Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Stakeholder analysis means many things to different people. Various methods and approaches have been developed in different fields for different purposes, leading to confusion over the concept and practice of stakeholder analysis. This paper asks how and why stakeholder analysis should be conducted for participatory natural resource management research. This is achieved by reviewing the development of stakeholder analysis in business management, development and natural resource management. The normative and instrumental theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis is discussed, and a stakeholder analysis typology is proposed. This consists of methods for: i) identifying stakeholders; ii) differentiating between and categorising stakeholders; and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders. The range of methods that can be used to carry out each type of analysis is reviewed. These methods and approaches are then illustrated through a series of case studies funded through the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. These case studies show the wide range of participatory and non-participatory methods that can be used, and discuss some of the challenges and limitations of existing methods for stakeholder analysis. The case studies also propose new tools and combinations of methods that can more effectively identify and categorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relationships.

Introduction

Public participation is becoming increasingly embedded in national and international environmental policy, as decision-makers recognise the need to understand who is affected by the decisions and actions they take, and who has the power to influence their outcome, i.e. the stakeholders (as defined by Freeman, 1984). Although this is a vital first step in any participatory exercise, stakeholders are often identified and selected on an ad hoc basis. This has the potential to marginalise important groups, bias results and jeopardise long-term viability and support for the process. For this reason, interest is growing in a collection of methods that can be used for “stakeholder analysis”. We define stakeholder analysis as a process that: i) defines aspects of a social and natural phenomenon affected by a decision or action; ii) identifies individuals, groups and organisations who are affected by or can affect those parts of the phenomenon (this may include non-human and non-living entities and future generations); and iii) prioritises these individuals and groups for involvement in the decision-making process.

Stakeholder analysis has become increasingly popular with a wide range of organisations in many different fields, and it is now used by policy-makers, regulators, governmental and non-governmental organisations, businesses and the media (Friedman and Miles, 2006). Approaches to stakeholder analysis have changed as tools have been progressively adapted from business management for use in policy, development and natural resource management. It is perhaps this variety of different approaches that has given rise to widespread confusion over what is really meant by stakeholder analysis (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Stoney and Winstanley, 2001). Weyer (1996) described it as a “slippery creature”, “used by different people to mean widely different things”. Donaldson and Preston (1995) put this confusion down to a “muddling of theoretical bases and objectives”. This may partly be due to the long period of time over which these approaches have developed in parallel fields. It may also be due to the continued attempt to aggregate different methods and approaches under the single banner of stakeholder analysis. In an attempt to make sense of this confusion, Section 2 of this paper defines stakeholders and stakeholder analysis, and shows how the concept has evolved in different fields.

Although a broad range of methods have been developed or adapted for stakeholder analysis in these different disciplines, there is little information regarding how, when and why they are effective. This paper therefore aims to provide an analysis of the history and development of stakeholder analysis and a disaggregation of the theoretical bases upon which it is founded. It seeks to illustrate how much of the contemporary critique and debate over appropriate methods is a reflection of the diverse reasons why stakeholder analysis is used. This debate includes many questions about stakeholder representation, legitimacy, participation, power, and knowledge – essentially “who's in, and why?” For example, how can diverse stakeholders be adequately represented? How can the relative interest and influence of different stakeholders be taken into account? And if stakeholders are defined by the issues that are being investigated, then who defines these issues?

The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the origins of stakeholder analyses in literature. Section 3 discusses methods for stakeholder analysis that are common within research on natural resource management. Section 4 presents four different research projects from across the UK Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use programme1 that apply stakeholder analysis. The last section presents conclusions on the use of stakeholder analysis within natural resource management.

Section snippets

Who or what are stakeholders?

There is a difference of opinion over who or what exactly stakeholders are. Many recent definitions of stakeholders build on Freeman's (1984) seminal work on stakeholder theory that distinguished between those who affect or are affected by a decision or action (sometimes referred to as active and passive stakeholders in the natural resources stakeholder literature; Grimble and Wellard, 1997). However, the concept of stakeholders predates Freeman's work (Rowley, 1997). According to Ramírez (1999)

A typology of stakeholder analysis methods

While the discussion above helps to rationalise the theoretical basis for stakeholder analysis, both normative and instrumental approaches have been applied in different disciplines and contexts using a wide variety of methods (Fig. 1). These can be categorised as methods used for: i) identifying stakeholders (Section 3.2); ii) differentiating between and categorising stakeholders (Section 3.3); and iii) investigating relationships between stakeholders (Section 3.4). Table 1 provides a summary

Applying stakeholder analysis: experience from the RELU programme

The previous sections of the paper have examined the history and theory of stakeholder analysis in the context of business management, policy, development, and natural resources management. They have also examined which methods have been used in three critical steps of stakeholder analysis, identifying stakeholders and their stakes, differentiating between and categorising stakeholders, and methods for investigating stakeholder relationships. The following section of the paper uses four case

Synthesis and conclusions

These case studies have shown the wide range of participatory and non-participatory methods that can be used for stakeholder analysis. They have highlighted some of the challenges and limitations of existing approaches and proposed some new tools and combinations of methods that can more effectively identify and categorise stakeholders and help understand their inter-relationships. Although the rationale for using stakeholder analysis in each case study was primarily instrumental, all the

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Prof. Tim Burt, Prof. Phillip Lowe, Dr Jeremy Phillipson and four anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References (110)

  • J. Skvoretz et al.

    Advances in biased net theory: definitions, derivations, and estimations

    Social Networks

    (2004)
  • F. Berkes

    Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management Systems

    (1999)
  • R.R. Bianchi et al.

    Interest Groups and Organizations as Stakeholders

    (2001)
  • S. Biggs et al.

    An actor-orientated approach for strengthening research and development capabilities in natural resource systems

    Public Administration and Development

    (1999)
  • J. Boatright

    Fiduciary duties and the shareholder manager relation: or, what's so special about shareholders?

    Business Ethics Quarterly

    (1994)
  • G. Borrini-Feyerabend et al.

    Sharing Power: a Global Guide to Collaborative Management of Natural Resources

    (2007)
  • S.N. Bowie

    The moral obligations of multinational corporations

  • R.S. Burt

    Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition Cambridge

    (1992)
  • R.S. Burt

    The network structure of social capital

  • R.S. Burt

    Structure holes versus network closure as social capital

  • J.M. Bryson et al.

    Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1993)
  • J. Bryson et al.

    What to do when stakeholders matter: the case of problem formulation for the African American men project of Hennepin County, Minnesota

    Public Administration Review

    (2002)
  • D.W. Bromley et al.

    Private property rights and presumptive policy entitlements

    European Review of Agricultural Economics

    (1990)
  • R. Brugha et al.

    Stakeholder analysis: a review

    Health Policy and Planning

    (2000)
  • J.M. Calton et al.

    A theory of stakeholder enabling: giving voice to an emerging postmodern praxis of organizational discourse

  • R. Chambers

    Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last

    (1997)
  • P. Checkland

    Systems Thinking, Systems Practice

    (1981)
  • P. Checkland

    Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: a 30-year Retrospective

    (1999)
  • J.M. Chevalier et al.

    SAS2: a Guide to Collaborative Inquiry and Social Engagement

    (2008)
  • T. Clarke et al.

    Changing Paradigms: the Transformation of Management Knowledge for the 21st Century

    (1998)
  • M.B.E. Clarkson

    A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance

    Academy of Management Review

    (1995)
  • R.H. Coase

    The problem of social cost

    Journal of Law and Economics

    (1960)
  • R.E. Cole

    Introduction

    California Management Review

    (1998)
  • H. Cornelius et al.

    Everyone Can Win. How to Resolve Conflict

    (1989)
  • B. Crona et al.

    What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for co-management

    Ecology and Society

    (2006)
  • A.P. Dale et al.

    Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure for participatory and political social impact assessment

    Society and Natural Resources

    (1994)
  • T.T. De Lopez

    Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream National Park, Cambodia

    Environmental Management

    (2001)
  • T. Donaldson et al.

    The stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: concepts, evidence and implications

    Academy of Management Review

    (1995)
  • A.J. Dougill et al.

    Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park

    Journal of Agricultural Economics

    (2006)
  • J.S. Dryzek et al.

    Reconstructive democratic theory

    The American Political Science Review

    (1993)
  • C. Eden et al.

    Making Strategy: the Journey of Strategic Management

    (1998)
  • Eppler, M.J., 2001. Making knowledge visible through intranet knowledge maps: Concepts, elements, cases. In:...
  • J. Elster

    Deliberative Democracy

    (1998)
  • A. Etzioni

    Modern Organizations

    (1964)
  • FAO

    Understanding Farmers' Communication Networks: an Experience in the Philippines

    (1995)
  • A.M. Freeman

    Depletable externalities and pigovian taxation

    Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

    (1994)
  • A.L. Friedman et al.

    Developing stakeholder theory

    Journal of Management Studies

    (2002)
  • A.L. Friedman et al.

    Stakeholder theory and communication practice

    Journal of Communication Management

    (2004)
  • M.P. Follett

    The New State: Group Organization, The Solution for Popular Government

    (1918)
  • J. Forester

    The Deliberative Practitioner

    (1999)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text