Updates on the GPSNR Baseline Reporting Requirements Pilot Test

Share This Post

In early June 2020, GPSNR member companies were invited to participate in pilot testing a set of draft Baseline Reporting Requirements developed by the Policy Toolbox and Implementation Guidance Working Group. Along with the newly approved Policy Components, the Baseline Reporting Requirements will constitute a key requirement for GPSNR membership. 

“By having robust reporting requirements and a system to transparently report on progress, GPSNR member companies will be able to demonstrate leadership, monitor and further the effective implementation of their sustainability commitments, and ultimately drive positive impacts in the natural rubber value chain,” explained Amy Smith, Policy Toolbox Working Group Co-Chair.

The Working Group proposed pilot testing the Baseline Reporting Requirements with a group of volunteer member companies to better understand any constraints companies may have in obtaining and sharing certain information. The goal of the pilot was to refine and finalize the Baseline Reporting Requirements based on company feedback.

“In addition to pilot testing with member volunteers, we will also be assessing and evaluating the potential of existing certification schemes and reporting systems to adopt as part of GPSNR reporting requirements,” added Policy Toolbox Working Group Co-Chair, Pierre Bois d’Enghien. “This evaluation, together with the feedback we received from the pilot, will help us build a reporting system that is credible and useful for all stakeholders.” 

We are pleased to announce that a total of 11 GPSNR members volunteered for the pilot test. These members, who include Continental AG, Ford Motor Company, Halcyon Agri Corporation Limited, Hevea-Tec Indústria e Comércio LTDA, Industrias de Exportacion Universal, S.A., ITOCHU Corporation, Michelin, SIPH, Socfin SA, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Ltd, and The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd., represent all the membership categories to which the Baseline Reporting Requirements would apply. 

In mid-July, the reporting platform was opened to the pilot participants, who were given three weeks to submit the required data. Concurrently, the Secretariat conducted one-on-one interviews with the participants to gather feedback about their experience using the baseline reporting platform as well as their suggestions on ways to improve the process. 

“Our volunteer member companies were instrumental in helping to refine the Baseline Reporting Requirements and ensuring that the platform’s reporting mechanisms are relevant and meaningful for all our members,” said GPSNR Director Stefano Savi. “This improvement will help us achieve our shared objectives of ensuring a sustainable and equitable natural rubber supply chain.”

Following the approval of the policy requirements at the General Assembly in September, the Policy Toolbox Working Group will review the compiled company feedback from the pilot and the member consultation process conducted earlier this year, and will refine and finalize the Baseline Reporting Requirements for Executive Committee approval by the end of 2020. Once the Executive Committee has approved these requirements, ordinary company members will submit their baseline reporting data for 2020 to GPSNR in Q1 of 2021.

The Baseline Reporting Requirements will enable GPSNR to understand what its member companies currently know about their natural rubber supply chains, and what they are doing to move towards sustainable practices. Having a rigorous and transparent reporting process in place will strengthen the credibility of GPSNR and contribute to the development of a robust Assurance system for the platform.

More To Explore

Members

Developing a GPSNR Assurance Model (Members Version)

Assurance is defined as demonstrable evidence that specified requirements relating to a product, process, system, person or body are fulfilled. In other words, thinking about Assurance is to ponder the question: how do we protect the credibility of our claim?

The Executive Committee (EC) has been working on an Assurance model concept since late 2019. Following the request for proposal put up in August 2019, an external consultant was engaged to conduct a review of the options for various Assurance Models that would support the desired outcomes of the Platform. In early 2020, the report from the consultant, which discussed existing approaches to Assurance and included recommendations for GPSNR’s approach to Assurance, was submitted to the EC. 

The EC considered the input from the report and expanded upon its findings by conducting a thorough benchmarking of existing Assurance model approaches. Following this exercise, the EC identified and defined several key characteristics that merit inclusion in GPSNR’s Assurance model concept.

In the process of developing these key characteristics, the EC also took into account the purpose, value and benefits of an Assurance model. 

A robust Assurance model would provide a credible and effective system to manage risks by supporting the achievement of sustainability impacts, focusing on accurate assessments of compliance, ensuring the effectiveness of its assurance strategies through good information management systems, and finding additional ways to create value for stakeholders.

A webinar will be held on Friday, 26 June 2020 to introduce GPSNR members to a proposed Assurance model concept. To register for the webinar, please click here.

A tabled summary of the process and timelines around the development of the Assurance model concept up until now is included below:

January 2020 Consultant report submitted to EC for review
January – February 2020 EC discussions
March 2020 Deep dive into Assurance model benchmark by EC sub-group
April 2020 EC agrees on basic characteristics to build Assurance model from
April – June 2020 Design, discussion and refinement within EC

Both the report by the external consultant and benchmark exercise completed by the EC are available to members upon request.

News

Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

‘’Taking the first step even when you don’t see the entire staircase’’: Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

                                                                            Bani Bains, Communications Manager, GPSNR

GPSNR offers a unique common ground, for peers to engage from across a complex supply chain. This makes it possible for us to have a more holistic perspective of each others’ challenges and aspirations for a sustainable and equitable natural rubber supply chain.

For Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien, co-chairs of the Policy Toolbox and Implementation Guidance Working Group, the aspirations and challenges of all member categories became most apparent as they worked on putting together the GPSNR Policy Framework, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2020. Today, all member companies must comply with the policy framework within six months of their membership into GPSNR.

As the first batch of member companies publish policies that are in line with the policy framework, Amy and Pierre had a conversation with me about the journey so far, and how the framework guides their current work around the development of different aspects of GPSNR’s assurance model.


BB: To start off, for anyone who isn’t familiar with GPSNR, could you very quickly tell us what the policy framework does and who it is for?

AS: The policy framework guides the company members at GPSNR with a common set of commitments for sustainable natural rubber. This aligns all categories in their pursuit of a sustainable supply chain and ensures we’re all headed in the same direction to uphold a specific set of environmental, social and economic values. The alignment is key in achieving GPSNR’s goals.

PB: The adoption of the policy framework across the supply chain also denotes a shared responsibility towards GPSNR’s objectives.

AS: Beyond these, there are also benefits for companies to have a policy. It can help companies to orient their actions to achieve sustainability, it can also help in engagement with their shareholders and in reflecting leadership. The next step after this, of course, is putting their policies into action, for which we are working on Implementation Guidance.

BB: If you were to go down memory lane, what was the process like of creating this policy framework from scratch? Is there any particular meeting or memory that stands out as an ‘aha’/goosebumps moment?

AS: We started with looking at the Accountability Framework for best practice guidance for developing a policy to develop the main elements of the framework: the policy components. With that in mind, we formed a drafters’ group which included some working group members including Pierre and myself, a representative from the Accountability Framework and two consultants. This group developed the first draft of the policy framework and then facilitated the incorporation of suggestions from other working group members.

What stands out for me is that it was a very, very long process – do you have anything in mind Pierre?

PB: Yes! Just to remind you, I joined the working group and the drafters’ group only in February 2020. By then, Amy and team had already taken care of a lot of work. But after I joined, I recall that it took us a long time to discuss all the components of the policy framework. Each word, each sentence, each idea had very important outcomes linked to them. It was a big feat to reach consensus, and sometimes that meant compromise among civil society and industry members. I think it took us almost one year to decide on the 37 components of the policy framework.

AS: Yes, there was painstaking detail to choose every word in the framework, and several rounds of consultation. Another challenge was the fact that we couldn’t have face to face meetings – and so reaching consensus took even longer than what we expected.

PB: Do you know the 80:20 rule? 80% of the work was completed before I joined, but the final 20% took 90% of the time. And even now, some of the language may need to be tweaked, especially as companies are now adopting these policies and are looking to move into implementation.

BB: Was the framework designed to be a ‘do no harm framework’ covering the minimum requirements from companies, or was it meant to go above and beyond that?

AS: I would consider legality as the minimum for companies to be complying with, but the actions proposed in the policy framework take quite a bit of work and go well beyond that.

Rubber supply chains are very complex, and getting visibility on the ground can be daunting, but it isn’t impossible. And that’s what civil society players are stressing upon: the fact that you need to have transparency on the ground.

BB: And was that a point of contention during the discussions leading up to the policy framework?

AS: We did a lot of discussion around clauses 7.1 and 7.2, and how to deal with the fact that the majority of rubber comes from smallholders.

I think there is another piece to this puzzle – which is that the processors, who are going to be doing a majority of the work, want some assurance from the downstream, that they’re going to be supported financially and technically in doing that work.

PB: Each conversation had a watermark of a significant question: who is going to pay for externalities? While we don’t have answers to some of these questions even now, the policy framework as it stands serves as a good starting point in a continuously evolving, complex but very exciting process.

BB: Did either of you have any non-negotiables in the policy framework that you would have not compromised on?

AS: Ah, yes! The commitment to no deforestation and having a cut-off date was important, because without that you can never define what deforestation is. We spent a lot of time on these points. And then there are others, like the commitment to human rights and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which we would have insisted on – but we didn’t have to because they were included straight away.

That alignment always existed across the board, because we are all committed to the principles of GPSNR. Nobody was saying those parts of the framework shouldn’t be there, though how they were framed was debated at length. This is because that would directly inform the implementation.

PB: From my side, the one non-negotiable was to use the HCV and HCS approach as the only tool to implement the zero deforestation policy. It was globally agreed among the members, but we were very cautious about the words.

BB: What can companies that have adopted the policy framework do before the implementation guidance is developed?

AS: There are several companies that have been active in this space for years now. And they’ve been contributing to the various working groups in applying their on ground knowledge to the requirements and tools. Beyond that, doing everything they can to achieve supply chain transparency is critical to be able to prioritize areas for action and to make any eventual claims about rubber’s sustainability.  You can’t have sustainability unless you know the origin of your raw material.  Companies can also refer to the Accountability Framework’s operational guidance for support regarding how to put their policies into practice while GPSNR’s Implementation Guidance is being finalized. 

PB: They might know more than they think they do! When I start to write a sustainability report for a company, they don’t always have all the data or figures in one place. Most of the time, they have the information, but sometimes don’t know where to find it.

BB: If you had the opportunity to say something to members who may still be hesitant to comply with the policy framework, what would you say?

PB: I can understand fears around implementation and commitment to some components for members who are quite far from the field. But, we still have to find a commitment to reach the desired state. The policy is simply a part of the journey to sustainability, as are the challenges. We are not looking to blame anyone for non-compliance, but encourage intention to comply. So, just be fair, be honest, and do your best. And if you find some challenges in the implementation, bring them to us.

AS: The benefits of having a policy are numerous, including but not limited to: sending a signal internally and externally that the issues covered by the policy are important to the company and that resources and capacity will be dedicated to its implementation; providing clarity on a company’s goals and facilitating the roll-out of company commitments to suppliers upstream and buyers downstream; enabling the effective monitoring and measuring of progress; and supporting a company’s compliance with existing and emerging legislation on avoiding deforestation and upholding human and labor rights.

I think there is a misunderstanding that after a policy is adopted, companies have to be in full compliance with it from day one. That’s not a realistic expectation  for any company; first companies need to understand where they are at as a baseline and from there, they will need to demonstrate continuous improvement. As responsible GPSNR members, companies will have to submit their action plans that outline how they will implement the different parts of their policies. They will also track progress and show continuous improvement through submission of annual reporting to GPSNR.  The working group is currently developing the tools they’ll need to do this – the Implementation Guidance that’s designed to help orient companies on their sustainability journey, and the reporting requirements that are a key element of GPSNR’s assurance model.  We still have a lot of work to do to finalize these two bodies of work, but fortunately, the Policy Framework provides a solid foundation from which to develop them.    


In a complex supply chain historically burdened by social, economic and environmental inequality, the policy framework Pierre and Amy speak of serves as a guiding document for a hopeful future. As GPSNR members take this first step, even though the entire staircase isn’t fully visible just yet, their commitment towards transforming an entire supply chain is commendable.If you’re a GPSNR member looking for support around aligning with the policy framework, please reach out to us at info@gpsnr.org.

Scroll to Top