{"id":107,"date":"2019-03-26T19:17:24","date_gmt":"2019-03-26T23:17:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting2ed\/chapter\/stakeholderengagement\/"},"modified":"2026-05-29T20:01:55","modified_gmt":"2026-05-30T00:01:55","slug":"stakeholderengagement","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/technicalwriting2ed\/chapter\/stakeholderengagement\/","title":{"raw":"5.6 Public Engagement and Consultation","rendered":"5.6 Public Engagement and Consultation"},"content":{"raw":"An important area of primary research undertaken when embarking on any large scale project entails engaging or consulting with relevant and interested parties. Public engagement<\/strong> is the broadest term used to describe the increasingly necessary process that companies, organizations, and governments must undertake to achieve a \u201csocial licence to operate<\/a>.\u201d Engagement can range from simply informing the public about plans for a project, to engaging in more consultative practices like getting input and feedback from various groups, and even to empowering key community members in the final decision-making process. If you have been asked to complete a survey or provide feedback on a design or proposed project, then you have likely been part of a public engagement campaign.\r\n\r\nFor projects that generate social, economic, and environmental impacts, engagement and consultation is an increasingly critical part of the planning and development stages. Creating an understanding of how projects will affect a wide variety of people, organizations, and the environment is beneficial for both the company instigating the project and those who will be affected by it. Listening to feedback and concerns -- especially from those with \"lived experience\" -- can be helpful in identifying and mitigating risks that could otherwise slow down or even derail a project. For impacted parties, the consultation process creates an opportunity to both stay informed and be heard. They can inform the company about local contexts that may not be obvious to those from outside the community, raise issues and concerns, and help shape the objectives and outcomes of the project.\r\n

Who should be consulted?<\/h1>\r\nWhen determining who you need to engage with, consider who (or what) will be impacted by the project, and who has the potential to impact or influence project decisions and implementation.\r\n\r\nConsider using the Four I Framework (shown in Figure 5.6.1<\/strong>) for engagement and consultation:\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_744\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"700\"]\"Venn Figure 5.6.1<\/strong> Four I Framework for determining relevant parties to engage and consult with.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n\"Relevant parties\" include individuals and groups who have the power to influence<\/strong> the project (decision makers, people with political or economic power), those who are invested<\/strong> (financially or otherwise), those who might simply be interested<\/strong> in the project, and those who will likely be impacted<\/strong> by the project, either positively or negatively. They can be internal \u2013 people from within the company or organization (owners, managers, employees, shareholders, volunteers, interns, students, etc<\/em>.) \u2013 and external, such as community members or groups, investors, suppliers, consumers, policy makers, etc<\/em>. Increasingly, arguments are being made for considering non-human parties such as wildlife and the natural environment as well.[footnote]C. Driscoll and M. Starik, \u201cThe primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment,\u201d Journal of Business Ethics<\/em>, vol. 49, no. 1, 2004, pp. 55-73. Available: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1023\/B:BUSI.0000013852.62017.0e<\/a> [\/footnote]\r\n\r\nHistorically, the term \"stakeholder\" has been used as a catch-all term to refer to any individual or group who may have a direct or indirect \u201cstake\u201d in the project. However, in the Canadian context, this term has come to be seem as problematic, especially in Indigenous contexts. Here is an explanation for why from the BC Government website on Terminology in Indigenous Content<\/a>:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\u2018Stakeholder\u2018 is a common corporate term for partners which has negative connotations to many Indigenous Peoples. When land acquisition was happening, this term referred to the allotment of land to settlers. Settlers were given wooden stakes to claim their plot of land prior to any treaty or land negotiations with Indigenous Peoples. It's more appropriate to refer to Indigenous Peoples as partners rather than stakeholders. Indigenous Peoples are not stakeholders; they're Aboriginal rights holders whose rights are protected under the Constitution of Canada.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\nWhen engaging in projects, it is becoming increasingly important to engage and consult with a wide variety of relevant and interested parties, and this often includes Indigenous communities and organizations. Therefore, it's wise to consider alternatives to the word \"stakeholder\"<\/a> that you might use in various contexts to more precisely determine who should be consulted and what kind of engagement is needed.\r\n\r\nEngaging and consulting with relevant parties can contribute significantly to the decision-making and problem-solving processes. People most affected by the problem and most directly impacted by its effects can help you to\r\n