Implementation Guidance/Reporting Requirements Stakeholder Category Focus Groups

Share This Post

Through a process led by the Policy Toolbox and Implementation Guidance Working Group (WG1), the General Assembly approved a Policy Framework in September 2020. The Framework outlines specific commitments to sustainable natural rubber that GPSNR company members must include in their public policies or other relevant documents.

The next step is for GPSNR to develop the Implementation Guidance and Reporting Requirements as they pertain to the specific commitments laid out in the GPSNR Policy Framework.  WG1 is engaging consultant(s) to develop the Implementation Guidance and Reporting Requirements. As the Implementation Guidance and Reporting Requirements will vary depending on where a member company sits within the natural rubber supply chain, input will be needed to develop these documents for the following stakeholder categories:  natural rubber producers/processors and traders, tire makers and other natural rubber product manufacturers, and auto makers and other end users.

GPSNR is creating focus groups for each of the three stakeholder categories to enable broader participation of members from each stakeholder group.  Members from other stakeholder groups are also encouraged to join the focus groups to help ensure a balanced dialogue.

Focus groups will work closely with the consultant(s) to ensure that the Implementation Guidance and Reporting Requirements are relevant to the respective stakeholder categories. Once these documents are finalized, they will be voted on at the next General Assembly.

GPSNR is now looking for volunteers to join the stakeholder category focus groups that will be consulted during the development of GPSNR’s Implementation Guidance. There are no limits to how many category members can join the focus groups. Members are encouraged to join at least one focus group.

The entire process is expected to conclude by June 2021.

More To Explore

News

GPSNR Working Groups Update: April 2023

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

The working group includes both the Risk subgroup and the Assurance Model task force and is currently working on some exciting stuff!

The Risk subgroup has been busy, with consortiums Agridence and Koltiva having kick started their pilot field trials on the traceability tools. They are actively pursuing the next steps for the deliverable from ASI on the Risk Assessment Framework. This includes conducting internal piloting and cross-walking the tool with GPSNR commissioned studies to identify gaps. Lastly, second in an ongoing series, the Traceability Tools Webinar will be occurring on 26th April and you may register for it here

The Assurance Model taskforce will be meeting to discuss updates on KPI alignments, due diligence system and the members progress model. 

Smallholders Representation and Capacity Building (SCB) Working Group

The SCB Working Group has proposed a new structure with three co-chairs and this has been officially endorsed. The next Working Group meeting will take place on 27th April, where they plan to formally endorse the Terms of Reference. 

Updates on the Income Diversification and Rubber Agroforestry taskforce, the strategy for 2023-2024 has been endorsed, and the taskforce will continue their work on planning the schedule and sequence of workshops and finalising the contractual plan. 

On the Digital Knowledge Sharing Platform front, Koltiva will work together with the taskforce to start developing the app and its features. In upcoming news, the Thailand Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) subgroup will publish the tender soon. 

 Policy Toolbox Working Group

Input has been collected on the reporting process from members through the Year 1 Reporting Review Survey. As part of this review, stakeholder- specific meetings will be conducted to collect more feedback on the reporting process. Based on the Year 1 Reporting Review results, any changes will be assessed to the reporting framework and its details (i.e., Process, Extensions, Questions), and disclosure requirements will need to be agreed on for reporting Years 2 and 3 (Transporting Reporting Roadmap- TRR). Future actions will require the reporting guidance for Year 2 to be improved according to changes proposed to the reporting matrix.

An RFP for consultants has recently been published to look into proposing a quantitative orientation for the reporting matrix and do a crosswalk with other reporting frameworks (CDP Forest, GRI and ZSL-SPOTT). On news of the Assurance Model front, what follows would be to finalise Compliance Panel Terms of Reference and operational guidance based on the Assurance Model.  

Shared Responsibility Working Group

During the physical meeting in January- February, the Governance and Guiding Principles were presented, Manufacturers will provide a revised document of said principles by April. 

Next phases for the Working Group are pending the outcomes of discussions on shared investment principles, which are currently happening on the Manufacturers category level. The Working Group will revamp data sharing and value transfer discussions once the proposal from the Manufacturers is available.

News

In favour of disagreement

Why conflict is crucial for meaningful sustainability initiatives

Aidan Mock, Impacts and Assurance Manager

Since joining the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber in July 2020, I have spent about 3,000 hours working for the organization. Malcolm Gladwell popularized the controversial idea that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at something which means that I still have a long way to go. Reflecting on these two numbers at the end of last year, I started to wonder how much time it takes GPSNR as a whole to demonstrate progress. I was most curious about our brand new Reporting Requirements (RRs) which were approved at the General Assembly last year. The RRs will ensure that all GPSNR members have standardised sustainability data which can be tracked, monitored, and analysed to meet our goals on sustainability and equity. Needless to say, this is a crucial piece of work for the global rubber industry.

 In June 2021, ZSL conducted 1.5-hour long focus group calls with each stakeholder category within GPSNR on the RRs. On average a total of 72 work hours were spent on this segment alone, with 12 people attending each of the four calls (12 x 4 x 1.5). In July, the Working Group convened its first meeting to discuss the proposed RRs in detail,  resulting in another 43.5 work hours spent on the RRs. 

The truly difficult months were October and November, where members met almost daily. An average of 19 people joined each of the 22 calls, which lasted about 1 hour and 45 minutes each time. In these two months, members spent a staggering 750 work hours discussing and negotiating the questions. 

By the time Reporting Requirements were sent out for General Assembly vote, GPSNR members had spent more than a thousand hours discussing the RRs at the working group level. The actual number is likely higher as I didn’t include the time spent in category-specific meetings, executive committee discussions, and meetings that ran over their intended time limit. The time taken to complete the RRs eventually amounted to a third of the time that I’ve been working at GPSNR.

Image 2: A screenshot of the tabulation on hours spent discussing the RRs

With members all across the world, these meetings meant sacrificing hundreds of hours of family dinners, early morning sleep, and mid-afternoon siestas! Yet members made the choice to show up for meetings day-after-day, demonstrating remarkable commitment to the mission of GPSNR.

From an outside perspective, one thousand work hours of meetings were needed to create 100 questions, which means we had a progress rate of 10 work hours per question! Sceptics of GPSNR would be quick to point out this “slow progress”, and I will admit that there are faster ways to formulate a hundred questions. However, if you want to get more than 100 members across different stakeholder categories to agree on reporting questions for the entire industry, this is the fastest that it can go. I observed something similar at a grand scale at the COP 26 negotiations in Glasgow in October. Parties spent hours discussing the choice of wording in key phrases and some even used valuable time to simply express disagreement with the text. 

If we are to achieve multi-stakeholder progress, we must adopt the same philosophy and spend time listening to the concerns and disagreements of all parties before we collaboratively develop  solutions to address these concerns. This process of listening to each other and finding solutions will take time, maybe even a thousand hours, but this is the fastest and most thorough way to do it while still honouring the multi-stakeholder principles of the platform.

One of our greatest strengths at GPSNR is that members can disagree with each other openly. I believe that disagreement and healthy negotiation is a sign of a diverse membership that trusts each other to listen and address their concerns. Being able to work towards solutions across “category lines” is also a sign that GPSNR is maturing as we approach our 10,000 work hours of collective practice. I hope we can carry forward this momentum and growth into the new year. I hope we continue to treat the disagreements that will inevitably arise as opportunities to listen, demonstrate empathy, and build trust. I hope we come to see the multi-stakeholder enterprise as one that is conflicting by design and slow by default.

This year, we will work to define the Implementation Guidance and the Transparency Roadmap for the reporting requirements and I expect these topics to involve extensive discussions and quite possibly extensive disagreement. For members already part of this work, I look forward to speaking with you on our calls. If you are not yet part of these discussions but feel  excited by the idea , feel free to write to us and we will ensure that you are included in the meetings that are soon to follow.

See you on a Zoom call soon!

Scroll to Top