Using Stakeholder Processes in
Environmental DecisionmakingAn Evaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future Challenges
IV. Matching Stakeholder Processes to Problems
Why do organizations believe they need a stakeholder process to address a particular environmental problem? What kinds of stakeholder processes are best suited for resolving specific kinds of environmental problems? What factors influence the choice of stakeholder process utilized? These questions are not asked with sufficient frequency and rigor before many organizations commit to establishing a stakeholder process. One leading analyst of stakeholder processes, for example, has noted that convenors of state comparative risk projects "regret that they may have put too little effort into public involvement and more regret that they have not thought out goals and plans for public involvement before jumping into the process."16
The history of environmental decisionmaking over the past decade contains numerous examples where the stakeholder process employed was ill matched to the problem under review. The most recent example of this dilemma was the process employed by the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E) initiative, a multi-sponsor, multi-stakeholder endeavor whose final report recommended improvements to the current regulatory system of the United States. Lasting approximately two years, E4E experienced a number of challenges that illustrated the need to more carefully match the type of stakeholder process chosen to the environmental problem under consideration.17
The E4E confronted at least four major process management issues. These persisted, in varying degree, throughout the length of the process. The issues included:
- Differing expectations on the problem needing to be solved. Some of the sponsoring organizations, and many corporate stakeholders, initially supported the need to recommend statutory changes to existing environmental laws. Clinton Administration representatives and environmental groups strongly opposed this objective and were able to prevail after a protracted debate.
- Unclear criteria for participation. Many facilitators of stakeholder processes have commented that the size of stakeholder groups should be related to the purpose of the process. Relatively large groups, for example, function well for an information gathering and dissemination process. However, to achieve agreement on legislative or regulatory options, the size and complexity of large groups can compete with such desirable attributes as process focus and efficiency. E4E eventually grew to more than eighty participants of varying stature, experience and insight, over forty of whom constituted the steering committee. The expanding number of participants, the lack of clarity over who they represented, and the variable authority of their viewpoints introduced added complexity and cost in managing the process. In theory, everyone who wanted to participate could do so. In practice, because of time and other resource limits, this proved a less practicable alternative in preparing recommendations and a final report.
- Contrasting viewpoints over process management. Differences emerged over whether project leaders should adopt a more personal "shuttle diplomacy" style to reach agreement among the various stakeholders or whether a more management-oriented approach focused on process milestones and results should be followed. Both sets of views persisted throughout the process and never were fully resolved.
- Differing conceptions of interests and values. The issue of changing the nation’s environmental laws represented a non-negotiable issue for the environmental groups participating in E4E that was not fully appreciated by many business participants for an extended period. Similarly, environmentalists were less sympathetic to support the business goal for an "efficient" regulatory system in its own right. Both issues were connected to a deeper set of bedrock values for environmental and industrial stakeholders. Debates over what issues were non-negotiable values compared with negotiable interests were not resolved at the beginning and persisted throughout the E4E process.
When E4E issued its final report in January 1998, it recommended a series of largely administrative and managerial changes to the U.S. regulatory system that, in part, echoed the views of other bodies in recent years.18 The content of the final report differed considerably from the expectations that existed at the beginning of the process. Stakeholders’ commitment to implementing the E4E recommendations through Congressional action and regulatory changes diminished considerably over the length of the project.
16
Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making, Public Involvement in Comparative Risk Projects, p. 4.17
The authors were consultants to the Enterprise for the Environment initiative and prepared a study entitled The Journey Towards Corporate Environmental Excellence: Transferring Business Methods to Environmental Management, January 1998.18
Final Report of the Enterprise for the Environment, The Environmental Protection System in Transition.
Go to:
Copyright © 1998 by Tec-Com Inc.