Stakeholder

[loc <loc@icx.net>]

I have to disagree with Donald regarding the use of the term
"stakeholder."  There is no other word that denotes the range of
individuals and institutions potentially affected by a government
decision.  These might include local governments, state & federal
regulatory agencies, special-interest groups, local residents,
taxpayers, employees, businesses, etc.  Over time and depending on
usage, words change meaning, so calling on its derivation is
irrrelevant.  Those of us in the public policy arena have not found
other words or phrases to be as encompassing.  That said, I support
the concept that stakeholders should be ranked, with the interests
of those most affected (a local government vs. a national advocacy
group) being given more consideration.  Also, we are now seeing
local/state governments and regulatory agencies asking to be
considered separately from other stakeholders, but I think we should
preserve the use as an inclusive term for general purposes, as
indicated by the quoted EIS letter.

Oh yes, I do hate acronyms, too, but don't they make typing these
messages so much easier?

--Susan Gawarecki

Donald Clark wrote:

> ... my instant reaction, seeing that the letter was addressed "Dear
> Stakeholder," was .. oh no!  here we go again.  That word "stakeholder"
> was
> used several times.  I would really like to encourage you and all others
> in
> our profession to try to persuade people not to use this (I think
> inappropriate but certainly poorly chosen) term.  My dictionary (probably
> out of date?) defines stakeholder as being "a person entrusted with the
> stakes of bettors."  Now, I know we introduce new terms to the English
> language every day, some of which are useful (actually facilitate
> communication) and get to be widely adopted.  But this word should go!
>  ...
>
> widely perceived to be an arcane term outside of clubby U.S. circles.
>  ...
>
> P.S.  Clearly, these views are my own.  I like to substitute term such as
> "affected parties" or "affected persons," etc.  I think that the language
> we
> use does matter.  (Another pet peeve I have is with overuse of
> abbreviations/initialisms/"acronyms" -- whoops, I have used them myself!)
> Does anyone else agree with me?
>
...
>>SUBJECT:  HIGH FLUX BEAM REACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
>>
>>This is a follow-up to my letter of January 12, 1999 regarding the

schedule
>>of the environmental impact statement for the High Flux Beam
Reactor at
>>Brookhaven National Laboratory. Based on stakeholder input in
recent
>>months, several changes have been made to the High Flux Beam
Reactor
>>environmental impact statement process. We believe these changes
are
>>improvements that will benefit all stakeholders interested in the
decision
>>about the future of this research reactor:


--
=========================================================
Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., P.G.
Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee
(423) 483-1333
fax (423) 482-6572
=========================================================


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html