Perspectives · Project Management

Is It Time to Break Up With “Stakeholders"?

Every so often, someone drops a comment in a conversation that completely reframes the way you see something.

Recently, I was in a meeting when someone mentioned that the term “stakeholder” has roots tied to colonialism—and for a split second, the air in the room changed. It was like someone unplugged the matrix. I paused and thought, wait a minute, is that true?

Well, yes—and no. Like many terms in our professional lexicon, “stakeholder” has evolved over time. But its origins are worth examining. The word is believed to have originated from gambling—a person who holds a “stake” in a wager, someone who’s neutral. Yet it was also used during land claims in colonized territories—staking land as a declaration of ownership, often without the consent or inclusion of Indigenous populations. And here’s the thing—we can’t claim to champion sustainability, equity, and justice on one hand, and ignore how our language might perpetuate systems of exclusion on the other.

So, I ask a bold question:
Should we, as a global project management profession, move away from the term “stakeholders” altogether?

Ok. Breathe. Let's just explore a little.

Words matter. They shape how we think, who we include, and how we approach projects. In the last decade, our industry has made great strides in shifting from simply delivering outputs to delivering outcomes that are sustainable and inclusive.

We’ve adopted ESG disclosures, integrated the SDGs, and many of us now apply tools like GPM’s (err PMI GPM's) P5 Standard or the PRiSM methodology to evaluate the social, environmental, and economic impacts of our work​. But while we’re measuring carbon footprints and assessing community impact, we may be overlooking something foundational—the lens through which we view people.

If our language excludes, it undermines everything else we're trying to build.

The Case for Change: Three Solid Arguments

1. Global Cultural Sensitivity

“Stakeholder” may seem innocuous in the U.S., Europe, or Australia, but for many Indigenous communities, it’s a reminder of a time when land was claimed by driving stakes into the ground—often without consultation or consent. This is not ancient history—it’s a lived, ongoing experience.

When we roll out projects in post-colonial or Indigenous contexts, continuing to use this term can feel more extractive than collaborative. For project managers working globally, language that alienates even a small group of participants threatens the success of the entire initiative.

Let’s say you're launching a renewable energy project in a rural community in Latin America. Opening the community meeting with a slide that reads, “Stakeholder Engagement Plan,” can trigger suspicion. Replace it with “Community Partnerships” or “Collaborative Interests,” and the conversation shifts from top-down to side-by-side.

2. Conceptual Clarity

The term “stakeholder” is so broad it borders on meaningless.

It’s a catch-all that includes executives, team members, customers, end users, regulators, and local communities—and sometimes even the environment is personified as a stakeholder. That might work in abstract models, but it dilutes real engagement.

Wouldn’t it be more effective to replace it with clearer, contextual terms? For example:

• Interested parties – More neutral and precise
• Impacted groups – Emphasizes lived effects
• Rights-holders – When dealing with land, labor, or community equity
• Contributors, partners, or beneficiaries – Reflects the dynamic in action

Precision helps teams prioritize and communicate more effectively. Isn’t that what project management is about?

3. Alignment With Sustainability and Equity Goals

If we’ve learned anything from sustainable project management, it’s that process is as important as product. The way we engage people—the language we use, the assumptions we make—shapes the outcome.

Our mission at GPM has always been to embed regenerative thinking into every phase of the project lifecycle. That means moving beyond compliance, beyond "do no harm," into models that heal, uplift, and restore. That applies not only to ecosystems, but to systems of power too​.

If we’re calling on organizations to rethink their approach to procurement, hiring, energy, and equity—why wouldn’t we question our vocabulary too?

Counterpoint: Don’t Fix What Ain’t Broken?

Now, I know what some of you are thinking:

“It’s just a word, Joel.”

And I hear you. “Stakeholder” is deeply embedded in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), ISO standards, and corporate governance. It’s in our charters, our risk registers, our communication plans. Heck, it’s in our job descriptions.

Changing it could:

• Cause confusion across teams and clients
• Require rewriting policies, templates, and documentation
• Spark resistance from professionals who view this as unnecessary or overly sensitive

And here’s the kicker—there isn’t a universally agreed-upon alternative yet. “Interested parties” works in some contexts, but falls flat in others. “Rights-holders” might apply in human rights-based projects, but not in enterprise IT implementations. So the debate is real.

Plus, if we start questioning every term with historical baggage, where does it end? Should we stop using “milestones” because they stem from colonial roads? Should we avoid “command and control” because of its military roots? This is a slippery slope, right?

Or is it an evolution?

What Other Fields Are Doing

This isn’t just a project management dilemma. Other fields are re-evaluating legacy terms too:

• In academia, “master/slave” terminology for software has been retired in many institutions.
• Healthcare has moved away from terms like “compliance” in favor of “adherence” to reflect more collaborative patient care.
• In environmental justice circles, the phrase “frontline communities” has replaced “vulnerable populations” to highlight agency, not victimhood.

The shift isn’t about being politically correct. It’s about being professionally current.

A Middle Path?

Maybe we don’t need to cancel “stakeholder” tomorrow. But what if we:

• Started using alternatives in training and education programs?
• Created context-specific language guidelines?
• Encouraged reflection in multicultural projects?
• Allowed teams to choose language that reflects the values of the community they serve?
• Language can be fluid and adaptive without losing rigor.

I See Both Sides. So Now I’m Asking You...

I’m not here to wag a finger. I’ve used the term “stakeholders” in more projects, slide decks, white papers, and workshops  than I can count. But I’m also open to evolving. That’s part of being in a profession that claims to be future-ready.

So I’ll leave you with this:

• Are we bold enough to rethink how we engage with people?

• Could our language be part of the solution—or part of the problem?

• Has the word evolved over the years so this is all moot?