Research projects that seek the participation of those likely to be effected by research often draw on outdated stakeholder mapping techniques to identify relevant communities. Mark Reed, Eric A. Jensen and Daniela Martin propose that the shortcomings of these methods can be avoided by adopting an approach focusing on the interest, influence (and significantly) impact of those involved.
The societal impact of research projects often hinge on who sits at the table. Decision-making processes need broad participation to capture the full range of expertise, concerns, and aspirations. Yet the most commonly used “stakeholder analysis” methods risk excluding precisely those who lack a formal voice or significant influence. This can reinforce existing power imbalances and derail even the most well-intentioned efforts to promote sustainability and equity.
To address these deficits, we developed the 3i framework. Short for interest, influence, and impact, it offers a fresh way to identify groups that ought to be included. The framework begins with the observation that traditional approaches focus too narrowly on two criteria: who is interested and who has influence. The result is that traditional stakeholder analysis overlooks marginalised groups that have little power or interest in the issue. By adding impact as a third criterion, the 3i method makes it easier to focus on individuals and communities who could be significantly affected by a decision, whether positively or negatively – whether or not they have any influence, or have the time to take an interest in the issue.
Research repeatedly shows that participatory processes work best when they include all who stand to gain or lose.
Why does this matter? Research repeatedly shows that participatory processes work best when they include all who stand to gain or lose. Missing voices, such as vulnerable communities or smaller organisations, are more likely to remain unseen if they do not already have much influence. Despite this growing recognition, stakeholder analysis methods have changed little since they were created in the 1980s to help companies identify and then “neutralize” groups who could pose a threat to their profits. Although, the environmental literature turned the method on its head, attempting instead to identify and empower these same groups, they often failed to identify the most marginalized groups in society.
The heart of our approach is a set of questions that can be asked in workshops or turned into survey questions for key informants. These probe different layers of each group’s involvement:
• Interest. Are they openly interested? Do they have underlying values or cultural ties to the project area?
• Influence. Do they have direct power (legally, financially, or organizationally) to push or block an outcome? Do they hold a more subtle, network-based influence to shape the debate or engage others?
• Impact. Are they likely to benefit economically, socially, or culturally from the project? Could they be harmed, even if they are unaware of the risks?
This analysis can be done using participatory workshops, one-on-one interviews, or online surveys. Workshops typically follow five stages.
- Clarify the scope of the decision or project to define clear boundaries.
- Identify all potentially relevant individuals, organizations, or groups.
- Rate these parties according to the three criteria, noting both explicit (primary) and deeper (secondary) forms of interest, influence, and impact.
- Have participants discuss differences of opinion: one expert may see high influence where another sees little.
- Finally, group the identified parties by shared attributes, ensuring no overlooked individuals remain on the margins.
When time or logistics are an issue, a well-structured survey can gather valuable data about who has interest, influence, or may be impacted, helping researchers see patterns across broad geographical or social contexts. Survey respondents, often people familiar with local circumstances, answer closed-ended scale items and open-ended questions. Closed-ended items show how strongly each group rates on each criterion, while open text boxes capture extra context.
Evidence from pilot studies in Europe underscores how adding impact broadens the net of who gets noticed. Environmental managers applying the 3i framework identified more vulnerable local communities who were at risk of negative consequences, even though these communities lacked influence and had little initial interest in the project or the issues the team were researching. Without a 3i approach, these groups typically would be categorised as “the crowd” and might never gain a seat at the table. By revealing their situation, decision-makers gained a richer understanding of social contexts and a chance to tailor outreach strategies more effectively.
This method also streamlines outreach to groups that might appear less central. People or organisations who are uninterested and have little power can slip through the cracks. Including them supports more robust debate, reduces surprises, and can head off conflicts that surface when disenfranchised voices are sidelined. Reaching out in culturally appropriate ways: translating materials into local languages, using channels they trust, helps them appreciate why certain decisions matter and how they can participate.
Adding impact to interest and influence thus transforms stakeholder analysis into a more inclusive, evidence-based endeavour. The 3i process dives deeper into relationships and motivations. It spotlights how decisions can produce unintended outcomes for those with the least power and how engagement could be designed to protect or elevate such groups. This is not about tokenism. It is about real transparency in deciding who has a say and how those who are at risk get heard.
Tackling urgent environmental issues requires more than good research. It demands an honest reckoning with the social and power dynamics that shape who benefits, who bears the burdens, and who can steer debate. The 3i framework provides a quick and flexible structure for deciding who should be part of these conversations. When used effectively, it can reduce blind spots, minimise the disenfranchisement of neglected parties, and deliver more equitable and durable results. Ultimately, a fairer and more complete analysis of who matters leads to stronger partnerships and outcomes that better serve both societies and the environment.
This post draws on the authors’ article, Analyzing who is relevant to engage in decision-making processes by interests, influence and impact: the 3i methodological framework published in the Journal of Environmental Management.
The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
Image Credit: Akhenaton Images on Shutterstock.
