Towards an Improved Understanding of Stakeholder
Working Paper Proceedings Engineering Project Organization Conference Devil’s Thumb Ranch, Colorado July 9-11, 2013 Towards An Improved Understanding Of Stakeholder Dynamics During The Project Front-End: The Case Of Nuclear Waste Repository Projects Kirsi Aaltonen, Aalto University, Finland Jaakko Kujala, University of Oulu, Finland Laura Havela, University of Oulu, Finland Proceedings Editors Patricia Carrillo, Loughborough University and Paul Chinowsky, University of Colorado © Copyright belongs to the authors. All rights reserved. Please contact authors for citation details. Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference TOWARDS AN IMPROVED UNDERSTANDING OF STAKEHOLDER DYNAMICS DURING THE PROJECT FRONT-END: THE CASE OF NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY PROJECTS Kirsi Aaltonen,1 Jaakko Kujala2 and Laura Havela3 ABSTRACT The importance of project stakeholder management and dynamics is emphasized in nuclear power field where stakeholders’ negative attitude towards a project can severely endanger the achievement of project’s objectives. The aim of this paper is to enrich our understanding of stakeholder dynamics during the project’s front-end stage – a research area which clearly merits from further empirical research. The study focuses on the examination of stakeholder dynamics of two pioneering nuclear repository projects, Onkalo in Finland and Yucca Mountain in USA during the project front-end stage. In order to systematically analyze changes in stakeholders’ importance and position, a salience-position matrix is developed in the study. This framework is believed to be of practical use for project managers when analyzing the needs and concerns of different stakeholders during the early feasibility and conceptual design stages of projects. Furthermore, the results of the study are valuable for project stakeholder research, since prior stakeholder literature has rarely conceptualized stakeholder dynamics and the elements of stakeholder dynamism in a systematic manner. KEYWORDS: project stakeholder management, stakeholder dynamics, project front-end, salience-position matrix INTRODUCTION The management of project stakeholders is widely acknowledged as an essential part of project management and as a factor contributing to project success (Cleland, 1986; Olander and Landin, 2005). Despite the acknowledged importance of stakeholder management, project management research still lacks both theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence of various project stakeholder related phenomena (Achterkamp and Vos, 2008; Yang et al, 2009). Until today, project stakeholder research has primarily focused on the conceptual development of stakeholder management tools and frameworks in order to better manage stakeholders. However, the majority of the stakeholder management research, tools and frameworks provide only a static perspective of the project and are focused primarily on the project execution stage. Clearly less attention has been devoted to understanding stakeholder dynamics, i.e. changes in stakeholders’ attributes and positions towards the project, both empirically and theoretically during the early project front-end stage (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010; Olander and Landin, 2005). The importance of stakeholder management and dynamics is emphasized especially in nuclear power field where stakeholders’ negative attitude towards a project can severely obstruct project progress and cause cost overruns and exceeded time schedules. This study focuses on the examination of stakeholder dynamic of two pioneering nuclear repository projects, Onkalo in 1 Postdoctoral Researcher, Aalto University, Finland, [email protected]. Professor, University of Oulu, Finland, [email protected]. 3 Researcher, University of Oulu, Finland, [email protected]. 2 1 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Finland and Yucca Mountain in USA during the project front-end stage. Such projects can be described to be the most ambitious construction projects in the history of mankind – the goal is to isolate nuclear waste at least for 100 000 years. The technology used in final disposal is mature and technically proven, but gaining the diverse stakeholders support and managing stakeholder dynamics is a challenge during the project’s early stages. The aim of this paper is to enrich our understanding of stakeholder dynamics during the project’s front-end stage. This is done by analyzing the changes in stakeholders’ salience attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency) (Mitchell et al, 1997) and in their position (supportive/non-supportive) towards the project. In addition, we are interested in the potential reasons and explanations for the identified changes. We decided purposefully to focus on the project’s front-end stage (considered to cover all the activities from the project’s idea generation to the more detailed planning phase), because it is a stage, when stakeholders’ positions are shaped and the stakeholders’ potential to influence the project management’s decision-making is highest (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010). Furthermore, the current understanding of project front-end stakeholder dynamics can be considered to be at its infancy. Hence, on the practical side, the paper increases our understanding of how project management can actually influence and manage stakeholder dynamics. We start our analysis with a literature review on project stakeholder management and stakeholder dynamics. Based on the conceptual analysis of the elements of stakeholder dynamics, an analytical framework, stakeholder salience-position matrix, is developed. In the empirical part, we first provide a short briefing of nuclear waste management in general and later analyze the two nuclear repository projects as well as their stakeholder dynamics by using the developed framework. Finally, we discuss the implications of our analysis for research and managers and provide suggestions for further research. LITERATURE REVIEW Project Stakeholder Thinking The notion of stakeholders was originally introduced to the mainstream general management discussion by Freeman (1984). Two years later, Cleland (1986) brought stakeholder thinking into the project management paradigm. Ever since, the role of stakeholder management as a central project management process has strengthened, and today even the concept of project management is defined through stakeholders as “the process of adapting the specifications, plans, and approaches to the different concerns and expectations of the various stakeholders” (PMI, 2008). Stakeholders have their own objectives, interests and expectations which may conflict and cause challenges to the project management (Artto and Kujala, 2008). Stakeholder theory is then to enable managers to understand stakeholders and strategically manage them by engendering and maintaining their support (Aaltonen et al, 2008). After Cleland’s (1986) work, various definitions and categorization attempts of stakeholders have been presented in the existing project management literature ranging from broad to narrow views. Broad definitions (El-Gohary et al, 2006; Fraser and Zhu, 2008; Kolltveit and Gronhaug, 2004; PMI, 2008; Turner, 1999; Ward and Chapman, 2008) accentuate the fact that project stakeholders can affect or are affected by the project. In turn, definitions that adopt a narrower view highlight the nature of the interest or stake that a particular stakeholder has with regard to the project(Cleland, 1986; Cleland, 1998; Chinyio and Akintoye, 2008; McElroy and Mills, 2003; Olander, 2007). Many of the definitions follow the notions in the stakeholder 2 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference management literature, but are applied to the project context. Table 1 in Appendix 1 summarizes the found existing definitions for stakeholders in the field of project management. In addition to diverse definitions, project management scholars have also categorized stakeholders in a variety of ways. Most prominent in the literature are categorizations based on stakeholders’ involvement in the project and the nature of their relationship with the project, the nature of stakeholders’ claim and position towards the project, the stakeholders’ role in the project, and the degree to which stakeholders’ behavior can be anticipated. Internal stakeholders are “the stakeholders who are formally members of the project coalition and hence usually support the project” (Winch, 2004). External stakeholders are not formal members of the project coalition, but may affect or be affected by the project. Such groups are often referred to as nonbusiness stakeholders or secondary stakeholders (Cova and Salle, 2005). In addition, stakeholder categorizations in project management literature include the division of stakeholders according to their functional role in a project, such as client, contractor, customers, sponsors, local community members, NGOs, media, lobbying organizations, and government agencies (Cova et al, 2002). Stakeholder Salience Stakeholder theory provides a solid standing point for identifying, classifying and categorizing stakeholders and understanding their behavior in order to better manage them (Aaltonen et al, 2008). However, as all stakeholder needs and concerns cannot be fulfilled, the project management needs to balance between different stakeholders’ diverse claims in their decision-making process in a manner that the purpose of the project would not be compromised (Olander, 2007). A widely known stakeholder salience framework, proposed by Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), explains the process of managerial decision making with regard stakeholders. Mitchell et al. (1997) classify stakeholders according to the power, legitimacy and urgency of their claims. Stakeholder salience framework suggests that these three attributes can be used to determine how much and which type of attention stakeholders receive from management. The stakeholder salience framework suggests that the more attributes a stakeholder possesses, the more salient it is to the firm – salience refers to the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims. By combining these three attributes, a typology of stakeholders can be formed and their importance to management and its decision making evaluated. The salience framework proposes that the more powerful the stakeholders are, the more salient their requests are in the eyes of the management. In the salience framework, stakeholder power is defined as ‘‘a relationship among social actors in which one social actor, A, can get another social actor, B, to do something that B would not otherwise have done. The bases of power are seen to be mainly in the type of resource used to exercise power giving material or financial resources, symbolic resources and force and violence. Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that the more legitimate the stakeholders’ claims are, the more likely they are to receive positive responses from firms. Mitchell et al. (1997) use the definition on legitimacy as ‘‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions.” Finally, the urgency of the stakeholders’ request is seen as the third attribute that increases the salience of the stakeholder. Urgency is defined as ‘‘the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention.” It is based on two attributes (1) time sensitivity – the degree to which managerial 3 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference delay in attending to the claim or relationship is unacceptable to the stakeholder – and (2) criticality – the importance of the claim to the stakeholder (Mitchell et al, 1997). Stakeholders’ Position Towards The Project In addition to the analysis of stakeholders’ attributes, project stakeholders can also be divided into different classes based on their position, stake and interests towards the project. Winch (2004) proposes a classification based on those who promote the project and those who oppose it (Winch, 2004). McElroy and Mills (2003) present a more fine-grained model with five different levels of stakeholder position towards the project: active opposition, passive opposition, noncomittal, passive support and active support. These positions towards the project ultimately determine the impact of each stakeholder on the project’s decision making. Mathur et al. (2008) distinguish between those scholars that view stakeholders as claimants and those who view them as influencers. Olander (2007), however, postulates that this distinction is problematic because it implies that the media would not be classed as a stakeholder despite having the potential ability to significantly affect a project’s activities and performance. Much of the existing research seems to classify external stakeholders, such as local citizens, community groups and environmentalists to those stakeholder groups who oppose the project and that need to be convinced of the project’s worth. In turn, internal stakeholder behavior is typically considered as supportive towards the project (Winch, 2004). Stakeholder Influence Strategies Stakeholders’ attributes and, hence, salience do not remain steady-state during the project, but have a dynamic nature (Aaltonen and Kujala, 2010). Stakeholders’ influence strategies are important means for them to strategically shape their position and to increase the likelihood that their claim will be taken into account in the project management’s decision making (Frooman, 1999; Aaltonen et al, 2008). The concept of stakeholder influence strategy is often used interchangeably with such concepts as ‘influence tactic’ (Hendry, 2005) and ‘activities’ (Rowley and Moldoveanu, 2003). Frooman (1999) discusses influence strategies as the “means” stakeholders use to try to get what they want, and proposes that the nature of the resource relationship between the stakeholder and the firm determines the type of influence strategy that will be used by each stakeholder. Project stakeholders can shape their salience by using different strategies which include the direct withholding strategy, indirect withholding strategy, coalition building strategy, resource building strategy, conflict escalation strategy, creditability building strategy, communication strategy and direct action strategy (Aaltonen et al., 2008). Power is closely related to resources. In order to provide the project with the resources, stakeholders can claim something in return, which gives them power over projects. Stakeholders that use the direct withholding strategy control critical resources in terms of project’s success and can therefore increase their power by conditionally restricting access to these resources. In addition, stakeholders may be in a position to influence resources provided by another stakeholder. In these instances, they can use the indirect withholding strategy to manipulate the flow of resources and increase the salience of their claims (Aaltonen et al, 2008). Stakeholders may use different strategies to influence the legitimacy of their claims. One important strategy for this is the coalition building strategy. This can directly increase stakeholder legitimacy, particularly if they are able to form a coalition with a more legitimate partner. Stakeholders often do not pursue their objectives alone, but in cooperation with other partners and stakeholders to increase the salience of their claims. The resource building strategy can be used by stakeholders 4 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference to increase the possession of critical resources on a project. Furthermore in many projects, there are also actors who use the project to further other, non-project related goals. In these situations, the project becomes an arena for actors with a political agenda to promote other, non-project related issues. This is called the conflict escalation strategy. (Aaltonen et al 2008). Finally, stakeholders can increase their legitimacy through the credibility building strategy, for example, recruiting a well-known and legitimate member into the stakeholder group. Project stakeholders may use communication or direct action strategies to increase the urgency of their claims. This can happen by using the different communication channels and media cleverly (Aaltonen et al, 2008). Stakeholder Management Strategies Stakeholder management strategies are means enacted by project management to shape the attributes or positions of stakeholders and, hence, contribute to the stakeholder dynamics during the project early stage. Prior research on a focal project’s stakeholder management activities can be roughly divided into two discourses that both adopt a rather static perspective on a project’s behaviors. First, extant research has focused on demonstrating and articulating the managerial importance of stakeholder management and examining the role and value of stakeholder management process (e.g. Bourne and Walker, 2005; Cleland, 1986; Cleland, 1998; Olander and Landin, 2005). Second, the majority of the research on managerial behavior with regard to project stakeholders has adopted a practice-oriented view and focused on the conceptual development of different managerial frameworks, tools and processes to identify, categorize and manage project stakeholders. For example, there are tools to classify stakeholders through matrices such as the power/interest in the project matrix (Johnson and Scholes, 1999), tools to map whether stakeholders are promoting or opposing the project (Winch, 2002), and tools to categorize, visualize, and identify different stakeholder attributes such as Stakeholder Circle (Bourne and Walker, 2005). Aaltonen and Sivonen (2009) have identified and described five different types of response strategies i.e. stakeholder management strategies that project management may enact as a response to stakeholder pressures. The identified response strategies are adaptation strategy, compromising strategy, avoidance strategy, dismissal strategy and influence strategy. The adaptation strategy refers to a strategy by which project management adapts to demands presented by stakeholders. The compromising strategy refers to a strategy in which project management makes concessions and compromises over its own objectives because of claims presented by stakeholders. Hence, project management aims to meet some of the requirements presented by stakeholders and, in this way, accommodates some of the pressures. The avoidance strategy refers to a strategy by which project management loosens its attachments to stakeholder related claims and tries to guard or shield the project from the claims. Project management that employs the dismissal strategy ignores demands and pressures posed by stakeholders. In this case, project management considers that it is not necessary to take into account stakeholders’ claims for the sake of the efficient execution of operations. In turn, the intended effect of the influence strategy is to neutralize the stakeholders’ opposition and to proactively shape their demands. This strategy involves active and innovative information sharing, opening the project to stakeholders, multi-stakeholder dialogues and building active and nonadversarial, long-term relationships with stakeholders. 5 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Towards Understanding Project Stakeholder Dynamics: An Analytical Framework Based on the literature review, we suggest that project stakeholder dynamics can be analyzed through examining the changes in stakeholders’ salience attributes (power, legitimacy, urgency) and in stakeholders’ stance towards the project. We also suggest that stakeholder salience attributes and stakeholders’ stance towards the project are properties of stakeholders that may change through stakeholder influence strategies (stakeholders shape their attributes and stance by themselves) or through stakeholder management strategies (project management attempts to shape stakeholders’ attributes or stance). Figure 1 illustrates the degree of salience/position towards the project –matrix (further referred to as salience/position –matrix). Salience/position –matrix is an analytical framework that is developed for the purposes of this study in order to examine project stakeholder dynamics in the empirical cases. Stakeholder management strategies High degree of salience Stakeholder influence strategies Stakeholder management strategies Stakeholder influence strategies Low degree of salience Supportive Non-supportive Figure 1. Salience/position –matrix RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Strategy Since the purpose of the study is to improve our understanding of stakeholder dynamics during the project front-end and prior research within this area is limited, a case study was selected as a research strategy (Eisenhardt, 1989). The case study was conducted as a multiplecase design and two polar multi-stakeholder case projects were chosen for detailed analysis: Onkalo is a successful nuclear repository project in Finland and Yucca Mountain a debated nuclear repository project in USA. We selected these two unique multi-stakeholder cases due to their different early stage stakeholder dynamics and outcomes with regard to stakeholders. According to Yin (1994) a multiple case study enables to explore differences within and between cases and it is considered to be more robust and reliable compared to a single-case design which 6 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference is criticized for its uniqueness. In addition, we believed that the nuclear waste management context would provide us with interesting insights with regard to managing stakeholders. According to World Nuclear Association (2009) repository projects are being planned in several countries. Gaining the stakeholder support and maintaining it has been the main challenge in the piloting repository projects. Research Data The empirical data consists of publicly available electronic information on the two pioneering nuclear repository projects. Hundreds of Onkalo project related articles were published in leading Finnish financial periodicals and newspapers whilst information concerning Yucca Mountain was primarily collected from US financial periodicals and newspapers (articles during years 2005-2013). Furthermore, independent information concerning nuclear waste decommissioning and nuclear waste field was provided in the Internet sites of International Atomic Energy Agency), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and World Nuclear Association. In addition, an extensive study on scientific articles concerning both cases was also done in order to obtain rich case analyses and perspectives on the cases. The specific details concerning the used data for both cases are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Case data Case Onkalo Case Yucca Mountain The coverage of electrical articles published in the Finnish leading periodicals and newspapers about Onkalo between years 1995 and 2013 (these periodicals and newspapers include: Kauppalehti4, Taloussanomat5, Tekniikka ja Talous 6and Helsingin Sanomat7). The coverage of electrical articles published in the periodicals and newspapers about Yucca Mountain in USA and in Finland between years 1987 and 2013 (these periodicals and newspapers include: Time Magazine, New York Times, Las Vegas Sun and Helsingin Sanomat) Public information provided in the Internet sites of the key actors: Posiva (www.posiva.fi), Eurajoki (www.eurajoki.fi), STUK (www.stuk.fi), Fennovoima (www.fennovoima.fi) and The Ministry of Employment and the Economy the former Ministry of Trade and Industry (http://www.vn.fi/ministeriot/tem/en.jsp) Public information provided in the Internet sites of the key actors: US Department of Energy (www.energy.gov), Nuclear regulatory commission (www.nrc.gov), Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov) and Nuclear Energy Institute (www.nei.org) Broadcasted TV documents and films (Michael Madsen Into Eternity 2010) and news broadcasts Broadcasted TV documents and news broadcasts (CNN) Posiva’s own leaflet (http://www.posiva.fi/tietopankki/posiva_tutkii/)between years 2000 and 2013 The Eureka County Yucca Mountain Information Office online (www.yuccamountain.org) 4 Kauppalehti is a leading and oldest business newspaper in Finland focusing on marketing and economics. Taloussanomat is a commerce-oriented on-line newspaper in Finland. 6 Tekniikka ja Talous is economics and technology-oriented newspaper. 7 Helsingin Sanomat is the largest subscription newspaper in Finland. 5 7 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Interviews with key persons involved in the two case projects will be conducted during the next round of the data collection (summer 2013). The interviews will also be used to validate the stakeholder analyses presented in the paper. Data Analysis During the first stage of the analysis, researchers familiarized themselves with the case materials and formed a comprehensive understanding of the series of key project events during the front end of both of the cases. At this stage also event databases covering the key events, their timing, important stakeholders involved in these events and the implications of the events in both cases were created. In addition, stakeholder databases including key stakeholders, their goals and position towards the project, salience (power, legitimacy and urgency) and their influence and management strategies were formed. After this, detailed case descriptions covering the key events of both cases were written. In the actual empirical analysis of the data, our focus was on mapping the key stakeholders (stakeholder maps) and the changes in their degree of salience and position as well as the reasons for these changes. For the positioning of the stakeholders and the changes in in their salience and position we utilized the developed analytical framework: stakeholder salience/position –matrix. Finally, we were able to analyze the stakeholder dynamics of both of the cases and seek explanations for the found dynamics. In the analysis of the changes particular focus is put on the stakeholders’ influence behavior and project management’s stakeholder management behavior. In addition, we attempted to theorize on the potential reasons and explanations for the found different outcomes of the two project cases and the role of stakeholder dynamics in these outcomes. Case Background Information Nuclear waste management Nuclear power generation, as well as other applications of nuclear fission or nuclear technology, create nuclear waste. This waste is hazardous and can stay radioactive depending on the waste type thousands of years. Therefore, nuclear waste needs to be managed safely to protect human health and the environment. However, the nuclear waste field is still in its infancy as the nuclear waste is being stored in temporary storages (Pickard, 2010). The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has taken a leading role in order to achieve an international consensus and recommended deep geological repository as a solution (World Nuclear Association, 2011). Repository projects can be described as extremely demanding because they require taking into account not only a long list of technical factors but also economical, political and social factors (Won Han, 1997). Project Onkalo in Finland In Finland Posiva Oy is an expert organization responsible for the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel of its owners. Posiva was established in 1995 and it is owned by the two biggest players in the Finnish nuclear power field Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) (60%) and Fortum Power & Heat Oy (40%). (Posiva, 2011). In the Finnish Nuclear Energy Act the first step towards a new nuclear facility or final repository or power station is the so-called Decision in Principle (DiP). This means that the government has to consider whether the construction project is in line with the overall good of society. In particular, the government pays attention to the need for the facility, the suitability of the proposed site and its environmental impact. Moreover, 8 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference the policy also includes legislation to ensure public participation, and a local right of veto on the siting process. (SDC, 2006). After a flexible site selection process Eurajoki was nominated as a hosting municipality. The project is on schedule as the site was selected in 2001 and the construction license application was submitted in 2012. The operation license application is to be submitted in 2018 and the final disposal is planned to begin in 2020. (Posiva 2012). The main events of Onkalo project are presented on the timeline in Figure 2. The construction license Eurajoki changes its attitude towards siting Systematic siting process starts Posiva submitted a DIP application for Eurajoki to the Government Flexible preliminary investigations final disposal begins The municipal council of Eurajoki votes 20-7 The operation license application The Government gives a positive DIP Posiva is established The Parliament ratifies the DIP 159-3 The work begins Vuojoki group Olkiluoto vision 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Time Figure 2. Main events of Onkalo project In the USA, the Department of Energy (DOE) is obligated to provide a permanent storage solution for spent nuclear waste. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) from 1982 was designed to require a fair, technically sound and comprehensive selection process for a permanent disposal site. However, in order to save money and time of the program, NWPA was amended to focus the site characterization studies solely on Yucca Mountain in Nevada in 1987 (Widder and Calloway 2010). After all, Yucca Mountain was already located within a former nuclear test site and was rated number one based on all technical factors (Inhofe 2006; Widder and Calloway, 2010). This decision got a lot of criticism and problems started to arise as Nevadans felt it is unfair for their state to have to store all nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada (Rodney and Hippel, 2009). Under the Act, congress set a deadline of 1998 for DOE to begin moving used nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants. However, DOE missed the date and failed to remove any spent nuclear fuel from reactor sites. The delay became expensive for nuclear facilities as they had to build additional storages (Widder and Calloway, 2010). Practically, during the whole time Yucca Mountain project has been interfered by the politicians. At the moment the project is frozen and other options are being considered. However, there is a pressure to find a solution quickly, as the country is the world's largest producer of nuclear power and according to the California law no new reactors can be built until a national nuclear waste repository has been established (Rogers, 2009; Carter 9 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference et al, 2010). Obama administration stands behind nuclear power (Miller, 2010; Favole and Tracy, 2011). The main Yucca Mountain project events are presented on the timeline in Figure 3. The Blue Ribbon commission The Yucca Mountain Development Act Reid is elected Senate Majority Leader The Nuclear Waste Policy Act Presidential elections License application is submitted to the NRC NWPA amendment “Screw Nevada Act” Obama is elected President DOE misses DL for removal of nuclear waste from reactor sites Yucca Mountain is doomed “not suitable” The secretary Chu withdraws the license application 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 Time Figure 3. Main events of Yucca Mountain project EMPIRICAL FINDINGS In this empirical analysis stakeholder analyses of both cases are presented. The stakeholder maps (Figures 4-9) present the changes in stakeholders’ positions and relationships with respect to the project and to other stakeholders. Detailed stakeholder related information is supplied in Tables 2 and 3 (Appendix 2). In the tables the stakeholders are described according to their goals, positions with regard to the project, salience attributes and strategies. Project Onkalo Posiva, who was a salient actor with regard to repository projects in Finland, initiated the preparations of the Onkalo by launching the environmental impact assessment (EIA) in 1997. The strategy of Posiva was to have a flexible siting approach and keep all the possible siting options open as long as possible. Therefore, EIA was conducted in every four sitein Eurajoki, Loviisa, Äänekoski and Kuhmo. In addition to its original purpose, Posiva also used EIA as a means to get an understanding of the prevailing atmospheres in the municipalities (Raittila et al, 2002). Furthermore, at this stage, Posiva enacted proactive stakeholder engagement strategies by promoting the benefits of the project towards the municipalities as well as inducing competition among them. They were active in organizing group meetings and public briefings as well as discussion sessions near the local residents. Communication was regular, leaflets were published and own employees’ voices were used to personalize the communication. However, from early on, particularly, Kuhmo and Ääneskoski municipalities had a lot of civil activity and the 10 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference atmosphere was rather negative towards the potential project despite Posiva’s engagement attempts. The approach of the municipalities was non-co-operative and both Kuhmo and Äänekoski residents organized channels for their opposition by establishing non-governmental organizations that were registered to promote the criticality of their claims for Posiva and for the surrounding society. The establishment of these protest organizations increased clearly the salience of Kuhmo and Äänekoski with regard to the project e.g. through their increased urgency of the claim and resources. These organizations also received power through municipal elections, in which their primary theme was to oppose the planned project. In addition, address writing campaigns were induced and requirements for referendum presented. As a consequence, Posiva warned Äänekoski municipality for its passivity (Raittila et al, 2002). Loviisa and Eurajoki municipalities in turn are both nuclear power municipalities and were more favorable towards the facility even though also within them the views of the project were diverse. Within Loviisa particularly the local residents had a nonsupportive stance towards the project and as a result a non-governmental organization was formed to impact the decision makers and to start collecting petition signatures. In Eurajoki, no non-governmental organizations to oppose the project were founded. However, even though the municipality saw the project as highly significant for its economy, it decided to play “hard to get” during the initial stages of the project preparation. Still, the attitude of the municipality towards co-operation with Posiva was positive right from the start. In January 1998, Eurajoki, Teollisuuden Voima and Posiva formed Vuojoki workgroup whose main task was to negotiate the compensations for Eurajoki municipality. Posiva’s aim was to safeguard the development of nuclear waste management and Eurajoki was interested in safeguarding its tax revenue (Kojo et al, 2010). The co-operation between Eurajoki and Posiva further developed, as the local council of Eurajoki accepted the so-called “Onkalo vision” where the municipality took a positive position towards the siting and additional nuclear power. The Onkalo vision was signed in May 1999 after Eurajoki got its required change in real estate tax and about 7 million Euros compensation of hosting the repository. (Kojo et al 2010, Posiva investigates 2007). Figure 4 presents the Onkalo project’s stakeholder map in 1999. Government Posiva High degree of salience Low degree of salience Kuhmo and Äänekoski municipality Loviisa municipality Kuhmo and Äänekoski residents Loviisa residents EEurajoki municipality Parlament Eurajoki residents STUK Public Greenpeace Researchers Non-supportive Supportive Figure 4. Onkalo stakeholder map 1999 11 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Because of the Onkalo vision, Posiva submitted a decision in principle application only for Eurajoki to the government. As a result, all the opposing groups in the other municipalities ended their opposing activities (Raittila et al, 2002). For the decision in principle the government requested statements from the municipality of Eurajoki and from the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority STUK. STUK submitted a preliminary safety appraisal of Eurajoki to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) in January 2000. In this appraisal STUK concluded that the prerequisites for a DiP from the standpoint of nuclear and radiation safety were met. (Posiva investigates, 2009). The municipal council of Eurajoki approved Onkalo as the site for the repository in January 2000. Earlier the local council had decided that referendum will not be needed as the facility does not cause disagreements (Raittila et al, 2002). After having received these statements, government saw no obstacles to a positive DiP. Despite Greenpeace was campaigning against additional nuclear power ‘the fifth mistake’ and nuclear waste decommissioning, government made a positive DIP in December 2000. The proposal was further discussed in parliament which ratified the government’s positive DiP in May 2001. The unanimity of parliament can be explained by the Finnish decision making procedure (Raittila et al, 2002). After the environment and economy committees had taken a positive stands there was not much that singular members could do and moreover, they did not want to bring up their opposing views anymore. An interesting point related to the DIP procedure, however, was, that no alterative options and sites were presented. Figure 5 presents the Onkalo stakeholder map in 2001. Government High degree of salience EEurajoki municipality Parlament Eurajoki residents Low degree of salience Posiva STUK Greenpeace Kuhmo and Äänekoski municipality Kuhmo and Äänekoski residents Public Loviisa municipality Researchers Loviisa residents Non-supportive Supportive Figure 5. Onkalo stakeholder map 2001 After submitting the construction license application in 2012 Posiva has continued testing and simulating the final disposal. In addition, Posiva is also required to provide further clarification concerning the copper canisters used in the final disposal (Helsingin Sanomat 2012). Posiva needs to maintain the positive atmosphere not only at local level but at national level too. The fact that there is no support from other nuclear power nations, as they are still at the starting point with their repository projects, does not make the task any easier. Furthermore, a new 12 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference stakeholder organization has appeared. The new nuclear company Fennovoima got its license for a nuclear power in 2010 and is planning to build a nuclear power plant in Pyhäjoki. Next Fennovoima needs to make a clearance concerning the nuclear waste management. Fennovoima has publicly announced that it would be interested in co-operation with Posiva. Posiva, however, has declared that the company will only take care of the spent nuclear fuel produced by its owners which has ended up in a complicated situation between Fennovoima and Posiva. Figure 6 presents the Onkalo stakeholder map in 2009. Government High degree of salience EEurajoki municipality Parlament Eurajoki residents Low degree of salience Posiva STUK Greenpeace Public Fennovoima Non-supportive Researchers Supportive Figure 6. Onkalo stakeholder map 2009 Project Yucca Mountain In the Nuclear waste policy act 1982 congress authorized different federal agencies to perform different functions related to Yucca Mountain. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards to protect human health and safety. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for implementing EPA's standards and determining if the Yucca Mountain facility can be safe enough to contain nuclear waste. The Department of Energy owns, constructs, applies for licenses and will operate the facility. Generators and owners of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste in turn are required to pay the costs of the disposal. In 1987’s amendment, known as "Screw Nevada Act" (Fialka, 2009), congress narrowed the site search to Yucca Mountain violating provisions of the original legislation which mandated that several locations would be studied to find the most suitable site. The majority of Nevadans have been against the project for the whole time (Interrante, 2011). Later it has been speculated that congress chose Nevada because Nevada had a small population and limited political influence compared to the other two finalists, Texas or Washington, which had larger and more influential congressional delegations (Teller 2011; Niskakangas 2011). Figure 7 presents Yucca Mountain stakeholder map in 1987. 13 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference High degree of salience Congress State of Nevada EPA NRC DOE Low degree of salience Nuclear facilities Public Non-supportive States with nuclear waste Supportive Figure 7. Yucca Mountain stakeholder map 1987 As Yucca Mountain was deemed scientifically and technically sound and the public hearings did not bring out any major obstacles, the Secretary of Energy of the time recommended the site to President Bush who approved the recommendation. The Nevada governor was object to Yucca Mountain and used his veto which, however, was overturned by the simple majority in both houses of congress. In 2002, the President Bush signed the approval into law as the Yucca Mountain Development Act (YMDA) (Inhofe, 2006). As a reply the State of Nevada filed multiple lawsuits against the federal government during 2001-2002. Most of the Nevada's claims were, however, dismissed except the concerns over the EPA’s safety standards. As a result, the coverage period was extended from 10000 years to 1 million years in the future (Inhofe, 2006). What is more, in 2000 Las Vegas made it illegal to ship high-level radioactive waste through the city. DOE in turn, filed a suit against Nevada over water rights at Yucca Mountain, as Nevada had denied water to Yucca Mountain in 2003 on the grounds that the area is not in the public interest. (Yucca Mountain Information Office Yuccamountain.org, 2010). Figure 8 presents Yucca Mountain stakeholder map in 2002. 14 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Congress High degree of salience State of Nevada Nevada governor President Bush EPA DOE NRC Low degree of salience Nuclear facilities Public Non-supportive States with nuclear waste Supportive Figure 8. Yucca Mountain stakeholder map 2002 One of the greatest objectors of the Yucca Mountain has been Nevada senator Reid (Reid, 2011). In 2006 congressional elections he was elected as a senate majority leader which gave him the position to greatly affect the future of the project (The Energy Library, 2009). Furthermore, in the 2008 presidential election campaign Barack Obama promised to abandon Yucca Mountain project - in the same manner as his democrat counter-candidate Hillary Clinton who had long sided with Nevada in its opposition to a repository at Yucca Mountain (Carter 2010; Teller 2011). As Obama was elected the president in 2010 his new administration, including the new secretary of energy, Chu, started to suspend the project. Without any scientific justification, Yucca Mountain was doomed simply as "not a workable option" (Carter et al, 2010). As the expenditures for repository development were subject to annual congressional appropriations, president Obama started defunding the Yucca Mountain project in 2010. To formalize the abandonment, secretary Chu withdrew the Yucca Mountain license application. In order to resolve the waste problem secretary Chu announced a panel for experts, called The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC), to analyze other options for nuclear waste disposal (Widder and Calloway, 2010). Later it has been speculated that Obama and Reid had a deal where Reid helped Obama to get his agenda including the healthcare bill through the senate, while Obama in turn removed the funding for Yucca Mountain (Carter et al, 2010). However, the fight over Yucca Mountain is not over. The licensing board at the NRC stated in 2010 that the withdrawal is illegal because it supersedes the DOE’s authority under the NWPA of 1982. The licensing board stated "unless congress directs otherwise, DOE may not single-handedly derail the legislatively mandated decision-making process" (Carter et al 2010). At the moment (2013) congress still appears divided on waste issue and the legislation stays quiet on Yucca Mountain. Moreover, the 2012 Presidential elections did not change the situation. In January 2013 DOE issued new strategy for the management and disposal of used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste based on the recommendations made by the BRC. The new strategy is based on a consent-based siting process, a reformed funding approach and the establishment of a new organization with greater autonomy to implement the program. The strategy contains a pilot interim storage facility, a larger full-scale interim storage facility and a geologic repository. The geologic repository should be operating by 2048. (Department of Energy 2013). Figure 9 presents Yucca Mountain stakeholder map in 2012. 15 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference State of Nevada High degree of salience President Obama NRC Nevada Chairman Senator Secretary Reed of Nevada Energy governor Congress NRC DOE EPA Low degree of salience Nuclear facilities Public Non-supportive States with nuclear waste Supportive Figure 9. Yucca Mountain stakeholder map 2012 EMPIRICAL DISCUSSION In the two cases stakeholders’ stances and salience were by no means static during the front-end phase of the projects. Case Onkalo and Case Yucca Mountain demonstrate different types of stakeholder dynamics due to both stakeholder management strategies and stakeholders’ influence strategies that have had significant implications to the progress of the projects. Based on the within case analyses, we mapped the changes in stakeholders’ salience attributes and positions in both cases to the salience-position matrix. In Case Onkalo, the opposing municipalities were able to increase their salience through using stakeholder influence strategies such as forming non-governmental organizations to oppose the repository projects – a strategy that highlighted the urgency of their claim and increased their power. In turn, the owner of the project, Posiva, was also able to enact stakeholder management strategies that were effective in terms of modifying the position of Eurajoki municipality and its residents to being more supportive towards the project. Furthermore, Posiva was sensitive enough towards the opponent signals from the other municipalities and decided to proceed with Eurajoki site alone. This decision to engage with Eurajoki and dismiss the other municipalities directly decreased the level of salience of other municipalities. At the end of the front-end stage, the majority of the salient Onkalo project stakeholders were positive towards the project. In other words, through effective stakeholder management strategies, Onkalo project’s project management was able to induce favorable stakeholder movement towards supportive-salient quarter and to move non-supportive stakeholders to non-salient quarter. Posiva was able to proceed with the project as it had salient and supportive stakeholders Eurajoki municipality, STUK (Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland), government and parliament behind it. Figure 10 summarizes the major changes in the stakeholders’ salience and positions, as well as reasons for them during the front-end stage. 16 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference High degree of salience Low degree of salience 2. Municipalities and residents of Äänekoski, Kuhmo, Loviisa Stakeholder management strategies Stakeholder influence strategies 1.Municipalities and residents of Äänekoski, Kuhmo, Loviisa 3.Municipalities and residents of Äänekoski, Kuhmo, Loviisa 1. Eurajoki municipality and residents Fennovoima 2. Eurajoki municipality and residents Stakeholder management strategies Emergent player Supportive Non-supportive Figure 10. Onkalo stakeholder salience-position matrix (changes in stakeholder positions and salience) In comparison, Case Yucca Mountain featured more dramatic changes in the positions of salient stakeholders due to the effective stakeholder influence strategies that stakeholders employed. In this case, stakeholders’ movement was out of project management’s control and mostly towards non-supportive–salient quarter. In Yucca Mountain project, the location of the site was fixed at quite an early stage of the project despite the opposing opinions and movements of salient stakeholders such as the State of Nevada. Consequently, in this case the project owner DOE as well as the nuclear facilities and the states with nuclear waste that highly supported the project lacked the adequate salience to begin with. Furthermore, they were not able to engage opposing salient stakeholders’ effectively which exposed the project to political scheming and was unfavorable considering its length. As the controversial project prolonged, the number of opposing stakeholders increased and the opponent stakeholders gained enough salience to terminate the project through their employment of influence strategies. Figure 11 summarizes the major changes in the stakeholders’ salience and positions, as well as reasons for them during the front-end stage. 17 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference High degree of salience Low degree of salience President, NRC Chairman, Secretary of Emergy 2.State of Nevada and governor Stakeholder influence strategies President, NRC Chairman, Secretary of Emergy Stakeholder influence strategies 1.State of Nevada and governor 2.Public 1.Public Stakeholder influence strategies Non-supportive Supportive Figure 11. Yucca Mountain stakeholder salience-position matrix (changes in stakeholder positions and salience) CONCLUSIONS The results of the study are valuable for project stakeholder research, since prior stakeholder literature has rarely conceptualized stakeholder dynamics and the elements of stakeholder dynamism in a systematic manner (Yang et al, 2009). The value of the paper is also in increasing our understanding of the dynamics of the project front-end stage that has just recently gained more attention from researchers. Specifically, the empirical findings of stakeholder dynamics bring up important lessons for project managers on the proactive management of stakeholder dynamics. First of all, it is important for project management to evaluate the stance and position of the stakeholders and the potential changes within them. The empirical analyses highlight the importance of building a project stakeholder coalition in which the majority of stakeholders are supporters with a high degree of salience. For example, in case Onkalo, the project management was able to strengthen the salience of such stakeholders who supported the project and in turn able to decrease the salience of opponent stakeholders through stakeholder management strategies. Unfortunately, in case Yucca Mountain there was a number of local stakeholders who were opponents and whom the management did not actively pay attention to in order to change their stance or decrease their salience. This finally led into a situation where the stakeholder dynamics became uncontrollable and the opponent stakeholders were able to increase their salience significantly by employing stakeholder influence strategies. Hence, it is also important for the management to carefully evaluate the capability of different stakeholders to shape their salience attributes through stakeholder influence strategies. Case Yucca Mountain also reminds that central project decision-makers need to be primarily 18 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference interested in the success and effectiveness of the project. This ensures that the project will not be altered to political scheming and that central decision-makers will not easily change their stance towards the project. It would be best to try to seek for solutions where stakeholders and decisionmakers would be as permanent as possible during the project. For example, in Finland the investment funds are allocated for a company, whose only objective is to take care of nuclear repository projects. Furthermore, the developed salience-position framework for mapping stakeholders and their dynamics is believed to be of practical use for project managers when analyzing the needs and concerns of different stakeholders during the early feasibility and conceptual design stages of projects. The existing stakeholder frameworks do not often take into account whether the stakeholders are supporters or non-supporters and what are the potential reasons that may lead to changes in stakeholder positions. Therefore, we suggest that the developed salience-position matrix offers a more realistic picture for the purposes of stakeholder analysis and management than the widely applied power-interest matrix (Johnson and Scholes, 1999; Olander and Landin, 2005) which does not take into account the nature of stakeholders’ interest towards the project – a key dimension to be included in stakeholder analysis and strategy formulation. In particular in the context of nuclear industry projects, it is highly important to evaluate and understand the positions of the stakeholders towards the project, as well as the potential changes within these positions in order to evaluate the viability of projects. Finally, the empirical findings illustrate how both the project management’s effective stakeholder management strategies as well as stakeholders’ own influence strategies may explain stakeholder dynamics. This is a perspective that has been rarely addressed in prior literature. REFERENCES Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., Oijala, T., 2008 ”Stakeholder salience in global projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 26, 509–516. Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J., 2010 “A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(4), 381-397. Achterkamp, M.C., Vos J.F.J., 2008 “Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis”, International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 749-757. APM., 2006, “APM Body of Knowledge,” 5th ed, Association for Project Management. Artto, K., Kujala, J., 2008 “Project business as a research field”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. Boddy, D., Paton, R., 2004, “Responding to competing narratives: lessons for project managers”, International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 225-233. Boonstra, A., 2006, ” Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from a stakeholder perspective”, International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 38-52. Bourne, L., Walker, D., 2005, “Using a visualizing tool to study stakeholder influence – two Australian examples”, Project Management Journal, 37, 5–21. Bryde, D.J., & Robinson, L., 2005, ”Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria”, International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 622-629. Carter, L.J., Barrett, L.H., Rogers, K.C., 2010, ”Nuclear waste disposal showdown at Yucca Mountain”, Science and Technology. Cleland, D.I., 1986, “Project stakeholder management”, Project Management Journal, 17 19 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference (4), 36-44. Cleland, D.I., 1998, “Stakeholder management”. In: Pinto J., (Ed.), Project Management Handbook, San Francisco, Jossy-Bass, Project Management Institute, 55-72. Cova B., Salle R., 2005, “Six key points to merge project marketing into project management”, International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 354-359. Cova, B., Ghauri, P., Salle R., 2002, ” Project Marketing: Beyond Competitive Bidding”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England. Eisenhardt, K., 1989 “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H., El-Diraby, T.E., 2006, “Stakeholder management for public private partnerships”, International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 595-604. Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D., 2005, “The success of international development projects, trust and communication: an African perspective”, International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 237-252. Department of Energy 2013, “The Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste”. Favole, J.A., Tracy, T., 2011, “Obama Stands by Nuclear Power”, The Wall street journal. Available from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363904576200973216100488.html Fennovoima, 2011, “Ydinjäte loppusijoitetaan turvallisesti”, Available from http://www.fennovoima.fi/hanke/ydinjate Fialka, J.J., 2009, “The 'screw Nevada bill' and how it stymied U.S. nuclear waste policy”, Available from http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/11/11climatewire-the-screwnevada-bill-and-how-it-stymied-us-12208.html?pagewanted=all. Fraser, C., Zhu, C., 2008, “Stakeholder perception of construction site managers’ effectiveness”, Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 579-590. Freeman, R.E., McVea, J., 2001, “A stakeholder approach strategic management”, in: Turner, Hitt, M.A., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of strategic management. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 189-207. Freeman, R.E., 1984, “Strategic Management – A Stakeholder Approach”, Pitman Publishing Inc. Frooman, J., 1999, “Stakeholder influence strategies”, The Academy of Management Review, 24,191-205. Havela, L., 2011, “Project goal setting and the stakeholders’ involvement in nuclear repository projects: lessons from Olkiluoto and Yucca Mountain”, Master Thesis University of Oulu. Hendry, JR., 2005, “Stakeholder influence strategies: an empirical exploration”, Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 79–99. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., 1999, “Exploring corporate strategy”. London: Prentice Hall Europe. IFC, 2007. “Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets”, International Finance Corporation. Inhofe, J.M., 2006, “Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet”. Kojo, M., Kari, M., Litmanen, T., 2010, “The socio-economic and communication challenges of spent nuclear fuel management in Finland The post site selection phase of the repository project in Eurajoki”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 52, 168–176. 20 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Kolltveit, B.J., Gronhaug, K., 2004, ”The importance of the early phase: the case of construction and building projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 545551. Laita, S 2012, ”Posiva haki rakentamislupaa loppusijoituslaitokselle – turvaselvitys 16 000 sivua”, Helsingin Sanomat. Madsen, H., Ulhoi, J.P., 2001, ”Integrating environmental and stakeholder management”, Business strategy and the Environment, 10, 77-88. Madsen, M., 2010. Into eternity – movie. Mathur, V.N., Price, A.D.F., Austin, S., 2008, “Conceptualizing stakeholder engagement in the context of sustainability and its assessment, “Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 601-609. McElroy, B., Mills, C., 2000, “Managing stakeholders” in: Turner, R.J. Sinister, S.J., (Eds), Gower handbook of project management 3rd ed., Gower Publishing Limited, Aldershot, UK, 757-75. Miller, S., 2010, “Obama Says Safe Nuclear Power Plants are a Necessary Investment”, ABC News. Available from http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-says-safenuclear-power-plants-are-a-necessary-investment.html Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997 “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts”, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853-886. Newcombe, R., 2003, “From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach”, Construction Management and Economics, 21(8), 841-848. Niskakangas, T, 2011, “ Yuccavuori nielaisi 25 vuotta”, Helsingin Sanomat. Olander, S., 2007, “Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management”, Construction Management and Economics, 25(3), 277-287. Olander, S., Landin, A., 2005, ”Evaluation of Stakeholder Influence in the Implementation of Construction Projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 23, 321-328. Olander, S., Landin, A., 2008, “A comparative study of factors affecting the external stakeholder management process”, Construction management and economics, 26, 553-561. Pickard, W.F., 2010, “Finessing the fuel: Revisiting the challenge of radioactive waste disposal”, Energy Policy, 38, 709–714. Project Management Institute, 2008, “A Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK)”, 4th ed., Newtown Square, PA, Project Management Institute. Olander, S., 2006, “Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management”, Construction management and economics, 25, 277-287 Posiva, 2012. “Posiva Oy - Nuclear Waste Management Expert”, Available from http://www.posiva.fi/en/ Posiva, 2011., “Posiva tutkii”, Available from http://www.posiva.fi/tietopankki/posiva_tutkii/ Raittila, P., Hokkanen, P., Kojo, M., Litmanen, T., 2002, “Ydinjäte Suomalaisittain” Tampere University Press. Reid, H., 2011. Available from http://reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm Rodney, C.E., Von Hippel, F.N., 2009, «Nuclear Waste Management in the United States –Starting Over”, Science, 325,151–152. Rogers, K.A., 2009, “Fire in the hole: A review of national spent nuclear fuel disposal policy”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 51, 281–289. 21 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead C.J., Blair J.D., 1991, “Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders”, Academy of Management Executive, 5,61-75. Sustainable development commission, SDC, 2006, “The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy Paper 5: Waste and decommissioning”. Teller, E., 2011, ”The Politics of Highly Radioactive Waste Disposal”, Available from http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=24182 Turner, J. R., 1999, “The Handbook of Project-based Management - Improving the Processes for Achieving Strategic Objectives”, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, London. Interrante, J., 2011, “Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear site a dilemma for Republican hopefuls”, Available from http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/169745-nevadas-yuccamountain-a-dilemma-for-gop-hopefuls Walker, D.H.T., Bourne, L.M., Shelley, A., 2008, “Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization”, Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 645-658. Ward, S., Chapman, C., 2008, “Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects”, Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 563-577. Widder, S., Calloway, T., Bond, J.R., 2010, “Nuclear waste policy in the United States”, Chemical Engineering Progress, 106, 36-40. Winch, GM., Bonke, S., 2002, “Project stakeholder mapping: analyzing the interests of project stakeholders”. In: Slevin, DP., Cleland, DI., Pinto JK, editors. The frontiers of project management research. Project Management Institut,. p. 385–403. Won Han, K., Heinonen, J., Bonne, A., 1997, “Radioactive waste disposal: Global experience and challenges”, Special Report. IAEA Bulletin. World Nuclear Association 2011, “Nuclear waste management”. Available from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html Yang, J., Shen, Q., Ho, M., 2009 “An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management and its implications for the construction industry”, Journal of Facilities Management, 7(2), 159-175. Yin, R.K., 1994, “Case Study Research Design and Methods”, Second edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage. London. Sage Publications. YLE, 2010, ”Ydinjätteen loppusijoituksesta täysi riita Suomessa”, Available from http://yle.fi/uutiset/talous_ja_politiikka/2011/03/ydinjatteen_loppusijoituksesta_taysi_riita_suom essa_2451106.html 22 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference APPENDIX 1: Table 1. Project stakeholder definitions (chronological order) Authors Project stakeholder definition Cleland (1986) “Individuals and institutions that share a stake or an interest in the project.” Cleland (1998) “People or groups that have, or believe they have, legitimate claims against the substantive aspects of the project. A stake is an interest or share or claim in a project; it can range from informal interest in the undertaking, at one extreme, to a legal claim or ownership at the other extreme.” Turner (1999) “All the people or groups whose lives or environment is affected by the project but who receive no direct benefit from it. These can include families, people made redundant and local community actors.” McElroy and Mills (2003) “Person or group of people who have a vested interest in the success of a project and the environment within which the project operates.” Newcombe (2003) “Groups or individuals who have a stake in, or expectation of, the project’s performance and include clients, project managers, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, funding bodies, users and the community at large.” Boddy and Paton (2004) “Stakeholders are individuals, groups or institutions with an interest in the project, and who can affect the outcome.” Kolltveit and Gronhaug (2004) “Individuals and/or organizations that are involved in or may be affected by the project activities, e.g. the project client, project sponsor, project manager and the employees involved in the project.” Cova and Salle (2005) “Project marketing thinks of stakeholders from the standpoint of “markets as networks”, i.e. stressing the relationship between stakeholders rather than the players themselves.” Bourne and Walker (2005) “Individuals or groups who have an interest or some aspect of rights or ownership in the project, and can contribute to, or be impacted by, the outcomes of the project.” Bryde and Robinson (2005) ‘‘People or organizations who have a vested interest in the environment, performance and/or outcome of the project.” Boonstra (2006) “Any person or group who can affect or is affected by the change [brought by the project]. “ El-Gohary et al. (2006) “Individuals and organizations that are either affected by or affect the development of the project.” Olander (2007) “A person or group of people who has a vested interest in the success of a project and the environment within which the project operates. Vested interest is defined as having possession of one or more of the stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy or urgency (adapted from Mitchell et al, 1997).” IFC (2007) “Persons or groups who are directly or indirectly affected by a project, as well as those who may have interests in a project and/or the ability to influence its outcome, either positively or negatively.” Fraser and Zhu (2008) “Individuals and groups affected by their actions and behaviors” Chinyio and Akintoye (2008) “Individuals or groups with an interest in and influence on an organization (adapted from Thompson, 2002).” PMI (2008) “Individuals and organizations that are actively involved in the project or whose interests may be affected as a result of project execution or project completion.” Walker et al. (2008) “Individuals or groups who have an interest or some aspect of rights or ownership in the project, and can contribute to, or be impacted by, either the work or the outcomes of the project.” Ward and Chapman (2008) “Various parties who may affect the form, progress and outcomes of a project.” 23 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference APPENDIX 2: Classification and description of stakeholders Table 2. Onkalo stakeholder identification. STAKEHOLDER Posiva GOAL Bury the nuclear waste and maintain the positive atmosphere in the future. POSITION TOWARDS THE PROJECT SALIENCE DESCRIPTION Supportive - Posiva gained power by marketizing the repository and inducing competition between the municipalities - Crucial nature of the project and time sensitivity to realize the project in schedule induced urgency - Cooperation with the authorities increased legitimacy 24 INLUENCE /STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - Flexible approach on siting - Keep options open as long as possible - Offer repository project as a ready package ‘take it or leave it’ (milestones, timetable, technology) -Promote the benefits of the project - Induce competition - Act locally - Open local offices - Organize small group meetings, public briefings and discussion - Cluster decision makers and local residents using different communication tactics on them - Pursue to cooperation and comply with compensations - Publish own leaflet ‘Posiva investigates’ - Use employees’ voices - Organize excursion to nuclear power plants - Conduct EIA in all four municipalities - Found EIA organization including a EIA contact person - Ask for clear positions before DiP application and warn Loviisa for its passivity Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference - Earlier 1994 TVO (predecessor of Posiva) had put the pressure on Eurajoki by approaching the neighbor municipality Rauma Eurajoki Eurajoki residents Loviisa -Improve the municipality’s economy and remain as an independent municipality. -Gain international recognition as an “nuclear power center” -As a compensation plan repair historical Vuojoki mansion Supportive - Initially Eurajoki possessed power due to the veto right to its host - Crucial and time sensitive claims since it needed the project and did not want to lose it to other municipalities - The fact of being the most convenient option for Posiva increased the urgency of its claims - Play ‘hard to get’ first and later close coperation - Turn down suggestions of a referendum - One person made an appeal considering the land rent negotiations between Posiva and Eurajoki - About ten persons appealed against Eurajoki’s positive dictum - 11 persons expressed their views in EIA by writing (Raittila et al 2002) Benefit from the positive side effects given work opportunities, better services and increased real estate value Majority supportive towards the project - The potential referendum vested residents with power - No nongovernmental organizations were formed which excluded their urgency attribute As a potential compensation plan create Loviisa Energy Center Nonsupportive/ Supportive: divided views - Vested with power as it possessed veto right to the potential host of the facility - Bystander - Non-governmental organization (Proloviisa and Loviisaliike) were registered to promote the criticality of their claims which induced urgency. - Register as nongovernmental organizations - Impact the decision makers - Start to collect petition signatures - Vested with power as it possessed veto right to the potential host of the facility - Non-cooperative attitude - Negative stand towards the project Loviisa residents Mixed goals: impact the decision makers both preventing Loviisa getting the project and having it Kuhmo As a potential compensation plan improve roads and build an airport Majority nonsupportive; local businessmen supportive Nonsupportive 25 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Kuhmo residents Äänekoski Äänekoski residents Government Parliament Majority wanted prevent Kuhmo from hosting the facility Prevent Äänekoski from hosting the facility Prevent Äänekoski from hosting the facility Develop independent information about nuclear power Support the realization of the project according to the nuclear waste policy Support the realization of the project according to the nuclear waste policy Majority nonsupportive; local businessmen supportive Nonsupportive - Non-governmental organizations (Romuvaara-liike, Yrittäjät ja Mahdollisuuksia Kuhmo) were registered to promote the criticality of their claims which induced urgency - Later they gained power through municipal elections. - Address writing campaigns - 68 people expressed their views in EIA by writing (Raittila et al 2002) - Register as nongovernmental organizations - Impact the decision makers - Use an direct impact through municipal elections - Vested with power as it possessed veto right to the potential host of the facility - Non-cooperative attitude Nonsupportive - Non-governmental organization (Kivetty-liike) was registered to promote the urgency and criticality of its claims - Later they gained power through municipal elections. Supportive - Power according to the DiP - Legitimacy warranted by the status - Urgency induced by the criticality and time sensitivity of its claims Excluding a couple of MEPs the overall attitude was supportive - Power set by the DiP - Legitimacy warranted by the duty - Urgency by the criticality and time sensitivity of its claims 26 - Register as a nongovernmental organization - Have a direct impact through municipal elections, green party got 4 members (Raittila et al 2002) - Require for referendum - Participation to Posiva’s occasions was exceptionally low - Favorable attitude towards the deep underground disposal throughout the project - Convince public of the safety of the project - Not to interrupt the local decision making - Reserved in media before Parliament handling in 2000 - Keep voters satisfied Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference - Act as a link between Posiva and the authorities - Advocate the residents by visiting the municipalities - Act passively in media - Communicate inside the research community instead of coming public STUK Ensure the safety of the project Supportive - The role as an independent agency whose word is trusted and respected gave power and legitimacy. Researchers Improve the realization and make observations Supportive - Independent opinion leaders, possess legitimacy. Nonsupportive - Vested with urgency as they are already organized groups and have critical claims towards the whole industry - Publish papers and articles - Organize campaigns - Insist further studies Supportive - EIA hearings gave public legitimacy and the possibility to get their voice heard. - Not to intervene with the project - Express their voices in TV news and newspapers. Greenpeace and The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation Public Question the final disposal and destabilize Posiva’s action Non-uniform goal 27 Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference Table 3. Yucca Mountain stakeholder identification STAKEHOLDER GOAL Realize the waste burying project: owns, constructs, applies for licenses, and will operate the facility DOE Chu Secretary of Energy (2009-) Cancel Yucca Mountain and search for other options POSITION TOWARDS THE PROJECT -A Cabinet-level department of the United States government -Legitimacy warranted as authorized by Congress Supportive -Legitimacy along the duty -Assigned by president Obama Critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency. Nonsupportive - An agency of the federal government of the United States - Legitimacy warranted as authorized by Congress EPA Ensure the safety of the project by setting the public health and safety standards Supportive NRC Implement EPA's standards and license Yucca Mountain as it fills the requirement Supportive: despite the different position of the chairman NRC Chairman Jaczko (2009-) Congress President (2000-2008) Bush Cancel Yucca Mountain Nonsupportive Keep Yucca Mountain alive Supportive To conduct the process as far as possible before resigning Supportive SALIENCE DESCRIPTION -Legitimacy warranted as authorized by Congress - In alliance with Reid - Legitimacy along the duty - Critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency - All legislative powers are vested in Congress. Has the power and legitimacy to do changes to the NWPA and to President’s budget proposals - Long-term supporter of Yucca Mountain - Critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency. -Possessed power in the site designation and budgeting processes - Legitimacy along the duty 28 INLUENCE /STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - Act according the NWPA and the best interest of the nation - Simply to state that Yucca Mountain is 'not a workable option’ - Appeal to the best interest of the nation in order to search for alternative options - Use the best available scientific approaches and issue a standard that will protect public health for a million years - Act according the NWPA - Challenge his own authority as a chairman and play shady politics - Stick to the original plan and respect NWPA - Speed up the whole process Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference - Critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency. The Senate Majority Leader Reid (2007-) President (2008-) Obama Nevada governor Cancel Yucca Mountain and boost his political career Cancel Yucca Mountain by staying loyal to his voters Cancel Yucca Mountain and boost his political career Nonsupportive - Possess power to set the budget proposals and sig the final budget - Legitimacy along the duty - Objects the project due to personal affairs: critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency Nonsupportive Nonsupportive - Use his position as a means to spread Yucca Mountain objection - Create alliances -Eliminate funding - Use his role as an opinion leader - Spread the alliance - Possessed power and used veto but was overridden by the Congress - Legitimacy along the duty - Maintain Yucca Mountain opposition among Nevadans - Has critical and time sensitive claims which induced urgency: people feel it is unfair for their state to host a nuclear repository when there are no nuclear power plants in the state - Prolong the project - Protest with lawsuits, letter-writing campaigns and public demonstrations - Refuse to issue environmental permits and deny water - Las Vegas passed a law making it illegal to haul nuclear waste through the city Nevada Cancel Mountain Nuclear facilities Get Yucca Mountain in operation as soon as possible Supportive States with nuclear waste from nuclear weapons production Get Yucca Mountain in operation as soon as possible Supportive - Critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency - Filed lawsuits Stop the fee collection as there is no clear plan for Nonsupportive/ Supportive: Not in my - Time sensitive claims induced urgency - Presented claims Public Yucca - As Senate Majority Leader he leads the Senate which gave him power and legitimacy - The main objector of the project: critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency Nonsupportive - Critical and time sensitive claims induced urgency: extra storage capacity becomes expensive 29 - Want to get rid of the waste but not on the expense of additional nuclear power - File lawsuits Proceedings – EPOC 2013 Conference decommissioning backyard attitude 30
© Copyright 2024