Stakeholder Relationships & Issues Management

The ILTA Code of Ethics admonishes that language testing professionals “should engage in a thorough evaluation of the likely consequences” of their projects (ILTA, 2000). Following Bachman & Palmer (2010), the “beneficence” of the intended consequences of a test and the “values sensitivity” of the decisions made on the basis of an assessment constitute two essential components of any assessment use argument. In this poster we investigate what these components could mean in view of the possible introduction of an internationally recognized and commercially available large-scale English language test in Cuba. Bearing in mind how new a phenomenon nationwide foreign language certification is in the country, the general question that we seek to answer is: What should and what can be done in order to maximize the chance that introducing the test would bring about good in Cuban society taking account of the (evolving) educational, sociopolitical, and legal environment?

The authors are academics who have collaborated in long-term institutional university cooperation and network projects of the Flemish Interuniversity Council (Belgium) with universities in Cuba. In the Council’s country strategy for Cuba, English language learning and communication is listed as one of three transversal themes for all current and future interventions (http://www.vliruos.be/en/countries/countrydetail/cuba_3850/). Based on their experiences in a previous ten-year project in central Cuba, the authors concluded in 2011 that there was a need for establishing a regional testing center, noting the following key issues: (a) intercultural citizenship for Cuban academics, (b) sustainable local institutional development, (c) validity of administered tests, and (d) privacy and confidentiality issues. This need was reiterated in the external assessors’ final evaluation report (Carpenter & Vigil Tarquechel, 2013). Since then initiatives have been started up to establish testing centers in the context of a new project in eastern Cuba in view of the stated project goal of strengthening foreign language skills for intercultural and international academic purposes.

It is expected that the introduction of an internationally recognized test at regional testing centers could contribute to increased opportunities for Cuban academics to study and work abroad while providing an adequate answer to the previously identified key issues. At the same time, a number of concerns have been raised related to accessibility, administration, impact on instructional practice, and the question of how to address some of the more elusive competences than the ones commonly captured in standardized testing, particularly the intercultural competences required for a successful academic mobility experience.

The poster will report an initial answer to the general research question based on a stakeholder mapping exercise (identifying, analyzing, mapping, prioritizing) at project, institutional, and regional level that was conducted during the first two project years. Given that outward mobility for Cuban academics in the project concerned is almost exclusively Europe-bound, perspectives of European policymakers and students on academic mobility will also be included (Beaven, Borghetti, Van Maele & Vassilicos, 2013).

Stakeholder trust is pivotal to the social licence to operate and a source of competitive advantage for firms. While managing trust with stakeholders is recognised as a critical management competency and central to delivering coal seam gas (CSG) strategy, to date there has been little examination of stakeholder trust. This research examined the drivers and levels of trust in the CSG companies and industry from the perspective of core CSG stakeholder groups, and identified what stakeholders perceive to be critical for building and maintaining trust in the CSG industry. With the support of four major CSG companies and the University of Queensland (UQ) Centre for Coal Seam Gas, in-depth interviews were conducted with 145 participants representing five stakeholder groups: landholders, community members, regional leaders, regulators, and employees. An online survey was subsequently developed and completed by 561 CSG stakeholders. Analysis of the interview data revealed 11 key drivers of stakeholder trust and distrust. Seven drivers focused on how the CSG companies were perceived to operate in regard to: (1) integrity and transparency, (2) communication and interaction, (3) competence and efficiency, (4) community impact and contribution, (5) coexistence with landhold-ers and the community, and having (6) a shared versus divergent identity, and (7) a positive versus negative comparative reputation. Four drivers focused on the broader CSG industry: (8) environmental concerns, (9) governance and regulation, (10) uncertainty and unpredictability of the industry, and (11) the power differential between CSG companies and stakeholders. Analysis of the survey data revealed significant differences between stakeholder groups in the level and drivers of trust. On average, CSG employees reported high trust, regulators, community and regional leaders reported moderate trust, and landholders reported low trust. In contrast to a minority of employees, the majority of external stakeholders reported concerns over the environmental impacts of CSG and the effectiveness of governance and regulation, and perceived the industry to be unpredictable and too focused on the short term. Stakeholder recommendations for enhancing trust and strategies for establishing a more resilient and trustworthy industry reputation are identified. Priority areas include: (1) building trust with landholders, (2) increasing the transparency with which companies share information, plans and regulatory compliance, (3) improving the effectiveness of CSG governance and regulation, and (4) addressing environmental concerns.

AR6 continues to demonstrate the IPCC's commitment to quantifying and communicating uncertainty in order to support transparency in science and inform robust decision-making. AR6 also includes greater emphasis on deep uncertainty, e.g. in domains such as tipping points and cascade risks. Risk assessment and risk management are assumed in AR6 as key frameworks that underpin global mitigation and adaptation efforts. However, more needs to be done to connect scientific understandings of uncertainty to risk-based decision-making by policymakers, NGOs, industry, and other actors spanning diverse epistemological, cultural and social contexts. Specific kinds of uncertainty such as model uncertainty and deep uncertainty are challenging to communicate and are typically not well-understood by decision-makers, even those who are risk-literate. Key concepts and methodologies differ across and within different domains of science and policy, creating the potential for information to be lost or misinterpreted. This Communicating Climate Risk Toolkit ('the Toolkit'), from the COP26 Universities Network (COP26 UN) and the Analysis under Uncertainty for Decision-Makers Network (AU4DM), seeks to narrow the gap between climate science and climate action, by providing insights, recommendations, and practical tools to support dialogue between scientists, decision-makers, and many diverse communities. The Toolkit also endeavours to identify open problems and pose questions for further study and debate. Topics covered include varying conceptions of uncertainty and risk, best practice in visualising uncertainty data, case studies on tipping points and model uncertainty. Based on close collaboration across decision science, climate risk modelling, statistics, the environmental humanities, and science communication, the Toolkit seeks to drive a step change in achieving holistic, joined-up, and participatory climate action, equal to the scale of the task of the decade ahead. The Toolkit was developed as part of the COP26 Universities Network Climate Risk project in 2021, and is usefully read in conjunction with the project's other outputs: Climate Action Unit's Communicating Climate Risk: A Handbook, which explores the science / policy interface, informed by neuroscience, climate journalism, and other fields, and which provides practical tips for writing and engaging in dialogues around climate risk; and the COP Conversations series, which summarises recent research in the areas of tipping points, cascade risks; coastal flood hazard modelling; compound hot-dry events such as heatwaves, wildfires and droughts; and attribution of extreme events.

Back cover text: Real Social Science presents a new, hands-on approach to social inquiry. The theoretical and methodological ideas behind the book, inspired by Aristotelian phronesis, represent an original perspective within the social sciences, and this volume gives readers for the first time a set of studies exemplifying what applied phronesis looks like in practice. The reflexive analysis of values and power gives new meaning to the impact of research on policy and practice. Real Social Science is a major step forward in a novel and thriving field of research. This book will benefit scholars, researchers, and students who want to make a difference in practice, not just in the academy. Its message will make it essential reading for students and academics across the social sciences.

This chapter addresses firms' stakeholder relationships in the politicised global economy with a focus on the following two questions: what is stakeholder engagement about and what should guide corporations when they engage with their stakeholders. Answers to these questions are provided from three distinct viewpoints, namely the economic, critical, and politico-ethical perspectives, on stakeholder engagement. The main argument of the chapter is that since each of the stakeholder engagement perspectives holds a different conception of society, their definitions of and purpose ascribed to stakeholder engagement are also different. After analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each of three perspectives, the chapter develops an integrative perspective on stakeholder engagement. The chapter ends with the discussion on the implications of the new, more holistic perspective on engaging with stakeholders.

Brownfield areas are a major concern in Europe because they are often extensive, persistent in time andcompromise stakeholders’ interests. Moreover, due to their complex nature, from the decision-makingpoint of view, the regeneration of brownfields is a challenging problem requiring the involvement of thewhole range of stakeholders. Many studies, projects and organisations have recognised the importanceof stakeholder involvement and have promoted public participation. However, comprehensive studies providing an overview of stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs when dealing with brownfield regeneration are still missing. This paper presents and discusses a participatory methodology applied to stakeholders from five European countries to fill this research gap, to develop a system to support the categorisation of the needed information and to support the understanding of which typology of information is the most relevant for specific categories of stakeholder also in relation with their concerns. The engagement process consists of five phases: (i) planning and preparatory work, (ii) identification of stakeholder categories, (iii) engagement activities (e.g. focus groups and workshops), (iv) submission of a questionnaire and (v) provision of feedback to the involved stakeholders. Thanks to this process, appropriate stakeholders have been identified as well as their perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Stakeholders’ perceptions proved to be different according to the country: German and Italian stakeholders perceive brownfields as complex systems, where several issues need to be addressed, while Romanian stakeholders consider contamination as almost the only issue to be addressed; Czech and Polish stakeholders address an intermediate number of issues. Attitudes and concerns seemed to be quite similar between countries. As far as information needs are concerned, similarities between some groups of stakeholders have been noticed: site owners and problem holders are primarily interested in information on planning and financing, while authorities and services providers are interested in more technical aspects like investigation, planning and risk assessment. Some outstanding outcomes emerged from the scientific community and research group, which showed an interest for remediation strategies and options and socio-economic aspects. The research outcomes allowed to create a knowledge base for the future development of tailored and customised approaches and tools for stakeholders working in the brownfield regeneration field.