Meanwhile, an ‘agile stakeholder’ refers to any internal or external stakeholder who is impacted by agile processes, or who has an interest in the outcomes of agile project management. 

Confused? Hang in there. And let me introduce you to a third phrase.

‘Agile stakeholder engagement’ describes how stakeholder managers harness the power and flexibility of agile processes to improve stakeholder management and increase stakeholder engagement. And that’s what this article will focus on. 

Using the agile project management framework as a guide, we’ll extract the work practices most relevant to stakeholder engagement, and consider how to apply them. 

First, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page when it comes to understanding how agile projects work.  

What Is Agile Project Management?

The Association for Project Management defines the agile process as follows:

“Iterative or agile life cycles are composed of several iterations or incremental steps towards the completion of a project…One of the aims of an agile or iterative approach is to release benefits throughout the process rather than only at the end. At the core, agile projects should exhibit central values and behaviours of trust, flexibility, empowerment and collaboration.”

The central values of agile project management — trust, flexibility, empowerment, and collaboration — align with core stakeholder engagement values. Yet, the principles and processes driving agile management aren’t generally applied to stakeholder engagement during most projects. 

The Traditional Approach to Stakeholder Engagement

Most projects follow a linear and lockstep trajectory when it comes to stakeholder engagement; the stakeholder engagement plan is divided into chronological phases or stages. Each phase needs to be completed in order, so the results, analysis, and feedback can inform the next phase. 

This approach is referred to as the ‘waterfall methodology’. Its processes mimic the way a waterfall cascades downwards; the information gathered at one step cascades into the next.

The waterfall methodology is a well-accepted and widely used way to manage stakeholder engagement. And it has its benefits. For example, gathering stakeholder feedback before making decisions can improve project strategy, minimize regulatory risks, help avoid conflicts, and lessen financial risks. 

So what’s the drawback? Rigidity. 

To return to the waterfall analogy, stakeholder engagement following its linear path is more likely to encounter dams and logjams and face delays. When these blockages form, the cascade slows or stops, which in the real world translates to people, teams, and entire projects being held up. 

Agile stakeholder engagement is an alternative way of working that can eliminate those flow-stopping dams. 

Making Stakeholder Engagement Work in an Agile Environment

Agile project management’s momentum waits for no man, woman, or stakeholder. And that’s one of the biggest challenges when it comes to engaging with stakeholders during an agile project: stakeholders become bottlenecks. 

So where’s the middle ground? How can solid stakeholder relationships be built and maintained in a fluid, fast-paced agile environment?

Stakeholder engagement (and how it’s managed) has to change in an agile environment. And here’s what that might look like.  

Incremental Improvements

Agile project management consists of sprints — pre-agreed blocks of work where everyone contributes simultaneously, making small and consistent changes until the work is done. But how would this work for stakeholder engagement? Particularly when it’s not always possible for stakeholder relationship management (SRM) teams to know all of the issues and needs of stakeholders at the start of the process. 

A key factor in agile stakeholder engagement involves regularly updating and improving the stakeholder register, mapping, engagement strategy, and outreach methods, as new information comes to hand. Making these sprint-driven, incremental improvements helps keep the interests and goals of agile teams, organizations, and stakeholders aligned. 

Individual Ownership at Every Step

Clear ownership of every stakeholder interaction or management action is needed throughout the project. Rather than assigning chunks of work to a whole team, a named individual takes specific responsibility for part of the outreach plan, data analysis, logging interactions, or task completion.  

This detailed, person-specific level of ownership stops any ambiguity and streamlines the engagement process, ensuring feedback is gathered and tasks are completed promptly.

Cross-Team Visibility

For agile stakeholder engagement to work, each agile squad and stakeholder manager must see the same workflow process in real time. This visibility keeps the flow of work moving and abolishes the need for constant meetings.  

Stakeholder information should be readily available to everyone who needs access to it. No gatekeeping, no need for constant access requests. This approach supports feedback loops and can maintain engagement throughout the project process or the lifetime of the asset.

Relevant Requests, Appropriate Formats

The agile environment enables quick decision-making. (Not to be confused with ill-informed decision making.) When each person understands their role and what they’re responsible for, pulling the information they need to make well-informed, strategic decisions is done in minutes or hours, rather than taking days. 

In the context of agile stakeholder engagement, formatting is everything. Deliver engagement requests in a way that works for the stakeholder group and facilitates a response. 

For example, if you’re approaching the IT team, use an online survey. If you’re contacting landowners in rural locations where you know their internet service is temperamental, phone them. 

Everyone appreciates receiving engagement requests in a format they can work with. And this increases the chance of receiving feedback and finding solutions within a timeframe that works for the project.

What Agile Stakeholder Engagement Looks Like During an Agile Project

Understanding the ways agile project methods can facilitate stakeholder engagement paves the way for seeing how it fits into the agile process. 

At Project Start: Mapping and Flow

You might not have identified all of the relevant stakeholders when an agile project begins. But start a stakeholder register anyway, listing known individuals and groups, followed by a stakeholder map. 

Then create an accompanying document outlining the stakeholder flow — stating when different stakeholders will enter the project process, what’s needed from them (and for them), and how their engagement action or inaction will potentially affect the story or sprint. 

This document is designed to preempt and hence reduce potential blockers that can slow the agile process. 

During Development: Proactive And Continual Engagement

Traditional stakeholder engagement follows the sequential and lockstep process of:

• Engagement planning
• Outreach
• Engagement action
• Feedback analysis
• Reporting on findings.

Each process’s feedback and findings ‘cascade’ into the next phase. 

Agile stakeholder engagement exposes stakeholders to every stage of the process in short succession. It means letting them get their hands on a product or service while it’s in development. Managing this engagement with ‘everything, everywhere, all at once’ calls for constant communication. 

When a stakeholder is asked to engage and give feedback, the findings are acted on and the outcomes are fed back almost instantly. They’re then invited back as soon as the changes have been implemented to reevaluate the process, product, or software.  

Effective management of stakeholders at this stage means having a proactive stakeholder — feedback findings, decisions, and actions should be sent out without prompting. 

Maintaining the high-level of engagement needed in an agile environment can demand a lot of time and energy. Automating as many prompts and notifications as possible helps keep engagement on track. And can reduce the time a team spends chasing stakeholders to achieve the engagement needed to keep the process moving.  

In Sprint Reviews: Stakeholder Management and Alignment

Use sprint reviews (sometimes called the ‘retrospective’) to amalgamate all of the stakeholder feedback gathered, share engagement successes, and acknowledge where engagement bottlenecks are still impeding success. These reviews are also the moment to propose and begin working on those incremental improvements in time for the next sprint. 

Using Agile Stakeholder Engagement Effectively

Agile stakeholder engagement methods don’t suit every project. Managing stakeholders this way during a megaproject that involves tens of thousands of stakeholders and infrastructure decisions led by stakeholder feedback would be impossible. 

A scenario where agile stakeholder engagement could work well is during local government digital transformation. 

Instead of waiting for the design of the new digital platform to be completed using stakeholder feedback collected at one point in the project, agile engagement methods allow stakeholders to use the platform and its tools in staging environments. A development team can watch and monitor these interactions and make improvements and changes as they go.

The 6 Strengths of SRM Software in Agile Stakeholder Engagement 

Stakeholder management software, such as Simply Stakeholders, is built from the ground up with stakeholder engagement and relationship management in mind. Its flexibility is ideally suited to agile engagement approaches. Even in complex and fast-paced project environments that rely on collaboration, it delivers the information needed for sound decision-making and clear action.

1. A Central Source of Truth

Centralized data creates a single source of truth, removing doubt, the danger of double-ups, or delays in accessing information needed during decision-making. And when teams can see the same information, the risk of miscommunication or misunderstandings lessens

2. Communication and Task Tracking Records 

All historical and current stakeholder interactions and task assignments can be stored in SRM software. Teams can draw on reliable, consistently formatted data for past exchanges with stakeholders and use task tracking to see the engagement outcomes. 

3. Real-Time Data

Updating stakeholder records and information is easy and gives teams real-time data on engagement levels and responses. The currency and completeness of this data make it easier to justify and make incremental changes in a way that progresses the project rather than holding it up.   

4. Automated Prompts and Notifications

Workflows automated with rules and triggers can free up time and ensure the right stakeholders are engaged at the right time. Automations can also notify relevant team members by email if a risk arises, such as an incomplete action or negative sentiments that may impact project timelines. 

5. Access and Permissions

Some stakeholder data may be sensitive or private. SRM software allows permissions to be customized and tailored for individuals and teams without sacrificing efficiency. 

6. In-Built Stakeholder Engagement Tools

Stakeholder mapping, forms, communication tools (email, SMS, etc), and analysis support engagement and collaboration between the teams. They also provide revealing insights into stakeholder sentiments, provide feedback reports, and track complex relationships.  

Embracing Agile Stakeholder Engagement

Agile project management processes lend themselves to effective stakeholder management by offering stakeholders real-time involvement, as opposed to periodic engagements. From an ongoing relationship management perspective, this is extremely valuable for a project. 

When stakeholders feel consistently heard, understand the value of their feedback and opinions, and can see that they’re influencing outcomes at every stage, they’re more likely to support a project. But agile stakeholder engagement is just one approach to ensure stakeholder support. 

Grab the Ebook: 7 Strategies for Effective Stakeholder Engagement

If you’re looking for ways to increase stakeholder engagement and build better relationships, download our free ebook. 

Free eBook: 7 Strategies for Effective Stakeholder Engagement Want to dive deeper into more topics like this? Get your copy of our free eBook. Get the eBook

‘You scare them with the doom and gloom of a failed project.’

‘Get them around a table, arguing for a couple of hours until they’re hungry, then say “OK, so in summary [your own idea for a path forward],” and they’ll all be too weak to argue.’  

‘Aligning expectations? You’re kidding, right? Just tell them what they want to hear and hope for the best.’ 

We don’t recommend trying the above-mentioned suggestions taken from Reddit threads and stakeholder management forums that offer some pretty bogus ideas when it comes to setting generally accepted stakeholder goals. 

That said, while these answers may be tongue-in-cheek, they touch on some common challenges organizations face in finding common ground and aligning stakeholder goals. These include the potential to delay or undermine a project’s success, meetings that morph into arguments, and the temptation to be less than transparent about goals that may be ill-formed or poorly articulated. 

So, moving on more logically, how do you set stakeholder goals that everyone can at best agree on or at least live with? And how can you make sure said goals deliver the desired outcomes? 

In this article, we’ll define what stakeholder goals are and suggest ways to set up relevant and workable objectives. We’ll also look at the strategies and software available that can enable success. Let’s start by understanding what we’re working towards.

Finding Alignment

Aligning strategic, stakeholder, and internal organizational processes and objectives boils down to three things.

1. Strong stakeholder management
2. Positive stakeholder engagement
3. Pinpointing the sweet spot where managing and engaging with stakeholders merge to create strong alignment.

Achieving alignment starts with understanding each stakeholder’s individual goals. 

Stakeholder Goals: What Drives Them?

Stakeholder goals — sometimes referred to as stakeholder motivations — are driven by beliefs, feelings, and underlying experiences. These are the forces that shape the outcomes stakeholders are seeking and how they engage with and make decisions about your project. 

When an organization speaks to an individual’s, group’s, or community’s feelings or beliefs directly, engagement is productive and helpful. In turn, this values-based engagement fosters the trust and connectedness essential to ongoing collaboration and engagement. In short, it lays the groundwork for setting stakeholder goals everyone can get behind.

Stakeholder goals that speak to what matters most to the individuals, groups, and communities you’re working with can be the difference between project success and one that stalls or fails completely.

Before you can set a goal, you must understand what your stakeholders care about.

What’s Motivating Your Stakeholders?

Stakeholder motivations can be varied and wide-ranging depending on their role in the organization or project, their relationship with the organization, or their level of influence over outcomes. 

National Training is an Australia-based organization, and has identified three divisions of stakeholder motivation.

• Personal motivations: Career promotions, job security, work flexibility, entitlements, etc.
• Organizational motivations: Company growth, ROI, brand reputation, KPIs, etc.
• Values-based motivations: Ethics and beliefs, community impact, environmental impact, etc.

These are valid and (for the most part) tangible motivations. But strong, empathetic stakeholder goal management involves taking a deeper look at what’s driving the ways stakeholders respond to what you’re asking of them — getting on board with shared goals and participating in the work it takes to achieve them. Broadening your understanding of some fundamental needs motivating human engagement can help you select and calibrate your stakeholder management methods.

The Need Theory 

American psychologist Dr David C. McClelland, known for his work on human motivation, found that there are three distinct motive needs:

• The Need for Affiliation: These stakeholders act based on their positive interest in and concern for others. They’re typically social, empathetic, and may make decisions based on what others think and feel.
• The Need for Power: These stakeholders lean towards strong and forceful actions, offering help, advice, and support to others while thinking about how to shape situations. They tend to be in leadership positions.
• The Need for Achievement: These ‘failure-conscious’ stakeholders are driven by a need to succeed and hold themselves to high standards. They may have an entrepreneurial spirit, making them takers of both the initiative and calculated risks. 

There’s a case to be made for one or other of these three needs being what really motivates stakeholders. Managers who understand and identify those needs in play — and how they may change during a project — are equipped to negotiate competing motivations that might impede setting well-aligned stakeholder goals.  

Stakeholder Goal Setting in 6 Steps

Setting stakeholder goals that align everyone’s interests and motivations takes planning, empathy, strategic engagement, and leadership to consolidate and communicate the relevance and importance of each goal. Here’s how you might approach this important task.

Step 1: Set Your Destination

And help your stakeholders set theirs. When you’re clear on the outcomes you want to achieve, it’s much easier for stakeholders to define theirs, and play their roles in achieving them. 

Psychologist and MD of SACS Consulting Andrew Marty, refers to this as ‘goal destination setting.’ To help chart the path, he suggests doing this simple perception-checking exercise. Gauge how closely (or otherwise) stakeholders’ views of your project and organization fit with how you’d like to be seen, by:

• Writing down five words or phrases describing how you’d like stakeholders to view your organization or project
• Rate how close you are to that ideal today on a scale of 1-10. (Or 1-5 if you want to focus on it.)
• Set a benchmark score for what you want that ideal to be and give yourself a timeline.

Make working towards your benchmark score a part of setting your stakeholder goals — here’s where we are and here’s where we want to be. When you choose your engagement methods further down the path, you’ll need to make sure you ask stakeholders about how they view your project or organization to establish if your perceptions align with theirs.   

Step 2: Prioritize Your Stakeholders

Next, identify which stakeholders will influence, impact, or affect those goals. This means identifying key stakeholders and, more importantly, working on stakeholder prioritization.

Efficiently but delicately, prioritize the relationships of some stakeholders over others. Focus your engagement efforts on these individuals or groups to advance the specific outcomes you want to achieve.  

Step 3: Map Stakeholders and Their Motivations

Stakeholder mapping gives you the big picture — literally. A highly visual diagram is your ‘who’s who’ of everyone involved. It shows their impact, influence, and position within the project. 

Map what you discovered from your initial work on stakeholder motivations. Piece together:

• What matters most to each stakeholder or group
• Where organizational goals and stakeholder goals might align
• What flexibility there might be on either side to achieve goal alignment.    

Step 4: Choose Your Engagement Methods

Create your stakeholder engagement plan and tailor it to the priority stakeholders you want to consult. Then maximize engagement by choosing a format that works for your stakeholders: interviews, online surveys, stakeholder meetings, picking up the phone, etc. 

Step 5: Analyze Stakeholder Needs and Expectations

When you analyze your stakeholder feedback, record and weight stakeholder needs and expectations against the needs and expectations of the organization. 

Anticipate that some stakeholder motivations might be at odds with project or organizational non-negotiables. Don’t ignore these. Plan your response, acknowledging the feedback but being clear on the reasons why they can’t be incorporated. 

Incorporate the stakeholder needs and expectations that you can work with into the goals. When people see their feedback influencing real work and outcomes, they’re more inclined to support the goal and contribute to its success. 

Step 6: Define Shared Goals

This is the moment that organizational, strategic, and stakeholder goals align. And defining shared goals brings unity and opportunity for greater collaboration. 

Document and circulate the shared organizational and stakeholder goals to all relevant stakeholders.

Getting It Wrong Is Risky Business 

Aligning stakeholder and organizational goals is, at times, a complex process. Following the logical steps we’ve just talked about should foster collaboration, build trust, and minimize risk. But even then, things can still misfire. 

Goal misalignment can lead to challenges such as:

• Disengaged and uninterested stakeholders
• Higher employee turnover
• Mistrust and resistance
• Reputational damage
• Financial loss.

It’s not possible to please everyone all of the time. But there are strategies managers and leaders can use to improve the chances of setting goals that your stakeholders want to back. 

Strategies for Successful Goal Alignment

Exercising empathy, clarity, timing, and flexibility can make a world of difference when setting stakeholder goals that everyone can support. 

Remember the Human 

Like all of us, stakeholders are emotional and occasionally irrational. Sometimes they can simultaneously hold and act on seemingly contradictory views. Taking the complexities of human nature into account makes it easier to manage emotions when they run high. Work on discovering someone’s underlying motivation and understanding how it’s shaping the way they think or feel about a particular goal. 

Have a Clear Communication Plan

Participating in goal-setting exercises can take quite a bit of your stakeholders’ time and energy. Acknowledge and respect this by having a stakeholder communication plan that favors clarity, conciseness, and transparency. Not only will you feel more confident when approaching priority stakeholders, but the stakeholders in question will feel valued, understood, and respected. 

Set Timeframes and Celebrate Successes

Completing, seeing, and sharing the benefits of the outcomes will always boost morale and motivation. But more importantly, it encourages stakeholders to re-engage. Whatever their motivation might be for engaging, people get a kick out of seeing their feedback affect real-world outcomes and they’ll want to do it again. 

Setting deadlines and timeframes manages expectations around seeing those outcomes and when goals are likely to be achieved. Practically, timeframes help employees in managing the workload attached to achieving the stakeholder goal, and this clarity can help minimize work delays. 

Be Flexible

Different people may have different ways of thinking about a given goal, its outcome, and how both of these might be achieved. Be prepared to be flexible and creative around resolving issues that aren’t non-negotiables. Being open to trade-offs may be the way to secure everyone’s blessing and get a goal over the line. 

Monitor and Refine Goals

Some stakeholder goals may come with unknowns that only become apparent once work has begun. For example, a health organization may have the stakeholder goal to recycle more of their waste, but find out the sole designated regional facility for processing the proposed waste no longer accepts it. This change leads the organization to choose alternative products that can be processed by the facility, so the goal can still be achieved. 

Monitoring and refining goals motivates organizations to adapt what they can do rather than dwell on what they can’t. Then, even if the goal looks a little different, the focus is still on maintaining progress and momentum. And this is infinitely preferable to abandoning a goal completely and dismissing stakeholder motivations. 

Keep Listening

The issues and objectives that motivate people and organizations evolve and change. Staying attuned to your stakeholders’ motivations and how they develop is crucial to setting and achieving shared goals. 

Regular contact and feedback loops in formats that suit stakeholders help keep those hard-won stakeholder goals aligned. 

Simply Stakeholders: Software That Supports Goal Setting

Setting stakeholder goals involves collecting data and information that captures stakeholder motivations and sentiments. Depending on the project, this information may be:

• Sensitive: Including confidential details that must be protected
• Massive: Including  large volumes of stakeholder data for analysis 
• Diverse: Representing the divergent needs and views of a range of stakeholders.

Stakeholder management software, such as Simply Stakeholders, helps organizations plan, collect, and analyze the information needed to set grounded, realistic, and (importantly) aligned stakeholder goals that lead to tangible outcomes.

Set Your Goals With Simply Stakeholders

Try Simply Stakeholders! Book a personalized demo with our team and see our features and tools in action! Get a Demo

The arrival of CSRD is viewed as a positive move. PwC’s Global CSRD Survey 2024 revealed that participating organizations and businesses can see multiple benefits flowing from sustainability reporting under CSRD, including:

• Better environmental performance 
• Improved risk mitigation
• More effective corporate governance 
• Improved engagement with all stakeholders. 

And it’s the last point that we’re most interested in. 

This article explores briefly what the CSRD is and goes into greater detail regarding the directive’s emphasis on mandatory stakeholder engagement and the ways stakeholder relationship management (SRM) software can remove some of the friction and fear when it comes to assessment time.

The CSRD and Why It Has Our Full Attention  

Introduced in 2022 and updated in 2025, the CSRD is underpinned by 12 European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Since its arrival, any company operating within Europe with over 1,000 employees and a €450 million net turnover must produce an annual report that:

• Details the risks and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues
• Declares social and environmental impacts as a result of their business activities. 

For organizations seeking ESG compliance via voluntary frameworks (such as the Global Reporting Initiative or Carbon Disclosure Project), collating and reporting this information may not be a shock to the system. They may already be including some stakeholder engagement to gain an ESG score.  

The difference for organizations now tasked with CSRD reporting and stakeholders is that engagement is baked into processes, making it mandatory. As the CSRD is a regulatory standard, stakeholder engagement is no longer an ‘if you can’. It’s a ‘you must’ in order to comply and avoid the risk of penalties or fines.

Visit the EU’s CSRD directive site, and you’ll find strongly worded messages such as this:

“…the necessity of engaging stakeholders cannot be overstated.”

Failing to disclose demonstrated stakeholder engagement means the assessment is incomplete. And where this is the case, the company or organization may be marked as non-compliant.

CSRD Reporting and Stakeholders: What’s Required?

The CSRD includes a thorough double materiality assessment covering each ESG topic.  

This is to ensure the reports provide the transparency and accountability the directive was designed to mandate. 

The Double Materiality Assessment

The double materiality assessment comes under ESRS 1 General Requirements. It ensures no stone is left unturned in reporting. Organizations are required to stress-test their materiality impact. They must assess not only what they can see from inside the organization, but also the experience and perspectives of voices outside regarding the organization and ESG topics. 

Here’s how the two strands of the double materiality assessment work.

The impact materiality: How an organization’s operations and processes affect people (work conditions, human rights, equal opportunities, local communities) and the environment (emissions, responsible waste management, supply chain management, etc.) 

Sometimes referred to as the ‘inside-out’ view, the impact materiality assessment concerns an organization’s internal processes and standards, and how they affect external stakeholders and the world in which the organization operates.

The financial materiality: How an organization’s economic and financial performance is affected by sustainability factors, such as climate change. This assessment also covers financially-linked governance, such as risk and opportunity assessments affecting cash flow, capital, and the financial health of the organization.  

Because financial materiality considers factors that are outside the organization’s power, this can sometimes be called the outside-in view.  

CSRD Reporting and Stakeholder Engagement: It’s Unavoidable

The EU expects stakeholders to be involved throughout the CSRD’s double materiality assessment, to inform the report, and for the company to understand completely how it affects its surroundings and people.

Early stakeholder engagement is crucial. But who is involved and how feedback is gathered depends on the sustainability topic in question. 

Impact materiality and financial materiality are of interest to different stakeholder groups. And the ESRS presents two broad stakeholder groups. 

The first are affected stakeholders, and can include:

• Employees and temporary or contract workers
• Local communities living near an organization’s operations
• Consumers, customers, and end users of the organization’s products or services
• First Nations or Indigenous peoples where an organization’s operations affect their land, territories, or rights 
• Vulnerable groups, such as children, migrants, and people with disabilities.  

The second group is users of sustainability statements and reports, and includes:

• Investors and shareholders
• Business partners
• Financial institutions
• NGOs
• Trade and labour unions
• Regulators and policymakers.

Knowing which individuals or groups to engage with to fulfil the requirements of the materiality assessment is the first challenge. Do this by creating a stakeholder register and identifying key stakeholders, before moving on to stakeholder mapping and devising a stakeholder engagement plan.   

Failing to demonstrate and disclose stakeholder engagement means the materiality assessment is incomplete, which could put the organization on shaky ground. So your organization must be clear on the CSRD reporting and stakeholders’ roles within the work.

What the ESRS Expects 

To ensure reporting uniformity, the ESRS includes specific sections in the directive outlining what organizations are expected to manage stakeholder engagement. 

You’ll find these in ESRS 1 (paragraphs 22-26) and ESRS 2 (SBM-2). 

Within these sections, your organization must disclose:

• Key stakeholder methodology: How the organization identified relevant stakeholders and the methods used to categorize and map them
• Engagement strategies: The methods used to engage stakeholders and the frequency of engagement
• Engagement goals and objectives: What the organization is trying to learn and understand as a result of stakeholder engagement
• Results analysis and reporting: How stakeholder feedback and views link to topics in the material assessment
• Stakeholder concerns: Issues stakeholders raised relating to the organization’s material assessment topics. 

While CSRD reporting and stakeholder engagement are mandatory, the ESRS has left the door open when it comes to the methods an organization uses. This offers some flexibility in using strategies, tools, and practices that are best aligned with your organization, commonly used within your industry, and (most importantly) will elicit engagement from stakeholders. 

That said, the ESRS does require organizations to do the following as part of their engagement process.

• Maintain engagement: Stakeholder consultations and engagement are ongoing and part of a well-maintained relationship.
• Document interactions: they must have recorded proof of who was consulted (as a way of ensuring inclusivity of all stakeholders) and what they said. 
• Strategic decision-making: Demonstrating how stakeholder engagement and feedback is informing and guiding ESG plans and the materiality assessment.  

5 Ways Simply Stakeholders Supports CSRD Reporting

CSRD reporting and stakeholder involvement might feel like a massive data and people management task. Particularly for organizations with long supply chains and multiple or complex stakeholder groups. 

Hurried, superficial stakeholder engagement assessments are a recipe for non-compliance. But get it right, and you can breathe a sigh of relief and simultaneously satisfy stakeholders.

Making sure you have the right stakeholder management software to support CSRD reporting and stakeholders is a simple first step. The Simply Stakeholders platform can help in the 5 following ways.

1. Tagging ESG topics 

Speeds up the collation of report information by automatically organising key stakeholder interactions and data related to ESG reporting relevant to CSRD compliance. 

2. Organizing and Mapping Stakeholders 

Create effective stakeholder mapping visuals for CSRD evidence using an intuitive stakeholder register that records contact lists, relationships, and interactions.

3. Communicating With Stakeholders 

Keep in touch with stakeholders and request feedback using email outreach and SMS messaging and built-in tools make it easy to create and circulate surveys.

4. Sharing Processes and Collaborating

Ensure cohesion and collaboration among cross-department teams responsible for stakeholder engagement by enabling them to capture and share lists, forms, templates, and automated workflows.

5. Real Data Decision Making 

Simplify project tracking and speed up report creation. Custom dashboards and reports show the key metrics for CSRD reporting, which can be used as evidence for those stakeholders who use sustainability statements and reports.      

Engaging Stakeholders for CSRD Reporting

CSRD reporting has mandated stakeholder engagement, making the management of stakeholder relationships and data more important than ever for organizations operating in or through the EU. 

Now you understand why it’s important and exactly what’s expected to fulfil the double material assessment, the next step is formulating a specific stakeholder engagement plan that supports the CSRD.

Your next stop: ESG Stakeholder Engagement: A Vital Part of ESG Strategy.

Projects of this size are often called ‘megaprojects’: high-investment, politically sensitive ventures that can involve 10,000 or more individual and group stakeholders. Those stakeholders represent very different communities, with diverse (and often competing) priorities and needs. For complex, high-investment, and often politically sensitive ventures, the risks of mismanaging stakeholder engagement in megaprojects can be huge.  

By unpicking real-world examples of successful megaprojects and analyzing the strategies used, along with the fundamental stakeholder principles, it’s possible for organizations and local governments that have previously managed smaller projects to scale up their engagement approaches to megaproject stakeholder levels, all without losing (too much) sleep.

The Core Stakeholder Management Process

Every project, whatever it’s size, works through these six core stakeholder management processes. 

1. Key stakeholder identification and segmentation
2. Setting stakeholder goals and needs
3. Stakeholder and relationship mapping
4. Engagement and communication planning
5. Risk assessment and management
6. Ongoing monitoring and reporting

On small-scale projects with only a handful of stakeholders and short turnaround times, it’s possible to manage these processes manually. Legacy systems to track interactions and commitments still hold up. The engagement team can call a meeting at relatively short notice and still get a good turnout. And when you have one person managing one stakeholder group, the risk of double-handling work or people slipping through the net is small. 

Scale up to managing megaproject stakeholder numbers, and everything changes.

Managing these processes without the support of stakeholder relationship management (SRM) software becomes unfathomable. (And impossible.) And those six vital stakeholder processes are at a higher risk of breaking down. 

So how do megaprojects handle huge numbers of stakeholders and the gargantuan volume of work that inevitably comes with engaging and supporting them?

The Eye-Opening Reality of Megaproject Stakeholder Management

Let’s start by looking at two successful mega infrastructure projects — one in India and one in Australia. Public project reports show how the developers scaled up core stakeholder management processes to meet the needs of their megaproject.

An Indian Rail Project

The first megaproject case study is a large-scale metro rail project planned for construction in a city that’s home to approximately 5 million people. 

The project had a budget of USD $2.2 billion and (at the time of planning and construction) the political backing of the State government and the Government of India.

According to a post-project analysis of external stakeholder management, the rail infrastructure project’s overarching goals were: 

•  to reduce pollution
•  boost local economic growth. 

The railway had a large footprint that required land purchasing or landowner permissions for work to progress. Land-owning external stakeholder groups included private owners, businesses, taxpaying citizens, government agencies, and religious groups. In short, the project developers had a complex financial, administrative, and cultural landscape to navigate. 

The Melbourne Metro Tunnel   

Nicknamed ‘Victoria’s big build,’ the Melbourne Metro Tunnel in Australia is a 9km rail tunnel connecting South Kensington to South Yarra. 

The project cost AUD $13.4 billion and was widely seen as a much-needed upgrade to Melbourne’s rail network — delivering five new underground stations and better connections between key education, health, and business districts. 

A review of the project’s chapter on community and stakeholder engagement suggests there were as many as 15 stakeholder groups, each with subsets of individuals, groups, or communities. They included (amongst others) schools, the federal government, residents, and landowners.

Personalized Relationships Always Matter

Projects at any scale must not lose sight of the need to engage all stakeholders in deep, personalized relationships. And, regardless of volume, it’s up to the organization, project management team, and stakeholder engagement team to ensure this human-to-human level of contact happens.  

Methods for Managing Enterprise-Level Stakeholder Ecosystems

So, what practical steps did these two mega rail projects use to successfully manage their megaproject stakeholder ecosystems?

Method 1: Phased Engagement Frameworks 

To ensure the right stakeholders got the right information at right points in the project, the Melbourne Metro Tunnel engagement team took a phased engagement approach. 

Using the IAP2 Spectrum of public participation, the project team assigned segmented stakeholder groups to one of five engagement phases. This allowed them to plan tailored engagement and communication strategies that met each group’s specific information and engagement needs in timely, sensitive ways.

Method 2: Feedback Loops

Both projects used feedback loops to ensure ongoing stakeholder collaboration and support throughout the project. By maintaining transparent two-way communication that gave, gathered, and responded to information, opinions and queries, engagement adapted and evolved to meet stakeholder needs as the project progressed.   

Method 3: Power Theory

The review of the Indian rail project highlighted the use of power theories to gain and maintain stakeholder support. Persuasion — no doubt carefully negotiated, framing the project in a positive light — and hegemonizing the work resulted in ‘greater stakeholder satisfaction’ and ‘community support.’ 

An example of persuasion: Developers negotiated with the city’s airport to provide extra car parking in return for permission to work on their land and to compensate for disruption.

An example of framing: Press and public discussion focused on positive aspects of the project, such as the project’s solar capabilities and the launch of an interconnected ticketing system.

An example of hegemonizing: Largely through social media, the project celebrated national festivals and cultural events, and highlighted corporate social responsibility work. Linking the project to acts of social and community good and powerful cultural moments embedded its advantages in the minds of the targeted populations.   

Method 4: Ongoing Community and Stakeholder Engagement

The Melbourne Metro Tunnel report highlights the importance of staying present and visible after project completion. The work of stakeholder engagement and support doesn’t stop as soon as the ticket offices open. With so many stakeholders affected, new small projects were needed to work through teething problems. 

The Complexities of Stakeholder Management at Scale

The core processes of stakeholder management are the same for small and large-scale projects. But megaproject stakeholder management can encounter complexities unique to the size of the work. Here’s how that might look. 

Geographic Distribution 

Stakeholders associated with the project or organization may live and work in widely dispersed areas. Reaching stakeholders over large distances can impact both the ease and the cost of engagement. 

Projects spanning a large geographic area may also have to consider diverse cultural and ideological beliefs of stakeholder groups.

Volume Breakdown 

Detailed stakeholder analysis can help shape strong decisions. But analyzing megaproject stakeholder data at a granular level becomes difficult and time-consuming. Extracting and classifying detailed information to guide mega stakeholder management may need different processes and greater focus.

Stakeholder Types 

The number and makeup of different stakeholder groups extend beyond internal, external, primary, secondary, direct, and indirect. 

Different Depths of Relationship 

Understanding, building, and managing appropriate levels of interaction and relationships for informing, consulting, involving, etc, is important but complex. Relationships that are too shallow or too fleeting may affect engagement.

Communication Frequency 

Establishing and maintaining the best-fit communication methods and the rhythms needed to keep each stakeholder group appropriately informed.  

Failing to understand and address these complexities early can increase risk.

Common Painpoints That Accompany Large-Scale Stakeholder Management

Pain points that can blight megaprojects involving thousands of stakeholders include:

Information Overload

Data overwhelm is a danger for the stakeholder management team and the stakeholders.  

In either case, feeling swamped by information, even if it’s useful and well-intentioned, can have a negative effect — people disengage to avoid getting bogged down by detail.  

Neglected Relationships

Stakeholders can easily slip through the net during megaprojects. When this happens, people feel left in the dark or think that their ideas and opinions don’t matter. This can lead to resentment and frustration. 

Team Coordination Chaos

With so many moving parts and a huge number of people working on the project, keeping track of who is managing what and by when becomes a risk. As does double-handling tasks or relationships. This can be embarrassing and cred-damaging all around when stakeholder managers contact a stakeholder only to find the task has been done or the conversation had. 

Manual Process Breakdown

Keeping up with manually processing gargantuan amounts of data and complex sentiment tracking, or even mailing out communications or making phone calls, becomes so time-consuming that they’re impossible to maintain.  

Team Burnout

The stakeholder management team wilt under the weight of juggling too many tasks for a large number of people, while meeting expectations. The result?  Burnout, leading to increased risk of illness and staff shortages. 

Regulatory Risk

Without efficient tracking, regulatory obligations are overlooked or not completed. Deadlines are missed, causing delays to the project or resulting in complete project failure.    

Minimizing the threat or impact of these pain points comes down to taking a strategic approach. 

6 Strategies and Key Metrics When Scaling Stakeholder Management

So far, we’ve defined the core stakeholder management processes, seen how real-world projects have used them at scale, and acknowledged the added risks and complexities of megaproject stakeholder management. 

Now let’s look at practical ways to scale up to enterprise-level without you and your team losing sleep, or your stakeholders losing interest. 

Added bonus: For each strategy or metric, we’ve highlighted the feature within Simply Stakeholders SRM software that enables stakeholder engagement at scale.

Stakeholder relationship management software digitizes manual tasks, which supports stakeholder management at enterprise level.

1. Segmentation and Prioritization

What it is: Stakeholder registers list all relevant stakeholders. For megaprojects, these lists may be huge. Data-driven stakeholder analysis and segmentation make them easier to prioritize and manage.

Why it’s important: Segmentation and prioritization are critical when working with large volumes of stakeholders and stakeholder data. This approach delivers clear direction so the organization can focus energy and resources on those stakeholders most crucial to the development and eventual success of the project.

Relevant SRM software features:

• Centralized stakeholder register
• Easy contact import
• Automatic contact tracking – linking to data, existing records, etc.   

2. Stakeholder Mapping

What it is: Mapping stakeholders’ attributes onto a chart lets you visualize the data, compare the position of different stakeholders, and analyze your stakeholders based on their respective attributes. You can see where one stakeholder sits compared to others, organize stakeholder groups based on shared attributes, and identify trends.    

Why it’s important: Tracking relationships is complicated at scale. Using different forms of stakeholder mapping helps the team understand the links between stakeholders, their relationship to each other, and to the project. Effective tracking ensures the right individuals and groups are prioritized and nurtured. Mapping may also reveal potential collaborations. 

Relevant SRM software features:

• 3D Relationship network maps to better understand complex relationship webs
• Connected stakeholder maps for geographical location and relationships.

3. Risk Assessment

What it is: Stakeholder risk management refers to managing the human responses, often relating to controversial aspects of the project. Managing risk in this context means pre-empting or mitigating the threat of undesirable events, conditions, or situations.  

By identifying aspects of the project stakeholders care deeply about, organizations can plan the action they may take in response to necessary changes, consider how the project might be impacted, and how to mitigate any potential negative impacts. 

Risk assessment should be viewed as an ongoing process. It involves feedback loops, open communication, regular process reviews, and expert consultants to assist with any regulatory risk.

Why it’s important: Early identification and intervention minimize the impact of these risks on  project credibility and momentum 

For megaprojects, the risks are likely to relate to financial, operational, legal, or environmental factors. Look closely at stakeholder groups associated with each of these areas and establish a risk assessment plan (SWOT analysis, PERT charts, etc). 

Relevant SRM software features:  

• Sentiment analysis
• Qualitative data analysis
• Commitment tracking
• Grievance tracking.

4. Relationship Health Scoring

What it is: Self-regulated and internally managed, relationship health scoring involves monitoring, evaluating, and scoring the wellbeing and equilibrium of different stakeholder relationships.

The team needs to choose the most appropriate tools for evaluating the health of the relationship (through surveys, feedback loops, or interaction analysis) and create a scoring framework. 

A basic scoring framework might look at: 

• How trusting the relationship appears 
• Whether two-way communication is working effectively 
• If there’s a mutually valuable exchange between the organization and the stakeholder. 

Why it’s important: Relationship health scoring helps organizations overcome the risk of relationships souring, slipping through the net, or falling off a madly beeping radar. Setting up milestones for relationship health scoring makes sure project-critical relationships are scrupulously cared for. 

SRM software speeds up this process. It adjusts the relationship health score by analyzing interactions and data entered into the system. You have a reliable, ongoing health score without the burden or risk of doing massive amounts of manual work. And you can easily see how relationships improve (or decline) over time.

Relevant SRM software features:

• Data insights and reports
• Stakeholder mapping
• Stakeholder analysis
• Communication tagging

5. Resource Allocation

What it is: This covers tracking the time, energy, and money spent on stakeholder management. Done well, it will tell you exactly when, how, where, and how much resource allocation has been used. 

Why it’s important: Resource needs vary during the life of your project. Initially, allocating stakeholder management officers and a significant budget to elicit and encourage engagement is vital. But these needs may look very different as the project progresses. Being responsive and flexible is important. Adjusting allocations to fit current conditions enhances stakeholder trust and engagement as everyone’s needs evolve. 

Use significant project milestones to review how and where resources are being used. This helps ensure they’re deployed efficiently and thoroughly, and minimizes the chance of budget blowout. 

Relevant SRM software features:

• Data insight and reports
• Communication centralization
• Task tracking and management.

6. Automation vs Personalization

What it is: This is about deciding which megaproject stakeholder engagement tasks can be automated for speed and accuracy, and which ones require a human touch.

Why it’s important: Automation prevents potential team burnout during large projects and ensures issues are dealt with promptly.

Striking the right balance between automated and handled-by-humans tasks minimizes the risks of double-handling, miscommunication, and appearing impersonal.  

Relevant SRM software features:

• Sentiment tracking
• Communication and feedback
• Workflow automations.

Having the technology architecture, operational processes, and advanced intelligence insights to support these strategies can turn them into workable realities.

Technology Architecture Requirements

Scaling these stakeholder strategies involves the use of SRM software and connecting it to an existing system’s technical components (existing software, hardware, and networks), while staying aligned with the organization’s protocols and approved systems. 

Scaling up so your system can handle megaproject volumes of stakeholder data and information means you need the technical capabilities to support it. 

Technology architecture considerations for mega projects include:

• Assessing database performance and operational efficiency
• Being able to set up and support concurrent users working across multiple projects 
• Scaling storage capacity to meet changing data demands and project growth
• Allowing for global  access that meets stakeholder needs, regardless of geographical location
• Implementing advanced search and filtering to deliver accurate data and timely reports 
• Assessing existing software, hardware, and systems to ensure relevant integrations 
• Determining which backend actions and functions would benefit from API workflow automation
• Determining which front-end actions are managed by RPA
• Sourcing sophisticated tools for advanced analytics — identifying patterns and providing actionable insights within a large volume of data
• Being able to set role-, device-, or location-based user permissions.

When it comes to planning for and implementing the operational processes for a large-scale project, having the correct technology architecture makes a huge difference.   

Operational Processes for Scale

A 2022 report by the Project Management Institute (PMI) found that there were 18 causes for poor megaproject performance. Arguably, all of them are avoidable by using the systems and processes you already have.

The operational processes that work for your small-scale projects can still work at scale. They just need reimagining and redesigning to accommodate the increased volume of data and extra cooks in the kitchen.  

Scaling operational processes for megaproject stakeholder management may involve looking carefully at all critical workflows and identifying where automation can lighten the team’s load. It could also mean setting up systems that identify duplicate entries to help avoid double-handling or task repetition. Or it could be setting up stakeholder mapping and digitizing tasks to encourage cross-team coordination and task completion.

Above all, operational flexibility is essential to scaling processes, according to The Virtual Hub, a company that specializes in helping organizations scale. It’s also vital to build in time to audit and evaluate your new-look processes.

Successfully Navigating Stakeholder Management at Scale

Managing a huge number of stakeholders will, inevitably, be stressful at times. But by adapting the guiding principles of stakeholder management to make the core strategies work at scale, it’s possible to build and maintain relationships and ensure stakeholder management doesn’t become a megaproject headache. 

If You’re Working On a Megaproject

You need to ensure you have the right stakeholder management tools and software for your needs. 

The Simply Stakeholders SRM software already includes the features needed to manage stakeholders at scale. But we’re also proficient at adapting the platform for each individual client’s needs. 

When you’re ready. 

Book a Personalized Demo Interested in seeing what you can do with Simply Stakeholders? We’re here to help! Get a Demo

In fact, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) plans and frameworks are more relevant than ever. Mandatory directives and voluntary frameworks support the practical and ethical sustainability processes that matter to stakeholder groups, including customers, employees, and investors.

This article addresses the specific and crucial role of ESG stakeholder engagement. It champions engagement as crucial to fostering collaboration and acknowledges the role of stakeholders in forcing accountability and enabling long-term growth.

But first, let’s define what ESG stakeholder engagement is. 

What Is ESG Stakeholder Engagement?

ESG stakeholder engagement involves speaking to and working with stakeholders who have a direct interest in an organization’s environmental, social, and governance work, policies, processes, and commitments.

Organizations will use stakeholder engagement methods (surveys, interviews, workshops, etc) to elicit and encourage stakeholder feedback. Then they evaluate that feedback and apply it to help shape and progress their ESG strategy, as well as satisfy mandatory ESG regulations.

Who Are ESG Stakeholders?

ESG Stakeholders are a mix of internal and external stakeholders.

They include:

• Employees
• Board members
• Shareholders
• Suppliers
• Customers
• NGOs, communities, and the general public
• The media
• Educational institutions
• Local and national governments, or international governing bodies and organizations.

The groups you’ll engage with will depend on whether you’re working on the environment, social, or governance part of your strategy. 

Here are some brief examples of how different ESG stakeholders may engage with each part of your strategy.

Environmental (E)

The environmental part of ‘ESG’ assesses a company’s sustainability standards and practices. It concerns carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, how the organization protects or supports biodiversity, and the steps taken to minimize operational impact on the environment. 

Stakeholders relevant to this work could include:

• Employees
• Conservation groups
• Suppliers. 

Engaging stakeholders on environmental plans might involve:

• Asking staff for improved waste management ideas
• Meeting with suppliers to discuss their processes 
• Consulting environmental engineers to come up with solutions to meet legal environmental obligations.

Social (S)

Stakeholder engagement and management are often most strongly associated with the ‘S’ in ‘ESG’. It concerns the human, social aspect of the strategy, such as fair treatment of employees, relationship building with communities, and trust created between the organization and its customers. 

Stakeholders relevant to this work may include:

• Employees
• Labor unions
• Human rights organizations.

Achieving social compliance may involve ensuring fair wages and offering equal opportunities. In essence, the ‘S’ in ESG covers all the ongoing work that protects human and employee rights so operations are fair, ethical, and compliant with international standards. 

Governance (G)

Governance covers the structure and running of the company, its ethics, and how it’s managed. Being governance compliant matters to a huge range of stakeholders. 

Stakeholders who may be engaged to assist with governance compliance could include:

• Investors and shareholders
• The board and C-Suite
• Employees
• Government organizations
• Customers and clients.  

Engagement on this level may involve circulating company information, providing opportunities for feedback on organizational management, and publishing financial reports to ensure transparency.

Guide: ESG Compliance In this guide, learn about the standards, steps, and stakeholder benefits of ESG compliance. Read the Guide

Stakeholder Engagement Strengthens ESG Efforts

Gathering and heeding perspectives and voices of a wide range of stakeholders empowers your organization’s ESG efforts. It provides fresh insights you may not have otherwise found and data that can support your work. And that’s just for starters.

Well-Informed Strategies

A strategy based on perceptions, feelings, and what your competitors may or may not be doing is a recipe for struggle and potential failure. 

Organizations that actively incorporate the voices, thoughts, and opinions of the people who work in it, for it, or with it in their ESG strategy are more likely to take practical action and achieve relevant outcomes. 

ESG Issue Prioritization

Stakeholders will value some ESG issues more highly than others. By asking them what matters most to them, organizations can prioritize work on these issues, enhancing trust, credibility, and impact. 

Early Risk Identification

The sooner a risk or challenge is identified, the easier it is to manage or resolve. Regular and ongoing stakeholder dialogue helps you catch that work earlier. Genuine, transparent two-way communication around fledgling problems and issues can help avoid larger crises, financial repercussions, or failure to meet regulatory compliance.     

Positive ESG Reputation

Instances of greenwashing, pinkwashing, and blue washing have fuelled  ESG strategy scepticism.  Demonstrably fulfilling the stakeholder-supported commitments outlined in your plan is the best way to keep your ESG reputation intact. 

Anchoring your brand image in honesty and transparency protects existing relationships. And may even attract future stakeholders and investors looking to engage with genuinely ESG-conscious organizations.

Transparency and Trust

Some ESG regulations have stakeholder engagement built into the framework — compliance relies on it. (More on that point in a moment.) But ESG stakeholder engagement is more than a mandatory check-box exercise.

Stakeholder consultation is an ethical business decision. It promotes transparency and shows a genuine commitment to ESG practices. 

Innovation, Collaboration, and Long-Term Growth

ESG work is open-ended. It evolves as conditions change inside the organization and may also reflect changing global attitudes. 

Keeping the strategy relevant to stakeholders means nurturing the relationships that inform ESG ideas and actions. And when there’s a complex ESG challenge, it’s these relationships  that foster innovation,deliver workable solutions, and lead to long-term growth and shared benefits. 

Regulatory Compliance and Stakeholder Engagement

ESG stakeholder engagement may be optional or mandatory depending on the framework an organisation is following. Where stakeholder engagement is baked into the terms, an organization must comply to avoid penalties and fines. In some instances, stakeholder engagement is mandatory to be ESG compliant. 

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)

The EU’s CSRD was introduced in 2022, and as many as 50,000 companies across the bloc must provide evidence of complying with the directive by 2028. 

According to the EU’s CSRD directive site, ‘the necessity of engaging stakeholders cannot be overstated.’ Sections that explicitly mandate stakeholder engagement include:

• ESRS 1 (General Requirements) – Companies must complete a materiality assessment that includes the views of stakeholders regarding impact materiality, financial materiality, and the intersection of the two.
• ESRS 2 (SBM-2) – Mandatory reporting of stakeholder engagement, which details how relevant stakeholders are identified, how engagement is conducted, engagement purpose, and how stakeholder engagement results and concerns translate into ESG action. 

SEC Climate-Related Disclosure Rules

The US-based SEC Climate-Related Disclosure Rules have been rolled out by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Its Final Rules standardize the way public companies disclose risks and impacts of climate-related matters. The aim is to better protect investors, maintain fair markets, and promote capital formation.

The mandated Final Rules state that:

• Regulation S-K, (Item 1501) – Companies must disclose details about board and management governance of climate-related risks and the material impacts of these risks.
• Regulation S-K, (Items 1502-1503) – Companies must disclose the climate-related risks that have had or are likely to have an impact on the business strategy, and describe the activities the company has taken to mitigate these risks or adapt to them.

Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards 

Managed by the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB), recently mandated sustainability reporting standards require all qualifying companies to disclose information on climate, modern slavery, gender equality, and greenhouse gas emissions.

ESG stakeholder engagement is part of compliance, with the standards saying:

• AASB S2 – Stakeholder engagement forms part of the materiality process. Surveys, focus groups, interviews, and feedback loops provide evidence that stakeholder views have been gathered, considered, and prioritized logically. 

6 Methods to Successfully Engage ESG Stakeholders

Having defined the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of ESG Stakeholder management and outlined the benefits, let’s move on to practical methods for engaging stakeholders. Specifically, how those methods support ESG work. 

1. Identify Relevant and Key Stakeholders

People engage more readily when they feel they can make a valuable contribution to an issue or a situation that actively aligns with their values or impacts their lives. Identifying the stakeholders for whom the specific environmental, social, or governance issue you’re working on is most relevant instantly increases your chance of successful, meaningful engagement.  

Find all the relevant people by referring to your stakeholder register. Then use stakeholder mapping or an influence matrix to establish who the key stakeholders are. These are the people with the greatest potential to influence your work. Work out how they may impact your ESG strategy or reporting.  

2. Understand Stakeholder Interests

Surveys, interviews, and whole stakeholder meetings give stakeholders a forum for airing their perspectives and raising concerns around the issues that matter most. Organizations likely to gain stakeholder support are the ones who listen, understand, and acknowledge stakeholder needs in their ESG strategies and present ways to meet them.

Managing different (and sometimes complex) needs of each stakeholder group requires transparency and tact. It involves knowing which interests to act on, which to shelve, and how best to communicate those decisions. 

3. Set Strategy Goals and Objectives

Engagement works best when you know two things. Firstly, what you want and need to achieve, and secondly, how to feed the results of that engagement back into your ESG strategy. Set engagement goals and objectives, defining how these align with the organization’s strategic ESG objectives. 

Clear, value-aligned goals and objectives will also keep the organization accountable and deliver measurable analytics for tracking progress. 

4. Create a Stakeholder Engagement Plan

A stakeholder engagement plan documents how an organization will engage with its stakeholders and why that work is important. In the case of ESG, it concerns the methods and strategies that facilitate useful, meaningful engagement, two-way communication, and open dialogue. The engagement plan should also note the resources and methods needed to capture and evaluate feedback that results in actionable reports. 

5. Evaluate the Plan’s Impact

Tracking the outcomes of planned engagement shows you

• What’s worked, so you can do more of that 
• What hasn’t worked, so you can refine or change that. 

Analyzing and evaluating stakeholder data and sentiments gathered from initial engagement can inform and enhance future outreach. 

How regularly you revise the plan depends on:

• The scope of the project: Its planned duration and the volume of stakeholders involved
• The size of the engagement team: Larger teams are likely to be able to review engagement plans more often than smaller teams or those with stretched resources.   

6. Provide Updates and a Results Report

When stakeholders see that the engagement they’ve invested is making a difference in your ESG plan and work, they trust and support you. Providing project updates and publishing reports that share how stakeholder engagement has been incorporated, lessons learned, and outcomes achieved, will keep people on side and encourage future participation. 

The Challenges of ESG Stakeholder Engagement 

Engaging stakeholders can be challenging. Lack of everyone’s time (employees and stakeholders), scarce resources, flagging inspiration, and sometimes tight budgets affect how successfully an organization can engage its stakeholders.

Before we look at some examples of companies that navigate these challenges successfully, let’s acknowledge that the sometimes delicate and controversial nature of ESG topics presents a challenge you may not face in other stakeholder engagement initiatives. 

Mishandling ESG stakeholder engagement risks relationship and reputational damage. Fear of getting it wrong leads some organizations to believe it’s easier not to involve stakeholders. Instead, they opt for marketing techniques that give the appearance they’re fulfilling ESG duties. (E.g., greenwashing.) 

Engaging stakeholders to inform ESG strategies is vital to getting it right. 

Case Studies: Examples of ESG Stakeholder Engagement 

Many companies and organizations are using inspiring and creative ways to ensure ESG stakeholder engagement. Here are three examples. 

Patagonia

Outdoor adventure apparel company Patagonia, has strong ESG values and frameworks. Stakeholder engagement initiatives that support those values include:

• Shop Informed: This helps customers become more responsible shoppers. 
• The Worn Wear program: Stakeholders are encouraged to resell Patagonia items they no longer need, or buy listed pre-loved items. The program stops Patagonia clothing from going to landfill. 
• Forced labor and climate risk reports: Patagonia regularly reviews and publishes these on its website, maintaining transparent communication on two of ESG’s most pressing global issues.     

Intrepid Travel

Adventure travel company Intrepid embeds sustainability and social impact into its business model by:

• Publishing its Integrated Annual Report: Intrepid stays transparent by publishing data and information on the company’s carbon emissions and the steps it’s taking to further minimize its environmental impact.
• Supply chain reviews: Articles about how Intrepid reviews its entire supply chain to work with more local, independent, values-aligned businesses appear on the company website. 
• The Good Times blog: A space where customers, employees, suppliers, and local guides can share their adventures and Intrepid-specific stories. 

Cisco

Networking, cybersecurity, and AI technology company Cisco embraces stakeholder engagement to support its ESG efforts by:

• Launching the 40 Communities initiative: To bridge the data and digital divide, Cisco’s 40 Communities initiative involves getting feedback from and working with stakeholders such as customers, partners, and local leaders in communities around the world. 
• Weekly Check-Ins: These give employee stakeholders a chance to feedback to the company, supporting their social and governance commitments.
• Collaborating with like-minded groups: A comprehensive list of the initiatives, organizations, and NGOs they collaborate with to advance environmental and human rights practices within the technology industry is on their website. 

Stakeholder Engagement Brings ESG Success

Tackling environmental, social, and governance issues and challenges can be complex and controversial. Early stakeholder engagement can relieve some of the tension and show empathy and understanding.

Genuine, sustained collaboration with stakeholders lets organizations set and achieve ESG goals that matter to and impact everyone. But as we’ve seen, these aren’t the only positive outcomes. 

Engaging ESG-relevant stakeholders can improve brand visibility and approval, build and maintain trust, and even minimize risk. 

Simply Stakeholders: Smarter ESG Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder relationship management (SRM) software provides powerful tools that support effective stakeholder engagement — during ESG projects and beyond. 

Stakeholder mapping, AI-driven issue detection, and advanced insights make sure your methods of engagement are well-timed, properly curated, and align with the needs of your stakeholders. 

When you’re ready to find out more.

Try Simply Stakeholders! Book a personalized demo with our team and see our features and tools in action! Get a Demo   

In this article, we’ll share the stakeholder engagement principles and techniques most relevant to involve First Nations groups in projects. But let’s start by looking at why authentic engagement with First Nations peoples matters.

Understanding the Importance of Engaging First Nations Groups

There are three essential interlocking reasons why engaging First Nations stakeholders is vital for project success.

• Legal obligations: Laws such as The Native Title Act 1093 (Cth) in Australia and international principles such as the UN’s Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) principles offer legal protections to Indigenous peoples. 

• Ethical considerations: Recognizing the human rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and pre-existing rights and interests according to the traditional laws and customs. 

• Cultural responsibility: Committing to minimize potential harm to Indigenous sites of cultural significance, recognizing and respecting First Nations’ connection to land, water, and traditions.

The sensitivity and success with which an organization manages all three of these factors reveal its governance maturity level.

What is Governance Maturity and How Does it Relate to First Nations Stakeholders?

Governance maturity is a measure of how effectively an organization’s policies, compliance, investment, and stakeholder relationships support its overarching goals and objectives. 

In her recent article on the subject, Simply Stakeholders CEO Allison Hendricks stated that “projects that integrate land access, approvals, First Nations partnership, community engagement and investor requirements from the outset gain certainty and social licence; those that silo these functions face delays, opposition and cost blowouts.”

To highlight the importance of developing governance maturity, let’s look at Australia. 

More than 60 per cent of Australian resources projects operate on land covered by a Native Title claim or determination. Projects that demonstrate governance maturity — engaging respectfully, fostering trust, and communicating mutual benefits and long-term partnerships — are the ones setting themselves up for success. 

So what might these projects be doing to ensure they’re on the right track?

Foundational Steps for Meaningful Engagement

This isn’t the time or place for a history lesson. But we can agree that there are valid reasons Indigenous communities view the projects of non-Indigenous organizations with caution and scepticism. What’s important now is understanding how to break down those barriers and acknowledge the need for reconciliation.  

Meaningful project engagement involving First Nations groups starts with understanding that any relationship built with a community should have depth and longevity. Organizations should take deliberate steps to prioritize cultural understanding, gain the community’s trust, and ensure transparent communication at every opportunity. 

Here are the three key stakeholder engagement principles to invoke before directly engaging First Nations groups. And the knowledge gained in the process should influence how the project is designed and implemented. (But more on that shortly.)

1. Develop Cultural Competency

Developing cultural competency means familiarizing yourself with the knowledge, heritage, belief systems, and way of life for people not of your own culture or race. An example might be learning about the Dreamtime from Aboriginal culture or the animal spirit rituals of the Inuit peoples. But beyond these spiritual and cultural examples, it also involves recognizing current health, living, and socioeconomic challenges these communities encounter today.    

Building cultural competency within your organization could involve:

• Reading and discussing books and articles published by Indigenous peoples
• Inviting an Indigenous educator, group, or Elder to deliver a talk on their heritage
• Attending and supporting events organized by local Indigenous communities.

2. Build Trust Early 

All relationships strengthen over time. Involving First Nations groups early lays strong foundations for your relationship and a firm basis for building trust as the project progresses.  

Genuine trust building also helps to get beyond surface-level engagement. If communities sense their voices are only being considered as a token or an afterthought, they are less likely to get involved — even if you’ve created the best community engagement plan in stakeholder management history. (This is true of any stakeholder group. Not just First Nations.) Allow time for meaningful relationship building, and helpful, collaborative two-way dialogue will flourish.

3. Communicate Transparently

Organizations should be forthcoming with information about the project — sharing details and developments as openly and as freely as possible. 

Communicating with the community could look like:

• Holding town halls or other stakeholder meetings
• Sending electronic messages (emails, texts, websites)
• The publication of papers, documents, and flyers.

The best form of stakeholder communication is the one that best fits with the habits and lifestyle of the stakeholder group. 

Effective Engagement Practices

The three principles — cultural competency, trust building, and transparent communication — underpin how an organization goes on to successfully build stakeholder relationships. And while there are many helpful practices that foster strong, inclusive relationships, these are the ones that will likely drive collaboration and positive outcomes when engaging First Nations groups. 

Establish Partnership Protocols

When partnering with a First National community group, organization, or non-profit, it’s useful to define shared goals and interests from the outset.

Once these have been agreed, consider creating a formal agreement. This document can serve as a practical, operational framework that both parties can refer to. 

The agreement may cover: 

• The different roles and responsibilities within the partnership 
• The project’s shared and singular objectives and priorities
• Project timeframes and deadlines, and the deliverables expected by those dates
• How disputes and complaints can be lodged and managed
• How project reporting will be arranged and managed. 

In Australia, Indigenous.gov.au — a group that connects First Nations peoples with Australian Government programs — helped create the First Nations Partnership Playbook. It includes some guidelines for creating agreements and outlines how Australian organizations and governments can develop meaningful stakeholder partnerships with Indigenous groups.  

Adapt to Community Needs

The organization’s priorities may not always align with those of the First Nations groups involved in the project. Both known and unknown cultural responsibilities may shift the focus

Agile projects can weather these changes by being flexible and responsive enough to relieve pressure on First Nations groups when plans need to change. This agility maintains positive engagement and collaboration, and ultimately leads to better decision-making.

Empower Participation 

Whether it’s providing literature in the local language, understanding (and removing) barriers to access, or identifying community champions, projects that deliver frictionless participation will ensure the voices and values of First Nations people are included from planning to implementation. 

Benefit Sharing and Capacity Building 

Fairly sharing the benefits that flow from using Indigenous lands, traditional knowledge, and the resources taken from them is an ethical business practice and a recognition of Indigenous human rights. In Australia, organizations have the choice to create Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs), supported by Reconciliation Australia, an organization established to empower the relationships between organizations and Indigenous communities.

A pragmatic, values-driven focus on shared benefits and capacity building leads to projects that deliver long-term impact, growth, and sustainability for future generations. 

If that’s what your project is seeking to achieve, then consider these points.

Find Equitable Opportunities 

This relates to ensuring that the projects’ economic benefits flow through to First Nations communities. This can include:

• Job creation (for the duration of the project or after, as a result of project completion)
• Local training and internships
• Local business involvement or procurement
• Community grants awarded as a result of the project
• Community shares and equity stakes.

Equitable opportunities should, ultimately, support community growth and deliver benefits to the area or community that weren’t present before the project started. 

Offer Shared Benefits

The vast amounts of land taken up by projects of all kinds — from mining and fossil fuels extraction to renewable energy initiatives — put further pressure on Native Title lands. These projects have the potential to push Indigenous communities further from the lands and waters they’re so connected to. 

Initiatives such as co-ownership and equity ownership (sometimes referred to as economic reconciliation) seek to redress this challenge beyond simply offering a compensation sum. 

For example, offering royalty agreements from infrastructure projects can unlock economic empowerment by providing ongoing financial resources for reinvestment in the community. These agreements increase opportunities for self-determination by supporting funding for health, education, cultural preservation, and environmental stewardship.

Long-Term Impact

It’s rare for modern, forward-thinking projects not to include future planning assessments. Foreseeing the long-term impact of the project and ongoing deliverables beyond the date of project completion are one part governance maturity, one part ESG awareness. 

Sometimes referred to as ‘intergenerational benefits’, these positive impacts should cover capacity building, mentorship opportunities, and sustained partnerships between the local community and the organization or government.  

Monitoring and Continuous Improvement 

Like any relationship, the bond an organization forms with a stakeholder group needs ongoing nurturing and refining. That’s why it’s important to continue to monitor stakeholder engagement throughout a project. (And sometimes long after.)

Opportunities to continually improve relationships may involve:

• Tracking progress: And being proactive in delivering progress updates for First Nations communities
• Adapting practices: To suit the ongoing and evolving needs of the community as well as the project and organization
• Feedback loops: These encourage feedback and knowledge sharing to improve the outcomes for both the project and the First Nations people
• Active community engagement: By attending community events and being actively involved in all aspects at the heart of a healthy relationship, beyond focusing on the economic benefits.
• Celebrating successes: To boost team and community morale, and demonstrate the positive outcomes of the project.

Case Study: A Model of Successful Collaboration 

A positive example of involving First Nations groups in projects is the Waraba place name project in South-East Queensland.  

A property development for 70,000 new homes was planned in an area known as ‘Caboolture West’. As part of the planning process, the Moreton Bay Regional Council engaged the local Kabi Kabi people to ensure any new names chosen for the area and internal suburbs were:

• Culturally and historically appropriate
• A reflection of the local indigenous language 
• Supported by Traditional Custodians. 

Not only did this encourage engagement and ensure the Council met legal obligations under the Place Names Act of 1994, but it also fostered community support. The new names and boundaries were embraced by the Kabi Kabi stakeholders who would be directly impacted by the development. 

The collaborative approach taken by Moreton Bay Regional Council was considered highly successful and earned the project a Highly Commended placing for the Planning category at the 2023 IAP2 Australasia Core Value Awards. 

How Simply Stakeholders Can Assist when Involving First Nations Groups in Projects

Effective stakeholder engagement tools support organizations in establishing and maintaining strong relationships and building trust with all stakeholder groups, including First Nations people. This, in turn, helps ensure you fulfill both your legal and ethical responsibilities, develop governance maturity, and contribute to a sustainable future for these communities. 

If you’ve reached a point in your project where you need to prioritize genuine collaboration with First Nations communities, Simply Stakeholders can help.   

Discover Simply Stakeholders

But the language is shifting from social license to social value. Across government, industry, and the social sector, a growing number of organisations are moving away from the notion of “social licence” and embracing terminology like “Social Value” and “Social Legacy.” This isn’t just a cosmetic rebrand. It reflects a fundamental shift in how we think about the purpose of stakeholder engagement, from seeking permission to actively creating lasting, measurable positive change.

In this post, we’ll explore why this shift is happening, what Social Value actually means in practice, the frameworks that underpin it, and how organisations around the world are using this approach to redefine their contribution to communities and society.

The Limitations of “Social Licence”

The social licence to operate has served an important purpose. It forced organisations, particularly those in mining, energy, and infrastructure to acknowledge that regulatory compliance alone was not enough. A company might hold every formal permit and still face fierce community opposition, project delays, and reputational damage if it failed to earn the community’s trust.

However, the concept has attracted growing criticism. The biggest criticism is the transactional nature of social license, rather than a focus on long term impacts and benefits for the community. Another significant challenge is that in many countries, particularly those operating under civil law traditions, only a government authority can grant a “licence.” This creates confusion between the informal, relationship-based concept of social licence and the formal, regulatory meaning of the word. Communities and civil society see social licence as an ongoing dynamic relationship, while regulators and companies may interpret it as a one-off permission tied to specific events.

Beyond the legal ambiguity, the SLO framework carries several deeper limitations:

• It is inherently defensive. The language of “licence” frames the community relationship as something to be “obtained” or “maintained”, a hurdle to clear rather than a partnership to cultivate. This can lead organisations to treat engagement as a transactional exercise: “What’s the minimum we need to do to keep operating?”
• It centres the organisation, not the community. The concept revolves around whether the organisation has “permission.” The community’s wellbeing, aspirations, and development needs are secondary to the organisation’s operational continuity.
• It can be cynically co-opted. Too often, social licence has been treated as something that can be bought through community grants, sponsorships, or public relations campaigns, rather than earned through genuine, enduring relationships built on mutual respect.
• It is difficult to measure. Social licence exists in the realm of beliefs, perceptions, and opinions. While these can be gauged through sentiment analysis and survey work, the SLO concept provides no standardised framework for quantifying the positive or negative impact an organisation actually has on a community.

These shortcomings have prompted a rethink. If the goal is not merely to avoid opposition but to genuinely improve outcomes for people and places, then the conversation needs to move beyond “licence” and toward “value.”

Enter Social Value: A Proactive, Outcome-Focused Approach

Social Value represents a philosophical and practical evolution from the social licence concept. Where social licence asks, “Do we have permission to operate?” Social Value asks a fundamentally different question: “What positive change are we creating for people, communities, and the environment?”

Social Value UK provides a widely cited definition: Social Value is “the quantification of the relative importance that people place on the changes they experience in their lives.” In other words, it goes beyond financial metrics to capture the broader social, economic, and environmental impact that an organisation’s activities have on the people and places around it.

The UK Government has adopted a similar framing, describing social value derived from procurement as “the positive legacy created through the performance of a contract.” That word “legacy” is telling. It shifts the emphasis from short-term acceptance to long-term, enduring benefit.

This reframing matters because it changes what organisations measure, what they aim for, and how they engage with communities. Instead of managing risk and seeking acquiescence, organisations pursuing Social Value are actively pursuing outcomes such as local employment, skills development, environmental improvement, health and wellbeing, and community resilience.

The Key Shift

Social Licence = “Do stakeholders accept us?” (permission-based, risk-focused, organisation-centred)

Social Value = “What lasting positive impact are we creating?” (outcome-based, impact-focused, community-centred)

Social Legacy = “What enduring benefit will remain after our project or contract is complete?” (long-term, intergenerational, place-based)

The Legislative Catalyst: The Social Value Act and Beyond

The shift from social licence to Social Value has not happened in a vacuum. Legislation has played a critical role in embedding social value thinking into mainstream practice.

In the UK, the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 was a landmark piece of legislation that required all public bodies in England and Wales to consider how the services they commission and procure might improve the social, economic, and environmental wellbeing of their area. This was the first time that “social value” was given formal legislative weight in the context of public spending. The UK Government published supporting guidance and resources to help public bodies implement the Act.

The Act was then significantly strengthened. From January 2021, central government departments were required to explicitly evaluate Social Value when awarding major contracts, applying a minimum 10% weighting to social value criteria. The Social Value Model that accompanied this change established priority themes including health and wellbeing, economic equality, fighting climate change, and supporting recovery from COVID-19.

Complementary legislation has reinforced this direction: the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and most recently the Procurement Act 2023 have collectively created an ecosystem where demonstrating positive social outcomes is not optional, it’s a competitive and legal necessity.

At the European level, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires companies to publish detailed information on social impacts across their value chains, covering topics such as gender equality, fair pay, skills development, and working conditions. These regulatory developments are making it clear: understanding, measuring, and reporting social value is becoming table stakes for responsible business.

Social Value Frameworks: Building the Architecture of Impact

Moving from aspiration to action requires robust frameworks. Several have emerged to help organisations plan, measure, and report on their social value contributions.

Theory of Change

At the heart of most social value frameworks lies the Theory of Change (ToC), a methodology that maps the causal pathway from an organisation’s activities to its desired long-term impact. A Theory of Change works backwards from the ultimate goal, identifying all the conditions (outcomes) that must be in place for that goal to be achieved, and then mapping how the organisation’s activities contribute to each outcome.

The core components of a Theory of Change include:

1. Inputs The resources invested (funding, staff, equipment, expertise).
2. Activities The actions undertaken using those resources (training programmes, community engagement, environmental initiatives).
3. Outputs The direct, measurable products of activities (number of people trained, workshops delivered, trees planted).
4. Outcomes The changes in behaviour, skills, or conditions that result (increased employability, improved community health, reduced carbon emissions).
5. Impact The long-term, systemic change that the organisation contributes to (reduced poverty, stronger community resilience, a healthier environment).

Crucially, a good Theory of Change also surfaces the assumptions that connect each step in the chain. It forces organisations to articulate not just what they believe will happen, but why they believe it, and what evidence supports that belief. This makes the theory testable and the organisation accountable.

Organisations like New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) in the UK have championed Theory of Change as the foundation of effective strategy and evaluation. NPC describes it as the bedrock of charity strategy, evaluation, and communication, a participatory process that helps organisations think rigorously about how their work leads to real-world impact.

For stakeholder-focused organisations, a Theory of Change is particularly powerful because it puts the stakeholder experience at the centre. It asks: What changes for people as a result of what we do? This is a fundamentally different question from “Do people accept what we do?”

The Social Value TOM System

The most widely adopted tool for measuring social value is the Social Value TOM (Themes, Outcomes, and Measures) System, developed collaboratively by over 40 organisations across the public, private, and third sectors. Built on a theory of change model, the TOM System provides a standardised way to measure social value across contracts, projects, and departments. It assigns proxy values, translating positive changes into financial terms, so that organisations can quantify, compare, and communicate their social contributions in a language that procurement teams, decision-makers, and community stakeholders can all understand.

Social Return on Investment (SROI)

SROI is a methodology designed to capture and monetise social, environmental, and economic outcomes as a ratio. For example, an SROI analysis might find that for every £1 invested, £3.50 is returned in social value. While powerful, SROI can be resource-intensive and bespoke, making it less scalable than standardised frameworks like the TOM System. It remains a valuable tool for deep-dive evaluations of specific programmes or interventions.

Other Key Frameworks

Several additional frameworks contribute to the Social Value landscape. The Social Value International Principles provide eight guiding principles for good practice, including involving stakeholders, understanding what changes, only claiming value that is attributable to your activities, and being responsive to findings. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) offer a globally recognised benchmark against which organisations can align their social value activities. And the HM Treasury Green Book in the UK provides the value economics methodology that underpins much of current social value measurement practice. The Social Value Portal provides a comprehensive guide to the legislative landscape.

Measuring the ‘S’ in ESG: The Missing Piece

The rise of the shift from Social License to Social Value thinking is directly connected to one of the most significant challenges in the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) landscape: the difficulty of measuring the “S.”

While environmental metrics have matured over the past decade, think carbon emissions, energy consumption, and waste reduction, and governance factors are relatively well-defined through corporate policies and structures, social performance has remained, in the words of many analysts, “an ambiguous minefield.” A significant majority of investors have acknowledged finding the social dimension the hardest area of ESG to analyse and integrate into investment strategies.

A telling finding from research highlighted by Harvard Law School reveals the depth of the problem: of more than 1,750 social metrics across 12 different ESG rating reveals the depth of the problem: of more than 1,750 social metrics across 12 different ESG rating frameworks, only a small fraction actually evaluated the effects of company social practices. The overwhelming majority measured efforts and activities—policies, commitments, and programmes—rather than the actual outcomes those initiatives produced. In other words, the ESG world has been measuring what organisations promise to do rather than what actually changes for people.

This is where social value frameworks offer a breakthrough. By adopting a theory of change approach and measuring actual outcomes, not just inputs and activities, organisations can provide investors, regulators, and communities with credible evidence of their social contribution. Several high-profile cases illustrate why this matters: companies like Tesla have been removed from ESG indices due to unresolved social issues, while others like Boohoo have suffered enormous market value losses after poor labour practices were exposed in their supply chains. Social Ventures Australia’s work with Australian Unity provides a good case study of how organisations can develop practical frameworks for measuring the “S.”

Governance Maturity in the Energy Transition How does your organisation stack up? Read More

The emerging consensus is clear: the “S” in ESG cannot remain a box-ticking exercise focused on policies and commitments. It must evolve toward genuine, evidence-based measurement of social outcomes and impact. Social Value frameworks provide exactly the methodology needed to make this shift possible. For further reading, GRESB’s analysis and the Stanford Social Innovation Review both offer valuable perspectives on fixing the “S” in ESG.

Evaluation and Monitoring: Making Social Value Accountable

Committing to making the transition from Social License to Social Value is one thing; demonstrating that it’s being delivered is another. Robust evaluation and monitoring are essential to ensure that social value commitments translate into real outcomes, and that organisations can learn, adapt, and continuously improve.

Effective social value monitoring typically involves several key practices:

• Setting clear, measurable indicators tied to each outcome in the Theory of Change. These indicators should capture both quantitative data (such as jobs created or training hours delivered) and qualitative insights (stakeholder perceptions, wellbeing changes, community feedback).
• Accounting for deadweight, displacement, and drop-off. Deadweight considers what would have happened anyway without the intervention. Displacement asks whether the benefit has simply been shifted from one area to another. Drop-off reflects how outcomes diminish over time. Good social value measurement accounts for all of these factors to avoid overstating impact.
• Regular, ongoing data collection, not just end-of-project evaluation. Monitoring should be built into the rhythm of project delivery, with scheduled check-ins, data reviews, and stakeholder feedback loops that allow for course corrections along the way.
• Stakeholder-centred evaluation. The people experiencing the changes are the most authoritative source of information about whether social value is actually being created. This means investing in meaningful engagement through surveys, interviews, focus groups, and participatory evaluation methods to capture the lived experience of impact.
• Transparent reporting. Social value data should be shared with stakeholders, communities, and decision-makers in accessible formats. Reporting dashboards, impact reports, and public disclosures all contribute to accountability and build the trust that underpins long-term relationships.

Stakeholder management platforms like Simply Stakeholders play a crucial role here. By tracking engagement, monitoring sentiment, qualitative analysis of discussions with communities, identifying emerging issues, and providing real-time analytics, these tools give organisations the infrastructure they need to move from aspiration to evidence. When social value commitments are tracked alongside stakeholder relationships, organisations can see not just whether they are doing the work, but whether the work is making a difference.

Organisations Leading the Way

Across sectors and geographies, a growing number of organisations are embedding Social Value into their core operations.

Rotherham Council (UK)

Since adopting its Social Value policy in 2019, Rotherham Council has increased local spending by 72% and secured £27.8 million in Social Value commitments from suppliers. This demonstrates how public sector procurement can be a powerful lever for community benefit when Social Value is embedded into decision-making.

Australian Unity (Australia)

Working with Social Ventures Australia, Australian Unity developed a groundbreaking framework to define, measure, and value the “S” in ESG through a community and social value lens. Their approach tested the hypothesis that for Australian Unity, the “S” in ESG could equal “wellbeing”, and they won the Australian Financial Review’s ESG Metrics Innovator award in 2022 for their efforts.

Mars, Compass Group, and Hays

Major international businesses including Mars, Compass Group, and Hays are now using Social Value frameworks. including the TOM System to track and improve their contributions across the pillars of people, place, and planet.

NHS England

Since 2022, the NHS has mandated a 10% Social Value weighting in all procurement decisions. This reflects a growing recognition that healthcare institutions are anchor institutions in their communities, and that procurement decisions have ripple effects on employment, skills, health equity, and local economies.

Salford Youth Zone

Using a Whole Life Value approach that incorporated the National TOMs framework, the Salford Youth Zone project demonstrated that its true social value during the construction phase was £14.5 million, far exceeding the initial estimate of £1.5 million. Over a 25-year operational period, the project is forecasted to generate £171 million in total social value, equating to £3.47 for every £1 invested.

WhatThis Means for Stakeholder Engagement

The shift from Social Licence to Social Value has profound implications for how organisations approach stakeholder engagement. It means engagement is no longer about managing opposition or securing acquiescence. Or even just publishing information about your projects or work on an online portal to “inform” stakeholders. It’s about understanding community needs, co-designing interventions, tracking outcomes, and continuously improving the contribution an organisation makes to the people and places it affects.

This requires tools and processes that go beyond basic consultation. Organisations need to:

• Map and understand stakeholder networks to identify who is affected and who can influence outcomes.
• Track engagement over time to build a longitudinal picture of relationships, sentiment, and emerging issues.
• Analyse qualitative data to understand the depth and nuance of stakeholder experience, not just quantitative metrics.
• Report transparently on what has been promised, what has been delivered, and what the evidence says about impact.

These are precisely the capabilities that platforms like Simply Stakeholders are designed to support. By providing a centralised, data-rich view of stakeholder relationships, engagement history, and sentiment trends, Simply Stakeholders helps organisations move from reactive engagement to strategic, evidence-based relationship management, the kind that underpins genuine Social Value delivery.

Conclusion: From Permission to Purpose

The movement from Social Licence to Social Value is more than a change in vocabulary. It represents a maturation in how organisations understand their role in society. Where the social licence model asked, “Are we allowed to operate here?” the social value model asks, “Are we making this place better?”

With frameworks like Theory of Change and the TOM System providing rigorous methodology; with legislation like the Social Value Act, CSRD, and the Procurement Act 2023 embedding social outcomes into procurement and reporting; and with organisations from Rotherham Council to Australian Unity demonstrating what’s possible, the pathway is clear.

The organisations that will thrive in this new landscape are those that go beyond compliance to genuinely pursue social value, and that have the tools, data, and relationships to prove it.

Get a Demo Ready to try Simply Stakeholders for yourself? Reach out and book a personalized demo with our team! Book a Demo

As the world continues down a path of climate catastrophe, severe economic uncertainty, anti-woke sentiment, and contemporary power brokers’ blatant disregard for well-established governance, it’s no wonder leaders of the corporate world are asking the following questions.

Is ESG relevant in 2026? Or is a complete dismantling of ESG practises just around the corner? 

The short answer to the first question: Yes, ESG is still relevant. And to the second one: No, companies and organizations shouldn’t completely abandon this work.

That said, ESG frameworks are indeed operating in an extremely unstable environment full of hostility and hurdles.   

As a result, attitudes and approaches towards ESG, DEI, and SLO have changed (because they’ve had to). But if you look closely there’s strong evidence that companies and governments aren’t abandoning ESG frameworks and regulations. 

ESG isn’t going anywhere. And this is how we know.   

While Some Withdraw, Others Double Down

America’s ESG policy pivot was bound to draw huge attention. And it’s easy to globalize the actions of a single superpower — Well, if America is doing it, it won’t be long until the rest of the world follows suit. 

But that’s not happening. 

ESG frameworks and directives are bigger than America and its economy. Other countries, including the EU, continue to back ESG assets. 

Taking the block as an example, its regulatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is in full flow. And, to address the elephant in the room, yes some of the recent legislation changes may be perceived as a watering down of the Directive. But it’s still commanding clout. Approximately 50,000 of the largest companies operating in Europe must disclose ESG data by 2029. That’s a considerable amount of business.

Meanwhile, in the Southern Hemisphere, large Australian corporations and financial institutions have entered their second year of mandatory climate reporting. 

Since the introduction of the Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards, companies are settling into a world where transparent and consistent emissions reporting is essential. And the world is watching. Australia is one of the first economies to introduce a framework that closely aligns with the International Sustainability Standards Board. 

And how about the UK? Well, a recent UK High Court ruling tells us where it stands on ESG.

The 2015 Fundao Dam Collapse in Brazil killed 19 people, polluted the river, and obliterated hundreds of homes. A decade later, the UK High Court ruled BHP responsible for the collapse. It’s a reminder to industry that there are countries upholding ESG frameworks. And they will hold firms accountable for poor governance.   

Predicted ESG Asset Rises Are Still Relevant 

A 2024 Bloomberg Intelligence forecast suggested that global ESG assets are set to hit $40 trillion by 2030. Admittedly, this forecast was delivered before potential (primarily US-based) blows to ESG, like:

• The US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (again)
• Indefinite delays to green energy projects or their complete cancellation 
• Attacks on social and governance issues relating to diversity, equality, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). 

Since publishing this ESG-affirming report Bloomberg Intelligence has not offered any further information or data to back those findings. But there’s also been nothing published to the contrary. Could the silence be a muted acknowledgement that ESG is still a viable line of investment for modern, forward-thinking companies? Maybe, and there’s some anecdotal evidence from the recent World Economic Forum (WEF) that might back that idea up.

Same Work, New Language 

The WEF wasn’t short of dramatic talking points. (Mark Carney, #amiright?) But there was one ESG-related theme that caught my attention — and confirms to me that it isn’t dead — there were reports alluding to how the corporate world is responding to ESG-hostility. 

They’re not quitting on ESG, DEIA, and social licence work. But they are changing the language around it to avoid potential repercussions and accommodate the ongoing political turbulence.

For example, in this Reuters report.

A European tech company executive was quoted as saying they’re not stopping the ESG and DEI work they’ve done. “For many years, we have worked to shape a more sustainable, equitable world. It’s rooted in our company culture.” That kind of strong sentiment shows the whim of a single political party isn’t enough to strike down this firmly established movement. 

Other commentators emphasized that the way they operate isn’t “a tick-box exercise,”  and that they make sure their workforce is filled with “the best talent…from wherever it may be.”

ESG language has become guarded, veiled in a lexicon that’s acceptable to the political climate. But read carefully, and the intent and actions are still there. The world is continuing to support and implement the progressive, forward-thinking policies that were coming to fruition pre-2024.

More Floods, More Fires, More Disparities — More Evidence ESG Matters 

The challenges and inequities ESG frameworks are built to address are more apparent than ever. In short, the work is more crucial than ever. Investors are recognizing this. 

The WEF’s Global Risks Report is a pretty bleak read in places (‘Declining trust, diminishing transparency and respect for the rule of law…’) but it also offers hope. 

It reveals that, for most of the 1,300 experts interviewed, ESG issues are still driving their business decisions. The condition of the world’s climate, the way in which we work, and the way corporations are held to account still mean something to corporate leadership.  

For a more concrete take, let’s return to Bloomberg Intelligence. 

In an investor survey released after Trump took office, 90% of respondents said they assess the carbon footprint of their portfolio. Because it still matters. 

Investors want stable and sustainable portfolios. And that means looking to the future. Beyond the current turbulence and anti-ESG rhetoric. 

ESG Isn’t Going Anywhere

The smart, forward-thinking companies know this. They’re adjusting their approach and language for the time being. But the work and investment go on. 

If you’re at the start of your ESG journey, wondering if it’s worth following a framework and investing in regulatory compliance in such turbulent, uncertain times, the answer is, ‘Yes’. It’s worth it — reputationally, financially, and for the planet. And our guide to ESG can help.

The Western Australian Government, through PoweringWA, has released new guidance on Community Benefits for large-scale renewable energy projects in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS). The guidance introduces place-based Community Benefit Plans (CBPs), a tiered approach to benefit sharing, and confirmation that a pilot program will be undertaken later this year to test implementation on the ground.

This paper examines the key features of the new guidance, assesses its implications for renewable energy developers, local governments, and host communities, and explores what practitioners should watch for as the framework moves from policy to practice. Critically, we argue that the complexity of stakeholder engagement required by this guidance—spanning community members, Traditional Owners, local governments, unions, developers, and Regional Development Councils—demands a systematic, technology-enabled approach to stakeholder management.

The new WA Community Benefits Guideline represents a significant step forward in Australia’s approach to ensuring host communities share in the value of the renewable energy transition. For practitioners, the question is no longer whether to engage—but how to do it well, transparently, and at scale.

Summary

PoweringWA’s new guideline for large-scale SWIS projects introduces place-based Community Benefit Plans, early proponent commitments, lifecycle (CPI-indexed) benefits, and strong transparency and representative engagement requirements, with a pilot to test implementation. While non-regulatory, success depends on clear governance, adequate resourcing for local governments and communities, and learnings from the pilot. It carries significant implications for developers, LGAs, host communities, Traditional Owners, unions, and Regional Development Councils, while safeguarding existing obligations. Given the complexity and duration of commitments, practitioners should adopt systematic, technology-enabled stakeholder management as similar approaches expand nationally.

The Context: Why Community Benefit Sharing Matters Now

Australia’s energy transition is accelerating. Across the country, large-scale wind, solar, and battery projects are transforming regional landscapes and reshaping local economies. But the benefits of this transformation have not always flowed proportionally to the communities that host these projects. Regional towns bear the visual, environmental, and social impacts of new energy infrastructure—while the economic gains often accrue at state or national levels.

This imbalance has created a growing social licence challenge. Research by RE-Alliance found that the lack of consultation and engagement with local communities was the second highest concern (79 percent) among regional Australians considering the development of large-scale renewable energy infrastructure. In the United States, an estimated 300 transmission, wind, and solar projects have been delayed by community opposition, impacting around 74,000 jobs and US$88 billion in investments.

Western Australia has responded to this challenge by developing a Community Benefits Guideline, released through PoweringWA, the state’s energy transition delivery body. The guideline was informed by extensive public consultation and direct engagement with key stakeholders, including local governments, industry, and community groups. It follows the release of the draft Renewable Energy Planning Code, which is currently open for public comment until 10 April 2026, creating a comprehensive and integrated approach to renewable energy planning and community engagement in WA.

While these guidelines currently only apply to large-scale renewable energy generation and standalone BESS projects (>10 MW) connected to the SWIS, it is likely that future guidelines and requirements will also be created for smaller scale projects. Renewable energy developers would do well to take heed of these guidelines as it is expected that similar guidelines and requirements will be established across the country.

Key Features of the New Guidance

On first reading, there is much to be encouraged by in the new WA Community Benefits Guideline. Several features stand out as particularly significant for the sector.

1. Place-Based Community Benefit Plans

At the heart of the guidance is the introduction of Community Benefit Plans (CBPs)—place-based documents developed collaboratively with input from a broad cross-section of the local community. Each plan provides a clear, publicly available framework for allocating resources, promoting accountability, and aligning with community-identified priorities. Funding is targeted to initiatives that strengthen local resilience.

This is a meaningful departure from ad hoc benefit sharing arrangements. By requiring plans to be developed by the community, the guidance positions local voices at the centre of decision-making, rather than leaving benefit design solely to developers or government agencies.

2. Commitment Required Prior to Development Approval

The guidance requires proponents to commit to community benefit arrangements before submitting their development application. This is significant because it embeds benefit sharing as an integral part of project planning—not an afterthought or a condition negotiated under pressure during the approvals process. It signals to communities that their interests will be considered from the earliest stages of project development.

3. Social and Economic Benefit Recognition

The guideline recognises both social and economic benefits, with community priorities positioned as central to the process. Examples provided in the guidance illustrate outcomes rather than simply dollar figures—a welcome shift that acknowledges the diverse ways communities define value. This could include infrastructure improvements, skills and training programs, cultural preservation initiatives, or local supply chain development.

4. Active, Representative, and Proactive Engagement

The language around engagement is notably strong. The guidance references the need for “active,” “representative,” and “proactive” participation, with specific mention of the need to engage local government authorities, developers, union bodies, key community groups, community members, Traditional Owners, and local Aboriginal groups. This breadth of stakeholder inclusion reflects best practice in community engagement and aligns with the growing expectation that engagement must go beyond ticking a box.

5. Benefits Across the Entire Operational Lifecycle

Rather than limiting benefits to the construction phase, the guidance focuses on delivering benefits throughout the entire operational lifecycle of a project. Given that renewable energy assets often operate for 25 to 30 years or more, this long-term perspective is critical. Contributions are to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index to ensure their value is maintained over time. This recognises that community needs evolve over time and that benefit arrangements should be flexible enough to adapt.

6. Transparency and Public Accountability

PoweringWA has committed to hosting a public register of Community Benefit Plans on their website. This transparency mechanism is important for building trust between developers, communities, and government. It allows communities to benchmark arrangements, hold proponents accountable, and learn from the experiences of other regions.

7. Protection of Existing Commitments

The guidance includes clear exclusions preventing Community Benefit Plans from replacing existing commitments or protections owed to local governments; to offset or substitute for conditions imposed through environmental or planning approval processes; or replace matters relating to the Native Title Act 1993 or the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. Community benefits cannot be used for regular LGA expenses or to address construction impacts such as damage to roads or vegetation. This is a sensible safeguard that ensures benefit sharing is additive, not a mechanism for developers to trade off existing obligations.

What to Watch: Implementation Considerations

While the guidance represents a strong foundation, several implementation details will be worth monitoring closely as the framework is put into practice.

Guidance, Not Mandate

The framework is guidance, not regulation. The language ranges from stronger standards like “ensure proactive participation” to more flexible directives such as “should be” and “should consider.” This flexibility may be appropriate for a new framework, but it does leave open the question of enforceability. WALGA has already flagged its desire for greater clarity on whether guidelines will be binding on all proponents. Without a mandatory mechanism, there is a risk that some developers may treat the guidelines as aspirational rather than operational.

The Pilot Program

The announcement of a Community Benefits Plan Pilot later this year is an important step. The pilot will provide on-the-ground learnings and evidence to develop a toolkit supporting broader roll-out and uptake. The design, location, and evaluation criteria of the pilot will be closely watched by industry and community stakeholders alike. Success will depend on genuine community participation in the pilot process and a willingness to adapt the framework based on what is learned.

Community Benefit Advisory Groups and Governance

The governance model proposed for benefit funds—with Regional Development Councils serving as fund custodians—will be a critical factor in the framework’s success. Questions remain about how Community Benefit Advisory Groups will be constituted, how they will ensure representative membership, and how competing priorities within a community will be resolved. Effective governance requires clear terms of reference, transparent decision-making processes, and mechanisms for accountability and dispute resolution.

Capacity and Resourcing

Meaningful community engagement is resource-intensive. Small regional local governments may lack the capacity to effectively participate in developing, implementing, and monitoring Community Benefit Plans alongside their existing responsibilities. The success of the framework will depend in part on whether adequate support and resourcing is provided to communities and local governments to participate fully.

Implications for Key Stakeholders

Why This Guideline Demands a Stakeholder Management System

The WA Community Benefits Guideline creates a new level of complexity in stakeholder engagement for renewable energy projects. Consider what the guidance requires:

• Identification and proactive engagement of multiple stakeholder groups—local government, Traditional Owners, unions, community organisations, individual residents, and developers
• Collaborative development of place-based Community Benefit Plans that reflect community-identified priorities
• Transparent tracking of commitments, engagement activities, and benefit delivery over the entire operational lifecycle (25+ years)
• Demonstration of representative and inclusive participation across diverse community segments
• Public accountability through a register of Community Benefit Plans hosted by PoweringWA

Managing this level of engagement using spreadsheets, email threads, and ad hoc documentation is not just inefficient—it is a risk. When community benefit commitments span decades, when transparency is a public expectation, and when social licence depends on demonstrable engagement, organisations need purpose-built tools.

Upcoming Webinar: Stakeholder Management Architecture Join the conversation exploring these concepts, and take-away practical measures you can implement for your Council Register Now

How Simply Stakeholders Supports Compliance with the New Guidance

Simply Stakeholders is a cloud-based stakeholder relationship management platform designed specifically for the complexity of multi-stakeholder engagement across large-scale projects. Here is how the platform directly supports the requirements of the WA Community Benefits Guideline:

Centralised Stakeholder Register and Mapping

The guidance requires proactive engagement with a diverse range of stakeholders. Simply Stakeholders provides a centralised register where developers and local governments can record all stakeholder contacts, segmented groups, relationships, and interactions in one location. Multidimensional stakeholder mapping and 3D relationship network maps allow teams to visualise who they are engaging, identify gaps in representation, and ensure no stakeholder group is overlooked—a critical requirement when the guidance demands “representative” participation.

Commitment Tracking and Accountability

Community Benefit Plans will create specific commitments that must be delivered over the life of a project. Simply Stakeholders’ commitment tracking module allows organisations to record commitments, connect them to relevant stakeholders and projects, and track delivery against agreed milestones. This creates a robust and auditable record that supports the transparency requirements of the guideline and helps protect both community interests and the developer’s reputation.

AI-Powered Sentiment and Issues Analysis

Understanding community sentiment is essential for developing benefit plans that genuinely reflect community priorities. Simply Stakeholders uses AI-powered tools to automatically detect issues and sentiment from engagement data, revealing what matters most to stakeholders and where concerns are emerging. This enables more responsive and adaptive engagement—particularly important during the pilot phase, when the framework is being tested and refined.

Compliance Reporting and Dashboards

The guideline’s transparency requirements mean that developers and local governments will need to demonstrate who they have engaged, what was discussed, and how stakeholder input has influenced benefit plans. Simply Stakeholders’ custom reporting dashboards and compliance-driven reporting templates make it straightforward to produce evidence for compliance, track engagement metrics, and share insights with Community Benefit Advisory Groups and the public register maintained by PoweringWA.

Long-Term Relationship Management

With benefits expected across the entire operational lifecycle of a project, stakeholder relationships must be managed over decades, not just during the approvals phase. Simply Stakeholders’ relationship health scores and interaction tracking ensure that engagement continues to be meaningful over time, with alerts and task management tools keeping teams accountable for ongoing relationship maintenance.

Multi-Project and Multi-Stakeholder Coordination

For developers managing multiple renewable energy projects across different communities, or for regional bodies overseeing benefit delivery across several projects, Simply Stakeholders provides multi-project views and shared team access. This ensures consistency in engagement practices while allowing each community’s plan to reflect local priorities.

When the guidance demands transparency, accountability, and representative engagement over 25+ years, spreadsheets simply cannot keep up. A purpose-built stakeholder relationship management system like Simply Stakeholders provides the infrastructure to deliver on community benefit commitments reliably and at scale.

Looking Ahead: A National Trend

Western Australia’s Community Benefits Guideline does not exist in isolation. New South Wales has already implemented its own Benefit Sharing Guideline for renewable energy projects, with specific rates tied to project capacity and requirements embedded in the planning approval process. Victoria’s VicGrid has released its 2025 Transmission Plan with community benefit considerations woven throughout. And at the federal level, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is tracking state and territory actions on community engagement and benefit sharing.

The direction is clear: community benefit sharing is becoming an expected component of responsible renewable energy development across Australia. The practitioners and organisations that invest now in building the systems, capabilities, and relationships to deliver on these expectations will be better positioned—not just for compliance, but for genuinely equitable outcomes that strengthen both projects and communities.

Conclusion

The new WA Community Benefits Guideline represents a thoughtful and community-centred approach to ensuring that the renewable energy transition delivers lasting value to the communities that host it. The emphasis on place-based leadership, representative engagement, lifecycle benefits, and public transparency sets a high bar—one that reflects growing community expectations and the lessons learned from other jurisdictions and industries.

For renewable energy developers, local governments, and community leaders, the practical challenge is now implementation. The complexity of managing multiple stakeholder relationships, tracking commitments over decades, demonstrating representative engagement, and maintaining public accountability requires more than good intentions. It requires the right tools.

Simply Stakeholders provides the purpose-built platform that makes this possible—turning the aspirations of the Community Benefits Guideline into demonstrable, trackable, and transparent outcomes for communities and projects alike. As the pilot program rolls out later this year, now is the time to invest in the stakeholder management infrastructure that will underpin successful community benefit sharing for the long term.

Get a Demo Ready to try Simply Stakeholders for yourself? Reach out and book a personalized demo with our team! Book a Demo

Q&A

Question: Who does the new WA Community Benefits Guideline apply to, and what is it trying to achieve?

Short answer: The guideline, released by PoweringWA, currently applies to large-scale renewable energy generation and standalone BESS projects over 10 MW that connect to the South West Interconnected System (SWIS). It aims to ensure host communities share in the value of the energy transition by embedding transparent, place-based, community-led benefit sharing into project planning and operations. While it’s focused on large projects in WA’s SWIS today, similar approaches are expected to expand to smaller projects and other jurisdictions across Australia.

Question: What are Community Benefit Plans (CBPs) and how will they be developed and governed?

Short answer: CBPs are place-based plans co-created with a broad cross-section of the local community to identify priorities and guide how benefits are allocated. They emphasize outcomes (e.g., skills and training, cultural initiatives, local supply chains) and must be publicly accessible, with PoweringWA hosting a register for transparency. Governance will involve Regional Development Councils as custodians of benefit funds and the use of Community Benefit Advisory Groups. Key governance considerations include representative membership, clear decision-making processes, accountability, and dispute resolution—areas to be clarified as implementation progresses.

Question: Are the guidelines mandatory, and what is the role of the pilot program?

Short answer: The framework is guidance rather than regulation. Its language ranges from strong expectations (e.g., “ensure proactive participation”) to softer “should” statements, raising questions about enforceability. WALGA has called for clarity on whether guidelines will be binding on proponents. A CBP pilot to be run later this year will test real-world implementation, generate learnings, and inform a practical toolkit for broader rollout—making the pilot’s design, locations, engagement quality, and evaluation criteria crucial to watch.

Question: What types of benefits qualify under the guideline, and what exclusions apply?

Short answer: The guideline recognizes both social and economic benefits defined by community priorities—such as local infrastructure, training and jobs, cultural preservation, and supply chain development. Benefits should span the entire operational lifecycle (often 25–30+ years) and be indexed to CPI to maintain value over time. CBPs cannot replace existing obligations (e.g., environmental or planning conditions), regular LGA expenses, or address construction impacts like road or vegetation damage, nor can they substitute for obligations under the Native Title Act 1993 or Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

Question: Why is a stakeholder management system necessary, and how does Simply Stakeholders help?

Short answer: The guideline demands proactive, representative engagement with many groups (local governments, Traditional Owners, unions, community organizations, residents), transparent tracking of commitments over decades, and public accountability via a CBP register. Managing this complexity manually is risky and inefficient. Simply Stakeholders supports compliance by centralizing stakeholder registers and relationship mapping; tracking long-term commitments; using AI to surface sentiment and emerging issues; providing compliance-ready reporting and dashboards; and enabling ongoing relationship management and multi-project coordination—all aligned with the guideline’s transparency and lifecycle requirements.

References and Further Reading

WA Government – Community Benefits Guideline for Communities Hosting Renewable Energy Projects

WA Planning Commission – Draft Renewable Energy Planning Code

WALGA – Large Scale Renewable Energy Resources

National guidelines for community engagement and benefits for electricity transmission projects

First Nations Clean Energy Strategy

Clean Energy Council – A Guide to Benefit Sharing Options for Renewable Energy Projects (2019)

NSW Planning – Benefit-Sharing Guideline

Simply Stakeholders – Stakeholder Engagement & The Transition to Renewable Energy

Australia’s energy transition will not be won or lost on engineering capability alone. The projects that move forward with confidence will be those that get governance right.

Renewables and transmission are accelerating. Gas remains critical to reliability. Storage, critical minerals and new infrastructure corridors are expanding rapidly. And against this backdrop, EPBC reform and evolving state approvals frameworks are signalling a more structured, more scrutinised regulatory environment than the sector has previously faced.

Across major energy projects nationally, one structural issue consistently emerges. It is not regulatory burden. It is alignment.

Summary

Australia’s energy transition will succeed or stall based on governance maturity, not engineering alone. Projects that integrate land access, approvals, First Nations partnership, community engagement and investor requirements from the outset gain certainty and social licence; those that silo these functions face delays, opposition and cost blowouts. Case studies like Yindjibarndi and Avonlie show governance enabling delivery, while Snowy 2.0/HumeLink and EPBC backlogs illustrate the costs of misalignment. Embedding integrated governance early is now essential for capital attraction, consent and timely execution.

Where the complexity actually lives

Today’s major energy projects sit at the intersection of several converging pressures: securing timely and durable access to land; navigating Commonwealth and state approvals reform; meeting Native Title and cultural heritage obligations; building durable First Nations engagement and consent; satisfying investor scrutiny and capital discipline; managing community expectations and Indigenous economic participation; and implementing and complying with long-term agreements.

None of these can be treated as a discrete workstream. Yet in practice, they frequently are.

Access to land is a governance outcome — not a transactional milestone

This is perhaps the most important reframe for project proponents to internalise. Land access does not resolve itself through a single negotiation or a signed agreement. It is shaped — progressively and sometimes irreversibly — by how approvals sequencing, stakeholder engagement and commercial decision-making are integrated from the very beginning of project development.

When these functions operate in parallel silos, friction emerges. It tends to emerge late, at scale, and at precisely the moment when capital has already been committed and schedules are under pressure. The cost of misalignment compounds.

When governance is embedded early — within enterprise risk frameworks and capital allocation processes — certainty increases materially. Not because complexity disappears, but because it is anticipated, sequenced and owned.

What good looks like: governance enabling delivery

The Yindjibarndi Renewable Energy Project, WA is one of the clearest emerging examples of what integrated governance can produce. Jointly developed by ACEN Renewables (75%) and the Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation (25%), Stage 1 alone represents more than $1 billion in investment — 400MW of solar, options for battery storage, and 300MW of wind. What makes this project structurally significant is that First Nations participation is not a peripheral benefit — it is embedded in the commercial framework. Yindjibarndi approval is required for key project decisions. The governance structure was built around the partnership from the outset, not retrofitted to manage community relations after commercial terms were locked.

The Avonlie Solar Farm in NSW (developed by Iberdrola Australia and built by Beon Energy Solutions) offers a different but equally instructive example. Located near Narrandera on Wiradjuri country, the project began community engagement several months before construction commenced in late 2021 — not as a compliance exercise, but as an operational commitment. Beon employed a local Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman to coordinate engagement, worked with Elders, hosted community meetings, and identified and addressed real barriers to employment facing Wiradjuri women and men. The result: more than 30 local First Nations people employed during construction. The engagement process also improved the cultural competency of Beon’s own organisation in ways that outlasted the project. Meaningful engagement and the creation of genuine opportunity, this project demonstrated, is not just the right thing to do — it is good for business.

Both projects reflect a common principle: First Nations engagement and land governance were treated as inputs into project design, not as approvals hurdles to clear on the way to construction.

What failure looks like: the cost of misalignment

The contrast with projects where governance was not integrated early is instructive — and at times, confronting.

The Snowy 2.0 and HumeLink saga is the most significant cautionary example of what happens when a major infrastructure investment proceeds before transmission, community and land access questions are resolved. Construction on Snowy 2.0 commenced in early 2019 — more than two years before its transmission connection had been designed and its full cost implications understood. Analysts were direct about the consequence: the project was effectively committed before the full ramifications of connecting it to the grid were determined. The result has been one of the most significant infrastructure cost blowouts in Australia’s recent history. The project itself has escalated from an initial estimate of under $3 billion to approximately $12 billion. The associated HumeLink transmission line ballooned from an original estimate of around $1.3 billion to nearly $4.9 billion — a near four-fold increase — while community and landholder opposition along the 365km route added further delays and legal complexity. When combined, Snowy 2.0 and its transmission infrastructure could cost upwards of $20 billion all-in. Critics have noted that the absence of social licence from local communities was itself a material cost driver — one that was foreseeable but not adequately governed.

HumeLink’s community opposition challenge is separately instructive on the transmission front. The project proceeded with route planning and design on an accelerated timeline that outpaced the community engagement required to achieve social licence for overhead lines. Landholder opposition forced multiple route changes and, in some instances, compulsory access. The irony was noted by commentators: undergrounding sections of the route — which would have materially reduced community opposition and its associated costs — was dismissed early without adequate assessment, even though the delays and redesign costs that followed arguably exceeded what undergrounding would have required. The governance insight here is not complex: community and land access considerations were treated as constraints to manage around rather than inputs to design decisions.

The Hills of Gold Wind Farm in NSW illustrates how late-emerging community opposition — even when ultimately resolved — extracts a significant toll. The $833 million Engie project near Nundle was contested for more than six years, partly through speculative residential applications designed to exploit planning protections. The NSW Department of Planning initially approved only 47 of the proposed 64 turbines based on one such application — for an unbuilt house just 330 metres from a turbine location. Engie ultimately prevailed, but the precedent-setting conflict consumed years of legal process, schedule risk and capital holding cost. Six months of delay on a project of that scale carries an estimated sunk cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The pattern — community and land access issues surfacing late, at scale, after capital commitments are made — is precisely what integrated governance is designed to prevent.

The EPBC backlog provides a systemic illustration. As of mid-2025, not a single renewable energy project deemed a controlled action under the EPBC in 2023 or 2024 had received federal environmental approval. Across Queensland, NSW and Victoria alone, 76 projects are waiting in that queue. The regulatory backlog is real, but it is not the whole story. For many projects, the EPBC process has exposed underlying gaps in how environmental, cultural heritage and community obligations were integrated into project design from the beginning — gaps that are difficult and expensive to address under approval-stage scrutiny.

The governance maturity gap

Most energy project teams are technically capable. The gap that creates delays, derails consent, and erodes stakeholder relationships is rarely technical. It is structural. It shows up as approvals processes that run independently of engagement strategies. As commercial timelines that are set before social licence questions are even asked. As First Nations obligations that are managed reactively rather than integrated into project governance from the outset.

Investors are increasingly attuned to this. Capital discipline now extends well beyond financial metrics. Project proponents who can demonstrate coherent, integrated governance — particularly around land, community and First Nations engagement — are better positioned to attract and retain investment and move projects through the development pipeline with fewer disruptions.

What integrated governance actually looks like

It starts with recognising that stakeholder engagement, approvals strategy, land access, cultural heritage, and First Nations partnership are not separate functions to be coordinated after key decisions are made. They are inputs into those decisions.

Governance maturity means bringing these disciplines into project governance structures early — not as compliance checkboxes, but as genuine contributors to risk management and value protection. It means building relationships before you need them, sequencing approvals in ways that reflect community and regulatory realities, and designing commercial frameworks that are durable enough to survive the long implementation periods that major infrastructure demands.

The projects that demonstrate this — Yindjibarndi, Avonlie and others emerging across the sector — share a common structural characteristic: the people responsible for land, community and First Nations engagement were at the table when project scope and commercial frameworks were being set, not brought in to manage the consequences after those decisions were made.

However, it is also worth noting that although 43% of all clean energy infrastructure will be sited on traditional Country – lands and water – under the care or custodianship of First Nations communities, there are no operational utility scale renewable energy projects in Australia that have First Nations equity ownership. In Canada by contrast, approximately 20% of operational clean energy projects include First Nations equity participation.

The transition depends on it

Australia has the resource base, the policy momentum and the technical capability to lead one of the most significant infrastructure buildouts in its history. What will determine whether that potential is realised — or stalled in approvals, disputes and community opposition — is governance maturity.

The evidence is now concrete. Where governance has been integrated early, projects are moving forward with First Nations partnerships, community support and investor confidence. Where it has not, the costs have been measured in billions of dollars of blowouts, years of delay, and relationships that are difficult and expensive to repair.

Technical capability will remain essential. But the projects that define Australia’s energy future will be the ones that understood, early, that governance is not a constraint on delivery. It is the foundation of it.

Q&A

Question: What is “governance maturity” in Australia’s energy transition, and why does it matter more than engineering alone?

Short answer: Governance maturity means integrating land access, approvals strategy, First Nations partnership, community engagement and investor requirements into project decisions from the very start—not treating them as siloed, downstream tasks. Projects that do this gain social licence, regulatory certainty and capital confidence; those that don’t face late-stage opposition, delays and cost blowouts. The evidence spans both successes (e.g., Yindjibarndi, Avonlie) and failures (e.g., Snowy 2.0/HumeLink), showing governance is the foundation of delivery, not a constraint on it.

Question: Why is land access described as a governance maturity outcome rather than a transactional milestone?

Short answer: Because durable land access is shaped by how approvals sequencing, stakeholder engagement and commercial decisions are integrated from day one. When these functions run in parallel silos, friction appears late—after capital is committed and schedules are tight—compounding cost and time impacts. Embedding governance early within risk and capital allocation processes anticipates complexity, sequences it appropriately and assigns clear ownership, materially increasing certainty.

Question: What does good integrated governance look like in practice?

Short answer: Two examples:

• Yindjibarndi Renewable Energy Project (WA): A JV between ACEN (75%) and Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation (25%), with Stage 1 >$1b for 400MW solar (plus battery options) and 300MW wind. First Nations participation is embedded in the commercial framework, including decision rights—governance was built around the partnership from the outset.
• Avonlie Solar Farm (NSW): Iberdrola/Beon began engagement months before late‑2021 construction near Narrandera on Wiradjuri Country. Beon hired a local Wiradjuri/Yorta Yorta woman, worked with Elders, hosted meetings and addressed barriers to employment—resulting in 30+ local First Nations jobs and lasting cultural competency gains. In both cases, First Nations engagement and land governance were inputs into design, not hurdles to clear.

Question: What does failure or misalignment look like, and what were the consequences?

Short answer: Proceeding before aligning transmission, community and land access drives blowouts and delays. Snowy 2.0 began construction before its transmission connection and full costs were understood; its estimate rose from under $3b to ~ $12b. The associated HumeLink line grew from ~ $1.3b to ~ $4.9b, with community opposition along its 365km route adding redesigns, compulsory access and legal complexity; combined costs could exceed $20b. HumeLink’s early dismissal of undergrounding arguably cost more through subsequent delay and redesign. The Hills of Gold Wind Farm (NSW) spent six-plus years in dispute, with initial turbine reductions tied to a speculative, unbuilt dwelling; even after approval, the holding and legal costs were significant. Systemically, the EPBC backlog (as of mid‑2025, zero 2023–24 controlled‑action renewables approved; 76 queued across QLD/NSW/VIC) has exposed integration gaps in environmental, cultural heritage and community obligations embedded too late in project design.

Question: Why highlight First Nations equity participation, and how does Australia compare internationally?

Short answer: Although about 43% of clean energy infrastructure will be sited on traditional Country, there are no operational utility‑scale renewable projects in Australia with First Nations equity ownership. By contrast, roughly 20% of operational clean energy projects in Canada include First Nations equity. The governance maturity signal is clear: structuring equity participation and decision rights from the outset strengthens consent, social licence and the durability of long‑term agreements—key ingredients for timely, bankable delivery.

Simply Stakeholders partners with energy and infrastructure proponents to integrate stakeholder engagement, land access and First Nations engagement into project governance from the outset — building the alignment that accelerates delivery and protects long-term value.

Get a Demo Ready to try Simply Stakeholders for yourself? Reach out and book a personalized demo with our team! Book a Demo

References:

Unlocking investor value through increased levels of First Nations participation in Australia’s clean energy transition

First Nations Clean Energy Strategy Case Studies 

Eleven lessons from the blow out in costs for HumeLink transmission line
Phantom Dwellings in Australia: A Growing Barrier for Renewable Energy Projects

Black hole: Dozens of renewable energy projects still waiting on EPBC decision