The risks of poor stakeholder management during an investigation

Poor stakeholder management during an investigation doesn’t just impact the quality of the findings; it can seriously undermine trust, compliance, and long-term safety performance.

Let’s unpack this in detail. Below is a structured outline of the key risks associated with poor stakeholder management during an investigation, particularly in the context of occupational health and safety, but broadly applicable across sectors.

🔥 1. Loss of Trust and Credibility

When stakeholders – especially employees, contractors, regulators, or unions – feel sidelined, misinformed, or excluded from the investigative process, it quickly erodes confidence.

Risks:

• Mistrust in leadership: Perceived cover-ups or bias can damage your leadership team’s reputation.
• Reduced employee engagement: Workers may no longer report hazards or near misses.
• Regulatory scrutiny: Authorities may doubt the credibility of internal investigations and require external audits.

💬 Example: If a worker injured in a plant accident isn’t interviewed or informed of outcomes, they may feel their safety isn’t valued – leading to broader morale issues.

🔇 2. Incomplete or Biased Findings

Stakeholders often hold critical insights. Without their involvement, investigations are vulnerable to blind spots or inaccuracies.

Risks:

• Missed root causes: Operational staff may hold key knowledge that helps identify systemic failures.
• Confirmation bias: Investigators may unconsciously validate assumptions if diverse views aren’t sought.
• Skewed outcomes: Investigations led solely by management may unintentionally downplay issues due to reputational concerns.

💬 Example: Excluding maintenance staff from an investigation into equipment failure might lead to blaming user error rather than a flawed maintenance regime.

⚖️ 3. Legal and Compliance Consequences

Poor stakeholder management can result in non-compliance with legal and regulatory expectations, especially in jurisdictions that require transparency and worker involvement.

Risks:

• Breach of industrial agreements or WHS laws: Many jurisdictions mandate worker consultation in health and safety matters.
• Fines or litigation: If stakeholders are not properly engaged, legal actions may follow – especially if the investigation appears one-sided.
• Invalidated investigation: Regulators may reject findings if the process lacks rigour or impartiality.

💬 Example: In Australia, Work Health and Safety legislation expects a genuine consultative process. If this is missing, it opens the door for union or regulatory challenge.

🧱 4. Resistance to Findings and Recommendations

Stakeholders are much more likely to resist outcomes they had no part in shaping. When people don’t feel heard, they don’t buy in.

Risks:

• Poor implementation of corrective actions: If stakeholders don’t trust the process, they won’t support the solutions.
• Disengagement from future initiatives: Repeated exclusions build cynicism and reduce future cooperation.
• Workplace division: Perceptions of bias or favouritism can divide teams and damage the safety culture.

💬 Example: If front-line supervisors feel scapegoated without being consulted, they may subtly resist or undermine new protocols introduced post-investigation.

📉 5. Reputational Damage

If stakeholders – particularly external ones – feel ignored or misled, reputational fallout can be significant, especially in high-profile incidents.

Risks:

• Media backlash: Inadequate stakeholder handling can become public, harming brand image.
• Investor concerns: Poor risk governance reflected in stakeholder disputes can impact investor confidence.
• Community distrust: In mining, energy, or infrastructure, community stakeholders may become hostile if excluded.

💬 Example: A mine site that excludes indigenous community reps from an environmental incident investigation may face public protest or licence challenges.

⏳ 6. Delayed Incident Closure

Ineffective communication with stakeholders often leads to confusion, frustration, and process delays – particularly if feedback loops are absent or unclear.

Risks:

• Stalled investigations: Disagreements or lack of cooperation from stakeholders can drag out timelines.
• Multiple revisions: If feedback isn’t captured early, findings may need rework to address concerns.
• Resource strain: Prolonged investigations tie up leadership time and divert attention from other risks.

💬 Example: If a union lodges a formal complaint about exclusion from an incident review board, you may need to re-open the investigation entirely.

🛑 7. Undermined Safety Culture

Safety is deeply cultural – and poor stakeholder engagement during investigations signals a command-and-control mindset rather than a learning organisation approach.

Risks:

• Silencing of safety voices: Employees stop speaking up if they don’t believe their input is respected.
• Erosion of psychological safety: Fear of blame or exclusion discourages openness and collaboration.
• Perpetuation of risk: Without inclusive learning, hazards remain unmitigated and may recur.

💬 Example: A culture where only managers investigate “serious” events fosters fear – employees won’t report near misses or speak up about risky practices.

🧭 8. Failure to Learn and Improve

Perhaps the most crucial risk is lost opportunity. Incidents, while unfortunate, offer vital learning potential. Without engaging stakeholders, that opportunity slips away.

Risks:

• Lack of system learning: Critical feedback loops are broken when stakeholder perspectives are ignored.
• Repeat incidents: If the real causes are missed, the same issue may occur again – potentially with worse outcomes.
• Stagnation: Continuous improvement stalls when stakeholder feedback isn’t harnessed and acted upon.

💬 Example: A near miss involving a subcontractor could reveal deeper contractor management issues – but only if their perspective is included in the investigation.

✅ Strategies to Mitigate These Risks

To reduce the above risks, effective stakeholder management should be intentional and embedded within your investigation protocols. Consider:

• Early engagement: Involve key stakeholders as soon as the investigation begins.
• Clear communication: Provide regular updates and clarify roles, expectations, and timelines.
• Inclusive representation: Ensure workers, unions, technical experts, and relevant third parties are part of the review process.
• Transparency of outcomes: Share findings openly (within confidentiality limits) and explain how stakeholder input shaped recommendations.
• Training for investigators: Equip investigation leaders with stakeholder engagement and communication skills.

🎯 Final Thoughts

Poor stakeholder management during an incident investigation is not just a people issue – it’s a strategic and operational risk. It affects compliance, safety outcomes, cultural health, and organisational learning.

In today’s environment of increasing transparency and regulatory scrutiny, you can’t afford to treat stakeholders as afterthoughts. Their insights, trust, and participation are essential to credible, effective, and sustainable incident management. Engaging stakeholders early, consistently, and respectfully isn’t just a good practice – it’s risk management at its most human and most powerful.

If you are looking to improve your business outcomes, then a Proven Safety Solution may be what you need. If you have any specific aspects, you’d like more information on or if you have further questions, reach out by Clicking Here!