Stakeholder Map & Evaluation

Stakeholder Map 1

Stakeholder Map 2

Stakeholder Mapping and Evaluation

Birmingham Airport is the UK’s seventh largest airport overall and third largest for charter traffic. Sitting in the centre of the UK, it services 13m passengers a year and is home to 35 airlines, and is a strategic national infrastructure provider. The Airport, and the aviation industry as a whole, is undergoing rapid change due to growth, traffic and environmental pressures. With this in mind, the Airport has produced a ‘masterplan’, outlining development and growth up to 2033 (Birmingham Airport 2018a), and a sustainability strategy. In addition to climate change mitigation, the airport’s Sustainability Strategy (Birmingham Airport 2018b) focuses on its priorities to reduce environmental impacts and make improvements in areas, such as local air quality, waste, supply chain and the circular economy, water and biodiversity.           

For guidance on the stakeholder analysis I used personal knowledge, personal off record comments from airport staff (pers.comm 2020) and information on airport stakeholders various sources, including David Schaar (Schaar and Sherry 2010) and related sustainability practices by comparing to Brussels Airport (Boussauw and Vanoutrive 2019)

The first stakeholder map is of a more simplistic ‘onion’ type and shows the internal stakeholder mapping present at the airport. This illustrates the direct stakeholders, be it on or off site, including employees, tenants and airlines and shows the primary and secondary stakeholders within the airport

For the second map I wanted to show illustrate the wide range of stakeholders within the airport and the wider area. The mapping technique I have used is developed by myself and groups all stakeholders within key sectoral groups, this is critical as it demonstrates the different parties involved and groups them under a specific type of stakeholder classification. Equally, this shows how the airport defines and engages with different stakeholders.

Overall, this is important as it illustrates how the airport classifies all groups and how engagement may vary with each stakeholder based on the key stakeholder group they are assigned to. This interaction is also linked to the aims of the Airport’s ‘masterplan’ and sustainability strategy as defining the stakeholders in this way allows them to structure their business strategy accordingly.

Both maps therefore do meet their objective, however in the context of the portfolio there is definitely room for improvement.

Critical Reflective Piece

For me, the most important outcome of the stakeholder mapping exercise is the identification of the wide range of stakeholders within the business and the relationship to the business needs. Previously, I did not think that there were so may stakeholders involved so this is why I felt it important to show this. I feel that in this context the maps worked, although one aspect of the mapping I did find difficult was the actual production of the stakeholder maps. The stakeholder maps and research also helped with the planning of both the created communications and the digital scrapbook as it enabled me to identify which stakeholders to target and what media sources and stories to focus on

However, having analysed the mapping and outcomes I now realise that there are significant shortcomings with both maps, primarily with their simplicity. The main issues with the mapping are:

  • Neither map shows any relationship or significance to sustainability
  • No interpretation of scale for local, national and international stakeholders or influence
  • Stakeholder map 2 does not allow for a stakeholder to be part of more than one key stakeholder group, of which many are
  • Neither map shows the relationship and interaction between each stakeholder group
  • Employees as stakeholders – both maps class these as one group whereas different employees should be identified separately. For example, a baggage handler could be shown within a different group to the CEO
  • No degree of influence is shown for any of the stakeholders
  • Neither map encompasses fully the three key steps of stakeholder analysis, as outlined by (Allen and Kilvington 2009):
    • Identifying major stakeholder groups
    • Determining interests, importance and influence
    • Establish strategies for involvement

Having realised the limitations of my mapping, as a next step I would use more complicated technique such as the Eigenvector network diagram (Neilsen 2018), or at least a salience model which would show the degrees of influence between each stakeholder. This would overcome many of the drawbacks I have outlined above and would allow the mapping to be considered more valid. Before drawing up the new stakeholder map I would also carry out a more thorough analysis of the business by using a RACI or PESTLE analysis to help me identify the stakeholder relationships. In order to better understand the relevance of sustainability within the business I could have followed the guidance in the Edie Report                

I have learnt from this exercise that I need to improve my graphical and IT skills, especially in preparation for my project. Finally, I feel that the development and interpretation of the stakeholder mapping could be open to bias due to my personal relationship with the airport. If the task were undertaken again, I would choose a sector or company that I had no prior knowledge of.


Allen, W. and Kilvington, M. (2009) ‘Stakeholder Analysis External Stakeholders Stakeholder Analysis’. The Guide to Practitioners’ Perspectives on Stakeholder Engagement [online] 1, 5. available from <;

Birmingham Airport (2018a) Airport Strategy – Birmingham Airport Website [online] available from <; [23 March 2020]

Birmingham Airport (2018b) Commitment l Investment l Progress Sustainability Strategy [online] available from <; [23 March 2020]

Boussauw, K. and Vanoutrive, T. (2019) ‘Flying Green from a Carbon Neutral Airport: The Case of Brussels’. Sustainability 11 (7), 2102

Neilsen, J. (2018) Stakeholders from a Dynamic and Network Perspective – Apppm [online] available from <; [1 May 2020]

Schaar, D. and Sherry, L. (2010) ‘Analysis of Airport Stakeholders’. 2010 Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance Conference Proceedings, ICNS 2010 [online] (June 2010). available from <;


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: