Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
6
Their assessment of what the other stake-
holders want out of the process.
7
Their attitudes towards each of the other
stakeholders.
8
Their personal or organizational preference as to
the nature of the course of action that should be
adopted.
Such indicators can usefully be included on
a regular basis within the engagement process
itself. If the attitudes towards one stakeholder of
all the other stakeholders become increasingly
hostile over the course of engagement process then
either that stakeholder is making very effective
use of power to force the other stakeholders to
adopt the option preferred by the stakeholder in
question, or that stakeholder is being very unsuc-
cessful in changing others in a way that supports
their case. If it is the latter, then the knowledge of
their failure would offer them a chance to change
tactics.
In addition, it is appropriate to seek the
stakeholders' evaluation of the process itself
(Green 2003):
1
Was the process fair and equitable?
2
Was each stakeholder treated in a fair and equi-
table way? Were their views given due consider-
ation? Were their contributions valued?
3
Was a sufficient range of options considered?
4
Did any individual stakeholder or group of
stakeholders impose their views upon the group
as a whole?
5
Was adequate technical support and informa-
tion made available?
6
Did the process result in any change or was the
decision effectively already made?
7
Did you learn anything from the process?
8
Did you derive any personal satisfaction or ben-
efits from the process? Would you be prepared to
repeat the experience?
'better', ideally we want to assess the differences
in outcomes over the long term. But a problem is
that we have to make this evaluation of success in
the short term in order either to take corrective
action if the particular instance is deemed a fail-
ure, or, if it is a success, to apply those lessons
elsewhere. This means that it has to be possible to
make these evaluations early on and on the basis of
quite preliminary assessments when the outcome
may be long term. Thus, outcome measures have
inherent limitations (Johnson et al. 2010). Never-
theless, work byBeierle (Beierle andKonisky 2001;
Beierle 2002) shows positive gains.
So, the second way of measuring success is in
terms of process. Here, continuity has a claim to
be the most important criterion. If, as argued
earlier, the only means to deliver substantive
justice is by chaining choices together so that
substantive justice is delivered as a whole, then
piecemeal approaches will often fail. So, any pro-
cess of making choices that makes one choice and
is then abandoned is a failure. Therefore, its
success in any one choice is measured by the
desire of the participants to repeat and replicate
the process for future choices. This will occur to
the degree to which each of the participants felt
the process had been a success. Process success is
thus important to the extent to which it promotes
continuity.
Defining the key criteria as change and the
sustainability of the process, then we should be
seeking to measure change amongst the
stakeholders' engagement: the extent and direc-
tion of the changes that occurred during the pro-
cess. Thus, it is appropriate to track over the time,
starting before the engagement process begins
(Tunstall and Green 2003):
1
The stakeholders' assessment of their own
knowledge and skills in relation to the choice.
2
Their assessment of the knowledge and skills of
the other stakeholders.
3
Their assessment of what are the critical issues
involved in the choice.
4
Their assessment of the attitude of the other
stakeholders towards the process.
5
Their assessment of the contribution of the
other stakeholders to the process.
Conclusions
Stakeholder engagement is about mobilising so-
cial relationships for collective choice. It is thus
simultaneously about what those relationships
are and what they should be, and the pursuit of
