Why the order of conversations matters when talking about biotechnology 

When people think about engagement in technology development, they often picture a single workshop where “all stakeholders” are invited to the same room. It sounds inclusive,   but in practice it can be overwhelming, superficial and, in the worst cases, reduced to a box-ticking exercise. 

B-Trust takes a different route. Instead of one big moment, the project works with carefully sequenced “waves” of interaction. The idea is simple: who you talk to first, and what you do with what you hear, strongly shapes the quality of every conversation or interaction that follows. 

From stakeholder lists to interaction journeys 

The starting point was a structured mapping and prioritisation exercise applied to six different biotechnology cases. For each case, partners identified the stakeholders who are affected by or influential around the technology, from farmers and companies to consumer organisations, environmental groups and regulators. 

Using risk-benefit mappings and influence analysis, three practical questions should be asked: Who faces the highest risks or potential disruptions? Who stands to benefit the most? Who has the power to slow down or accelerate adoption? The answers help define not only who should be involved, but also in what order. 

This is where sequencing comes in. Instead of treating engagement as a single event, B-Trust designs a trajectory made of successive waves of interaction that build on each other. 

Designing the waves: from consumers to farmers to critical voices 

For many cases, the sequence starts with consumer or citizen sessions. These are designed to surface intuitive reactions, everyday language and initial associations with the technology. Participants explore what problems they think the technology is trying to solve, what they see as potential benefits and what aspects of the technology, or its consequences makes them uneasy. 

Farmer workshops or sessions with other primary producers bring in a different type of expertise: hands on knowledge about how the technology might affect routines, business models and revenue, local ecosystems or market relations. Depending on the case, these perspectives can be brought in at different moments of the process. In some situations, involving farmers early on is strategically essential, while in others practical constraints may shape the sequencing. Farmers often point to practical constraints and trade-offs that consumers do not see, but that are crucial for real world implementation. 

Interviews with environmental organisations and other critical voices are another key wave. These conversations go deeper into long term environmental impacts, distribution of responsibilities, possible power imbalances and systemic risks. They often connect the specific case to broader debates about food systems, biodiversity or justice. 

Other waves can include dialogues with companies, cluster organisations, regulators or ethics experts, depending on the case. The important point is that each wave is designed with a clear purpose and with an eye on what has been learned before. 

Why the order matters for trust 

The order of these interactions is not random. Starting with consumers or citizens can highlight misunderstandings, hopes and fears that need to be addressed before moving into more technical or policy-oriented discussions.  

Equally, talking first to stakeholders who are very close to implementation can reveal practical constraints that reshape the questions you bring to others. Listening early to critical voices can help avoid framing choices that would shut down constructive dialogue later. 

In each case, B-Trust asks: what needs to be understood first so that the next conversation is more honest, focused and fair? 

This step-by-step approach also helps avoid tokenism. If environmental NGOs or farmer unions are only invited at the end, once the main decisions are effectively made, their participation risks becoming symbolic. When they are part of the earlier waves, their input can still influence how the co-creation trajectories and governance options are shaped. 

A flexible sequence, not a fixed script 

B-Trust does not treat the sequence as a rigid script. After each wave, partners review what they have learned and revisit the plan. Have new stakeholder groups emerged that were not on the radar? Did a conversation reveal a trust barrier that needs a dedicated session? Do we need to go back to a previous group to test a revised idea? 

This iterative logic is embedded in the co-creation methodology. It means that sequencing is constantly stress tested against reality, rather than assumed to be right from the start. 

For engagement practitioners, project coordinators and intermediaries like clusters, the lesson is clear. Building trust in biotechnology is not only about who is at the table, but also about the order in which you invite them and how you acknowledge and consider what each group shares. B-Trust’s wave by wave approach offers a practical blueprint for designing stakeholder journeys that are more meaningful, less tokenistic and better aligned with real world decision making. 

By Sofía Ros (Cluster FOOD+i), B-Trust communication lead 

The article was prepared in close collaboration with the authors of B-Trust deliverables D1.3, D2.1 and D1.2, including Veerle Rijckaert and Charlotte Boone (Alice down the rabbit hole), and Mattia Forni and Harshita Thakare (LAMA). 

This article builds on publicly available B-Trust deliverables, in particular D1.3 Finetuned co-creation methodology, D2.1 Outline of co-creation trajectories and D1.2 MEL Report (M12).