Mapping Stakeholder Relations
the fuel that keeps the fire burning
In regards to the wicked problem of poor air quality in Pittsburgh, the power of stakeholder relationships has historically been swept under the rug in deference to a focus on cost-benefit analyses and profit margins. However, consideration of these relations offers insight into the conflict and emotion that keep the problem wicked.
I started by writing down stakeholders as I came across them in my research. Early on, they started to gravitate towards each other into three groups: regulators, industry polluters, and concerned constituents. These three umbrellas represent the actors producing the major forces that keep the problem from reaching an equilibrium. As I came across further stakeholders, they still often fell within these categories. (Later on, it became clear there are exceptions and outliers; stay tuned.)
In an interest to avoid simply falling into these three labels immediately, I mapped the relations between each stakeholder. Green represents a symbiotic relation, red a conflictual relation, and black a mixed relation.
I found that the regulatory agencies generally worked in conjunction with each other (although, while not represented here, the EPA can jump in an take over if a local agency is not meeting agreed upon goals). The relationships between non-profit agencies working to improve air quality I also found were generally positive (but there is certainly room for more collaboration.)
Industry stakeholders hold the most complex position within the stakeholder map. They have mixed relationships with government regulators and often tense relationships with activist groups. Industry entities that operate locally such as industrial plants like Clairton Coke Plant face the greatest backlash from local activist groups and attention from the local health department. Industry entities that operate nationally and/or with less visibility, are less often the subject of local groups’ actions.
After this exercise, I am still confident that regulators, industry polluters, and concerned constituents are still the most representative groups to use in the stakeholder triad as the core interactions and tensions that fuel the problem (and work towards its resolution) are between these groups.
Regulators are the mediators between industry polluters and concerned constituents. They have power to influence the the amount of emissions industry polluters release, but not as much as industry itself. To accomplish their hopes and desires of improving air quality and public health, they cannot show too much favor or contempt to either industry leaders or concerned constituents. They are in the most complex position and therefore have the most items across both lists because they are juggling the needs of other stakeholders while concerned constituents often are working on behalf of a more singular perspective: their own.
These three groups do not paint a complete picture, so I worked to fill it in by identifying the sub-groups that fit under each to nod towards further areas of exploration. This is important because the sub-groups may disagree on fears and concerns and hopes and desires, which would mean they may require customized remedies. For example, industrial sources (such as coke or power plants) directly release emissions while manufacturers of sources (such as automobile manufacturers) indirectly release emissions once their products are used by consumers. This key contrast would necessarily require a change in strategy because the responsibility for emissions and thus the scope of stakeholders involved and the potential leverage points are different.
Future Work
Further exploration of stakeholder relations in regards to poor air quality in Pittsburgh should:
- dig deeper into the relationships between local activist groups
- what do local activist groups think of regulators at the county, state, and federal levels? do they feel listened to? do they feel the regulators are doing enough?
- look into activist groups operating at the state and national levels, particularly in regards to campaigns against automobile emissions, clean energy/reducing fossil fuels, and climate change
- characterize the relationship between regulators and industry sources through greater investigation; look into how political leaders and industry lobbyists/sponsors have influenced regulatory decisions
