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: March 2022

All GPSNR working groups have a large chunk of work ahead of them. Here are all their updates: 

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

The group has made good progress by establishing the new risk task force that will evaluate the exact scope of GPSNR’s risk based approach. It has also got its new Terms of Reference approved by the Executive Committee, and is now working on contracting a consultant for the Economic Risk Study and conducting a gap analysis of GPSNR’s current activities based on the platform’s Theory of Change.

Smallholder Representation Working Group

Having published the RFP to develop the GPSNR Smallholders Policy Framework equivalent, the group is focussing on the first Smallholders International Call of the year in March 2022, workshops in Liberia and Malaysia, and on developing country-specific smallholder engagement activities with smallholders and Country Champions.

Policy Toolbox Working Group

This group is continuing discussions among its three new subgroups: Transparent reporting roadmap, Implementation Guidance and RR Guidance & Tools. In the coming months, they will finalize guidance for the reporting requirements and share it with companies

At the same time, they are working with the smallholder representation working group on the Smallholder Policy Framework equivalent.

Capacity Building Working Group

After publishing the GAPs as living documents in English and Bahasa and selecting SNV-Proforest and Koltiva as consultants to work on the GAPs coaching in Indonesia, the working group continues to develop capacity building plans for Indonesia, Thailand and Ivory Coast.

They are also seeking your inputs for GPSNR’s knowledge sharing platform, which you can provide here.

Traceability and Transparency Working Group

Having finalized the traceability and transparency primer, the WG will wind down its operations.

Shared Responsibility Working Group

The Shared Responsibility has completed a review of the Shared Responsibility Framework, incorporating feedback from the Executive Committee. The Working Group will present an updated proposal to the EC as the next step, with a view to prepare a resolution at the 2022 General Assembly.

Members

Updates from the Working Groups (Members Version)

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

The study on Human Rights and Labour Rights’ Risk Mapping in the Global Natural Rubber Value Chains conducted by independent consultants James Griffiths & Associates Sàrl has been submitted to the Working Group. The full study will be published on the GPSNR website shortly, and the document will be open to stakeholders for comments.

Meanwhile, the Strategy and Objectives Working Group has started to engage with the rest of the Working Groups on aligning with the Theory of Change, and developing platform KPIs. 

The Equity sub-Group has collected comments from the Strategy and Objectives Working Group on the proposed definition of equity. The sub-Group is also exploring engaging consultant James Griffiths to conduct research into equity risks along the natural rubber supply chain, with the plan to have the findings of this study feed into the definition. The sub-Group is currently in the process of establishing an operational plan to define the various workstreams, processes, timelines, and  responsibilities for the Living Income study. The first phase of the study will involve collecting existing benchmark data and doing desk research on national poverty lines, minimum wages, and other relevant information. For greater alignment with the Capacity Building Working Group’s scope, the Equity sub-Group has decided to focus on the same four countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. 

‘Policy Toolbox’ Working Group

The proposed Policy Components and Baseline Reporting Requirements are open for member consultation until 3 July 2020. Find out more here

‘Capacity Building’ Working Group

The regional sub-Groups described the various findings and recommendations in a presentation to the larger Working Group at the end of May. Eight initiatives were proposed to be shared across the four focus countries, each corresponding to a critical issue identified through stakeholder interviews. These eight initiatives are: access to pure certified (re)planting material, promote the CO2 compensation scheme, promote value rubber wood, improve access to finance, disease fighting, dissemination of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), income diversification, and improve reach and quality of extension services. Depending on the initiatives recommended for each country, three priority actions have been suggested, forming the basis for a 3-year programme.

The sub-Group for Thailand organized a call with some of Thai smallholder members to seek their opinion on the proposed initiatives. The discussion proved to be a fruitful one, with the smallholders providing advice and suggesting alternative initiatives for the sub-Group to consider. The subgroup for Côte d’Ivoire, which has a smallholder member who is a representative from a local producer association in participation, has also contextualized the proposed initiatives to the local conditions of smallholders and industrial plantations.

The other sub-Groups are also planning to get smallholder members’ input on the capacity building initiatives for their respective countries of focus.

‘Traceability and Transparency’ Working Group

The Working Group has started discussions on risk assessment, and will be linking up with the Policy Toolbox Working Group as well as consultant James Griffiths on the results of the social risks study.

The terms of reference for the two pilot proposals have been finalized after several rounds of additional revision. The documents will be submitted soon to the Executive Committee. 

Smallholders Representation Working Group

The Working Group continues to plan and prepare for the smallholders programme prior to the General Assembly. In particular, terms of reference are being drafted for a professional facilitator to manage the smallholder workshop sessions for the pre-GA programme.

Scroll to Top