Consulting the powerful - Are the rules different?

It is quite easy sometimes to imagine that all public or stakeholder consultations are dialogues between the usual bureaucracies and local communities. And it is equally easy to characterise these as an unequal contest between well-resourced organisations and enthusiastic amateurs; it is one of the reasons why some academics dismiss consultation as largely tokenistic, and why the Arnstein ladder once upon a time seemed to position consultation close to the bottom.

The reality is somewhat different. Many consultations draw into the dialogue a range of much bigger, more powerful stakeholders. If there is a problem, it is as much the disparity in the skills and know-how available to different consultees as the power balance between those who consult and those who respond. Among these can be some pretty powerful bodies.

At the top end of the spectrum, we have large multi-national Corporations, or Inter-Governmental organisations who may well initiate discussions on important changes of policy, or new initiatives. Think International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, United Nations Agencies (eg WHO, UNICEF etc), European Space Agency, the Oil Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and so forth. Think also of multi-national Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), working in the environmental or humanitarian fields – the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Save the Children or Greenpeace. Or maybe also consider large charities like the Bill Gates Foundation or Faith groups like the Catholic Church …

All these spend billions of pounds engaging seriously with each other and with elements of their stakeholder bases. They may not always use the term ‘consultation’ but in reality much of this activity falls 100% within the definition – ie dialogues intended to influence policies, programmes or decisions.

But we live in a world that wants to see large bodies accept a degree of accountability. Sometimes it comes as something of a shock. For some decades, the governing body for world football – FIFA - was a secretive, allegedly corrupt cabal run by the charismatic but controversial Sepp Blatter. Increasingly, however, it found itself unable to retreat behind the fortress of its Zurich headquarters, and in recent years, faced a barrage of criticism – culminating with the row over its choice of Qatar for the 2022 World Cup.

What happened in Zurich last week was an announcement that there will now be a six months consultation on a proposal to switch from the traditional summer tournament to a winter event, when temperatures will be cooler in the Gulf States. Stand by therefore for a range of individual and collective dialogues with the likes of the English Premier League, Sky Television, global sponsors and a host of other powerful people.

These won’t be like the normal run-of-the-mill community conversations. No public meetings; no exhibitions or drop-in centres; unlikely to be a questionnaire, and certainly nothing as structured as a focus groups. Imagine instead a range of complicated issues-papers, tortuous one-to-one or group meetings and, possibly, some invitations to make representations.

So are the rules different? Will the powerful bodies invited to participate in this exercise tolerate anything less than best practice behaviour by FIFA? Can they possibly withstand internal criticism or media condemnation if they are seen to be taking part in a meaningless charade? And if they feel they are not being listened to – how fiercely will they complain and campaign?

The truth is that the more powerful the consultee, the more demanding it will be and the greater its ability to seek redress if it thinks it is being unfairly treated or insufficiently heard. Although it was not a consultation per se, an instructive illustration of the power of some stakeholders is to study what happened when the Ministry of Transport gave the West Coast mainline railway route to the First Group less than a year go. A furious Richard Branson threw everything into the defence of his Virgin Rail business. He mounted a legal challenge, and also stimulated a passenger/public campaign that almost created the consultation that should have happened but didn’t. And it was just as well, for the ensuing de-construction of what happened exposed the most indefensible bungling in Whitehall. Few Governments have ever had to eat such humble pie when admitting to such appalling failures.

But Branson is a powerful operator. Weaker consultees would have stood no chance of uncovering such wrongdoing. Arguably, of course they should, and that is why there is serious concern at Government plans to make it more difficult to seek judicial reviews. The best advice to all who hold consultations, from the most humble Parish Council right through to FIFA and its fellows is to follow the best practice that the Institute and others recommend. Big or small, the established principles of good consultation are identical.

TRIGGER POINTS

• Consider who are the most powerful organisations to respond to your consultations. Are you able to meet their expectations?
• When you need to be sure that your consultation meets best practice standards, consider the Institute’s ‘compliance assessment’ Contact Jan Warner on 01767 318350
• For details of the Government consultation on fresh proposals re judicial reviews, see https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review
• Join 100+ Institute members and others at the Institute’s 10th Anniversary Conference - “A World that Listens?”

• If you found this Topic interesting, you may also find these of some relevance
• – Tuesday Topic 241: Horses for courses
• – Tuesday Topic 229: When stakeholders seem too close

This is the 246th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement