Technical ReportPDF Available

Stakeholder power analysis



Stakeholders are the people who matter to a system. Stakeholder power analysis is a tool which helps understanding of how people affect policies and institutions, and how policies and institutions affect people. It is particularly useful in identifying the winners and losers and in highlighting the challenges that need to be faced to change behaviour, develop capabilities and tackle inequalities. There are various approaches to stakeholder power analysis. A six-step process seems to work well: 1. Develop purpose and procedures of analysis and initial understanding of the system 2. Identify key stakeholders 3. Investigate stakeholders’ interests, characteristics and circumstances 4. Identify patterns and contexts of interaction between stakeholders 5. Assess stakeholders’ power and potential roles 6. Assess options and use the findings to make progress Like other tools, the usefulness and strength of stakeholder power analysis depends on the way it is used. It can be carried out by individual analysts, multi-stakeholder processes, or some intermediate between these two ends of the spectrum. Stakeholder power analysis can be used progressively to empower important but marginalised groups, and to improve policies and institutions. But it should be recognised that the techniques can also be used more cynically by some - to work out who should be manipulated, undermined or disposed of. Progressive users should be aware that the cynics may be ahead of the game, and encourage all involved to be clear about their purpose, intentions and desired outcomes.
We acknowledge the support of The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGIS) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation (BMZ) who have financed the development of these tools, and the UK Department for International Development (DFID)
who provided the start-up support. For more information on Power Tools please visit
Stakeholder power
March 2005
James Mayers ( has steered the development of this tool, from work in the forestry
and land use sector.
Stakeholders are the people who matter to a system. Stakeholder power analysis is a tool
which helps understanding of how people affect policies and institutions, and how policies
and institutions affect people. It is particularly useful in identifying the winners and losers
and in highlighting the challenges that need to be faced to change behaviour, develop
capabilities and tackle inequalities.
There are various approaches to stakeholder power analysis. A six-step process seems to
work well:
1. Develop purpose and procedures of analysis and initial understanding of the system
2. Identify key stakeholders
3. Investigate stakeholders’ interests, characteristics and circumstances
4. Identify patterns and contexts of interaction between stakeholders
5. Assess stakeholders’ power and potential roles
6. Assess options and use the findings to make progress
Like other tools, the usefulness and strength of stakeholder power analysis depends on the
way it is used. It can be carried out by individual analysts, multi-stakeholder processes, or
some intermediate between these two ends of the spectrum. Stakeholder power analysis
can be used progressively to empower important but marginalised groups, and to improve
policies and institutions. But it should be recognised that the techniques can also be used
more cynically by some - to work out who should be manipulated, undermined or disposed
of. Progressive users should be aware that the cynics may be ahead of the game, and
encourage all involved to be clear about their purpose, intentions and desired outcomes.
What is stakeholder power analysis?
People in all sorts of situations assess the positions of others on a given issue, to enable them to
gauge the level of support or opposition from others, and predict how they will behave if a change
is made. Stakeholder power analysis is an organised approach to this. It is an approach for
understanding a system by identifying the key actors or stakeholders in the system, and assessing
their respective interests in, or influence on, that system.
Stakeholder power analysis is particularly useful for assisting in decision-making situations where
various stakeholders have competing interests, resources are limited, and stakeholder needs must
be appropriately balanced. As well as evaluating existing policies and institutions, it can be used to
appraise possible scenarios. It is about asking questions like: Whose problem? Who benefits?
Who loses out? What are the power differences and relationships between stakeholders? What
relative influence do they have? Analysis of answers to these questions enables the identification
of institutions and relationships which need to be developed or dealt with to avoid negative
outcomes and enhance positive ones.
Why and when to use
Stakeholder power analysis may be a key tool for improving livelihoods. If for example the focus is
on improving a livelihood strategy then this generally requires an increase in the capability or
empowerment of the person pursuing it - the ‘primary stakeholder’. This in turn requires a change
in the relationship between this person and other stakeholders, and in the benefits derived from it.
Policies and institutions usually shape, and often determine, these relationships between
stakeholders. If these policies and institutions are to be geared towards improving livelihoods then
understanding the individuals and groups that affect them, or are affected by them, is crucial at all
levels. Thus, following some initial steps to understand which policies, institutions and processes
matter for livelihoods, the nature of each needs to be uncovered. Often the picture is complex –
and stakeholder power analysis provides a means to start understanding it1.
The complexity of many livelihoods makes it unlikely that there will be a generalised solution - a set
of policies, institutions and processes - to meet everyone’s needs. Stakeholder power analysis can
help understanding of the distribution of costs and benefits (e.g. between rich and poor, men and
women), why things are the way they are, and what needs to change.
Stakeholder power analysis may be used at a variety of levels and purposes:
Broad-level strategic process - to scope, build momentum and monitor a process
Institution or business - to examine the health of an organisation and plan changes
Project or programme – to design, steer and monitor a project
Particular decision – to predict the consequences of a decision, and plan to deal with them
It is increasingly recognised that good policies and institutions are 'owned' by a broad range of
stakeholders - not just the most prominent, or powerful, stakeholder group. Stakeholder power
analysis can in itself provide a step towards improving policies and institutions, depending on the
degree of involvement of relevant decision-makers in the process.2
Who are the stakeholders?
Stakeholders are those who have rights or interests in a system. If you are concerned with the
future of a system – the stakeholders are those you should worry about. For an organisation, for
example, stakeholders are any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by the
achievement of the organisation’s purpose. This definition is too broad for some as it includes
interested parties as well as affected parties. Some prefer to restrict the term to those who have a
‘stake’, claim or vested interest – those who provide something of importance to the organisation,
and expect something in return.
Stakeholders can be individuals, communities, social groups, or organisations. For example,
stakeholders in a forest policy might include people who live in or near the relevant forests, people
who live further away who use these forests, settlers from elsewhere in the country, or abroad,
workers, small scale entrepreneurs, forest officials, timber company managers, environmentalists,
politicians, public servants, national citizens, consumers, forest authorities, central government
agencies, local government agencies, national NGOs, academics and researchers, donors,
consultants, international NGOs, community based organisations and general. All these people, if
their interests in forests are indeed legitimate - and one role of stakeholder power analysis might
be to examine the legitimacy of their claims - should in some way be involved in the making and
implementing of policy which affects forests.
Often, a useful first categorisation of stakeholders is into primary or secondary depending on an
assessment of whether they are immediately affected by, or can immediately affect, the system. If
improving livelihoods is the focus of an intervention – those whose livelihoods the intervention is
aimed at will be amongst the primary stakeholders. Another way of making a first cut of
1 As well as analysing policies and institutions, stakeholder power analysis can also be effectively utilised in
understanding other aspects of sustainable livelihoods, such as how the livelihood strategies and activities of
some people affect those of other people, and how livelihood outcomes have different effects on different
2 Like many ‘management’ tools, stakeholder analysis was born in the private sector - in the notion of
corporate social responsibility, which started gaining ground in the early 1960s. The idea that organisations,
programmes and projects have stakeholders has now become commonplace. Aid agencies in particular
have promoted the development and use of this tool to help sharpen the focus on poverty, social exclusion,
and the role of institutions. However, also like other management tools, there is often more hype than
experience and it should be borne in mind that whilst the stakeholder power analysis approach outlined
below draws on the experience of a few agencies and businesses it is, as yet, far from routinely used.
stakeholders in an organisation is into three groups - internal, interface, and external stakeholders.
Using the example of a hospital:
Internal stakeholders are those groupings of people who operate entirely within the boundaries
of the organisation, e.g. administrators, clerical staff, nurses, food service personnel,
housekeeping personnel, etc.
Interface stakeholders are those who function both internally and externally in relation to the
organisation. The major categories of interface stakeholders include the board of directors and
the medical staff.
External stakeholders fall into three categories in their relationship to the organisation:
Those who provide inputs to the organisation - members or patients, third-party payers, and
equipment and material vendors.
Those who compete with the organisation for members, patients and resources.
Those with a special interest in how the organisation functions – the Chamber of
Commerce or economic development organisations.
It should be remembered that the range of stakeholders and the roles they play is not static.
Different actors take on different roles, and in stakeholder power analysis it is important to try to
see beyond the superficial picture of different actors' roles: who is pushing for what, and who
cannot be 'heard'? Who are the 'integrators' and who are the 'dividers'? Neither should it be
assumed that all actors within one category are homogenous in their perceptions. Such
perceptions depend on many factors – which need to be explored through the analysis – and each
situation should be considered afresh rather than jumping to conclusions about the stand that
different stakeholders are likely to take.
Who should carry out stakeholder power analysis?
Stakeholder power analysis may need to be instigated and steered by a range of professions - as
individuals or in groups:
Independent analysts and evaluators
Project planners
Managers of organisations or enterprises
Lobbyists and activists
Individual stakeholders
Groups of stakeholders
Multi-stakeholder groups
Although stakeholder power analysis is all about trying to understand the way people engage with
each other, it may or may not itself involve much participation. Like other tools it is relatively value-
neutral - its effects depend on who uses it and how. If the objective is to have a greater number of
stakeholders making progress together – then participation of those stakeholders in the analysis
will be crucial. Credibility of the analysis will also rely on the agency or group carrying it out being
reflective and clear about its intentions, values and purposes.
Even where stakeholder power analysis is being utilised for the purely analytical purposes of one
party it is unlikely to get a realistic picture of the range of stakeholders and their interests,
influence, and power, without a reasonably participatory approach. But it is rarely feasible to start
off by involving everyone – a more effective route to participatory stakeholder power analysis is to
start small, and engage with more and more stakeholders over time.
Particular skills and attitudes may be needed to conduct stakeholder power analysis. Some of
these may be hired in or trained, but others can only be acquired through experience:
Two-way communication – getting views across, and listening to those of others
Respect of, and for, other stakeholders
Cultural and gender awareness,
Chairing of meetings and workshops
Facilitation of processes involving several stakeholders
Trust and consensus building, and conflict management
Developing enthusiasm, transparency and commitment
Patience – it takes time for stakeholders to consult with their own constituencies
How to carry out stakeholder power analysis – a step-wise approach
A step-wise approach is appropriate in all of the contexts mentioned above. The following
approach is generalised, but is particularly framed around the type of stakeholder power analysis
needed to develop, build momentum for, and monitor an effort to change a policy or institution.
Step 1. Develop purpose and procedures of analysis and initial understanding of the
Consider institutional level and purpose
A clear understanding of the goals and boundaries of the analysis is needed – the scope of the
issues to be included, clarity on what is to be left out, and identification of what can be achieved
and delivered. Much will depend upon:
Institutional level: a national policy analysis or strategic process will need to engage different
stakeholders compared to a regional policy, a local project or a particular decision of an
enterprise – the former will have greater challenges of 'vertical' representation up and down the
Purpose: an appraisal of a possible policy will be different for example than an evaluation of an
institution or process - the former needing to include considerable extra-sectoral
representation, and the latter needing to emphasise local stakeholders perhaps more
intensively than 'policy stakeholders'.
Create conditions for quality multi-stakeholder dialogue
Where involvement of stakeholders in the analysis is anticipated, initial consideration of how
people are organised and how they operate is needed. There are several dimensions to the quality
of stakeholder dialogue and these should be considered before, during, and after a participatory
stakeholder power analysis as they will shape the process. Firstly, inclusiveness – who is included
in the participatory analysis, and the procedures for its design and implementation, must be spelled
out. Key actions to ensure good quality inclusiveness and procedures include:
Allow stakeholders to assist in the identification of other stakeholders
Ensure that stakeholders trust the convenor
Enable dialogue, not a one-way information feed
Ensure parties are sufficiently prepared and briefed to have well-informed opinions and
Involve stakeholders in defining the terms of engagement
Allow stakeholders to voice their views without restriction and fear of penalty
Include a public disclosure and feedback process
Secondly, a focus is needed on the responsiveness – the degree to which the various parties
respond to the analysis, and the outcomes – what actually happens, who reaps the associated
benefits and who bears the costs.
Develop initial understanding of the system
To ensure that the analysis is well-focused and timely, a general understanding is needed of the
key problems identified by some of the main groups, and the basic interacting factors in the system
or issue. The key decision makers in the system and their relative influence need to be identified.
An initial picture is what is needed - detail can be added in time as more information is gathered.
Step 2. Identify key stakeholders.
There are various ways to start identifying stakeholders, each has its advantages and risks. The
analysis process must recognise the risks of missing key stakeholders and work to avoid these
risks. Using a combination of approaches will reduce the risks associated with any one particular
Identification by staff of key agencies, and other knowledgeable individuals. Those who have
worked in the system for some time can identify groups and individuals whom they know to
have interests in the key issues and to be well-informed about them. However, caution is
needed about whether these individuals or groups are truly 'representative' (see below).
Identification through written records and population data. Census and population data may
provide useful information about numbers and locations of people by age, gender, religion etc.
Key line agencies and officials often have useful contemporary and historical records on
employment, conflicting claims, complaints of various kinds, people who have attended
meetings, financial transactions etc. Contacts with NGOs and academics may reveal relevant
surveys and reports and knowledgeable or well-connected people.
Stakeholder self-selection. Announcements in meetings, in newspapers, local radio or other
local means of spreading information, can elicit stakeholders coming forward. The approach
works best for groups who already have good contacts and see it in their interests to
communicate. Those who are in more remote areas, or are poor and less well educated and
those who may be hostile to other stakeholders, may not come forward in this way. There is a
risk that local elites, or others with inequitable objectives, will put themselves forward.
Identification and verification by other stakeholders. Early discussions with those stakeholders
who are identified first can reveal their views on the other key stakeholders who matter to them.
This will help to better understand stakeholder interests and relations.
Some of the key questions to be asked in any of the above approaches include:
Who are potential beneficiaries?
Who might be adversely affected?
Who has existing rights?
Who is likely to be voiceless?
Who is likely to resent change and mobilise resistance against it?
Who is responsible for intended plans?
Who has money, skills or key information?
Whose behaviour has to change for success?
It is important that individuals involved are 'representative' of their stakeholder group or
‘constituency’. Key dimensions of representation are:
Identity: Does the representative share the views of the group/ constituency or will the
representatives bring other/ multiple identities to the process e.g. tribal/ class or political
affinities? Where can such other identities help, and where might they hinder representation
and outcomes?
Accountability: Was the representative chosen by a particular group/ constituency, and does
s/he consult with that group regularly? What kind of specificity and sanction has the group
attached to the representative’s accountability? Some individuals assume a mandate from
members of a stakeholder group that is simply not backed up by processes of accountability
with those people. Different people have different levels of embeddedness in their groups, and
some are therefore more worthwhile representatives than others.
At an early stage in the process - a simple diagram of concentric circles of ‘primary’ and
‘secondary’ stakeholders can be useful to provoke debate, and provide a focus for subsequent
Levels of stakeholders in Ghana’s forests
Source: Kotey et al, 1998
Such figures can help in the process of categorising, and sometimes narrowing, the field of
stakeholders. Narrowing the field will be needed when a distinction is necessary between all those
who potentially affect or are affected by the policy or institution into the key stakeholders whose
involvement is crucial. Initial categories of stakeholders are likely to need to be disaggregated
further as information is developed. For example, those affected at local level by a policy may need
disaggregating by economic criteria and gender, and by degree and type of involvement. Further
fine-tuning of stakeholder groups may also be needed to deal with the fact that while people might
take similar actions, it is likely that they will attribute different significance to these actions because
of their differing priorities and livelihood strategies. For example a policy initiative which enables
smallholders to make cash from growing paprika in home-gardens benefits all smallholders, but is
particularly significant for women who generally have to combine income-earning with domestic
Depending on the nature of the problem or purpose it may be particularly important to scrutinise
the characteristics of stakeholders in terms of:
The basics - men/women, rich/poor, young/old
Location - rural/urban dwellers, near to the issue/far away
Ownership - landowners/landless, managers, staff, trade unions
Function - producers/consumers, traders/suppliers/competitors, regulators, policy
makers, activists, opinion-formers
Scale – small-scale/large-scale, local/international communities
Time - past, present, future generations
Each stakeholder needs to be clearly defined so that there is little ambiguity as to who is being
talked about. However, squeezing people too firmly into stakeholder boxes is at best pointless, and
at worst dangerous. In the same way that attempts to pigeon-hole people’s livelihoods into simple
categories such as farmer, hunter or fisher are often doomed to failure because people at local
level are more complicated than that, stakeholders in policies and institutions also often defy neat
categories like politician, business manager or NGO leader. People may in practice be in several
different stakeholder groups at the same time, and may change over time. So, stakeholder
identification may need to be regularly revisited and revised.
Step 3. Investigate stakeholders’ interests, characteristics and circumstances
Once stakeholders have been identified, their interests, characteristics and circumstances need to
be better understood. At this stage it is particularly important that stakeholders express their own
concerns. A checklist of questions for each stakeholder group might include:
What are the stakeholder's experiences or expectations of the policy/ institution?
What benefits and costs have their been, or are there likely to be, for the stakeholder?
What stakeholder interests conflict with the goals of the policy/ institution?
What resources has the stakeholder mobilised, or is willing to mobilise?
Useful methodologies for this step of the analysis include:
Brainstorming to generate ideas and issues within a stakeholder group. This takes the form of
a session in which ‘anything goes’ - with all points recorded. Later these points can be sorted
and prioritised. Focus groups can then be convened with particular stakeholders to discuss
particular topics.
Semi-structured interviews in which an informal checklist of issues is used to guide an interview
with a stakeholder group, whilst allowing other issues to arise and be pursued. This approach
is particularly useful for cross-checking, identification of common ground, identification of trade-
offs and identification of decision-making frameworks of stakeholders.
Digging up existing data – a variety of recorded materials may shed light on stakeholders’
interests, characteristics and circumstances. It is always worth probing and rummaging for
reports and recorded information, there is almost always more of it than at first appears,
sometimes found in the most unlikely places.
Time lines can be prepared with stakeholders of the history of links and impacts of particular
policies, institutions and processes, with discussion of cause and effect of various changes.
Diagrams help many people to get a quick idea of what is planned or talked about. They can
work well to stimulate discussion by both non-literate and literate people. In general diagrams
and visualisations work because they provide a focus for attention while discussing an issue,
represent complex issues simply, stimulate ideas and therefore assist in decision-making. Of
course, some people do not think or work well in terms of diagrams and prefer verbal
discussion with descriptions of real examples and stories.
Through such methods, and of course through direct observation and regular one-to-one chat, the
range of influences on stakeholders can begin to be unpacked. These influences include:
Institutional/ organisational factors: mandates, rules, norms, functions, strengths and
weaknesses; dynamics, interactions, and institutional culture
Individual motivation factors: ideological predispositions, pursuit of political objectives; position
and control of resources; professional expertise and experience; promoting own careers;
institutional loyalties, enhancing the standing of own agencies; and personal attributes and
goals, such as rent seeking
Some stakeholder interests and influences are therefore much more obvious than others. It is
important to remember that many interests are difficult to define - they may be hidden, multiple, or
in contradiction with the stated aims or objectives of the organisations to which stakeholders
belong. Some of these interests and influences are likely to reveal themselves only slowly, whilst
others, for reasons of political or personal expediency, may have to be left well alone.
Step 4 Identify patterns and contexts of interaction between stakeholders
This step aims to understand the relationships between stakeholders, to investigate factors in
conflict and cooperation, e.g. authority relationships, ethnic, religious or cultural divisions, historical
contexts and legal institutions. This will enable the identification of common ground, or prevailing
conflicts and potential trade-offs.
Two methodologies are particularly useful at this stage:
The four Rs. This is a tool for unpacking stakeholder roles. This is used to assess stakeholders’
Rights, Responsibilities, Rewards (or revenues or returns) and Relationships with other groups.
Narrative interviews. This is an approach to getting the best out of key informants, allowing
stakeholders to put forward information in their own way. It can be structured to be able to
glean their insights into the key issues pertaining to the policy or institution – or it can be looser,
based on ‘telling the story’, which allows these issues to be brought out without necessarily
having to ask overt questions about them. The interview approach has to be modified for each
individual. At one end of the spectrum is eliciting anecdotes informally in the corridor, over a
beer, or on the golf course. At the other end is formal, taped interviews with transcripts
reviewed for accuracy. A range of techniques can be used:
Presenting different perspectives/ views on a problem and getting interviewees to react to
Allowing interviewees to leave their own values and definitions unstated (recognising that
commitment to a particular perspective may be politically difficult for them)
Using ‘if…then’ scenarios to determine interviewees’ judgements of the feasibility of
possible developments or recommendations (people may be more comfortable reacting to
hypothetical situations)
The analyst should be clear that policy and institutional issues are often controversial – and
stakeholders need to be aware of how the information they provide will be used.
Step 5: Assess stakeholder power and potential
Different stakeholders' priorities are likely to vary widely. In some contexts it may be possible to
develop a system for judging the legitimacy and justification of these stakeholder interests, using
criteria appropriate to the policy or institution in question. Priorities may be judged on the level and
degree of social commitment which underlies them - who subscribes to them, and what impacts
that has. However, there may be legitimate interests that are represented by only weak voices.
Weighting stakeholder interests in forest policy
Once different stakeholder interests have been identified it may be possible and necessary to 'weight' them,
using criteria applicable to the policy issue in question. Colfer (1995) developed an approach for use in
contexts where improvement of forestry standards is the goal, which attempts to redress imbalances
amongst stakeholders in access to forestry decisions by ensuring that local forest actors are fully identified
and ‘weighted’ against certain criteria. Building on Colfer’s approach, in some circumstances stakeholders
may be identified and weight accorded to them, depending on:
Proximity to forests, woodlands or trees or farms
Dependence on forests for their livelihoods (i.e. where there are few or no alternatives to forests for
meeting basic needs)
Cultural linkages with forests and uses of forest resources
Knowledge related to stewardship of forest assets
Pre-existing rights to land and resources under customary or common law
Organisational capacity for effective rules and accountable decision-making about forest goods and
Economically viable forest enterprise that is based on environmental and social cost internalisation,
bringing equitable local benefits
Colfer strongly suggests that an ‘inverse’ criterion also be used i.e. if a local group has a power deficit it
should be weighted more heavily (to make up for such a deficit). It can be added, conversely, that some
stakeholders may have considerable levels of power and influence and interests which may adversely affect
the abilities of other stakeholders to pursue good forest management, or even prevent it entirely. In such
circumstances, an approach is needed which weights stakeholders according to the degree to which their
actions could be mitigated or prevented. This is, of course, difficult ground. Practical approaches such as
stakeholder power analysis which can begin to open up and debate situations of power difference can
enable some progress to be made.
Sources: Colfer 1995; Mayers and Bass 1999
Stakeholders have very different degrees of power to control decisions that have effects on
policies and institutions, and they have different degrees of ‘potential’ to contribute, or ‘importance’,
to achieving a particular objective.
Power to influence policies or institutions stems from the control of decisions with positive or
negative effects. Stakeholder power can be understood as the extent to which stakeholders are
able to persuade or coerce others into making decisions, and following certain courses of
action. Power may derive from the nature of a stakeholder's organisation, or their position in
relation to other stakeholders (for example, line ministries which control budgets and other
departments). Other forms of power may be more informal (for example, personal connections
to ruling politicians). (See also: Stakeholder influence mapping).
Potential to affect, or to be affected by, policies and institutions resides in particular
characteristics specific to context and location – such as knowledge and rights. Of particular
concern here are the stakeholders who have high potential but little power. These
stakeholders’ problems, needs and interests are likely to be the most ‘important’ for many
initiatives to improve policies and institutions processes.
A checklist of questions for assessing which stakeholders have power and potential (or
importance) with respect to the policy, institution or process at issue might include:
Who is dependent on whom?
Which stakeholders are organised? How can that organisation be influenced or built upon?
Who has control over resources? Who has control over information?
Which problems, affecting which stakeholders, are the priorities to address or alleviate?
Which stakeholders’ needs, interests and expectations should be given priority attention
with respect to the policy or institution in question?
The resulting information about stakeholder power and potential can be combined in a table or
diagram. Stakeholders can be positioned in relative terms according to these two broad criteria on
vertical and horizontal axes. Alternatively, or in addition, stakeholders can be categorised in terms
of four general strategies for engagement.
Four general strategies for stakeholder relations management
Stakeholder power /
potential High potential Low potential
High power Collaborate with
Mitigate impacts, defend against
Low power Involve, build capacity and secure
interests Monitor or ignore
This type of exercise in positioning stakeholders will indicate relative risks posed by specific
stakeholders, and possible coalitions of support for proposed actions or changes to policies or
This is a very utilitarian approach and assumes that ethical considerations are irrelevant or
subservient to the need for ensuring that some stakeholders gain advantage over others. The risks
in this sort of approach are to do with the categorisation, representation and pigeon-holing involved
– some stakeholders may get under-represented or misunderstood. It may also ignore very
fundamental positions held by different stakeholders – to do with rights and principles of social
justice and sustainability – which cannot easily be dealt with in simple utilitarian approaches.
Nevertheless the issues which these approaches raise are often crucial to the prospects of
change, and experimentation with such approaches is to be encouraged.
Step 6 Assess options and use the findings to make progress
To be useful, the analysis of the first five steps needs to be summarised in a form where
everyone’s interests and issues can be seen together. A series of stakeholder tables may be used
to organise information about interests, power, influence and involvement of each key stakeholder
or group. The following example tables/ matrix formats can be adapted to include different or
additional information depending on the scope and focus of the issues being addressed:
Stakeholder relationships with the main problem and each other
Stakeholder How affected by the
problem Capacity/ motivation to
participate in addressing
the problem
Relationship with other
stakeholders (e.g.
partnership or conflict)
Expected impacts of proposed project/programme
Stakeholder Main objectives of
stakeholder Positive
impacts/benefits Negative
impacts/costs Net impact
Stakeholder power analysis of a particular policy or institution
ships with
Net impact
Options /
The first stage of assessing how to make progress with the information generated by the analysis
is to draw out the possible options generated through the first five steps. For each option the risks
and assumptions about stakeholder positions and cooperation then need to be analysed.
Questions for drawing out assumptions and risks include:
What are the roles or responses of the key stakeholder that must be assumed if progress is
to be made?
Are these roles plausible and realistic?
Are there negative responses which can be expected, given the interests of the
If such responses occur what impact would they have?
How probable are these negative responses, and are they major risks?
In summary, which plausible assumptions about stakeholders support or threaten the
proposed option?
Each option can be assessed for each stakeholder, and some clear overall, and stakeholder-
specific recommendations made about appropriate ways forward. Decisions about these
recommendations require concerted stakeholder dialogue, whether or not the analysis has
proceeded through stakeholder engagement up to this point.
The findings of a stakeholder power analysis need to be included in proposals for changing
policies, institutions and processes, and in monitoring reports and reviews. Clear records of the
analysis are vital as the basis for later revision. With luck, stakeholder power analysis may come to
be seen as part of an iterative process for improvement of policies and institutions allowing
problems and objectives to be analysed in more detail, and changes to be made as new
stakeholder revelations and creativity come to the fore.
Strengths and weaknesses of stakeholder power analysis
Stakeholder power analysis is a highly effective tool for developing understanding of the
distributional effects of actual or proposed policies and institutions. It can also identify who is able
to influence policies and institutions and how. Conducted with the active involvement of key
players, stakeholder power analysis can increase ownership of decisions, enable some tricky
issues to be teased apart in the first stages of negotiation, and allow some agreed priorities to be
Stakeholders may not agree with each other, but through involvement in stakeholder power
analysis they can learn about the perspectives of others, their power and tactics, and can
recognise who is currently 'winning' and 'losing', and why. Through this experience, a few opinions
will be swayed, ideas will emerge and the sort of information and organisation required for the
losers to fight their corner more effectively next time can be identified. For example where
stakeholder power analysis reveals information to less powerful groups, it can help them assert
their roles in negotiation.
Monitoring and reporting from stakeholder power analysis can itself become a tool for making
progress. By talking regularly with stakeholders, some organisations have learned not only how
best to include them in decision-making processes, but also how to become more accountable.3
Stakeholder power analysis can get to the heart of a problem – but on its own is unlikely to provide
full solutions. Its usage as part of processes for making further progress still needs developing.
Stakeholder power analysis is far from routine in most contexts of developing or implementing
policies and institutions. Only through greater experience will it be possible to meet key challenges
Analysts’ agendas - the interests and agendas of those instigating and steering the analysis
need to be explained transparently and regularly interrogated
Equity versus prioritisation - how to treat stakeholders in an equitable manner, whilst also
developing the necessary means to prioritise or choose between them
Limited ability to look within – stakeholder power analysis finds it difficult to get to grips with
the internal dynamics and conflicts within stakeholder groups
Stakeholders won’t sit still - stakeholder groups overlap, and even within one group, people
take on multiple identities
Fundamental value conflicts – stakeholders may have very different value systems, and
stakeholder power analysis alone may identify little common ground. However, where
people are at odds with one another, it can result in greater richness of debate and of
needed checks and balances
Marginalised groups - whilst stakeholder power analysis can illuminate the interests of
marginalised groups, it cannot in itself guarantee them stronger representation. Slipshod
ranking of stakeholders according to power and potential can sometimes lead to
misunderstandings and under-representivity of lesser-ranked groups
Playing into the hands of the powerful - where analysis reveals information about less
powerful groups, this can be dangerous as it might lead to inequitable actions on the part of
the more powerful groups in the process
Many of these challenges relate to the Pandora’s box of stakeholder relationships. Those
conducting stakeholder power analysis who open up these relationships must take responsibility
for ensuring that the consequences are not simply left hanging, but are linked to mechanisms
which can continue to deal with them.
Stakeholder power analysis – a tool for dirty work too
Stakeholder power analysis can play a key part in strategies for organising and mobilising activity. But, like
other tools for working on policies and institutions, requires time and resources which are often in short
supply for smaller community groups. Larger entities such as government departments, companies, big
NGOs and projects - interested in creating effective campaigns and strategies to help push their interests in
the policymaking process are more used to undertaking stakeholder power analysis. These entities, who
may be the friends or the political opponents of smaller groups, may be able to call on well-funded
campaigns utilising the expertise of advisors and consultants, who have plotted policy scenarios taking
numerous variables into account, including media, community support, and monetary resources, to craft
multi-level strategies to protect their interests.
Stakeholder power analysis in this context seeks to assess the impact of different positions on engaging,
utilising, and sustaining support for a policy while minimising or neutralising political opposition. In recent
years there have been a number of books published (see further reading list) that seek to help corporations
defend themselves when ‘under siege’ from stakeholders by providing advice on protecting a company’s
reputation. Software has also been developed with this in mind. Two of the most popular Windows tools in
this arena are Outrage and PolicyMaker.
3 Currently, such organisations and businesses are being encouraged to join a major multi-stakeholder
international undertaking called the Global Reporting Initiative (2001) whose mission is to develop and
disseminate globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines for organisations incorporating stakeholder
perspectives in their reporting on the economic, environmental and social dimensions of their activities.
OUTRAGE ( is based on the assumption that a company’s successful
management of risk to its reputation depends both on addressing the issues raised by critics and their
potential or actual level of outrage. It lets a company select and profile the sources and stakeholders
(including community activists or government agencies) that are most likely to create the most vocal
opposition to the company. After selecting the inputs, it generates the predicted level of stakeholder outrage
that can be expected. It then allows companies to manipulate the input variables to determine a favourable
scenario for minimising the level of outrage.
How does it work? You define a situation that might lead to a controversy, and then Identify and categorise
the major actors involved as allies, neutral players, or opponents. Then you map out how to rate each
stakeholder, according to their level of "power" and "passion" (commitment). Depending upon this rank, you
can then can choose an appropriate strategy to deal with that particular stakeholder. It also determines how
much trouble the company is likely to face. OUTRAGE advises companies to "deflect" stakeholders with
power but no passion, by doing whatever it takes to distract them until their attention moves to other
subjects. Stakeholders with passion but no power are to be "defeated," while those who lack both can be
"dismissed." For those who have both power and passion, the company should "defer," or give in to their
PolicyMaker ( follows a similar vein – claiming to help those who wish to influence
policy define and identify policy content, key players, opportunities and obstacles, and strategies, which can
then be evaluated in terms of their impact and outcomes. Once you have defined your policy, you identify
stakeholders via a customisable table, according to their perspectives, policy positions, political strength, or
other factors. You can then generate a number of reports and graphs that graphically layout the political
landscape and a ranking of key players. This includes a comparison of current policy versus future policies,
feasibility and opportunities, possible coalition and network permutations, and where potential opposition
may lie. A Feasibility Graph feature allows you to gauge the relative strength of your supporters versus your
opposition. In effect, this gives you the opportunity to see how modifications in your proposed policy can be
modified to engage potential opposition.
While PolicyMaker retails for about US$90, the price tag for OUTRAGE gives some indication that it may not
be intended for widespread use. It costs about US$3,000 per license and US$36,000 for an unlimited
national corporate license. Both packages are available as free limited-feature downloadable versions.
Source: OMB Watch, 1999
Links/sources of further information
Prior to carrying out stakeholder power analysis, the following tool may be productively used:
Stakeholder influence mapping
Complementing stakeholder power analysis, or picking up on certain areas where it leaves off, The
four Rs tool may be needed. These tools can be found on
The following references are useful:
AusAid. 2000. The logical framework approach: stakeholder analysis. AusAid - The Australian
Government’s Overseas Aid Program.
Australia National University. Stakeholder Analysis: what is it and how is it applied?
Bendell, J. 2000. Terms for Endearment: Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development,
Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield
Colfer, C.J.P. 1995. Who Counts Most in Sustainable Forest Management? CIFOR Working paper
No.7, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor
DFID, 1999. Shaping Forest Management: how coalitions manage forests. Department for
International Development, London.
Dick, B. 1997. Stakeholder analysis.
Environment Council 1999. Guideline for Stakeholder Dialogue – a Joint Venture. The
Environment Council and Shell International, London
Filer, C. with Sekhran, N. 1998. Loggers, donors and resource owners. Policy that works for
forests and people series no. 2: Papua New Guinea. National Research Institute, Port Moresby
and IIED, London.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston
Global Reporting Initiative. 2001. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines.
Greenall, D. and Rovere, D. 1999. Engaging Stakeholders and Business-NGO Partnerships in
Developing Countries: Maximising an Increasingly Important Source of Value. The Centre for
Innovation in Corporate Responsibility, November, USA
Grimble, R. and Chan, M.K. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in
developing countries: some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and
effective. Natural Resources Forum, Vol.19, No.2
ISEA. 1999. Stakeholder dialogue management system standard: AA1000. Institute of Social and
Ethical Accountability, London
Kotey, E.N.A., Francois, J., Owusu J.G.K., Yeboah, R., Amanor, K. and Antwi, L. 1998. Falling into
Place. Policy that works for forests and people series no.4. Ghana. IIED, London.
Kulzick, R.S. 1999. Stakeholder analysis for business. Kulzick Associates PA - Consulting
MacArthur, J.D. 1997. Stakeholder roles and stakeholder analysis in project planning: a review of
the approaches in three agencies - World Bank, ODA and NRI. Discussion Paper, No.73,
Development and Project Planning Centre, University of Bradford, Bradford
MSG and UNICEF. 1998. Stakeholder analysis. Management Science for Health and the United
Nations Children’s Fund.
Mayers, J and Bass, S. 1999. Policy that works for forests and people. Series overview.
International Institute for Environment and Development, London
Mayers J., Ngalande, J., Bird, P. and Sibale, B. 2001. Forestry Tactics: lessons learned from
Malawi’s National Forestry Programme. Policy That Works for Forests and People series No.11,
International Institute for Environment and Development, London
ODA. 1995. Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid programmes. Social
Development Department, Overseas Development Administration, London
OMB Watch. 1999. Policy making software. (OMB is the US White House Office of Management
and Budget).
World Bank. Conducting a stakeholder analysis. Technical Note 9. Poverty Reduction Strategy
Appendix. Examples and case studies
1. Stakeholders in Papua New Guinea forest policy - a cast of characters in a social drama
A useful way of considering the range of stakeholders is to perceive them as a 'cast of characters' in a social
drama. This approach was used by Filer with Sekhran (1998) in analysis of the forest policy process in
Papua New Guinea, where the characters in the play are politicians, public servants, industry, NGOs, donors
and local resource owners. “Some characters make more noise than others, and the national policy process
is centred on a struggle between the logging industry and a donor lobby for the hearts and minds of the
resource owners. The former two characters have the most concerted voices, while the latter own the
scenery. The weakness of the other three characters reflects the fact that nearly all Papua New Guineans
are resource owners, and represent themselves in this light when flirting with the characters of politician,
public servant and NGO. The theme of the play is ‘sustainable forest management’ but the plot revolves
around the relationship between the politics of the Melanesian village and the divergent interests of assorted
Forest policy as a tug of war between stakeholders
(Source: Filer with Sekhran, 1998)
The analyst should also consider him/herself as another character in the play. Like the rest of the cast, we do
not posses an all-encompassing knowledge of the wants, needs, aims and methods of all the other
stakeholders in the policy process - we can only present a range of possible interpretations, or snatches of
dialogue in which these stakeholders communicate such knowledge to each other.
2. Stakeholders relationships with Karnataka Forest Department
(Source: DFID, 1999)
This diagramwas prepared by a group of foresters in Karnataka State, India. It shows the
wide group of stakeholders recognised by the foresters. Each stakeholder group has been
assigned a circle, and arrows are used to indicate the realtionship with the foresters – the
thickness and direction of the line illustrating the strength and direction of influence of one
group on another. The plus or minus signes also show whether that influence is positive or
In other diagrams of this type, the circle size can be adjusted to illustrate the importance of
the group or the number of people in it. The gap or overlap between circles can signify
closeness or distance or relationships. Lines between stakeholder groups can illustrate their
relationships, while types of line can inidcate whether the realtionship is formal or informal,
etc. the great strength of these diagrams lies in their development. Cut out circles of paper
and other materials can be used in their preparation and participants do not need to be well-
educated to participate. Many thorny issues are likely to be raised in discussion over
development of the diagram and the outcome is a clear and immediate representation of key
relationships which can be very useful to provoke further debate.
3. Stakeholder power analysis for a particular decision
Draw up a chart
Prepare a chart like this: Write goal here
Attitude Influence Stakeholders Est. Conf. Est. Conf. Actions
Est. = estimate Conf. = confidence
List stakeholders
Identify and list the stakeholders. These may be individuals, or stakeholder groups, or some combination. If
stakeholders can be treated as a group, use groups. The most effective way of doing this is to list as many
stakeholders as you can on a working sheet of paper. Then transfer them to the left hand column of the
chart. It may help to list them in rough order of importance. (You may change your mind about their
importance after this analysis.)
Estimate attitude and confidence
For columns 2 to 5, work across the page. Record your estimates of the following in the columns. In order,
they are:
Column 2: Your best estimate of the stakeholder's attitude, from supportive to opposed. A five-category
code can be used:
++ strongly in favour
+ weakly in favour
o indifferent or undecided
- weakly opposed
-- strongly opposed
Column 3: How confident you are about your estimate in column 2. Here you can use:
/ (a tick) for fully confident
? for reasonably confident (some missing information, perhaps,
or some doubts aboutinterpretation)
?? for an informed guess
??? for wild guess or sheer fantasy
Unless the group achieves immediate agreement, then at least one question mark is warranted.
Column 4: Your best estimate of the influence of the stakeholder. A three-category code is usually enough:
H high; this person or group has power of veto, formally or informally
M medium; you could probably achieve your goals against this person's or group's opposition, but not
L this person can do little to influence the outcomes of your intended actions
Column 5: How confident you are about your estimate in column 4. You can use the same codes as in
column 2.
Plan strategies
Plan your strategies for approaching and involving each person or group. Your estimates in columns 2 to 5
help you to do this. Your strategy is written in column 6. It usually takes the form of obtaining more
information, or of involving the stakeholder in the planning for the change. In general, question marks
indicate a need for more information. The more question marks, and the more influence the person has, the
greater the need. On some occasions you will choose to approach the person concerned. On other
occasions you may instead approach someone else who can be assumed to know about the person's
attitude or influence. In general, high influence indicates a need to involve the person in some way. (Or, if
you choose not to do this, and they are opposed, you may choose to find some way to neutralise their
influence.) The people or groups who require most attention are those who are influential and opposed. For
involvement, decide the extent. For example: involved only as informants; consulted; directly involved in
decision-making; involved as co-researchers and co-actors; or some similar categories.
(Source: Dick, 1997)
4. Stakeholder analysis for a project
The following example is based on a recorded stakeholder analysis done for an aid agency project
with local government. It has, however, been made general to avoid breaching confidentiality.
The stakeholder analysis provides an overall assessment of the range of interests identified during
the design of the project. The stakeholders are listed in the Table below with a summary of their
interest and an assessment of their impact. The stakeholders are classified as follows:
Direct primary stakeholders who are the main beneficiaries from the project
Indirect primary stakeholders are not direct beneficiaries but will be affected by the project
Secondary stakeholders are the remaining parties in the process.
The stakeholders listed in the Table have been classified, into their comparative importance and
influence. This is shown in the Figure below the Table. Importance is assessed in terms of their
role in achieving the project’s outputs and purpose. Influence is judged in terms of the power that
they can exert over the project’s process and outcome.
Those stakeholders of high importance to the project, but with low influence - shown in Box A in
the Figure - include members of staff of the project executing organisations who will be
responsible for project implementation, but will not necessarily be decision-makers. Service
providers are also included because they will make a valuable contribution to work on the project,
but will not be able to substantially alter the manner in which it is designed and implemented.
In Box B, the stakeholders with a high degree of influence and importance to the success of the
project include the Minister, the senior management teams of the project executing organisations,
local authorities selected for pilot studies and the provincial departments of local government.
The influential stakeholders, but with less importance in achieving the project purpose and outputs,
are grouped in Box D.
The final group of stakeholders, in Box C, represent the least important and influential. Their
interests need to be monitored to ensure that (a) their interests are not adversely affected and (b)
their importance and influence does not alter due to changed circumstances.
Primary direct
Minister Ensure local government
transformation process is
Consolidate structures and
systems within the sector
Ensure co-operative governance
High. Will provide overall
leadership and political support High. Will have influence on all
aspects of policy Responsible for overall project
Senior management
team of project
executing organisations
Finalise all relevant legislation,
regulations and systems to
provide framework for
Accelerate implementation
Provide capacity building for
provinces and local authorities
High. Will provide overall
leadership and political support High. Will have influence on all
aspects of policy Responsible for overall project
Primary indirect
Local authorities Partners in piloting new systems
Accelerate change within their
own administration
Meet national requirements
High. Will provide sites for
implementation and piloting High. Will be responsible for
implementation and successes of
Beneficiaries of successful
project implementation. Will be
consulted and involved through
municipal partnerships
Association of local
authorities Represent interests of organised
local government
Accelerate change programme
High. Will provide input into all
systems and guidelines
High. Will have influence on all
systems and guidelines Consultation on all aspects of
design and piloting
Local government
change management
Provide framework of co-
ordination for donor programmes
Provide input on usage of donor
High. Will integrate lesson
learning across all projects and
Medium. Will provide input into
project co-ordination and
Lesson learning directed through
Provincial departments
of local government Implement national systems and
Provide direct support to local
High. Will provide support and
co-ordination for implementation High. Will have influence on
nature of support provided Included in consultative
C. Secondary
Other national and
provincial government
Successful change of local
government system
Collaboration on joint processes,
Low. Will provide mechanisms of
support to project executing
organisations where relevant
Low. Will only co-operate, cannot
intervene Consulted where necessary.
Informed through regular updates
Members of Parliament
and Members of the
Provincial Legislatures
Successful change of local
government system Low. Will only provide limited
input into project Low. Will only co-operate, cannot
intervene Consulted where necessary
Service providers Achievement of outputs as
Provide appropriate assistance
for implementation of projects
High. Project success depends
on their performance Medium. Responsible for project
outputs but can be dismissed for
Involved in delivering project
Organised labour Protection of interests of
members, e.g. job loss Low. Will help determine possible
courses of action in piloting High. If supportive, can facilitate
project success Consultation and involvement at
key points during implementation
NGOs, CBOs and other
community structures Collaborate in implementation
Provide services to local
Low. Will participate in pilot
projects Low. Will provide input through
pilots but not directly impact Involvement during piloting
Staff of project
executing organisations Success achievement of
Capacity built through project
Ability to cope with new systems
and changing demands
Resistant to new systems and
High. Will be directly involved in
implementation Low. Cannot change structure
and process of project Involved in project
Classification of stakeholders according to relative influence and importance
Low Influence
High Influence
Primary Stakeholders Secondary Stakeholders
A1 Minister C1 Other national and provincial
government departments
A2 Senior management team
of project executing
C2 Members of Parliament and
Members of the Provincial
B1 Local authorities C3 Service providers
B2 Association of local
authorities C4 Organised labour
B3 Local government change
management programme C5 NGOs, CBOs and other
community structures
B4 Provincial departments of
local government C6 Staff within project executing
5. Mapping power and potential of stakeholders in Malawi’s National Forestry Programme
The Co-ordination Unit for the National Forestry Programme (NFP) in Malawi recognised that stakeholders
have very different levels of power to take action. It also attempted to propound the idea that stakeholders
vary in their importance or potential for good forestry and livelihoods. Potential for good forestry and
livelihoods lies in factors such as: knowledge about forest management, proximity to forests, dependence on
forest goods or services, viable forest enterprise, cultural linkages to forests, and existing rights. Some
stakeholders have considerable potential to bring about good forestry and livelihoods, yet have little power to
do so. Others, by contrast have lower potential, yet have considerable power. To provoke debate at the
meetings of the multi-stakeholder Forum, the Co-ordinating Unit developed a basic ‘ranking’ of stakeholder
groups according to power and potential. The following table and diagrams show the results. In the table, the
main current stakeholder groups are listed, and then given an indicative ranking along the following lines:
Size of group (17 = largest, 1 = smallest): an indication of the number of people in the group
Potential to contribute to good forestry (17 = highest, 1 = lowest): an indication of the contribution which
the group could make, given their size, with their current role, level of knowledge and expertise – if they
had the power to do so
Power to contribute to good forestry (17 = highest, 1 = lowest): an indication of the power each group
currently has to contribute
B3 B2
C2 C5
Ranking of stakeholder groups’ power and potential to contribute to good forestry (by the NFP
Coordination Unit)
Stakeholder Group Size
Of group Potential to
contribute to
Power to
to good
Smallholders 17 17 1
Organised users and groups at community level (e.g. VNRMCs) 16 16 2
Fuelwood and charcoal sellers and traders 15 1 4
Chiefs and traditional authorities 14 10 5
Pitsawyers 13 8 6
Small NTFP enterprises 12 9 3
Ministry of Agriculture 11 12 12
District Assemblies 10 2 9
Forestry Department 9 15 15
Other departments: Department of National Parks and Wildlife,
Environmental Affairs Department, Department of Energy 8 6 11
Estate owners (tobacco) 7 3 8
NGOs 6 14 10
Wood industries 5 5 13
Plantation companies (timber, rubber and tea) 4 7 14
Other government agencies: Malawi Investment Promotion Agency,
Privatisation Commission 3 4 7
Donors 2 11 16
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs 1 13 17
The figure below is an attempt to show these rankings visually. In the figure, the various main stakeholder
groups in Malawi’s forest goods and services are shown by circles – the larger the circle the greater the
number of people in the group. The centres of the circles are ‘plotted’ against the two axes – power and
Stakeholder groups: size, potential and power to contribute to good forestry and livelihoods
The figure shows the scale and direction of the challenge for the NFP– to push and pull stakeholders
towards matching up power with potential. If progress towards better forestry and livelihoods is to be made,
some stakeholders need to be empowered to make more positive contributions, whilst others need to be
restrained from making destructive contributions.
(Source: Mayers et al, 2001)
... The 4Rs framework in this study represents the rights, responsibilities, revenues and relationships. The framework was developed and designed specifically for analysing stakeholder roles and influence in natural resource management (Dubois, 1998;Mayers, 2005;Tekwe & Percy, 2000). It offers the steps to internalize and strengthen stakeholders' roles by categorizing them into 'rights', 'responsibilities', 'revenues' (returns or benefits) and then evaluating the 'relationships' among the stakeholders (Fomété et al., 2001;Lynam et al., 2007). ...
... According to Mayers, (2005), the 4Rs framework has been proved as a useful tool for transforming natural resource use conflicts among the users into shared assets capable of meeting divergent needs. The framework has been used to analyse the multi-stakeholder situations, identify problems and open discussions on 4Rs imbalances between organizations. ...
... Additionally, 4Rs proved viable in institutional restructuring and decentralization in a case study in Senegal where peasant associations repositioned themselves in the government during the decentralization period; and in a training methodology to assist civil servants in various administrative positions to understand their roles (Mayers, 2005). In South-East Asia, the 4Rs framework was used to start the action-learning process at the beginning of a collaborative forest management project in Indonesia characterized by roles imbalances. ...
Full-text available
Co-management has been promoted as a way of enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency in natural resource management. However, majority of the applied approaches have focused on one indicator independently overlooking other role indicators. This makes the co-management difficult. To enhance effectiveness, this study applied the 4Rs framework to analyse the role imbalances of the key stakeholders involved in the co-management of Aberdare forest ecosystem. The 4Rs provides analysis of the rights, responsibilities, revenues received and the relationships amongst co-managers for effective co-management. To improve on this framework our study expounded on the analysis of stakeholder roles according to priority which facilitated identification of the actual roles. The data was collected using mixed methods approach whereby 46 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Chain referral sampling was employed to ensure that the interviews resulted in sufficient theoretical saturation. Analysis of the listed and ranked responses for each R was done to identify the imbalance/balance. The results indicated role imbalances with conflicting responsibilities, revenues obtained and rights that jeopardized organizations efforts to deliver. Community-based organizations (CBO) accrued most revenues through forest livelihood improvement projects within the forest however; stakeholders whose mandate is to ensure in-situ conservation felt such policies compromised forests sustainability. Government organizations had the most responsibilities while CBO had the most revenues and rights. CBO collaborative management proposals were often neglected by government organizations which compromised the organizations’ relationships. Based on these findings, the 4Rs contributes to the identification of roles imbalance hence a potential indicator in enhancing effectiveness in co-managed ecosystems.
... [19] Aligica linked power to the possession of vital resources, such as finance, networks, or political legitimacy, which give a stakeholder the ability to adopt or reject policies. [20,21] Interest refers to the benefits or drawbacks an approach might bring to stakeholders and therefore their willingness to support the plan. [19] The position reflects their level of support to the policy, either supportive, nonmobilized, or opposing. ...
... Those sectors are the government, private, NGOs, and international donors. [21] Second, centralization as the MOHFW is the main governing and regulatory body for health services. [21] Third, lack of adequate financing for NCDs is the another challenge. ...
... [21] Second, centralization as the MOHFW is the main governing and regulatory body for health services. [21] Third, lack of adequate financing for NCDs is the another challenge. Only 2% of health expenditure was allocated for NCDs in the last Health Population and Nutrition Sector Development Program (HPNSDP), while out-of-pocket spending is considered the primary NCD financing source with around 60%. [13] Bangladesh has developed policies and undertook variant initiatives to tackle NCDs over time, as illustrated in Figure 2. [9,22,23] In 2018, the MOHFW adopted the Multisectoral Action Plan (MSAP) for NCD prevention and control. ...
Full-text available
Evidence shows that noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are highly preventable by addressing the common risk factors embedded within and outside the health sector. Bangladesh's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has adopted a multisectoral action plan for NCD control and prevention. This research aims at examining to what extent was the multisectoral engagement achieved. The stakeholder analysis method comprises two steps: (1) identifying the actors and (2) determining their roles, power, and positions to the policy. The study revealed seven main NCD stakeholder categories: policymakers, development partners (DPs), service providers, industry, research and academia, the media, and civil societies. The government, DPs, and civil societies hold the highest power and supportive position. However, the tobacco and food industries have an opposing position. Furthermore, there was a clear gap in the participation of nonhealth ministries.
... Stakeholder analysis is referred to a range of tools for the identification, description, and assessment of stakeholders based on their roles, power or influence, stakes or interest and relationship to each other, as well as to a system (Brugha, R. Varvasovszky, 2000;Bryson, 2004;Mayers, 2005;Reed et al., 2009). Mayers, (2005 stated that stakeholder analysis is an organized approach that assesses decision-making situations where resources might be limited, a variety of stakeholders have competing interests, and stakeholders' demands should be balanced and addressed. ...
... Stakeholder analysis is referred to a range of tools for the identification, description, and assessment of stakeholders based on their roles, power or influence, stakes or interest and relationship to each other, as well as to a system (Brugha, R. Varvasovszky, 2000;Bryson, 2004;Mayers, 2005;Reed et al., 2009). Mayers, (2005 stated that stakeholder analysis is an organized approach that assesses decision-making situations where resources might be limited, a variety of stakeholders have competing interests, and stakeholders' demands should be balanced and addressed. ...
Technical Report
Executive summary The development and operation of the built environment could play a key role in the mitigation efforts. However, the transition towards more sustainable settlements requires massive use of materials and energy in new energy efficient buildings, and supporting infrastructures. Traditionally the embodied emissions from materials have not been considered of high importance, but since the construction of energy efficient buildings and modern infrastructure causes more GHG emissions than conventional ones, the embodied emissions are becoming more crucial. However, evaluating the environmental burden of construction materials has proved problematic and despite the significant research around the world, the reliability of estimates is still highly questionable. Also, there is growing consensus among organizations committed to environmental performance targets that appropriate strategies and actions are needed to make construction activities more sustainable. The pace of actions towards sustainable application depends on decisions taken by a number of stakeholders in the construction process: owners, managers, designers, firms, etc. Careful selection of sustainable building materials has been identified as the easiest way for designers to begin incorporating sustainable principles in building projects. Yet, the selection of building materials is considered as a multi-criteria decision problem. Ideally, sustainability assessment would integrate social, technical, environmental and economic considerations at every stage in decision-making. The three objectives of the EmBED project were to: 1. improve the current assessment practices in the construction sector 2. provide reliable estimates for the embodied environmental impacts caused by the development of the built environment in Iceland 3. develop an assessment framework for construction materials based on Multi-criteria decision analysis approach We employ life cycle assessment (LCA), the most widely accepted and used assessment method in the construction sector for an integrated assessment of environmental impacts from cradle to grave (Heinonen et al., 2016; Suh et al., 2004a) for five case studies. LCA is a method to assess various aspects associated with development of a product and its potential impact throughout a product's life from raw material acquisition, processing, manufacturing, use and its disposal. Besides, based on Multi-criteria decision analysis approach, an assessment framework with multiple criteria for the selection of sustainable material for construction projects in Iceland has been developed. The purpose of case study 1 was to measure the environmental impacts from construction materials used in the Vaettaskóli-Engi school building, focusing on the influence of the source of materials (locally produced vs. imported). The system boundary covers four pre-use phase modules of A1-A4 as designated in the standard EN 15804. Total impacts per square meter of gross floor area from the materials employed in the building were estimated to be 255 kgCO2 eq/sqm, 1.36E-06 kg CFC 11 eq/sqm, 3.23E-05 CTUh/sqm, 0.88 Mole of H+ eq/sqm and 2.28 Mole of N eq/sqm. In addition, as expected, it was concluded that producing the cement in Iceland caused less environmental impacts in all five impact categories compared to the case in which the cement is imported from Germany. If the concrete was imported, total environmental impacts of the school would rise by 5.7% and 2.5% in terms of GWP and HT, while there would be no significant differences in terms of ODP impact. Also, a considerable rise (more than 50%) in terms of overall AP and EP would be expected. The additional impacts are all due to the transportation of cement to Iceland for concrete production. The study of two actual buildings (cases 2-3) has demonstrated how the estimates from the two most widely utilized LCA tools are incompatible for all studied impact categories other than Climate Change. The main conclusion is that without further development of the assessment methods and the databases, the results should not be utilized to support decision-making, except for Climate Change results. Similarly, it is not encouraged to use endpoint indicators or single-score indicators at all if the different impacts cannot be localized/contextualized according to the actual production and delivery chains of different components. Even then, it should be carefully tested if the outcome is similar for different buildings and when the processes are adjusted to the actual production places and technologies, transport distances, etc. Humanitarian refugee shelters (like case study 4), are environmental burdens because of their energy requirements and GHG emissions. Over the last decade, studies on LCA for post-disaster housing have grown rapidly. This trend is expected to continue in the near future because of the mounting demand for temporary housing. This study has shown a proof of concept example for a low-impact refugee house prototype using straw, reeds, clay, lime, and wood as the principal raw construction materials. Using natural materials, especially plant-based fibres, as the main construction materials, proved to achieve a minus carbon outcome over the life cycle of the building. The GWP of the shelter house without and with sequestration was found to be 254.7 kg CO2 eq/m 2 and-226.2 kg CO2 eq/m 2 , respectively. With the use of plant-based fibres in the construction of the building, passive and eco-cycle systems for the building's operation resulted in a negative GWP impact. Based on the results of the uncertainty importance analysis, the overall GWP impact without and with sequestration potential varied the most due to the variability of the GWP impact of wood fibre insulation. There is great potential in working with such eco-and low-impact design and construction methods for both temporary and permanent housing solutions to achieve a minus carbon footprint. The fifth study was set to assess a rough estimate for the GHG emissions from built environment development in Iceland. Typically building and infrastructure system assessments are done over the lifetime of the assessment object and to one object at a time, which gives little information about the overall annual GHG load from all building and infrastructure construction activities. This study thus provides one case example, which can in the future be used as a benchmark and complemented with other studies. It was found that the GHGs from built environment development should be taken into account when designing GHG mitigation strategies in the context of the built environment, such as building energy efficiency regulations and infrastructure development projects to facilitate low-carbon transport. Otherwise, it may happen that the "carbon investment" in the development phase is never paid back or the payback is longer than would be acceptable. After conducting stakeholder analysis, key stakeholders have been identified and classified into four groups. Besides, the decision criteria for the selection of sustainable material for construction have been documented. The questionnaire was designed to capture the preferences of different stakeholders on decision criteria and indicator and the pilot run shows the applicability and effectiveness of the questionnaire for this purpose.
... Stakeholder influence on ES relates to stakeholder power [67,68], that is, the capacity of a stakeholder to exert influence directly on the ES or indirectly on other stakeholders who supply the ES [19,22]. This notion of influence is often captured in the literature as 'power over' or 'relational power' [68][69][70]. Such influences differ in the sources of power, the means, and the strength of influence [19]. ...
Full-text available
Growing global interconnections facilitate inter-regional flows of ecosystem services (ES). Several studies have focused on the opportunities, risks, and governance of telecoupled ES. However, considerable theoretical, methodological, and empirical gaps exist regarding how future demand for ES will shape trajectories of land use change, the bundles of ecosystem services and related livelihoods provided by future landscapes. This paper explores how multi-level stakeholder constellations, interests, and influence on ES change with a shift in the landscape from the current landscape to alternative future scenario landscapes. We integrated three methodological concepts: space-for-time substitution, scenario planning, and multi-level stakeholder interest and influence mapping. We focused on a small-holder farming landscape in southwestern Ethiopia that is characterized by, and sensitive to, rapid social-ecological change. We build on previous research that developed four plausible scenarios of landscape change for the landscape over the coming 20 years: the “Cash crops”, “Coffee investors”, “Biosphere reserve”, and “Food first” scenarios. We treated the current (focal) landscape as the baseline. Based on space-for-time substitution, we selected four existing landscapes nearby as proxies representing the types of changes described in the four scenarios. In both focal and scenario landscapes, we then identified stakeholders and interviewed them about their interest and influence related to ES (n = 122). Stakeholder constellations, interests, and influences on ES differed considerably between the focal and the scenario landscapes. Generally, a shift to the “Cash crops”, “Coffee investors”, and “Food first” scenarios increased the proportion of local, regional and global private organiza- tions that engaged with the landscape. Many of these stakeholders sought to maximize profit through commercializing a few provisioning ES, often relying on regulatory and economic power to influence the landscape. In contrast, a change to the “Biosphere reserve” scenario increased the proportion of non-governmental organizations engaging with the landscape, and drew on stakeholders from multiple governance scales that were interested in diverse provisioning, cultural, regulating, and supporting ES. Our findings suggest that future landscapes imply divergent changes in stakeholder constellations and interests, both from proximate and remote locations. Landscape management should consider such possible changes in multi-level stakeholder constellations, interests, and influence. Our methodological approach enriches existing scenario narratives with empirically grounded social and governance layers that can improve proactive land management decisions.
... osoby, społeczności, instytucje, organizacje), które mogą wpływać na przedsięwzięcie, przedsiębiorstwo, jakieś zjawisko, bądź pozostają pod wpływem jego działania lub są zainteresowane jego wynikiem (zob. Freeman, 1984;Swarbrooke, 1999;Mayers, 2005;Obłój, 2007;Białas, 2009). Oznacza to, że interesariuszami, są zarówno osoby oraz organizacje, które zainteresowane są turystyką i w różny sposób w niej uczestniczą, np. ...
Full-text available
Heterogeniczną pod względem form i rodzajów turystykę uważa się za jeden z największych i najdynamiczniej rozwijających się sekto-rów gospodarczych na świecie, wywołujących jednocześnie implikacje dla większości innych branż, a także wszystkich regionów świata i ich społeczności (Szopa, Szczerbowski, 2013). Wskazywana jest jako pozytywny czynnik przemian ekonomicznych, stymulujący rozwój społeczności lokalnych i zamieszkiwanych przez nie obszarów. Mimo wywoływania szeregu skutków gospodarczych na jedną z jej odmian – turystykę społeczną, rzadko – szczególnie w praktyce – spogląda się z perspektywy ekonomii. Z jednej strony powodowane to bywa nie za-wsze właściwym pojmowaniem turystyki społecznej jako tylko i wy-łącznie opartej na dotacjach i subwencjach sektora publicznego formy wsparcia grup społecznych ( dzieci i młodzieży z rodzin ubogich, osób schorowanych, z niepełnosprawnościami, seniorów), które znajdują się w trudnej sytuacji życiowej i nie są w stanie zorganizować oraz sfinansować własnego wypoczynku 1. Z drugiej zaś strony nie poczytuje się turystyki społecznej za kategorię ekonomiczną, także z powodu wąskiego, klasycznego podejścia do ekonomii skupiającego się na zysku.
... osoby, społeczności, instytucje, organizacje), które mogą wpływać na przedsięwzięcie, przedsiębiorstwo, jakieś zjawisko, bądź pozostają pod wpływem jego działania lub są zainteresowane jego wynikiem (zob . Freeman, 1984;Swarbrooke, 1999;Mayers, 2005;Obłój, 2007;Białas, 2009). Oznacza to, że interesariuszami, są zarówno osoby oraz organizacje, które zainteresowane są turystyką i w różny sposób w niej uczestniczą, np. ...
The rivers and their floodplains are integrated systems. The biodiversity of the Lower Danube River (LDR), in terms of species and habitats, is strongly linked with its hydro-geomorphic-diversity and the natural regions it passes. Human activities, directly and indirectly, are the primary cause which has induced changes in hydrologic regime, longitudinal and lateral connectivity, floodplain geomorphology and function, biodiversity of the river waters and riparian zone. During the twentieth century, particularly after World War II, the LDR has undergone alteration of physical habitat, significant landscape changes, and ecological loss as a result of hydropower damming works and their associated water reservoirs, floodplain embankment, wetlands drainage, chemical pollution, eutrophication, and invasion of exotic species. The extensive embankments and drainage work along LDR in Romania converted about 80% of the annual flooded zone of the floodplain area primarily into agricultural region, obviating its essential connection with the river. Few areas, including reed marshes, meadows, floodplain forests, large shallow lakes, fluvial islands, and the braided section of the river named “the Small Island of Brăila”, have been preserved in natural regime in order to preserve valuable samples of biodiversity, hydro-morpho dynamic processes, and particular fluvial landforms. Most of them are ecotonal areas that have an increased and extremely dynamic biodiversity. This increased turnover of species is exacerbated by anthropogenic factors, which sometimes they can negatively influence certain species of fauna, such as sturgeons, modifying their habitats for reproduction, feeding and resting. After the 1990s, due to the change of the political system in Romania and following integrated programs of the Danube Riparian States, some areas of the engineered floodplain are subject to ecological restoration and integrated management in order to provide convenient ways of reconciliation between nature and human society for a sustainable development. The currently Ramsar and Natura 2000 sites network designed along the LDR provides the national and international legal framework of protection and conservation of wildlife and its habitats. The objectives of this chapter are to present a review of: (1) human interventions from the last century that lead to alteration, degradation, and irreversible losses of habitats along the LDR valley, (2) restoration projects of former floodplain areas, and (3) biodiversity protection and conservation actions carried out over the area in the last decades.
Full-text available
Policies and management plans in the Danube River basin were first developed and applied at its entire scale in the second part of the twentieth century and were exclusively based on the principles of neoclassical economy. These principles were translated in a high number of economic and social objectives, some of which that have been identified as driving forces for the wetlands of the Lower Danube System behind structural and functional changes. The transformations to which the Lower Danube System has been subjected and the absence of multi-connectivity in planning were marked by an insufficiency of support tools at decision-making level. Wetlands play a dual role in terms of planning, acting both as risk-inhibitor and services enabler when inclusive multi-dimensional planning is performed. Given the relevant spatial and temporal scale of the current context, capitalizing on scientific knowledge, experiences and information of local communities in future policymaking is crucial. The productivity and stability of ecosystems depend directly on their ability to ensure energy transfer both intra-, but especially inter-system. The lateral and longitudinal analysis of ecosystems in the Lower Danube System, regarded as both dynamic and nonlinear systems, as well as production units, is based on a conceptual framework aimed at their multi-connectivity. This ensures long-term processes whose variability and diversity are essential for the stability and productivity of these units. The study includes social and economic implications, considering the relationship between the natural heritage resources of the geographical sub-units and the existence of the socio-economic system.
Lakes and wetlands within large river floodplains represent some of the most endangered ecosystems at global scale. In this framework, raising awareness and promoting involvement of stakeholders can substantially contribute to the protection and sustainable capitalization of the lakes along the Lower Danube Floodplain. The present chapter aims to analyse the stakeholders’ interests and participation in the sustainable use of the lakes in the Lower Danube Floodplain, the Drobeta-Turnu Severin-Bechet sector, by using an online survey conducted from August to October 2020. The questionnaire received responses from 47 Romanian stakeholders. The different approaches used during the survey aim at better understanding the degree of knowledge and participation in the sustainable capitalization of the lakes and could help in making future decisions. The analysis of the answers shows the following main aspects: 34% of the respondents consider themselves highly informed about the state and management of lakes in the Danube Floodplain, while the most widespread manner of gaining knowledge is represented by personal theoretical documentation (44.7%); there is a significant agreement on the negative dynamics of the floodplain lakes over the last two decades, with 78.7% of the respondents agreeing or fully agreeing on this issue; 57.4% of the involved stakeholders consider the declining state of the lakes as a consequence of human activities, while 31.9% of them attribute it to a mosaic of natural and anthropogenic triggering factors. The answers given in connection with the issues addressed provide both relevance to the case study and the potential for generalization for floodplains of large rivers. In this sense, assessing stakeholders’ involvement can contribute to the sustainable use of lakes by paying attention to the increasing involvement of public institutions with decision making power in the sustainable use of floodplain lakes.
Natural hazards, including droughts, are processes and phenomena that can trigger a negative impact on the environment, society and various economic sectors. The present chapter aims to identify spatial peculiarities of drought characteristics (frequency, duration, affected area) and to analyse drought hazard, vulnerability and risk in the Lower Danube region. The study area includes administrative regions from Romania (counties) and Bulgaria (districts) located along the Danube River, which is the common administrative border between the two countries. The northward and southward Danube territories are part of the most important agricultural areas of both countries, where natural landscapes have been significantly transformed by anthropogenic activities which contributed to the removal of the natural vegetation and its replacement with cultivated plants and urban areas. Drought characteristics and associated hazards were analysed using the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI-3, 6, 12) for the period 1981–2019. Population density and land cover/land use data were taken into account in the drought vulnerability assessment. Drought hazard and vulnerability were considered in the drought risk evaluation which allowed the identification of the regional drought “hotspots”. Results show a very high level of drought risk associated to short-term drought (SPEI-3) in the central and eastern parts of the study region. In the case of long-term drought (SPEI-12), a reduction in areas showing a very high drought risk level is observed. The administrative regions located in the western part of the study area have very low and low levels of drought risk.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.