Hubbry Logo
Stakeholder managementStakeholder managementMain
Open search
Stakeholder management
Community hub
Stakeholder management
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Stakeholder management
Stakeholder management
Stakeholder management
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Stakeholder management (also project stakeholder management) is the managing of stakeholders of a project, programme, or activity. A stakeholder is any individual, group or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a programme.[1]

The process

[edit]

Project stakeholder management is considered as a continuous process,[2] specifically a four-step process of identifying stakeholders, determining their influence, developing a communication management plan and influencing stakeholders through engagement.[3] Within the field of marketing, it is believed that customers are one of the most important stakeholders for managing a business's long-term value, with a firm's major objective being the management of customer satisfaction.[4]

History

[edit]

The origin of stakeholder engagement can be traced back to the 1930s.[5] In 1963, the Stanford Research Institute first defined the concept of stakeholder.[5] In 1984, Edward Freeman’s book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach was published. It brought to existence a complete body of knowledge surrounding the ethical management of stakeholders.[6] Soon thereafter, computers were used to facilitate the organizations' engagement with communities and stakeholder analysis. Seven "principles of stakeholder management" are linked with the work of the Clarkson Centre for Business Ethics at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, developed at four conferences held between 1993 and 1998.[7]

The concept of stakeholder management has also been criticised, for example by John Argenti in 1996, who described the concept as "utterly discredited".[8] The Strategic Planning Society's magazine, Strategy, subsequently hosted a debate on Argenti's views.[9] Pete Thomas argues that the established discourse regarding stakeholder management, although it is presented as supportive of stakeholders' interests, is "at best ambiguous, and at worst dishonest and manipulative".[9]

Berman, Wicks, Kotha and Jones distinguish between two primary models of stakeholder management in business, an "instrumental" approach, according to which business managers engage with their stakeholders in order to maximise long term financial outcomes, and a "normative" approach, which identifies a stakeholder commitment as a moral obligation adopted by businesses,[10] also referred to as an "intrinsic stakeholder commitment".[11] Donaldson and Preston's academic work [12] developed the normative approach, but while Berman et al. find empirical support for the financial benefits of effective stakeholder management, they have not identified any empirical basis for the normative model.[10]

Organizational stakeholders

[edit]

It is well acknowledged that any given organization will have multiple stakeholders including, but not limited to, customers, shareholders, employees, suppliers, and so forth. One of the Clarkson Centre's seven principles notes that managers "should acknowledge the potential conflicts between their own role as a corporate stakeholders, and the legal and moral responsibilities they hold to act for the interests of all stakeholders".[7]

Stakeholder prioritization

[edit]

Stakeholders may be mapped out on a power-interest map or grid, and classified by their power and interest. Other stakeholder mapping tools are available. For example, an employer is likely to have high power and influence over an employee's projects and high interest, whereas family members may have high interest, but are unlikely to have power over them.

Position on the grid may show actions:

  • High power, interested people: these are the people you must fully engage and make the greatest efforts to satisfy.
  • High power, less interested people: put enough work in with these people to keep them satisfied, but not so much that they become bored with your message.
  • Low power, interested people: keep these people adequately informed, and talk to them to ensure that no major issues are arising. These people can often be very helpful with the detail of your project.
  • Low power, less interested people: again, monitor these people, but do not bore them with excessive communication.

Stakeholder engagement

[edit]
Main article: Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder management creates positive relationships with stakeholders through the appropriate management of their expectations and agreed objectives. Stakeholder management is a process and control that must be planned and guided by underlying principles. Stakeholder management within businesses, organizations, or projects prepares a strategy using information (or intelligence) gathered during the following common processes. Stakeholder engagement emphasizes that corporations should take into account the effects of their actions and decision-making on their diverse stakeholders. In addition, in the stakeholder engagement, corporations should take into consideration the rights and expectations of their different supporters.[13]

Some organizations use stakeholder engagement software to analyze their stakeholders, to create communication and engagement plans, to log information about the interactions they have with communities and to ensure compliance with regulations.[example needed]

Aims of stakeholder engagement include:[14]

  • Communicate: to ensure intended message is understood and the desired response achieved.
  • Consult, early and often, to obtain useful information and ideas, ask questions.
  • Remember, they are human: be empathetic, operate with an awareness of human feelings.
  • Plan it: time investment, and careful planning for how time is used, have a significant payoff.
  • Relationship: engender trust with the stakeholders.
  • Simple but not easy: show you care, and listen to the stakeholders.
  • Managing risk: stakeholders can be treated as risks and opportunities that have probabilities and impact.
  • Compromise across a set of stakeholders' diverging priorities.
  • Understand what is success: explore the value of the project to the stakeholder.
  • Take responsibility: project governance is the key to project success

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Stakeholder management

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Stakeholder management is the systematic process of identifying, analyzing, prioritizing, and engaging individuals or groups—known as stakeholders—who can affect or be affected by an organization's activities, decisions, or objectives, with the goal of aligning their interests to support successful outcomes. This approach recognizes stakeholders as encompassing a broad range, including employees, customers, suppliers, investors, communities, regulators, and competitors, all of whom influence or are influenced by organizational performance. Originating from early in the at the Stanford Research Institute, the concept was formalized in R. Edward Freeman's seminal 1984 work, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, which shifted focus from solely to broader relational dynamics in business strategy. In practice, stakeholder management involves several core processes, particularly prominent in project management and corporate governance. These include stakeholder identification to map out relevant parties; analysis using tools like power-interest grids to assess influence and expectations; engagement strategies tailored to stakeholder needs, such as communication plans or collaboration initiatives; and ongoing monitoring to adapt to changing dynamics. Effective implementation maximizes support, mitigates risks, and enhances value delivery, as poor management can lead to conflicts, delays, or failure—evident in complex projects where diverse interests amplify political and environmental challenges. Over time, the field has evolved to incorporate ethical, sustainability, and network-based perspectives, with recent scholarly emphasis on longitudinal collaboration networks to improve organizational performance metrics like productivity and innovation. As of 2025, the field increasingly incorporates AI-driven tools for analysis and addresses challenges in ESG and DEI within stakeholder capitalism frameworks. The importance of stakeholder management extends across sectors, from corporate strategy to , underscoring its role in fostering resilience and . By prioritizing transparent communication and mutual benefit, organizations not only comply with regulatory demands but also build long-term trust and .

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Stakeholder management refers to the systematic of identifying, analyzing, , and implementing actions to engage with individuals, groups, or organizations that can affect or be affected by an organization's or 's objectives. This approach ensures that stakeholder interests are considered to facilitate the achievement of desired outcomes, such as or strategic goals. The scope of stakeholder management extends across various domains, including as outlined in the (PMBOK) Guide, where it forms a dedicated knowledge area. It also applies to , where it supports balanced decision-making by integrating diverse stakeholder perspectives into oversight structures. In public policy, it aids in navigating complex interactions with affected parties to inform and policy development. Unlike general relationship management, which focuses broadly on ongoing interactions without targeted influence, stakeholder management is strategically oriented toward aligning stakeholder actions with specific organizational or project aims. At a high level, stakeholder management encompasses four primary phases: identification of relevant parties, analysis of their influence and interests, engagement through tailored strategies, and ongoing monitoring to adapt to changes. The term "stakeholder" emerged in the from work at the Stanford Research Institute (now ), where it was defined as groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist. This concept was further developed in R. Edward Freeman's seminal 1984 book, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, which formalized stakeholder considerations as integral to strategic decision-making.

Importance and Benefits

Stakeholder management is essential for enhancing organizational by aligning diverse interests and expectations, which fosters more informed strategic choices and reduces internal conflicts. According to the Institute's (PMI) Pulse of the Profession 2025 report, 77% of professionals report that effective stakeholder management facilitates strategic during project execution, while 71% note it aids in managing expectations and resolving conflicts. This alignment increases stakeholder buy-in, leading to higher commitment levels; for instance, only 25% of stakeholders fully commit to initiatives without early , compared to significantly higher rates when actively involved. Effective stakeholder management mitigates risks by preventing opposition that can cause project delays or failures, particularly in complex supply chains. A notable example is the program, where inadequate coordination with global suppliers—key stakeholders—resulted in repeated delays due to delivery shortfalls and coordination failures, ultimately pushing the project timeline by over three years and incurring billions in cost overruns. PMI research further quantifies this benefit, showing that projects with strong measurement systems—which facilitate stakeholder alignment and other success factors—achieve a Net Project Success Score (NPSS) of 43, compared to just 6 for projects lacking such systems. Beyond immediate project outcomes, stakeholder management contributes to broader organizational impacts, including improved reputation and through better integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. By engaging stakeholders in ESG initiatives, companies can address material risks and opportunities, leading to enhanced trust and long-term value creation; McKinsey analysis identifies stakeholder-inclusive ESG strategies as a key driver of value in areas like and . supports this, with a 2022 Wharton study finding that firms exhibiting strong stakeholder orientation—through transparent —generate higher financial returns, outperforming peers with 4% higher return on invested capital (ROIC) over a three-year period. Additionally, such practices correlate with improved metrics, a top predictor of project success per PMI, indirectly boosting indicators like Net Promoter Scores (NPS) by ensuring perceived value delivery.

Historical Development

Origins in Management Theory

The conceptual foundations of stakeholder management can be traced to pre-1960s developments in and , which portrayed firms as open systems embedded in dynamic environments. Ludwig von Bertalanffy's general , formulated in the 1940s and elaborated in the 1950s, emphasized that organizations are not isolated entities but interdependent with external elements, including social and economic surroundings, influencing their inputs, processes, and outputs. This perspective, building on earlier work by thinkers like Russell Ackoff and C. West Churchman in , shifted management thinking from closed, mechanistic models to holistic views of organizational-environmental interactions, laying groundwork for recognizing multiple influences beyond internal operations. A pivotal moment occurred in with an internal memorandum from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), which introduced the term "stakeholder" to denote groups—such as employees, customers, suppliers, and communities—whose support is essential for an organization's survival and success, extending beyond traditional shareholders. This SRI framework emerged from practical efforts, particularly in and defense consulting, where understanding diverse group interests was critical for long-term viability. Early academic contributions further solidified these ideas, notably H. Igor Ansoff's 1965 book Corporate Strategy, which integrated environmental scanning into and explicitly referenced stakeholders as key actors whose claims must be balanced to navigate external turbulence and achieve growth objectives. Ansoff's approach treated stakeholders as constraints and opportunities in , advocating systematic analysis of their roles in firm strategy. This emerging stakeholder orientation gained urgency as a of , exemplified by Milton Friedman's 1970 doctrine asserting that business's sole is to maximize profits for shareholders within legal bounds. Friedman's view, rooted in , prompted counterarguments for broader accountability to multiple constituencies, highlighting risks of ignoring environmental and social interdependencies in pursuit of narrow financial goals.

Evolution and Key Milestones

The evolution of stakeholder management transitioned from theoretical foundations in the mid-20th century to a formalized in the 1980s, with R. Edward Freeman's 1984 book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach marking a pivotal milestone by defining stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by organizational objectives and proposing a framework for integrating their interests into strategic decision-making. This work shifted focus from to a broader model, influencing subsequent and management practices. In the 1990s, stakeholder management gained practical integration into project management standards, beginning with the Project Management Institute's (PMI) A Guide to the (PMBOK Guide), first published as a in 1987 and expanded in its 1996 edition. This adoption reflected growing recognition of stakeholders' role in mitigating project risks and enhancing outcomes, paving the way for further standardization. By 2012, the (ISO) released : Guidance on Project Management, which codified stakeholder management processes globally, emphasizing their alignment with organizational goals through defined roles, communication, and engagement strategies. The 2000s saw stakeholder management expand amid and (CSR) movements, notably through the launched in 2000, which encouraged businesses to incorporate stakeholder dialogue into ten principles on , labor, environment, and , fostering voluntary commitments to ethical practices. Complementing this, the (GRI), established in 1997, developed standards from 2000 onward that mandated to disclose impacts on economic, environmental, and social dimensions, with approximately 1,350 organizations reporting using its guidelines by 2009. In the 2020s, stakeholder management has increasingly addressed digital and technological challenges, with the European Union's (GDPR), effective in 2018, reshaping approaches to digital stakeholders by requiring explicit consent, data transparency, and accountability in handling personal information, thereby integrating as a core engagement principle. The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), adopted in 2022 with reporting requirements starting in 2024 for large companies, further mandates stakeholder engagement in double materiality assessments for . Concurrently, AI ethics has emerged as a key focus, applying to ensure inclusive in AI development, such as through multi-stakeholder frameworks that prioritize ethical impacts on users, communities, and regulators. This period also saw PMI's PMBOK Guide Seventh Edition in 2021 emphasize agile principles in stakeholder management, promoting adaptive engagement models to support value delivery in dynamic environments, with the Eighth Edition (digital release November 2025) refining these within updated performance domains.

Identifying Stakeholders

Methods of Identification

Stakeholder identification involves systematic techniques to discover individuals, groups, or organizations that may affect or be affected by a , initiative, or organizational decision. These methods ensure comprehensive coverage by drawing from both qualitative and quantitative approaches, often starting with broad exploratory steps and progressing to structured documentation. According to the (PMI), effective identification begins early in the process to avoid overlooking influential parties, using tools that range from collaborative discussions to data-driven analysis. Brainstorming sessions within internal teams serve as a foundational method for generating an initial list of potential stakeholders. These facilitated group discussions encourage participants to freely suggest relevant parties based on their knowledge of the project's context, often using techniques like mind mapping to capture ideas without immediate judgment. For instance, team members might identify suppliers, regulators, or community groups affected by operational changes. Complementing this, interviews with key informants—such as project sponsors or subject matter experts—provide deeper insights through targeted questioning, helping to uncover less obvious stakeholders like indirect beneficiaries or organizations. A review of highlights brainstorming and interviews as core qualitative techniques, particularly effective in dynamic environments where formal records are limited. Document analysis offers a more archival approach by examining existing records to systematically extract stakeholder information. This includes reviewing organizational charts to identify internal roles, contracts to pinpoint contractual partners, charters outlining scope implications, and regulatory filings such as SEC 10-K reports for publicly traded companies, which disclose material relationships with investors, regulators, and competitors. The process involves scanning these documents for mentions of affected parties, cross-referencing with the initiative's objectives to validate relevance. The (IFC) emphasizes this method for identifying both direct and indirect stakeholders in development s, ensuring alignment with legal and operational realities. Stakeholder mapping templates and registers provide structured frameworks to organize and validate identified parties, often in the form of spreadsheets or databases. These tools typically include columns for name, role, contact details, and preliminary notes on potential influence, with steps involving initial listing from prior methods, categorization (such as internal versus external), and iterative validation through team review or follow-up queries. For example, a basic register might start with 20-30 entries and refine them over sessions to eliminate duplicates. Scholarly work by Bryson outlines these registers as essential for building a comprehensive stakeholder inventory, facilitating subsequent analysis without redundancy. Advanced methods leverage analytical tools for complex or large-scale scenarios. , grounded in social network theory, maps relationships and influence patterns among actors using graph-based models to reveal hidden connections, such as coalitions forming around in projects. By quantifying ties through metrics like , SNA identifies pivotal stakeholders that brainstorming might miss. In contemporary contexts, AI-driven tools automate identification by processing vast datasets, including communication logs and public records, to suggest stakeholders via and predictive algorithms; for instance, platforms like DemandFarm use to scan networks and flag emerging influencers in real-time. These approaches are increasingly adopted in 2025 for their in global or digital initiatives.

Categories of Stakeholders

Stakeholders in management are commonly classified into internal and external groups based on their proximity to the organization's operations. Internal stakeholders are those within the organization, such as employees and managers, who have a direct involvement in its day-to-day activities and decision-making processes. External stakeholders, by contrast, operate outside the organization but are influenced by or can influence its actions, including customers, suppliers, and regulators. This distinction, rooted in as articulated by , helps delineate the scope of relationships an organization must navigate. Another key classification divides stakeholders into primary and secondary categories according to the degree of direct impact on the organization's survival and operations. Primary stakeholders are essential groups whose continued participation is critical for the organization's existence, such as shareholders, employees, customers, and suppliers, as they exchange resources like capital, labor, products, or services. Secondary stakeholders, while not vital to core operations, can still exert influence or be affected indirectly, including communities, media outlets, and agencies. This framework, developed by Max B.E. Clarkson, emphasizes the varying levels of dependency between the organization and these groups. Classifications also vary by organizational context, reflecting the unique stakeholder ecosystems in different sectors. In corporations, key stakeholders often include shareholders and the , who hold ownership interests and roles that directly shape strategic decisions. For projects, typical categories encompass sponsors providing , project teams executing tasks, customers defining requirements, and end-users interacting with outcomes. In non-governmental organizations (NGOs), stakeholders commonly comprise donors funding initiatives, beneficiaries receiving services, board members overseeing , and partner organizations collaborating on missions. Emerging categories have gained prominence with evolving societal and technological landscapes. Digital stakeholders, such as online communities and influencers, represent groups that engage virtually and can amplify or challenge organizational narratives through digital platforms. In sustainability contexts, environmental groups and affected communities emerge as critical stakeholders, advocating for ecological impacts and pushing organizations toward responsible practices.

Analyzing Stakeholders

Stakeholder Analysis Techniques

Stakeholder analysis techniques encompass a variety of methods designed to evaluate the attributes, needs, and potential impacts of identified stakeholders, such as their expectations, influence, and attitudes toward a or . These techniques build on stakeholder identification by providing deeper insights into how stakeholders may affect or be affected by decisions, enabling more informed strategies. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are commonly employed, often in combination, to ensure a comprehensive assessment. Qualitative techniques focus on gathering nuanced, descriptive to understand stakeholders' perspectives. Interviews allow for one-on-one discussions that reveal detailed expectations, concerns, and attitudes, particularly useful for exploring complex motivations among key individuals. Surveys provide broader input by distributing structured questionnaires to multiple stakeholders, capturing variations in opinions across groups like primary or secondary categories. Workshops facilitate collaborative sessions where stakeholders interact to articulate shared or divergent views, fostering richer insights into relational dynamics and potential conflicts. Quantitative approaches introduce measurable elements to stakeholder assessment, enhancing objectivity and comparability. Scoring models assign numerical values or weights to factors such as influence, , or potential impact, allowing analysts to rank stakeholders based on aggregated scores derived from predefined criteria. For instance, influence might be weighted on a scale from 1 to 10, with totals informing the relative significance of each stakeholder's attributes. Tailored applies the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats framework to individual stakeholders or groups, evaluating their internal capabilities and external environmental factors to anticipate supportive or obstructive behaviors. A prominent framework in is the salience model, which assesses stakeholders according to three key attributes: power (the ability to mobilize resources to impose will), legitimacy (the perceived validity of a stakeholder's claims), and urgency (the degree to which claims demand immediate attention). Introduced by Mitchell, Agle, and in , this model provides criteria for determining managerial prioritization by examining how these attributes combine to confer salience on stakeholders' claims. Effective data collection in stakeholder analysis requires best practices to ensure reliability and fairness. Inclusivity involves actively seeking input from diverse stakeholder groups, including underrepresented voices, to capture a full spectrum of perspectives and avoid overlooking critical influences. Bias reduction entails using standardized questions in surveys or interviews, cross-verifying data from multiple sources, and involving neutral facilitators in workshops to minimize subjective influences and promote balanced assessments.

Power-Interest Grid and Similar Models

The Power-Interest Grid, also known as Mendelow's Matrix, is a foundational 2x2 matrix tool in that categorizes stakeholders based on their level of power (or influence) to affect project or organizational outcomes and their level of interest in the matter. Introduced by Aubrey L. Mendelow in 1991, this model enables managers to visualize stakeholder positions and derive targeted engagement strategies to optimize and mitigate risks. Power is typically assessed by a stakeholder's authority, resources, or ability to impose decisions, while interest reflects their personal or organizational stake in the results. Stakeholders are plotted on the grid with high/low axes, resulting in four quadrants, each suggesting distinct management approaches:
QuadrantCharacteristicsRecommended Strategy
High Power, High Interest (Key Players)Stakeholders with significant influence and strong motivation, such as key investors or senior executives.Manage closely: Actively engage through regular communication and involvement in decision-making to align interests and secure support.
High Power, Low InterestInfluential stakeholders with limited engagement, like regulatory bodies or distant board members.Keep satisfied: Provide sufficient information and updates to maintain contentment without demanding excessive involvement.
Low Power, High InterestMotivated but less influential stakeholders, such as project team members or end-users.Keep informed: Share relevant updates to foster goodwill and prevent escalation of concerns.
Low Power, Low InterestMarginal stakeholders with minimal impact or concern, like general public or peripheral suppliers.Minimal effort: Monitor passively to avoid unnecessary resource drain.
The Influence-Impact Matrix serves as a project-specific variation of the Power-Interest Grid, shifting focus from general interest to the degree of impact the initiative has on the stakeholder, alongside their influence over it. This adaptation, commonly used in contexts, evaluates influence through factors like positional , network strength, and expertise, while impact considers how the affects the stakeholder's operations, goals, or . It helps prioritize engagement for those highly impacted yet influential, differing from the Power-Interest Grid by emphasizing reciprocal effects rather than unilateral interest. Another visual model is the Stakeholder Circle, a radial that represents stakeholders in concentric circles around the central or , emphasizing relative influence, proximity, and attitudes. Developed by Lynda Bourne in 2005 and refined through empirical studies, it sizes stakeholder "wedges" by their power/impact score (derived from assessments of influence, urgency, and legitimacy), positions them by attitude (supportive to antagonistic), and uses color-coding for categories like internal or external. This tool facilitates dynamic prioritization by integrating multiple dimensions beyond simple axes, aiding in relationship-focused strategies. To apply these models effectively, managers first identify stakeholders through techniques like brainstorming or surveys, then assess and plot their attributes on the chosen grid or using qualitative scales or scoring systems. The visualization is updated dynamically as conditions change—such as shifting power dynamics during project phases—to reflect evolving stakeholder positions. Interpretation involves translating the plot into actionable , ensuring alignment with overall objectives while monitoring for quadrant migrations that may require adjusted .

Prioritizing Stakeholders

Prioritization Frameworks

Prioritization frameworks in stakeholder management provide structured methods to rank stakeholders following initial analysis, enabling efficient allocation of resources, time, and effort to those with the greatest potential influence on organizational or outcomes. These frameworks build on stakeholder attributes identified in models such as the power-interest grid, transforming qualitative assessments into actionable rankings without delving into risk-specific integrations. By applying such approaches, managers can focus on high-priority individuals or groups, enhancing and success rates. The time-normative approach emphasizes prioritizing stakeholders based on urgency—the degree to which their claims demand immediate attention—and alignment with or organizational phases, ensuring timely responses to time-sensitive needs. Urgency is one of three core attributes (alongside power and legitimacy) in the stakeholder salience model that determine managerial , where stakeholders exhibiting high urgency receive elevated attention to prevent escalation of issues. For instance, in contexts, early phases prioritize financial sponsors to secure commitment and , as their support is critical for and reduces early-stage uncertainties, while later phases shift focus to operational stakeholders for . This phased adaptation ensures resources are dynamically allocated, with normative considerations maintaining ethical balance in addressing urgent claims across timelines. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) offers a weighted scoring system for stakeholder prioritization, evaluating multiple attributes such as influence, , and impact through structured comparisons to generate overall rankings. In MCDA applications to stakeholder management, criteria are assigned weights based on organizational goals, and stakeholders are scored against them, often using methods like the (AHP) for pairwise comparisons to establish priorities without complex computations. AHP involves decomposing the into hierarchies, deriving relative priorities from expert judgments, and checking consistency to ensure robust outcomes, as demonstrated in projects where it ranked stakeholders for . This framework excels in handling interdependent criteria, providing a transparent, quantifiable basis for decisions in resource-constrained environments. The , also known as the 80/20 rule, can be adapted to stakeholder management by directing focus toward the small number of stakeholders who exert the majority of the impact on or organizational objectives, thereby optimizing engagement efforts. In practice, this involves categorizing stakeholders by their contribution to key outcomes, such as influence on decisions or potential for value creation, and concentrating resources on the vital few while monitoring the trivial many. For example, Pareto charts can visualize distributions of influence or risks in , highlighting dominant groups responsible for major effects without exhaustive analysis of all parties. This method promotes efficiency by avoiding over-investment in low-impact stakeholders, aligning with broader principles of selective . Custom frameworks for stakeholder prioritization often integrate analysis results with existing project tools like risk registers, tailoring rankings to specific contexts such as or IT initiatives. These approaches combine attributes from standard models with organizational data, such as historical engagement logs, to create dynamic priority lists that inform resource . In settings, integration with risk registers allows stakeholders linked to high-potential issues to be elevated in priority sequences, ensuring alignment between stakeholder needs and overall risk mitigation strategies without separate risk-focused processes. Such customization enhances adaptability, as seen in frameworks that update priorities iteratively based on evolving data.

Risk-Based Prioritization

Risk-based prioritization in stakeholder management involves integrating processes to evaluate the potential threats and opportunities that stakeholders may pose to a or . This approach treats stakeholders as sources of , similar to traditional elements, by identifying how their actions could hinder objectives—such as opposition from regulators delaying approvals—or support them, like from industry allies amplifying positive outcomes. By systematically assessing these dynamics early, organizations can allocate resources more effectively to high-stakes stakeholders, reducing overall vulnerability. A key tool in this process is the probability-impact matrix adapted for stakeholders, which combines the likelihood of a stakeholder exerting influence with the severity of potential outcomes to rank priorities. Stakeholders are plotted on a grid where the x-axis represents probability (e.g., low to high likelihood of engagement or reaction) and the y-axis represents impact (e.g., negligible to catastrophic effects on goals), enabling categorization into zones like low, medium, or high priority for intervention. For instance, a regulator with high probability of and severe impact on compliance would fall in the high-risk quadrant, demanding proactive strategies, while a low-impact internal team might require minimal attention. This matrix builds on general frameworks by incorporating quantitative elements to guide . Scenario planning complements the matrix by simulating stakeholder reactions across plausible future scenarios, such as best-case cooperation or worst-case opposition, to anticipate and prepare responses. This method involves developing narratives of alternative outcomes—e.g., regulatory approval in an optimistic scenario versus litigation in a pessimistic one—and assessing how stakeholders might influence each, thereby refining prioritization based on simulated risks. In practice, it helps organizations test assumptions about stakeholder behavior under , ensuring robust strategies that mitigate threats while capitalizing on opportunities. In , risk-based prioritization often elevates antitrust regulators as high-priority stakeholders due to their potential to block deals through opposition, necessitating early engagement to address competitive concerns. Similarly, in projects involving handling, stakeholders such as data subjects and representatives are considered for their roles in ensuring ethical use in AI deployments. These examples illustrate how the approach focuses efforts on stakeholders whose risks could derail objectives, enhancing project resilience.

Engaging Stakeholders

Engagement Strategies

Engagement strategies in stakeholder management involve proactive methods to build relationships and align interests with project or organizational goals, drawing from prioritized stakeholder analyses such as those using the power-interest grid. These strategies ensure that interactions are purposeful, fostering trust and while mitigating potential opposition. Effective engagement begins with tailoring approaches to stakeholders' influence and involvement levels, progressing to structured participation models, conflict handling, and adaptations for diverse contexts, including and technological advancements. The power-interest grid, a foundational tool in , categorizes stakeholders into four quadrants based on their power (ability to influence outcomes) and (level of concern in the ), guiding specific tactics. For stakeholders in the high-power, high- quadrant (manage closely), strategies emphasize close through regular consultations and joint decision-making to leverage their support and address concerns promptly. In the high-power, low- quadrant (keep satisfied), the focus is on keeping them satisfied by providing targeted updates and ensuring their minimal requirements are met without overwhelming them with details. For the low-power, high- quadrant (keep informed), keeping informed via newsletters or briefings maintains their enthusiasm and prevents escalation of issues. Finally, low-power, low- stakeholders (minimal effort) require minimal monitoring, such as occasional check-ins, to avoid unnecessary resource expenditure. In recent years, strategies have increasingly incorporated and ESG factors, with organizations developing collaborative initiatives to address environmental and social concerns. For example, stakeholders in climate-impacted communities may require specialized consultations to ensure alignment with ESG goals, while transparency helps mitigate risks like greenwashing accusations that undermine trust. Building on these categorizations, engagement levels can be scaled using the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum, which outlines five progressive tiers to match the desired influence of stakeholders in processes. The "inform" level provides clear, accurate information to stakeholders to build understanding, suitable for low-influence scenarios. "Consult" involves obtaining feedback through surveys or meetings, acknowledging input without guaranteeing changes. "Involve" fosters deeper by working directly with stakeholders to ensure their perspectives shape solutions. "Collaborate" partners stakeholders as equals in developing alternatives, ideal for complex issues requiring buy-in. At the "empower" level, stakeholders take the lead in , delegating authority to them for maximum ownership. This spectrum, developed in the and widely adopted in public and private sectors, promotes transparency and by aligning depth with project objectives. In the context of large transformation projects, best practices from consulting firms such as PwC, BCG, and Deloitte emphasize early and structured stakeholder engagement to secure buy-in, mitigate resistance, and drive success. This includes identifying and mapping stakeholders early to create stakeholder maps, communication plans, and governance structures. Engagement further involves understanding stakeholder needs, building trust through transparent communication, promoting cross-functional collaboration, and integrating technologies for adaptive unification of efforts. Tailored strategies create value for diverse stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, and communities, while ongoing relationships are fostered via regular updates, feedback loops, and adaptive approaches to maintain alignment. These practices integrate with broader change management to ensure large-scale programs deliver intended outcomes. Technological advancements, particularly (AI) as of 2025, have enhanced these strategies by enabling personalized engagement, such as AI-driven analytics for and automated tailored communications. However, ethical guardrails are essential to address biases and ensure inclusivity, preventing exacerbation of digital divides. When conflicts arise among stakeholders, resolution tactics such as and are essential to preserve relationships and progress. Negotiation techniques encourage parties to identify shared interests, using principled —separating from problems, focusing on interests over positions, generating options for mutual gain, and using objective criteria—to reach agreements efficiently. For instance, when high-influence stakeholders demand deliverables exceeding feasible timelines or resources, effective negotiation involves presenting empirical data on scope impacts and proposing alternatives such as reprioritization or phased delivery to align expectations and secure commitment. introduces a neutral third party to facilitate , helping conflicting stakeholders explore underlying needs and craft voluntary solutions, which is particularly effective in multi-stakeholder environments like project teams. These methods, rooted in established frameworks, reduce escalation risks and enhance long-term by emphasizing and . Cultural considerations are critical in global or diverse stakeholder contexts, requiring adaptations to communication norms, values, and participation styles to avoid misunderstandings. For instance, high-context cultures (e.g., in or the ) may prioritize indirect communication and relationship-building over direct confrontation, necessitating patient, rapport-focused strategies. In diverse groups, incorporating inclusive practices like multilingual materials and culturally sensitive agendas ensures equitable involvement. Post-2020, the shift to virtual has amplified these needs, with tools like video platforms enabling cross-time-zone interactions but demanding attention to digital divides and non-verbal cue losses in remote settings. Such adaptations, informed by cross-cultural management research, enhance effectiveness in multinational projects by respecting local customs and fostering inclusivity.

Communication and Relationship Building

Effective communication plans are essential for stakeholder management, outlining the channels, frequency, and tailored messaging to ensure stakeholders receive relevant information. Channels may include emails for routine updates, in-person or virtual meetings for detailed discussions, and for broader outreach, selected based on stakeholder preferences and demands. Frequency should align with phases, such as weekly emails during high-activity periods or quarterly reports for ongoing monitoring, to maintain without overwhelming recipients. Messaging must be customized to address specific stakeholder needs, using clear , visuals, and two-way to foster understanding and rapport. As of 2025, AI tools are increasingly used to personalize messaging and analyze feedback in real-time, improving while requiring safeguards for data privacy and bias mitigation. Relationship-building techniques emphasize creating trust through interactive methods like feedback loops, where stakeholders provide input via surveys or forums that informs , and co-creation workshops that involve them in developing solutions. Trust-building exercises, such as team-building sessions or consistent personal interactions, help establish credibility and long-term partnerships by demonstrating reliability and . These approaches encourage active participation, turning passive stakeholders into collaborators and strengthening mutual dependencies. Transparency principles underpin successful interactions by promoting open reporting of progress, risks, and outcomes, which builds legitimacy and reduces mistrust. Organizations should regularly share updates on achievements and challenges, while promptly addressing stakeholder concerns through dedicated response mechanisms to ensure . This openness not only enhances satisfaction but also aligns expectations, supporting sustained . Metrics for evaluating success in communication and relationship building include engagement scores, which track participation rates in interactions like meeting attendance or response to calls for input, and satisfaction surveys that gauge perceptions of transparency and . For instance, Net Promoter Scores from annual surveys can quantify and advocacy levels among stakeholders. These indicators provide actionable insights, allowing refinement of approaches to improve outcomes.

Monitoring and Adapting

Ongoing Monitoring Techniques

Ongoing monitoring of stakeholders involves systematic methods to track attitudes, expectations, and engagement levels throughout a project's lifecycle, ensuring that initial engagement plans remain effective and responsive to evolving dynamics. Regular Audits
Regular audits form a cornerstone of ongoing stakeholder monitoring, encompassing periodic surveys to assess engagement levels, sentiment analysis of communications, and updates to stakeholder registers to reflect changes in influence or interests. These audits, often conducted by independent parties, help verify compliance with engagement protocols and identify gaps in communication or relationship management. For instance, in infrastructure projects, audits during operational phases ensure sustained stakeholder satisfaction through structured reviews of interaction records. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
KPIs provide quantifiable measures to evaluate monitoring effectiveness, such as shifts in stakeholder support levels—tracked via satisfaction ratings from surveys—or issue resolution rates, where timely addressing of concerns correlates with higher performance. In settings, establishing stakeholder-specific KPIs, like participation rates in consultations, enables data-driven adjustments to engagement strategies. Feedback Mechanisms
Feedback mechanisms facilitate continuous input collection through tools like community surveys, complaint management systems, and reporting cycles synchronized with project milestones, allowing for real-time analysis of stakeholder sentiments. Thematic and of this feedback, performed daily or weekly, supports iterative improvements in processes. These mechanisms often involve multi-channel inputs, such as liaison groups, to ensure diverse stakeholder voices inform monitoring efforts. Early Warning Systems
Early warning systems detect emerging issues, such as shifting power dynamics among stakeholders, by integrating feedback loops and analytical tools to proactively high-risk areas. In public-private partnerships, strategic mapping visualizes potential conflicts across dimensions, enabling managers to intervene before escalations occur. Continuous processes embedded in these systems anticipate concerns through regular synthesis from audits and surveys.

Adaptation to Changes

Adaptation to changes in stakeholder management involves revising plans to maintain alignment with goals amid evolving dynamics. Triggers for such adaptations include shifts in direction, of unexpected difficulties, or changes in key personnel, which necessitate immediate updates to stakeholder maps and strategies. Organizational changes, such as mergers or restructurings, can alter stakeholder influence and priorities, requiring prompt reassessment. Crises like the prompted widespread adaptations, including expanded stakeholder participation through virtual platforms and the inclusion of new groups such as community leaders and NGOs to address implementation gaps in national preparedness plans. The of previously unidentified stakeholders, often due to external events, further signals the need for to incorporate their interests effectively. Re-analysis processes ensure that stakeholder management remains responsive by iteratively updating analysis tools and priorities. Stakeholder maps and grids, such as power-interest matrices, should be treated as living documents, revisited regularly or when issues arise to reflect changes in influence, commitment, or phases. This involves reassessing stakeholders' interests, impact, and importance, then adjusting engagement plans—such as increasing communication for high-influence supporters or mitigating opposition from key opponents—based on the updated . Insights from ongoing monitoring techniques serve as critical inputs for these re-analyses, enabling data-driven adjustments without disrupting momentum. In dynamic environments, agile approaches facilitate adaptation through structured, iterative stakeholder reviews aligned with project sprints. Per PMI agile practices, sprints enable incremental value delivery and continuous stakeholder feedback, allowing teams to tailor engagement based on real-time responses and environmental shifts. This method supports frequent prioritization updates, ensuring stakeholder needs are addressed amid volatility, such as in or rapid-response initiatives. Closure strategies in stakeholder management focus on finalizing engagements and capturing insights to inform future efforts. At project end, obtain formal approvals from sponsors and customers to confirm deliverables and prevent post-closure disputes, while transitioning responsibilities with training and for operational stakeholders. Conduct phase-gate reviews to validate completion and align with strategic objectives, followed by documenting on stakeholder interactions—what supported success and what required adaptation—to build organizational knowledge.

Tools and Applications

Software and Methodologies

Stakeholder management software facilitates the identification, , , and monitoring of stakeholders by providing digital platforms for mapping, tracking interactions, and generating insights. Tools such as the Stakeholder Circle software enable users to visualize stakeholder influence through visual mapping and prioritization based on power, , and attitude, supporting the of targeted strategies. Borealis offers a comprehensive platform for centralizing stakeholder data, tracking engagements via integration and feedback forms, and producing compliance reports, particularly suited for and sectors. Popular project management tools like and incorporate stakeholder management features, including RACI matrices and engagement templates. Established methodologies provide structured approaches to stakeholder management within project frameworks. The (PMBOK) Guide, in its seventh edition (2021), addresses stakeholder management through the Stakeholder Performance Domain. This domain encompasses identifying stakeholders and analyzing their needs and expectations; assessing engagement levels and developing strategies to build relationships; managing interactions through communication and addressing concerns; and monitoring stakeholder attitudes and project impacts to adapt approaches as needed. extends stakeholder management through its organization theme, emphasizing a communication management approach that defines stakeholder roles, engagement levels, and tailored messaging to align interests with project objectives. Hybrid approaches combine traditional methodologies like PMBOK or with agile practices, such as Scrum's stakeholder roles in sprint reviews and refinement, to address complex projects requiring both structured governance and iterative feedback. When selecting software or methodologies, key criteria include scalability to handle varying project sizes, seamless integration with CRM or systems for , and robust features like encryption and compliance with standards such as GDPR to protect sensitive stakeholder information.

Real-World Applications and Case Studies

The construction of the , initiated in 1959 and completed in 1973, exemplifies the consequences of inadequate in large-scale projects. Originally budgeted at AU$7 million, the final cost escalated to AU$102 million—over 14 times the initial estimate—due to design changes, unforeseen geotechnical challenges, and conflicts among key stakeholders, including architect and government officials. Poor communication and alignment led to Utzon's resignation in 1966 amid disputes with the government over redesigns and funding, exacerbating delays and . This case underscores the critical role of sponsor involvement; political pressure from Premier to commence construction before final designs were complete prioritized urgency over collaboration, resulting in 10 years of overruns. Key lessons include the necessity of early and continuous stakeholder consultation to mitigate risks, as well as establishing clear structures to maintain alignment among sponsors, designers, and regulators. Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan (USLP), launched in 2010 and concluded in 2020, demonstrates effective in driving through partnerships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The plan targeted improvements in health, nutrition, and environmental impact across Unilever's , engaging NGOs such as the to certify sustainable sourcing of agricultural raw materials. By 2020, 67% of Unilever's agricultural raw materials were sustainably sourced, including 99.6% of and 100% of soy oil, achieved through collaborative reforms that integrated NGO expertise in and ethical practices. Additional partnerships, like those with for sanitation initiatives and for healthcare access, reached 1.3 billion people and supported smallholder farmers in adopting sustainable farming methods. These efforts not only reformed s by linking over 500,000 small-scale farmers but also enhanced brand trust and operational efficiency, illustrating how proactive NGO engagement can align business goals with societal expectations. Stakeholder management played a pivotal role in the global COVID-19 vaccine rollouts from 2020 to 2022, where governments, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators balanced with rapid distribution needs. In efforts like the initiative, pharma stakeholders such as and collaborated with regulators (e.g., WHO and national agencies) to expedite approvals and ensure equitable allocation, while addressing public hesitancy through transparent communication campaigns. For instance, in regions like Central and , national regulatory bodies extended vaccine shelf lives in coordination with manufacturers, reducing wastage and adapting to fluctuating demand by redistributing doses based on real-time public uptake data. Public engagement strategies, including community consultations and data sharing on efficacy, helped counter , achieving coverage rates up to 52% in countries like by mid-2022. This multi-stakeholder approach, involving over 190 countries via WHO coordination, facilitated the delivery of more than 13 billion doses worldwide, highlighting the value of ongoing dialogue to navigate regulatory hurdles and public concerns. In the tech industry, Tesla's handling of controversies from the 2010s to the reveals the challenges and adaptations in engaging safety advocates and regulators amid rapid innovation. Launched in 2015, faced scrutiny following multiple fatal crashes, including incidents in 2018 and 2019, prompting investigations by the (NHTSA) into over 830,000 vehicles for potential defects in driver monitoring. By 2022, NHTSA upgraded its probe to include engineering analysis after reports of 13 fatalities linked to the system, while the accused Tesla of deceptive advertising regarding its capabilities. Tesla responded by issuing software recalls and emphasizing driver responsibility in communications, adapting to stakeholder pressures through enhanced monitoring features and public disclosures on safety data to rebuild trust with regulators and advocates. These adaptations, including a 2023 NHTSA-mandated recall affecting 2 million vehicles, underscore the importance of proactive engagement with safety groups like the NTSB to refine autonomous technologies and comply with evolving regulatory standards.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations

Common Challenges

Stakeholder management often encounters several operational hurdles that can undermine effective engagement and outcomes. These challenges stem from practical limitations in organizational processes and external dynamics, requiring careful navigation to maintain alignment among diverse groups. Resource constraints represent a primary obstacle, particularly in terms of time and limitations when engaging large or dispersed stakeholder groups. Limited and staffing can restrict the scope of engagement activities, leading to superficial interactions rather than meaningful dialogue, as seen in projects where stretched resources result in competing priorities and stakeholder burnout. In contexts, inadequate has contributed to high-profile failures, such as the FoxMeyer ERP implementation, where insufficient dedication to stakeholder communication exacerbated implementation issues. Conflicting interests among stakeholders frequently arise, complicating efforts to balance competing demands such as versus . In standard formulation, for instance, commercial stakeholders may prioritize while special interest groups advocate for stricter measures, creating tensions that require mechanisms to mediate power imbalances. Managerial in such scenarios often relies on introspective, relational, and attributive logics to prioritize interests, yet the absence of clear guidelines can lead to unresolved disputes and suboptimal outcomes. Resistance to change poses another significant barrier, driven by cultural and organizational that fosters reluctance to adopt new practices. Stakeholders may prefer established routines and predictability, leading to stress, cognitive rigidity, and active opposition when changes familiar processes. In environments, this can manifest as delays in approvals or subtle , as evidenced by employee resistance in automation initiatives that damaged . Such resistance is particularly pronounced in mature organizations where entrenched norms hinder adaptability. Incomplete identification of stakeholders further compounds these issues, often resulting in the oversight of hidden or indirect parties, such as in sustainability initiatives. Traditional analyses tend to focus on immediate actors like policymakers or businesses, neglecting long-term impacts on non-present groups affected by resource decisions, such as in global food systems. This omission can lead to incomplete requirements and system failures, especially in complex contexts where diverse cultural and economic factors amplify divergence in stakeholder perspectives.

Ethical Issues and Solutions

Stakeholder management often encounters ethical dilemmas, particularly in practices that can manipulate perceptions or overlook marginalized groups. One prominent issue is manipulation through greenwashing, where organizations exaggerate environmental efforts to mislead stakeholders, eroding trust and leading to cynicism among investors and the public. Equity in poses another challenge, as processes frequently favor powerful voices, such as large investors or executives, while sidelining less influential stakeholders like local communities or employees, resulting in unbalanced . concerns in use have intensified post-GDPR, with stakeholder information collected for risking misuse or breaches, potentially violating and amplifying fears. To address these issues, foundational frameworks emphasize fair and holistic treatment of stakeholders. R. Edward Freeman's normative theory posits that organizations have a moral obligation to consider the intrinsic value of all stakeholders' interests, beyond mere instrumental benefits to the firm, promoting that prioritizes fairness and mutual respect. Complementing this, the framework integrates ethical considerations by evaluating organizational performance across three dimensions—people (), planet (environmental ), and profit (economic viability)—ensuring stakeholder management balances short-term gains with long-term societal well-being. Practical solutions include conducting ethics audits to systematically review stakeholder practices for compliance with moral standards, identifying risks like bias or deception and recommending improvements. Inclusive policies mitigate equity issues by mandating diverse representation in engagement processes, such as through targeted outreach to underrepresented groups, fostering broader participation and accountability. Transparency codes, like the AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (2015), provide a principles-based framework for high-quality engagement, emphasizing inclusivity, materiality, and responsiveness to build verifiable trust with stakeholders. In 2025, the integration of AI in introduces new ethical challenges, including biases that perpetuate inequities by relying on unrepresentative , potentially skewing toward dominant demographics and exacerbating risks through opaque algorithms. To counter these, ethical AI guidelines advocate for fairness audits, transparent model explanations, and inclusive stakeholder input during AI development, ensuring tools enhance rather than undermine equitable management.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8516199/
  2. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-management-task-project-success-7736
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/stakeholder-theory/FEA0B845888E463076284961856724C9
  4. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mastering-stakeholder-management-2025-strategies-best-singhal-csm--zk70c
  5. https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/the-global-esgt-megatrends-20252026-5-stakeholder-capitalism-metamorphosing
  6. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/managing-stakeholders-achieve-true-implementation-success-7406
  7. https://apm.org.uk/resources/find-a-resource/stakeholder-engagement/
  8. https://analystprep.com/cfa-level-1-exam/corporate-issuers/corporate-governance-and-stakeholder-management/
  9. https://fiscalnote.com/blog/benefits-stakeholder-management-government-affairs
  10. https://www.projectengineer.net/project-stakeholder-management-according-to-the-pmbok/
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228320877_A_Stakeholder_Approach_to_Strategic_Management
  12. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse_of_the_profession_2025-1.pdf
  13. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/engaging-stakeholders-project-success-11199
  14. http://zhao.rutgers.edu/787-paper-12-02-2013.pdf
  15. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/project_success_report_final-v3.pdf
  16. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/five-ways-that-esg-creates-value
  17. https://news.wharton.upenn.edu/press-releases/2022/01/study-finds-that-stakeholder-oriented-companies-yield-higher-returns/
  18. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/329792/1/BASR_BASR70018.pdf
  19. https://oxfordre.com/business/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-318
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html
  21. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-shareholders-vs-stakeholders-debate/
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/strategic-management/E3CC2E2CE01497062D7603B7A8B9337F
  23. https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/history-of-project-management/brief-history-of-project-management.php
  24. https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc
  25. https://www.globalreporting.org/media/b15hggfc/gri-25-years-history.pdf
  26. https://www.tractivity.co.uk/blog/gdpr-compliance-and-stakeholder-engagement
  27. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022L2464
  28. https://partnershiponai.org/ai-needs-inclusive-stakeholder-engagement-now-more-than-ever/
  29. https://www.pmi.org/standards/pmbok
  30. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-management-strategies-applying-risk-management-7479
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3653754/
  32. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/FEBE-05-2021-0023/full/html
  33. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/mgrt/partone-stakeholderidentification.pdf
  34. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/identify-prioritize-stakeholders-11408
  35. https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/course_materials/Bryson%2520PMR%25202004.pdf
  36. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-analysis-pivotal-practice-projects-8905
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08941920802199202
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211464518303245
  39. https://www.demandfarm.com/blog/best-stakeholder-mapping-tools/
  40. https://www.boreal-is.com/blog/ai-stakeholder-engagement-tactics-tools-guardrails/
  41. https://www.accaglobal.com/us/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/strategic-business-leader/technical-articles/all-about-stakeholders-part-1.html
  42. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stakeholder.asp
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/stakeholder-theory
  44. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/participation/encouraging-involvement/identify-stakeholders/main
  45. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/who-are-stakeholders-and-why-do-they-matter/
  46. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-engagement-digitalization-13451
  47. https://nbs.net/identify-prioritize-powerful-environmental-stakeholders/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4022440/
  49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/259247
  50. https://www.toolshero.com/strategy/mendelow-matrix/
  51. https://www.imd.org/blog/governance/stakeholder-analysis/
  52. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-relationships-stakeholder-circle-8092
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243463069_Using_multi-criteria_analysis_to_prioritize_stakeholders
  54. https://www.projectsmart.co.uk/pareto-principle/pareto-analysis-step-by-step.php
  55. https://www.praxisframework.org/en/library/pareto-principle
  56. https://pressbooks.ulib.csuohio.edu/project-management-navigating-the-complexity/chapter/5-2-stakeholder-analysis/
  57. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Using-Probability-%25E2%2580%2593-Impact-Matrix-in-Analysis-and-Dumbrav%25C4%2583-Iacob/dfb3166dc7e812fbcf3135b46377bea551dac08f
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392738261_SCENARIO_PLANNING_AND_WHAT-IF_ANALYSIS_FOR_MANAGING_UNCERTAINTY_IN_COMPLEX_INFRASTRUCTURE_PROJECTS
  59. https://partners.wsj.com/baker-mckenzie/m-and-a-matters/navigating-antitrust/
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266672152200028X
  61. https://www.projectmanager.com/blog/stakeholder-mapping-guide
  62. https://www.romanpichler.com/blog/stakeholder-engagement-analysis-power-interest-grid/
  63. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/power-interest-grid
  64. https://www.bsr.org/en/blog/stakeholder-engagement-in-a-changing-business-landscape
  65. https://aworld.org/blog/engagement/stakeholder-engagement-in-sustainability-a-crucial-step/
  66. https://www.enterpriseengagement.org/articles/content/8635280/2024-state-of-stakeholder-capitalism-set-back-by-greenwashing/
  67. https://www.iap2.org/page/SpectrumEvolution
  68. https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide-selecting-right-level-public-participation
  69. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/spectrum_8.5x11_print.pdf
  70. https://www.pwc.ch/en/insights/large-scale-transformations.html
  71. https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/digital-technology-data/transformation-management-large-scale-change-fast-changing-world
  72. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/services/consulting/articles/successful-transformation-program-management.html
  73. https://www.tractivity.co.uk/blog/ai-stakeholder-engagement
  74. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/managing-stakeholder-expectations-proactively-define-7984
  75. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/understanding-managing-conflict-resolution-strategies-6484
  76. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/mediation/mediation-techniques-for-conflict-resolution-an-apple-a-day-doesnt-keep-the-dispute-away/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2199853123001609
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9549580/
  79. https://www.councilfire.org/guides/cultural-awareness-in-stakeholder-engagement/
  80. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/managing-communications-effectively-efficiently-5916
  81. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-generative-ai-assists-stakeholder-engagement-dana-coffey-pmp-9ay7e
  82. https://www.imd.org/blog/governance/stakeholder-management/
  83. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/success-stakeholder-management-techniques-9301
  84. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR-FAQ-Stakeholder-Engagement.pdf
  85. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908433116
  86. https://statisticsanddata.org/measuring-stakeholder-engagement-key-metrics-and-statistical-approaches/
  87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101173
  88. https://doi.org/10.36676/irt.v9.i5.1479
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885102400023X
  90. https://www.pmi.org/standards/agile
  91. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/importance-of-closing-process-group-9949
  92. https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-SHM-030.php
  93. https://www.boreal-is.com/
  94. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/establish-and-manage-the-project-stakeholders-list-036eff1f-1b89-48a9-898f-d55d3e420bf8
  95. https://asana.com/resources/stakeholder-engagement-plan-template
  96. https://www.prince2.com/eur/blog/effective-stakeholder-management-engaging-and-communicating-with-key-players
  97. https://www.theprojectgroup.com/blog/en/project-management-methodologies-agile-hybrid/
  98. https://www.tractivity.co.uk/blog/best-stakeholder-management-software
  99. https://cpoclub.com/tools/best-stakeholder-management-software/
  100. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/1-011-project-evaluation-spring-2011/91e34cd9b5530dc0817022821ae6381e_MIT1_011S11_proj_ex01.pdf
  101. https://www.tensarinternational.com/resources/articles/test-99456192fa6602fe8ac956c0a34faffc
  102. https://www.unilever.com/files/92ui5egz/production/16cb778e4d31b81509dc5937001559f1f5c863ab.pdf
  103. https://www.bsm.upf.edu/documents/2024-case-study-unilever.pdf
  104. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/covid-19-vaccines-safety-surveillance-manual/training-slides_covid-19_vs_stakeholders.pdf?sfvrsn=744d3709_8
  105. https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/8/e010066
  106. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2026393
  107. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/teslas-autopilot-faces-unprecedented-scrutiny-2022-11-01/
  108. https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf
  109. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812642_naturalistic-study-of-level-2-driving-automation-functions.pdf
  110. https://digitalcommons.harrisburgu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=dandt
  111. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stakeholder-management-keeping-stakeholders-happy-6697
  112. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44951601_Managing_Conflicting_Stakeholder_Interests_An_Exploratory_Case_Analysis_of_the_Formulation_of_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_Standards_in_The_Netherlands
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296324003862
  114. https://www.apm.org.uk/blog/why-do-stakeholders-resist-change/
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7171702/
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358691280_Stakeholder_Identification_Overview_and_Challenges_in_Requirements_Engineering_Prospective
  117. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/greenwashing
  118. https://esg.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-greenwashing-affect-stakeholder-trust/
  119. https://esg.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-ethical-considerations-of-stakeholder-engagement/
  120. https://www.tractivity.co.uk/blog/why-software-can-help-in-protecting-stakeholder-information
  121. http://stakeholdertheory.org/about/
  122. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/stakeholder-theory-guide
  123. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-the-triple-bottom-line
  124. https://uwex.wisconsin.edu/stories-news/triple-bottom-line/
  125. https://movley.com/blog/what-is-the-definition-of-an-ethics-audit-a-comprehensive-breakdown
  126. https://auroratrainingadvantage.com/articles/balancing-stakeholder-interests/
  127. https://accountability.org/standards/aa1000-stakeholder-engagement
  128. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/digital-health/articles/10.3389/fdgth.2025.1614105/full
  129. https://kanerika.com/blogs/ai-ethical-concerns/
  130. https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/building-a-responsible-ai-framework-5-key-principles-for-organizations/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.