This question has come up a few times recently in the context of First Nations communities. Rights holders or Interested Parties are two alternative terms which might be more acceptable.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Not all stakeholders have rights, or are interested. Some are just affected by a project. You could argue though that those potentially affected should become interested.
I am glad that this discussion has not affected Europe yet. Saving Changes...
Stakeholder is a broad term covering individuals with different roles, involvement, or interest in a project. A party with a legal rights affecting a potential outcome is a different type of stakeholder than someone who has a passing interest. Rather than try and come up with a different term that also lumps all stakeholders together, you might consider different terms for different roles. Otherwise, as Bill S. famously wrote, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Saving Changes...
Robyn Cary RoscoePrincipal| Lyric ManagementVancouver, British Columbia, Canada
I recently encountered this in a presentation, when a participant asked if we could consider an alternative term, given the colonial/settler roots of the word "stakeholder". I found this article a useful discussion of the alternatives, and favour the term "relevant parties". I also liked the idea that we consider non-humans in the consideration (although there are usually parties that advocate for those). https://www.fasttrackimpact.com/post/alter...ord-stakeholder Saving Changes...
Latha Thamma reddiSr Product and Portfolio Management (Automation Innovation)| DXC TechnologyMckinney, Tx, United States
"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza."
