Last week’s blog began answering the question that many in multi-stakeholder change networks hear :  “So what is it you actually do?”  I wrote about the first two activities of such Global Action Networks (GANs) listed in the Table, and now I’ll explain more about the other four activities.

Networks, Learning and Research

Learning is a core part of most GANs’ work, since how to realize their goals is not always obvious and participants’ capacity to contribute to reaching them must be developed. However, GANs often have a remarkably underdeveloped sense of this work. At a meeting of GAN staff who had roles in developing knowledge and learning, they all said that they had very few resources and learning outcomes and strategies were poorly defined. Nevertheless, GANs put an enormous part of their resources into learning, when all the meetings and time in conversation to develop knowledge and capacity are taken into account.

Learning is a key activity of the Global Compact, as it develops lessons to share amongst companies on how the UN principles it promotes can be implemented. It is also a key activity of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), which similarly organizes participants into regional learning groups and shares lessons across them.

For the GANs in health care, research is a particularly important activity. Often this is a traditional type of research:  half of the Stop TB’s 10-year work plan concerns R&D for new vaccines. The GANs support collaborative development of this research, bringing together government, civil society, and commercial organizations with their distinctive expertise and capabilities.

Networks, Measuring and Certifying

Certification is a popular organizing strategy to realize change. Production of goods and services is assessed in terms of social, environmental, and economic standards, and GANs certify whether those standards have been met. The International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) is an association of GANs, including the Marine Stewardship Council, Social Accountability International, and the fair trade groups associated with the Fair Labelling Organization.

Several GANs make development of impact measurement frameworks and infrastructure a core part of their work. Although the Global Reporting Initiative does not actually get involved in measurement or certification, it develops the frameworks for companies to assess their impact in terms of social, economic, and environmental outcomes. And in fact, most ISEAL members do not actually do the certification, although they certify the certifiers. Transparency International also has an important measurement program, with its Corruption Perceptions Index that rates countries. And The Access Initiative’s (TAI’s) core strategy has to do with the broader measurement concept of “assessing” countries’ fulfillment of their commitments in the Rio Declaration to access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision-making.

Networks and Financing

The Global Water Partnership (GWP) exemplifies a GAN formed by donors who want to give scale to their efforts by pooling financial resources. The network has been supported financially by many developed countries. For these funders, the GWP is an economical way to achieve the overall goals of promoting social equity, economic efficiency, and environmental sustainability, by improving the way water is managed and developed.

This pooling of financial resources is at the heart of most of the health GANs, like the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The latter is financially by far the largest of any GAN: in the 8 years following its 2002 founding it had approved funding of US$ 19.3 billion for more than 572 programs in 144 countries.

As well the GAN structure often facilitates approaching funders.  For example, GANs can put together proposals that cover a much larger geographic area and be of a much large scale than their individual participants or regional components.  This can make them more attractive to the funders.

Networks and Advocating

GANs’ advocating strategy usually resembles a co-learning approach across traditional divides, rather than a traditional lobbying and pressuring strategy. This is demonstrated by TAI. TAI takes a learning approach when conducting “assessments” of governments’ performance vis-à-vis their commitments to provide access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision-making.

Although NGOs are in control of TAI, “TAI members recognize that governments are not monolithic; they are filled with allies and opponents,” comments Joe Foti, TAI Associate. This leads to a diversity of TAI advocacy strategies with the goal of governments co-participating in the actual process of assessing. TAI country coalitions find that it usually helps to conduct the assessments in close relationship with a supportive government agency, such as the national Ministry of Environment that is usually weak on finance, political power, and science. In Thailand the TAI coalition includes an institute sponsored by the King of Thailand, which gives it legitimacy in government eyes. And in Africa, the TAI-Cameroon representative was actually asked to advocate to other governments and speak on his government’s behalf at a UNEP Governing Council meeting on access to information, participation, and justice in environmental decision-making.

Of course GANs integrate these six strategies. For example, The Climate Group focuses in particular on bringing together local and state/provincial governments and business. One project demonstrates the effectiveness of outdoor LED lighting with city government. This requires bringing together LED experts, financial institutions to finance the city’s investments, and local government. Bjorn Roberts, Corporate Partnership Manager for The Climate Group comments: “We make (climate change) a compelling topic for all, and put it on their agenda. The conversations don’t happen unless people are put together.” Through The Climate Group, a local city project becomes a global pilot. It combines the strategies of shared visioning of green cities, system organizing by bringing together the diverse partners, learning with the pilot, financing through developing new financial instruments, and advocating with other cities to follow the pilot.

This table aims to provide an analytical tool for networks to ask questions about their own strategies.  What are they doing in each area?  Which ones are they strong in?  Which ones should they develop further.  I hope you find it helpful!

“So what is it you actually do?” is a common question of anyone who works in a multi-stakeholder change network like a Global Action Network (GAN).  Building on work done with others, I now answer that there are six particular functions for such networks that fall under their broad role as change agents.  A network usually does more than one, but focuses on only one or two.

These are summarized in the Table, and the first two are discussed further. This Table can be used to assess a network’s activities.  Is it using all the activities?  If not, why not?  Does it need to do all of them? Which activities is it particularly good at?  Which should it strengthen?  How?

Shared Visioning

This is associated not just with a visionary statement, but also a statement of principles and ways to operationalize that vision.  However, this vision is never really “complete”.  The vision needs continual renewal with new participants as they join.  Also, the vision continues to develop as GANs operationalize it and give it greater precision and meaning.

The visioning is often associated with putting an issue on “the global agenda” – making it something people take up as an issue and challenge.  The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, for example, put “conflict prevention” with NGOs as well as governments having a key role, on the global agenda.

The visioning activity also engages people and organizations that are not participants in the GANs, typically through “campaigns”.  The Climate Group organizes big events with big names at strategic moments.  For example, it organized Climate Week in New York four months in advance of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, with the UN, the City, business leaders, the Carbon Disclosure Project and others.  Participants included the Secretary General of the UN with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

For the Principles in Responsible Investment (PRI), this is represented by the six principles themselves. The opening statement of the principles refers to “…act(ing) in the best long-term interests of our beneficiaries” as an over-all vision.  One of the PRI principles that follows is “We (signatories) will incorporate environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.”  What that means in actual action is a key part of PRI’s work.  PRI gives an illustration on its web-site of seven types of action this can involve.  The initial vision-setting can take considerable time and effort, as described in the next chapter on development stages.

System Organizing

System organizing is a key, on-going piece of almost all GANs’ work.  It involves creating links (bridging “structural holes” in the words of social network analyst Ron Burt) that facilitate gaining scale and exchanges of knowledge and resources.  Perhaps most importantly the links and GANs as a platform provide opportunities for coordination among sub-groups, and the critical overall development of “coherence” (improved alignment of network participants’ efforts for change as discussed in an earlier blog).

This can vary with the GAN’s particular development stage and shifting priorities.  For Ecoagriculture Partners, organizing was an initial driver, then people realized that their needed to be greater clarity about what it wanted participants to actually do, and increasing numbers of participants was put on the back burner for a while.  A GAN might stall in its push for system organizing, and essentially become a “club” for a small group of organizations in more of a partnership-like mode.

Ernst Ligteringen, Chief Executive of the Global Reporting Initiative points to the importance of system organizing, saying:  “It is really being multi-stakeholder, building bridges, helping different groups to understand each other.   There’s still a big gulf between civil society and business.   In the mainstream the views are still informed by prejudices and vie from one’s own constituencies rather than experience working with the other.”

System organizing is also associated with questions about governance renewal.  As a GAN grows, it must find new ways of engaging increasing numbers of participants in the decision-making processes.

The other four functions will be discussed next week.

If you are starting or working in a network, you should use new mapping technologies to “see the whole”.  Knowing who is working in your field and their relationships is key for good strategy.  In a previous blog, I briefly introduced several mapping technologies.  Now I’ll give more details about one of the easier and quicker ways to map:  using web crawls.   They give a view of the structure of the “virtual (digital) world”, that is becoming an increasingly good description of “real world” relationships as the internet develops.

“Hyper-links” embedded in organizations’ web-sites that link to another organization’s site can be gathered through web crawls of internet sites.  A map such as in the diagrams below can then be generated to describe organizations’ virtual relationships.

I did this with the Global Organizational Learning and Development Network (GOLDEN), using the Issue Crawler developed by Richard Rogers at the University of Amsterdam.  The mapping was driven by the GOLDEN goals in terms of key stakeholder groups.  It aims to bring together leading academic research centers and businesses to spur attainment of sustainability.  The issue arena can be labeled “academic-corporate interactions for corporate sustainable responsibility (CSuR)”. The founders speak in terms of engaging 50 research centers and 250 corporations within a short time.  “Community organizing” is not framed as a goal, but it is an implicit activity to realize the goal.

Network Development Rule 1

Rule number one in initiating a network is to understand that someone is always already working in the issue arena…and to identify them if possible.  As in most cases, some of the leaders in the issue arena are among the founders of the new network—although they’re all academic CSuR leaders.  And as is also true in most cases in global networks, they are mainly older white men (like me!).  To realize a global network with all the complexions that implies for the issue, mapping can help enormously.

Issue crawls begin by identifying key URLs – referred to as “seed URLs” – relevant to your issue arena. In this case, I identified networks of organizations of two major stakeholder groups that are working CSuR.  First to note is that the issue arena is already quite crowded:  I identified 9 existing academic-business CSuR networks including ABIS, GRLI and UNPRME.  Also I identified 14 business CSuR networks including Business for Social Responsibility, the International Business Leaders Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Using these 23 seeds to conduct crawls produces data about URL connections and maps that display connections visually.  Some notes on “reading” the maps:

• Always remember you are looking at the virtual (digital) world of relationships.  Although it increasingly aligns with the real world, particularly for global issues, idiosyncrasies remain.  For example, educational institutions are much more reticent to link to external URLs than, for example, NGOs.  And some simply have much less developed web-sites in this regard…EABIS, for example, does not have outlinks;  GRLI has outlinks, but not for its institutional partners (but note that importance of a URL is suggested by inlinks –  links directed at it from other URLs).
• Nodes are sized according to the number of inlinks .
• Nodes’ relative locations are the product of their links and those of others in the network (nodes they are “closest to”).
• The maps here are all co-link ones which means they show nodes with two or more links in the network.  As well, they display the top 200 nodes’ links for the seed URLs (there are actually only 112-118 nodes in these maps, since some nodes have multiple links).
• In these maps I’ve color-coded the seed URLs for each map:  red for the academic-business networks, green for the business CSuR networks, and purple for multi-stakeholder networks (explained below).

In Map 1 (click on the map to enlarge) only eight of the seed URLs are among the top 200 nodes.  The map suggests two centers (clustering of big nodes):  one around intergovernmental organizations like the UN and World Bank, and another around multi-stakeholder networks, in particular the Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  This leads me to do additional runs that:

1. Exclude the IGOs…I perceive them as “background noise” that is masking the relationships in the issue arena I want to describe;  and
2. Include as seeds the URLs of multi-stakeholder networks’ (Global Action Networks’…GANs’) that are clearly working in the issue arena:  the Global Compact, the Principles for Responsible Investment, the Global Reporting Initiative and Transparency International.

Map 2 is a run excluding the IGOs.  It shows the business CSuR (green) nodes as central, the academic-business CSUR (red) seeds as fewer and more peripheral (suggesting the importance for them of their linkage to IGOs rather than business CSuR networks), and reinforces the idea that the GANs should be included because of their centrality and size.

Map 3 also includes the GANs as seeds (purple). We can see that there are more academic-business (red) and business CSuR (green) network seeds (10), which also supports the decision to include GANs and exclude IGOs.  The seeds for the business CSuR networks and GANs group, which would be expected as they tend to link to each other and the same organizations.

The Map 3 academic-business CSuR networks (red) are comparatively small, non-central and dispersed; three are really part of an educational grouping that suggests their orientation towards educational institutions is significant stronger than towards businesses (if they were balanced, you’d expect to see them with the GANs);  the two Asian ones are quite different with Asian associations.

Each of these maps is accompanied by several types of data-base outputs summarized in this excel spreadsheet.  For example, Columns B-C list all the nodes in the network (I set the maximum at 600 nodes) by inlinks;  another data output even gives lists by web-page, to identify locations/people within large organizations that are relevant.

In a run using snowball analysis (rather than co-link) the crawl retains URLs with at least one link from seeds.  Run with the three stakeholder groups, this produced a list of 5317 URLs (Column D).  And other maps show these by geography which more helps identify, for example, research centers in China. GOLDEN is particularly interested in particular geographies, like China.  More runs can be done for China in particular, and using Chinese-language web-sites.

Web Issue Hyper-Link Crawls and Strategy

So here are some ways all this work helps strategically.  It gives:

1. A feel for the domain structure…the “ecology” of relationships.  Who is dominant?  What are the groupings that are important to understand for success?  The maps help create a network perspective, by giving a visual association with the abstract “space” in which an initiative is working.
2. Strategic options…who to partner with and “reweave” the nodes so they can realize a network’s goals.  Everyone has their own “network” of relationships, but how do we broaden this perspective and who should we prioritize to engage?  GOLDEN’s founding academics obviously want to partner with corporations.  But should they do this by weaving together existing networks?  By going directly to corporations?  Some combination…and if so what?  The data bases are particularly helpful in identifying potential partners.  They include many education institutions and corporations and their linkages, to help identify who would likely be most interested in becoming involved in GOLDEN, and who would come with the richest network.  The snowball crawl, for example, identifies 5317 potential partners…although only a small fraction of these will be of interest to GOLDEN, it is a universe of options that is much more comprehensive than traditional snowball methods.  Should the IGOs be actively considered as partners?
3. Strategic clarity…what would you like the issue arena/map to look like after your intervention?  What are the “holes” in the map where relationships should be forged?  Today the map does not have “GOLDEN”;  what would the map look like in three years time if GOLDEN is successful?  This has an “impact evaluation” suggestion, thinking that GOLDEN’s inlinkage placement on the map in a few years can be one way of assessing its success.  As well, this helps guide questions about partnering priorities and web-site development.
4. Communications…who are the gatekeepers? Who should GOLDEN “get on board” to facilitate communications?  Naturally enough, many nodes concern communications.  This includes social media web-sites, publishing ones and traditional media ones.  This is very useful for development of a communications strategy.
5. Other…there is much useful information.  For example, maps show foundations and resource-organizations working in the issue, to help define a funding strategy.

Of all the benefits, however, perhaps the greatest is simply helping people to think more in network terms.  Although not as helpful in this regard as something like value network analysis, web crawls are a great step forward.  And of course if you’re interested in me helping you apply these types of analyses to your situation, email me!

Some people think that our global future rests with reforming the UN.  That presents a depressing challenge.  But change often comes in the form of a skunk works[1], and that’s what UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created in 2000 with the Global Compact (GC).  The return on his $10,000 investment in the very competent Georg Kell and John Ruggie was on display last week at the GC’s 10^th anniversary.  And with it, was an embryonic display of our future global decision-making processes.

The Compact is a strategy to give life to the idealistic UN values about labor, human rights, the environment, transparency…the 10 Compact principles that are wonderful statements that the UN has produced, but has proven pretty ineffective at realizing.  The Compact is specifically focused upon corporations and engaging them to actively integrate the principles.  Although technically controlled by the UN, the GC’s success depends upon being responsive to a multi-stakeholder Board.

Over 1200 people participated in the New York Times Square hotel meetings that lasted 2-1/2 days.  It was labeled the “Leaders Summit”, an event occurring every three years.  The theme was “Building a new era of sustainability”.  Preparations totally pre-occupied the GC for many months.  The event itself was rather ho-hum, with some weaknesses:

• A vapid Accenture report that was widely criticized for its methodological weakness and self-promotion about enlightened corporate views of sustainability.
• Old white males dominating…but it was an accurate representation of the current corporate elite.   There was a sincere and modestly effective effort to bring in diversity:  geographically it was somewhat diverse (reflecting travel costs);  although technically there was diversity to include academics, NGOs and government types, they were not generally of a critical ilk.
• There was no meaningful “decision-making” role for participants that would build a true sense of ownership.
• Obliging people to stand with the arrival of the Secretary-General really inserted an anachronistic protocol into a forward-focused meeting.

Never to be discounted at these events is their occasion to build important inter-personal ties…the active community building.  The main activities consisted of panels highlighting Compact participants’ perspectives, punctuated with round table discussions for the greater 1200 with a variety of stakeholders.  These helped connect across different perspectives.  However, the range of participants and the rather superficial GC connections of many…I had new GC members who were a Namibian banker on one side and a Managing Partner of a small Danish law firm on the other…made discussion pretty superficial.

It led me to wonder if the GC’s national networks can be made the focal meeting participants, giving them a role in GC policy, planning and decision-making through the event.  This could ground the event in much more substantive issues with much better-informed and engaged people, as some other Global Action Networks do with global meetings.

Nevertheless, the meeting was better than what the UN usually produces.  It demonstrated that the knitting together of Global Action Networks into a new web of multi-stakeholder change networks is advancing rapidly.  Transparency International, the Principles for Responsible Investment and the Global Reporting Initiative were active presences, and Social Accountability International’s Eileen Kaufman was a vocal participant.  These form a group of GANs reshaping corporations’ future, complementing a health care group of GANs operating out of Geneva.

But perhaps most importantly the meeting produced a sense of forward-momentum.  I heard criticism that the Compact was not offering anything to companies leading in sustainability action.  And then a segmentation strategy was presented to create a space specifically for leading companies.  The Global Reporting Initiative and the Global Compact announced an alliance that will respond to the criticism about emptiness of the current reports by companies on their performance in terms of the principles.  And John Ruggie, on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council, presented a very well-received new strategy framed by the concepts of “protect, respect and remedy” to replace the ridiculous era of corporate self-regulation on the issue.

I must admit that I continue to have great unease about inertia vis-à-vis sustainability, however. The Compact’s goal of increasing from 6,000 to 20,000 company signatories in 10 years seems rather uni-dimensional and lacking in aggressiveness. We still seem to be nibbling at the edges of the transformation challenge.

Reflecting this, a meeting theme was the need to take meaningful action on a bigger scale and in greater depth.  We’d better hold ourselves all accountable for achieving that when we reconvene in three years for the next Compact Leaders Summit.

---

[1] A protected experimental space where the usual rules and procedures of the sponsoring organization do not apply.

“Participants” are a basic component of any network, whether they be organizations or individuals.  But that is a pretty broad term, and most networks really require a much more elaborate definition of roles.  For example, is a “participant” the same thing as a “member”?

A couple of years ago I had conversations with several global, multi-stakeholder networks to better understand these issues.  The same word is used in very different ways, and confusion between distinct concepts was creating confusion among network participants.  The Table below is a product of the conversations, and suggests that networks should distinguish between four roles.   For both the network and its stakeholders, decisions to fit into one category versus the other is wrapped up with important strategic decisions.

The networks generally have a broad approach to who can become a participant:  anyone who is a stakeholder in their issue or wants to become one.  This is equivalent to the concept of “citizen” as someone who has rights, but does not necessarily exercise them.

Co-owners have some specified decision-making rights, typically around voting in Board or other elections, standing for election, or voting on policy issues.  Being a co-owner is usually associated with signing on to a set of principles at a minimum.

Occasionally certain categories of organizations are not citizens, although they are stakeholders.  For the Tobacco Free Initiative, a decision was made to prohibit tobacco companies from participating since the Initiative’s goals and those of the companies were perceived as antithetical.

Some stakeholders are happy to simply be a citizen, take advantage of the work of the networks, but not become active – referred to economically as a “free-rider”.  This is particularly true for networks that produce new learning or policy change, such as The Climate Group when it brings together cities and other stakeholders to develop innovations around LED lighting…of course the networks are usually pleased to have their learning adopted, but free-riders make networks’ business model problematic.

A stakeholder might be a “citizen”, but make a strategic decision to actively oppose a network.  One example is with forest companies that have formed the Sustainable Forestry Initiative in opposition to the Forest Stewardship Council’s multi-stakeholder certification.

Other stakeholders might strategically chose to be participants, but not be a co-owner.  Greenpeace is a strong campaigner on fishery issues and participates in the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessments to determine whether a fishery is sustainable.  However, it does does not sit on MSC’s Stakeholder Council, because it prefers the added independence of action that can come with the role of “participant” versus “co-owner”.

For many networks, certain categories are allowed to participate, but not be co-owners.  IUCN allows some businesses as participants, but they are pointedly not allowed to be co-owners.  Governments cannot become members of the Global Reporting Initiative (although it has developed a Governmental Advisory Group), out of fear that its voluntary nature would be seen as an avenue to mandatory rules that would diminish GRI’s ability to attract corporate members.

In contrast, in terms of the Table, governments are co-owners in the Kimberley Process that stems the flow of conflict diamonds.  However, the Process refers to them as “Participants”;  active business and NGO stakeholders are referred to as “observers” but are participants in terms of the Table. Participants and Observers meet in Plenary annually.

Not uncommonly, organizations are referred to as “members” officially, but have no formal decision-making power.  In fact, they are simply participants.  The Microcredit Summit Campaign refers to “members” as those who have done a variety of things, the most notable reporting for three years on their activity to support the Campaign’s goals.   However, the Campaign is legally a program of an NGO called Results Education Fund whose Board has legal authority (is the owner).  The Campaign Executive Committee consists of people who have agreed to be such at the request of staff, but its meetings are sporadic and advisory.

The fourth concept that often gets mixed with “membership” is really a financing strategy.  Some networks require that members pay dues.  However, often this obligation is restricted to, or  higher for, for-profit companies.  The Fair Labor Association, for example, has a sliding scale based upon the size of the company and with a minimum payment of $5,000.  The rationale for selecting only companies to pay is that they actually derive financial benefit for participation whereas for the NGOs participation is a net cost.

How does your network think of “partnership” and”membership”, and does it create any confusion?

When John Ruggie was describing his work with the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to reduce corporate-related human rights abuses, I couldn’t help thinking “do we really need another global network on this issue?  Would it be better to think about possibilities of them working together more closely?  Is this simply another case of ‘government’ wanting to “be in charge’, and resistant to joining others?  Or are the current networks too tied to their own identities to look at the bigger change opportunity?”

The UNHRC takes its definition of Human Rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948.  It presents a broad definition, including rights to education, to work, and to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.

Competitors?

Is this definition sufficiently relevant to the numerous existing global, multi-stakeholder networks that are working on human rights issues with a particular focus upon corporations? Also in the broad arena are:

• The UN Global Compact, distinguished by its UN leadership, and its focus upon development of a “learning space” for corporations to integrate 10 principles into their operations including human rights and labor standards principles.
• The Global Reporting Initiative, distinguished by the formal absence of government and GRI’s work to create a framework integrating all others, for corporations to report their social, environmental and economic impacts.

In the labor rights arena, there are:

• The International Labour Organization, distinguished by its formal government participation in addition to NGOs, labour and business that make up others;
• Social Accountability International, distinguished by a workplace/plant-level certification strategy;
• The Fair Labor Association, distinguished by a buyer-driven strategy of American universities that want the goods they sell to meet certain standards;
• The Ethical Trading Initiative, distinguished by a strategy focusing upon supply chains of major corporations.

And then there’re other networks that could easily move into this arena, like Transparency International with its concerns about corporate corruption.

Time to Reassess Development Stage?

The question about current powerful options for reducing corporate-related human rights abuses is related to how the “issue domain” is analyzed in terms of its “development stage”.  In this case, its development stage of the “issue domain” (human rights and corporations) rather than the individual networks.  The networks began by focusing on distinct “pieces” of the emerging global puzzle…they’ve been experimenting with and developing particular strategies for over a decade (with the exception of the ILO, founded in 1919).

Maybe now is the moment for the networks to reassess their learnings and strategies, and to think how to really scale up for impact.  That doesn’t necessarily mean a merger which in many ways is contrary to “network thinking”…it might be best to have relatively distinct strategies and networks, but with a collective understanding of how they relate and their “piece” of the puzzle.  This is already happening to some extent with the GRI-Compact relationship.

In an organization world, the interests of organizations as institutions are dominant.  In a world of multi-stakeholder global networks, the vision for a field is dominant and the question of “role” is central.  What roles do we need played for the human rights-and-corporations domain to be healthy?  Undoubtedly the lessons from networks to date would reveal these, and provide the basis for developing a more effective collective strategy.  One way to get at this role question is through Value Network Analysis.

As the networks push for membership expansion, the NGOs and corporations in them are going to increasingly raise the questions about why there are so many and why they would want to participate in several networks.  That question was the original drive behind the founding of the GRI with respect to triple bottom line reporting.

This suggests that perhaps the key intervention of the UNHRC is to create greater “coherence” and “alignment” of these numerous initiatives.  It could convene them around the shared elements of their visions…and be a joiner and part of a greater movement, rather than the old-fashioned “lead and control” thinking that often makes government such a difficult partner.

Core Competencies for Networks: Webinar March 31 9am EST, 3pm CET

Global Networks in China: Webinar April 7

We can easily be overwhelmed by the complexity of large networks where there are  many different organizations and people involved. Clearly “seeing” relationships between organizations, people, and key concepts is important for successful network strategies.

To vastly enhance and speed understanding of these relationships, I’ve worked with various forms of “mapping”.  Network maps are diagrams of lines or arrows (representing connections) and nodes (representing individuals, organizations, ideas) that can visually communicate tremendous amounts of information much more easily than volumes of text.  Here are some approaches I’ve found useful:

Web crawls

This approach maps and analyzes relationships between URLs.  This gives a picture of how organizations and issues are connected virtually that is increasingly important in any strategy.  Since URLs are usually associated with organizations, crawls quickly identify organizations working in a particular issue system.  The crawls maps links on one web-site to another webs-site.

Example: Working with a tool developed at the University of Amsterdam, we did crawls to identify networks in the global finance system for the Global Finance Initiative in order to identify key organizations and people to develop a change strategy.  Map 1 is of NGOs engaged in the global finance debate;  it suggests that surprisingly they do not have well defined relationships with perhaps the most influential players in global finance, including the Bank for International Settlements and the Financial Stability Board.

Map 1:  Web Crawl

(Click on map to enlarge view.)

Social/Organizational/Inter-Organizational network analysis (SNA/ONA/IONA)

This is classic social network analysis applied specifically to understanding relationships within and between organizations. The existence and relative importance of relationship, connections or communication flows between individuals and organizations is described by these approaches.

Example: When the Global Reporting Initiative considered its strategy for developing a South African network, we used social network analysis.  This produced Map 2, which shows distinct groups of organizations.  This emphasizes the importance of weaving the groups together, and the value of working with organizations that are well-connected in the groups.  Another product was a guide on how to initiate a network.

Map 2:  Inter-Organizational Social Network Analysis

(Click on map to enlarge view.)

Value Network Analysis (VNA)

Key roles and value outputs in an issue system are defined through VNA, helping to shift stakeholder mindset toward a network perspective beyond their usual organizational or institutional focus.   This approach has been developed by Verna Allee. It is available for immediate access and applied use at http://valuenetworks.com/.

Example: When the European Commission wanted to understand how to enhance the process of innovation, we applied VNA using the ValueNetworks.com application to produce a report with four archetypes (models) for moving from an academic idea to a product for a consumer, with important policy implications.  Verna emphasizes the importance of including both contracted tangible exchanges such as money, and intangible ones such as information.  This is illustrated in Map 3

Map 3:  VNA map of innovation

(Dashed lines are intangibles, solid lines are tangibles.  Click on map to enlarge.)

Strategic Clarity Mapping (SCM)

SCM generates a mutual understanding among diverse players’ of their respective strategies to address an issue – including their mental models about change strategies.  This approach has been developed by Jim Ritchie-Dunham of the Institute for Strategic Clarity.

Example: When CARE in Guatemala pondered the increasing poverty, despite its best efforts for many years, we used SCM to change the strategic relationships of CARE, and shift it from project-level to system-level strategies (from building wells to creating a system to build wells).  Map development is documented in a learning history I wrote.

Another examples is with Youth Employment and Sustainability (YES), a Global Action Network.  Institute for Strategic Clarity Vice President Luz Maria Puente worked with YES’ Latin American region, to support the region’s and the sub-countries planning.  It revealed both distinctions between the countries’ strategies to help them learn from one another, and identified weaknesses and strengths of their strategies.  Map 4 shows how Chile and Mexico develop entrepreneurial skills, so young people can start their own business, by providing them support through an incubator system.  This work with YES is described in a Working Paper just published today.

Map 4:  SCM Complex view of poverty

(Click on the map to enlarge.)

A key contribution of these mapping approaches is their ability to generate strategic discussions.  People can see links that they can question, and discuss how to strengthen them in a very strategic manner.  They identify key leverage points — points that will help “move” the entire system because of their connections to other points.

Web crawls are definitely the easiest to undertake.  SNA and VNA and SCM in particular are best developed collaboratively with system participants.  With this approach, even the SCM insights and outputs are well understood.  You can find a paper comparing these methods here. And join me for a free webinar March 17 to further explore these methods;  you can find more webinar information here.

I was leading discussion by a half dozen executive directors of Global Action Networks on the topic of competencies critical to success when we turned to the question of resource mobilization.  I was surprised that none of the leaders thought of financing as a major issue for them, in comparison to the other competencies.

“But what if you think about barriers to your network really flourishing and realizing its goals?” I asked.  That moved the issue of financing to the top of the list of challenges.

The question of financing is wrapped up with stage of development discussed last week and featured in a webinar March 3.  At early stages, less money is required and the question is about finding a venture investor to explore possibilities.  Later stages require more funds and a sustainable business model.

Gathering finance information is very complicated for a network, since it requires defining what part of the network the data cover. As networks develop, most increasingly depend upon sub-parts (regional, particular program) raising their own funds.  In May last year I surveyed 11 networks[1] ranging from 8 to 15 years of age with the initial question:

What was the total income (revenue) that came to/through the Secretariat for the most recent fiscal year including funds that may have gone to other parts of the network?

The response ranged from $500,000 to $11.4 million, with the average of $3.6 million.

Sources of Income

But the finance question is also wrapped up in strategy.  Being multi-stakeholder, the networks could be expected to have tax-based contributions from government, civil society-based funding from foundations and revenue generation from services and fees.  Table 1 gives responses to the question:

Please indicate the approximate percent of funds that flow to/through the Secretariat that come from the following sources.

Most networks perceived potential conflicts of interest with business revenue generation.  One way the Global Compact addresses this is with a foundation to receive business donations;  the foundation does not fund core Secretariat costs, but only the broader network.

Reasons for Funding

Strategy also raises Secretariat-network relationship questions.  For example, Transparency International Secretariat’s role in putting together up to 30 National Chapters for joint funding proposals has recently increased dramatically from less than €1 million a year to more than €5 million.  Table 2 gives responses to the question:

Please indicate the approximate percent of the types of funding/reasons for funding.

These global networks are all really producing “global public goods”…something funded at the national level through taxes.  Substantial global network funding comes through taxes with funding from donor agencies like DFID and multilaterals like the World Bank.  However, as Ernest Ligteringen who heads up the Global Reporting Initiative commented to me, it is fitting a round peg in a square hole.  A much more robust solution must be found to do the important work of global public good financing with categorical national tax transfers or a global tax.

What are your experiences with financing?  What sort of more robust solutions should we strive for?

We depend on networks to voluntarily provide information like this, for on-going development.  If your network is not listed below as a participant in the survey, please have someone fill out the survey by clicking here.  Data is for the 2008 fiscal year, and individual responses remain confidential.  The survey takes only an hour.

---

[1] Building Partnerships for Development in Water and Sanitation, Global AIDS Alliance, Global Knowledge Partnership, Global Water Partnership, Global Reporting Initiative, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Mountain Forum, Sustainable Food Lab, The Access Initiative, Transparency International, Youth Enterprise and Sustainability

…GWP, TI, GRI, TAI, Global Compact, IUCN

In a new new study of four Global Action Networks (GANs – multi-stakeholder change networks), Pieter Glasbergen concludes that involving government is key to success. “First, mainstreaming of concepts can only be realized by governments or by their recognition of the private governance mechanism as an alternative tool to solve a collective action problem. Second, governments are also important because most GANs operate in an issue field with many competing private and public initiatives.”

However, governments are usually more difficult than businesses or NGOs to involve in networks as peers.  That’s for two reasons:  because they usually think of themselves as “being in charge”…after all, their key role is making laws and regulations with the power to enforce them.  And then there’s that thing called bureaucratic process…often part and parcel of “due process” to protect rights, transparency and accountability.

Networks have diverse strategies to involve government.  Some like the Global Water Partnership they have active control through their Board;  in others like the IUCN they are partners in governance.  But some networks simply try to avoid government in governance…look at The Access Initiative (TAI) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  They purposely don’t have any place for government in their global governance. But look a bit closer, and you see important government connections.

TAI is giving life to Principle 10 (P10) of the Earth Charter which promotes participatory processes in environmental decision-making.  Think “access to information” and “public reviews of environmental disasters”. Most countries in the world have signed onto the Earth Charter, and that’s TAI’s hook:  working with governments to realize their Principle 10 commitments. But globally TAI is governed globally by NGOs, out of concern that they must protect the integrity of their work, which includes holding governments accountable to their Earth Charter commitment.

TAI takes a “learning” approach when conducting “assessments” of governments’ performance and aims to engage governments as participants.  “TAI members recognize that governments are not monolithic; they are filled with allies and opponents,” comments Joe Foti, TAI Associate.

This leads to a diversity of TAI strategies.  One is that TAI gains government legitimacy and help because it receives funding from the government agencies such as the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  TAI country coalitions find that it usually helps the national Ministry of Environment to have civil society on its side because the MoE is usually weak on finance, political power, and science.  Judges in Argentina and the Ministry of Information in Mexico also have helpful roles.

In Thailand the TAI coalition includes an institute sponsored by the King of Thailand, which gives it legitimacy in government eyes. And in Africa, the TAI-Cameroon representative was asked to speak on the government’s behalf at a UNEP Governing Council meeting when the discussion was about adopting the draft guidelines on implementation of P10.

The GRI has developed a different strategy as it promotes environmental-social-economic reporting, by business in particular. Governments aren’t members because of a concern that they will turn the learning spaces of a voluntary initiative into a regulatory space that would reduce openness to experiment.  However, the GRI has obtained “legitimacy” with government by forming an alliance with the UN’s Global Compact to encourage companies and corporate responsibility organizations to support the synergistic platforms of the Compact and the GRI.

The UN Global Compact is playing this role with other networks as well, such as Transparency International.  The Compact is an initiative with businesses to align their activities with UN principles.  The UN imprimatur of the Compact opens government doors for the networks, without taking on other baggage.

The Global Compact – a multi-stakeholder network “of” the UN – has one of the most interesting government strategies of any global network.  “We knew it was important to leverage the good parts of the UN – the ideas of peace, development and human rights – and yet avoid falling into the trap of the machinery,” says Compact Executive Head Georg Kell.  “But how to do it, we didn’t know.  It evolved over the years.”

Today the Compact has public advocacy and executive branch support through the role of the Secretary General as Chair of its Board;  it has the legislative support of the General Assembly and protection from undue individual country influence through a resolution of support the GA passes every two years;  and it has access to the vast UN system at the national and global levels through an Inter-Agency Working Group that includes the UNEP, the UNDP and other UN agencies.

What are your experiences and strategies networking with government?

Announcement: TAI recently undertook a network-wide process to review and redefine its approach, strategy, and governance.  The process will be the topic of a webinar with TAI’s Director and the change process leaders.  Join us on Feb. 17, 6:00am US/Canada Westcoast;  9:00am Eastcoast; 14:00 UK, 15:00 Europe, 21:00 Philippines/Malaysia.  Go to https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=831&password=M.D319BCA09CFB90E9673E7225D80F0E