Sponsored Article
Why we should rethink stakeholder mapping
Author : Martin Deakin, Stone Junction
05 March 2025
Mendelow's Matrix
For any manufacturing or automation company wanting to dip its toes in the world of advocacy and public affairs, stakeholder mapping is the natural first step. But what if the tools and frameworks at their disposal aren’t fit for purpose?
A more ethical, holistic approach is needed to start change campaigns off right, says Martin Deakin Chart.PR, Public Affairs Consultant at technical PR agency Stone Junction.
A couple of years ago, I was approached by an energy company specialising in renewable power. The firm applied for planning permission to build a new battery energy storage solutions (BESS) facility in the Staffordshire Moorlands, and wanted local buy-in. And who could blame them? The development wouldn’t take off without political and popular backing.
This example always sticks in my mind because it illustrates how many stakeholders could be involved in a single project. Simply presenting to the local planning board wouldn’t be enough. The company (with our help) needed to reach out to anyone who would have a ‘stake’ in a new BESS site being built. This included residents, the local media and the local MP.
This is what stakeholder mapping is all about – identifying anyone with possible influence or interest. But it’s not just identifying these people, it’s creating tailored comms plans for each, so we can build mutual trust and understanding. It’s also about managing their expectations and resolving any possible conflicts. This is a delicate art, a skill that some consultants have spent decades perfecting – and offering as a service.
As more manufacturing and automation firms embrace Industry 4.0, stakeholder mapping becomes increasingly important. This technological transformation – driven by automation, IoT, AI and data-driven decision-making – has created a complex ecosystem of interdependent players. This includes systems integrators, component manufacturers, software developers and many more. Therefore, it’s important that these businesses hold influence, interest and power within this rich tapestry.
Power and interest
Ok, so stakeholder mapping is important, but what tools can automation companies and manufacturers use to do this? The most popular framework is the Power Interest Grid or “Mendelow’s Matrix”, named after its creator Aubrey L. Mendelow. Picture a square split into four quadrants: High Power/High Interest, High Power/Low Interest, Low Power/High Interest and Low Power/Low Interest.
Using the model, we can categorise stakeholders based on the power they hold and their interest in our campaign. This framework gives manufacturers and
automation firms a simple blueprint to work to: prioritise those who a) are interested in their campaign and b) can do something about it.
Here’s how it works: we must closely manage High Power/High Interest stakeholders because of their influence and relevance. Meanwhile, we should satisfy High Power/Low Interest stakeholders by giving them regular updates, helping us keep their backing. We should also keep Low Power/High Interest stakeholders informed with regular communication since they too can provide valuable support despite their limited influence. Finally, Low Power/Low Interest stakeholders require minimal attention but should be occasionally monitored.
This ability to categorise is ideal. The matrix provides project managers with a structured way of identifying, grouping and prioritising stakeholders, helping them allocate resources effectively. The framework also helps us visualise the dynamics between different stakeholders and how these overlap and conflict.
Martin Deakin Chart.PR, Public Affairs Consultant, Stone Junction
So far, so good. Right?
If it ain’t broke…oh wait
The Power Interest Grid is useful but has its flaws. For starters, it’s very exclusionary and almost forces us to prioritise an ‘ideal’ stakeholder – those in the High Power/High Interest quadrant. Logically, this might make the most sense, but I fear it’s the thin end of the wedge. If we exclude certain stakeholders (Low Power/Low Interest) and don’t bring them to the table, manufacturers risk biasing their change campaigns. Who’s to say these people won’t bring some value or at least appreciate being part of the discussions?
Then there’s debate around what constitutes power and interest. For example, Make UK is an influential representative of Britain’s manufacturers, but it’s just one of hundreds of trade associations in the UK. Not all these organisations will hold the same political influence, so does this mean manufacturing firms should disregard them when campaigning for automation-friendly legislation? Far from it. Such trade associations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) enjoy soft power, which is often overlooked in traditional mapping frameworks – so they definitely deserve a seat at the table.
And then there’s interest. Again, this is a matter of debate. Who’s to say that one member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will share the same enthusiasm for Industry 4.0 and automation as another? Surely, things like political persuasion, constituency and personal beliefs play some role. However, yet again, exceptions to the rule aren’t accounted for.
So, now what?
Back in 2022, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) launched its ‘Lobbying for Good Lobbying’ campaign, which is calling on the government to reform lobbying laws to improve transparency. Top-down political action will be crucial, but we could also do more to improve our ethical practice.
As the unstoppable march toward Industry 4.0 continues and the stakeholder landscape becomes increasingly complicated, manufacturing and automation firms must rethink how they map and categorise these key contacts. By taking a more holistic approach, they can root out any bias and include a wider range of stakeholders. Not only does this mean reaching out to organisations like Make UK, but also national and trade media journalists that could cover their campaign, fellow manufacturing firms or perhaps members of an engineering-focused All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG).
My point is that we shouldn’t be afraid to break the mould. Not everyone will fit neatly into a certain quadrant, and that’s ok. Instead, we should look at the journey and who can help power a change campaign through its various stages. How can we approach these people? What communication style should we use? What are the risks and payoffs? By treating stakeholder mapping as a marathon rather than a sprint, we can start answering these questions.
Every stakeholder map should be tailored to the specific needs of each manufacturer and their campaign objectives. A strong first step is to engage a public affairs consultant with expertise in science, technology, engineering, and maths (STEM). As well as developing a bespoke stakeholder map, a specialist can drive strategic outreach that could result in meaningful change.
To discover how stakeholder mapping and a strong comms strategy can help you elevate your message and drive meaningful change, visit our website and read about our public affairs support.