Using Stakeholder
Processes in
Environmental Decisionmaking
An Evaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future
Challenges
VII. Challenges to Stakeholder Processes
The use of stakeholder processes is an accepted part of environmental decisionmaking
and is here to stay. Like any element of decisionmaking, however, it will change over
time. The future evolution of stakeholder processes will be shaped, in part, by how
convenors and stakeholders respond to a number of current challenges. This section of the
report examines five issues, presented in Figure 6, that will influence the future
management and direction of environmental stakeholder processes.
Figure 6: Challenges to Environmental Stakeholder Processes
Challenge 1: Encouraging Quality Management of Stakeholder Processes
Challenge 2: Measuring Stakeholder Processes and Results
Challenge 3: Engaging the Scientific Community in Stakeholder Processes
Challenge 4: Integrating Stakeholder Deliberations into Existing Decisionmaking Processes
Challenge 5: Determining Whether Stakeholder Processes Yield Improved Enviromental
Decisions |
Challenge 1: Encouraging Quality Management of Stakeholder
Processes
Increased use of stakeholder processes is part of a broader trend of
organizational realignment. Examples of this trend in recent years have included private
company efforts to re-engineer their business processes and get closer to their customers,
and government agencies’ "reinvention" of their ability to improve
performance. One leading consultant sees organizational realignment "as the internal
side of the coin, with public participation as the external side of the same coin. In
almost every case, these new management approaches stressed the participation of the
affected parties."63
While individual stakeholder projects are significantly influenced by the
characteristics and dynamics of the issues and participants involved, greater attention to
improved management processes can also enhance the prospects of success. Virtually anyone
with extensive participation in stakeholder issues (as a convenor, facilitator, or
participant) has experienced highly variable results. Better understanding of at least
three factors can help reduce such variability. These factors include:
Commitment to defining and using best practices. Many individuals and
organizations continuously engaged in stakeholder processes are expressing a growing need
to identify, summarize, and transfer good management practices. This development reflects
a need to achieve better results from stakeholder decisionmaking through improved
management of the process.
"While individual stakeholder projects are
significantly influenced by the characteristics
and dynamics of the issues and participants
involved, greater attention to improved
management processes can also enhance the
prospects of success." |
One increasingly used technique to define best practices is benchmarking. A leading
management consultant has described benchmarking as a "management tool used to
identify the leaders in a particular field and emulate their practices in a reasoned
transfer. At the heart of benchmarking is the objective to improve an organization’s
processes and performance." Another technique that originated in the private sector
and has found adherents in government is the concept of 360°
feedback. Such feedback solicits responses from peers, participants, and observers to a
set of questions that measure the extent to which they believe the stakeholder process is
achieving the desired outcomes, thus providing a 360° view of
their perceptions.64
Benchmarking, 360° feedback, and other methods that explore
best practices are in the initial stages of becoming institutionalized methods for
stakeholder process management. Examples include the following:
- The DOE’s Office of Environmental Restoration conducted benchmarking studies of
peer organizations as a basis for its Customer Focus Analytical Team to identify best
practices for environmental restoration stakeholder activities. Benchmarked institutions
and programs included: EPA’s Superfund program, the Bonneville Power Administration,
the U.S. Geological Survey, a local county recycling program, and five private sector
firms.65
- The EPA’s Regional and State Planning Division funded a study by the Western Center
for Environmental Decision-Making to assess principles and best practices involved in the
management of state comparative risk projects. The study evaluated ten state projects and
presented a number of best practice areas.66
- The World Bank has identified a variety of "practice pointers" as a means to
expand poor nations’ capabilities to participate in the Bank’s stakeholder
processes. In addition, it has documented over a dozen case studies to aid in the exchange
of participatory planning and decisionmaking techniques.67
These and other initiatives identify a variety of best practice areas, including:
methods for identifying stakeholders; training community relations staff; ensuring honest
and accurate information; resource planning and allocation; obtaining management
commitment and support; understanding the decisions to be made; comprehending the
public’s desired outcomes; outreach techniques; and the use of interactive media
(e.g., television, Web sites).68
In addition, some professional societies have placed the issue of best practices high
on their agendas. In 1997, for example, the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
organized a two-day conference on "Practices: The Good, the Bad, the Beautiful"
that summarized a series of issues pertaining to best practice utilization for a variety
of stakeholder processes and situations.69
Training, enhanced professionalism, and ethical standards. The growing
utilization of stakeholder processes has drawn a growing number of individuals and firms
into the field. While many of these newer entrants are well qualified, a number possess
neither sufficient knowledge of stakeholder process management nor substantive
understanding of the issues. In addition, there is a growing need to ensure that
activities labeled as stakeholder processes do, in fact, live up to the expectations and
standards of experienced practitioners in the field. Also, stakeholder process managers
are sometimes directed by their clients to engage in practices that present ethical and
practical problems. These include unrepresentative selection of stakeholders, excluding
certain questions from the dialogue, and writing reports that favor the position advocated
by the client.70
These challenges have long been recognized by some professionals. The International
Association of Public Participation Professionals and its journal Interact have
conducted an extensive debate on these issues. In 1986, the Society of Professionals in
Dispute Resolution adopted "Ethical Standards of Professional Responsibility,"
and over a number of years has organized conferences and other forms of training and
credentialing for the various sectors that its members serve. RESOLVE, Inc., a non-profit
dispute resolution organization, has established a compendium of "Qualifications,
Responsibilities, and Competencies for Program Staff" and other training programs
used in hiring and evaluating staff.71
Both the literature on stakeholder practices and interviews with facilitators give
cause for concern over the professional qualifications and skill levels of many
individuals who manage stakeholder processes. Unlike the legal and medical professions,
for example, no formal accreditation is required before entering into the field of
stakeholder processes. At a time when expectations for results from stakeholder processes
have increased, the need to improve training, professional practices, and ethical
standards is important to retaining the confidence of specific stakeholders and the
general public.
Capacity and infrastructure. The growing demand for any good or service creates
a capacity and infrastructure challenge to ensure its continued supply. The extension of
risk-based decisionmaking from the national government to state and local sectors
throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, for example, created a need for more trained
practitioners to implement this method of decisionmaking. More recent experience with
ongoing state comparative risk projects has also identified capacity and infrastructure
issues in such areas as information distribution, leveraging volunteer networks, and
institutional development. An EPA commissioned study of such projects pointed out the need
to "concentrate on building capacity for more public participation and understanding
over time in other projects and even in other sectors of governance."72
Capacity and infrastructure issues are especially significant in developing nations.
Critical needs include: improving administrative capabilities; upgrading technical skills;
developing leadership and financial management capabilities; and disseminating
information. Stakeholder management techniques that work in developed nations to solve
environmental problems may prove less applicable in other nations. In these settings,
building on traditional community and cultural assets, such as existing community
organizations and women’s groups, becomes especially important as pathways to success
in stakeholder decisionmaking.73 In addition, the use of
stakeholder processes in some developing nations raises broader questions regarding
political freedom, human rights, and fair labor practices.
As the use of stakeholder processes continues to evolve, convenor organizations in
government and industry, as well as professional organizations, will need to consider more
innovative approaches for extending capacity and linking it to improved training and
professional practices.
Challenge 2: Measuring Stakeholder Processes and Results
The expanded use of stakeholder-based environmental decisionmaking had led to a
growing stakeholder burnout. This phenomenon has resulted from the large amount of time,
energy, and other resources invested in deliberations over an extended period. The fact
that a number of the same people are continuously involved in specific stakeholder
dialogues has added to the sense of weariness (a fact that should stimulate a greater
search for new participants from lesser involved groups). In addition, if the heightened
expectations for what stakeholder processes can achieve do not ultimately yield practical
results, burnout may evolve into backlash against the continued use of some stakeholder
processes. Thus, there is a great need to focus on developing measures that help such
processes stay on track and deliver more tangible results.
In the interviews conducted for this study and in the literature reviewed, there are at
least two kinds of results from stakeholder processes. Improved understanding of other
stakeholders’ viewpoints and interests, greater access to information, and the
building of working relationships and trust (that sometimes continue on past a particular
set of deliberations) represent one kind of output. Another stems from the ability to
reach an agreement for solving a specific problem. To a large degree, the former result
serves as an "enabler" that facilitates attainment of more tangible outcomes for
the latter. Both results are valuable, but as experience, working relationships, and
expectations with stakeholder processes grow, the need to demonstrate tangible and
specific results within reasonable time frames and budgets increases in importance.
The literature search and interviews also probed whether specific metrics and criteria
could be used to manage stakeholder processes. Responses ranged from the highly general
(e.g., it depends on the specific process and issue) to the prescriptive (e.g., using a
predetermined checklist or set of ground rules irrespective of the specific issues under
review). Where possible, the majority of the interviewees believed it was desirable to use
such metrics and criteria as a means to keep the process moving, but flexibility should be
maintained. One individual summarized this quest for balance by saying that, "You
will never successfully involve the full range of stakeholders with too much formality.
There is intolerance with formal metrics that stems from people being overburdened with
issues and a reluctance to give too much time."74
"A central challenge in managing stakeholder processes
is to balance participation with focus." |
A central challenge in managing stakeholder processes is to balance participation with
focus. Achieving this equilibrium can be aided by integrating process, outcome, and cost
indicators and developing a selected number of metrics for each indicator to maintain
forward progress and a focus on the ultimate goal(s).
Process indicators are those key factors that add value (e.g., information,
trust) to the decisionmaking process. Outcome indicators represent specific,
measurable results from stakeholder discussions. And cost indicators measure the
direct and indirect costs of managing the process. Figure 7, based upon work published by
Denise Lach and Peter Hixson, presents example indicators and metrics.75
Figure 7: Sample Process, Outcome, and Cost Indicators
for Managing Stakeholder Processes
| Process Indicators |
Potential Metrics |
| Accessibility to decisionmaking process |
Early involvement of stakeholders |
|
Number of options identified |
|
Stakeholder discussion of options |
| Diversity of views represented |
Number/types of participants |
|
Continuous participation |
| Opportunities for participation |
Comments, length and frequency |
|
Decisionmakers present at meetings |
| Information exchange |
Availability/clarity of materials |
|
Agreement on what the data mean |
| Identification of concerns |
Key issues identified and
discussed |
|
Issues/goals agreed on and
prioritized |
|
Relationship among data, options,
and goals understood |
| Outcome Indicators |
Potential Metrics |
| Project/decision acceptability |
Potential for litigation |
|
Implementation of decisions |
|
Ratio of negative to positive
stakeholder comments |
| Project efficiency |
Percentage of decisions approved |
|
Percentage of deadlines met |
| Cost avoidance |
Ratio of actual to anticipated
costs |
|
Actual vs. anticipated process
time |
| Mutual learning and respect |
Willingness to work together in
the future |
|
Improved agency/stakeholder
relationships |
|
Willingness to compromise and
engage in problem solving |
| Cost Indicators |
Potential Metrics |
| Direct costs |
Time required for staff and
stakeholder participation |
|
Materials/travel costs |
| Indirect costs |
Opportunities lost to participate
in other public activities |
|
Specific process indicators and metrics can vary across stakeholder
projects, and they will not work effectively if applied rigidly or without the consent of
the participants. They also cannot substitute for the need to conduct substantive
discussions of the issues under review. Viewed in this context, however, they can aid both
process managers and stakeholders to better understand the status of their deliberations,
their progress achieved against stated goals, and the level of effort they are investing
at various stages of the process. Indicators thus provide a means to assist
stakeholder-based decisionmaking to achieve tangible and cost-effective results.
Challenge 3: Engaging the Scientific Community in Stakeholder Processes
Over several decades, the scientific community and its supporters have
succeeded in expanding the role for scientists and peer review in environmental
decisionmaking. Their influence can be measured by statutory changes, policy and
procedural modifications adopted by regulatory agencies, expanded use of scientific
advisory committees, and numerous instances where scientific information influenced the
outcome of policy decisions. Over time, a number of scientists have become increasingly
sophisticated about the regulatory process and in matching their expertise and
communication of scientific information to the needs of that process.
A principal factor motivating governnmental agencies to solicit scientists’ views
stemmed from the latter’s role as a partial legitimizer of the decisionmaking
process. As environmental policies became more contentious throughout the 1970’s and
1980’s, agencies’ interests converged with those of a scientific community
seeking expanded access and influence over environmental policy choices. Positive
scientific reviews of risk assessments and criteria documents used as the basis for
environmental decisions were interpreted by many policymakers as tantamount to a
"scientific seal of approval" that provided political cover for controversial
decisions.
Overlapping these developments over the past decade has been the growth of
stakeholder-based decisionmaking. To some degree, environmental policy has always been
shaped by stakeholder input as expressed through the notice and comment process or
advocacy by interest groups. What has changed in the intervening years has been the
increased ability of grass roots organizations to participate in national policy debates
(including the scientific phases of those debates), the expanded capabilities of state and
local environmental agencies to shape policy options, and the greater transparency of the
decisionmaking process that has enabled stakeholders to gain more rapid and complete
access to information. These and other factors have enabled stakeholder groups to transmit
their perspectives to policymakers earlier and more effectively and have strengthened
their emergence as another principal legitimizer of national environmental policy
decisions.
"Many environmental debates represent
conflicts over competing societal values,
and stakeholders are perceived as more
legitimate and representative interpreters
of societal values than scientists." |
At present, science-based and stakeholder-based processes represent competing
approaches for influencing policymakers’ choices. This is true for several reasons.
While risk-based decision processes provide considerable insight on defining
society’s high-, medium -and low-risk environmental problems, they have been less
successful in persuading Congress, the public, and other stakeholders to re-align budgets,
programs, and statutes to reflect the understanding provided by science. Second, many
environmental debates represent conflicts over competing societal values, and stakeholders
are perceived as more legitimate and representative interpreters of societal values than
scientists. Third, governmental agencies have increasingly broadened the suite of policy
tools beyond risk-based decisionmaking. For example, the use of emissions trading and
other market-based approaches to achieve sulfur dioxide reductions, or the creation of
voluntary pollution prevention programs, are less dependent upon the use of risk-related
information. Finally, most stakeholders are not technically trained, and they and
scientists do not currently have a good understanding of each other’s needs in
environmental decisionmaking.
There is no inherent reason why science-based and stakeholder-based decision processes
are not compatible. In addition, science is a necessary component of many environmental
stakeholder processes. "Public attitudes can change public policies," noted a
recent stakeholder report to EPA, "but they cannot change the laws of nature, e.g.,
the chemistry of ozone depletion, the physics of air pollution, or the neurotoxicity of
lead." Scientists can add important information and enhance the credibility of
environmental decisions when their perspectives are incorporated. Scientists are, in fact,
an important set of stakeholders, and they possess special knowledge and skills that
contribute a valuable resource for a stakeholder process.76
"There is no inherent reason why
science-based and stakeholder-based
decision processes are not compatible." |
When participating in traditional regulatory or stakeholder processes, it is important
for scientists to acknowledge when their viewpoints originate from the use of professional
methods and practices compared with expressions of opinion that emanate from their role as
citizens and stakeholders.
What are the roles of scientists and stakeholders in environmental decisionmaking? How
can they more effectively integrate their respective roles? The existing literature and
interviews for this study provide the basis for the following observations:
Roles for scientists and other stakeholders. Most of the interviewed
stakeholders believe scientists are best equipped to "distinguish fact from
opinion," "provide science-based information," "make data more
accessible," and "define the limits of science and knowledge." In short,
non-technical stakeholders desire scientists’ participation in order to enhance their
own deliberations by delivering and translating scientific information in a form useful to
them. "Scientists provide the facts and other stakeholders provide the values for the
facts," summarized one interview participant.77
Stakeholders believe they have a broader role in environmental decisionmaking. They see
themselves as "providing a balanced perspective of what is important to the
community," as well as "negotiating a policy action, a demonstration project,
and implementing a recommendation." Many stakeholders believe they should not only
help recommend options to policymakers but also directly participate in choosing and
implementing such options.
Options for ensuring scientists’ participation in stakeholder processes.
While a number of prominent stakeholder initiatives—Project XL, the Enterprise for
the Environment—are noteworthy for the absence of scientists’ participation,
other projects have succeeded in designing the process to include scientific information
and perspectives. Examples of the latter include Columbus, Ohio’s, Priorities
’95 project (see Appendix 5), remediation of Fernald, Ohio’s, low-level
hazardous waste site, and comparative risk projects for the City of Houston and the State
of Texas. Not all stakeholder processes address technical issues but, for those that do,
the following approaches have helped to integrate scientific issues with stakeholder
deliberations:
- Establish a forum or structure connected to the stakeholder process for scientists to
review technical information. Participants in the Columbus, Ohio, project created a
Technical Advisory Committee to institutionalize their scientific capacity. Other
processes have relied upon fact finding groups, local universities, or hired technical
consultants to assess and impart scientific information. Supreme Court Justice Stephen
Breyer has recommended the establishment of expert panels to assist the judicial branch to
better understand complex technical issues involved in legal reviews. Whatever the
mechanism employed, these and other stakeholders have recognized the need and value for
maintaining a placeholder for science during their deliberations.
- Ensure that the scientist-stakeholder relationship is interactive and iterative. Many
scientists are unfamiliar with stakeholder processes, being more generally accustomed to
imparting scientific knowledge to their peers or to science-literate policy officials.
Similarly, most stakeholders are not scientifically trained and are not knowledgeable
about technical methods or data. An interactive and iterative process is more likely to
promote common understanding and enhance the prospect that stakeholder deliberations will
be more scientifically informed.
- Address both "micro and macro rationality." Juanillo and Scherer have observed
that for lay persons, risk is viewed in terms of how it will affect people at a personal
level. Scientists, economists, and policy-makers, in contrast, more frequently evaluate
the possibility of a risk occurrence by how it may affect society as a whole, or impact
important groups within society. Through such reasoning, it may be rational for an
individual or a group of families in a neighborhood or community to oppose the siting of a
facility near their homes, but it is irrational for society not to be able to build such
facilities. Having scientists and stakeholders jointly consider micro and macro
rationality can improve the comprehensiveness of decisionmaking and enable scientists to
become more engaged in a broader array of stakeholder deliberations.78
The value of scientists’ participation in stakeholder deliberations. Most
of the debates over stakeholder-based decisionmaking surround the quality of the process
rather than the quality of the analysis of scientific data. This is because information
alone does not motivate people to take action. The key challenge for proponents of greater
scientific rigor in stakeholder deliberations lies in demonstrating the value of better
scientific analysis for the process. At least three arguments support the need for
improved analysis and greater participation by scientists. They include the following:
- There is a high cost from not involving scientists in stakeholder deliberations.
"If decisions are less scientific," notes Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein of Rutgers
University, "the science will come back to bite you later on." Evidence of this
problem is amply demonstrated in the continuing misalignment between the nation’s
high-priority environmental risks and budget allocations directed at much lower risks.79
- Scientists retain a higher level of societal credibility than many government agencies
or individual stakeholders. Decisionmaking processes conducted in the absence of
scientists’ participation run a greater risk of being less sustainable over time
because of misidentifying the problem or developing technically flawed solutions.
- Facts ultimately matter. There is often a lag time between scientists calling attention
to an environmental issue and stakeholders’ willingness to accept the need for
action. Initial reports of the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer in the early
1970’s were not systematically acted upon until the late 1980’s. For decades,
experts have called attention to the problem of non-point source water pollution, while
most policymakers and stakeholders have focused primarily on industrial and municipal
point sources. Only recently has a broader consensus emerged to respond to this aspect of
water quality and with it the need to obtain a more definitive scientific understanding of
the issues involved.
"A new relationship among experts and
those whom they serve must be
established to liberate this expertise."Jerome
Priscoli |
In summary, neither science nor other stakeholder perspectives alone constitute an
adequate basis for environmental decisionmaking. "It is not that society wants to
jettison professional and technical expertise and enter a new age of irrationalism,"
Jerome Priscoli has written. "Far from it—we need the expertise. But a new
relationship among experts and those whom they serve must be established to liberate this
expertise."80
Challenge 4: Integrating Stakeholder Deliberations into Existing Decisionmaking
Processes
Traditional methods of public participation follow several well-established
practices. They identify when public participation is needed or required, distribute
information on the issues for which public input is sought, establish a formal notice and
comment period, and create a record or docket that houses the public comments received and
the agency’s responses to them. According to one analysis, "after 20-30 years of
practice, public involvement processes still are not well integrated with decision
processes. The two processes tend, more often than not, to run on parallel tracks, with
little meaningful intersection beyond the minimum necessary to meet legal and
administrative requirements."81
The integration of stakeholder inputs raises several challenges for environmental
decisionmaking. These challenges include: 1) How will stakeholder comments be addressed in
developing environmental policies? 2) What impacts will stakeholder-based decisionmaking
have upon institutional relationships and the distribution of authority and power among
various levels of government? And 3) How will such processes affect decisionmaking by
non-governmental organizations such as environmental groups and industry?
Government agencies, private companies, and the broader stakeholder community have only
begun to address these issues, but their experience to date yields some examples of how
these institutions are beginning to adapt their decisionmaking processes.
Incorporating stakeholder interests and perspectives into environmental
policymaking. Because many stakeholder processes currently reside outside of
traditional decisionmaking practices used by government agencies and corporations, they
must decide how to incorporate stakeholder views into such outcomes as rulemakings,
clean-up decisions, environmental management practices or other outputs. A growing number
of agencies and companies are recognizing the need for such integration and are beginning
to adjust their decisionmaking procedures. The degree of such adjustment is preliminary
and subject to future change. The following examples reflect the range of efforts
currently in progress:
- In its ongoing efforts to address the highly sensitive issue of timber management,
Weyerhaeuser Company has established a program of town hall meetings in selected
communities where it maintains forestry assets. The purpose of the meetings is to obtain
information and perspectives from local citizens; identify their concerns; explain the
company’s goals, activities, and practices; and, in general, improve the
company’s societal license to operate. Such consultations provide input into an
internal auditing process that measures the alignment of company practices with its stated
values.82
- The Customer Focus Analytical Team within DOE’s Office of Environmental Restoration
oversees at least a dozen stakeholder participation and information programs involving
more than 145 separate activities at 24 waste sites around the nation. A 360° feedback process, using 13 different rating characteristics, is
utilized to assist the team to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts. Team members,
field offices, and stakeholders are included in the review process. Key performance
metrics include "problem solving/expertise," "consensus
decisionmaking," and "process assessment." These and other metrics assist
team members in comparing the effectiveness of stakeholder programs, including their
impact on decisionmaking.83
- EPA’s Project XL has published guidelines that emphasize the importance of
stakeholder views in the Agency’s decision whether or not to approve a proposed
project. The guidelines state that EPA will not approve a project in a case where
"direct participant" stakeholders—those who work intensively with sponsors
to build a project from the beginning—have vetoed project plans. In instances where
stakeholders’ role is consultative and not decisional, EPA "will give
significant weight to the views of these direct participants in determining whether the
project has broad community support."84
Such activities represent an attempt to move away from a dichotomy of stakeholder/no
stakeholder participation. While not independent of traditional decisionmaking processes,
neither are they fully integrated with it. At present, they are experiments in defining
the boundaries and ground rules for linking stakeholder input to traditional processes.
Impacts of stakeholder processes upon institutional relationships. Any activity
that alters the composition and role of decisionmakers, and those who influence them, also
changes the distribution of authority and power. The belief that stakeholder-based
environmental decisionmaking is a vehicle for increasing access to information and
equalizing political power is a principal factor motivating the use of such processes by
interested parties. This is especially true of individuals or groups that have not
traditionally participated in environmental decisionmaking—such as many communities,
minority groups, and other grass roots organizations—as well as those who have been
involved but seek expanded authority and influence such as state and local environmental
agencies.
Over time, government agencies and companies have begun to alter their policies,
programs, and procedures for environmental decisionmaking to reflect the growing demand
for stakeholder input. For example, EPA and the Environmental Commission of the States, an
organization consisting of state environmental officials, reached tentative agreement in
October 1997 on the terms for implementing regulatory reinvention projects. The agreement
reflects the growing influence of state governments in such areas as making efficiency a
stand-alone goal for environmental innovation; establishing greater environmental
flexibility to achieve environmental goals; encouraging greater experimentation by using
policy approaches that differ from command and control regulation; and promoting
alternative ways of achieving regulatory requirements. While many of the implementation
details remain unresolved, the agreement represents an example of how one influential
group can leverage stakeholder processes to its political advantage.85
The Health Effects Institute (HEI), a non-profit organization that sponsors
environmental research on the health effects of emissions from vehicles and fuels, has
begun to integrate stakeholder perspectives with its scientific peer review process. In
1995, HEI assessed the health effects of MTBE, an oxygenate added to motor gasoline to
reduce carbon monoxide and other toxic air releases while preserving vehicle performance.
In the process of reviewing the scientific information for MTBE, HEI also convened a
workshop that included state health authorities, federal agencies, citizens, environmental
groups, and private industry. Workshop participants were asked to review and comment on
the scientific assessment that evaluated exposure and health effects information for MTBE
prior to HEI’s submission of its final report to the EPA and the public. (See
Appendix 5 for a case study evaluation of the HEI’s MTBE review.)86
Stakeholder processes and decisionmaking by industry and non-governmental
organizations. Ironically, both industry and environmental groups confront the need to
re-adapt their role in environmental decisionmaking because of stakeholder processes, even
though they are prominent stakeholders in their own right. Both groups have invested
enormous resources to develop the information, skills, and relationships needed to realize
their objectives in the traditional regulatory process that centered on national policy
issues. As other stakeholder groups enter the decisionmaking process, and as policymaking
begins to devolve toward state and local authorities, both business and environmental
groups face the challenge of learning new methods and devising different strategies of
participation, and expanding or redeploying their resources.
"Both industry and environmental groups
confront the need to re-adapt their role in
environmental decisionmaking because of
stakeholder processes, even though they are
prominent stakeholders in their own right." |
This transition is reflected in decisions made by Intel Corporation as it sought
EPA approval under Project XL for its Chandler, Arizona, manufacturing facility.
Recognizing the importance of obtaining stakeholder input in the XL process, Intel
established a facility Community Advisory Panel that included a representative of the
Native American community, a community activist, the city planning director, an
environmental consultant who also served as director of the Arizona Public Health
Association, and a school board member also affiliated with the Chamber of Commerce. An
important factor enabling Intel to obtain community support for its XL project was its
commitment to publicly and continuously report the facility’s environmental, health,
and safety performance on its Web site. Local stakeholder support became especially
important when national environmental groups raised concerns about Intel’s project
with EPA. In weighing the information, the Agency was reassured by the direct
participation of local stakeholders and ultimately approved Intel’s XL submission.
Appendix 5 presents a case study on Intel’s innovative use of local stakeholder
processes.
National environmental groups, which have traditionally wielded great influence on
national policy issues, confront the need to re-assess their advocacy and resource
allocation strategies as stakeholder processes continue to proliferate. While continuing
to support public participation in regulatory decisionmaking, they have expressed various
concerns about the use of stakeholder-based decisionmaking. These include:
- Because stakeholders provide input on so many issues affecting a decision, there is a
potential for democracy to displace science, thereby reducing the factual basis of
environmental decisions. Stakeholder processes need to more clearly differentiate among
scientific information, professional judgments, and interest-based compromises.
- There are capacity limits to the number of people who can effectively participate in
stakeholder-based decisionmaking. Neither citizens nor environmental groups can
effectively participate in the growing number of stakeholder processes, thus placing them
in a disadvantageous position relative to other groups with a financial stake in the
outcome of a decision. Because of resource limits, they may not be able to participate in
the regulatory process until a much later stage, such as a public hearing. At that time,
agencies are much less flexible, and external influence can be more difficult to achieve.
- Government agencies are increasingly using stakeholder processes to avoid having to make
difficult, politically contentious decisions. Instead, they are relying upon stakeholder
negotiations to provide political cover on issues where they already have the authority
and responsibility to act.
- Place-based stakeholder processes favor industrial interests because companies have
disproportionate resources, skills, and influence in local areas.
- Many stakeholder processes—focusing on natural resource issues, for
example—redistribute power and disenfranchise environmental groups whose constituency
is largely urban.
For some environmental groups, stakeholder-based decisionmaking thus relaxes
governmental accountability and weakens their own influence in policymaking. They caution
that it is not a "panacea."87
Challenge 5: Determining Whether Stakeholder Processes Yield Improved
Environmental Decisions
All persons interviewed in this study believe that stakeholder processes hold
great potential for improving environmental decisionmaking. An improved decision,
to some degree, is a subjective judgment. For some, it represents a decision that is
accepted by stakeholders and subsequently implemented. For others, a better outcome
results in a reinvented role for government and more flexibility for industry to achieve
environmental goals.
Those asserting that improved environmental decisions occur through the use of
stakeholder processes offer the following reasons for their views:
- Participants must confront the reality of differing viewpoints rather than perceiving
opponents through a stereotyped perspective.
- Stakeholder processes introduce a greater variety of information and dimensions of a
problem than traditional regulatory processes.
- The interaction among different stakeholders often generates more creative solutions to
problems than would have occurred in the absence of such a process.
- Trust increases over time.
- The process encourages voluntary actions.
- Relationships are built that can last beyond a particular decisionmaking process and
yield beneficial results in addressing other issues.
- Participation in stakeholder-based decisionmaking improves industry’s transparency
and accountability.
Many of these factors, proponents observed, do not generate improved environmental
performance per se but, rather, represent a means to this end.
An equally large number of interviewees concluded that the results of stakeholder
processes were inconclusive or dependent upon the particular process or issue under
consideration. Responses supporting this viewpoint included:
- Stakeholder processes do not necessarily produce better technical decisions.
- Some stakeholder-based decisions, such as those that utilize more contentious public
hearings or town meetings, can diminish trust levels.
- There are mixed results on whether stakeholder processes actually reduce policy
conflicts.
- Many stakeholder processes are so contextual and variable, and data are so limited, that
general answers are not yet available on whether they yield improved environmental
decisions.
- In some instances, the accountability of government agencies is reduced by stakeholder
processes because of their desire to avoid making difficult and controversial decisions.
On balance, the interviewed experts would agree with one of their peers who observed
that, "A well designed and managed process can lead to a better outcome—better
integrated and implementable decisions. But, it must be well designed and managed."
However, there remain a number of factors that make the outcomes of stakeholder processes
less predictable. According to Kate Kramer, "If the right people are involved, if
decisionmakers listen and incorporate the input, and if the process is well structured,
then the decision will be better, more equitable and durable…[But] it is unclear how
long the trust will last or if it applied to institutional credibility as a whole."88
"Stakeholder based environmental
decisionmaking is a work in progress."Tom Burke |
In summary, there is much anecdotal information that supports both sides of the
argument over whether stakeholder processes yield better environmental decisions. This
development testifies to the need for more work to evaluate stakeholder processes and to
develop more rigorous planning and management practices so that such processes are
tailored to the problems they are intended to resolve. At the present time, observes Tom
Burke, "stakeholder-based environmental decisionmaking is a work in progress."89
63
Creighton, p.15.
64
Ron Ashkenas, et al., The Boundaryless
Organization (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995), pp. 89-90; U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration, Customer Focus Analytical Team, Appendix
1, "Customer Focus Analytical Team 360° Team
Effectiveness Assessment."
65
Ibid., pp. 9-16.
66
Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making, Public
Involvement in Comparative Risk Projects, pp. 1-49.
67
The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, pp.
121-143.
68
Ibid., Appendix A; U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Environmental Restoration, Customer Focus Analytical Team, pp. 9-16.
69
Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR),
Practices: The Good, the Bad, the Beautiful," Environmental and Public
Policy Sector Third Annual Mid-Year Conference, Shoreline School District Conference
Center, Seattle, Washington, April 10-11, 1997; SPIDR has also published Best Practices
for Government Agencies: Guidelines for Using Collaborative Agreement-Seeking Processes
(January 1997).
70
Michaelson, p. 77.
71
See also the SPIDR Web site for other supporting
information on this topic and issues of the journal Interact, a publication of the
International Association of Public Participation Practitioners.
72
Testimony of Dr. Thomas A. Burke, Johns Hopkins
University, before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, February 3,
1995; Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making, Public Involvement in
Comparative Risk Projects, p. 47.
73
The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, pp.
152-155.
74
Interview with Charles W. Powers, November 24, 1997.
75
Lach and Hixson, pp. 56-62.
76
Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making, Public
Involvement in Comparative Risk Projects, p. 6.
77
Interview with Jim Larson, Intel Corporation, December 8,
1997.
78
Juanillo and Scherer, p. 296.
79
Interview with Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, December 12,
1997; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection (September 1990).
80
Priscoli, p. 84.
81
Cox and Armour, pp. 35, 41.
82
Interview with Gary Risner, Weyerhaeuser Company, August
4, 1997.
83
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental
Restoration, Customer Focus Analytical Team, p. 5, Appendix 1.
84
Federal Register, April 23, 1997, pp. 19877,
19880.
85
ECOS/USEPA Regulatory Reinvention Agreement, State
Environmental Monitor, October 6, 1997, pp. 6-12.
86
Letter from Margo T. Oge, Director, Office of Mobile
Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to Daniel S. Greenbaum, President, Health
Effects Institute, March 28, 1995; letter from Daniel S. Greenbaum to MTBE Workshop
Participants, July 3, 1995.
87
Comments of Dr. Terry F. Young, Senior Consulting
Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, in "Experts Optimistic About Stakeholder
Processes, Despite Issues," Risk Policy Report, February 20, 1998, pp. 34-35;
Michael McCloskey, "The Limits of Collaboration," Harper’s Magazine
(November 1996), pp. 34-36; and Roberts and Marshall, pp. 55-56.
88
Interview with Kate Kramer, December 18, 1997.
89
Interview with Thomas A. Burke, January 7, 1998.