How to identify and engage stakeholders in biodiversity management
Biodiversity is inherently a shared concern. Ecosystems don't respect organisationalboundaries, species move across landscapes and the benefits nature provides flow to multiple parties. Your biodiversity impacts affect others, while their actions affect ecosystems you depend on. This interconnectedness means effective biodiversity management cannot happen in isolation – it requires meaningful engagement with interested parties throughout your biodiversity approach.
ISO 17298 makes stakeholder engagement central to its framework, requiring organisations to identify relevant interested parties and consider their expectations when constructing the biodiversity approach. More significantly, it recommends involving stakeholders in major stages from analysis through implementation and review.
Identifying your interested parties
The standard defines interested parties as persons or organisations that can affect, be affected by or perceive themselves to be affected by your decisions or activities. Note the breadth: this includes not just those actually affected but also those who believe they're affected –perception matters in biodiversity management.
Internal interested parties include top management who make strategic decisions and allocate resources, employees who implement biodiversity actions and whose behavior shapes outcomes, employee representative bodies who advocate for workforce concerns, members or shareholders who have ownership stakes and volunteers who contribute time and expertise.
External interested parties span three categories. Business and operational partners include suppliers whose practices affect your supply chain impacts, customers whose preferences drive your market opportunities, competitors whose actions shape industry norms and investors whose capital comes with increasing biodiversity expectations. Public partners include government agencies, regulators, local authorities and public institutions. Civil society includes neighboring residents affected by your operations, local communities dependent on the same ecosystem services, citizens concerned about biodiversity, NGOs working on conservation, indigenous peoples with traditional ecological knowledge and rights and scientific institutions providing expertise.
For each interested party, understand their relationship to your biodiversity approach. How are they affected by your impacts? What ecosystem services do they share with you? What influence do they have over your activities? What expectations do they hold?
Understanding expectations
Different interested parties have different, sometimes conflicting, expectations about your biodiversity performance. Understanding these expectations is crucial for setting objectives that are both ambitious and achievable.
Local communities might prioritise maintaining ecosystem services they depend on for livelihoods – clean water, productive fisheries, forest products, flood protection. Their expectations often focus on avoiding harm and ensuring equitable access to nature's benefits.
NGOs typically expect ambitious conservation outcomes, transparency in reporting, alignment with scientific recommendations and contribution to landscape-level conservation goals. They may push organisations toward leading practices rather than minimum compliance.
Investors increasingly expect robust risk management, disclosure aligned with frameworks like TNFD, integration of biodiversity into strategy and evidence that biodiversity risks won't materialise as financial losses.
Regulators expect compliance with environmental laws, proper permitting, monitoring and reporting and due diligence in avoiding harm. As biodiversity regulations expand, regulatory expectations are rapidly evolving.
Customers vary widely – some prioritise price and convenience, others demand verified sustainability credentials and nature-positive products. Understanding your customer segments' expectations helps identify market opportunities.
Employees often want to work for organisations aligned with their values. Strong biodiversity performance can enhance recruitment, retention and engagement, while poor performance creates reputational risk and employee dissatisfaction.
Engagement throughout the biodiversity approach
ISO 17298 recommends appropriate stakeholder involvement at major stages:
During impact and dependency analysis, engage stakeholders to understand their perspectives on what matters most. Local communities can identify ecosystem services crucial to their livelihoods that you might overlook. Scientists can help assess impact significance. Industry peers can share lessons learned. This input makes your analysis more comprehensive and credible.
When defining objectives, consult stakeholders on priorities. What biodiversity outcomes matter most to them? What would constitute meaningful progress? This consultation helps ensure your objectives address genuine stakeholder concerns rather than issues you assume are important.
During action planning, involve those who'll participate in implementation. If actions require supplier engagement, involve suppliers early so they understand expectations and commit to participation. If actions involve community partnerships, co-design approaches that work for all parties. If actions need employee buy-in, engage employees in planning so they understand rationale and feel ownership.
During implementation, maintain partnerships that support action execution. Conservation actions often benefit from NGO expertise. Restoration projects may require coordination with land management agencies. Supply chain actions need supplier collaboration. Social license to operate depends on ongoing community relationships.
When updating the approach, consult stakeholders on what's working, what needs adjustment and what new priorities are emerging. Biodiversity conditions change, stakeholder expectations evolve and adaptive management requires ongoing dialogue.
Modes of engagement
The standard emphasises determining and justifying "appropriate modes" of engagement. One size doesn't fit all – appropriate engagement depends on the stakeholder, the issue and the decision being made.
Information sharing is the most basic level – providing stakeholders with information about your biodiversity approach, impacts and performance. This might include sustainability reports, website disclosure, community meetings or direct communications. Information sharing is always necessary but rarely sufficient on its own.
Consultation involves seeking stakeholder input on specific issues or decisions. Surveys, focus groups, public comment periods, advisory committees and consultation meetings gather perspectives that inform your decisions while you retain decision-making authority.
Collaboration means working together with stakeholders to analyse problems, develop solutions and implement actions. Joint projects, partnerships, multi-stakeholder initiatives and co-management arrangements share responsibility and decision-making.
Empowerment transfers decision-making authority to stakeholders. Free, prior and informed consent from indigenous peoples, community-led conservation and stakeholder governance structures represent empowerment approaches.
Choose engagement modes based on stakeholders' level of interest and influence, the significance of potential impacts on them, the nature of the decision, your capacity for engagement and stakeholders' preferences and cultural contexts.
Ensuring meaningful engagement
Effective engagement requires more than checking boxes. ISO 17298 emphasises engagement should be "appropriate" and "facilitate" participation, suggesting organisations should remove barriers to stakeholder involvement.
Meaningful engagement is timely – early enough that stakeholder input can genuinely influence decisions rather than being solicited after decisions are made. It's accessible – using languages, locations, formats and timing that enable participation rather than creating barriers. It's transparent – being honest about how input will be used, what decisions stakeholders can influence and what constraints exist. It's responsive – demonstrating how stakeholder input was considered and explaining decisions made, even when not adopting all suggestions.
Document engagement processes and outcomes. Record who was engaged, how, when, what input was received and how it influenced your biodiversity approach. This documentation demonstrates good faith engagement and supports continual improvement of engagement practices.
Special considerations
Some stakeholders warrant particular attention. Indigenous peoples have rights to free, prior and informed consent for activities affecting their territories and resources. Local communities dependent on ecosystem services you impact deserve meaningful consultation and, where appropriate, benefit sharing. Vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by biodiversity loss or your impacts need equitable representation.
Power imbalances can undermine engagement. Large corporations engaging with small community groups must recognise and address power differentials. Provide resources if needed for stakeholders to participate effectively, such as translation services, technical support or capacity building.
From engagement to trust
Ultimately, stakeholder engagement builds the trust and relationships necessary for long-term biodiversity success. No organisation can achieve significant biodiversity outcomes alone. Ecosystems cross boundaries, species migrate, impacts cascade and effective conservation requires landscape-level cooperation. The relationships built through genuine engagement create the foundation for collaborative action that benefits both business resilience and biodiversity recovery.
