Wake up daily to our latest coverage of business done better, directly in your inbox.
Get your weekly dose of analysis on rising corporate activism.
The best of solutions journalism in the sustainability space, published monthly.
Select Newsletter
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy. You can opt out anytime.
From The Deputy Chief Executive of The Environment Council
It was welcoming to see the Analysis, ‘Stakeholder dialogue: is fatigue setting in?’ (Vol. 2, issue 5). The article picks up some interesting points that indicate where this whole field may develop in the future.
There appears to be growing confusion about what stakeholder dialogue is — the most damaging of which is that one-way communication, where stakeholders are ‘talked at’ by companies, is labelled stakeholder dialogue. Stakeholder dialogue should be a two-way, genuine process that results in change.
And herein lies the root of the problem. Stakeholder dialogue has become a fashionable word and is being used to label a whole host of different techniques — from questionnaires through to fully fledged, interactive and genuine two-way processes about change. The danger therefore is that everything labelled ‘stakeholder dialogue’ is tarred with the same brush.
Whilst some may argue this is semantics, there are some important differences that may influence whether or not an NGO, or indeed any other stakeholder, deems it worthwhile to get involved in a stakeholder dialogue. These include judging:
Is there potential for mutual gain?
Is the organisation/company initiating the dialogue committed to change — or at least showing strong signals of commitment to act on input or issues?
Is the right technique being used for the situation/issue and what is the quality of the interaction likely to be?
It is encouraging to see that NGOs are being more choosy about the stakeholder dialogues they get involved in. Stakeholder dialogue can be time-consuming, but if the right questions are asked and if the process is run in the right way, it can also initiate faster and more sustainable change on all sides.
Suzannah Lansdell
It was welcoming to see the Analysis, ‘Stakeholder dialogue: is fatigue setting in?’ (Vol. 2, issue 5). The article picks up some interesting points that indicate where this whole field may develop in the future.
There appears to be growing confusion about what stakeholder dialogue is — the most damaging of which is that one-way communication, where stakeholders are ‘talked at’ by companies, is labelled stakeholder dialogue. Stakeholder dialogue should be a two-way, genuine process that results in change.
And herein lies the root of the problem. Stakeholder dialogue has become a fashionable word and is being used to label a whole host of different techniques — from questionnaires through to fully fledged, interactive and genuine two-way processes about change. The danger therefore is that everything labelled ‘stakeholder dialogue’ is tarred with the same brush.
Whilst some may argue this is semantics, there are some important differences that may influence whether or not an NGO, or indeed any other stakeholder, deems it worthwhile to get involved in a stakeholder dialogue. These include judging:
Is there potential for mutual gain?Is the organisation/company initiating the dialogue committed to change — or at least showing strong signals of commitment to act on input or issues? Is the right technique being used for the situation/issue and what is the quality of the interaction likely to be?It is encouraging to see that NGOs are being more choosy about the stakeholder dialogues they get involved in. Stakeholder dialogue can be time-consuming, but if the right questions are asked and if the process is run in the right way, it can also initiate faster and more sustainable change on all sides.
Suzannah Lansdell
TriplePundit has published articles from over 1000 contributors. If you'd like to be a guest author, please get in touch!
