Secretariat Update – September 2019

By James Chang Wen Jie, Michelin

In February 2022, the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber released its Theory of Change (ToC), a document which articulates how the platform aims to positively impact the supply chain and achieve its desired states.  As a representative of my company Michelin at the platform, I have been part of this intensive, fulfilling task for the last year.

While I had some previous experience with ToC frameworks for individual projects, this was the first time I was engaged in one at a multi stakeholder platform level. The major difference here, and one emblematic of the ‘GPSNR multi-stakeholder experience’, was that we needed to integrate as many perspectives and expertise as we could, from all of GPSNR’s working groups and member categories. After all, bringing this theory of change to life is a task that will eventually fall on every stakeholder represented in GPSNR. If we wanted a document that the platform could truly rally around, we needed a co-creation process built on inclusivity as well as accountability.

My fellow task team members Martin Hollands (BirdLife International) and James Laimos (Goodyear) can attest to the fact that the journey was hard work. Yet, over the two half-day platform workshops and numerous additional consultation sessions with working group chairs and interested members, the strength of the platform showed itself in the depth of insights provided during discussions, and in the rigor of the final document. I am confident we would not have arrived where we did without the unique mix of experiences and operating contexts that members had. As a representative of my organization, the exposure to a wide range of perspectives from all along the natural rubber value chain is also a valuable input to our own sustainability journey, alongside and in addition to GPSNR.

The most visible output of this work is this interactive web-document accessible on the GPSNR website. While it is an easy and simple introduction to our work, it is nonetheless a result of a rigorous and intensive process, which required the investment of many stakeholders (including many hours of hard deliberation by the task team!). This of course belies the question:

Does theory matter and was this time really worth it?

It’s a question the task team asked itself a number of times as well. However, my own journey in sustainability has taught me that while it is tempting to jump straight to action, issues on the ground are often more complex than they seem, and well-meaning actions can lead to unintended outcomes. We therefore not only need to know where we are going, but also need to map and understand the series of events or actions that will get us there. A theory of change exercise allows us to dig deep into the root causes of the current situation, leveraging on the experience and expertise we have across working groups and stakeholder categories to work on plans that tackle issues at their core.

Articulating the theory of change at this juncture in GPSNR’s journey also allows for a ‘stock take’ before the platform accelerates into implementation. The journey towards sustainability in the natural rubber supply chain is a complex one which requires a careful balance of environmental, social, and economic spheres. It also requires coordinating work on multiple action areas (i.e., the work of GPSNR’s many working groups) to make sure that our activities truly address identified root problems without any major gaps.

In fact, these conversations did end up identifying some gaps, and spurred us to explore solutions. For example, a member brought up the point that real impact across the world’s 6 million smallholders would mean that GPSNR would need some way to multiply its impact beyond farmers benefited through direct involvement in GPSNR or its capacity building programmes. Further conversation and the sharing of case studies from experiences in other commodities identified that a key intervention to tackle will be to empower networks of farmers that can promulgate good practices in, and beyond their communities.

As the world emerges from the aftermath of the pandemic and unprecedented supply chain disruptions, being clear on what we need to do to truly make an impact is more important than ever. I hope that interacting with GPSNR’s Theory of Change will give you a good idea of where we’re headed, and how we hope to get there!

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!