Challenges or barriers?

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.

Search
Case studies

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.

LightbulbTip: In this context, ‘community self- determination’ relates to the right of people to freely determine their political status, and pursue their own economic, social and cultural development. The concept is increasingly finding traction within regulatory frameworks orientated towards the incorporation of a ‘human rights lens’ (e.g. environmental justice, FPIC, UN Guiding Principles).

Overview of the challenges or barriers to meaningful engagement

  • Project/activity variability and uncertainty
    Chevron-down

    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.

  • Human and financial resource limitations
    Chevron-down

    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.

  • Stakeholder support/connections
    Chevron-down

    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.

  • Regulatory risks
    Chevron-down

    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.

  • Geographical limitations and geopolitical stability
    Chevron-down

    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.

  • Socio-cultural context
    Chevron-down

    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.

E-mail alerts

Sign up to receive Ipieca's e-news
Climate
Nature
People
Sustainability
Marine spill
Please confirm that you are happy to receive newsletters from Ipieca: