Source: Pixabay
In this reflective blog, Olya K-Mehri, Centre for Climate, Migration and Place Lead, argues that traditional social dialogue based on consultation is no longer sufficient for addressing complex social challenges, as it often limits participation to reactive feedback rather than meaningful influence. She advocates for a shift toward co-design, where stakeholders are actively involved in defining problems and shaping solutions from the outset, fostering inclusion, trust, and shared ownership. The blog highlights that evolving social dialogue into a more participatory, collaborative process can bridge gaps between institutions and communities, making decision-making more democratic, effective, and responsive to lived experiences.
Social dialogue is often described as a cornerstone of democratic policymaking, but in practice, it is common to find that it stops short at consultation. At its best, it brings together governments, communities, and civil society to shape decisions that affect people’s lives. Yet too often, what is described as dialogue is little more than consultation. If we are serious about building effective, trusted, and inclusive systems, we need to progress beyond consultation towards genuine community co-design and co-development.
Understanding Social Dialogue
Social dialogue refers to the processes through which different groups contribute to decision making. It is rooted in the idea that those affected by policies and services should have a voice in shaping them. Beyond being a matter of fairness, it is also a practical necessity. Policies designed without the insight of lived experience risk missing the mark, wasting resources, and reinforcing inequalities. When dialogue is meaningful, it strengthens legitimacy, improves outcomes, and builds shared ownership.
A useful way to understand this is as a spectrum of participation or participatory governance. At one end are approaches that inform or consult, where information flows largely in one direction. In the middle are approaches that involve people more actively, but still within structures defined by institutions. At the other end are co-design and co-development, where communities share in defining problems, shaping solutions, and delivering change. Consultation sits within this spectrum, but it is only one stage and far from being the most transformative.
However, consultations remain to be the most dominant model of engagement in policy-spaces, and takes the form of institutions developing proposals and then seeking feedback, often at a late stage. While consultation can provide useful insights, it is inherently limited, and tends to position communities as respondents rather than partners. Decisions are frequently already shaped before engagement begins, leaving little room for genuine influence. This can result in a sense of tokenism, where people are asked for their views but see little evidence that their contributions matter.
The consequences of this approach are significant, as when people feel unheard or excluded, trust in institutions declines. And further to this, engagement fatigue sets in, particularly among communities that are already marginalised. At the same time, services and policies risk being less effective because they are not grounded in the realities of those they are intended to serve. In an era of complex social challenges, this is a risk we can no longer afford to take.
Public expectations have changed, and there is growing recognition that a different approach is needed. People increasingly expect transparency, participation, and accountability. At the same time, many of the challenges facing society, from health inequalities to climate adaptation, require solutions that are informed by local knowledge and lived experience. Taken together, these conditions point clearly towards the need for co-design and co-development.
Co-design involves working with communities from the outset to define problems and develop solutions together. It is not about presenting finished ideas for feedback, but is instead about creating space for shared exploration, where different forms of knowledge are valued equally. Co-development goes further, involving communities in design as well as in the implementation and ongoing improvement of services and policies. Together, these approaches represent a shift in power. They move decision making away from institutions acting alone and towards shared authority with communities. Co-design is therefore not just a method, but a redistribution of power in how decisions are made.
This shift also has an ethical dimension, because it is not only about improving outcomes, but about recognising the right of people to shape the decisions that affect their lives. In this sense, co-design and co-development can be seen as part of a broader commitment to equity and democratic practice. The benefits of this shift are clear, as policies and services that are co-designed are more likely to be relevant and responsive, they are better able to reflect the diversity of needs within communities, and also support a sense of ownership, which can improve uptake and sustainability. Importantly, co-design can rebuild trust by demonstrating that institutions are willing to listen and share control.
Moving in this direction requires practical changes in how organisations work, and engagement needs to begin early, before key decisions are made. Methods such as participatory workshops, citizen panels, and lived experience groups can support deeper involvement. Accessibility must be a priority, ensuring that people from different backgrounds can take part in ways that suit them. This includes considering language, timing, location, and digital access, as well as recognising and addressing barriers that may prevent participation.
Reaching communities that are seldom heard, including marginalised or underrepresented groups, requires particular care. Engagement should not rely on expecting people to come forward, but on building trusted relationships through community organisations, faith centres, voluntary groups, and with existing networks. This work must avoid being extractive, and should be based on reciprocity, where communities see clear value from their involvement, and where their contributions shape outcomes in visible ways. Without this, there is a risk of reinforcing exclusion rather than addressing it.
Valuing lived experience is central to this approach too, which means recognising it as a form of expertise, not simply as anecdotal input. It also means avoiding extractivism and exploitative practices, where communities are asked to contribute without meaningful return. Where possible, participants should be compensated for their time and contributions. This helps to acknowledge their value and supports more equitable participation.
Relationships matter for creating the conditions for collaborative decision-making, as co-design is not a one-off exercise, it depends on sustained engagement and mutual respect. Building trust takes time, particularly in communities that have experienced exclusion or tokenistic engagement in the past. Organisations need to be prepared to invest in these relationships and to be open about how decisions are made.
There are also challenges to consider regarding resources and new skills, as co-design and co-development requires time and expertise. It is also a process which may challenge existing power structures and ways of working, so ensuring that participation is representative without overburdening individuals can be difficult. Further to this, there is a risk that expectations are raised without clear follow through. These challenges are real, but they are not reasons to avoid change, rather, they highlight the need for careful planning, transparency, and a commitment to learning.
Embedding Co-Design for System Change
To successfully embed co-design in policy and service design, it needs to be supported at a systemic level. This includes integrating participatory approaches into organisational strategies and frameworks, along with staff training in facilitation and collaborative methods. Funding models should recognise the value of engagement and allocate resources accordingly, and there is need for mechanisms to evaluate impact and share learning, so that practice can continue to improve.
Ultimately, the development from consultation to co-design goes beyond process and is about rethinking relationships between institutions and the public. It requires a willingness to share power, to value different forms of knowledge, and to work in partnership towards common goals. In doing so, social dialogue can step closer to its full potential.
Ultimately, the development from consultation to co-design goes beyond process and is about rethinking relationships between institutions and the public. It requires a willingness to share power, to value different forms of knowledge, and to work in partnership towards common goals. In doing so, social dialogue can step closer to its full potential.
Olya K-Mehri leads the Centre for Climate Migration and Place at IDVRM, where she is also an Honorary Research Associate. She brings an interdisciplinary perspective that bridges environmental ethics, public policy and community practice. With a research background in interfaith dialogue and climate ethics, her work explores how diverse philosophical and spiritual traditions can inform justice-orientated approaches to environmental responsibility. Olya leads projects and programmes in inclusive climate policymaking and the just transition, centring the experiences of marginalised communities, and is Founder of the Rooted Art Collective. Olya can be reached at idvrm.info@gmail.com
Disclaimer: IDVRM aims to serve as a platform that researchers internationally, especially in the non-western world, can use to disseminate their research. We do our best to ensure that authors who publish with us have conducted their research following the highest ethical standards, with decolonial reflexivity and principles of least harm to participants in mind. We do not require authors to submit ethical documentation, but we ask our authors to provide sufficient information about ethical procedures in their submissions. It is beyond the capacity of IDVRM to verify this information. Authors should be reached directly to respond to questions regarding their research.
Opinions expressed by authors contributing to our blog are those solely of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of IDVRM, its Director or other team members. IDVRM is comprised of diverse individuals who are encouraged to share their experiences and opinions openly with recognition that other team members may have different experiences and positions. IDVRM does not claim to represent any one community and we understand that belonging to a specific group does not entitle any one of us to speak for all.
AI Use: IDVRM may use AI tools for editing and proofreading purposes to improve language, syntax and grammar. Essays must be the original work of the author.
