From Steve Robinson, The Environment Council
Rob Edwards’s healthy scepticism about “stakeholder” dialogue is welcome
(1 April, p 45), though only relevant to certain cynical “greenwash” exercises. But
I would like to correct some possible misconceptions about the “secret” talks
between British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and green campaigners that Edwards brands
as an excuse to exhaust and divide the opposition.
First, the BNFL “national dialogue” is not secret. The first stakeholder
meeting was reported in The Guardian the very next day.
Secondly, the dialogues we run are about finding sensible and sustainable
ways forward that people can then implement, rather than producing reports or
articles for the file.
Thirdly, the dialogue is under the control of the participants, not any one
party. It is up to the participants or stakeholders collectively to decide the
issues they wish to address, the information they need, who else to invite and
their work programme.
Advertisement
Fourthly, there are more than just environmental stakeholders in the BNFL
dialogue. It includes, among others, representatives from trades unions,
communities, local authorities, government departments, customers and
regulators.
Finally, Edwards contends that such a dialogue is not about changing the
world but keeping it the same. Is this really the case? How does he propose
change should happen? How should large organisations facing complex and
difficult environmental issues best engage with civil society? Through an
omniscient nuclear Tsar (I’m sure Rob would agree with his or her every
decision)? Telepathy? Traditional write-me-a-clever-paper-and-I’ll-ignore-it
consultation? Surgical brain implants?
Not only do we have to talk about the sorts of issues raised by companies
such as BNFL, but we have to talk effectively. That’s what a genuine stakeholder
dialogue aims to do. If the stakeholders think the dialogue is going off track
or isn’t delivering, then it is up to them to change it.
London
