This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository

(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the

following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
 Conceptualising stakeholder engagement in the context of Formatted: Centered

sustainability and the assessment process.

Abstract: Stakeholder engagement in construction projects can viewed from two

main perspectives: a management perspective aimed at capturing knowledge,

increasing ownership of the project by users, reducing conflict, encouraging

innovation and facilitating spin-off partnerships; or an ethical perspective, where

meaningful stakeholder engagement is seen to enhance inclusive decision making,

promote equity, enhance local decision making and build social capital. Both of

these perspectives are important to sustainable developments, however,

stakeholder engagement can also be seen from the perspective of an opportunity

for social learning – a social process where diverse stakeholders share a common

forum, learn about each others’ values, reflect upon their own values and create a

shared vision and shared objectives. Dialogue is also useful in increasing

awareness, changing attitudes and affecting behaviours.

Existing practices view stakeholder engagement: mostly from a management

perspective; sometimes from an ethical perspective; less often as a combination of

the two; and rarely have any element of the social learning perspective. There is a

need for an approach which combines all the three perspectives if sustainability is

to be achieved. A dialogue-oriented approach to integrated sustainability

assessment could provide an ideal means to do so.

Keywords: Stakeholder, sustainability, strategic management, ethics, social

learning, dialogue.
1. INTRODUCTION Comment [SS1]: the aims to this paper
need to stand out clearer in abstract abd
introduction

There are three distinct approaches for conceptualising stakeholder engagement in

construction projects, these relate to viewing stakeholder engagement as: a

management technique; an ethical requirement; or a forum for dialogue to Comment [SS2]:

facilitate mutual social learning. The adoption of these different approaches leads

to different benefits. There are also different approaches for operationalising the

concept of sustainability and there are parallels between the alternative views on

conceptualising sustainability and the approaches to stakeholder engagement. The

ambitious and values-based nature of the concept of sustainability and the

potential benefits offered by different approaches to stakeholder engagement

create a compelling case for developing processes which can deliver these

benefits.

The first distinct approach to conceptualising stakeholders and their engagement

is from a strategic management perspective and is largely utilitarian in nature. Comment [SS3]:
Comment [SS4]: which s it --strategic
This approach is primarily concerned with identifying which claims or persons, or management perspective, strategy

groups or organisations are important for a company and to whom the

management must pay attention (Mitchel et al., 1997; Bryson, 2004; Freeman,

1984). The second distinct approach has a strong underlying ethical basis and

considers stakeholders as citizens having a right to determine (or at least

influence) the services to help ensure their needs are being met (Ridley and Jones,

2002; Rowe and Shepherd, 2002). This view has been more prominent in case of

public policy where the desire for engaging with ordinary citizens is strongly

rooted in the dimensions of participatory governance, equity and transparency.

The third approach views stakeholder engagement as dialogue - a social process

which has inherent elements of reflection and mutual learning (Innes and Booher,

2004). This perspective views the process of engagement in terms of the less-

tangible but valuable benefits associated with dialogue conducted in constructive

conditions.

The concept of sustainability has gained wide acceptance in policy and rhetoric.

However, similar to the concept of stakeholder engagement, sustainability can

also be viewed from different perspectives. Sustainability can be viewed as a

technical pursuit, an ethical shift or a ‘dialogue of values’ (Ratner, 2004). If

sustainability is accepted as being a desirable goal, then the means for pursuing it

need to be developed. The diversity of sustainability perspective poses a challenge

to the design of these means. Sustainability is an ambitious goal which requires,

among other efforts, new kinds of governance and decision making processes

involving a large variety of stakeholders (Irwin et al., 1994; Loorbach and

Rotmans, 2006). Hence, stakeholder engagement has a significant role to play in

the pursuit of sustainability, provided it can be designed in a way so as to deliver

the benefits of all the three perspectives on stakeholder engagement, rather than

just one or two of them.

2. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AS A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE

The concept of stakeholders has acquired a prominent place in management

theory and practice (Bryson, 2004). Mitchel et al. (1997) traced the wide

acceptance of this concept to the publication of the book, ‘Strategic Management:

A Stakeholder Approach’, by Freeman in 1984. Freeman (1984: 46) defined a

stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the

achievement of the organization’s objectives”. Mitchel et al. (1997) reviewed 27

definitions of stakeholders and distinguished between those defining stakeholders

as “claimants” and those that view them as “influencers”. Kaler (2002) proposed a

third combinatory definition, however, a strong case has been made in favour of

the claimant definition (Bryson, 2004; Kaler, 2002; Mitchel et al. 1997) implying

that managers need to pay attention not only to those who have an ability to

influence an organisation but also to those who have a claim on its services (ibid).

The nature of this claim, however, is still open to different interpretations. More

recently, Olander (2006: 279) reviewed the existing definitions of stakeholders in

management literature and proposed that, in the context of projects, there are

essentially two categories of stakeholders: internal stakeholders, who are those Comment [SS5]:

actively involved in project execution; and external stakeholders, who are those

affected by the project”. This definition thus, includes both the influencers (as the

internal stakeholders) and the claimants (as the external stakeholders).

Although there is an explicit moral dimension to the claimant approach to

stakeholder management in management literature, this is essentially a utilitarian

perspective. This is due to the fact that the rationale for attending to stakeholders,

in such approaches, is the “wellbeing of an organisation or the achievement of its

objectives” (Brugha and Varvasovszky, 2000: 241). For example, one of the

arguments in favour of considering stakeholders is that those opposed to the

project or the organisation may jeopardise its activities in case they are not

engaged with (Cleland, 1999). Hence, the purpose for paying attention to
stakeholders is the intention of the managers/project managers to avoid or resolve

any conflict or opposition to the project. This is similar to what Owens (2000:

1141) described as a “rationalist, information-deficit model” for public

engagement in the context of environmental policy, whereby the general public is

engaged in order to be informed of the scientific knowledge on the matter. The

purpose is to get its support for decisions based on scientific and objective

knowledge of experts (ibid.).

It has been argued that the construction industry should engage with stakeholders

to determine what they need (Bourne and Walker, 2005; El-Gohary et al., 2006;

Thomson et al., 2003). The desire of the private sector to discover the needs of its

users is ultimately aimed at increasing market competitiveness and has been

interpreted as being a consumerist approach which is different from a democratic

approach (Ridley and Jones, 2002; Rowe and Shepherd, 2002). It has been argued

that different project stakeholders possess different values and consequently judge

the value of a project in diverse ways and the purpose of stakeholder engagement

in this context is to identify and understand the diverse needs and expectations

(Olander, 2007; Thomson et al., 2003). Hence, from this perspective, the

engagement with stakeholders, is aimed at capturing their inputs into the project

development process (Bourne and Walker, 2005; El-Gohary et al., 2006).

Stakeholder engagement has been emphasised as an important aspect of

international development projects, where the focus has been on identifying those

who will be affected by a project and actively involving them in the project’s
design and delivery in order to ensure that the project is sensitive and responsive

to the local needs and conditions (World Bank, 1996).

The desire to engage with stakeholders in project decision making processes is

also linked to enhancing the sense of project ownership (Shepherd and Bowler,

1997; Shindler and Cheek, 1999). This is considered important for the long-term

success and upkeep of a project and thus incorporating the concern for durability

of the project as one of the criteria for its success. This is even more important in

the context of sustainable built environments where most of the gains occur

during the operational phase and this requires the users to have significant buy-in

to the solutions adopted in the design phase. Social choice by communities and

individuals as well as various institutions has been argued as being crucial for

achieving progress towards sustainable development (Hardi and Zdan 1997,

Devuyst, 2000).

3. ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

According to McAdam et al. (2005), the public sector seeks to address the issue of

multiple stakeholders who may have diverse and sometimes even conflicting

interests, whereas the focus of the private sector is on discovering the needs of

their ‘customers’. A distinction between the consumerist and democratic approach

has been made (Ridley and Jones, 2002). It has been argued that whereas the

consumerist approach stems from the private sector’s desire for competitiveness

in the market, the democratic approach values the process of participation for the

ethical issues of equity and empowerment of citizens (INVOLVE, 2005; Ridley

and Jones, 2002; Rowe and Shepherd, 2002). Petts (2001) argued that the

contemporary political commitment to public participation is set in the context

where the representative democracy is unable to sufficiently represent the diverse

needs of citizens and the complexity of challenges facing the society demand that

participatory democracy is needed to support representative democracy.

In the context of public policy, it has been proposed that individuals should be

engaged in their capacities as consumers, taxpayers or citizens (Audit

Commission, 1999). Viewing stakeholders as tax-payers or citizens who have a

right to influence projects is based on the principle of democracy and aimed at

empowering ordinary citizens, thereby strengthening local decision making. It has

been pointed out that although active citizenship places considerable value on the

process of participation, it also seeks to improve the outcomes (Brannan et al.,

2006). Significant research has suggested that engaging directly with citizens in

several key policy areas (such as regeneration and housing, crime, health,

education and local governance), leads to a variety of good social outcomes

including the creation of social capital (ibid.).

The demand for increasing stakeholder engagement on ethical grounds is also

derived from the argument that those individuals and groups who are excluded

from the decision making processes are likely not to have their needs and

preferences reflected in the outcomes (Innes and Booher, 2004). In fact those

excluded from decision (including policy) making processes may

disproportionately bear the negative (social, economic or environmental) impacts

of projects or policies while not benefiting from the positive impacts.

Consequently, it is necessary that decisions are made by those who are expected

to bear the main impacts (INVOLVE, 2005; Meppem and Gill, 1998).

In the context of profit-seeking firms, it has been argued that engagement with a

wide range of stakeholders implies a shift away from managers’ intentions of only

satisfy the shareholders’ interests, towards assuming a larger responsibility

towards the society. This belief in corporate responsibility for addressing wider

social and environmental development goals of the society implies information

sharing and constructive negotiating opportunities between businesses and their

stakeholders (Gao and Zhang, 2006).

Engagement with wider stakeholders is also seen to provide legitimacy to any

compromises that may need to be made as a result of involvement of multiple

stakeholders, through increasing the transparency regarding equity considerations

(Kaatz et al., 2005).

4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AS A DIALOGUE OF VALUES -

OPPORTUNITY FOR SOCIAL LEARNING

Innes and Booher (2004: 422) highlighted that although much debate has been

centred around the need for direct participation in a representative democracy, its

value and the extent to which it is needed; the real need is to frame participation

as “…a multi-dimensional model where communication, learning and action are

joined together and where the polity, interests and citizenry co-evolve”.

Stakeholder engagement processes can themselves be looked upon as an

opportunity for the actors to share each other’s values where “trust and knowledge

are generated and circulated, to provide a foundation of social and intellectual

capital upon which collaboration can build” (Healey, 1997: 247). A

multidirectional information flow between participants undertaken in an open and

unhurried fashion facilitates reflection and deliberation among the stakeholders.

During the course of such engagement, stakeholders learn about the different

values and interests and hence, such deliberation can be seen as a mutual learning

process for all the stakeholders involved (Harashima, 1995). Dialogue where

diverse stakeholders are equally informed, and are able to present their own

opinions and hear the opinions of others in a democratic forum can lead to:

enhanced learning; participants recognising the views of others as being

legitimate; and shared values and needs (Innes and Booher, 2004).

According to Van Driesche and Lane (2002: 150): the inclusion of unconventional

knowledge, including local cultural knowledge; a focus on understanding the

different values of stakeholders instead of having to manage competing interests;

and commitment to a deliberative process is essential if such a collaborative

process is to succeed. Similarly, it has been argued that the essential criteria for

meaningful engagement include: providing stakeholders with opportunities to

speak without any fear; ensuring that all opinions are respected; and enabling

stakeholders to influence resulting actions (Senecah, 2004). According to Healey

(1996), there are three key requirements for such a collaborative process – design

of arenas accessible to all those with a stake in an issue, transferring power to

make decisions close to those stakeholders who will be affected by them, and
promoting engagement methods which allow diverse points of views to be

explored.

Social learning has been defined as “the process of framing issues, analyzing

alternatives, and debating choices in the context of inclusive public deliberation”

(Daniels and Walker, 1996: 73). According to Friedman (1987: 181-182), social

learning is a complex process which involves political strategies, theories of

reality and values that drive actions in addition to a purposeful activity.

Interestingly, Daniels and Walker (1996) argued that the challenge for social

learning is to learn about complex issues in situation with inherent conflicts, and

not necessarily to resolve conflict.

Consensus building and deliberative democracy are two of the common concepts

for participation which emphasise the importance of social learning. Innes and

Booher (1999: 412) have emphasised that “consensus building processes are not

only about producing agreements and plans but also about experimentation,

learning, change, and building shared meaning” and proposed that they should be

evaluated in view of the concept of communicative rationality. The theory of

communicative rationality was developed by Habermas (1981: 44) who defined

communicative action as “that form of social interaction in which the plans of

action of different actors are co-ordinated through an exchange of communicative

acts, that is, through a use of language orientated towards reaching

understanding”. According to Habermas (1981, 1989), when ideal conditions for

discourse are adhered to, emancipatory knowledge can be created. The ideal

conditions, according to him include equal information among the stakeholders,

respect for each perspective, equal distribution of power to all participants in the

dialogue, stakeholders having sincere, honest and accurate arguments with

legitimate basis. He thus argued for a constructivist approach to learning where

knowledge is created as a result of learning process which is guided by those

involved in it. Such engagement processes can lead to a wide range of outcomes

as summarised in Table 1.

Insert Table 1 here

5. THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable development has been defined as “an ambitious new project intended

to act as the focus of human endeavour in the twenty-first century” (Meadowcraft,

2000: 370). The term ‘sustainable development’ has been increasingly used since

the 1980s, both as a policy tool and as a policy goal. It was first brought to the

mainstream discussion by the report of the World Commission on Environment

and Development (WCED) – ‘Our Common Future’ in 1987. Although the term

had been coined around 1980 by the IUCN (Carvalho, 2001: 62), it entered the

mainstream public debate with the publication of this report, also called the

Brundtland Report. The report defined sustainable development as: “development

that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs’’. This is the most widely referred to

definition of this concept. The key features of the concept are (Meadowcraft,

2000):

• it focuses on promotion of development, or progress;

 • it places a priority on the ‘needs’ of the poor and those of the future

generations;

• it refers to environmental limits to human activity; and

• it defines sustainable development as a process of improvement rather than

any particular activity.

Ratner (2004) has distinguished between three distinct approaches for

operationalising sustainable development as: a technical consensus (technique to

measure development while integrating social, environmental and economic

factors); an ethical consensus (a single framework of action); and a dialogue of

values. Although they are different from each other, the first two approaches

believe in value consensus whereas considering sustainable development as

dialogue of values assumes that value consensus will always be incomplete

(ibid.). If different value perspectives agree on sustainable development being a

desirable goal but the ends of action are disputed, then a technical consensus to

specify appropriate means cannot be established and if significant conflicts cannot

be resolved on the basis of a system of values held by all, then ethical consensus

is also deficient (ibid). It has been highlighted that in order to be effective and

meaningful, any systems developed to assess or communicate sustainability must

recognise the overlaps between policy, science and the public’s values and

objectives (Shields et al., 2002). However, the lack of objectivity does not prevent

the application of the concept of sustainability in real situations (Verheem, 2002).

If it is accepted that sustainable development cannot be defined in an objective

manner and value judgements exist, then by implication, the exact interpretation
of sustainable development should be determined in the context of each project,

its particular characteristics and stakeholders.

Meppem and Gill (1998) also claimed that in order to operationalise sustainable

development, there is a need to move towards developing a learning environment

which recognises the subjective priorities of different groups. In such a scenario,

the challenge in pursuing sustainable development becomes facilitation of

appropriate social processes (ibid). Such social processes must then provide

means for mediating between diverse and often conflicting values (Ratner, 2004).

Thus discursive social processes that promote learning and reflection for

participants (Meppem and Bourke, 1999). Such a perspective, “…provides a Comment [SS6]: Not clear

rationale for seeing participation of actors in deliberating the ends and means of

development not only as instrumental in realizing specific development goals, but

as constitutive of the very meaning of sustainable development practice” (Ratner,

2004: 64). Institutional mechanisms related to decision making for development

then need to change (Ratner, 2004) in order to create opportunities where an

enhanced understanding of the various dimensions of sustainability can be created

(Meppem, 2000). Moreover, Dijkema et al. (2006) claimed that innovation needed

in the society for achieving sustainability requires the systems to be set within the

context of learning societies. In this context, the participation of wider

stakeholders in the processes of knowledge generation would be beneficial

(Siebenhuner, 2002). The key challenge then for planning for sustainability, is to

facilitate a dialogue which encourages reflection of various claims in a framework

where these can be openly debated (Meppem, 2000).

6. THE EVOLVING CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

Sustainability Assessment is being increasingly promoted as a tool to guide

policies, plans and projects in order to ensure that they encourage sustainable

development (Pope et al., 2004). However, the concept is still evolving and there

are several suggestions on what and how it should try to achieve. Pope et al.

(2004) have identified three approaches to Sustainability Assessment: EIA

(Environmental Impact Assessment)-driven integrated assessment; objectives-led

integrated assessment; and ‘assessment for sustainability’. They argued that the

EIA-driven approach tends to focus on minimising negative impacts and the

objectives-led approach assesses the contribution of a proposal to aspirational

objectives, however, both of them are insufficient to assess whether the proposal

is sustainable or not (ibid.). Hence, they proposed an ‘assessment for

sustainability’ approach which requires a clear interpretation of sustainability and

principles-based assessment criteria (ibid.). Gibson (2005) and the Government of

Western Australia (2003) have provided examples of such generic criteria for

Sustainability Assessment derived from basic principles of sustainability such as

inter- and intra-generational equity instead of the simplistic triple bottom line

categories.

It has been strongly emphasised that Sustainability Assessment should not be a

separate process, but closely integrated with the existing structures and decision

making processes within a project (Devuyst, 2000; Verheem, 2002). The main

reason for this emphasis is the awareness that sustainability assessment is not an
aim in itself, instead it should be conducted to improve the quality of decisions

being made (Devuyst, 2000). This has implications for the output that the

assessment process should attempt to produce. It has been argued that integrated

sustainability assessment “…does not necessarily need to include a quantitative

assessment of effects. In many situations, a sound qualitative discussion on

whether an option scores better or worse is sufficient” (Verheem and Draaijers,

2006: 2). The meaningfulness of sustainability assessment is then more clearly

linked to the impact that it can have on project decisions instead of in production

of a comprehensive report or a highly accurate quantitative measurement of

impacts – these may be part of it, if and where useful for enabling an informed

dialogue between stakeholders. Hence, sustainability assessment should be an

instrument to assist in enabling a dialogue between the stakeholders during a

project development (Verheem, 2002; Wilkins, 2003). Thus, “sustainability

assessment should be designed to initiate creative and innovative thought

processes, which lead to solving current problems of sustainable development”

(Devuyst, 2000: 77). Ukaga (2001: 35) stressed that “to promote sustainable

development it is essential that as many stakeholders as possible participate

actively in assessing the given situation and in determining how to improve it”.

Sustainability Assessment is then better understood as “…a cyclical, participatory

process of scoping, envisioning, experimenting, and learning through which a

shared interpretation of sustainability for a specific context is developed ...”

(Weaver and Rotmans, 2006: 12). While acknowledging the challenges for the

decision-making process that such an approach to sustainability assessment

process poses, it is also important to highlight another key advantage that such an
ambitious approach offers – respect for uncertainties (Gibson, 2006) which cannot

be addressed through a prescriptive assessment processes.

The purpose of the dialogue in the assessment should not merely be to capture the

preferences or opinions of the stakeholders, but it should go beyond that to create

a context-specific interpretation of sustainability and more importantly,

deliberation. This reflects what has been defined as a shift in the focus of impact

assessment from prediction to exploration (Rotmans, 2006). Deliberation implies

a continuous dialogue where stakeholders have the opportunity (and are

encouraged) to reflect on and re-consider their views in light of those of other

stakeholders. Indeed this needs to be based on a mutual respect for diverse forms

of knowledge and understanding including non-expert opinions. Social and

collaborative learning are necessary to achieve such stakeholder engagement in

Sustainability Assessment (Kaatz et al., 2006). Sustainability Assessment then

also acts as a means for education and empowerment (ibid.).

7. CONCLUSIONS

There has been recognition that stakeholder engagement processes, if designed

appropriately, can deliver a wide range of outcomes ranging from the ‘capture of

different forms of knowledge’ to ‘social learning’. Considering sustainability as a

subjective goal which can be interpreted in a particular context through a dialogue

with the context-specific stakeholders presents a meaningful and promising way

to pursue sustainability. The process of Sustainability Assessment is evolving

from being a prescriptive technical exercise aimed at merely producing accurate

measurements of the magnitude of impacts into a cyclical process facilitating

deliberative dialogue between the various stakeholders and closely linked with the

project decision making process in order to explicitly affect the key decisions in

relation to their sustainability implications. Hence the Sustainability Assessment

process, if appropriately designed could be the ideal process through which the

benefits of stakeholder engagement within a project can be maximised and the

sustainability agenda be pursued. .

If stakeholder engagement, as part of Sustainability Assessment, is to aspire to

such immense objectives, it must not be built as an add-on. Stakeholder

engagement needs to be central to the design of such an assessment process.

Instead of stakeholder engagement being seen as merely being a desirable feature

of the assessment process, the assessment process should be seen as a vehicle for

facilitating stakeholder dialogue. The effectiveness of the assessment then, among

other things, depends on the success of the stakeholder dialogue in creating those

conditions of dialogue where different opinions are respected, reflection and

deliberation take place, power is shared and social learning is facilitated. Further

research is needed to develop approaches to Sustainability Assessment which can

address these.

The effectiveness of dialogue that takes place within the assessment process also

depends on the relation between the project decision making process and the

assessment process. If the assessment is performed as an independent process

outside the main project decision making process with limited impact, there is not
sufficient incentive for stakeholders to contribute the resources, creativity and

commitment that such an ambitious process may require. However, if the

Sustainability Assessment process is closely aligned to the project design and

planning process informing all those decisions with important sustainability

implications explicitly, this can be overcome. More work is also needed to

establish how the Sustainability Assessment process can be designed to be fully

integrated within the project planning and design process in order to provide

timely information regarding the sustainability implications of key decisions.

REFERENCES

Audit Commission (1999) Listen up: effective community consultation

(management paper), Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National

Health Service in England and Wales, London.

Bourne, L. and Walker, D.H.T. (2005) Visualising and mapping stakeholder

influence, Management Decision, 43(5), 649-660.

Brannan, T., John, P. and Stoker, G. (2006) Active citizenship and effective

public services and programmes: how can we know what really works? Urban

Studies, 43(5/6), 993-1008.

Brugha, R. and Varvasovszky, Z. (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review, Health

Policy and Planning, 15(3), 239-246.

Bryson, J.M. (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder

identification and analysis techniques, Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53.

Carvalho, G. O. (2001) Sustainable development: is it achievable within the

existing international political economy context? Sustainable Development, 9(2),

61-73.

Cleland, D.I., (1999) Project Management – Strategic Design and

Implementation, third edition, McGraw-Hill.

Daniels, S.E. and Walker, G.B. (1996) Collaborative learning: improving public

deliberation in ecosystem-based management, Environmental Impact Assessment

Review, 16, 71-102.

Devuyst, D. (2000) Linking impact assessment and sustainable development at the

local level: the introduction of sustainability assessment systems, Sustainable

Development, 8, 67-78.

Dijkema, G.P.J., Ferrão, P., Herder, P.M. and Heitor, M. (2006) Trends and

opportunities framing innovation for sustainability in the learning society,

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 215-227.

El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H. and El-Diraby, T.E. (2006) Stakeholder

management for public private partnerships, International Journal of Project

Management, 24, 595-604.

Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston:

Pitman.

Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action,

Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press.

Gao, S.S. and Zhang, J.J. (2006) Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and

corporate sustainability, Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 722 – 740.

Gibson, R.B. (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical

approach, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24(3), 170-182.

Government of Western Australia (2003) Hope for the future: the Western

Australian state sustainability strategy, Western Australia: Department of Premier

and Cabinet Perth.

Habermas, J. (1981) The theory of communicative action: Reason and the

rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1989) The theory of communicative action. Lifeworld and system: A

critique of functionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Harashima, S. (1995) Environmental dispute resolution process and information

exchange, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 15, 69-80.

Hardi, P. and Zdan, T. (1997) Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in

Practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg.

Healey, P. (1996) Consensus-building across difficult divisions: new approaches

to collaborative strategy making, Planning Practice and Research¸ 11(2), 207-

216.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented

Societies. Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive

systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning, Journal of the

American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423.

Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for

the 21st century, Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.

INVOLVE (2005) People and participation: how to put citizens at the heart of

decision-making, INVOLVE, London.

Irwin, A., Georg, S. and Vergragt, P. (1994) The social management of

environmental change, Futures, 26(3), 323-334.

Kaatz, E., Root, D.S., Bowen, P.A. and Hill, R.C. (2005) Broadening project

participation through a modified building sustainability assessment, Building

Research and Information, 33(5), 441-454.

Kaatz, E., Root, D.S., Bowen, P.A. and Hill, R.C. (2006) Advancing key

outcomes of sustainability building assessment, Building Research and

Information, 34(4), 308-320.

Kaler, J. (2002) Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification, Journal of

Business Ethics, 39, 91-99.

Loorbach, D. and Rotmans, J. (2006) Managing Transitions for Sustainable

Development; In: Understanding Industrial Transformation: views from different

disciplines. X. Olshoorn and A. J. Wieczorek (eds), Dordrecht, Springer.

McAdam, R., Hazlett, S and Casey, C. (2005) Performance management in the

UK public sector: addressing multiple stakeholder complexity, International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3): 256-273.

Meadowcraft J. (2000) Sustainable Development: a New(ish) Idea for a New

Century? Political Studies, 48, 370-387.

Meppem, T. and Bourke, S. (1999) Different ways of knowing: a communicative

turn toward sustainability, Ecological Economics, 30, 389-404.

Meppem, T. and Gill, R. (1998) Planning for sustainability as a learning concept,

Ecological Economics, 26, 121-137.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder

identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts,

Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.

Olander, S. (2007) Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project

management, Construction Management and Economics, 25(3), 277 – 287.

Owens S, (2000) 'Engaging the public': information and deliberation in

environmental policy, Environment and Planning A, 32(7), 1141 – 1148.

Petts, J. (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: waste

management case-studies, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,

44(2), 207-226.

Pope J., Annandale, D., and Morrison-Saunders A. (2004) Conceptualising

sustainability assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 595-616.

Ratner, B.D. (2004) “Sustainability” as a Dialogue of Values: Challenges to the

Sociology of Development, Sociological Inquiry, 74(1), 50–69.

Richardson, T. (2005) Environmental assessment and planning theory: four short

stories about power, multiple rationality, and ethics, Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 25, 341-365.

Ridley, J. and Jones, L. (2002) User and public involvement in health services: a

literature review. Partners in Change, Edinburgh.

Rowe, R. and Shepherd, M. (2002) Public participation in the new NHS: no closer

to citizen control, Social Policy and Administration, 36(3), 275-290.

Siebenhuner, B. (2002) Social learning and sustainability science: which role can

stakeholder participation play? In: Biermann, F. Campe, S. and Jacob, K. (eds.)

2004. Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of

Global Environmental Change “Knowledge for the Sustainability Transition. The

Challenge for Social Science”, Global Governance Project: Amsterdam, Berlin,

Potsdam and Oldenburg. pp. 76-86.

Senecah, S.L. (2004) The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning

and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In S.P.

Depoe, J.W. Delicath and M.F. Aelpi Elsenbeer (eds.). Communication and

Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making, 13-33. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Shepherd, A and Bowler, C. (1997) Beyond the requirements: improving public

participation in EIA, Journal of Environmental Planning and management, 40(6),

725-738.

Shindler, B. and Cheek, K.A. (1999) Integrating citizens in adaptive management:

a propositional analysis. Conservation Ecology 3(1): 9. [WWW] URL:

http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art9/ Accessed on date: 15/09/2006.

Thomson, D.S., Austin, S.A., Devine-Wright, H. and Mills, G.R. (2003)

Managing value and quality in design, Building Research and Information, 31(5),

334-345.

Ukaga, O. (2001) Participatory evaluation of sustainable development, Greener

Management International, 36, 27-36.

Van Driesche, J. and Lane, M. (2002) Conservation through Conversation:

Collaborative Planning for Reuse of a Former Military Property in Sauk County,

Wisconsin, USA. Planning Theory and Practice¸ 3(2), 133-153.

Verheem, R.A.A. (2002) Recommendations for sustainability assessment in The

Netherlands; In Netherlands Commission for EIA (eds.) Environmental Impact

Assessment in the Netherlands: views from the Commission for EIA in 2002, pp.

9-14, [WWW] URL: <http://www.eia.nl/mer/commissie/img/grboek2002.pdf>

Accessed on date: 15/02/2007.

Verheem, R. and Draaijers, G. (2006) Experiences on Sustainability Assessment

in the Netherlands. Presented at IAIA '06 in Stavanger. [WWW] URL: <

www.eia.nl/mer/commissie/img/integratedassessmentnl0601.pdf> Accessed on

date: 08/12/2006.

Weaver, P.M. and Rotmans, J. (2006) Integrated Sustainability Assessment:

What? Why? How? MATISSE Working Papers, 1, [WWW] URL:

<http://www.matisse-project.net/> Accessed on date: 18/04/2007.

Wilkins, H. (2003) The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for

sustainable development, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 401-414.

World Bank (1996) Identifying stakeholders In The World Bank Participation

Sourcebook. [WWW] URL:

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sb0302t.htm. Accessed on date:

14/03/06
Table 1: The potential outcomes of consensus building process (Innes and Booher,

1999: 419)

First Order Effects Second Order Effects Third Order Effects

Social Capital: Trust, New Partnerships New collaborations

Relationships

Intellectual Capital: Coordination and Joint More Coevolution, Less

Mutual Understanding, Action Destructive Conflict

Shared Problem Frames, Joint Learning Extends Results on the Ground:

Agreed Upon Data Into the Community Adaptation of Cities,

Regions, Resources,

Services

Political Capital: Ability Implementation of New Institutions

to Work Together for Agreements

Agreed Ends

High Quality Agreements Changes in Practices New Norms and

Heuristics

Innovative Strategies Changes in Perceptions New Discourses