Beyond the Consultation: What is Changing in Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder engagement is an expected part of developing strategies, programs, policies, research, and services. The fundamentals are relatively well established: identify the right stakeholders, involve them early enough to influence the work, tailor engagement to different groups, create opportunities for two-way communication, and consider how stakeholder feedback should influence the work as it evolves.[1]
While these principles remain important, the literature points to a broader set of considerations that organizations may need to think about as stakeholder engagement evolves. Increasingly, the conversation is moving beyond whether organizations engage stakeholders toward questions about the quality of that engagement, whose perspectives ultimately influence decisions, the burden engagement can place on participants, and how emerging technologies are changing the way stakeholder input is interpreted.
1. Recognizing that representation does not necessarily mean equitable participation
Including community members, employees, people with lived experience, or other affected groups does not automatically mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute. Differences in institutional authority, resources, technical knowledge, previous experience, and familiarity with organizational processes can all shape participation.
A 2025 scoping review by Nelson et al. specifically examined strategies for minimizing power differences between people with lived experience and organizational representatives, reinforcing that meaningful engagement depends not only on who is invited, but also on the conditions created for their participation.[2]
For organizations, identifying the right stakeholders is therefore only one part of the process. How engagement is designed can also affect whose knowledge is heard, whose expertise is valued, and ultimately whose perspectives influence the decisions being made.
2. Moving from participation to meaningful influence
Once we provide key stakeholders with the opportunity to engage, we must move beyond simply measuring the number of people consulted, the diversity of participants, or the number of engagement activities completed. While these measures tell us something about the reach of an engagement process, they tell us considerably less about whether stakeholders were able to meaningfully influence the work.
Nelson et al. examined the involvement of people with lived experience on community advisory boards and highlighted the importance of addressing power dynamics between community members and organizational representatives. The review identified factors such as clearly defined roles, compensation, capacity building, relationship building, and avoiding tokenistic participation as important considerations for meaningful engagement.[2]
This suggests that, in addition to asking who participated and how they participated, organizations can consider what was learned through the process, which assumptions were challenged, and how stakeholder perspectives influenced what happened next.
3. Paying greater attention to engagement fatigue
The concept of consultation fatigue is not new. A rapid review examining individuals' experiences of community engagement found that participation could have positive effects, including empowerment, confidence, and stronger social relationships, but it could also create unintended consequences. Participants reported exhaustion, stress, demands on their time and financial resources, and consultation fatigue following successive engagement initiatives.[3] The review also found that disappointment could arise when participants did not see their suggestions acted upon.
This becomes particularly important when the same communities or stakeholder groups are repeatedly asked to participate in surveys, interviews, workshops, advisory groups, and consultations on similar issues. Before beginning another engagement process, organizations may benefit from understanding what stakeholders have already told them, what information is genuinely missing, and whether another consultation is necessary.
In some cases, the more meaningful approach may not be to ask the same questions again, but to return to stakeholders with what was previously heard, explain what has happened since, and identify where additional input is needed.
4. Understanding how AI is changing the analysis of stakeholder engagement
Artificial intelligence introduces a newer consideration, as it is beginning to change not only how organizations engage people, but also how large volumes of stakeholder input can be processed and interpreted.
The OECD's 2026 work on AI and citizen participation describes applications of AI across different stages of participation, including tools that can support the processing and analysis of large volumes of public input. At the same time, the OECD identifies challenges related to transparency, bias, accountability, inclusion, and appropriate human oversight.[4]
These considerations are also beginning to appear in the qualitative research literature. Hitch and Edwards describe how AI is increasingly capable of supporting transcription, coding, and qualitative analysis, while raising questions about interpretation, accountability, legitimacy, ethics, privacy, and the relationship between researchers and the people whose experiences are being analyzed.[5]
For stakeholder engagement, these developments create a new set of methodological questions. If AI is used to synthesize hundreds or thousands of responses, organizations will need to consider how less common or contradictory perspectives are preserved, how AI-generated interpretations are validated against the original data, how transparent organizations should be about the use of AI, and where human interpretation remains necessary.
The opportunity is therefore not simply to use AI to analyze engagement faster. As these tools become more capable, organizations will need to ensure that greater efficiency does not create greater distance between what stakeholders said and what ultimately reaches decision-makers.
Where stakeholder engagement may be heading
The fundamentals of stakeholder engagement remain important. What appears to be evolving is what we expect meaningful engagement to demonstrate. Increasingly, it may not be enough to report how many people participated or how many engagement activities were completed.
Organizations may also need to consider whose perspectives influenced decisions, whether participation was equitable, whether stakeholders are being asked questions they have already answered, and how technologies such as AI affect the way their perspectives are interpreted.
As the methods available to engage stakeholders become more sophisticated, conducting more engagement should not necessarily be the goal. The more meaningful measure may be whether engagement leads to better-informed decisions and demonstrable change.
The W&W Team
References
Hollmann S, Regierer B, Bechis J, Tobin L, D'Elia D. Ten simple rules on how to develop a stakeholder engagement plan. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022;18(10):e1010520. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010520. Article
Nelson G, Jenkins M, Knox B, Purkey E, Chan-Nguyen S, Cole M, Jackson L, Bayoumi I. Engaging people with lived experience on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review. Int J Equity Health. 2025;24:209. doi:10.1186/s12939-025-02573-5. Article
Attree P, French B, Milton B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The experience of community engagement for individuals: a rapid review of evidence. Health Soc Care Community. 2011;19(3):250–260. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2010.00976.x. Article
OECD. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Citizen Participation: Typology of Applications, Opportunities and Challenges for Democratic Innovation. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2026. doi:10.1787/a1ee2e0a-en. Report
Hitch D, Edwards J. Democratising AI in qualitative psychology: the role of public involvement. Qualitative Research in Psychology. Published online June 11, 2026. doi:10.1080/14780887.2026.2687462. Article
