advantages and disadvantages. Pimbert & Pretty (1995) viewed participatory approaches to be a continuum ranging from a limited input in decision making and control by stakeholders (passive participation) to extensive input into decision making and control (active participation). The authors identify seven levels of participation, being;

1. Passive participation – stakeholders simply informed of what is going to happen or already happened. Common in top-down approaches. (Relevant during care and crisis?)
2. Participation in information giving – stakeholders participate by answering questions but not able to influence analysis or use. (Relevant in risk assessment?)
3. Participation by consultation – stakeholders’ views recognized though may not necessarily influence decision making. (Relevant in consensus?)
4. Participation for material incentives – stakeholders participate by providing certain resources.
5. Functional participation - stakeholders form groups to meet predetermined objectives. Involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. (Care and consensus?)
6. Interactive participation – Joint analysis and action. People have stake in maintaining or changing practices. (risk management interactions?)
7. Self mobilization – stakeholders takes decisions independent of external organizations.

In line with the core values set by the International Association for Public Participation, (http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4), it appears that only interactive participation can fit into the seven core values that guide public participation.