A S H A R I N G S E S S I O N W I T H T N C

A N T O N R I Z K I S U L A I M A N , K I R O YA N PA R T N E R S

Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement

Agenda

Introduction: The Stakeholder Mindset

Three Elements of Stakeholder Mapping: Tools and Challenges Stakeholder Identification

Stakeholder Profiling

Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder Engagement

Common misperceptions

Conclusion

The Stakeholder Mindset

Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. 1995. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation:

Concepts, Evidence and Implications. The Academy of Management Review.

The Stakeholder Mindset

Svendsen, A. and Laberge, M. 2005. Convening Stakeholder Networks: A New Way of

Thinking, Being and Engaging. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 19.

The Stakeholder Mindset

Edward Freeman, “Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach” (1984)

Developed to counter a dominant mindset

A mindset that take stakeholders into account to make (ethical) decisions

A key feature in Social Responsibility (ISO 26000)

I D E N T I F I C AT I O N , P R O F I L I N G A N D A N A LY S I S

Stakeholder Mapping

Three Elements of Stakeholder Mapping

1. Stakeholder Identification Who are our stakeholders?

2. Stakeholder Profiling What are their issues, concerns and perceptions?

What is at stake? What are their interests?

What are their affiliations and networks?

3. Stakeholder Analysis How powerful and legitimate are they?

How vulnerable and impacted are they?

Who should we prioritize?

How are their relationships with each other?

Etc.

Stakeholder Identification

Who are our Stakeholders?

Main tool: Stakeholder Definition

“Groups and individuals who can affect, or are affected by the achievement of an organization’s objective (Freeman, 1984)”

How to identify? Desktop research, “usual suspects”, management opinions, expert

opinions (Boutilier 2009)

Questioning and testing (ISO 26000, AA1000)

Applying identification frameworks (e.g. power-interest grid, stakeholder attributes)

Example: The AA1000 Test

Challenges in Stakeholder Mapping

Stakeholder Mapping Biases Elite bias: elites represent the whole group

“To affect” bias: more “influencers”, less “claimants”

External bias: less focus on “internal stakeholders”

Definition problems Too vague and too ambiguous

Are terrorists stakeholders?

Are the media stakeholders?

Stakeholders, stakewatchers, stakekeepers (Fassin, 2008)

The Stake Model (Fassin, 2008)

Stakeholder Profiling

Obtain required information on stakeholders: issues, concerns, perceptions, networks, interests

Requires primary and/or secondary research

Methods: Primary research: fieldwork, interviews, focus groups, observations,

surveys etc.

Secondary research: desktop research, literature review, systematic review

Through interactions and stakeholder engagement

Results: Validation, falsification, updating of stakeholders list

Better understanding of stakeholders

Stakeholder Database

1. Description (attributes, interests/stakes, resources)

2. History of relationship (with company, with others)

3. Contact information (address, phone, facsimile, email, website, person in charge, his/her contact details)

4. Geographic focus (international, national, provincial, local)

5. Chain of influence (network, resource sharing, choice of actions, momentum)

(modified from) Gable, C. and Shireman, B. 2005. Stakeholder Engagement: A Three Phase

Methodology. Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 14/3.

Stakeholder Database

Linda Bourne and Patrick Weaver, “Stakeholder Mapping”, in Chinyio, Olomolaiye, (eds.) 2010.

Construction Stakeholder Management, Blackwell-Wiley

Challenges in Stakeholder Research

Limited applications of stakeholder research so far Mostly for resource companies

Difficulties for other industries: e.g. how to understand customers?

Stakeholder researches? Adapting research methods to stakeholder categories

There are no single “Stakeholder Research”

Stakeholder profiling may require multiple researches

Long and expensive? Adapting research methods with resource and time constraints

Extensive and intensive research are preferred but not always required

Maximize knowledge already owned by the organization

Stakeholder profile gap analysis

Stakeholder Analysis

Objectives: (1) Understanding opportunities and challenges from stakeholders;

(2) Map, classify and prioritize stakeholders and issues

Stakeholder Salience based on stakeholder attributes (Mitchell et al., 1997)

Analysis of perception based on Qualitative Perception Study (Firestein, 2009)

Issues-based analysis (Boutilier, 2009)

Stakeholder Attributes

3 3

3 3

121

22

1 2

4

1

0 = Bukan Pemangku Kepentingan

1 = Latent

2 = Expectant

3 = Definitive

4 = Primary

“The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for Natural Environment” – C. Driscoll dan M. Starik, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 49, 2004

“The Natural Environment as a Primary Stakeholder: the Case of Climate Change” – N. Haigh dan A. Griffiths, Business Strategy and the Environment, August, 2007

Example: Stakeholder Attributes Scoring

Example: Perception Study

Example: Issues-based analysis

“Stakeholder Politics” – Robert Boutilier, Greenleaf Publishing Ltd., 2009

G O I N G F O R W A R D F R O M S TA K E H O L D E R M A P P I N G

Stakeholder Engagement

Framework for Quality Stakeholder Engagement

AA 1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard

Strategic Thinking

AccountAbility, The Stakeholder

Engagement Manual, Volume 2

Example: Strategic Thinking Process

AccountAbility, The Stakeholder Engagement Manual, Volume

2

Modes of Engagement

MODE SAMPLE ACTION

Track

Inform

Consult

Support

Collaborate

Partner

Network

Monitor, Compile Actions

Annual Report, Quarterly Communiqué

Back Channel Dialogue

Strategic Philanthropy/Sponsorship

Joint Project (informal)

Joint Project (formal)

Joint Project (formal or informal with several group)

Gable, C. and Shireman, B. 2005. Stakeholder Engagement: A Three Phase

Methodology. Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 14/3.

Example: Stakeholder Engagement Recommendations

Example: Engagement Priority Recommendations

M I S C O N C E P T I O N S A N D D I S C U S S I O N S

Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement

Stakeholder Mapping and Communication

Misconception: Stakeholder mapping is the basis for all communication strategies

Proposed correction: Stakeholder mapping can provide valuable information for communication strategies It can help set objectives, craft messages, identify audiences

Stakeholder mapping does not provide all information: E.g. Analysis of communication resources, communication audit,

communication objectives, target audiences, channels etc.

“Stakeholders” are not necessarily “audiences”, and vice-versa

Stakeholder mapping brings the “stakeholder mindset” to communication

Stakeholder Engagement and Communications

Misconception: Stakeholder engagement means communicating with stakeholders

Proposed correction: Stakeholder engagement involves communications, but goes beyond that

Stakeholder engagement plan ≠ communication strategy (although some overlaps may exist)

Example: Stakeholder involvement in project monitoring

Stakeholder Engagement and Communication

Misconception: Issues with stakeholders can be solved through communications

Proposed Correction: Solving issues with stakeholders involves decision-making

Example: the external relations “frustration”

Stakeholder engagement is the concern of the whole organization, not only the communications department

Stakeholder Engagement and Reputation

Misconception: Stakeholder Management = Reputation Building

Proposed correction: Stakeholder management aims to align behavior and performance with stakeholder expectations

Results of stakeholder engagement must be further communicated to build reputation