A stakeholder mapping exercise was carried out [10 (link)] using academic papers reviewing alcohol policy development in South Africa, an economic assessment of proposed alcohol legislation by a private consultancy [11 (link)–14 (link)], and consultation with three experts from three South African academic institutions (University of the Western Cape, University of Witwatersrand, and University of Cape Town). We identified ten categories of stakeholders with a potential interest in alcohol pricing policy: policy makers and government; general public; civil society organisations; practitioners and professionals; lobby groups; media; international public health bodies; research community; private business; and police (specific entities under each of these categories are given in Appendix 1 in the Online Supplementary Material (OSM)). This mapping exercise provided familiarisation with high-profile experts/stakeholders/organisations in the field and a list for future research dissemination.
Following this, we drew up a short list of experts working in alcohol policy in South Africa selecting just three of the stakeholder categories: policy makers and government (both local and national); the research community; and civil society organisations. We chose stakeholders from government so that our research would be tailored to important policy questions and evidence gaps, and to establish working relationships that would provide opportunities to communicate our research directly to those who would be developing alcohol policy. We chose researchers (academics) in order to expose our work to critical questioning from those with expertise in local data and modelling methods already applied in South Africa. We chose civil society organisations as we believed them to be close to those who suffer the impact of alcohol harm in South Africa while still having the professional skills to immediately be able to engage and contribute to the research. The civil society groups provided an important check on the modelling team, as well as the other stakeholders, who may be disconnected from how alcohol harm affects the poorest groups. For example, the members of one organisation were residents of an informal settlement in Cape Town and were able to describe the activities of alcohol companies in their township and the impact of heavy drinking. They also provided helpful checks on some of the data, for example the price of alcohol in shebeens (unlicensed alcohol premises in informal settlements).
There were many other groups that we did not engage, including business, the media and general public. This was a pragmatic decision taken within the constraints of the project. Specifically, we wished to avoid the management of a disparate set of conflicting interests within a highly politicised policy area, which were also expected to make recruitment of the other stakeholder groups more difficult. We also were not able to devote more resource to engaging groups or individuals unused to being consulted on policy and research.
Following this, we drew up a short list of experts working in alcohol policy in South Africa selecting just three of the stakeholder categories: policy makers and government (both local and national); the research community; and civil society organisations. We chose stakeholders from government so that our research would be tailored to important policy questions and evidence gaps, and to establish working relationships that would provide opportunities to communicate our research directly to those who would be developing alcohol policy. We chose researchers (academics) in order to expose our work to critical questioning from those with expertise in local data and modelling methods already applied in South Africa. We chose civil society organisations as we believed them to be close to those who suffer the impact of alcohol harm in South Africa while still having the professional skills to immediately be able to engage and contribute to the research. The civil society groups provided an important check on the modelling team, as well as the other stakeholders, who may be disconnected from how alcohol harm affects the poorest groups. For example, the members of one organisation were residents of an informal settlement in Cape Town and were able to describe the activities of alcohol companies in their township and the impact of heavy drinking. They also provided helpful checks on some of the data, for example the price of alcohol in shebeens (unlicensed alcohol premises in informal settlements).
There were many other groups that we did not engage, including business, the media and general public. This was a pragmatic decision taken within the constraints of the project. Specifically, we wished to avoid the management of a disparate set of conflicting interests within a highly politicised policy area, which were also expected to make recruitment of the other stakeholder groups more difficult. We also were not able to devote more resource to engaging groups or individuals unused to being consulted on policy and research.
