One way to conceptualize the developer and stakeholder relationship is by assessing the nature of risks faced by each of these parties.
In Figure 4.5 we can see that stakeholders' risks are concerned with the impact in a given issue area. The main developer risks focus around the project being stalled, delayed or requiring late changes due to one or more of the issues affecting planning consent. Any of these will result in the developer incurring additional costs — a financial risk.
Unlike the developer, stakeholders perceive no reward accompanying the risk. For instance, why would homeowners risk their property value for no good (personal) reason? If compelled, they may protect their interests via various available avenues of objection: 'Great idea, wrong location,' and so on. It is also important to recognize that the onus of risk rightly rests with the developer/owner as the party with the most direct potential gain.
Two solutions appear relevant. First, the risks to stakeholders are quantified, then removed or minimized (at least cost). Second, the benefits to stakeholders are maximized (at least cost).
The second solution is recognized as a key element of German and Danish success with wind implementation, discussed previously in the context of balancing costs and benefits. The first solution implies that there are ways to trade off stakeholder/developer risks; the more stakeholders' risks are minimized, the less the risk of delay or rejection. The important question is how to do this without incurring excessive cost. The earlier in the project cycle that stakeholder risk assessment or mitigation is incorporated, the lower the cost of changes or adaptation.
Was this article helpful?