Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue for Policy Recommendations on Algorithmic Fairness

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Webb ◽  
Ansgar Koene ◽  
Menisha Patel ◽  
Elvira Perez Vallejos
Keyword(s):  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Stakeholder Dialogue ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Governance of differential stakeholder interests in supply chains and networks

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.F.M. Wubben ◽  
H.J. Bremmers ◽  
P.T.M. Ingenbleek ◽  
A.E.J. Wals
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Business Models ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Stakeholder Management ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Stakeholder Dialogue ◽  
Stakeholder Interests ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
The Impact

Competing frames and interests regarding food provision and resource allocation, adding to the increased global interdependencies, necessitate agri-food companies and institutions to engage themselves in very diverse multi-stakeholder settings. To develop new forms of interaction, and governance, researchers with very different backgrounds in social sciences try to align, or at least share, research trajectories. This first paper in a special issue on governance of differential stakeholder interests discusses, first, different usages of stakeholder categories, second, the related intersubjectivity in sciences, third, an rough sketch of the use of stakeholder management in different social sciences. Social science researchers study a wide variety of topics, such as individual stakeholder impact on new business models, stakeholder group responses to health claims, firm characteristics explaining multi-stakeholder dialogue, and the impact of multi-stakeholder dialogue on promoting production systems, and on environmental innovations. Interestingly, researchers use very different methods for data gathering and data analysis.

Bringing voice in policy building

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-308
Author(s):  
Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano ◽  
Mary Kane ◽  
Mark S. Zocchi ◽  
Jessica Gosa ◽  
Danielle Lazar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Model ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Improved Model

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of group concept mapping (GCM) as a tool for developing a conceptual model of an episode of acute, unscheduled care from illness or injury to outcomes such as recovery, death and chronic illness. Design/methodology/approach After generating a literature review drafting an initial conceptual model, GCM software (CS Global MAXTM) is used to organize and identify strengths and directionality between concepts generated through feedback about the model from several stakeholder groups: acute care and non-acute care providers, patients, payers and policymakers. Through online and in-person population-specific focus groups, the GCM approach seeks feedback, assigned relationships and articulated priorities from participants to produce an output map that described overarching concepts and relationships within and across subsamples. Findings A clustered concept map made up of relational data points that produced a taxonomy of feedback was used to update the model for use in soliciting additional feedback from two technical expert panels (TEPs), and finally, a public comment exercise was performed. The results were a stakeholder-informed improved model for an acute care episode, identified factors that influence process and outcomes, and policy recommendations, which were delivered to the Department of Health and Human Services’s (DHHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Practical implications This study provides an example of the value of cross-population multi-stakeholder input to increase voice in shared problem health stakeholder groups. Originality/value This paper provides GCM results and a visual analysis of the relational characteristics both within and across sub-populations involved in the study. It also provides an assessment of observational key factors supporting how different stakeholder voices can be integrated to inform model development and policy recommendations.

scholarly journals Overview of a multi-stakeholder dialogue around Shared Services for Health: the Digital Health Opportunity in Bangladesh

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sania Ashraf ◽  
Carolyn Moore ◽  
Vaibhav Gupta ◽  
Anir Chowdhury ◽  
Abul K. Azad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Health ◽  
Shared Services ◽  
Stakeholder Dialogue ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

scholarly journals Mitigating the Impacts of Development Corridors on Biodiversity: A Global Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Juffe-Bignoli ◽  
Neil D. Burgess ◽  
Jonathan Hobbs ◽  
Robert J. Smith ◽  
Christine Tam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Ecological Compensation ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Mitigation Hierarchy ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Impact Framework ◽  
Assessment Research

Development corridors are extensive, often transnational and linear, geographical areas targeted for investment to help achieve sustainable development. They often comprise the creation of hard infrastructure (i.e., physical structures) and soft infrastructure (i.e., policies, plans, and programmes) involving a variety of actors. They are globally widespread, and likely to be a significant driver of habitat loss. Here, we describe the development corridors phenomenon from a biodiversity perspective and identify the elements of best practice in biodiversity impact mitigation. We use these to carry out a review of the peer reviewed literature on corridors to respond to three questions: (i) how impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services are assessed; (ii) what mitigation measures are discussed to manage these impacts; and (iii) to what extent do these measures approximate to best practice. We found that of 271 publications on development corridors across all continents (except for Antarctica) mentioning biodiversity or ecosystem services, only 100 (37%) assessed impacts on biodiversity and 7 (3%) on ecosystem services. Importantly, only half of these (52, 19% of the total 271 articles) discussed mitigation measures to manage these impacts. These measures focused on avoidance and minimisation and there was scant mention of restoration or ecological compensation illustrating a deficient application of the mitigation hierarchy. We conclude that the academic literature on corridors does not give sufficient consideration to comprehensive mitigation of biodiversity impacts. To change this, impact assessment research needs to acknowledge the complexity of such multi-project and multi-stakeholder initiatives, quantify biodiversity losses due to the full suite of their potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, and follow all the steps of the mitigation hierarchy impact framework. We suggest a series of research avenues and policy recommendations to improve impact assessments of corridors towards achieving better biodiversity outcomes.

scholarly journals Advancing Efficient and Timely Community  Access to SARS-CoV-2 Serology Testing in Europe: a Multi-stakeholder Consensus

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Cantón ◽  
Constance Delaugerre ◽  
Catherine Hankins ◽  
Wame Jallow ◽  
Uwe Gerd Liebert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health System Strengthening ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Testing Strategy ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
Stakeholder Consensus ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Community Access ◽  
Desk Review ◽  
Serology Testing

Background: Currently there is no clear consensus on the use, value, benefits, and impact of serology testing as part of a comprehensive SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy. The lack of clarity on the use of this strategy in policies and guidelines may have serious implications on the efforts to curb the pandemic. The aim of this paper is to elaborate an experts and community consensus on the use of serology testing as an effective method to respond to and mitigate the impact of the pandemic. The recommendations herein can help build community awareness and guide advocacy strategies. Methods: A desk review was conducted to inform a working document that was subject to a multistage process of validation and feedback by a group of renowned experts. The multi-stakeholder group of experts, representing the European and international levels, convened to inform and validate the recommendations. Results: The consensus offered eight policy recommendations organized in two main themes. The first group of recommendations provides guidance on the role and value of serology testing to contain and understand the COVID-19 pandemic. The second group targets health system strengthening aspects necessary to support the appropriate delivery of serology testing. Conclusions: Recommendations seek to indicate how SARS-CoV-2 serology testing may positively impact national health systems, country economies and local communities. The pertinence of the recommendations is to communities in Europe, and beyond, and relevant to multiple stakeholders. Given the rapidly changing scenario, this set of recommendations should be considered a live document.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document