One of the perks of being a keynote speaker is attending a lot of conferences. As someone who’s committed to continual learning, I always stay to learn from the other speakers. This not only helps me connect with the audience (reading the room before I speak) but also keeps me current in my public relations practice.
A big learning for me – one that I implemented a couple of years ago, but still see many clients using – is removing the word stakeholder from my vocabulary.
While speaking at a national conference, several presenters spoke about the origins of the word stakeholderand how this is offensive to Indigenous peoples. A stakeholder was someone who drove a stake into the ground, claiming the land.
Words matter
Reflecting on the origins of stakeholder was enough for me to stop using it immediately. As we continue to learn and grow, it’s important our vocabulary evolves as well.
There are a number of words – many of which no longer deserve mentioning – that we have stopped using. Stakeholder should be added to this list, yet for some reason, it continues to be used by governments, educational institutions and large corporations that, frankly, should know better.
I was recently scrolling through LinkedIn when I saw a job posting from a major university for a Senior Stakeholder Advisor. I immediately emailed a former colleague who works there, explaining why this was an offensive term and suggested the position title should be renamed.
I shared this wording from the Province of British Columbia’s website.
“‘Stakeholder‘ is a common corporate term for partners which has negative connotations to many Indigenous Peoples. When land acquisition was happening, this term referred to the allotment of land to settlers. Settlers were given wooden stakes to claim their plot of land prior to any treaty or land negotiations with Indigenous Peoples. It’s more appropriate to refer to Indigenous Peoples as partners rather than stakeholders. Indigenous Peoples are not stakeholders; they’re Aboriginal rights holders whose rights are protected under the Constitution of Canada.”
- Source: Province of BC, Terminology in Indigenous content
While this explanation specifically relates to working with Indigenous people, why use the word at all? Speaking with other communicators, the common consensus is to simply use alternative words.
Alternative words
Thankfully, the English language offers many alternative words for stakeholder, including:
- Partner
- Rights holder
- Participant
- Interest holder
- Potential beneficiaries
- Collaborators
- Community members
- …and more
Another term I recommend avoiding (which I admit to using for years) is target audience. Again, think of what this means in literal terms. Is this really the association we want to make with people?
Instead, I use priority audience or ideal audience.
Teach others
As I mentioned, the terms stakeholder and target audiences come up frequently in both my speaking and consulting work. Each time this happens, I take it as a learning opportunity.
In the fall, I spoke at a national conference for municipal communicators about How to Write a Strategic Plan That People Will Actually Read. The term stakeholder is found throughout many strategic plans.
As part of my presentation, I had the word stakeholder on a slide, crossed out and replaced with the word partners. I then used this as an opportunity to help educate others (paying it forward) on why they should no longer use this term.
Over the next two days, four presenters had the word stakeholder in their slides. Each time, they sheepishly apologized and used another word. A few presenters even thanked me for helping them look more closely at the words they use.
Be intentional
Knowing that words have power, it’s important that each of us reflects on and be intentional with the words we use. Just because others may be using a certain term or words, doesn’t make it acceptable.
As a mom of a neurodivergent child, I’m continuing to learn how to be respectful when I communicate. Even though I wrote a book with the term special needs in the title, I now use the word disabilities. I’m also quick to correct people who use the term Asperger’s to use Autism, and not refer to people as high or low functioning (as we all move through the spectrum).
While I’m not trying to be the “word police,” I also feel it’s important to share personal learnings. If it hadn’t been for those presenters highlighting the problems with using stakeholders, I wouldn’t have known to update my own vocabulary.
New path forward
When it comes to updating our vocabulary, it’s not just about being politically correct but being mindful of the impact our words have on others. Language shapes perception and can either empower or marginalize communities.
By adopting more respectful, inclusive terms, we can help create a more thoughtful, considerate community for everyone.
The change may feel small, but it’s part of a bigger shift toward greater awareness and respect.
So, the next time you find yourself reaching for the word stakeholder, try an alternative. And as you continue to learn, pay it forward by helping others do the same.
I totally understand the need to create a different term but most of the words don’t have the same relevancy. Partners isn’t how I would describe people who need to know what my client has planned for their community. Words do have power – the wrong word can confuse a situation even more. I hate industry jargon but I’d love to switch out offensive terms with ones that still nail meaning- in comms plans and everywhere else! Thanks for bringing it up.
I appreciate what you are saying and will rethink my use of the word Stakeholder to address our community. In addition, I notice above that you use the word “disability” I encourage you to also cross this out and replace it with the ‘word’ difability, a word I perhaps have coined (?) and I feel is more accurate, people do not have a diss ability, they have different abilities, which you acknowledge in your use of the spectrum example above. What are your thoughts Cynthia?
I’m deliberate about my use of the word disability. I’ve spoken to many people with disabilities who feel when we use other words – like diverse abilities – it implies there’s something wrong with the term disability. One comment that resonates with me – I have a disability and need support. Don’t sugar coat it or people won’t understand my needs. There’s nothing wrong with the term disability. This same individual has huge issues with people calling autism a superpower. While yes it comes with strengths, it also causes significant stretches in some areas. I think that’s what important is we’re flexible with our language, adapting to meet the language requested by the community. We used to say special needs, high and low functioning and have moved away from these terms. It’s about listening, learning and adapting.
Hi Kim – as a person with a severe physical and very visible disability I find euphemistic language around disability troubling (to put it bluntly – patronising, offensive). It suggests disability is a dirty word – for me it isn’t – and that I don’t have impairments (which I do). It also draws our attention away from the social model of disability and the way built and designed environments and existing power structures *disable* people. The way I think of things is that I’m disabled by society and I have impairments. This is language used by many disabled folk BTW – not just me! I’m not claiming ownership of this language.
None of your alternate words don’t really replace “stake holders” I sold a large thriving business to my son and his partner?
So what would I be?? Interested party ?
Would “your son and his business partner” work? Would you be the “former business owner/CEO”?
It’s all up to you. Former business owner makes more sense. The idea is to determine the words that make sense for your organization, avoiding stakeholder due to colonial history.
Interested party works. Often these are internal documents where you get into specifics whereas external tend to be broader. If they are referring to you it would be founder. Strategic partners or shareholders can also work. There’s really no one size fits all approach.
Is that etymology really correct though? The OED traces the word from 1708 as meaning ‘one with whom bets are deposited when wagers are made’. When you have staked a bet, you naturally have an interest in the outcome of whatever you are betting on.
The US Homestead Act was passed in 1862, long after the word was in common use. And while people would stake out their land to mark their borders, the key action in claiming the land was to build a shack or hut on it, thus defining it as a homestead. I’m not saying that these landgrabs were not deeply immoral, but — as you say — words matter, and in this case ‘stakeholder’ means more than a white person who has claimed land under the Homestead Act. If it even actually means that as I can find no other reference to that meaning.