Assignment 5: Stakeholder Management 2 Nasif Imtiaz

The case is about Marius, a 18 months old male giraffe at Copenhagen Zoo. On 9 th February,
2014 while Marius was enjoying his favorite rye bread, he was culled by bolt gun at the zoo.

This incident grabbed public interest so rapidly with negativity due to some miscommunication
among the stakeholders. Obviously general public has been the focused group in this case. On the
other hand, Danish Animal Welfare Society has been on the opposite of the general public. So,
here I would like to analyze these two stakeholder groups.

Stakeholder Analysis on Salience Model:

General Public: Here we saw that the public didn’t have the power to stop the culling and autopsy
of a healthy giraffe. Rather, they were seeking urgent support to stop such barbaric act further by
forming protest group with animal activists, NGOs with some legal action. Thus, we may
consider general public as dependent stakeholder.
The Danish Animal Welfare Society: This society has influential power in the sense of it’s
legitimacy and power to control the activities of the zoo. Thus, we may consider this as dominant
stake holder.
Which strategy was less successful:
The zoo authority arranged an open session on the autopsy of Marius to educate the general
visitors on the anatomy of a giraffe. This event was also covered in social media and newspapers.
However, the whole process from culling to autopsy of the giraffe was done so openly that many
people considered it as a barbaric act. Although the online open pool in social media was against
the culling of the giraffe, the zoo authority carried it out without explaining their motive on such
act. Thus, it encountered a lot of criticism from the public and media and that’s why we can say
that this strategy of open autopsy without assessing the public reaction was an unsuccessful
exertion.

What was the successful strategy:

The zoo authority had discussion with the Danish Animal Welfare Society (DAWS) and was able
to explain why culling had been the best decision due genetic fault and it’s mission to European
zoo-breeding program. The DAWS realized the issue deeply and they further convinced the
public that what happened so far had been done for the long term sustainability through ensuring
healthy breeds. Thus, this convincing strategy has been so far effective and more successful
strategy in this case.
What could have been done best:
Both the public and the zoo authority wanted to act for the betterment. But, there was lack of
understanding and participation from the concerned stakes. If there had been proactive
discussions, meetings and knowledge sharing on the action to be performed, the grievances could
Assignment 5: Stakeholder Management 2 Nasif Imtiaz

have been avoided. Thus, an effective negotiation strategy could have better addressed the
situation.