Radioactive Waste Management
2015

Stakeholder Involvementin Decision Making:
A Short Guide to Issues,
Approaches and Resources

NEA

Radioactive Waste Management

Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making:
A Short Guide to Issues, Approaches and Resources© OECD 2015
NEA No. 7189
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTThe OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the
economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts
to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate
governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation
provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems,
identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European
Commission takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and researchon economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed
by its members.

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membershipconsists of 31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, theUnited Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the
Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:•

to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international
co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentallyfriendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes;•

to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input
to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas
such as energy and sustainable development.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities,
radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analysesof the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries.
In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy
Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other internationalorganisations in the nuclear field.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to thedelimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2015
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases andmultimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitableacknowledgment of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights
should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shallbe addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie(CFC) contact@cfcopies.com.
Cover illustration: Decision-making image (Shutterstock).

FOREWORD

ForewordRadioactive waste management is embedded in broader societal issues such as theenvironment, risk management, energy, health policy and sustainability. In allthese fields, there is an increasing demand for public involvement, participationand engagement. Involvement may take different forms at different phases andcan include sharing information, consulting, dialoguing or deliberating on
decisions with relevant stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement should be seen as ameaningful part of formulating and implementing public policy. There is no single
approach for organising engagement; initiatives must respond to their context andto stakeholders’ particular needs. As the number of stakeholder involvement
approaches and publications describing them continues to grow, new horizons are
opening up through social media.
This guide outlines the steps and issues associated with stakeholder
involvement that will assist practitioners and facilitate access to useful online
resources (handbooks, toolboxes and case studies). It will also provide nonspecialists with an idea of what is needed to select an approach when involving
stakeholders in decision making. This 2015 update of Stakeholder Involvement
Techniques: Short Guide and Annotated Bibliography is considerably enriched withexperiences and extensive references to the literature.
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC),
created under a mandate from the NEA Radioactive Waste Management
Committee (RWMC) to facilitate the sharing of international experience inaddressing the societal dimension of radioactive waste management, oversaw the
updating of the 2004 publication.
The FSC explores means of ensuring an effective dialogue among all
stakeholders and considers ways to strengthen confidence in decision-making
processes. This short guide demonstrates to conveners in many fields thatinvolvement initiatives must be sensitive to and serve the specific context and that
relevant stakeholders must be associated in the co-framing of engagement issues.
Because the FSC focuses on societal confidence in radioactive waste management,
examples are drawn from this field. However, these are provided simply as
illustrations as there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to stakeholder engagement,
and the FSC does not support one specific methodology over another presented inthis guide. Information is provided for the sake of enhancing awareness about
existing literature and resources. Complementing the guide is a separate
annotated bibliography published online so as to facilitate regular updating (NEA,
2015).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements

The Core Group of the Forum on Stakeholder Confidence oversaw the update ofthis guide with the assistance of the Institut Symlog.
The FSC would like to thank the Group Chair, Holmfridur Bjarnadottir, from theSwedish National Council for Nuclear Waste, for leading the discussions andapproval of this report at the 15th Regular Meeting of the FSC in November 2014.

4

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents

List of abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................ 7
Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 9
Envisioning stakeholder involvement .......................................................................... 9
Planning.......................................................................................................................... 11
Implementation and assessment ............................................................................... 14
Conclusions and areas for future development ........................................................ 15
1. Envisioning stakeholder involvement ...................................................................... 17
1.1. Stakeholder involvement: A requirement and a benefit .................................. 17
1.2. Who are the stakeholders? ................................................................................... 20
1.3. Levels of stakeholder involvement ...................................................................... 22
1.4. Potential effects of stakeholder involvement initiatives and rationales
for engagement....................................................................................................... 26
2. Planning ......................................................................................................................... 31
2.1. An overview of phases........................................................................................... 31
2.2. Co-framing the issues: Early involvement .......................................................... 32
2.3. Setting criteria for approach selection and assessment ................................... 35
2.4. Choosing an approach ........................................................................................... 36
2.5. Approaches available for intensive or extensive involvement ........................ 37
3. Implementation and assessment .............................................................................. 45
3.1. Looking towards implementation ........................................................................ 45
3.2. Assessment: Checking satisfaction and compliance ........................................ 47
4. Conclusions and areas for future development ...................................................... 51
4.1. The new media context ......................................................................................... 51
4.2. The evolving participation context ...................................................................... 52
4.3. The increasing role of political commitment, innovation and advocacy ....... 52
4.4. Continued relevance and recognition of ethical dimensions .......................... 53
4.5. Addressing differing standards of accountability.............................................. 53
5. References ...................................................................................................................... 55

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of boxes
1. The need to clarify the level of stakeholder involvement ................................... 23
2. “How we are shaping the agenda” by the C20....................................................... 34
3. Commonly cited approaches for informing deliberation throughstakeholder involvement ......................................................................................... 38
4. Alternative dispute resolution ................................................................................ 41
5. Combination approaches ......................................................................................... 42
6. Citizen engagement in developing well-being statistics: An example
of good practice ......................................................................................................... 43
7. Advice from the United States National Academy of Sciences on
integrating science into public participation processes ...................................... 47

List of figures
1. The risk management escalator.............................................................................. 25
2. Five-stage stakeholder engagement framework................................................... 32

List of tables
1. A public involvement continuum, the level of expected outcomes
and the “promise” made by the convener ............................................................. 22
2. Guidance on choosing different levels of public involvement............................ 24
3. Potential positive effects of participatory approaches......................................... 27
4. Participation rationales and design choices for participation ............................ 29

6

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

List of abbreviations and acronyms

AA1000SES

AccountAbility AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2011

AarhusConvention

UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters

C20

Civil Society 20

FSC

Forum on Stakeholder Confidence

G20Group of Twenty

IRGC

International Risk Governance Council

MAP

Measures of Australia's Progress

NEA

Nuclear Energy Agency

NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary

Envisioning stakeholder involvement
Stakeholder involvement: A requirement and a benefit
Radioactive waste management issues are embedded in broader societal issues
such as the environment, risk management, sustainability, energy and healthpolicy. In all these fields, there is an increasing demand for stakeholder
involvement, participation and engagement.
Involvement may take different forms at different phases and could include
sharing information, consulting, dialoguing or deliberating on decisions. It should
always be seen as a meaningful part of formulating and implementing good public
policy. Stakeholder involvement approaches should not be viewed as convenient
tools for public relations, image building or winning acceptance for a decision
taken behind closed doors.
In certain contexts, the times and the means for involvement are outlined bylaw, while in other contexts, a specific player may have to create the opportunity
and the means for involving other stakeholders. Under legal frameworks,compliance with stakeholder involvement requirements becomes an important
issue for those responsible for the corresponding plans, programmes or specificactivities. The Aarhus Convention is increasingly used as a support for stakeholder
engagement. It lays out citizens’ rights to information, participation and justice.
While compliance is important, it is not sufficient as a proportionate commitment
is needed that will allow for the integration of stakeholder engagement inorganisational governance, strategy and operations management.
Practitioners and scholars are developing, applying and evaluating various
approaches for stakeholder involvement. A vast range of such approaches exists
and continues to grow, as does the number of publications describing them. New
horizons are also opening up as the use of social media expands.
The present guide is designed to assist practitioners by outlining the steps andissues associated with stakeholder involvement, and facilitating access to useful
online resources (handbooks, toolboxes and case studies). It will also provide nonspecialists with an idea of what is needed to choose an approach. An annotatedbibliography of references, which was issued separately by the Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence (FSC), is available on the NEA website (NEA, 2015).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Who are the stakeholders?
The term “stakeholder” may be understood as any actor – institution, group orindividual – with an interest or a role to play in a societal decision-making process.
When convening a stakeholder involvement initiative, it is usually necessary tomore precisely identify the target population. This target population may be verybroad in the early stages of decision making (at the level of policy, plans orprogrammes) and then become more precise as decisions come to bear upon local
projects or activities. Stakeholders have both different contributions to make anddifferent involvement needs at each stage of a decision-making process. While
stakeholders may be statutory, they cannot be defined in purely administrative
terms. The involvement initiative should also consider the strategic dimension andthe community affected. The definition of “community” could include different
criteria such as spatial or geographic, political, economic, cultural and emotional
criteria.
Stakeholders may have different interests, and engagement should be adjusted
to contexts which create differing needs, programme phases or formal
requirements, as well as to national or local processes and cultures. Whenconsidering which stakeholders to engage, at a minimum the planner should
identify institutions, groups or individual groups towards whom the organisation
has legal, financial or operational responsibilities; institutions, groups orindividuals who are affected by the organisation’s operations; and, finally,
institutions, groups or individuals who are likely to influence the organisation’s
performance.

Levels of stakeholder participation or involvement
Not all participation is alike. Different levels of stakeholder participation or
involvement are offered through different approaches. One simple approach may
be to transmit information to a passive stakeholder audience. At the other end of
the scale, an approach may significantly empower stakeholders within thedecision-making process. There is a clear trend towards higher levels of
engagement by organisations seeking win-win outcomes with a greater diversity of
stakeholders. Table 1 describes how a given level of involvement may be chosen
according to the situation or to the objectives sought.
Planners should be aware that stakeholders may desire, expect or be entitled toa particular level of involvement. Preliminary discussion, contact with or
observation of target stakeholder groups, as well as a review of statutory
requirements, will help determine the appropriate level. How much involvement
the organisation will – or wishes to – offer must be clearly defined. This should becommunicated to potential stakeholders at the outset of the initiative. Explicit
information must be provided about constraints likely to affect the extent ofpossible influences or how input from engagement will be used.
In statutory processes, such as those conducted under the Aarhus Convention,
due account is an important requirement. The convener is accountable, i.e. mustshow how the input has influenced the decision-making process, and stakeholders
have a right to verify this information.

10

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 2 and Figure 1 provide guidance on matching the different levels of
public involvement to the needs of the situation.

Potential effects of stakeholder involvement initiatives
Guidance to public authorities generally indicates that they must allow public
participation to occur in order to carry out their responsibilities to the fullest.
Bottom-up, inclusive approaches for information gathering and deliberation
are likely to enhance the credibility of the decision-making processes. This is not
the only type of positive effect that may be expected from a well-run stakeholder
involvement initiative. Three classes of effects may result from the application of
consultation and deliberation techniques. Substantive effects include: better, more
acceptable choices from the environmental, economic and technical points of view.
Procedural effects include: better use of information; better conflict management;
and increased legitimacy of the decision-making process. Contextual effects
include: better information to stakeholders and/or the public; improvement ofstrategic capacity of decision makers; reinforcement of democratic practices; andincreased confidence in institutional players. Table 3 lists the potential positiveeffects of stakeholder participation, which may also be quoted as justifications for
involving stakeholders in policy decisions.
Potential drawbacks of public participation in decision making may include:
conflict, delay, and/or resource demand.
Conveners should carefully consider not only the effects sought, but also thedominant rationales underlying the decision to involve stakeholders (for instance,
legitimacy, effectiveness, efficiency or representation). This is a way to clarify goals
and to avoid – both inside and outside the organisation – miscommunication anddisappointment.

Planning
An overview of phases
Several integrated phases are involved when planning, executing and evaluating a
stakeholder involvement initiative and equal importance should be given to eachphase. Figure 2 depicts a cycle of effective engagement which moves throughstrategic thinking; analysis and planning; strengthening engagement capacities;
designing the process and engaging stakeholders; and finally acting reviewing andreporting, which in turn can spark a new strategic phase.
A cyclical vision is consistent with the needs of decision making about longterm technological and societal endeavours. New decision points emerge over time,
influenced by earlier decisions and requiring public participation in turn.
Continuity in engagement contributes to the sustainability of solutions. It implies
not only a palette of instrumental procedures and involvement methods, but also,
strengthening stakeholder capacity to engage.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201511

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Co-framing the issues: Early involvement
International guidance and best practice publications on facility siting, societal risk
management and environmental decision making often point out thatstakeholders should be involved early. This does not simply entail the calendar or
chronology of a specific decision. In binding treaties mandating public
involvement in environmental decision making, early also means thatstakeholders should be involved upstream, while options are still wide open.
Organisations can take the initiative to communicate with stakeholders and toobtain their input, even in the absence of a formal requirement. Early involvement,
whether or not it entails direct participation in decision making, is a component ofinstitutional transparency.
Early involvement also means engaging the spectrum of interested andaffected parties in formulating the issues for consultation, evaluation or decision,to the extent possible in a given context. Co-operating on co-framing is ofparticular importance to achieve quality and legitimacy, especially in contentious
situations. The first steps of a successful engagement process may include aconcern assessment, which will identify relevant or significant (material) concerns
held by the organisation and/or by stakeholders.
Today, even high-level intergovernmental processes are influenced by broadbased stakeholder input at an early stage. Early involvement also corresponds topreparedness and may make a vital contribution to achieving the objectives ofsafety and security which are of interest to governments, institutions and all ofsociety.

Setting criteria for approach selection and assessment
The approach that will be suitable for a particular situation will depend on thestakeholders that are engaged, and the aims and objectives of the consultation.
Planners of stakeholder involvement will need to consider these aspects anddecide on the most appropriate approach to use. In order to achieve this, theorganisation must develop selection criteria. The same criteria may serve at a laterstage to evaluate the involvement initiative.
The appropriate level of involvement is a fundamental criterion, and should
be carefully set and communicated to potential participants. Other types of criteria
include desired effects and goals, as well as constraints. Criteria based on bothdesires and constraints should be listed. Since they will be quite diverse, it isunlikely that any approach will ideally suit all requirements. Therefore, a pilotgroup of members of the organisation that will engage the stakeholders should
discuss the lists generated and rank the criteria by order of importance. Several
guides and templates exist to facilitate this process. Stakeholder representatives
may also be invited to co-operate in this criteria setting.

Choosing an approach
Stakeholder involvement approaches can usually be applied to a broad range ofissues. No particular approach can be considered superior to another. The
selection criteria developed in response to a specific context, constraints, desired

12

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

goals and effects, will certainly differ between organisations. Experience showsthat the success of a particular approach will also depend on external factors, forexample the phase of the decision-making process, as well as the political andcultural context. Therefore, a definitive matrix matching approaches to criteria
does not exist. However, manuals do describe different approaches in terms ofgeneric criteria (such as the level of involvement, scale of consultation – intensive
vs. extensive involvement, representative character, inclusiveness or deliberative
qualities).
Handbooks and online platforms can help the convener match approaches tothe basic selection criteria identified by the organisation. When a set of potentiallysuitable approaches has been identified, more detailed sources may be consulted.
It will be of great value for the planner to contact and discuss experiences withpersons who have already conducted involvement initiatives. In some cases, theplanner will consult and/or retain the services of a professional to set up andconduct the initiative. In such cases, following the steps to identify the right familyof approaches can prepare the organisation for a more fruitful dialogue with theprofessional.

Approaches available for intensive or extensive involvement
Some approaches corresponding to the higher levels of stakeholder involvement(i.e. discussing, engaging, and partnering) are listed in Box 3. These approaches
have features of two-way, deliberative dialogues. It is up to the convener to ensurethat the outcomes of the engagement effort do effectively influence decisions, andprovide due account of that influence. Box 4 highlights related conflict resolution
approaches, while Box 5 describes combination approaches (which may beparticularly appropriate when the dialogue issue has both a national and a local
dimension).
These lists of approaches are by no means exhaustive. In addition, the short
generic descriptions may not correspond exactly to specific examples that may befamiliar to each reader. This is largely because, under a single approach label, fieldpractitioners may design slightly different implementations or adapt them to thecontext. Even a highly defined and structured approach needs to be adapted for
application to a particular national process and local circumstances.
New information and communication technologies offer an enlarged potential
to engage citizens (although it is doubtful that these media offer “higher-level
involvement” opportunities). Such methods can be appropriate when theengagement issue has broad geographic impact. Digital applications for virtual
meetings and crowd-sourced idea gathering may be particularly attractive to therising generation, for whom social media is a highly familiar, everyday instrument.
Box 6 presents a success story in Australia. Nonetheless, the biggest disadvantageof relying on information technologies and new media to support involvement
may be the difficulty of engaging groups who do not regularly use the Internet, andeven with appropriate target audiences it may be difficult to guarantee anadequately high rate of participation.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201513

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Implementation and assessment
Looking towards implementation
Implementation advice ranges from “best practice” tips to flow charts andworksheets that can be printed. Decisions implied by actual implementation are
beyond the scope of this short guide, but insight is offered on preparing andpublicising initiatives targeting different levels of involvement.
The organisational goal of informing or educating implies developing
appropriate public information materials. Information materials will be useful only
if they can be understood and interpreted by their intended audience. The Aarhus
Convention recognises that this is a necessary, foreground condition, as well as aright. Today, gathering information from stakeholders is often achieved by the useof social media tools. It may also be accomplished by large-scale public
consultation approaches (polls or surveys). Higher levels of involvement usually
imply that participants will have the opportunity to communicate their views andjudgements in detail, as well as to learn from other stakeholders. Nevertheless, theplanner may find preparatory small-scale studies or consultations useful for
scoping the issues or identifying target stakeholder groups.
When the dialogue issue is embedded in a complex or long-term decisionmaking process, public agencies or other conveners will need to support
competence building in stakeholder representatives. The Aarhus Convention
highlights this as an important background condition to ensure participation rights
and continuity. One response to this need is the partnership model of involvement.
Conveners of stakeholder involvement in technological subjects will probably
benefit from advice on communicating about risks, translating complex
information into a readily accessible form and interacting with a range ofstakeholders who may not have specialised training.
Finally, a planner may wish to make a broad announcement of stakeholder
involvement initiatives, or publicise outcomes using mass media. Useful
handbooks are cited in this short guide and in the annotated bibliography on the
NEA website (NEA, 2015).

Assessment: Checking satisfaction and compliance
Post hoc assessment of stakeholder involvement initiatives is a duty to all those
who have participated in good faith and a must for learning and improving thenext involvement initiative. The targeted goals and outcomes should be translated
into aspects that can be measured or, at least, listed and clarified so that thedifferent participants (stakeholders and conveners alike) can judge how well thesecriteria were achieved.
Assessment may focus on whether compliance with statutory requirements
was achieved; whether the decision-making process gained in credibility; whether
information input by stakeholders was of high quality; or whether some standardof democracy was effectively achieved. Different players and participants in asingle initiative may hold very different rationales and value different criteria.
Therefore, the assessment should embrace a range of criteria. Both immediate

14

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

effects and later impacts should be captured by the assessment. Useful handbooks
are indicated in this regard.
There may be several (and perhaps overlapping) reasons why a stakeholder
involvement initiative gives unsatisfactory results. Factors could relate to the
behaviours or intentions of participants. When initiatives appear to be dominatedby interest-driven participation, it is useful for the process to separate phases togather information on what is “true” (including preferences and concerns) from
evaluation and management phases in which value judgements are made about
what is “desirable”. On the side of conveners and design process, an assessment
may prove to negative overall when participation was convened as a superficial
formality or without adequate support from decision makers. This configuration
increases public distrust of government. Finally, structural, pragmatic andattitudinal factors may result at country level in insufficient respect for therequirements of public participation. Publications are cited that may be consulted
to assist with these factors and better adjust initiatives to their context.

Conclusions and areas for future development
As the demand for stakeholder involvement in decision making continues to rise,several challenges remain. These challenges will shape the ongoing developmentof new approaches and guidance. Topics identified include the new media context;
the need for continuity of participation and support for capacity building; the needfor political commitment, innovation and advocacy for involvement; ethicaldimensions; standards of accountability; simultaneous co-ordination and the
independence of institutions.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201515

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

1. Envisioning stakeholder involvement

This first chapter of the short guide explains that, in many cases, stakeholder
involvement in complex decision making is both a statutory requirement and aclear benefit. It reviews the various ways to identify relevant stakeholders and thelevels of participation to be offered. The potential effects of stakeholder
involvement initiatives are listed and light is shed on the correspondingorganisational rationales.

1.1. Stakeholder involvement: A requirement and a benefit
Radioactive waste management issues are embedded in broader societal issues
such as environment, risk, sustainability, and energy and health policy. In all thesefields there is an increasing demand for stakeholder involvement (participation or
engagement). Managers in both the public and private sector find that such
involvement can improve the quality and the sustainability of policy decisions.
Best practice in radioactive waste management has therefore shifted from thetraditional “decide, announce and defend” model, for which the focus was almost
exclusively on technical content, to one of “engage, interact and co-operate”, forwhich both technical content and quality of process are of comparable importance(Kotra, 2000). Time spent on dialoguing and bringing stakeholder input into theorganisation and into the waste management programme is now understood as
indispensable well-spent time.
Involvement (participation or engagement) covers the full range of efforts tounderstand and involve stakeholders in a given organisation’s activities anddecisions. “Engagement can help organisations meet tactical and strategic needs
ranging from gathering information and spotting trends that may impact theiractivities to improving transparency and building the trust of the individuals orgroups whose support is critical to an organisation’s long-term success, to sparking
the innovation and organisational change needed to meet new challenges andopportunities” (AccountAbility, 2006: 13).
Involvement may be a moral and pragmatic imperative in far from nominal
situations. For instance, when analysing the local consequences of a nuclear
accident, it was found that a key role of the helping professional is to engage withthe affected people to assist them in implementing actions that enhance their
quality of life (NEA, 2006).
Together with openness, accountability, effectiveness and coherence,
participation is recognised as one of the five principles of good governance (EC,STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201517

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

2001). Good governance relies on policies designed on the basis of reasonabledecisions that are well communicated and discussed with the public (NEA, 2002a).
Furthermore, public information, consultation and/or participation inenvironmental or technological decision making – and radioactive waste
management in particular – are required by a number of international texts ortreaties. These include the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent FuelManagement and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.1 In Europe, thedirectives on environmental impact assessment 2 and strategic environmental
assessment3, as well as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s
Espoo Convention 4 with its Kiev Protocol 5 are particularly relevant. Public
involvement is considered a core element of these decisional assessment
procedures, which are increasingly used as umbrella tools to address issues going
beyond purely environmental matters (UNECE, 2014b).
The Aarhus Convention 6 is gaining particular attention as a support for
stakeholder involvement (e.g. REC, 2013; UNECE, 2013). The convention and its
accompanying guidance (UNECE, 2014a; UNECE, 2014b) lay out the conditions
under which concerned publics will access their right to effective influence on
environmental decision making. In decision processes, opportunities for
involvement must be provided early enough so that options still remain open andthe decision authority must show that due account of the input has been taken.
Participation should be continuous along the chain of related decisions (rather
than one-shot occurrence or confined to a small window of opportunity).
Reasonable time frames for input must be provided during the different phases,
supported by access to the full range of needed information as well as preparationand competence building for the stakeholder participants. Public access isguaranteed to courts of justice, empowered to review whether the spirit as well as
the letter of these requirements have been respected.
When the first edition of the short guide was published in 2004, the growing
trend towards integrating stakeholder involvement was typified, for example by
Law n° 108-153 regarding nanotechnology research and development enacted by
the US Congress in 2003. This law states that societal concerns must be identified

1.
2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

18

www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc546.pdf.
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of certain public and private projects on theenvironment as amended (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htm).
Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmeson the environment (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32001
L0042).
The word “strategic” does not appear in the directive. It is widely used however todistinguish the application at the level of plans and programmes which may give rise to
localised projects for which the environmental impact assessment is applicable.
UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context(www.unece.org/env/eia/welcome.html).
The Kiev (or Kyiv) Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the UNECE Espoo
Convention adopted in 2003 (www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.html).
UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (www.unece.org/env/pp).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

through “public input and outreach to be integrated […] by the convening of
regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens’
panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate”.7 At thetime of the second edition in 2015, European directives affecting nuclear activities
show that participation is a recognised norm. The Council Directive
2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011,8 establishing a community framework for the
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, contains
special articles on transparency and participation, and requires member states toeffect relevant measures.
Under such legal frameworks, compliance with stakeholder involvement
requirements becomes an important issue for those responsible for thecorresponding plans, programmes or specific activities. While compliance isimportant, it is not sufficient. The first international quality standard forstakeholder engagement AA1000SES (AccountAbility, 2011) shows that acommitment is needed that will integrate stakeholder engagement withorganisational governance, strategy and operations management.
Engagement initiatives may be triggered by legal requirements forparticipation, compliance with international conventions or agreements,
pre-requisites for securing funding, etc. Legal frameworks may impart the times
and the means for involvement. In contrast, in other contexts a specific player
desiring to involve stakeholders takes responsibility for creating the opportunityand choosing the means.
Stakeholder involvement is an integral part of a stepwise process of decision
making (NEA, 2004). At different phases, involvement may take the form of sharing
information, consulting, dialoguing or deliberating on decisions. It should always
be seen as a meaningful part of formulating and implementing good policy.
Specific involvement initiatives may be seen as part of an ongoing relationshipamong the different societal partners who are concerned by issues relating to, fore.g. radioactive waste management. Stakeholder involvement approaches should
not be viewed as convenient tools for public relations, stakeholder management,
image building, or winning acceptance for a decision taken behind closed doors.
Practitioners and scholars are developing, applying, and evaluating various
approaches for stakeholder involvement. There is a vast range of approaches, aswell as a great number of publications describing them. New horizons are opened
as experience with social media grows. This short guide aims to help nonspecialists form an idea of what is needed to choose an approach and find their
way to pertinent documents.
This publication is intended for a general readership of persons consideringstakeholder involvement. It refers to these persons indifferently as organisers,
planners, practitioners or conveners.

7.
8.

Section 2 (10). thomas.loc.gov/cgi-in/bdquery/z?d108:SN00189:|TOM:/bss/d108query.html.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0070.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201519

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Chapter 1, envisioning stakeholder involvement, shows how relevant
stakeholders can be identified. Because all participation is not equivalent, insightis offered on the different levels of involvement. The positive effects that may
result from stakeholder involvement arrangements are listed, and rationales forengagement are analysed.
Chapter 2, planning, provides an overview of the phases of involvement andemphasises the need for early involvement when decision options are still open.
Pointers are then provided for setting criteria that will frame first the choice ofapproach for a given situation and then the assessment of the involvement
process. A list is provided of typical approaches for engaging stakeholders indeliberation (a higher level of involvement that corresponds to fully airing issues
and viewpoints and exploring options). The use of social media is considered.
Chapter 3, implementation and assessment, signals relevant documents andframeworks. Also considered are the limits of involvement (whether on the side of
conveners or of participants).
Chapter 4 presents conclusions and areas for future development.
Chapter 5 lists the references cited in this publication.
Those who wish to go farther can consult the stand-alone annotatedbibliography of references (NEA, 2015) which is maintained separately by the NEA
Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC). It is intended to help the reader choose
among the wealth of handbooks and scholarly references on planning,
implementing and evaluating a tailor-made involvement initiative.

1.2. Who are the stakeholders?
The FSC uses the term “stakeholder” as a label for any actor – institution, group orindividual – with an interest or a role to play in the societal decision-making
process around radioactive waste management. Different stakeholders may havedifferent interests. Engagement strategies should thus be adjusted to context:
differing needs, programme phases, formal requirements, as well as national
process and national and local culture.
The Aarhus Convention gives participation rights in environmental decision
making to the “public concerned”. The public concerned is defined as thoseaffected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the decision making,including non-governmental organisations promoting such interests and meeting
national requirements. The population of stakeholders might be very broad inearly stages of decision making (at the level of policy, plans or programmes) andthen narrow down as decisions bear on more localised projects or activities. Longterm management issues like radioactive waste management also imply that somestakeholders are not born yet. Consequently, there must be a reflection on how torepresent the interests of absent stakeholders in present-day engagement anddecision making.
The International Risk Governance Council distinguishes four mainstakeholder groups. These are political, business, scientific and civil society
representatives (to the extent that they are socially organised). Additionally, other
20

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

groups that play a role in governance processes can be defined: the media, cultural
elites and opinion leaders, and the general public, either in their role as
non-organised affected public or as the non-organised observing public (IRGC, 2013;
Aven and Renn, 2010).
In radioactive waste management, a list of possible stakeholders (Webster,2000) might include: the general public; demographic groups (such as young
people); nearby residents; owners of land, property and rights; concerned
representatives or elected officials of local communities; national/regional
government ministries/departments; regulators; national/local non-governmental
or civil society organisations;9 local pressure groups; trade unions; the media; thescientific research community; implementing organisations; the nuclear industry;
contractors; waste producers; neighbouring countries; and internationalorganisations.10
Stakeholders may be community, statutory or strategic (UNECE, 2014b). The
European part-funded action research project Community Waste Management inPractice (CIP)11 investigated definitions of the affected community in the case ofwaste management facility siting. Several overlapping factors make up a
community’s identity: these are spatial or geographic, political, economic, culturaland emotional. Stakeholders cannot be defined in purely administrative terms;
instead, the planner with a duty towards an affected community must also look
into experiential aspects bringing people together in the place where they workand live. A two-step process is proposed to assist in identifying stakeholders
affected by any facility siting (Wylie, 2010).
Stakeholders have both different contributions to make and different
involvement needs at each stage of a decision process. When considering whichstakeholders to engage, at a minimum, the planner should identify people towards
whom the organisation has legal, financial or operational responsibilities; people
who are affected by the organisation’s operations; and people who are likely to
influence the organisation’s performance. The AccountAbility practitioner’s
handbook (AccountAbility, 2006: Vol. 2) accompanies this advice with a simple
downloadable dynamic template (T8) to assist in creating a stakeholder profile.
This template asks realistic questions about each stakeholder group and theirrepresentatives, such as preferred level of involvement, legitimacy to engage,competence, access to funding, etc. In cases where the organisation has to make aspecial outreach effort to attain particular groups, this template may facilitate
internal discussion and planning.
To identify stakeholders in a policy reform context, more detailed systematic
approaches and guidance exist (Schmeer, 1999; World Bank, n.d.). Stakeholder

9.

Civil society organisations may also be called associations and may range in scale andmandate from e.g. neighbourhood organisations to professional organisations or
academic societies.
10. For example, European Union member states have information obligations to theEuropean Commission under the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy
Community (Article 37). http://europa.eu.int/abc/obj/treaties/en/entoc38.htm.
11. www.cowam.com.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201521

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analysing qualitative
information to determine whose interests should be taken into account whendeveloping and/or implementing a policy or programme. It “provides a detailed
understanding of the political, economic and social impact of reform on interested
groups, the hierarchy of authority and power among different groups and theactual perceptions of the reform among different groups, all of which areimportant for reform advocates to consider” (World Bank, n.d.).

1.3. Levels of stakeholder involvement
Participation is rarely ever alike, as each country and each situation requiredifferent methods and tools. In the first place, it can be observed that different
levels of stakeholder participation or involvement are enabled by different
approaches. One approach may simply transmit information to a passive
stakeholder audience. At the other end of the scale, an approach may significantly
empower stakeholders within the decision-making process. This section reviews
guidance on selecting and communicating the right level of involvement
depending on context – remembering that several other criteria will come into play
as well (as explained in the following sections).
Starting with the “ladder of citizen participation” presented by Sherry Arnsteinin 1969 (Arnstein, 1969), many practitioners have referred to a public involvement
continuum. The different involvement activities seen in Table 1 may blend into eachother; no strict line can be drawn between adjacent activities.
Table 1. A public involvement continuum, the level of expected outcomes,
and the “promise” made by the convener
Low level of public
involvement or influence

Mid-level

InformEngageInform, educate,share ordisseminate
information
Increasing literacy;
inducing
behaviouralchanges“We will keep you
informed”

Consult
Gatherinformation,
views

Promote two-way dialogue

Modifying policies in accordance with public
preferences and/or reaching an informed
consent“We will keep
you informed,
listen to you, andprovide feedback
on how yourinput influenced
the decision”“We will work with you toensure your concerns are
considered and reflected in
the alternatives, andprovide feedback on how
your input influenced thedecision”

High level of public
involvement or influence
Collaborate

Partnering

Partner inselecting andimplementing
solutionsObtaining the self-commitment of eachparticipant as well as contributions that
may result in binding processes anddecisions
Commit to frame
issues and debate
options together“We willincorporate youradvice andrecommendations
to the maximum
extent possible”“We will
implement what
we decided
together”

Source: Adapted from IRGC, 2013; Health Canada, 2000; Abelson and Gauvin, 2006.

22

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Progressively higher levels of stakeholder involvement have been achieved in
the radioactive waste management area (NEA, 2010a). The authors of the firststakeholder engagement standard AA1000SES (AccountAbility, 2011) identified
three general trends: spread of engagement from large high-profile organisations
to previously invisible organisations; increase in stakeholder diversity andcomplexity and the range of issues they raise or champion; and increasingly
sophisticated approaches to engagement by organisations seeking win-win
outcomes with stakeholders. As organisations gain experience and confidence,“their approach tends to shift from one-way channels of communication designed
to spread information, to interactive tools for consultation and dialogue. Thesemay then mature into multi-stakeholder partnerships and alliances”(AccountAbility, 2006: 22).
Planners should be aware that stakeholders may desire, expect or be entitled toa particular level of involvement. Preliminary discussion, contact with or
observation of target stakeholder groups, as well as review of statutory
requirements, will help determine the appropriate level. How much involvement
the organisation can – or wishes to – offer must be clearly defined. Explicit
information must be given about constraints likely to affect the extent of influence
possible or how the input from engagement will be used (National ResearchCouncil, 2008). Box 1 gives insight from the FSC experience.

Box 1. The need to clarify the level of stakeholder involvement
Reports by FSC member organisations (Vári, 2004) confirm the need to clarify thelevel of involvement, and the degree of two-way communication that can be
expected by participants:• It is important to be clear on the type of issues or decisions that can be influenced
by a consultation process, as extensive consultation with limited opportunity for
influence can result in frustration/lead to disillusion/dissatisfaction.
• The basis for the decision must be clearly understood.
• It is important to be clear about the information sought and the feedback to beprovided by the decision maker.
• People want to see that they have influenced the process and have had ameaningful impact on the outcome.

Note that in statutory processes, for example those conducted under the
Aarhus Convention, due account is an important requirement. The convener isaccountable, i.e. must show how the input has influenced the decision process,and stakeholders have a right to verify this. The demonstration of due accountmay range from a general statement of the concerns and values that have been
incorporated, to a record of how submissions have been answered, to a line-by-line
comparison of the decision text before and after incorporating input, with ajustification of each omission.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201523

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENTIn Table 2, guidance is offered on fitting the different levels of public
involvement to the needs of the situation.
Table 2. Guidance on choosing different levels of public involvement

In which cases may it
be appropriate to
involve the public?

In matters of health, safety and local impacts of radioactive waste
management activities; development and implementation of legislation andregulations; development of policies, statutes and new programmes;
preparation of business plans; issues with social, economic, cultural or ethicalimplications; sharing or disseminating information; resolving questions thatrevolve around conflicting values.

Inform/educate when:

Factual information is needed to describe a policy, programme or process;the public needs to know the results of a process/decision; there is a need to
document a proposal; raising general awareness; an emergency or crisis
requires immediate action; information is necessary to abate concerns or
prepare for higher levels of public involvement.

Gather views andinformation when:

The purpose is primarily to listen and gather information; interpretation andanalysis of data collected; identifying specific individuals/groups; formulating
policies and preparing decisions in accordance with public preferences; andpreparing for higher levels of public involvement.

Engage when:

Two-way information exchange is requested by the organiser or by relevant
stakeholders; opportunity is given to discuss and propose details of policy
and programme delivery; criteria for engaging are identified.

Collaborate when:

There is willingness to frame issues with stakeholders; there is commitment
to identify relevant options through dialogue and to respectrecommendations; time and resources are available to discuss complex
issues.

Partner when:

Institutions are ready to empower stakeholders to co-develop solutions; there
is a formal/informal agreement to implement solutions generated withstakeholders.

Source: Adapted from Health Canada, 2000.

Informing and educating is an important duty and should not be neglected
because it is low on the involvement scale. Fulfilling this duty is part of early
involvement (Section 2.2) by organisations whose statutory role in a decisionmaking process comes later. Informing and educating not only transmits
knowledge, it also creates relationships and helps the organisation to graduallybuild its own competence that will be useful when it is time to take a more active
and interactive role. This was the experience of the US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission early on in the framework of radioactive waste management

24

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

processes, before the regulator had a statutory service to render (NEA, 2014: 34-35).
Public and private sector organisations in Europe should also be aware that the
Aarhus Convention creates information access rights and judicial review may
determine that the label of confidentiality will be restricted to fewer materials.
Much research and development have been undertaken on involving
stakeholders in decisions about risk. The risk management escalator (IRGC, 2013)
shown in Figure 1 can help conveners discern the level of participation that may berequired to come to closure as function of the type of issue under discussion.
Figure 1 suggests that “simple” issues may not require elaborate involvement
procedures. As issues (or risks) become more complex, a different set ofprocedures and a larger set of actors are needed to respond. “Ambiguous” issues
are situated at the highest end of the escalator and call for the most inclusive,
face-to-face response. In such contexts, broader as well as higher-level
involvement is justified, in order to air the competing perspectives and concerns.
Figure 1. The risk management escalator

Civil society
Affectedstakeholders

Affectedstakeholders

External scientists/ External scientists/ External scientists/
researchers
researchers
researchers

ActorsRegulatory
bodies/industry
experts

Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts

Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts

Type ofparticipation

Use existingroutines to assess
risks and possible
reductionmeasures

Maximise thescientificknowledge of therisk and mitigation
options

Involve all affected Societal debate
stakeholders to about the risk andcollectively decide
its underlying
best way forward
implications

Dominant risk
characteristic

SimpleComplexity

Uncertainty

Regulatory
bodies/industry
experts

Ambiguity

As the dominant characteristic changes, so also will thetype of stakeholder involvement need to change

Source: IRGC, 2013.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201525

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Ambiguity is found when different societal visions and values exist in regard to
the issue, producing debate and controversy. There may also be disagreement
among the stakeholders regarding the uncertainty and ambiguity. A useful short
discussion of uncertainty, complexity and controversy, and a “lens” to help choosea participatory technology assessment approach in this light, are found in Laes and
Meskens (2006).
High-level participation may include “legal deliberations as well as novel
approaches to include stakeholders and representatives of the public at large. Ifvalue conflicts are associated with measures to mitigate or reduce the impacts of[hazards], it is not enough to demonstrate that public planners are open to publicconcerns and address the issues that many people wish them to take care of. The
process of assigning trade-offs between each of the options needs to be open to
public input and new forms of deliberation” (Wachinger and Renn, 2010).

1.4. Potential effects of stakeholder involvement initiatives and rationales
for engagement
The preamble of the Aarhus Convention lays out the reasons for elevating freedomof information and public participation to the status of guaranteed rights: “In thefield of the environment, improved access to information and public participationin decision making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions,contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public theopportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due
account of such concerns, aiming thereby to further the accountability of andtransparency in decision making and to strengthen public support for decisions on
the environment” (UNECE, 2014b).
Substantial evidence indicates that public participation is more likely to
improve than to undermine the quality of decisions. Studies show that public
participation also tends to increase the legitimacy of decisions, which, in turn,raises the likelihood that they can be implemented effectively and efficiently. The
process itself builds citizens’ knowledge of technical and scientific aspects, e.g. on
environmental issues, which increases their ability to engage in future decisions(National Research Council, 2008).
Three classes of effects may result from the application of bottom-up, inclusive
approaches, as well as consultation and deliberation techniques. These are:•substantive (concrete decision outcomes);•

procedural (modifications to the process of deciding);•

contextual (outcomes).

Table 3 lists the potential positive effects of stakeholder participation. These
may also be quoted as justifications for involving stakeholders in policy decisions.

26

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Table 3. Potential positive effects of participatory approaches
Category

Potential effects- More pertinent choices from the environmental point of view
- More pertinent choices from the economic point of view
- More pertinent choices from the technical point of view
Substantive- Common understanding of issues and problems, positions and arguments
effects- New options for action, more robust solutions, better identification of sustainable longerterm approaches- More socially acceptable choices, agreements or tolerated consensus

Procedural
effects- Improvement of the quality of the informational basis of decision processes and better useof information- Possibility to explain and justify both expert and non-expert positions- Better integration of the wider context that determines the range of choices for the decision- Increased pool of ideas and creativity- Opening up the domain of choices considered- More dynamic processes- More transparent decision making- Early identification of conflict and better management or resolution- Increased legitimacy of the decision process- Improvement of the effectiveness of the process in terms of costs and time
- Empowerment and enhanced influence of less organised interests

Contextual
effects- Better information to stakeholders and/or the public- Increased public awareness and interest- Better preparation for future situations in which stakeholders may need to take particularactions- Improved strategic capacity of decision makers- Improved competence and expertise in organisations- Improved quality of technical support tools- Reinforced organisational capacity to advise and assist stakeholders- Public acceptance, ownership, support for decisions- Changes in the perception and conceptualisation of the social context- Modification in traditional power relations and conflicts- Social learning, constructive dialogue, better co-operation between the authorities and the
public- Strengthened co-operation, communication and co-ordination between institutions andwith stakeholders, for future actions that will necessarily affect or involve stakeholders- Reinforcement of democratic practices and citizens’ involvement in public domains- Increased confidence in citizen problem-solving capacity, in institutional players and ininstitutional arrangements

Source: Adapted from UNECE, 2014b; Laes and Meskens, 2006; van den Hove, 2003; Renn and
Schweizer, 2009; and NEA, 2010b.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201527

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Substantive, procedural and contextual levels of effects are described
elsewhere as effects on decision quality, legitimacy and capacity. Best practices inpublic participation may improve all three levels of effect simultaneously; however,this does not imply that a standard set of guidelines will lead to achieve all threeobjectives in all situations. “In some situations, particular issues require special
attention. For example, when the interested and affected parties to a decision
seriously mistrust each other or the responsible public authority, special attention
to building legitimacy may be necessary. When the relevant science is known to be
in dispute, special attention to issues of scientific quality may be necessary. Whencertain critical parties lack sufficient scientific understanding to participate
effectively, technical assistance to these parties may be essential to any desirable
outcome” (National Research Council, 2008: 92). On the other hand, it must be
ascertained that this is not seen as an effort to manipulate “views”. Trust is neededin order to avoid this.
Conveners should carefully consider not only the effects sought, but also thedominant rationales underlying the decision to involve stakeholders. This is a way
to clarify goals and to avoid – both inside and outside the organisation –miscommunication and disappointments. “What are we trying to achieve? Is thislegitimacy, effectiveness, efficiency or representation? Do all relevant actors agree?
Is participation necessarily the best way to realise these goals? What if actors havedifferent purposes and resources? [...W]hile participation is considered a solution
by many, the existence of separate participation rationales indicates that the
problems they are trying to solve are very different” (Wesselink et al., 2011). Three
major participation rationales (differing slightly from the above classification ofeffects) are:•

Instrumental (or functionalist): effective participation makes decisions
more legitimate and improves results. It aims to restore public credibility,
diffuse conflicts, justify decisions and limit future challenges toimplementation by creating so-called ownership. Policy goals are not open
for discussion, only the details are (to a lesser or greater extent).
Instrumental participation supports incumbent interests. This is aminimalist and tactical kind of participation arrangement.

•

Substantive: non-experts see problems, issues and solutions that experts
miss. Participation aims to increase the breadth and depth of informationand thereby improve the quality of decisions; it ignores power issues,e.g. related to problem framing. Unlike in the instrumental rationale, asubstantive rationale permits the modification of policy goals.

•

Normative: democratic ideals call for maximum participation. It aims tocounter the power of incumbent interests and allows all who are affectedby a decision to have influence.

Table 4 summarises these rationales and the consequences for designing
participation.

28

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

ENVISIONING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Table 4. Participation rationales and design choices for participation
Normative rationale

Substantive rationale

Instrumental rationale

Who should be
included?

Those who have a stake

Those who haveadditional knowledge

Those who haveblocking power andthose who are needed
for implementation

What should be
included?

Participants’ concernsand views

Policy makers’
concerns; all knowledge
and views

Policy makers’ concerns;
selected knowledge andviews

When to include?

In all stages and issues

Only when it adds value
substantively

Only when it ensuressmooth implementation

Source: Adapted from Wesselink et al., 2011.

General and potential drawbacks of public participation in decision making are
acknowledged by the guide for implementing the Aarhus Convention (UNECE,
2014b):•

the potential conflicts may cause delay in implementation;•

conflicts have to be managed and solved;•

may prolong some of the phases of decision making;•needs, attention, and resources (time, funds, human resources andexpertise).

Despite such possible impediments, the guide states that the treaty’s articles
requiring public participation in many plans, programmes and activities “serve asa reminder to public authorities that it is vitally important to allow public
participation to do its job fully. While it may be tempting to cut corners to reach aresult that might appear on the surface to be the best, there are countless cases
where unexpected or hidden factors became apparent only through a public
participation process, with the result that potentially costly mistakes were avoided.
Furthermore, even where the original proposal is not substantially changed as aresult of public participation, the successful implementation of the final decision
can be promoted through the active and real participation of the public during thedecision making. Conversely, public participation that is merely pro forma –i.e. that takes place when options are already closed – can injure the chances for
successful implementation of a decision because of the questionable legitimacy ofthe process. It must be emphasized that public participation requires more thansimply following a set of procedures; it involves public authorities genuinely
listening to public input and being open to the possibility of being influenced by it.
Ultimately, public participation should result in some increase in the correlation
between the views of the participating public and the content of the decision. In
other words, the public input should be capable of having a tangible influence on
the actual content of the decision. When such influence can be seen in the final
decision, it is evident that the public authority has taken due account of public
input” (UNECE, 2014b: 115-116).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

29

PLANNING

2. PlanningThis chapter clarifies the phases of engagement and points out the need for early
involvement of stakeholders in co-framing the issues. It reviews how to set criteriathat will serve in both selecting appropriate engagement approaches and, later,
evaluating the initiative. Finally, this chapter explains how to match an approachto a context and provides an extensive listing of commonly used approaches.

2.1. An overview of phases
Planning, executing and evaluating a stakeholder involvement initiative imply
several integrated phases. These are portrayed in Figure 2 below by the authors of
the
first
international
stakeholder
engagement
standard
AA1000SES(AccountAbility, 2011). The approach gives equal importance to all phases.
Engagement is not an isolated action that simply fulfils a requirement. Instead,stakeholder engagement stems from strategic thinking by the organisation. Itshould address material concerns which are significant to both the organisationand the stakeholders (see Section 2.2).
Analysis and planning help align strategic goals and future actions (asdiscussed in Section 1.4). Both the strategic and the planning phases emphasisethat identifying stakeholders, their concerns and issues are at the heart ofengagement (Section 1.2). For engagement to be effective, the organisational
capacity to listen and respond must be strengthened.
Designing the actual engagement process includes specifying the intensity(Section 1.3) and the form of engagement (Section 2.3). Outputs from theinvolvement initiative should then feed both action and reflection, which, in turn,will lead to new strategic assessments.
This cyclical vision is consistent with the needs of the long-term technologicaland societal endeavour of radioactive waste management. New decision points
emerge over time, influenced by earlier decisions and requiring public
participation in their turn. Stepwise decision making is needed in this context,
incorporating flexibility and the possibility to reverse decisions if necessary (NEA,
2002b). The Aarhus Convention also highlights that public involvement inenvironmental decision making should be regularly revisited. Continuity inengagement contributes to the sustainability of environmental solutions. It implies
not only a palette of instrumental procedures and involvement methods, but also,
strengthening stakeholder capacity to engage (see Chapter 4).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

31

PLANNING

Figure 2. Five-stage stakeholder engagement frameworkThinkstrategically- Map stakeholders- Identify issues- Set strategic objectives- Prioritise

Analyseand planAct, review
and report- Plan follow-up activities- Ensure learning- Review the engagement- Assure your stakeholders

Effective
stakeholder
engagement

Design theprocess andengage- Identify the most effective
engagement approach- Design the process- Review progress- Learn from others andidentify partners- Set stakeholder objectives- Define margins of
movement

Strengthen
engagement
Capacities- Strengthen the ability torespond to an issue- Develop internal skills- Build stakeholders
capacity to engage

Source: Adapted from AccountAbility, 2006.

2.2. Co-framing the issues: Early involvement
International guidance and best practice publications on facility siting, societal risk
management and environmental decision making often point out thatstakeholders should be involved early.
Early involvement does not only refer to the calendar or chronology of a
specific decision. In binding treaties mandating public involvement inenvironmental decision making, early involvement also means that stakeholders
should be involved upstream, while options are still wide open. According to the32

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

PLANNING

so-called Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, the Espoo Convention,
the Kiev Strategic Protocol and the Aarhus Convention (see Section 1.1), the publicshould be enabled to participate in setting higher-order principles, priorities andgoals before such policy or concepts are enacted in specific projects.1
Organisations can take the initiative to communicate with stakeholders, and to
get their input, in the absence of formal requirement. Early involvement, whether
or not it entails direct participation in decision making, is a component ofinstitutional transparency (NEA, 2012a). Involvement initiatives may be focused on
any suitable dialogue issue ranging, in the case of radioactive waste management,from overall policy and/or its connections to related energy or infrastructure policy,
to any of the specific decisions, options, steps, or issues (ethical, economic, etc.)that make up part of radioactive waste management.
According to the US National Academy of Sciences, early involvement alsomeans “engaging the spectrum of interested and affected parties in formulating
the problem for assessment or decision to the extent” possible in a given context.
Co-operation in framing the issues, as an early step in engagement, is seen to be“of particular importance in achieving quality and legitimacy” (see also thediscussion of co-framing in EC [2004b]). Especially in contentious situations,“potential participants should be identified and brought into the planning process
as early as possible [...] as a mismatch between the scope of the problem as definedby the agency and the scope as defined by participants can be a source of serious
problems. Participants should co-design the formats and decision rules (process
design) to ensure that the process is effective and trusted. Participation specialists
can make recommendations and advise all parties on what is likely to work best in
the given context, but the final decision [on process] should be made in acollaborative effort with the main parties involved” (National Research Council,
2008: 231).
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC, 2013) has outlined a risk
governance process framework that includes a concern assessment step. This issuggested when a given threat is highly controversial (characterised by highambiguity; see Section 1.3). For this assessment, engagement with stakeholders
should elicit as widely as possible the concerns, perspectives, and preferred
options held by the relevant social groups on the basis of their specific knowledge
and information. The Council mentions that it may be necessary to conduct faceto-face inquiries among different groups and representatives of the wider public.
The stakeholder engagement standard AA1000SES (AccountAbility, 2011)highlights that the first steps of a successful process will identify relevant orsignificant (material) concerns held by the organisation and/or by stakeholders. A
dynamic downloadable template (T3) allows the planner to create a matrix ofobjectives, issues and stakeholders. Priority issues will be identified by crossingorganisational concerns and the degree of awareness and concern shown by
stakeholders in regard to the same issues.

1.

See REC (2013) for a discussion of these requirements and the application of the Aarhus
Convention in the radioactive waste management field.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

33

PLANNING

Today, even high-level intergovernmental processes are influenced by broadbased stakeholder input at an early stage. The Aarhus Convention Article 3.7
foresees a mechanism for citizen input into policy making. For the United Nations,citizen engagement is the “interaction between governments and citizens in orderto share information and power in policy processes, [...] more specifically indefining the issues that affect them, identifying possible solutions, and developing
priorities for action, often jointly with the government and other governanceactors” (UN, 2013). Box 2 indicates how the Civil Society 20 (C20) 2 gathered
upstream input from interested citizens through an inclusive, Internet-based
process.

Box 2. “How we are shaping the agenda” by the C20
Through our public online consultation, we reached out to international civil society
to choose the focus areas for our advocacy: inclusive growth and employment,
infrastructure, climate and sustainability and governance.
Between February and May 2014, an online crowdsourcing website – C20
Conversations – allowed everyone to help shape our recommendations around these
key themes.
In June 2014, the C20 Summit in Melbourne discussed and confirmed these key
recommendations.
From the C20 Summit to the Leaders Summit in November 2014, we advocated ourrecommendations for inclusive economic reform to the leaders of the G20 nations.

Early involvement also corresponds to preparedness, and may make a vital
contribution to achieving the objectives of safety and security which interest
governments, institutions and all of society. For instance, the NEA Committee on
Radiation Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) pointed out that “the active
participation of stakeholders is necessary not only in the implementation of postemergency strategies, but also before any radiological emergency, during the
preparation and planning phase” (NEA, 2007). Early involvement here improvesplans, enables concerned stakeholders to prepare themselves to a post-emergency
situation, and reinforces the potential for co-operation, communication andco-ordination in actual crisis or during recovery (NEA, 2010b).

2.

34

Civil Society 20 (C20) is a platform for dialogue between the political leaders of the Groupof Twenty (G20) countries and representatives of civil society organisations. This
independent organisation affirms that “to deliver strong, sustainable and balanced
growth, it is important that G20 deliberations are informed by the expertise andknowledge of civil society. The C20 leads engagement with the G20 on behalf ofinternational civil society” (during the Australian presidency of the G20, 2014).
www.C20.org.au.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

PLANNING

2.3. Setting criteria for approach selection and assessment
The decision to involve stakeholders may reflect different needs or goals, as
discussed in Section 1.3. Different types of consultation or deliberation processes
hold the potential to give different effects (Section 1.4). Finally, each organisation(as well as each target set of stakeholders) has specific constraints. For thesereasons, it is important to match the stakeholder involvement approach to needs
and constraints, desired effects and goals. To achieve this, the organisation must
develop selection criteria. The same criteria can be used later to evaluate theinvolvement initiative and to assess whether the needs and goals have been wellserved (Section 3.2).
A fundamental criterion is the appropriate level of involvement (Tables 1 and 2)
that can be offered to stakeholders. It should be carefully set and communicated topotential participants (Box 1).
Some handbooks may be particularly helpful in setting criteria. “Participation
works!” (NEF, 1998: 7-8) suggests that a list of desired effects and goals should bemade (Table 3 of our short guide provides an extensive sample.) These will all form
basic criteria for choosing an approach. The AccountAbility practitioners’
handbook (AccountAbility, 2006: Vol. 2)3 also places an accent on the relationshipsthat the convener already has or wants to form with stakeholders. Flüeler et al.
(2005a; 2005b) provide criteria based on “Input – what is needed at start?; process –how does/should it happen?; and output – what comes out of it?”.
If the organisation seeks to develop or restore social trust through engaging
with stakeholders, members might wish to discuss in particular the material
provided by the E7, an international organisation representing leading electricity
companies from the G7 countries (now called the Global Sustainable Electricity
Partnership). You may find implementation suggestions in Section B of “Social
Trust and the Electricity Industry: An E7 Contribution” (E7 Network, 2000).
Constraints and pragmatic limits should also be listed. “Participation works!”
highlights a variety of issues that were important for local authorities in acommunity context: “Method chosen should be adapted for use by a variety of
stakeholders; adapted for use by different sized groups; be easily recorded; fit
within a limited time slot of an evening or half a day; break through traditional
opposition of arguments in order to develop a picture that reflects the diversity of
a community […]” (NEF, 1998). AccountAbility (2006: Vol. 2) mentions important
constraints on stakeholders’ ability to participate, related for instance to their costs
for travel or family care, and lost time at work. This business-oriented manual also
focuses on financial and human resource limits that may constrain theorganisation’s ability to engage.
The criteria based on both desires and constraints will be very diverse. It is
unlikely that any approach will ideally suit all requirements. Therefore, a pilotgroup of members of the organisation that will engage the stakeholders should3.

See especially the discussion of “Stage 4 – Design the process and engage”.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

35

PLANNING

discuss the lists generated and rank the criteria by order of importance.
Stakeholder representatives may also be invited to co-operate in this criteria
setting.

2.4. Choosing an approach
Whichever approaches are chosen they will give best results, for participants andfor the institutions that organise dialogue, if they support a logical step in welldefined phased process of management or of decision making (Section 2.1). Thisoverall process with its particular goals justifies the use of a specific instrument at
a given time, in order to obtain a needed output (review goals, justifications andpotential effects in Section 1.4). Within this process, different issues or problems
take centre stage at different times. They will frame the choice of approaches, inorder to elucidate, for example: national or local considerations, or predominantly
societal or technical choices.
Any given stakeholder involvement approach can usually be applied to a broad
range of issues. No particular approach is superior to another: “Various public
participation formats have been successful in achieving the goals of high quality
and widely acceptable assessments and decisions, and each format has also failed
at times in achieving these goals. There is no single best format or set ofprocedures for achieving good outcomes in all situations” (National ResearchCouncil, 2008). This finding makes sense because the criteria developed in
response to a specific context, constraints, desired goals and effects, will certainly
differ between organisations. Experience shows that the success of a particularapproach will also depend on external factors such as the phase of the decisionmaking process, as well as the political and cultural context.
Therefore, a definitive matrix matching approaches to criteria does not exist.
However, different approaches can be described according to generic criteria, suchas: level of involvement, intensive (National Research Council, 2008; IRGC, 2013)
versus extensive consultation, representative character, inclusiveness, deliberative
qualities, etc.
When the organisation’s own ranked list of criteria is settled (or when apreliminary list has been developed), the planner should review existing
approaches to form an idea of which might fit best. Attractive guides offering a
rapid review of involvement approaches include the UK Environment Agency(2000), the OECD (2001) and ECR (2002). Flüeler et al. (2005b and 2005b) provide amatrix, while Laes and Meskens (2006) start from the social learning goals and key
characteristics of the topic under discussion to zero in on a likely approach for agiven combination.
Online platforms can help match approaches to basic criteria. The Implementing
Public Participation Approaches – Participation Tool Box (IPPA, n.d.) supports
comparisons based on convener profile, governance level, phase of decision
making, numbers and types of stakeholders involved and frequency of meetings;
the Participation Compass (Involve, n.d.) supports queries on type of changetargeted, cost, number of participants, their recruitment and representativeness,and face-to-face versus online processes.
36

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

PLANNING

When a set of potentially suitable approaches has been identified, moredetailed sources may be consulted. Handbooks and toolboxes often point thereader to detailed methodological descriptions and case studies. One way ofweighing approaches is to consult useful advisory texts reviewing their actual
implementation. Many guides providing such advice are mentioned in the standalone annotated bibliography (NEA, 2015) maintained by the Forum on Stakeholder
Confidence (FSC).
The design of the process should maximise the incentives to participate andminimise disincentives and obstacles (National Research Council, 2008).
It will be of great value for the planner to contact and discuss experience withpersons who have conducted involvement initiatives. Such conversations could
take place at different points as the planner moves through the steps suggested
above. As the desired approach comes into focus, planners should try to exchangewith persons who have used that particular one. In some cases, the convener willconsult and/or retain the services of a professional to set up and conduct theinitiative. In this case, following the steps to identify the right family of approaches
can prepare the organisation to dialogue more fruitfully with the professional.

2.5. Approaches available for intensive or extensive involvement“Different processes provide different roles for the participants – for example, as
users of a service, as self-interested individuals, as citizens within a collective, asinteractive group members, or as individuals with fixed views or people who candebate and develop views. Most of the new consultation processes are moredeliberative, enabling participants to develop positions and consider issues inrelation to the common good rather than individual interests, and thus act as
citizens” (Nirex, 2002).
Box 3 lists approaches corresponding to the higher levels of stakeholder
involvement seen in Section 1.3 (i.e. discussing, engaging, partnering; the list
roughly respects this increasing intensiveness of involvement). These approaches
have features of two-way, deliberative dialogues. They are in harmony withsuggestions in favour of decision-making models that integrate both analytic anddeliberative processes.4 It is up to the convener to ensure that the outcomes of theengagement effort do effectively influence decisions, and to provide due account of

4.

The “analytic-deliberative” model was presented by the National Research Council of the
US National Academy of Sciences. The components are defined as follows: “Analysis
uses rigorous, replicable methods, evaluated under the agreed protocols of expert
community such as those of disciplines in the natural, social, or decision sciences, aswell as mathematics, logic, and law to arrive at answers to factual questions.
Deliberation is any formal or informal process for communication and collective
consideration of issues” (National Research Council, 1996: 3-4). In this model, analysis
and deliberation are not only complementary, but also strongly interrelated:“Deliberation frames analysis and analysis informs deliberation. Thus, risk
characterization and decision making more generally is the output of a recursive process,not a linear one” (National Research Council, 1996: 20).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

37

PLANNING

that influence. Box 4 highlights related conflict resolution approaches, while Box 5
describes combination approaches.
The lists of approaches in this chapter are by no means exhaustive. In addition,
the short generic descriptions may not correspond exactly to specific examples
familiar to each reader: this is because, under a single approach label, fieldpractitioners may design slightly different implementations or adapt them to thecontext. Even a highly defined and structured approach needs to be adapted for
application in a particular national process and local circumstances.
Box 3. Commonly cited approaches for informing deliberation
through stakeholder involvement
Public hearings: Regulated, formal arrangements for times and places at which
members of the general public and other types of stakeholders can give evidence orquestion public authorities about decisions under consideration.
Deliberative polling: Similar to opinion polling, but collects views after persons havebeen introduced to the issue and have thought about it. Meant to give an indicationof what people would think if they had the time and information to consider theissue (instead of reacting “cold”). Includes a feedback session, sometimes with a highmedia profile (e.g. broadcast by television along with documentary inserts).
Focus groups: Small groups of invited or recruited persons discuss a theme or
proposal; provide insight on their reactions, values, concerns and perspectives, andan indication of how group dynamics influence opinions.
Nominal group process: A structured group interaction approach designed togenerate a prioritised list of high-quality ideas within two hours or less. It isparticularly helpful for setting goals, defining obstacles, and gathering creative
responses to a particular question.
Delphi process: Persons with different expertise or interests relevant to a problem
participate in a staged series of planned and facilitated discussions (either face-toface or by correspondence). It is used to develop fact-based decisions and strategies
reflecting expert opinion on well-defined issues. When input is anonymous, moreequal consideration may be given to the diverse views.
Charrette: From 20 to 60 persons work co-operatively to find solutions to a given
problem within a set time period (usually one day). An experienced facilitator isneeded. This approach is of interest when assembling practical ideas and viewpoints
at the beginning of a decision process, and when addressing difficult matters
involving many different interests.
Citizen advisory groups: Small groups of persons who represent various interests orexpertise (e.g. community leaders) meet on a regular or ad hoc basis to discuss
concerns and provide informed input.
Consultative groups: Forums that call together key representatives of civil society(non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations), economic andpolitical spheres, to make policy recommendations and to improve the ongoing
dialogue between these actors.

38

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

PLANNING

Box 3. Commonly cited approaches for informing deliberation
through stakeholder involvement (cont’d)Multi-actor policy workshops: Small groups mixing key stakeholders and technicalexperts, aimed at collecting a range of viewpoints on what are the importantquestions raised by the dialogue issue. These may allow an innovative view of the
problem to emerge, along with new approaches to its solution.
Round tables: Representatives of different views or interests come together todiscuss and/or make decisions on an equal footing. May last for several days or meeton a repeat basis. Some authors claim these are most valuable when used at the
beginning of a process to set broad policy orientations.
Citizen task forces: Persons with special knowledge or representing some interest of
the community may be appointed to a temporary task force, organised to consider in
depth an issue on which a decision is required. The group meets a number of times,
often in the company of organising entity representatives, to consider informationand formulate recommendations.
Study circles: Five to 20 people agree to meet together three to five times to discuss a
specific topic (or, meetings are scheduled on a weekly or monthly basis for more
complex sets of topics). Information materials are provided over time. It emphasises
co-operative and integrated learning and mutual respect. Useful to monitor or
document the evolution of a group’s thinking in regard to a particular issue andgenerate recommendations based on a shared body of knowledge. A variation may
call on different modes of participation (e.g. electronic) from a wider group ofparticipants, and does not track change over time in regard to new information andlearning.
Co-research groups: Co-opted stakeholders at national and/or regional level andinstitutional representatives agree to participate in facilitated seminars held several
times. The objective is to define together areas in which more knowledge andunderstanding is needed in order to take a viable decision, and to discuss variations
applied in the nuclear and radioactive waste management field have included
ongoing pluralistic thematic working groups.
Scenario workshop: A local meeting where scenarios are used to stimulate vision
making and dialogue between policy makers, experts, business and concerned
citizens. It is an approach of technology assessment in which the workshop
participants carry out the assessments and develop visions and proposals fortechnological needs and possibilities. It allows the exploration of different possible
future technological strategies and at the same time facilitates actual co-operation in
the direction of the strategy chosen.
Referendum: For reasons of cost efficiency, the only very large-scale public decision
format is the popular vote. All normally registered voters (or all persons meeting astated criterion) can express their opinion. While this approach enjoys a high level ofperceived legitimacy, complex decisions must be reduced to their simplest binary
form to be proposed to the ballot. Setting up such a procedure can be an efficient
way of attracting citizens’ attention to the issue at hand and allowing citizens tocollect information about the different positions taken by public figures.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

39

PLANNING

Box 3. Commonly cited approaches for informing deliberation
through stakeholder involvement (cont’d)Consensus conferences: These are organised at a national level, usually by a“neutral” organisation. A small group of volunteer citizens is chosen to be
representative of the public at large, or, to represent a spectrum of viewpoints. They
meet for several weekends to learn about the dialogue issue and to question relevant
experts. The citizen participants then produce a report with their conclusions andrecommendations, to be delivered to public decision makers.
Citizens’ juries: Participants are recruited by lottery to serve their community bytaking part in deliberations on a planning decision that will affect a geographicallysituated population: e.g. to designate a precise site for a (conventional) waste
management installation. The organising institution, or delegated staff, proposes anumber of decisional options among which the jury must choose. These options
could be developed beforehand by the institution alone or with the input of otherconsultative approaches.
Citizens’ panels: Citizens’ panels are similar to juries, except that they also develop a
range of options before deciding upon one.
Local monitoring, oversight and information committees: Instated at the time ofsite (pre-)selection, or created when a risk-producing installation is built, suchcommittees are a mechanism for ongoing involvement and dialogue among
stakeholders and with the general public. In some countries these committees are
required by law; in other contexts, they may be created to improve relationships
between the community and institutional personnel and contribute to better risk
management. Different levels of empowerment are provided to these committees: insome contexts, they take major decisions (e.g. they can require installation closure if
certain safety requirements are not met); at the other end of the scale, they serve
primarily as a forum for exchange and dissemination of information. They typically
include representatives from elected bodies and from civil society organisations(chambers of commerce, environmentalist groups, etc.) and they may be of small orvery large size (6 to 90 persons, depending on the definition given to “affected public”
and the system of representation that is chosen). The management of the industrial
installation, or of the organisation responsible for the risk-producing site, as well as
safety authorities and other national stakeholders, may be represented on theoversight committee as members, or they may be permanent or occasional
interlocutors.
Partnership arrangements for participatory site selection: Committees grouping
citizen representatives and various types of technical experts work together over asignificant period of months or years to develop solutions acceptable from both atechnical and societal point of view. Auxiliary approaches may be used to inform or
consult the larger community (e.g. information campaigns, and referendum) and thecommittee may extend its lifetime to monitoring the installation.
Source: Drawn and adapted from Health Canada, 2000; National Research Council, 1996;
van den Hove, 2001; and Ney, 2000.

40

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

PLANNING

Clearly, not every approach on the list can be used by every type oforganisation, nor be applied to every type of policy issue or every decision stage.
The stand-alone annotated bibliography (NEA, 2015) maintained by the FSC points
to handbooks that list more approaches and advise on matching them to specificneeds and goals.
Box 4 mentions related approaches labelled in the literature as appropriate for“alternative dispute resolution” (i.e. they offer an alternative to going to court or
make it less likely that the parties will need to go to court later).
Box 4. Alternative dispute resolution
Policy dialogues: A small ad hoc group is created to facilitate informal but structured
dialogue between a range of stakeholder representatives and policy actors, often in
the aim of generating useful upstream suggestions or options for consideration bypolitical decision makers.
Regulatory negotiation or negotiated rule making: Representatives of interested andaffected parties work together with regulating government agency personnel to draft
proposed rules. Participants are mandated by the group they represent, or are chosenbecause of some recognised expertise. Participants need to have or to develop
negotiation skills. The function of such negotiation is to fine-tune regulation before
its application, so as to avoid legal or other challenge, and to improve its
responsiveness to the needs of affected parties.

Combinations of approaches may be used in an overall involvement initiative
to obtain and integrate different stakeholders’ input into decisions (Box 5). This isparticularly appropriate when the dialogue issue has both a national and a local
dimension.
Large-scale national dialogue processes may also need to rely on a
combination of approaches. They may be combined and adapted by initial plan or,
moreover, to respond to the consultation context. As an example, in France anational public debate is required for all infrastructure projects beyond a certain
cost, and, traditionally, it consists principally of live public meetings. Anotherappreciated means for participation is to submit a four-page stakeholder
statement which is formatted, distributed and permanently archived by thenational commission. In 2013, these approaches were complemented in one casewith a consensus conference, and also by arranging nine thematic webcasts. Whilethese did not correspond to “higher-level” involvement, they illustratecomplementary means of reaching out to an extensive population in the context of
more intensive deliberative methods. Moderated by a journalist, each of thesewebcasts lined up a panel of specialists to query the project promoter, relying inpart on questions submitted in real time via Internet by persons viewing theproceedings. Four hundred questions were submitted online and more than
9 000 persons accessed the webcasts (live or archived); consequently, this Internetbased approach enabled a much larger population to participate in the debate thanwould have attended physical meetings (CNDP, 2014).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201541

PLANNING

Box 5. Combination approaches
Deliberative mapping: A set of universities in the United Kingdom proposes thisapproach for judging how well different courses of action perform according toeconomic, social, ethical and scientific criteria generated by participants. The aim is
to provide an information basis for more robust, democratic and accountable
decision making that better reflects public values. Deliberative mapping combines
assessments by individual specialists and members of the public. A softwaresupported multi-criteria mapping approach and citizens’ panels are each used. Thisapproach is described in briefs available at Involve (n.d.).
Three-step procedure: Renn et al. (1993) developed a three-step procedure forstakeholder input into public policy decisions. Interest groups each generate a valuetree analysis to identify and weight their preferences and concerns in regard to the
dialogue issue. Experts then participate in a modified Delphi process in which theyjudge how each policy option will affect the outcomes of concern to the interest
groups. Finally, a panel of randomly selected citizens deliberates on the Delphi
results, expert presentations, further fact finding, and panel members’ own views, todeliver a report and action recommendations to public decision makers.
Tiered approach: Combining different levels and forms of engagement may beundertaken to resolve the tension between broad democratic participation andpracticability. In an example from risk governance, input is gathered progressively
from epistemic institutions (scientific advisory bodies, research institutes andnetworks, think tanks), stakeholder deliberation groups, and general public
participation (using any available methods). Another example is seen in the strategyof the European Commission to involve civil society in the European Union policy on
genetically modified organisms, combining permanent advisory bodies composed of
selected civil society organisations, written consultations resulting from statutory
reporting obligations, and ad hoc open meetings to exchange views directly. The
actual application of such an approach is reviewed by Dabrowska (2006).

Finally, new information and communication technologies offer an enlarged
potential to engage citizens (although it is doubtful that these media offer higherlevel involvement opportunities). A key OECD study published in the early 2000s
investigated how governments could use these technologies to improve outreachto populations, obtain their input and provide feedback (OECD, 2001a, 2001b).
These methods can be appropriate when the engagement issue has broad
geographic impact. Digital applications for virtual meetings and crowd-sourced
idea gathering may be particularly attractive to the rising generation, for whom thesocial media are a highly familiar everyday instrument. The United Nations Highlevel Panel on Global Sustainability recommends that the voice of nonconventional networks and youth communities can be incorporated throughInternet forums and blogs (UNESCO, 2012). Nonetheless, the biggest disadvantageof relying on information technologies and new media to support involvement
may be the difficulty of engaging groups who do not regularly use the Internet(National Research Council, 2008), and even with appropriate target audiences it isdifficult to guarantee a high rate of participation.
The C20 (see Box 2) provides an example of adjustment that may be needed
when engagement is not face-to-face: “We are extending the deadline for
42

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

PLANNING

contributions to our discussion topics ... to allow you more time to have your say.
We were hoping to introduce a ‘voting phase’ where users could show theirsupport for individual recommendations; however, there is currently not a
sufficiently large enough community of users on our crowd sourcing platform torank recommendations in this way. Instead we invite you to share your thoughtson the ongoing discussions our co-chairs and discussion leaders will publish draft
position papers for your feedback. We have also extended the time you cancomment on these draft position papers” (e-mail sent to persons registered on theC20 digital consultation platform in April 2014).
Box 6 presents a success story in creating a “multilogue” combining multiple
digital methods for engagement.
Box 6. Citizen engagement in developing well-being statistics:
An example of good practice“What role can technology play in improving citizen engagement with well-being and progressstatistics?”
The Wikiprogress.org community consists of organisations (including the OECD),
initiatives and individuals interested in measuring progress using many indicators,
such as the traditional measure of gross domestic product (GDP), but also including
alternative measures such as health, freedom, happiness, education, access to cleanwater, and so on.
A sample initiative is “Measures of Australia’s Progress” (MAP). In 2011-2012, the MAP
team consulted widely about what aspects of progress matter most to Australians
with the aim of refreshing the MAP framework.
“[They] used multiple modes to contact their audiences, for example social media(which captured a younger cohort), online, paper, face-to-face, and interactive media.
Many of these processes were able to be undertaken simultaneously which helped
make the process efficient, in terms of time and cost”.
Even though blogs are one of the oldest social media tools, they have many
advantages as an engagement tool, and the MAP 2.0 blog proved a successful way of
inspiring interest in the topic of national progress, and enabling to quickly gain
insights into people’s views. The blog allowed a range of responses from short replies
to more lengthy and complex replies. One aspect of promoting interest in the blog
and the consultation was to post contributions from prominent opinion leaders, fromentrepreneurs through to sports people. Media outlets picked up on thesecontributions and a series of interviews and radio talk back sessions followed,
further promoting and broadening the conversation about progress. ABS Facebook
and Twitter were used to channel people to the MAP 2.0 blog. The social media
campaign was successful with many thousands of website hits and page visits andhundreds of quality comments that organisers could use.
“[The team] developed a list of ‘MAP Community’ contacts during the consultation
and used these to tap into further online networks. [They linked] to relevant progress
and well-being sites, particularly by developing innovative infographics that
captured interest and imagination [...]”.
Source: Adapted from wikiprogress.org and from theblogprogress.blogspot.fr, blog entry ofWednesday 30 April 2014.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201543

IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

3. Implementation and assessment

The numerous details that the practitioner will encounter when implementing the
tailored initiative are beyond the scope of this guide. However, advice is given on
some useful preparatory steps. Section 3.2 on assessment will help foresee
arrangements for checking satisfaction and compliance, but also, to anticipate
common pitfalls and challenges.

3.1. Looking towards implementation
Implementation advice ranges from best practice tips to flow charts andworksheets that may be printed out. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,
1996) provides extremely detailed briefs and checklists for implementing 19 public
participation approaches. AccountAbility’s T15 template (AccountAbility, 2006:
Vol. 2) reminds conveners of concrete and information needs: stakeholder
invitations, venue and timing, pre-information, logistics including travel andrefreshments, ground rules and terms of reference, roles and facilitation on theday, record keeping and quality assurance, etc.
The detailed arrangements and choices implied by actual implementation are
beyond the scope of this short guide. However, insight is offered on preparing
initiatives at different levels of involvement (see Section 1.3 and Section 2.5).
The organisational goal of informing or educating implies developing
appropriate public information materials. Information materials will be useful only
if they can be understood and interpreted by their intended audience. The Aarhus
Convention recognises that this is a necessary foreground condition and a right.
Even materials formerly considered as confidential by organisations may beappropriate for communication (and a judicial review may determine that theymust be shared).
Today, gathering information from stakeholders is often achieved by the use ofsocial media tools. It may also be accomplished by large-scale public consultation
approaches (polls or surveys). Almost everyone has been upset about a survey
whose questions or multiple-choice responses did not match the way one would
express one’s own opinion. Survey items will deliver meaningful results only ifthey are built up from an understanding of how people indeed construe the issues
explored by the survey.
Preparing adequate information material, similarly to preparing an adequate
survey questionnaire, is a skilled professional task. Each should be adapted to thestarting position of the stakeholder population. For both information material andsurvey questionnaire development, it can be beneficial to perform in-depth,
reduced-scale preparatory studies (focus groups or individual interviews) exploring

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201545

IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

the starting positions or mental models of the various stakeholders including
experts (NEA, 2003b).
The US National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council, 2008)highlights the role of basic descriptive information in ensuring transparency. The
involvement process should be clear to those involved in it and to those observing
it. When a public agency is conducting the participatory process, all participants
and the general public should be informed of the purpose and objectives as well as
requirements, and constraints – alongside authorities’ contact information.
It might be desirable to have ongoing communication about the involvement
initiative and public access to information about the process and material being
used in. When the convener wishes to make a broad announcement of
involvement initiatives or publicise their outcomes, guidance may be found in a
European Commission manual on successful communications using the mass
media (EC, 2004a).
Higher levels of involvement (discussed in Section 2.5) usually imply thatparticipants will have the opportunity to communicate their views andjudgements in detail, as well as learn from other stakeholders. Nevertheless, theplanner may find preparatory small-scale studies or consultations useful fore.g. scoping the issues or identifying target stakeholder groups.
Quality criteria have been identified for high-level involvement processes that
gradually build up both competence and mutual trust among participants. These
are: inclusive of relevant stakeholder groups; empowerment to participate actively
and constructively; co-designed framing of the dialogue issue; generate a common
understanding of the problem and proposed solutions based on expertise of allparticipants; provide fair and equal opportunities for all parties to voice opinion
and preferences; and establish a connection between the participatory decisionmaking bodies and the political implementation level (EC, 2004b; Renn and
Schweizer, 2009).
When the dialogue issue is embedded in a complex decision-making process orin a long-term domain (like radioactive waste management), public agencies orother conveners will need to support competence building for stakeholder
representatives. The Aarhus Convention highlights this as an importantbackground condition to assuring participation rights and continuity. One
response to this need is the partnership model of involvement (NEA, 2010a).
A particular example in the radioactive waste management field is that of theongoing competence-building partnership between a national regulatory technicalsupport organisation and a national federation of site-related local informationcommissions, convening dialogues, study groups and workshops.1
Conveners of stakeholder involvement on technological subjects will probably
benefit from advice on communicating about risks. The US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission offers a risk communication handbook (NRC, 2004a, 2004b) to support
those who must translate complex information into a readily accessible form, andthose who must talk and interact with a range of stakeholders who may not have1.

46

www.anccli.org/le-partenariat-avec-lirsn-2.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

technical training. Box 7 highlights the challenges of integrating scientificinformation into a participation process.
Box 7. Advice from the US National Academy of Sciences on integrating
science into public participation processes
Special care is needed to integrate science into public participation processes
because of three kinds of potential obstacles to effective use of science in assessment
and decision-making processes that involve interested and affected parties.
First, the science required is inherently complex and uncertain, and the data
available are nearly always less than ideal. Consequently, scientists must be explicit
about the extent and limits of knowledge, develop understanding of whichknowledge participants consider most decision relevant, and possibly reconsider
standard approaches to handling uncertainty.
Second, many participants in environmental assessment and decision processes lacksufficient scientific and technical background to easily interpret complex scientificinformation. Moreover, in the absence of structured decision processes, people tend
to consider less than the full range of relevant information in making decisions. And
there is not just one view among participants. Rather, there are diverse values,
interests and concerns.
Third, there are substantial challenges in communication between scientists and the
public. Scientific models are difficult to translate into forms that are transparent toscientists across fields and even more difficult to translate for the public. In addition,
debates about scientific uncertainty can be hard for non-specialists to follow, and therules for validating facts may be different for scientists than for many segments ofthe public and may even differ in significant ways across scientific disciplines. All of
this can make the public sceptical of the neutrality of scientific analyses and thescientists sceptical of local experience-based knowledge of the public.
Formidable as these challenges may be, there are effective tools available for meetingthem. Research converges on five key points of guidance about how to integratescience and public participation into analytic-deliberative processes:•

ensuring transparency of information and analysis;•

paying explicit attention to both facts and values;•

promoting explicitness about assumptions and uncertainties (because all
uncertainties of facts and values cannot be eliminated), including independent
review of official analyses or collaborative inquiry.

•

allowing for iteration between analysis and deliberation;

Source: Adapted from National Research Council, 2008.

3.2. Assessment: Checking satisfaction and compliance
Post hoc assessment of stakeholder involvement initiatives is a duty to all those
who have participated in good faith, and a must for learning and improving thenext initiative. This section points to guidance for preparing that assessment. It

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201547

IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

also touches on some typical obstacles to satisfactory involvement, whichconveners should consider and attempt to eliminate before they arise.
The same criteria used by planners to match involvement approaches todesired outcomes (Section 2.3) should be applied for the later assessment of theinitiative. The targeted goals and outcomes should be translated into aspects thatcan be measured or, at least, listed and clarified so that the different participants(stakeholders and conveners alike) can judge how well these criteria were achieved.
Because goals, underlying rationales and desired effects (Section 1.4) can differ
so greatly across organisations and involvement initiatives, assessment criteria
may also be very diverse. For example, a success criterion under a functionalist
rationale might focus on whether compliance with statutory requirements wasachieved, or whether the decision-making process gained in credibility. Quality of
information input by stakeholders might be the main evaluation criterion under asubstantive rationale, while a normative rationale will ask to check whether somestandard of democracy was effectively achieved. At an extreme, “the models
inspired by post-modernism and emancipatory schools are not interested in
output, but rather in the changes that were induced in the minds of the people
participating (raising awareness and emancipation)” (Renn and Schweizer, 2009).
Different players and participants in a single initiative may also hold very different
rationales and value different criteria. Therefore, the assessment should embrace a
range of criteria.
Evaluation may be summative (did the participative initiative support
substantive progress in the topical area?), formative (what lessons were learnt for
improving processes or institutional functioning?), or impact-oriented (how did theparticipation affect programmes and decisions?). Impact evaluation contributes tofulfilling the Aarhus duty of accountability to participants. Finally, “goal free” or“adaptive” evaluation uses a broad range of data (e.g. a reading of community andagency interests) and engages participants in capturing a holistic view of small,incremental changes in many areas that may be sparked by involvement (Chess,
2000; Raimond, 2001).
The US National Academy of Sciences states that both involvement initiatives
and the larger decision-making processes in which they are embedded “benefit
from engaging in self-assessment and design correction as they proceed. The
design of a participatory process should create opportunities for participants andsponsors to assess the process both as it is under way and at the end. The design
must be flexible enough to allow for mid-course adjustments and to generatelessons learned that can be incorporated into future public participation efforts.
[...]Even when resources are limited, expenditures on systematic evaluation
deserve high priority, as this is the only valid means to ensure institutional
learning and constant improvement” (National Research Council, 2008: 230).
Both immediate effects and later impacts should be captured by assessment.
Therefore, participants need an opportunity to express their satisfaction andcritiques at checkpoints during the dialogue, at the end of a given involvement
initiative, and again at a distance; the conveners should also plan ahead to analyse
later effects and measure how well the organisation has taken up or, otherwise,
responded to the substantive outputs of involvement. As seen in Section 2.1,

48

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

engagement should be integrated with organisational governance.3 Furthermore,
the Aarhus Convention stipulates that due account should be given of how
statutory participation has influenced decision making; this duty implies that
resources for monitoring, measurement and reporting must be foreseen.
Guidance on assessment can be found in documents by the NEA (2003a) andUS Federal Register (2000). The International Association for Public Participation’s
Manual (IAP2, 2000-2003) describes four assessment tools implying different levelsof resource engagement: debriefs4, questionnaires, peer reviews and end of projectassessments. This training manual suggests evaluative questions to address
outputs and outcomes, level of satisfaction, impacts on the decision-making
process, overall value-for-effort of the initiative and key learning for future
projects. It points out that face-to-face debriefs or interviews are useful for
deepening insights on more interpretative questions, while exit surveys orquestionnaires will deliver more restricted data. Not all stakeholders will have theknowledge or motivation to provide feedback on all the areas that should be
evaluated.
Abelson and Gauvin (2006) review how to assess the impact of citizen
engagement on both the policy process and on the subsequent political and civic
behaviour of the citizen participants and provide tables of possible criteria.
There may be several (and perhaps overlapping) reasons why a stakeholder
involvement initiative gives unsatisfactory results. Bergmans et al. (2007) reviewed
country case studies to identify “different structural and contextual elements canhave a constraining effect on the creation of opportunities for power sharing andco-governance”. Factors may relate to behaviours or intentions of participants, or
lie on the side of conveners and the design of the process, or be embedded in theoverall context.
Reaching consensus on complex subjects and building up trust in highly
ambiguous contexts (see Section 1.3) is very difficult. Highly controversial subjects
by nature reflect polarised views, values, concerns and preferences. The stress on
the involvement process may be exacerbated when the issue also concerns somethreat to well-being, health or other valued good. “Being inclusive and open tosocial groups does not, therefore, guarantee constructive co-operation by those
who are invited to participate. Some actors may reject the framing of the issue andchoose to withdraw. Others may benefit from the collapse of an inclusive
governance process. It is essential to monitor these processes and make sure thatparticular interests do not dominate the deliberations and that rules can beestablished and jointly approved in order to prevent destructive strategizing”(Renn and Schweizer, 2009).
The International Risk Governance Council’s framework recognises several
problems that may thwart the aims of genuine stakeholder involvement. These are:stakeholder participants cannot (always) be understood as a representative sample;
many stakeholders are interest-driven and often unwilling to accept evidence or

3.
4.

AccountAbility (2006) template T5 helps assess organisational “response-ability”.
AccountAbility (2006) template T18 facilitates a very simple pragmatic debriefing.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

49

IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

uncertainty; diversity and plurality of representation may lead to trivial orinconclusive results; and stakeholders may use the involvement process to stallaction. The framework provides general guidance on addressing these problems(IRGC, 2013). In particular, the roles of different actors and stakeholders in decision
making must be carefully defined and understood, and involvement initiatives
must be appropriately inserted into the different levels and phases of thegovernance framework. Gathering information on what is “true”, including
preferences and concerns, is separated from evaluation and management phases
in which value judgements are made about what is “desirable”. This organic
separation of phases is said to provide an important impediment to thedomination of initiatives by interest-driven participation.
Turning to factors on the convener’s side: some participatory processes are
conducted as a tactic to divert the public’s energy away from criticism and into
activities considered safe by an agency. This use of stakeholder involvement,
which ignores conflicts on important issues, is counterproductive in the long term.
Participation convened as a superficial formality or without adequate support bydecision makers increases public distrust of government (National ResearchCouncil, 2008).
A review of participation in environmental policy making found that tokenistic
participation, organised to only meet formal requirements, may correspond to aparticular view on representative democracy: in which “it is the responsibility ofthe politicians and the administration to solve environmental problems, not of the
public or stakeholders: ‘the public is involved through elective processes which put
local authorities in place’ (United Kingdom, academia)” (Wesselink et al., 2011).
Administrators may find that participation disturbs their work. Complexity of themass of rules and regulations with insufficient linkages, low priority assigned toareas where participation is required and the low effective integration of input,
may lead to actors focusing on strict compliance without ascribing to any othergoal of participation (Wesselink et al., 2011).
A case study analysis developed by legal experts uncovered structural,
pragmatic and attitudinal factors that may result at country level in insufficient
respect for the requirements of public participation in spatial planning (Justice andEnvironment, 2013). These factors could be studied by organisations in national
contexts where participative and deliberative democracy is a new concept, in orderto help wisely adjust involvement initiatives to this context.
The Aarhus Convention Guide and Recommendations (UNECE, 2014a, 2014b)
contain strong encouragement to overcome these real obstacles. Recognising theneed to support the evolution towards more effective participation, the Aarhus
Convention Article 15 mandates optional compliance review arrangements at thelevel of the meeting of the parties to the treaty, which must be of anon-confrontational, non-judicial and consultative nature. The intention ofcompliance review is to recognise and assess the shortcomings of parties and towork in a constructive atmosphere to assist them in complying. Moreover, theconvention requires that the review arrangements include appropriate public
involvement.

50

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

4. Conclusions and areas for future development

The NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC) supports the view thatinvolvement of relevant stakeholders is appropriate and advisable throughout asocio-technical management or decision-making process. In certain contexts, themeans for involvement are specified by law, while elsewhere, a specific player may
have to create the opportunity and the means for engaging other stakeholders.
The present study provides insight into the extensive literature on stakeholder
engagement for decision making. It takes into account expanded experience andevolutions since the publication in 2004 of Stakeholder Involvement Techniques: Short
Guide and Annotated Bibliography (NEA, 2015). The annotated bibliography has been
published separately from this short guide on the NEA website to facilitate
updating (NEA, 2015).
Approaches for involving stakeholders in complex decision-making processes
are continuously being developed. They respond to the ever-growing demand forparticipation by stakeholders, to the experience and knowledge gained asprocesses move forward and to new possibilities and demands introduced by the
expansion of social media. Developments also respond to challenges identified instakeholder engagement experiences.
This closing chapter points to new horizons and opportunities acknowledged
in recent meetings of the FSC or in the process of research for this short guide. As
the demand for stakeholder involvement in decision making continues to grow,challenges arise. These challenges will shape the development of new approaches
and guidance.

4.1. The new media context
Major international events have proved that new and social media are changing
the communication and participation context in fundamental ways. From ArabSpring countries to the communities around Fukushima, citizens – and especially
younger populations – have used personal devices and social networks toco-operate, act collectively and take charge of their own concerns in previously
unanticipated ways. Civil demand for rapid and exhaustive information cansometimes overwhelm official communication channels, especially when otherinformants attempt to fill the gap. Conversations take place in full public view andare archived and accessible for years. The rise of social media also revives oldquestions on how decision-making processes can achieve balance between
representative, delegable, participative and direct democracy.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201551

CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOMENTStakeholder involvement initiatives have already leveraged such approaches toinform and consult. Advances may be made in using social media to attain higher
levels of involvement in decision making, going well beyond informal referenda
designating a favourite actor. Institutions need to monitor evolutions, and learn toreason and respond in new ways. Social media and electronic tools can simplify
and facilitate opportunities for the public. A challenge today is inventing
sufficiently smart and sensitive rules to guide officials’ behaviour in this newcontext.

4.2. The evolving participation context
Traditionally, public participation has been addressed as an institutional process
following a circumscribed procedure during a limited window of time. The Aarhus
Convention, which establishes the right to participation in environmental decision
making, has introduced a different vision of participation as a continuous process.
This produces new demands on organisations. At the same time, civil society is
gaining autonomy and coming forward to propose its involvement in issues they
identify as important (UNECE, 2013; ACN-France, 2012).
The Aarhus Convention insists on creating opportunities in each phase ofdecision making for citizens to gain information, prepare and participate
effectively. Time and continuity are major enablers of effective participation in theradioactive waste management field because of the technical factors, the multiyear development process and the necessary long-term monitoring. These requirea significant ongoing investment from members of the public, who must be willingto raise competence, to develop their capacity for investigation and follow up, andto influence and inform the decision-making process at local, national andEuropean levels. On this point, the convention stipulates in Article 3.4 that: “EachParty shall provide for appropriate recognition of and support to associations,organizations or groups promoting environmental protection and ensure that its
national legal system is consistent with this obligation.”
Future development of stakeholder engagement will probably reflect andaddress the need to:•accompany institutions in achieving participation as a long-term andcontinuous requirement;•

foster a solid democratic culture in the population;•

support civil society representatives in ongoing knowledge, competence
and capacity building and deliberative activities (REC, 2013).

4.3. The increasing role of political commitment, innovation and advocacy
In today’s societies, merely changing scientific input in public policy making will
not have the power to change its outcomes. Nowadays, political deliberation anddemocratic interaction are paramount and need to be part of any successful
decision-making process.

52

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT“[...P]articipatory-deliberative policy analysis [is] embedded in politicalenvironments [...] with political concerns: how harmful is the information forsomeone’s power position, how many people believe the problem to be important,
how much political support is mobilized through tackling the problem, what are its
financial and other types of social and political costs relative to competingproblems [...]. Whether and how it is possible to achieve any [engagement bestpractice] recommendations in a given situation ultimately remains a matter of
advocacy, convincing, context-sensitive political judgment and political struggle.
[...C]reating space for deliberative experiments, persuading policy makers to listen
to scientific findings, and transitions to a fairer and more sustainable world all
require political commitment and action” (Wesselink and Hoppe, 2011: 19-20).

4.4. Continued relevance and recognition of ethical dimensions“…[R]adioactive waste management policy making is currently taking place withina participatory and analytic-deliberative decision-making framework; one thatseeks to integrate public and stakeholder values and perspectives with scientificand technical expertise. One important aspect of this socio-technical reframing of
the radioactive waste problem is an explicit recognition that legitimate anddefensible policy making must take into account important ethical issues if it is tobe a success. Thus, there is a need for tools to incorporate adequate assessment of
ethical issues in a way that is compatible with this approach” (Cotton, 2009: 1).
There are many competing philosophical models that can be used to frame andassess both involvement initiatives themselves and the topics around which they
are convened. Recently, there has been renewed interest in this topic, for instancein the area of radiological protection (Oughton and Hansson, 2013), and there willprobably be development of tools that facilitate participative consideration ofthese complex and sometimes contentious issues.

4.5. Addressing differing standards of accountability
Practitioners may feel challenged by imbalances between stakeholders in terms of
responsibility and accountability. For instance, a national institution is properly
held to a very high standard in terms of truthfulness, exactness and verifiability of
information used in an engagement process. In contrast, no authority requires of
non-institutional stakeholders participating in an open consultation that they
apply the same standard. When the decision topics are related to potential risks
for health and well-being, a situation may result in which some actors takeadvantage of the facilities offered, particularly through new media, to broadcast
interpretations that may not correctly represent the situation but that may
nonetheless heavily influence other actors.
Processes and approaches must be combined that allow for both broad
expression of concerns and progressively more centred delivery of validated
information to the actual decision makers, or those who have a political mandate(IRGC, 2013). Where facts are disputed and subject to a high level of uncertainty(whether scientific or societal), the decision-making process will need to benefit

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 201553

CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE DEVELOMENT

from specific activities that investigate facts and reduce uncertainty (National
Research Council, 2008). Stakeholders should be welcome partners in a number ofsuch activities, which are served for example by participative technology
assessment methods (Laes and Meskens, 2006).

54

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

REFERENCES

5. References

Abelson, J. and Gauvin, F.P. (2006), Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation:
Concepts, Evidence, and Policy Implications, Research Report, Canadian Policy
Research Networks, Ottawa, www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=1403&l=en.
AccountAbility (2011), “AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2011”, Final
Exposure Draft, AA1000SES, www.accountability.org/about-us/publications/aa
1000-1.html.
AccountAbility (2006), From Words to Action: The Stakeholder Engagement Manual(Volumes 1 and 2), Stakeholder Research Associates Canada Inc. and United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Cobourg, Ontario, www.accounta
bility.org/about-us/publications/the-stakeholder.html.
ACN-France (2012), “Aarhus Convention and Nuclear: Summary Report”,
Association Nationale des Comités et Commissions Locales d’Information,www.anccli.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Rapport-final-ACN-France-1.pdf.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969), “A ladder of citizen participation”, Journal of the American
Institute of Planning, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224, http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/
sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html.
Aven, T. and O. Renn (2010), “Stakeholder and public involvement”, Risk, Governanceand Society, Vol. 16, pp. 181-200, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3642-13926-0_10.
Bergmans, A. et al. (2007), “Wanting the Unwanted: Effects of Public andStakeholder Involvement in the Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste
and the Siting of Repository Facilities”, Final Report CARL project, http://uahost.
uantwerpen.be/carlresearch/docs/20080222112500ZGYI.pdf.
Chess, C. (2000), “Evaluating environmental public participation: methodologicalquestions”, Journal of Environmental Management and Planning, Vol. 43, No. 6.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09640560020001674#.VEfGX_mUeCk.
CNDP (2014), “Bilan du débat public : Projet de centre de stockage profond dedéchets radioactifs en Meuse/Haute-Marne (Cigéo)”, 15 May-15 December 2013,
CNDP, Paris, www.debatpublic-cigeo.org/informer/documents-cpdp/compterendu-bilan-debat.html.
Cotton, M. (2009), “Evaluating the ‘ethical matrix’ as a radioactive waste
management deliberative decision support tool”, Environmental Values, No. 18,
pp. 153-176, www.erica.demon.co.uk/EV/EV1807.html.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

55

REFERENCES

Dabrowska, P. (2006), “Civil Society Involvement in the EU Regulations on GMOs:
From the Design of Participatory Garden to Growing Trees of European Public
Debate?”, submitted to the Journal of Civil Society within the framework of aworkshop at MZES Mannheim, CONNEX RG4 Project, September 2006,
http://eucenter.wisc.edu/Conferences/GovNYDec06/Docs/DabrowskaArticle.pdf.
E7 Network (2000), “Social Trust and the Electricity Industry: An E7 Contribution”,
E7 Working Group Report, Montreal, www.globalelectricity.org/upload/file/st_and_electricity_industry.pdf.
EC (2004a), European research: A guide to successful communications, Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, EC, Luxembourg, http://aei.
pitt.edu/1188/.
EC (2004b), Towards Inclusive Risk Governance, EC, Brussels, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/trustnet2_projrep_en.pdf.
EC (2001), “European Governance – A White Paper”, COM(2001)428, Official Journal of
the European Communities, EC, Brussels.
ECR (2002), “Best Practices for Effective Public Involvement in Restricted-Use
Decommissioning of NRC-Licensed Facilities”, US Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution , Rockville, http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0311/ML03113
0508.pdf.
EPA (1996), “Public participation activities: How to do them”, in RCRA Public
Participation Manual, EPA, Washington DC.
Flüeler, T., P. Krütli and M. Stauffacher (2005a), “Tools for Local Stakeholders inRadioactive Waste Governance: Challenges and Benefits of Selected
Participatory Technology Assessment Techniques” (long version, 17 pages),www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_Cowam_2_WP1_PTA-1_Tools_LONG_version.pdf.
Flüeler, T., P. Krütli and M. Stauffacher (2005b) “Tools for Local Stakeholders: How
to Choose the Participatory Techniques You Need” (short version, 7 pages),www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_Cowam_2_WP1_PTA-1_Tools_SHORT_version.pdf.
Health Canada (2000), Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision
Making, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ontario,
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_public-consult/2000decision/index-eng.php.
van den Hove, S. (2003) “Participatory approaches for environmental governance:
Theoretical justifications and practical effects”, in Stakeholder involvement tools:
Criteria for choice and evaluation – Proceedings of a Topical Session at the 4th meetingof the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence, Paris, 22 May 2003, pp. 18-25,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2003/rwm-fsc2003-10.pdf.
van den Hove, S. (2001), “Approches participatives pour la gouvernance en matière
de développement durable : une analyse en termes d’effets”, in Gouvernance etdéveloppement durable, Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel.
IAP2 (2000-2003), “The IAP2 Public Participation Toolbox”, www.saiea.com/calabash/handbook/annexure_e.pdf.

56

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

REFERENCES

Involve (n.d.), Participation Compass (web page), http://participationcompass.org.
IPPA (n.d.), Implementing Public Participation Approaches in Radioactive Waste
Disposal (IPPA) Toolbox (web page), http://toolbox.ippaproject.eu/index.
IRGC (2013), “A resource guide for developing and implementing science-based
stakeholder involvement research, policy, strategies, and practices”, Stakeholder
Engagement Resource Guide, http://stakeholder.irgc.org/resource-guide.
Justice and Environment (2013), “Public Participation in Spatial Planning
Procedures: Comparative Study of Six EU Member States”, Justice andEnvironment, Brno, www.justiceandenvironment.org/_files/file/2013/Land%20
use%20planning%20and%20access.pdf.
Kotra, J. (2000), “Is there a new dynamic of dialogue and decision making?”, inStakeholder Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal: Inauguration, First Workshop
and Meeting of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence in the Area of Radioactive
Waste Management, OECD, Paris, 28-31 August 2000, www.oecd-nea.org/html/rwm/reports/2000/nea2829.pdf.
Laes, E. and G. Meskens (2006), “Guidance on the Selection of PTA Tools: For
Stakeholders Involved in Radioactive Waste Governance”, COWAM2Deliverable WP1/PTA-2, http://publications.sckcen.be/dspace/bitstream/10038/
670/1/pdf_cowam_2_wp1_pta_2_guidance_on_selection_of_tools.pdf.
National Research Council (2008), Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and
Decision Making, Edited by Dietz, T. and P.C. Stern, The National Academies
Press, Washington DC, www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12434.
National Research Council (1996), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a
Democratic Society, P.C. Stern and H.V. Fineberg (eds.), National Academies Press,
Washington DC, www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030905396X.
NEA (2015), “Stakeholder Involvement in Radioactive Waste Management Decision
Making: Annotated Bibliography, Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC)”,
NEA/RWM/R(2015)4, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2015/rwm-r2015-4.pdf.
NEA (2014), “Deliberating Together on Geological Repository Siting: Expectations
and Challenges in the Czech Republic”, NEA/RWM/R(2014)1, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2014/rwm-r2014-1.pdf.
NEA (2012a), Sample Foreword and Background to a Potential New Document on
Early Involvement, Radioactive Waste Management Committee Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/html/rwm/docs/2012/rwm-fsc2012-1.pdf.
NEA (2012b), The Evolving Role and Image of the Regulator in Radioactive waste
Management: Trends Over Two Decades, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/
docs/2012/7083-evolving-role-and-image.pdf.
NEA (2010a), Partnering for Long-term Management of Radioactive Waste: Evolution andCurrent Practice in Thirteen Countries, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/pubs/
2010/6823-partnering-management.pdf.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

57

REFERENCES

NEA (2010b), “Survey on Organisational Adaptation to Stakeholder Involvement in
Post Nuclear Emergency Management, Report of the Committee on Radiation
Protection and Public Health (CRPPH) Expert Group on Stakeholder
Involvement and Organisational Structures”, NEA/CRPPH(2010)5, available
upon request, please contact: fsc@oecd-nea.org.
NEA (2007), Experience from the Third International Nuclear Emergency Exercise (INEX-3)
on Consequence Management, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2007/
nea6163-inex3.pdf.
NEA (2006), Stakeholders and Radiological Protection: Lessons from Chernobyl 20 Years
After, OECD, Paris, www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2006/nea6170-chernobylrp.pdf.
NEA (2004), Stepwise Approach to Decision Making for Long-term Radioactive Waste
Management: Experience, Issues and Guiding Principles, OECD, Paris, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/reports/2004/nea4429-stepwise.pdf.
NEA (2003a), “Stakeholder Involvement Tools: Criteria for Choice and Evaluation –Proceedings of a Topical Session at the 4th meeting of the NEA Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence”, Paris, 22 May 2003, www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/
2003/rwm-fsc2003-10.pdf.
NEA (2003b), “The Mental Models Approach to Risk Research: A Radioactive Waste
Management Perspective”, NEA/RWM/FSC(2003)7/REV1, www.oecd-nea.org/
rwm/docs/2003/rwm-fsc2003-7-rev1.pdf.
NEA (2002a), Society and Nuclear Energy: Towards a Better Understanding, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2002/nea3677.html.
NEA (2002b), Stepwise Decision Making in Finland for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel:
Workshop Proceedings, Radioactive Waste Management Committee Forum on
Stakeholder Confidence, Turku, Finland, 15-16 November 2001, www.oecdnea.org/rwm/pubs/2002/3616-stepwise-decision-making.pdf.
NEF (1998), “Participation Works! 21 techniques of community participation for the
21st century”, NEF, London, http://preval.org/documentos/00482.pdf.
Ney, S. (2000), “Thinking about Pension Reform: Discourse, Politics and Public
Participation”, Inception Report to the EC Programme on Improving the humanresearch potential and the socio-economic knowledge base, International
Centre for Cross-disciplinary Research ICCR, Vienna.
Nirex (2002), “The Front End of Decision Making”, Nirex Technical Note, interim
version, document number 367478, Nirex, Harwell. Available upon request
please contact: rwmfeedback@nda.gov.uk.
NRC (2004a), “Effective Risk Communication: The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission’s Guidelines for External Risk Communication”, NRC, Washington
DC, www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0308/.
NRC (2004b), “The Technical Basis for the NRC’s Guidelines for External Risk
Communication”, NRC, Washington DC, www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/contract/cr6840.

58

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

REFERENCES

OECD (2001a), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in
Policy-Making, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.
OECD (2001b), Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation andPublic Participation in Policy-Making, OECD, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/
9789264195578-en.
Oughton, D. and S.O. Hansson (2013), Social and Ethical Aspects of Radiation Risk
Management, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, http://store.elsevier.com/social-andethical-aspects-of-radiation-risk-management/isbn-9780080450155/.
Raimond, R.R. (2001), “Trust and Conflict in Public Participation”, Division ofHazardous Materials and Waste Management, Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, Denver.
REC (2013), Decision making for the future: Applying the Aarhus Convention in Radioactive
Waste Management, Regional Environmental Center, Szentendre, www.rec.org/
publication.php?id=428.
Renn, O. and P.J. Schweizer (2009), “Inclusive risk governance: Concepts andapplication to environmental policy making”, Environmental Policy andGovernance, Vol. 19, pp.174-185, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/
eet.507/abstract;jsessionid=D31205350046BC182105C6025F8AE052.f03t01.
Renn, O. et al. (1993), “Public participation in decision making: A three-stepprocedure”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 26, Issue 3, pp. 189-214.
Schmeer, K. (1999), “Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis”, Health
Reform Tools Series, Abt Associates Inc., Bethesda, www.who.int/entity/
management/partnerships/overall/GuidelinesConductingStakeholderAnalysis.
pdf.
UK Environment Agency (2000), Evaluating Methods for Public Participation: Literature
Review, R&D Technical Report E135, UK Environment Agency, Bristol,www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/29029
5/stre135-e-e.pdf.
UN (2013), “Guidelines on Open Government Data for Citizen Engagement”,
ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/177, United Nations, New York, http://workspace.unpan.org/
sites/Internet/Documents/Guidenlines%20on%20OGDCE%20May17%202013.pdf.
UNECE (2014a), “Maastricht Recommendations on Public Participation in Decisionmaking”, ECE/MP.PP/2014/8, United Nations, Maastricht, www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/mop5/Documents/Post_session_docs/ece_mp.pp_2014_2_add.2_eng.pdf.
UNECE (2014b), The Aarhus Convention: An Implementation Guide – Second Edition,
United Nations, Geneva, www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/Publications/Aarhus_Implementation_Guide_interactive_eng.pdf.
UNECE (2013), “Report of the Task Force on Public Participation in Decisionmaking”, Joint Event on Public Participation in Decision-Making in the Nuclear
Domain,
ECE/MP.PP/WG.1/2013/6,
12-13
March,
2013,
Luxembourg,www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/ppdm/4th_PPDM/ECE.MP.PP.WG.1.2013.6_as_submitted.pdf.

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

59

REFERENCES

UNESCO (2012), Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, United
Nations, New York, http://en.unesco.org/system/files/GSP_Report_web_final.
pdf.
US Federal Register (2000), ADR Program Evaluation Recommendations, (65) 59200,
59208-14 (October 4, 2000), Washington DC, www.epa.gov/adr/evalu.pdf.
Vári, A. (2004), “Addressing issues raised by stakeholders: Experiences of eightorganisations”, in Addressing Issues Raised by Stakeholders: Impacts on Process,Content and Behaviour in Waste Management Organisations, Paris, 2 June 2004,
www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/docs/2004/rwm-fsc2004-8.pdf.
Wachinger, G. and O. Renn (2010), “Risk Perception and Natural Hazards”, CapHazNet WP3 Report, DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication andCooperative Research, Stuttgart, http://caphaz-net.org/outcomes-results/Cap
Haz-Net_WP3_Risk-Perception2.pdf.
Wärnbäck, A. (2012), EIA Practice: Examples of Cumulative Effects and Final Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel, Ph.D. dissertation (summary), Sveriges lantbruksuniv., Acta
Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae, Uppsala, http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8899/.
Webster, S. (2000), “Stakeholders and the public: Who are they?”, Stakeholder
Confidence and Radioactive Waste Disposal: Inauguration of the First Workshop andMeeting of the NEA Forum on Stakeholder Confidence in the Area of Radioactive Waste
Management, Paris, 28-31 August 2000, www.oecd-nea.org/html/rwm/reports/2000/nea2829.pdf.
Wesselink, A. and R. Hoppe (2011), “If post-normal science is the solution, what isthe problem? The politics of activist environmental science”, Science Technology
Human Values, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 389-412, http://sth.sagepub.com/content/
36/3/389.
Wesselink, A. et al. (2011), "Rationales for public participation in environmental
policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives", Environment and Planning A,
Vol. 43(11), pp. 2688-2704.
World Bank (n.d.), “What is stakeholder analysis?”, www.who.int/entity/
management/partnerships/overall/WhatisStakeholderAnalysis.pdf.
Wylie, R. (2010), “Defining an Affected Community”, COWAM in Practice Project
Report, Westlakes Scientific Consulting Ltd, Moor Row, Cumbria,
www.cowam.com/IMG/pdf_D2-3_D_Defining_an_Affected_Community.pdf.

60

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION MAKING, NEA No. 7189, © OECD 2015

NEA PUBLICATIONS AND INFORMATION

The full catalogue of publications is available online at www.oecd-nea.org/pub.
In addition to basic information on the Agency and its work programme, the NEA
website offers free downloads of hundreds of technical and policy-oriented reports.
An NEA monthly electronic bulletin is distributed free of charge to subscribers,
providing updates of new results, events and publications. Sign up at www.oecdnea.org/bulletin/.
Visit us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/OECDNuclearEnergyAgency or follow
us on Twitter @OECD_NEA.

OECD/NEA PUBLISHING, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16

Stakeholder Involvement in Decision
Making: A Short Guide to Issues,
Approaches and Resources

Radioactive waste management is embedded in broader societal issues such as theenvironment, risk management, energy, health policy and sustainability. In all thesefields, there is an increasing demand for public involvement and engagement. This 2015
update of Stakeholder Involvement Techniques: Short Guide and Annotated Bibliography,
assists practitioners and non-specialists by outlining the steps and issues associatedwith stakeholder involvement in decision making and by facilitating access to useful
online resources (handbooks, toolboxes and case studies). The updated guide has been
considerably enriched with experiences since 2004 and includes extensive references tothe literature. It is published alongside the release of an online annotated bibliographythat will be updated regularly.

Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA)
46, quai Alphonse Le Gallo
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, France
Tel.: +33 (0)1 45 24 10 15
nea@oecd-nea.org www.oecd-nea.org

NEA No. 7189