Three pillars for inclusive stakeholder engagement in participatory modeling

By Victoria Herbig, Stephanie Briers, and Bianca Vienni-Baptista.

How can we ensure that technically sophisticated models represent diverse stakeholder perspectives, knowledge, and interests? More specifically, how can we improve: 

• who is included to represent stakeholders,
• engagement dynamics and stakeholder empowerment, and
• genuine deliberation that embeds stakeholder contributions in the model?

Drawing on participatory modeling and transdisciplinary research, we have identified a framework of three interlinked pillars for inclusive stakeholder engagement:

1. stakeholder representation (who is included?),
2. engagement dynamics (how are the stakeholders included?), and
3. collective decision-making (how is their knowledge included?).

These are shown in the figure below.

Each pillar translates into concrete principles and practices that can be applied throughout the modeling process, helping models to better reflect the complexity, diversity, and political dynamics of the issue being addressed.

Stakeholder representation – Who is included?

The challenge is two-fold: who gets invited, and what stops those invited from attending. Inclusive stakeholder engagement hinges on aiming for a diverse and representative group of stakeholders, which is grounded in understanding and considering the background of stakeholders, and making the engagement activity appealing and convenient.

Stakeholder identification and selection is the task at the core of diverse stakeholder representation. This can include mapping stakeholders to understand the ‘landscape,’ conducting a barriers analysis to recognize potential obstacles to engagement, and initiating early awareness-raising about the project. The idea is to identify who is systematically underrepresented, whether excluded from consideration by the researchers or unable or unwilling to attend, and reaching out with enough structure and early enough to facilitate participation.

Participation drivers shape whether someone accepts or declines an invitation. Stakeholders are motivated by different things, such as a desire to contribute, being affected by policy outcomes, or opportunities to learn or build networks. Furthermore, they have different resources available to them, from time to institutional backing. Taking these differences in motivations and available resources into account can increase the diversity and richness of stakeholder input.

Opportunities for engagement address barriers to participation, such as time constraints, as well as increasing the appeal of engagement activities. Part of the work involved in designing inclusive stakeholder engagement is making it compelling and easy to participate.

Engagement dynamics – How are the stakeholders included?

Presence is not participation. Once stakeholders are present, the focus shifts to keeping their participation active and meaningful, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.

Navigation of differences is the task at the core of engagement dynamics. Diverse groups bring different power, knowledge, and interests – differences that need to be actively navigated. One of the most persistent obstacles in participatory procedures is power dynamics. They can be addressed through holding separate preliminary meetings for different groups, and maintaining balanced participation during discussions. It is also essential to moderate conflict rather than letting it simmer.

Adaptable and flexible engagement means adapting to stakeholder needs and engagement preferences rather than expecting them to adapt to a fixed format. Offering multiple ways to contribute, such as through written input, small groups, or one-on-one conversations, lets people engage in ways that best suit their preferences and abilities. Accommodating the needs of diverse participants also depends on the researchers being approachable and attentive.

Equitable participation actively works to empower voices that are less confident or less heard. It requires deliberate effort and skilled, equity-aware facilitation; capacity-building measures for less experienced stakeholders; and accessible, simple language all help less-heard voices come through.

Collective decision-making – How is their knowledge included?

This is where many participatory processes are most likely to fall short: stakeholders contribute and then hear nothing more; their input is acknowledged but its impact is undetectable. Closing that loop means integrating feedback continuously and traceably, recognizing plurality and making space for real deliberation, as well as upholding transparent procedures. It is a design choice to plan enough time and space for this.

Integration of stakeholder feedback is the task at the core of collective decision-making. It requires that contributions are not just collected but visibly incorporated, so that stakeholders can trace where their input went. This means keeping stakeholders in the loop, and creating targeted outcomes tailored to different stakeholder groups.

Deliberation and understanding creates the conditions for genuine elicitation of stakeholders’ perspectives, knowledge, and interests. Inclusive stakeholder engagement pursues a truly democratic and transformative deliberative process: stakeholders understand each other’s positions well enough to present and engage with diverse perspectives in spaces where they feel comfortable, safe and secure to speak openly.

Transparent and open procedures underpin trust throughout. Documenting decisions, using accessible language and methods, and keeping materials open access grant a process legitimacy.

Conclusion

The three pillars are inherently interdependent and mutually reinforcing. They encourage a reflective and iterative approach in which all aspects are revisited throughout the modeling process. The time, resources, and effort invested in one pillar often benefit the others: for instance, understanding the background of stakeholders supports more attentive facilitation, while giving space for discussion, negotiation, and revision can make engagement more appealing to stakeholders.

With our framework we aim to support modeling practices that integrate multiple perspectives, forms of knowledge, and interests, while explicitly confronting power asymmetries and epistemic injustice. We argue that inclusive stakeholder engagement is not only a procedural improvement, but also strengthens the democratic legitimacy, quality, and equity of modeling processes, thereby laying the groundwork for more robust, equitable, and impactful policies.

How have you experienced stakeholder engagement in modeling processes? Are there other processes that you have found effective in developing genuine, ongoing stakeholder engagement in modeling?

To find out more:

Herbig, V., Briers, S. and Vienni-Baptista, B. (2026). From consultation to inclusive engagement: Advancing participatory modeling for net-zero sustainable development. Environmental Science and Policy, 178, 104352. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104352

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. During the preparation of the work on which the contribution is based, the authors used ChatGPT 4o in order to improve the readability of Sections 2 (Rationale) and 6 (Discussion), receiving suggestions for improving the conciseness and clarity of the presentation of thoughts and arguments. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article. (For i2Insights policy on artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Victoria Herbig MSc is an interdisciplinary researcher with a background in energy and process engineering. The work described in this i2Insights contribution was undertaken when she was a research assistant in the Cultural Studies of Science and Technology group at the Transdisciplinarity Lab, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. She is now a sustainability researcher and policy analyst at Technopolis Group, based in Berlin, Germany. Her interests span sustainability, climate policy, and stakeholder engagement, placing a strong emphasis on empirical methods and equitable climate action.

Biography: Stephanie Briers PhD is an established researcher in the Cultural Studies of Science and Technology group at the Transdisciplinarity Lab, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, where she specializes in transdisciplinary action research aimed at fostering sustainable, vibrant, and inclusive cities.

Biography: Bianca Vienni-Baptista PD PhD is group leader of the Cultural Studies of Science and Technology group at the Transdisciplinarity Lab, ETH Zurich. Her research examines inter- and transdisciplinary research practices, funding and evaluation systems, while co-designing transformative research processes for sustainable development.