Assessing the strategic value of stakeholders

By Kim Harrison
Author, Strategic Public Relations
If you use these simple but powerful techniques in a real-life organisation you would greatly
impress senior management with your abilities.
The importance to an issue of individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups can be evaluated
systematically:
1. Consider the issue, develop a list of criteria that are important to resolve the issue.
2. Assign weights to criteria that reflect the strength of the stakeholder on that issue.
3. Determine if the stakeholder is in favour of, opposed to, or neutral towards, the
organisations position, and act accordingly (Mahon, 1997).
The following diagrams show how the importance of stakeholders can be assessed according
to the criteria decided upon by the organisation.

Criteria for prioritising stakeholders

Example criteria and weighting for one stakeholder
Weight (W)

Slight, if any

Criteria (C)

Moderate
2

Strong
4

1. Influence with key decision

makers (10 points)

5
x

Score
(C x W)

10 x 5 = 50

2. Hold major voting rights on

shares (9 points)

9 x 3 = 27

3. Able to influence other

stakeholders (8 points)

8 x 3 = 24

4. Sufficiently motivated to be
involved (6 points)
5. Extent of media contacts
(4 points)

6 x 4 = 24

4 x 5 = 20
Total = 145 pts

This activity can relate to any issue you choose to analyse. Firstly, you decide the most
important criteria, in priority order, for gauging the importance of individual stakeholders. A
sample list of criteria is shown on the vertical axis of the above matrix. Make sure you
include only the most important criteria in this list. Give each criterion a number of points
(points out of 10 are shown in this sample, for convenience). Then each stakeholder group
can be allocated a weighting (in this case a number from 1 to 5) on a scale representing their
significance in relation to the issue, ranging from negligible to strong influence.
Then multiply the number of points allocated to each criterion by the weighting of the
significance of each stakeholder group (C x W = total points). Repeat this activity for each of
the key stakeholder groups for the organisation.
When you do this analysis for several stakeholders you can compare the points score for
each. This enables you to identify and focus on the top stakeholders. In fact, your
communication and relationship with them can take into account their perceived strengths
and importance in relation to each criterion.

Tutorial task 1
Form a small group to review one well-known organisation. Some suggestions are: Garuda,
Telkom, HM Sampoerna, Astra International, Unilever, Bank Central Asia, Semen Indonesia,
Indofood, Indah Pulp and Paper, Indosat, United Tractors, Telekomunikasi Indonesia
(Persero).
List the likely main stakeholder groups of that organisation. Then decide the most important
criteria, in priority order, for gauging the importance of individual stakeholder groups. A
sample list of criteria is shown on the vertical axis of the above matrix. You may think of
others instead of some of these. Make sure you include only the most important criteria in
this list.
Allocate a number of points for each criterion (points out of 10 are shown in the above
example). Then give each stakeholder a weighting (in this case a number from 1 to 5) on a
scale representing their significance in relation to the issue, ranging from negligible to
strong influence.
Then multiply the number of points allocated to each criterion by the weighting of the
significance of each stakeholder group (C x W = total points). Repeat this activity for each of
the key stakeholder groups for the organisation.
When you do this analysis for several stakeholders you can compare the total points score
for each. This enables you to identify and focus on the top stakeholders. This is a scientific
and businesslike approach.
Discuss your results with the rest of the class.

Weighting of stakeholders to facilitate prioritising

A stakeholder may be important, but this may be because they either are strongly positive or
strongly negative about a particular issue. In view of this you may need to examine each
stakeholder according to the extent to which they support or oppose your organisation on the
issue, ie the warmth of their attitude.
One way to do this is to put the data relating to all key stakeholders on a graph. The graph
below shows an example. Each stakeholder is reviewed in terms of their importance (shown
on the horizontal scale from 0 to 30 according to the criteria in the previous matrix). They
are also reviewed in terms of the warmth of their attitude negative through to positive
(shown on the vertical scale from -5 to +5). Plot the position of each stakeholder on the
graph.
The dots in the example graph show the location of various stakeholders in terms of their
importance and overall attitude towards an issue. Ideally individual stakeholders would be
identified by dots of different colours, or by numbers that could replace the dots.

Stakeholder prioritising
5

Warmth of stakeholder attitude

4
3
2
1
0
-1

10

15

-2
-3
-4
-5

Stakeholder importance

20

25

30

Strategies to deal with different stakeholders

High
Stakeholders
potential for
cooperation

Low

High
Stakeholder type 4
Mixed
Strategy: collaborate

Low
Stakeholder type 1
Supportive
Strategy: involve

Stakeholder type 3
Unsupportive
Strategy: defend

Stakeholder type 2
Marginal
Strategy: monitor

Potential threat by stakeholder

Stakeholder analysis often relates to parties who are considered a threat to the organisation,
but paradoxically it may be in their interests, eg financial interests, to potentially cooperate on
a particular issue. For instance, a shareholder in a mining company may not be happy with its
environmental policies, but implementing tighter environmental safeguards could reduce the
profits of the company and would therefore reduce the share price and also dividends payable
to the shareholder.
Based on an analysis of potential threat (high to low) and potential cooperation (high to low),
stakeholders can be categorised into four types supportive, marginal, unsupportive and
mixed as shown in the above diagram:

Supportive stakeholders can be involved in decision-making.

Marginal stakeholders need monitoring to determine if their stance may change.
Unsupportive stakeholders logically require a defensive communication strategy, eg.
competitors, unions, possibly government and media.
Mixed category could collaborate, eg. employees in short supply, customers and
organisations with complementary products or services.

Tutorial task 2
Using the same organisation you analysed in Tutorial Task 1, review all the main stakeholder
groups for that organisation and categorise them according to the matrix above.
Report your results to the class.

Reference
Mahon, J. (1997, 4 March). Issues identification and management workshop, Perth, for the
Australian Centre for Corporate Public Affairs.

List what you think are the main stakeholders for that organisation.
4