Defining what is “responsible” in a way that has support from key stakeholder groups remains a challenge.

Glenn Sigurdson and his team at the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver gathered over 140 leaders from around the world to take stock of progress to date on the question of what is “responsible” and think about how to take this agenda forward. See Pathways for Improving Practice and Agendas for Responsive Research; Responsible Minerals Sector Initiative (RMSI) for more information.

For me, two clear themes emerged from this session; it is time to 1) consolidate and 2) catalyze:

Progress is occurring—one measure of success is the myriad sustainability initiatives that are underway. However, there is also a danger of initiative fatigue. It may be time for mapping and assessment (with participation from stakeholders) to help identify opportunities for consolidating initiatives.  We know that mapping and analysis has occurred within sectors, but we have not yet seen it occur across sectors. It is time for that to happen.

Along with consolidation there is a desire to catalyze the right activities—those that have the potential for the greatest positive impact in communities. Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) and broader social license are clearly priorities. At RESOLVE we are already working with stakeholders on this issue—leaders from civil society and the corporate sector—to understand “what works” today and what we need to test or pilot. During the GEMM 2020 conference, participants affirmed this focus.

For RESOLVE and the Beedie School’s RMSI this creates a partnership opportunity. Watch this space for future updates.

- Steve D’Esposito

- Steve D’Esposito

In this era of globalization, supply chain dynamics are complex and often opaque. The Conflict-Free Smelter Program, along with the Public Private Alliance for Responsible Minerals, and mineral mapping initiatives by the electronics industry aim to make supply chains more transparent, as well as environmentally and socially sustainable. These are just a few of RESOLVE’s projects supporting voluntary governance initiatives. We are also:

• Helping to expand avenues for civil society engagement with the Climate Investment Funds, a joint initiative of five multilateral development banks housed at the World Bank
• Advising extractives companies, civil society organizations, and agencies on best practices for stakeholder engagement and conflict resolution
• Facilitating a state-of-knowledge assessment on the impact and performance of sustainability labels such as the Forest Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council, Utz, and FairTrade.

To learn more about these projects and our other voluntary governance work, check out our website.

- Taylor Kennedy

The CFS Early-Adopters Fund offers each smelter company an extra incentive for early participation by helping to offset transition and start-up costs if they successfully comply with the CFS Program protocol. The idea for this Fund was hatched by companies who are committed to doing what it takes in their supply chains to promote transparency, and RESOLVE’s Solutions Networkplatform is an ideal home for managing and testing this pilot program. This is a great example of leading companies taking action to promote transparency and responsible sourcing in their supply chains. Intel, HP, and the GE Foundation are sponsoring this new, independent fund, and other leading organizations have been invited to support the Fund as well.

Because so much of this design is new, we do not expect it to be perfect at the outset. As with so much of the innovative work taking place to respond to conflict minerals, we are committed to working with stakeholders to continue testing and making improvements. Approximately a year into the pilot program we will invite key stakeholders to review the program results and help determine how to further strengthen efforts to support capacity building in the supply chain for conflict-free minerals.

RESOLVE’s President, Stephen D’Esposito explains “Early leadership from electronics companies helped catalyze development of the Conflict-Free Smelter Program, and once again we see leaders like Intel, HP and the GE Foundation taking action to make a difference in the world supply chain. RESOLVE is committed to work with stakeholders to test programs like this and inform, refine and strengthen policy and voluntary efforts on such issues.”

The Fund is part of a growing fabric of programs designed to build capacity to respond to the challenges of conflict minerals. The EICC and GeSI, these same sponsoring companies and others also support the Public Private Alliance for Responsible Minerals, a joint initiative between governments, companies, and civil society to support supply chain solutions to conflict minerals challenges in the DRC and the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa. To find out more about this program and RESOLVE’s involvement, click here.

For more information on the CFS Early-Adopters Fund, click here. And, for more information on RESOLVE’s other voluntary governance projects, click here.

- Beth Weaver

Good to see groups like PACT and others in the room.  Could use more like the Enough Project, Motorola Solutions, Intel, HP, GE, Freeport McMoran and Newmont to really paint the picture of the challenges and opportunities.  But that opportunity will come with the upcoming EICC-GeSI Supply Chain Workshop in Philly.

- Steve D’Esposito

In contrast to more conventional and often contentious approaches JFF involves bringing a wide variety of stakeholders together to identify what information is needed to answer policy questions, how and by whom information should be gathered and interpreted—including “technical” and “local” knowledge— and how to connect this information to policy decisions . Scientists and technical experts have an important role in “translating” technical information so that non-technical stakeholders understand and can give input on information gathering, processing, and outcomes, and to learn about inherent uncertainties and tradeoffs of different policy options. This process builds trust, cooperation, and can make stakeholders partners and problem-solvers rather than adversaries in the policy-making process.

Dr. Juliana Birkhoff, Vice President of Collaborative Practice at RESOLVE, shared two JFF case studies with Dr. Matsuura. The first case study involved the communities of Falls Hills and Poplar Heights in Fairfax County, Virginia, in which a local stream suffered from regular flooding events that threatened homes, schools, and recreational trails in the area. Dr. Birkhoff used this case to illustrate how traditional science-based policy making can lead to undesirable outcomes, and how JFF can serve as a more effective alternative. Using a traditional problem solving approach, Fairfax County officials consulted a few area homeowners and designed a flood mitigation solution that was based primarily on technical information. When County officials presented their solution to the communities, residents were outraged that the last remaining stand of woods in their neighborhood would be cleared to create a retention pond. To settle the dispute Fairfax County turned to RESOLVE to go back to the drawing board and engage stakeholders in a JFF process. RESOLVE held public meetings where members of the community and technical advisors shared information, built trust, and developed a list of priorities and options that ultimately led to a sustainable solution supported by all stakeholders.

The second RESOLVE case study involved the development of EPA’s microbial disinfectant byproduct (MDBP) rules. Drinking water is regularly treated with disinfectants in order to kill pathogens that can cause acute health problems, but disinfection creates byproducts that can lead to cancer and other long-term health impacts. The agency needed to make a number of tough choices on how to balance two conflicting objectives. RESOLVE convened a broad range of stakeholders and technical experts to develop a set of rules that significantly reduced public health risks, balanced the interests of stakeholders, and shaped major public infrastructure investments for decades.

We also explored how JFF operates against different cultural backdrops. Dr. Matsuura shared that, historically, the Japanese public has had very high confidence in scientists and government officials. RESOLVE observed that, in the U.S., public confidence is wavering or low for government; and dueling expert scenarios such as climate change and high profile public health cases, among others, often cause the public to question science and scientists. (A December 2011 Gallup poll sheds more light on how Americans rate honesty and integrity of professionals in different fields; respondents were not asked for views of “scientists” in the poll.)

Regardless of historical and cultural differences, we agreed that the erosion of public trust in institutions and experts has created a space for JFF. Dr. Matsuura noted that in Japan serious questions about government’s and scientists’ transparency with regards to nuclear power in general and especially the handling of the Fukushima disaster have diminished public trust in Japanese Institutions. This situation will challenge policy making and JFF—making it difficult to identify experts credible to key stakeholders and the public—but can also serve as an impetus for exploration of JFF techniques in Japanese policy-making and dispute resolution.

Dr. Matsuura is undertaking a three-year research project organized by the Japan Science and Technology Agency in order to learn about and refine the processes involved in JFF. He also plans to review three case studies in the fields of distributed energy systems, food safety, and marine spatial planning. We recorded our conversation and presentation with Dr. Matsuura to share with his colleagues and others in Japan, and are also sharing a link here. We look forward to learning how JFF is implemented and integrated into policy decisions in Japan.

- Jen Peyser

- Jason Gershowitz

Two themes shine through the White Paper:

1) the critical role of corporate and individual leadership
2) the benefits that can accrue from effective, strategic collaboration

Three years ago, things were different. There was little recognition of these issues in the electronics supply chain, much less a coordinated response. There was limited engagement with other industry sectors. And there were limited relationships with leaders in the NGO sector and key government agencies. While there is more to be done, given the progress chronicled in the White Paper, it’s fair (and interesting) at this juncture to ask, what are some of the ingredients that have helped support the progress that’s been made? Looking back, it’s clear that key stakeholders worked hard to take advantage of collaborative opportunities when it might have been simpler to take a different path.

Sector Leadership and Action
Companies like Intel, Motorola Solutions, HP and others have been solutions catalysts within broader industry association such as the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) and the Global e-Sustainability Initiate (GeSI). They have worked collaboratively with industry partners and have been willing to experiment and innovate. Whether it’s the Solutions for Hope supply chain pilot on tantalum, or launching a new public-private alliance to support responsible minerals sourcingfrom the Great Lakes region of central Africa, or other initiatives, companies have shown they are willing not just to act but to help lead.

Extending a Hand Into and Across the Supply Chain
These companies reached into their supply chains, and reached out to other sectors that utilize these metals, to understand supply chain challenges and identify solutions. They found willing partners, many of whom were already active developing site-based program and innovative supply chain solutions. They found others miners like Newmont and Freeport-McMoRan; refiners like H.C. Starck and Valcambi; manufacturers in other sectors like Richemont, Ford, and GE; and retailers like Sterling/Signet and Best Buy. The benefits of this collaboration are now starting to manifest themselves in sharing of response systems and tools, innovations like the PPA, and supply chain partnerships.

Supporting Collaborative Architecture to Industry, Government, and NGO Leaders
It’s telling that in response to the Intel White Paper, the Enough Project, a leading NGO active on these issues, described Intel as “an industry leader on conflict minerals.” While there may remain disagreements and tension points between some companies and NGOs over, for example, regulatory language, there is now a collaborative baseline that keeps key companies, NGOs, and government leaders at the table, working together. This is the result of hard work, perseverance, creativity, and risk-taking on the part of leaders in each of these sectors. It’s also evidence of the power and impact that can result when unlikely allies decide to pursue a common goal. Looking back over three years, one can begin to see how support for collaborative architecture (e.g. collaborative research, facilitated stakeholder and supply chain meetings, joint pilot projects, jointly governed resources) have created a supportive platform for leadership and action.

This is a complex, challenging issue that doesn’t lend itself to easy solutions or policy responses. Success will come from collaborative testing, trial-and-error, learning and refinement; all of which needs to be supported by collaborative infrastructure and capacity building. Here at RESOLVE, we’re honored to work with collaborative leaders in these companies, NGOs, and agencies.

- Stephen D’Esposito

- Stephen D’Esposito

“In “Environmentalists Get Down to Earth” we’re missing an opportunity.  Conflict and tension generate ink and can be useful but our new generation of environmental leaders is capable of doing more. First, they’ll need to foster hope that something concrete can be achieved. Hope inspires action. But it withers unless it is fed by concrete, achievable solutions. Therefore, second, they’ll design and apply pragmatic expertise.  This is the essential “back of the box” of brownies, the hard work of rolling up sleeves and engaging on the practical and policy details, referred to and then largely dismissed in the story. There is simply no substitute for the pragmatic application of expertise—whether it’s negotiating a policy agreement or designing new “green” technologies Third, they’ll build unexpected coalitions. They’ll walk in someone else’s shoes to find a way forward. Leaders in all sectors should resist the temptation dig in and out-shout the other side. In an era of political fragmentation it’s the art of collaborative problem solving that will be the true test of leadership on climate and other issues. Otherwise advocacy breeds isolation, gridlock and cynicism. Dig below the surface of any environmental achievement and you will find great collaborative leaders—whether they get public credit or not – because they are focused on solutions, working the “back of the box,” and building partnerships.  Advocacy without collaborative leadership and solutions breeds gridlock and cynicism. If you have doubts look at recent progress on food safety, so called “conflict minerals,” and preventing, reducing, and addressing past harms from exposure to chemicals to see this leadership at work today.”

Stephen D’Esposito, President, RESOLVE