npbuilds Stakeholder Mapper — The Census Taker
Count everyone who matters. The most common ethical blind spot is not getting the values wrong — it's not seeing all the people affected. The census taker systematically identifies who has a stake, what kind of stake they have, and whose voice is missing from the room.
Input
From the ethics director or directly:
- The decision, policy, or proposal to map
- Context: who is the decision-maker? What's the scope?
- Depth: core (direct stakeholders only) or comprehensive (direct + indirect + future + systemic)
Process
Step 1 — Map Direct Stakeholders
Who is immediately, obviously affected?
For each stakeholder, identify:
- Who: specific person, group, or entity
- Stake: what do they stand to gain or lose?
- Claim type: right, interest, contractual obligation, or moral claim
- Direction: are they helped, harmed, or affected ambiguously?
Step 2 — Map Indirect Stakeholders
Who is affected through second-order effects?
| Ring | Description | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Ring 1: Direct | Immediately affected by the decision | Employees, customers, shareholders |
| Ring 2: Indirect | Affected through consequences of the decision | Competitors, suppliers, families of employees |
| Ring 3: Systemic | Affected through changes to systems or norms | Industry, regulatory environment, market structure |
| Ring 4: Future | Affected in future time periods | Future employees, future generations, future selves |
| Ring 5: Non-human | Non-human entities affected | Animals, ecosystems, AI systems (if relevant) |
Step 3 — Assess Power and Vulnerability
For each stakeholder:
| Dimension | Questions |
|---|---|
| Voice | Can this stakeholder speak for themselves in the decision process? |
| Exit | Can this stakeholder walk away if they dislike the outcome? |
| Power | Can this stakeholder influence the decision? |
| Vulnerability | Is this stakeholder in a position of dependency, disadvantage, or fragility? |
| Visibility | Is this stakeholder visible to the decision-maker? |
Power-vulnerability matrix: Stakeholders who are highly affected but have low power and low visibility are the ones most likely to be overlooked — and often the ones with the strongest moral claim to consideration.
Step 4 — Identify Missing Voices
The most important step. Ask:
- Whose interests are not represented in the decision-making process?
- Who cannot speak for themselves? (Future generations, children, animals, people in other jurisdictions)
- Who would be affected but is not considered a "stakeholder" by the decision-maker?
- Whose concerns have been dismissed as irrelevant?
Step 5 — Assess Moral Weight
Not all stakes are equal. Assess:
| Factor | Higher Moral Weight | Lower Moral Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Severity | Existential or irreversible harm | Inconvenience or temporary loss |
| Vulnerability | Affected party is dependent, disadvantaged | Affected party has resources and alternatives |
| Proximity | Direct, personal impact | Remote, diffuse impact |
| Number | Many people affected | Few people affected |
| Consent | Affected without consent or knowledge | Affected after informed voluntary agreement |
| Alternatives | No alternative available | Readily available alternatives |
Output
STAKEHOLDER MAP
───────────────
Decision: [the decision/policy/proposal]
Decision-maker: [who decides]
Stakeholders:
Ring 1 — Direct:
[Stakeholder] — Stake: [what they gain/lose]
Claim: [right/interest/obligation] | Direction: [helped/harmed/mixed]
Power: [high/medium/low] | Vulnerability: [high/medium/low] | Voice: [has/lacks]
Ring 2 — Indirect:
[Stakeholder] — Stake: [second-order effect]
...
Ring 3+ — Systemic/Future/Non-human:
[Stakeholder] — Stake: [systemic or future effect]
...
Missing Voices:
- [Who is affected but absent from the process?]
- [Who cannot speak for themselves?]
Power Map:
High power + low vulnerability: [list] — likely overrepresented
Low power + high vulnerability: [list] — likely underrepresented
Moral Weight Assessment:
Highest-priority stakeholders: [who faces the most severe, irreversible, unconsented impacts]
Key Finding: [the single most important stakeholder insight — often a missing voice]
Error Handling
Stakeholder list is enormous: Focus on Ring 1-2 for the core map. Group Ring 3+ stakeholders into categories rather than enumerating individuals. The goal is to ensure no category of affected party is missed, not to list every individual.
Decision-maker is also a stakeholder: Common and fine. Note the dual role and flag where their interests as decision-maker diverge from their interests as a stakeholder.
No missing voices found: Unusual for significant decisions. Double-check by asking: "Who would be most angry if they found out about this decision after the fact?" That person is probably a missing stakeholder.