Consideration of the environment emerged as we learnt more as an organisation about cultural protocols that would promote respect, connection and learning and sought to be influenced by this understanding.

The importance of genuine respect was reinforced, including an understanding of the importance of country to give a sense of place and identity. An understanding of country has resulted in a deeper level of understanding of First Nations diversity, with a plurality of languages, country and context. This awareness of the importance of the natural environment to the identity of Aboriginal Australians has been particularly important for internal stakeholders in our organisation, who largely come from urban backgrounds and live in built environments. The cultural gap is wide.

The First Nations emphasis on the environment has helped our organisation to notice what we don’t know, to pace our decision making appropriately and to base it on awareness gained through deep listening (“dadirri”).

This approach has been appropriate and helped our organisation to lay strong foundations to work with external stakeholders, particularly First Nations stakeholders, to contribute to reconciliation.

The concept of “country” has helped mitigate the risk of moving quickly to problem solving mode and not giving sufficient time and space to truly engage First Nations Christian leaders and communities. We are more able as an organisation to understand their values, aspirations and concerns and can truly co-create a solution to their needs, rather than imposing a pre-determined outcome.

The audit identified that minimum standards were blanket and biased towards one jurisdiction, and did not account for local context or specific conditions. One example, a lighting management plan might be required for activities occurring at locations where wildlife impacts could result from design decisions, but for locations where development occurs within existing impacted areas the requirements and approach might need to be different (even that no management plan is required, but only that design standards and regulatory requirements are complied with).

Looking at it through the lens of the pre read, the “environment” wasn’t just about sustainability outcomes, it’s also about recognising a broader set of stakeholders, including what the article calls “inanimate” stakeholders like climate, resources, and systems.

In our case, environmental perspectives were considered indirectly, mainly through operational efficiency and smarter ways of working. For example, regionalisation reduced duplication across markets, streamlined processes, and supported more local decision-making. All of that can contribute to lower travel requirements, better logistics planning, and less waste overall. So in a way, the environmental stakeholder was present, but not explicitly treated as a core voice in decision making.

We didn’t frame the initiative as a multi-stakeholder partnership that actively included environmental considerations alongside business and people priorities. The focus was more on internal stakeholders (leadership, employees, markets), rather than a broader system view that includes sustainability outcomes or external impacts.

In terms of whether the approach was appropriate, I’d say it was partly right for what we were trying to achieve at the time. Regionalisation was primarily about organisational effectiveness, so it made sense that performance and alignment came first. But from a governance perspective, I think we can take a stronger partnership approach in our Phase 2, refinement strategy, by deliberately integrating environmental considerations into decision criteria.

Overall, this read highlighted that environmental factors tend to be treated as secondary unless they’re intentionally built into the stakeholder mix..

The perspective of the environment was considered in several ways. The organisation had to think about the local community context, including the needs of families in the Hunter region, access to services, transport barriers, cost-of-living pressures, disability support gaps and the availability of volunteers. The social environment was also important because many families can feel isolated or overwhelmed when navigating systems such as the NDIS, education, health and community services.

However, the environmental perspective could have been considered more deeply. For example, more structured stakeholder mapping could have been used to identify who was missing from the conversation, such as families from rural areas, Aboriginal families, culturally diverse families, young carers, or families who are not already connected to services. More attention could also have been given to external pressures such as funding changes, service waitlists and policy changes that affect families.

Overall, I believe the approach was appropriate because the initiative was community-focused and based on the real experiences of families and carers. However, it could be improved by using a more formal environmental scan and stakeholder analysis process before decisions are made. This would help make sure the organisation considers not only the immediate needs of families, but also the wider social, economic, cultural and service environment that affects them.

We also took time to understand the values and concerns of employees, Stolen Generations members and the broader community. Letters were posted to Stolen Generations members across Western Australia to provide clear and respectful information.

I believe the approach was appropriate because it was measured, protected confidentiality and considered the impact on both our workforce and community.