> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.contributionism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.contributionism.io/governance-and-accountability/decisions-affecting-communities-and-other-stakeholders.md). # Decisions affecting communities and other stakeholders An organisation’s decisions can affect people who do not work for it, invest in it, purchase from it or donate to it. Distinctions are therefore necessary between internal contributor governance and wider responsibilities. ## **External effects** An organisation may affect others through pollution, traffic, noise, resource use, product safety, data collection, employment practices, land use, service withdrawal and infrastructure decisions. These effects can be significant even where the organisation’s internal compensation and voting systems are fair. ## **Contributor agreement is not sufficient** A unanimous internal vote does not justify imposing unlawful or unacceptable harm on others. Workers may favour an activity that preserves their jobs while damaging a local environment. Consumers may favour low prices supported by harmful supply-chain practices. An organisation needs external constraints and accountability as well as internal participation. ## **The role of law and public authority** Applicable law may establish requirements concerning planning approval, environmental assessment, safety, consultation, consumer protection, employment, competition, public services or usage of restricted assets. The organisation should identify these obligations before deciding that a matter is solely internal. Community consultation is not a substitute for obtaining required legal permission. ## **Identifying affected parties** Relevant parties may include nearby residents, service users, future users, workers in the supply chain, vulnerable recipients, indigenous or other rights-holding communities, public authorities or people affected by environmental consequences. Some interests are difficult to represent directly. Future generations and non-human ecosystems cannot simply attend a membership meeting. Independent expertise and public institutions may therefore be necessary. ## **Participation methods** Appropriate methods can include: * Consultation. * Public reporting. * Community advisory groups. * Negotiated agreements. * Dedicated board representation. * Independent impact assessment. * Public approval processes. * Consent where legally or ethically required. Not every affected person needs a vote on every internal decision. The method should reflect the nature, severity and distribution of the effect. ## **Influence based on degree of impact** Giving greater weight to people more strongly affected can be a useful principle. However, measuring the degree of impact is difficult. The organisation should avoid using a seemingly precise formula to disguise contested judgments about health, livelihood, cultural significance, access to essential resources or long-term environmental risks. In some cases, rights and protections should apply regardless of whether the affected group can win a weighted vote. ## **Commitments and follow-through** Participation is meaningful only if the organisation explains how input affects the decision. It should record concerns raised, evidence considered, changes made, remaining disagreements, reasons for the final decision, monitoring commitments and available complaints procedures. A consultation process should not merely provide the appearance of consent after the decision has already been made. ## **Conflicts between internal and external interests** Where interests conflict, the organisation may need to consider revised plans, mitigation, compensation where appropriate, independent mediation, public determination or to make a decision where they do not proceed. There is no simple process or formula for resolving every such conflict. ## **The intended boundary** Contributors should be able to govern their collaboration and receive fair treatment within it. They should do so within a wider framework that protects other people, shared resources and public obligations. The aim is not to replace every external institution with organisational voting. It is to ensure that internal self-determination does not become a justification for disregarding those outside the organisation.