When undertaking stakeholder engagement, companies and practitioners may face a range of internal and external circumstances that need to be overcome or addressed to facilitate meaningful engagement.
The specific circumstances encountered will vary dependent upon the nature and context of the project or operation, the company involved, or the geo-political or socio-cultural context.
While these circumstances may sometimes serve as opportunities, they are often ‘challenges’ or ‘barriers’ as they impact the ability of a company (or practitioner) to undertake stakeholder engagement in a way that addresses the core principles required for to be considered meaningful.
Case study 1, case study 3, case study 4, case study 6, case study 7 and case study 8 deal directly with overcoming challenges or barriers to meaningful engagement.
This will often lead to reluctance to engage external stakeholders or restrict opportunities to engage. There is also the potential for the over/under emphasising of project/ activity issues with stakeholders, particularly if only short-term plans can be shared with stakeholders.
Project/activity limitations associated with internal resourcing for conducting stakeholder engagement relevant to the nature of the project/ activity, country circumstances, and time constraints imposed by the resource or stage in the development process. Limitations on resources may also impact the scope/scale of what can be conducted or the frequency of the engagement.
Limited connections with local communities and/or key representatives can prevent engagement from providing meaningful outcomes that are representative of the community; or are not received in a manner that is intended.
Changes in the regulatory environment within varying contexts and locations around stakeholder engagement. In addition, the incorporation of community self-determination within projects/activities is a new frontier for some companies.
Projects/activities are carried out in locations that may be appropriate for a particular resource but are difficult for practitioners to engage with communities (e.g. topological constraints, remoteness). Conducting projects/activities in locations that are unstable or volatile makes conducting meaningful engagement in these regions, whilst safeguarding practitioners, difficult.
Project/activities are carried out in locations or communities that have customs, behaviours, beliefs, or norms that can limit the potential or capacity for engagement with stakeholders – particularly disadvantaged or vulnerable groups.