Desmond M. Connor
Stakeholder versus Public Participation
Desmond M. Connor
Introduction
During the last decade, the concept of stakeholder participation has risen to prominence. e.g. a recent search found 119,000 web pages with "stakeholders."
One definition: "individuals or groups who can affect or are affected by a corporation's activities" (Svendsen).
After stakeholders are identified, who remains? What is the residual population in a community or region? Do these people have any role in a participative process?
An alternative approach is to identify various kinds of "publics" - one or more people who have a shared perspective on an issue. e.g. employees, neighbours, investors, customers, suppliers and, finally, the general public. In this case, there is no-one left out; there is no residual. (Note - all but the last in this list might be called stakeholders.) Of course, the majority of the general public may choose to leave many issues to others to contribute to and decide, but they did have the opportunity.
What is the impact on citizenship and the democratic process if the general public has few means to participate in their society in the years which elapse between parliamentary elections?
Assumptions
- In stakeholder participation, one assumes that there are some people who have a "legitimate" stake in the outcome and therefore a right to be involved. Other residents have no such claims.
In many cases, some kind of round table participative planning process is adopted. This assumes that
a. all of the stakeholders have one or more organizations which can represent them;
b. the representatives around the table will act as viable and reliable two-way communicators between the table and their constituents.
In my experience, one or both of these assumptions are invalid and eventually cause the demise of the process.
- In public participation, one assumes that the issue affects all residents in some way, large or small, and that all have the right to obtain relevant information in an understandable form and to respond to it in a low-risk, low-cost way.
There are many types of publics for a proposal - some are positive, some negative; they vary in their strength. For example: proponents can be thought of as 220 volt positive; potential suppliers of goods and services can be regarded as 110 volt positive; some environmental groups can be seen as 220 volt negative etc. These strong publics are easy to mobilize. However, the latent and secondary beneficiaries of a sound proposal, the citizen-taxpayers, are like 5 volt positives; to inform and activate them will require a systematic, sustained and perhaps costly public information and consultation program. However, if a large number of five volt positives can be mobilized, they can counter a relatively small number of 220 volt negatives and thus result in the general acceptance of a technically sound, economically attractive and socially acceptable proposal. Each of these publics requires the use of different strategies and techniques to inform and involve them effectively; each must be identified and understood before suitable programs can be designed.
It is my assumption that unless all of those living and working in a community or region have a realistic opportunity to participate, a valid, reliable and permanent solution is unlikely to result from a participative planning and decision making process.
Integrating Public and Stakeholder Participation
The following model was developed in 1992 for a major project to replace two bridges in downtown Winnipeg, Canada. There were three kinds of publics for this proposal:
- people living between and around the bridges who were largely low-income, ethnic, single parents and renters; the construction works would affect them directly;
- nearby homeowners and business people, who were mostly middle class, organized and concerned about increased commuter traffic and reduced house values; and
- commuters for whom this major bottleneck was a continuing problem, and other citizen-taxpayers with an interest in this proposed project as a means to make the city work better.
We worked with the first two categories through monthly, and later quarterly, meetings with a Public Advisory Committee in what could be called stakeholder participation. A public participation program was used to work with the third category. (See Process Chart below)
Conclusion
This integrated model enabled us to work appropriately with stakeholders and the general public so that initial controversy was overcome, planning was carried out and decisions were made. Construction is now completed and the bridges are in use. Another bridge issue in Winnipeg is being resolved using the same process - the Provencher Bridge in St. Boniface.
I believe that this integrated model may be relevant for a wide range of situations. I look forward to your comments and suggestions.
References
Connor, Desmond M. and S. G. Orenstein, "The Bridges of Winnipeg: A Case Study" see in the Library at www.connor.bc.ca/connor
Svendsen, Ann, The Stakeholder Strategy, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco, 1998.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared for the 19th annual conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment in Glasgow, Scotland, June 13 - 19, 1999.
Desmond M. Connor is an applied sociologist-anthropologist (Ph.D., Cornell, 1963) with an international practice in public participation; he is also the president of Connor Development Services Ltd. of Victoria, B.C., Canada. Tel. 250-658-1323; fax 250-658-8110; email connor@connor.bc.ca; URL www.connor.bc.ca/connor
Process Chart
| Public Participation | |
Stakeholder Participation
|
| 1a. Prepare a social profile of the community or region, including identification of key leaders and groups. | |
1b. Conduct an analysis as part of the social profile to determine if barriers to agreement are surmountable. If they are not, consider public consultation only.
|
| | 2. Convene a preliminary meeting of interest group leaders to agree on process, develop rapport and commitment to leadership committee; identify issues and options that need consideration. Meetings of interest group leaders can be open or closed to the public, though open meetings will result in better integration and partnership.
|
3. Prepare and publish a responsive publication about the proposal and the process for the public.
| | |
4. Organize one or more open houses, workshops, or forums, as needed to enable to face-to-face discussions of key issues with interested members of the general public and produce a synthesis for interest group leaders.
| | |
| | 5. Ask identified interest group leaders to participate in a detailed review of the proposal and public responses to it, and generate alternative solutions for the issues noted. This group may form subcommittees to tackle specific tasks, like technical review, option development, etc.
|
6. Prepare and distribute a second publication for the general public outlining alternatives, inviting more, indicating proposed selection criteria and inviting revisions and weights on them.
| |
7. Organize open houses or other forums as needed re above to respond to public concerns and solicit public views for interest group leaders to consider.
| | |
| | 8. Convene a third meeting of interest group leaders to review alternatives, and to establish evaluation criteria and weights, and revise as needed.
|
9. Publish alternatives acceptable to interest group leaders meeting, together with recommended criteria and weights. Solicit rankings and other feedback from public on alternatives.
| | |
10. Organize open houses or other forums as needed re above; discover ranking of alternatives by interested public responding to publication and open houses. Convey results to interest group leaders.
| | |
11. Conduct a telephone survey to ascertain the views of a cross-section of the general population. Convey the results to interest group leaders.
| | |
| | 12. Convene one or more meetings as needed to integrate the views of interest group leaders, the interested public and the general public with a view to reaching consensus at the table. Convey the results to (a) the elected decision-makers, and (b) the various publics involved in the process. Establish timetable and mechanism for revisiting issues should final product not receive implementation.
|
| 13. Evaluate this integrated model by interviewing a sample of participants. |
 |
DESMOND M. CONNOR
"Improving the Practice of Public Consultation"
407-5332 Sayward Hill Crescent, Victoria, BC, V8Y 2H8
Voice: 250-658-1323 Fax: 250-658-8110
connor@connor.bc.ca www.connor.bc.ca |
|