- Those stakeholders in Zone B (Keep informed) with a high level of
interest in the project’s activities but little power to influence them
will need to be kept fully informed of the major decisions which have
been made, so that good communication with this type of
stakeholder is essential.
- Stakeholders in the other two zones represent different but equally
important problems. Clearly the acceptability of decisions to the key
players in Zone D key players (manage closely) is a major
consideration when formulating project strategy but often the
stakeholders in Zone C keep satisfied (meet their needs) are
the most difficult to manage. Their level of interest in the
organization’s strategies will remain low as long as they feel
satisfied with the policies adopted; if they become dissatisfied then,
because of their powerful position, they can easily increase their
interest and move to Zone D, thus becoming key players
- The problem in both matrixes is the re-positioning of stakeholders
from Zone C to Zone D. Again the role of stakeholders in Zones A
and B needs to be monitored and controlled because, although
lacking in power, they may have disproportional influence on the
more powerful stakeholders
1. Meet Their Needs (High Power, Low Interest)
2. Department of Finance → Likely concerned about tax revenues from vaping
products but not directly involved in public health aspects. Primarily concerned with
tax revenue from vaping products rather than health implications. They may influence
policy if taxation is a key issue but won’t actively push for regulatory changes.
3. Department of Enterprise, Trade, and Employment → Focuses on economic
impacts, business growth, and employment. It will weigh in on how vaping
regulations affect businesses but won’t take the lead in public health policies.
4. Business and Hospitality Associations (excluding tobacco-related, e.g., IBEC) →
Represent businesses that may be affected by vaping laws (e.g., bans in indoor
spaces), but vaping is not their primary concern. They might respond if regulations
harm their members' profits but are unlikely to lead policy discussions.
Case Study: IBEC and the Hospitality Sector
- Before the 2004 ban, some hospitality groups under IBEC’s umbrella, such as
the Vintners’ Federation of Ireland (VFI) and the Licensed Vintners
Association (LVA), opposed the regulation due to concerns that it
would hurt business revenue by driving customers away from pubs and bars.
However, IBEC as a whole was less invested in the issue compared to these
sector-specific groups.
- After initial resistance, business adaptation (e.g., the rise of outdoor smoking
areas) led to a decline in IBEC’s involvement in smoking policy discussions.
Today, IBEC is more concerned with broader economic factors affecting
businesses, such as taxation, employment law, and digital transformation.
5.
Why Not in "Manage Closely"? → While these stakeholders have
power, their interest is conditional (e.g., only if taxation or
business impact is significant).
🔹 Consider adding:
Department of Justice → May have some involvement in enforcement but not a key
driver of vaping regulation.
Consumer Protection Authorities → Concerned with misleading advertising and
product safety but may not be highly proactive.
2. Manage Closely (High Power, High Interest)
VBI & Trade Groups → Actively lobby for industry-friendly
policies, making them key players in regulation discussions .
Tobacco & Vape Manufacturers, Distributors, Retailers → Have a direct
financial stake in regulations and will strongly advocate for
policies that favor their business.
Public Health Bodies → Includes policymakers and regulatory
bodies pushing for vaping restrictions, public awareness
campaigns, and potential bans on certain products .
NGO/Advocacy Groups (Irish Heart Foundation, Irish Cancer Society, etc.) →
Actively campaign for stricter vaping regulations due to
health risks, making them vocal and influential .
Medical Organizations → Provide expert opinions on vaping’s
health effects, which shape public health policies
🔹 Why Not in "Meet Their Needs"? → These stakeholders don’t just
react to policies—they actively push for or against changes,
making them high-interest actors..
🔹 Consider adding:
Department of Health → Core regulatory body, directly shaping vaping policy.
Health Service Executive (HSE) → Implementing regulations and public health
campaigns.
Media & Public Opinion Groups → Influencing policymaking through public
discourse and awareness.
. Keep Informed (High Interest, Low Power)
These stakeholders care about vaping regulations but don’t have direct influence over policy
decisions.
✅ Consumer Organisations → Advocate for consumer rights, including
product safety and marketing restrictions, but rely on regulatory
bodies to implement changes.
✅ Hospitality Businesses → Indoor vaping bans can impact them, but
they have limited say in national policies.
✅ Teachers & School Principals → Concerned about youth vaping trends
but can only enforce school policies, not national laws .
✅ Healthcare Workers → Witness vaping-related health issues firsthand
and may advocate for stricter rules but don’t have direct
policymaking power.
✅ General Public (Vapers/Smokers) → Directly affected by regulations
(e.g., bans, taxation), but their influence depends on public
sentiment and advocacy efforts.
🔹 Consider adding:
Parents' Associations → Concerned about youth vaping but with limited direct
influence.
Journalists/Media Outlets → They shape public discourse, which can influence
policymakers indirectly.
4. Keep Into Account (Low Interest, Low Power)
These stakeholders have little influence and are not highly engaged in vaping regulations.
✅ General Public (Non-vapers/Smokers) → Might be indifferent unless vaping affects
them directly (e.g., concerns about secondhand exposure).
🔹 Why Not in "Keep Informed"? → Unlike vapers, non-vapers generally don’t follow vaping
policies unless they become a major social issue.
🔹 Why Not in "Meet Their Needs"? → They have minimal power over decision-making and
are not priority stakeholders.
