In favour of disagreement

Image 1: GPSNR’s Executive Committee at the latest General Assembly

Share This Post

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!

More To Explore

News

GPSNR Working Groups Update: August 2021

It’s been a month of progress! Here are the updates from each working group:

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

While the working group did not meet this month, they are focussed on finalising the Theory of Change and organising a workshop for the same in September. The group will also continue to work on refining the platform’s external partnerships approval process. 

Smallholder Representation Working Group

After a successful onboarding workshop for Indonesian smallholders, the group is welcoming new smallholder members at GPSNR. They are also planning  similar workshops for smallholders in Srilanka and Cambodia in September. Workshops in India, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana are also being kept in view and will be scheduled as soon as the COVID-19 situation allows.

At the same time, the smallholders will meet to discuss GPSNR’s agroforestry position next month (in tandem with the Capacity Building Working Group). 

Policy Toolbox Working Group

This working group has received draft documents from consultants on three significant aspects of the GPSNR assurance model: the Implementation Guidance, the Reporting Requirements and the Compliance Panel Guidance. 

They are currently focussed on finalising the reporting requirements. For this, they need members to send in their feedback by 30th August. If you haven’t yet done so, please take a look at the form here. This will make it possible for us to vote on the Reporting Requirements by the General Assembly in December 2021. 

The group is also busy revising and finalising the Implementation Guidance, which will be voted on at the General Assembly in early 2021. 

Capacity Building Working Group

The group has completed an initial review of documents on agroforestry, and will now initiate a task force to develop a position on agroforestry. If you are interested in being part of the task force, please contact Aidan and Si Yuan at aidan@gpsnr.org and yeo.siyuan@gpsnr.org respectively. 

They are also starting a national capacity building subgroup in Thailand after Michelin pledged funding for key projects in the country. Should you be interested in joining this subgroup, you can also write to Aidan and Si Yuan! 

Traceability and Transparency Working Group

This working group is currently finalising the definition and acceptable levels of traceability for GPSNR and developing data collection and reporting standards together with the Policy Toolbox working group.

Shared Responsibility Working Group

As a step forward on the discussion about the long term financial model, the group has discussed the preliminary concept of a rubber trust fund. It is now seeking inputs to refine and further develop the foundations of thel model.

News

The Road Ahead for GPSNR’s Working Groups

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

Moving forward, a key focus of the Strategy and Objectives Working Group is to look at increasing Working Group alignment within the Platform. Considering the interconnected nature of the work and the plan for Working Group-level Theories of Change, there is merit in bringing the Co-Chairs of Working Groups together to explore how to create better alignment. To this end, the Working Group is considering activities for the end of the year to build unity and alignment across all Working Groups.

The Working Group is also developing a procedure to assess external programs that are brought forward for GPSNR’s support, either by member organizations or by Working Groups. This process will involve evaluating the measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the project and to what degree the project links to GPSNR’s Theory of Change. 

Under the Equity sub-Group, the Living Income Gap studies for Indonesia and Thailand are now underway following the award of the proposals to the selected bidders.  

Smallholder Representation Working Group

Prior to the General Assembly (GA), the Smallholder Representation Working Group had organised three international calls to prepare smallholders for the GA. A fourth international call will be held sometime mid-October. 

In the lead-up to this final international call, a round of national calls are being held with the help of the various Country Champions. During these national calls, smallholder members will be able to gather their thoughts around the GA, approved resolutions and Executive Committee election results, as well as to think collectively about the issues they would like to cover as a category during the international call, and, moving forward, the details of the engagement mechanism they wish to implement within the category.

Post-GA, the Smallholder Representation Working Group will explore how best to integrate members of the newest category into the various Working Groups. The Working Group is also looking at its exit strategy, having achieved the goals set out for it in its Terms of Reference document.   

‘Policy Toolbox’ Working Group

Following the approval of the proposed policy framework, a multi-stakeholder Technical Working Group will be set up to draft the Implementation Guidance for member companies. 

Concurrently, the Working Group will also develop a policy equivalent and implementation guidance for smallholder producers, and civil society.   

The Shared Responsibility Working Group, whose creation was approved by the Executive Committee, will be established to identify how the responsibilities and costs of implementing sustainable natural rubber initiatives can be more equitably distributed across stakeholder categories. It will help to inform the development of the Implementation Guidance, while bearing in mind that whatever requirements are defined for smallholder members, those members should not carry the burden of a higher cost to implement sustainability activities and comply with the Policy or Implementation Guidance to be developed.

‘Capacity Building’ Working Group

At the end of July 2020, the Capacity Building Working Group had presented finalized capacity building strategies for four selected countries, to the Executive Committee.

For its next steps, the Working Group will be developing implementation guidelines and an evaluation framework. This will be crucial in ensuring that the various capacity building activities are put in place in a concise and effective manner leading to the outcomes framed in GPSNR’s Theory of Change. The Working Group will continue to discuss the feasibility and find consensus on an approach that relates to carbon compensation schemes around natural rubber. 

Finally, the Working Group will also refine its group structure to better address the changing roles and responsibilities it now faces.

‘Traceability and Transparency’ Working Group

The Working Group has awarded the GIS Database and Mapping Tools study to the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), and the Traceability and Transparency Tools Comparison study to e-Audit Hong-Kong Limited (e-Audit). 

The studies are ongoing, and the Working Group will then use those studies to develop next steps as well as recommendations to the Executive Committee.

The Working Group will also be continuing conversations on risk-based approach methods to evaluating field-level legal, social and environmental risks.

Scroll to Top