Stakeholder communication: being informed is not the same as being involved

Every organisation has stakeholders. Governments, employees, sector organisations, citizens, experts, partners, interest groups, clients, suppliers, or policymakers. But not every stakeholder sees a project in the same light. Some see opportunities above all else. Others approach it through the lens of regulation, societal impact, or operational consequences. Some want to be actively involved in the thinking. Others simply want to understand what the change means for them.

Good stakeholder communication therefore does not start from 'What do we want to say?' but from 'Who needs what information, when, and why?'. That requires more than a communication matrix or a mailing list. It requires insight into interests, sensitivities, expectations, and potential resistance. That is precisely where the difference lies between a project that moves forward smoothly and one that hits unexpected obstacles along the way.

A fine example of this is the trajectory we managed for Pontes around aquamation. Pontes aims to be the first in Flanders to introduce aquamation: a new form of funeral disposition in which the body is broken down through water and natural processes, leaving only the bone remains. Today, people can choose between burial and cremation. Aquamation would add a third option. At first glance, this sounds like an innovation project. In reality, the dossier touched on a far broader societal debate.

Aquamation sits at the intersection of ethics, science, legislation, sustainability, public health, and funeral culture. The subject raises questions, emotions, and sometimes resistance. Moreover, a considerable number of parties were involved: governments, ministerial cabinets, research institutions, universities, environmental partners, the funeral sector, local authorities, and other stakeholders. Each with their own perspective and expectations. That is why building a narrative was only half the work: the process needed to be carefully orchestrated too.

For Pontes, we developed a phased stakeholder trajectory in which communication and relationship management went hand in hand. Stakeholders did not simply receive periodic updates. They were actively brought into the story. Through conversations, consultations, and exclusive demonstrations, the parties involved had the opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns, and share insights.

Timing also played a crucial role. Key stakeholder moments were deliberately scheduled ahead of critical communication milestones. As a result, the parties involved were not caught off guard when the subject reached the media. At the same time, Pontes retained control over the trajectory and the communication.

We also devoted considerable attention to language and framing. With sensitive topics, word choice makes a world of difference. How do you explain a technical process without becoming clinical? How do you remain scientifically accurate without slipping into jargon? And how do you create space for dialogue without losing the heart of the story? These are the choices that determine how a message is received.

The result was more than media coverage alone. Pontes was able to position itself as a credible voice in the debate on future forms of funeral disposition. Various stakeholders contributed to the public conversation from their own areas of expertise, because there was sufficient understanding and context to communicate in a nuanced way.

Research also showed that there is public support for greater freedom of choice around funeral options. The media picked up the topic widely, with policymakers, researchers, and sector representatives helping to shape the debate. That is ultimately what stakeholder communication is about. Not trying to control what everyone says. Rather, ensuring that people have sufficient context to engage in the conversation in an informed and constructive way.

Too often, stakeholder communication is still treated as the final step of a project — something that follows once all the substantive decisions have been made. In reality, communication delivers the most value when it is factored in from the very beginning: during the stakeholder analysis, during the risk assessment, when choosing the right messengers, when determining the timing, and when finding words that make complex topics accessible.

Because projects rarely succeed on the strength of their content alone. They succeed because people understand why they are necessary, what impact they will have, and what role they themselves play in that story. And that is precisely where stakeholder communication makes all the difference.