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!

“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?

The world’s premier alliance of multi-stakeholder change networks is reviewing standards that operationalize their change strategy. The ISEAL Alliance is the global association for social and environmental standards.  Members include the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Social Accountability International (SAI), the Fair Labelling Organization (FLO: fair trade) and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM).

You know ISEAL organizations by their labels:  Fair Trade’s on coffee, MSC’s on seafood,  FSC’s label on paper and wood products. ISEAL’s Impact Code helps define what to measure and how to measure in order to be awarded the labels. Highly relevant is the work of 2009 economics Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom.

The Change Strategy

The change issues are sustainability and economic justice.  A basic Code element of the change strategy is multi-stakeholder engagement.  This produces a “whole systems” perspective about how companies’ actions impact social, environmental and economic outcomes. This is a big change from the traditional exclusive corporate focus on its own financial welfare.

Currently the standard does a good job of defining who stakeholders are.  However, how they must be engaged is defined under the very general concept of “consultation” that raises questions.

For MSC and FSC, certifiers who meet certain standards are hired by a “client” (usually a forestry or fishery company) to determine whether certification standards are being met.    Typically certifiers interview stakeholders individually and there is not necessarily a collective meeting of stakeholders.  Nor is there any requirement that a multi-stakeholder group be developed to manage the fishery/forest or ensure the certification standards are being met between the certification renewals.

This is distinctly different from the strategy of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the Global Fund) and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).  The former only accepts funding applications from multi-stakeholder groups;  the latter, a spin-off of Transparency International, requires that applications for “validation” of transparency standards come from multi-stakeholder bodies.

“EITI offers a platform for dialogue to discuss transparency issues,” Tim Bittiger, EITI Regional Director explained to me.

The Nobel Prize

Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for her analysis of economic governance. The media release announced her win this way:

“(Ostrom) has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities, or privatized. … She observes that resource users frequently develop sophisticated mechanisms for decision-making and rule enforcement to handle conflicts of interest, and she characterizes the rules that promote successful outcomes.” (Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2009)

She spent decades studying successful resource management at the local level by multi-stakeholder groups.  Most of ISEAL’s members are multi-stakeholder networks at the global level, which reflects their theory of change.  This would lead you to expect that they would find this a compelling arrangement locally, as well.

Empowerment

Paddy Doherty who is managing the Impacts Code review process, says that ISEAL members talk about the importance of “empowering” stakeholders.  This suggests the importance of creating new governance arrangements locally where differences can be worked out, and collective planning and heightened standards can be advanced.

As might be expected, there is already experience with cross-stakeholder groups locally.  FLO deals with cooperatives that cross the traditional labor-management divides.  MSC Project Manager Amanda Stern-Pirlot comments that: “If a fishery has certification conditions (i.e. has to make improvements over the course of their certification) often the cooperation of others is needed to fulfill these conditions, particularly when improvements to management systems are needed. In lots of situations, having a good collaborative relationship with stakeholders outside the client group is essential.”

Multi-stakeholder Platform Issues

The idea of forming multi-stakeholder groups for certification raises skills issues. Typically certifiers have traditional auditing expertise (eg.: from Arthur Anderson) and would not be equipped to handle some of the dynamics and associated goals.  Making multi-stakeholder platform development would require a very different set of competencies.

Doherty raises the valid point that the Global Fund and EITI are dealing with different situations:  handing out large amounts of money in the one case, and working with large corporations and governments in the other.  However, maybe this simply suggests a modified strategy to foster formation of a multi-stakeholder group.  It could be made a condition of renewal of certification, for example, so the initial certification ushers is contingent upon a plan and commitment to develop a local platform.

The big product and attraction to multi-stakeholder platforms is their ability to coordinate their very distinct resources and capabilities, and challenge each other’s parochial perspectives, to produce very wonderful innovation…to do what none of them could imagine doing on their own.  This is the type of change that is required to realize the objectives of ISEAL Alliance members.  This has been well-documented, including in my last book Societal Learning and Change:  How governments, business and civil society are creating solutions to complex multi-stakeholder problems.

Until 30 April 2010 you are invited to contribute your ideas for improvement, discuss key issues, and propose changes to the code.

We all know that global policy making is pretty weak.  Governments sign lots of agreements.  But then, more often than not, nothing happens.  Networks have a crucial role to play in correcting the situation.

Networks embody two approaches to policy and advocacy.  The more traditional is advocating that others change, and urging others to adopt particular policies.  Here the network power comes from combining organizations for size and power of voice.

The second approach is to gather diverse stakeholders together as peers who recognize that new approaches are needed, and collectively develop them.  Here networks act as laboratories where diversity produces innovative, whole-system approaches that can be quickly disseminated through the participating organizations.

Networks for Global Policy Change

Global Action Networks, being multi-stakeholder, emphasize the second approach.  Wolfgang Reinicke who introduced me to global multi-stakeholder networks, looks at them through a political science lens. He calls a similar group of networks Global Public Policy Networks (GPPNs) and emphasizes their contribution to resolving issues by producing global public policy and goods.  I made a modest contribution to a 2000 report on this strategy to Kofi Annan, where Wolfgang was lead author.

Working with Tariq Banuri of the Tellus Institute, we built upon this work to produce the Figure below.  This was first published in an article in Accountability Quarterly.  It describes the traditional global public policy making process that produces international agreements and conventions such as the one establishing the UN and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

GANs’ work can be framed as addressing weaknesses in this process.  For example, The Access Initiative (TAI) categorically focuses upon giving life to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration about participation in environmental decion-making;  it was an empty commitment for most governments.  The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is doing the work that many thought should be done by international conventions.

In the national policy-making cycle there are basically four activities. Citizens (1) express their opinions to their elected representatives, who (2) get together in legislatures to debate what should be done. Legislatures pass laws and regulations that the bureaucracy (3) then translates into programs carried out by multiple organizations to (4) educate, enforce and take other supportive actions. If there is some controversy with this process, citizens are then able to go back to their elected representatives for changes.

Four Gaps

At the global level the underlying institutions such as effective legislatures, political parties, courts and regulatory structures are not present. Citizens have almost no options for connecting meaningfully with global decision-making processes, and this is referred to in the Figure as the participation gap.  Participants must perceive that the actions of national governments in global policy making is legitimate and incorporates their views. When this does not occur, an ethical or values gap arises. The difficulty of identifying and organizing an effective response to implement international agreements gives rise to the operational gap.  The fourth gap, the communications gap, arises as the need to communicate to citizens the global public policy goals and the value of abiding by their norms and rules.  This should include incorporation of the global convention decisions into national laws and regulations.

Traditional advocacy NGOs emphasize filling the participation and ethical/values gaps and some communications gap work.  They connect and mobilize people to pressure national governments to take specific actions.

The role of GANs is more nuanced.  In general, they go about the difficult work of addressing the operations and communications gaps.  The MSC is a strategy to address over-fishing, which is the topic of numerous conventions.  It does not implement the Conventions, but works to achieve similar goals through certification and labeling of sustainably harvested fish products. Today over 12% of global capture production for direct human consumption has the MSC logo.

The MSC does not have formal government participation.  However, another GAN called the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) began as a joint government, industry and civil society initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds. Today the trade in conflict diamonds is essentially stopped by the Kimberly Process, without offices or staff.  It is an unusual approach because governments are not acting within a global inter-governmental convention, but they are acting with the support of the UN.

TAI’s approach is to create learning partnerships with governments, that use an assessment tool to analyze how governments are performing and can improve fulfillment of the Principle 10 commitments.