Lesson 4: Na wai te mana? Understanding your stakeholders
Introduction
This lesson focuses on understanding the range of stakeholders involved in an issue and how their different values and interests shape perceptions and actions. By examining the case study of climate change, the material illustrates the importance of considering who may be a stakeholder and whose views matter, especially when those views differ from our own. It emphasizes multi-stakeholder engagement, with a particular focus on iwi Māori and mana whenua, and shows how careful thinking about stakeholders is a practical, day-to-day consideration in environmental management and community projects. The reading also highlights the long-term, ongoing nature of community initiatives, the value of strong stakeholder networks, clear visions, and strategies to realise those visions. It notes that long-term projects, even when there are occasional wins, require sustained effort across time and relationships.
2. Who is a stakeholder? Na wai te mana?
In any issue you explore—whether it’s child poverty, animal welfare, or an environmental problem—there are people and organizations who have a stake in the issue. A stakeholder is someone who can affect or be affected by the activities of another group or organization. Stakeholders are frequently referenced in relation to government agencies, health and social services, conservation, education, and other public services. At the local level, stakeholders include ratepayers, community groups, businesses, and central government or state agencies. Maori, as mana whenua and treaty partners, occupy a distinct category in relation to governance, decision-making, and public matters in general. Anyone involved in civic engagement should consider the views of stakeholders because these groups are often the closest to the issue. Complex national or global issues like climate change or broad policy areas will involve a large and intricate network of stakeholders, requiring substantial research and analysis to identify who to engage with.
2.1. Stakeholders and interests
Across different stakeholders, positions on issues can diverge, and conflict is common when issues are complex or contentious. Every stakeholder holds an “interest” in the issue, which can be legal, economic, affective, political or ideological, or mana whenua-related. For example, rodeo participants and businesses want rodeos to continue under some animal-welfare allowances, driven by economic and cultural interests. In contrast, animal-welfare advocates seek stronger regulation or bans due to moral concerns about animal suffering. Understanding these interests helps explain political dynamics, facilitates negotiation (e.g., allowing rodeos under strict controls), and supports better decision-making by incorporating diverse perspectives. Economic interests, in particular, can intensify political conflict, but identifying common ground could reveal win-win outcomes or opportunities for collaboration and partnerships in future projects. By recognizing these diverse interests, you gain a fuller picture, learn why others act as they do, and uncover potential paths for negotiation and trade-offs, ultimately guiding more effective engagement.
2.2. Stakeholders or mana whenua?
From Lesson 1, you’ll recall that Māori can hold different citizenship views from the Western tradition, and that Māori have a unique constitutional place as tangata whenua and treaty partners (Te Tiriti o Waitangi). In this framework, Māori should not simply be treated as “stakeholders” alongside other interest groups, but rather as mana whenua with a distinct authority and governance role. Recognizing this distinction is a source of tension, and many organizations—especially those in governance roles like government bodies, councils, and regulatory agencies—have historically grappled with meaningful participation and consultation with Māori. Some segments of the non-Māori community resist what they perceive as Māori privilege. The discussion points to a dynamic arena where post-treaty settlement developments are continually shaping the balance of power. The case of Oranga Tamariki, for example, shows ongoing debates about the State’s and iwi Māori’s roles in child protection. Treaty settlements over the past 25 years have formalized certain relationships, creating legally recognised partnerships, though debates about the precise nature of these relationships persist. The central idea is that mana whenua’s role as treaty partners is a dynamic and evolving space, and it is a key question: Na wai te mana? Who has the authority?
2.3. Mana whenua, policy and partnerships
Treaty settlements have produced innovative governance concepts that recognise mana whenua in managing natural features. Notably, Whanganui River and Te Urewera have been granted legal personhood, with mana whenua in partnership holding governance authority. Other arrangements include “social accords” in which state agencies commit to working with mana whenua. These renewed relationships arise from treaty settlement legislation and represent negotiated, hard-won arrangements rather than routine governance. Across policy areas, iwi, hapū, Māori organizations, and individuals increasingly participate in meaningful ways in environmental management. The Conservation Act 1987 requires that the Department of Conservation (DOC) give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi principles, meaning mana whenua are involved in many conservation activities. The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) similarly encourages meaningful engagement of mana whenua in environmental decision-making, and many regional councils actively include mana whenua in addressing environmental and restoration work. Importantly, the level of recognition and involvement varies by region and settlement status, with some historic claims still unsettled. The section also notes that the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group is an example of multi-stakeholder partnership where mana whenua takes a leadership role. Overall, while progress is evident, many areas remain contested, and the Treaty remains a constitutional framework for governance, requiring ongoing engagement and negotiation. The material emphasizes that mana whenua should be understood as a special category of stakeholder in governance, rather than a mere add-on to general stakeholder analysis.
3. Climate change case study
The climate change case study explains why climate change is a suitable issue for stakeholder analysis and intervention, whether through formal politics, civic engagement, or protest. It outlines the physical mechanisms of climate change and the scientific basis for concern, including the scientific consensus that human activities drive warming. A key citation notes that about 97\%\% of scientists agree on human-caused warming and its risks, underscoring the strength of the evidence base. Climate change will have profound effects on humans and other animals, with uneven impacts that disproportionately affect the poorest and most marginalised groups, both internationally and within countries. There is also a political economy dimension: transitioning to low-carbon systems creates new economic opportunities (e.g., sustainable products, clean energy) while facing resistance from entrenched interests that benefit from high-emission activities (e.g., oil and gas, mining, transport, agriculture, construction). The NZ context is highlighted, including the ongoing debate over including agricultural emissions (e.g., methane) in the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The case illustrates how stakeholder interests—economic, environmental, social, and equity considerations—shape policy choices and the politics around climate action. It also notes that some nations (e.g., Australia) face acute political conflicts over climate policy due to their particular economic structures and dependence on energy-intensive industries. The case emphasizes that climate policy is a field of active negotiation among global, national, and local stakeholders, with diverse positions driven by regional economic and political implications.
4. Who is a (climate) stakeholder?
When dealing with large issues like climate change, it is useful to think of stakeholders at multiple levels: global, national, and local. This helps manage complexity by identifying who is affected directly or indirectly at each level. The lesson encourages thinking about local engagement within the broader international framework (think global, act local). It provides examples such as Parakore, a tikanga- and te ao Māori-based zero-waste initiative, to illustrate how local, culturally grounded programs can engage communities in practical environmental action. Recognizing the scale of an issue helps you determine who to engage and how to structure your engagement around local, regional, or national priorities.
4.1. Stakeholder analysis
Building on Goldstein et al. (2012), stakeholders can be categorized by the degree of proximity to the issue:
Primary stakeholders: those directly affected and whose permission, support, or direct impact is essential. This group includes those who may benefit, be harmed, or experience material, social, or emotional effects.
Secondary stakeholders: those indirectly affected by the activity.
Tertiary stakeholders: those not directly affected but who can influence or facilitate the process.
When planning civic engagement, it is useful to map these levels and identify who belongs to each category within the chosen scale (global, national, local). This approach helps determine who should be consulted and how to structure engagement for maximum effectiveness and collaboration.
5. Understanding stakeholder perspectives
Understanding stakeholder perspectives requires setting aside immediate judgments and examining how values and background shape viewpoints. This helps with deliberate reasoning, planning, and strategy. It also assists in identifying allies and opponents, enabling more effective persuasion and coalition-building. However, it is important to avoid assuming what others think; instead, pursue perspective-getting—actively seeking to learn others’ actual views and rationales. The material stresses the distinction between perspective-taking (imagining what others think) and perspective-getting (finding out what they actually think), and points to supplementary readings on this difference. Fully investigating perspectives helps reveal information that may not be evident in spoken positions alone and supports more informed and nuanced decision-making. The iceberg metaphor from prior lessons is referenced to remind us that much of the information lies beneath the surface and requires careful exploration.
6. The Government as stakeholder
This section introduces central and local government in New Zealand to help you interact with or influence policy as a stakeholder. New Zealand operates a unicameral system with three branches of government: the Legislature (Parliament and the Governor-General) which makes laws and scrutinizes the Executive; the Executive (Ministers and government departments) which proposes and administers laws and policy; and the Judiciary which interprets and applies the law. There are two main tiers of government: central government and local government (regional, city, or district councils). Central government handles national coordination and funding for areas like welfare, education, health, justice, energy, and transport, while local government delivers local services such as water, waste, parks, roads, and consents. The government also collects and allocates revenue through taxes and other sources. The framework includes a Ministerial List of current cabinet ministers and their portfolios. The material emphasizes that engaging with government as a stakeholder requires careful consideration of which part of government to engage and at what level, given the complex and sometimes conflicting interests within government.
6.1. Government agencies
Government agencies and the broader public sector—including departments, ACC, policing, Worksafe, the Health and Disability Commissioner, NZ Customs, DHBs, and public broadcasters—shape everyday life and policy. Universities and schools are part of the public sector but operate with governance independence. Public funding comes from taxes and government investments, with some agencies also earning revenue through outputs (for example, MetService exporting weather data). In recent decades, some public services have adopted business-like practices with formal management structures and performance targets, and some activities have been contracted to private providers. The public sector is often described in terms of the public service, Crown entities, and the broader public sector; this distinction helps explain how policy and funding decisions are made and executed.
6.2. Government priorities
Each elected government sets its own priorities for spending and policy direction, influenced by public opinion and electoral mandates. International comparisons can be instructive for public finance and policy choices. The material cites Michael Moore’s Where to Invade Next? as a way to explore differences in fiscal and social policy across countries. Readers are encouraged to consider how different tax or funding choices affect policy priorities and how shifts in funding might require trade-offs in other areas.
6.3. The 'balancing act of government'
When a government agency decides on a course of action, it must balance the interests of all stakeholders, citizens, and taxpayers. This balancing act can be framed in utilitarian terms: weighing who benefits, who suffers, and the overall consequences of options. Cabinet discussions and ministerial responsibilities require convincing colleagues that a proposal is worth funding, with accountability to taxpayers and citizens. The material provides an illustrative example: the rental housing insulation standards, where landlord lobbying and MPs argued against extra costs, while the government pushed for regulation due to benefits for tenants and reduced health-system burdens. Rights-based arguments are discussed, noting that universal rights are not absolute in practice and that rights are often defined and defended within existing laws such as New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act. The key takeaway is that while governments must protect rights, they also negotiate competing claims and consider potential unintended consequences of policy choices.
6.4. An animal rights case study
SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) and NZ Pork (farmers’ lobby)—as well as the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)—presented different perspectives on farrowing crates in 2016. SAFE argued from a rights-based standpoint that mother pigs deserve freedom and the opportunity to nest, highlighting the suffering of up to 14,000 sows confined for weeks. They also argued for treating animals as stakeholders with welfare needs that may outweigh economic considerations. NZ Pork argued that small farmers’ livelihoods and consumer access to pork must be protected, and that government support should help maintain higher welfare standards relative to other countries. MPI, which represents primary industry interests, uses a utilitarian approach and weighs diverse stakeholder views (farmers, industry groups, Treasury, animal welfare advocates, consumers, taxpayers, lawyers, and regulators). MPI’s National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee report in 2016 did not recommend banning farrowing crates, reflecting the policy context of the time. The section emphasizes how government decisions are shaped by the interplay of stakeholder interests and political timing, and how voters can influence outcomes through voting and advocacy.
7. Conclusion: stakeholder analysis summarised
Understanding stakeholders and their positions is central to planning effective civic engagement. A robust stakeholder analysis clarifies who is affected, who should be consulted, who may support or oppose, and what others are doing in relation to the issue. It encourages you to consider the level of engagement (global, national, or local), identify primary, secondary, and tertiary stakeholders, and assess the appropriate level of government involvement if relevant. The Government is a complex, powerful stakeholder with many parts; thus, you must think carefully about how to engage with this category. Overall, stakeholder analysis helps you anticipate opportunities for collaboration, identify potential allies, and design strategies that balance competing interests while aiming for the greater good, including long-term environmental and social outcomes. It also emphasizes the importance of engaging with mana whenua as treaty partners in a respectful, constructive manner to ensure meaningful participation and governance of environmental and public matters.