As 2010 comes to a close, the RESOLVE team is reflecting on the past year and planning for the year ahead. In 2010 RESOLVE launched the Solutions Network – which is still in development and growing with a variety of innovative projects. Check out this link in 2011 for more info on specific Network projects. We’ll be launching our new RESOLVE website in 2011 and wanted to give you a sneak preview. The site is the result of great logo design and conceptual work by Leo Burnett, the brand guidance of Chuck Pettis (www.brand.com) and the creativity and dogged work of Michael Brumm at Ascent Coalition. Check it out and stay tuned for the launch in early 2011.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Record Attendance at NWCC Wildlife Research Meeting
Over 300 academics, federal and state officials, NGO representatives, and industry professionals are convening this week in Denver, Colorado for the National Wind Coordinating Collaborative's (NWCC) Wind Wildlife Research Meeting. The conference is the eighth in the series and will feature 65 poster and live presentations on research findings on the interaction between utility-scale wind turbine development, birds and bats, and their habitats. The full NWCC Wildlife Research Meeting Agenda can be found here, and more information about the NWCC can be found at www.nationalwind.org.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
NWCC Co-hosts Transmission Policy Institute for State Lawmakers in Denver, CO
The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) and the National Conference of State Legislatures hosted the Transmission Policy Institute June 17-18 in Denver, Colorado. Public utility commissioners, representatives from the U.S. Departments of Energy and Interior, and other experts provided State Lawmakers with foundational knowledge of the technical aspects of transmission planning, siting, cost allocation, energy integration, and smart grid technologies.These are just some of the key issues involved in the integration of renewables that benefit from a multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach. An opportunity for dialogue allowed state lawmakers to discuss collaboration on the complex regional landscape of transmission and renewable energy generation. These generation and delivery mechanisms on the regional transmission scale, which comprise the bulk power system, are an essential component to integrating wind, solar, and other renewables onto the grid. Regional collaboration can streamline the transmission build-out necessary for greater renewables integration.
A summary from the meeting that will include the presentations on these topics will soon be available on the NWCC website.
Photo: Byron Woertz of the Western Electricity Coordinating Council explains to State Legislators how the U.S. bulk power system is organized.
The NWCC is a project of RESOLVE. The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) provides a neutral forum for a wide range of stakeholders to pursue the shared objective of developing environmentally, economically, and politically sustainable commercial markets for wind power in the United States. For more information, visit our website.
Monday, July 12, 2010
De Morgan Facilitates Ultimate Win
RESOLVE Senior Mediator Paul De Morgan and his Ultimate Frisbee team “Troubled Past” ran an undefeated path to become the World Ultimate Club Champions, 2010 Masters Division. We were with Paul in Prague (site of the tournament) in spirit and online (via live streaming) for the Championship Game as he threw 1 goal and helped facilitate the offensive side of the team. Throughout the week-long event (10 games) he racked up a total of 15 points between goals caught and thrown.
Where you can find Paul next you ask… at home recuperating (just for the weekend, don’t worry…) with his new baby girl Naomi born on June 3!
Speaking of babies… did we mention Facilitator Dana Goodson is also a newly proud mother of her daughter Mariah born on May 26?
Just wanted to keep you all in the loop about the wonderful and exciting summer the RESOLVE family has embarked upon. Stay Tuned!
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Collaboration and Technology Discussion Series - The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same
What makes for a good conversation? A seemingly simple question, but it reminds me of the importance of the basics as we venture into new terrain opened by technology.
I am having so much FUN exploring technological tools for public engagement! The process certainly looks different at times, which is part of the fun. And, yet, I keep coming back to the basics. What do we know about what makes a good conversation in person, and how do we translate that into a new setting, whether it be a web dialogue or a collaborative modeling process?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosted a web dialogue in April as part of its support for a National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures. EPA decided this week to host a web dialogue to as part of developing a new strategy for its implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and next week FDA will engage in a targeted dialogue with retailers about ways to reduce the number of children purchasing cigarettes. Although these are ones I have or will facilitate, they are just a few of many dialogues on important public policy issues popping up on the web.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. Lewis Carroll
The first fundamental I’ve relearned is that it’s as important to have a specific reason to use a new tool as to use an old tool. In each of these cases, the web dialogue solved a problem of scale. These agencies wanted to have a national conversation – and the web makes it easy for people all over the country to participate. However, just as in a face-to-face meeting, people want to know how what they say will be used. RESOLVE created a process map for two of these three cases to help the sponsor clarify how the outputs from the web dialogue fit in its overall consultation (and decision making!) process. Our partners created another invaluable tool at the back end, which allows the sponsor to “tag” messages with key words related to issues they needed to decide and the software automatically sorted the sometimes-messy entries into useful categories for input.
Did you ever throw a party and nobody came? Anonymous
Another fundamental that bears repeating is that outreach is critical. What makes us think people will come to our party just because it’s on the web? CDC did a fabulous job engaging its public health partners and stakeholders with diverse perspectives, forming a planning group, inviting their thoughts about good questions to ask, inviting their leaders to serve as subject matter experts in the dialogue, and asking them to reach out to their members to invite their participation. Our partners at WestEd created a cool map of the country that located each participant as a figure icon by their zip code. Seeing participants from 42 states and the District of Columbia was a dramatic visual message that this was in truth a national dialogue!
I think I should understand that better, if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it. Alice
The advantage of the web, with people being able to participate at different times, means that agendas look different, but the power of a clear question remains the same. An agenda on the web? YES! I’ve learned from our partners at WestEd that it’s best to have one or two topics a day, each with two or three clearly formulated, open-ended questions. Any more than that and there are too many different conversations going on at the same time for participants to follow easily – and for a facilitator to track. I hadn’t thought it through before I did one that each question is a link to a different electronic space on the web.
Read the directions and directly you will be directed in the right direction. Doornob.
Usually, simple works best. A web dialogue is just that – a dialogue on the web. Think web site, with tabs at the top that say home, agenda, discussion, participants, panelists, guidelines, etc.
Also, think facilitated, with a warm welcome message, acknowledgements, follow up questions to draw people out, comments noting linkages between messages, summarizing themes, a closing message, and a thank you each day with information about next steps, etc. I’ve been told that some web formats are not much more than an electronic version of a public hearing, with people making their statements and leaving. A facilitator can do a lot to encourage interaction and true dialogue – and so can the technology.
Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision. The Mock Turtle
The very openness that makes web-based processes attractive also creates concerns about an increased possibility of “bad” behavior. So, what do we do in person when people may be angry or abusive of one another? Ground rules help – which the technology actually makes it easier to enforce (by deleting or moving messages that cross the line). However, creating a personal connection is even more effective. Remember, people can read but not post unless they register. I’ve seen great results from a registration process that requires real names, contact information (although the latter remains confidential), and a personal statement so that people “meet” one another as they join the dialogue. Other ways to personalize the dialogue include involving respected subject matter experts from diverse perspectives serving as “panelists” with bios and photos to give a face to a name. And, respect, active listening, and sincere interest works as well on line as it does in person.
Tools that I’ve seen from WestEd include the capacity for any participant to post links to information sources (clear respect for two-way communication), for the facilitator to post a message that a response is needed that just panelists see, and for any participant to indicate concern that a message violates ground rules.
There’s so much more to learn and share and I look forward to what others have to offer. The key is to participate – just like in any dialogue. So speak up!
That's nothing to what I could say if I chose. The Duchess
Gail Bingham
I am having so much FUN exploring technological tools for public engagement! The process certainly looks different at times, which is part of the fun. And, yet, I keep coming back to the basics. What do we know about what makes a good conversation in person, and how do we translate that into a new setting, whether it be a web dialogue or a collaborative modeling process?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosted a web dialogue in April as part of its support for a National Conversation on Public Health and Chemical Exposures. EPA decided this week to host a web dialogue to as part of developing a new strategy for its implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and next week FDA will engage in a targeted dialogue with retailers about ways to reduce the number of children purchasing cigarettes. Although these are ones I have or will facilitate, they are just a few of many dialogues on important public policy issues popping up on the web.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there. Lewis Carroll
The first fundamental I’ve relearned is that it’s as important to have a specific reason to use a new tool as to use an old tool. In each of these cases, the web dialogue solved a problem of scale. These agencies wanted to have a national conversation – and the web makes it easy for people all over the country to participate. However, just as in a face-to-face meeting, people want to know how what they say will be used. RESOLVE created a process map for two of these three cases to help the sponsor clarify how the outputs from the web dialogue fit in its overall consultation (and decision making!) process. Our partners created another invaluable tool at the back end, which allows the sponsor to “tag” messages with key words related to issues they needed to decide and the software automatically sorted the sometimes-messy entries into useful categories for input.
Did you ever throw a party and nobody came? Anonymous
Another fundamental that bears repeating is that outreach is critical. What makes us think people will come to our party just because it’s on the web? CDC did a fabulous job engaging its public health partners and stakeholders with diverse perspectives, forming a planning group, inviting their thoughts about good questions to ask, inviting their leaders to serve as subject matter experts in the dialogue, and asking them to reach out to their members to invite their participation. Our partners at WestEd created a cool map of the country that located each participant as a figure icon by their zip code. Seeing participants from 42 states and the District of Columbia was a dramatic visual message that this was in truth a national dialogue!
I think I should understand that better, if I had it written down: but I can't quite follow it as you say it. Alice
The advantage of the web, with people being able to participate at different times, means that agendas look different, but the power of a clear question remains the same. An agenda on the web? YES! I’ve learned from our partners at WestEd that it’s best to have one or two topics a day, each with two or three clearly formulated, open-ended questions. Any more than that and there are too many different conversations going on at the same time for participants to follow easily – and for a facilitator to track. I hadn’t thought it through before I did one that each question is a link to a different electronic space on the web.
Read the directions and directly you will be directed in the right direction. Doornob.
Usually, simple works best. A web dialogue is just that – a dialogue on the web. Think web site, with tabs at the top that say home, agenda, discussion, participants, panelists, guidelines, etc.
Also, think facilitated, with a warm welcome message, acknowledgements, follow up questions to draw people out, comments noting linkages between messages, summarizing themes, a closing message, and a thank you each day with information about next steps, etc. I’ve been told that some web formats are not much more than an electronic version of a public hearing, with people making their statements and leaving. A facilitator can do a lot to encourage interaction and true dialogue – and so can the technology.
Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of arithmetic -- Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision. The Mock Turtle
The very openness that makes web-based processes attractive also creates concerns about an increased possibility of “bad” behavior. So, what do we do in person when people may be angry or abusive of one another? Ground rules help – which the technology actually makes it easier to enforce (by deleting or moving messages that cross the line). However, creating a personal connection is even more effective. Remember, people can read but not post unless they register. I’ve seen great results from a registration process that requires real names, contact information (although the latter remains confidential), and a personal statement so that people “meet” one another as they join the dialogue. Other ways to personalize the dialogue include involving respected subject matter experts from diverse perspectives serving as “panelists” with bios and photos to give a face to a name. And, respect, active listening, and sincere interest works as well on line as it does in person.
Tools that I’ve seen from WestEd include the capacity for any participant to post links to information sources (clear respect for two-way communication), for the facilitator to post a message that a response is needed that just panelists see, and for any participant to indicate concern that a message violates ground rules.
There’s so much more to learn and share and I look forward to what others have to offer. The key is to participate – just like in any dialogue. So speak up!
That's nothing to what I could say if I chose. The Duchess
Gail Bingham
Monday, May 10, 2010
Collaboration and Technology Discussion Series - Collaborative Values and Principles: Guidance for Choosing Collaborative Tactics and Tools
RESOLVE has published a new article opening the door to conversation about choosing and using collaborative technological tools to increase partnerships and consensus building. The article raises several important questions that we will continue to explore in a series of blog posts and articles about the use of technology in collaborative and consensus building processes. As this discussion unfolds, you can expect to hear from RESOLVE senior staff and board members and gain access to case studies and best practice findings. This paper kicks-off a discussion leading up to the launch of the USIECR Technology Network. Throughout the conversation, we encourage you to read and participate. Send us a video, comment to our blog posts, or shoot us an email! We appreciate the variety of perspectives and experiences from our colleagues and partners who are using collaborative technology in their work.
RESOLVE builds strong, enduring solutions to environmental, social, and health challenges through collaboration – your input is a key component of that collaboration, and we look forward to hearing from you.
The new article, “Collaborative Values and Principles - Guidance for Choosing Collaborative Tactics and Tools” can be found on the RESOLVE website Reports and Manuscripts page
Stephen D'Esposito
RESOLVE builds strong, enduring solutions to environmental, social, and health challenges through collaboration – your input is a key component of that collaboration, and we look forward to hearing from you.
The new article, “Collaborative Values and Principles - Guidance for Choosing Collaborative Tactics and Tools” can be found on the RESOLVE website Reports and Manuscripts page
Stephen D'Esposito
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Power Dynamics in Collaboration Discussion Series - Part 1
Mediation is a Field: Shared Ideological Framework of Power
Power is a fundamental concept for facilitators and mediators. In conversations, mediators talk about power when they discuss their cases, their decisions about what tactics and strategies they used, and what the impact of their practice is on individual and broader social change.
Check out this interview of Dr. Juliana Birkhoff from 2006 where she explains how her dissertation demonstrates mediation is in fact a field and that what is uniting among experienced mediators is the concept of power.
www.mediate.com
Power is a fundamental concept for facilitators and mediators. In conversations, mediators talk about power when they discuss their cases, their decisions about what tactics and strategies they used, and what the impact of their practice is on individual and broader social change.
Check out this interview of Dr. Juliana Birkhoff from 2006 where she explains how her dissertation demonstrates mediation is in fact a field and that what is uniting among experienced mediators is the concept of power.
www.mediate.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
RJC Update
RJC looks at chain-of-custody for gold and diamonds in jewelry--a new contribution to the growing literature on sustainability chain-of-custody certification systems for minerals.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Building Trust and Relationships to Tackle Forestry Issues
People sometimes contact RESOLVE to facilitate one meeting or run a large public hearing. While sometimes we will help with those events, our favourite requests are when people ask us to help them, over time build relationships, expand collaborative capacity, develop reliable information, and implement agreements that solve real problems.
Almost two years ago, I received a call from a forestry company in New Brunswick, Canada. Their question was simple – "Is there anything we can do to improve relationships between forest industries and environmental NGO’s?"
From that call, I contacted several New Brunswick environmental groups, university staff, provincial, and forestry company staff to organize a meeting. In that first meeting, a wide range of provincial, conservation, fishing, forestry company, and environmental group representatives exchanged concerns and perspectives on the environment and forestry. Some of them decided to meet, and then they met again… They developed and agreed on a mission and ground rules. They learned about each other’s concerns and shared information. They developed criteria for good projects to work together on and they brainstormed a long list of possible projects. They ranked the projects and began working together as the Forest Collaborative.
This week, Keith Ashfield, Minister of Parliament from Fredericton, New Brunswick, CA and NB minister of Natural Resources announced a $990,000 grant to the Forest Collaborative. Minster Ashfield said, "Twenty years ago we wouldn't have seen this kind of collaboration between industry, environmental groups and universities."
What kept these participants coming to meetings? Enough people wanted to try a new way of working together after years of conflict. They developed clear outcomes that could only be achieved through collaboration. They agreed that they did not have to tackle all provincial problems or develop the very best solution, just projects that would help. They communicated respectfully and productively and they worked in small groups between face-to-face meetings.
There will be challenges as the members of the collaborative tackle tough economic, social, and environmental problems. Developing trust and relationships led to new funding. New funds bring untapped resources and renewed energy to New Brunswick for new forestry solutions.
Listen to the podcast
Juliana Birkhoff
Almost two years ago, I received a call from a forestry company in New Brunswick, Canada. Their question was simple – "Is there anything we can do to improve relationships between forest industries and environmental NGO’s?"
From that call, I contacted several New Brunswick environmental groups, university staff, provincial, and forestry company staff to organize a meeting. In that first meeting, a wide range of provincial, conservation, fishing, forestry company, and environmental group representatives exchanged concerns and perspectives on the environment and forestry. Some of them decided to meet, and then they met again… They developed and agreed on a mission and ground rules. They learned about each other’s concerns and shared information. They developed criteria for good projects to work together on and they brainstormed a long list of possible projects. They ranked the projects and began working together as the Forest Collaborative.
This week, Keith Ashfield, Minister of Parliament from Fredericton, New Brunswick, CA and NB minister of Natural Resources announced a $990,000 grant to the Forest Collaborative. Minster Ashfield said, "Twenty years ago we wouldn't have seen this kind of collaboration between industry, environmental groups and universities."
What kept these participants coming to meetings? Enough people wanted to try a new way of working together after years of conflict. They developed clear outcomes that could only be achieved through collaboration. They agreed that they did not have to tackle all provincial problems or develop the very best solution, just projects that would help. They communicated respectfully and productively and they worked in small groups between face-to-face meetings.
There will be challenges as the members of the collaborative tackle tough economic, social, and environmental problems. Developing trust and relationships led to new funding. New funds bring untapped resources and renewed energy to New Brunswick for new forestry solutions.
Listen to the podcast
Juliana Birkhoff
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Tracing Conflict-Free Minerals
Metals (e.g. tin, tantalum, cobalt and gold) used in electronics, jewelry and other consumer products can originate from conflict zones such as those in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the broader Great Lakes region of Central Africa. Reports from Enough, Global Witness and others tell the tragic story of how these metals can fund militias, deteriorate the environment, and reinforce economic disparities.
In response, electronics companies active in the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) and the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) began working to understand the complex, global supply chains for these metals. A supply chain describes the source of raw material, its processing and manufacturing, and then extends to delivering the final product to the customer. Metals are especially challenging and complex, with multiple steps, mixing of sources, and many actors in the supply chain.
With greater supply chain knowledge and transparency, companies could then begin to design and test strategies to source conflict-free and responsibly mined metals. GeSI and EICC asked RESOLVE to help analyze and respond to this challenge.
The Questions We Started With
In a broad sense, we were asking whether an electronics manufacturer could discover the sources of metals in its products all the way back to the mine; particularly when metals originate in a conflict zone. A jeweler can ask the same question about diamonds, a bike manufacturer, or an auto or airline company for aluminum. Specifically RESOLVE was asked to design and carry out a research program to trace three of these metals (tin, tantalum, and cobalt) into their supply chains to see how far we could go and whether it was possible to trace back to the source.
From the outset, we knew this research would be challenging. To address the challenge, we developed a collaborative research model. We created a Stakeholder Advisory Group that included NGOs, electronics companies, investor groups, and mining companies. This brought together a range of viewpoints on human rights, environment, and business concerns. In addition to helping design the research, understand supply chain challenges, and fill information gaps, participating stakeholders are already working to help identify solutions that could lead to more transparent and responsible supply chains for these metals.
While those who served on our stakeholder advisory group were not asked to endorse our report, they certainly helped shape it and we are hopeful that the process and results are beneficial as they work to define solutions.
What We Found
We did encounter significant data gaps and missing information about supplier relationships. Many suppliers failed to cooperate. The small-scale mining sector is informal, particularly in unstable regions, and penetrating this sector proved challenging. However, we knew that understanding the gaps in the supply chain was as important as recording the connections. Why is it so difficult to trace a supply chain completely? What do the gaps, non-response, and lack of cooperation tell us about which strategies could ensure a “clean,” sustainable supply chain?
In four cases we could document (or trace) a supply chain from an electronics manufacturer back to the mine of origin. This means we could trace the transactions, following a paper trail through contracts and relationships. Sometimes we could make links or fill in missing information because a few interested mining companies gave us data from their mines. This allowed us to track the supply chain from the other direction, starting from the mine of origin to the product.
We Found More
Companies and NGOs in other sectors have launched or are designing several interesting and innovative initiatives to increase transparency and responsible sourcing for minerals. Stakeholders in the electronics sector can learn from these programs.
For example, ICMM’s sustainable development framework provides a useful set of principles and guidelines for large-scale mine operators. Retailers can create their own supply chain transparency initiatives. Wal-Mart developed a program with a couple of mining companies to trace the gold and diamonds for its “Love, Earth” jewelry line. Tiffany & Co. and Birks have designed unique supply chain strategies. The Responsible Jewellery Council brings together industry participants at each step in the supply chain for jewelry with an eye towards designing social and environmental standards and a system to verify member compliance. The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) is working across sectors (industry and civil society) to determine standards for metals mining. The Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM) and the Diamond Development Initiative (DDI) focus on developing responsible gold and diamonds sources from the artisanal and small-scale mining sectors. These initiatives (and others analyzed in our report) have critics, but woven together, they can create a sustainability fabric, which offers hope (and a baseline) to those focusing on metals used in electronics.
What Is Next?
Many of the companies who responded to our survey are beginning to work on strategies to ensure that smelters can validate their sources as conflict free and in compliance with environmental and social norms. Smelters represent a key point of consolidation, or narrowing, in the supply chain. Others have begun to explore how to source responsibly from the DRC and the Great Lakes region of Central Africa, in the hope that mining in the region can promote economic development, stability, and effective governance. Evidence from our research shows that pilots, testing, and learning, will be essential and that cross-sector collaboration is a key to success.
What Do You Think?
We designed our research so that it could foster collaborative discussion and problems solving. We believed that collaborative inquiry and relationship building was as important an outcome as was the supply chain findings. What do you think? Was this the right approach? What did we miss? What were the limitations? What still needs exploration and further inquiry? What are the next steps?
Join the conversation by visiting the project wiki, commenting on this blog post, or following me on twitter
Stephen D'Esposito
In response, electronics companies active in the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) and the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) began working to understand the complex, global supply chains for these metals. A supply chain describes the source of raw material, its processing and manufacturing, and then extends to delivering the final product to the customer. Metals are especially challenging and complex, with multiple steps, mixing of sources, and many actors in the supply chain.
With greater supply chain knowledge and transparency, companies could then begin to design and test strategies to source conflict-free and responsibly mined metals. GeSI and EICC asked RESOLVE to help analyze and respond to this challenge.
The Questions We Started With
In a broad sense, we were asking whether an electronics manufacturer could discover the sources of metals in its products all the way back to the mine; particularly when metals originate in a conflict zone. A jeweler can ask the same question about diamonds, a bike manufacturer, or an auto or airline company for aluminum. Specifically RESOLVE was asked to design and carry out a research program to trace three of these metals (tin, tantalum, and cobalt) into their supply chains to see how far we could go and whether it was possible to trace back to the source.
From the outset, we knew this research would be challenging. To address the challenge, we developed a collaborative research model. We created a Stakeholder Advisory Group that included NGOs, electronics companies, investor groups, and mining companies. This brought together a range of viewpoints on human rights, environment, and business concerns. In addition to helping design the research, understand supply chain challenges, and fill information gaps, participating stakeholders are already working to help identify solutions that could lead to more transparent and responsible supply chains for these metals.
While those who served on our stakeholder advisory group were not asked to endorse our report, they certainly helped shape it and we are hopeful that the process and results are beneficial as they work to define solutions.
What We Found
We did encounter significant data gaps and missing information about supplier relationships. Many suppliers failed to cooperate. The small-scale mining sector is informal, particularly in unstable regions, and penetrating this sector proved challenging. However, we knew that understanding the gaps in the supply chain was as important as recording the connections. Why is it so difficult to trace a supply chain completely? What do the gaps, non-response, and lack of cooperation tell us about which strategies could ensure a “clean,” sustainable supply chain?
In four cases we could document (or trace) a supply chain from an electronics manufacturer back to the mine of origin. This means we could trace the transactions, following a paper trail through contracts and relationships. Sometimes we could make links or fill in missing information because a few interested mining companies gave us data from their mines. This allowed us to track the supply chain from the other direction, starting from the mine of origin to the product.
We Found More
Companies and NGOs in other sectors have launched or are designing several interesting and innovative initiatives to increase transparency and responsible sourcing for minerals. Stakeholders in the electronics sector can learn from these programs.
For example, ICMM’s sustainable development framework provides a useful set of principles and guidelines for large-scale mine operators. Retailers can create their own supply chain transparency initiatives. Wal-Mart developed a program with a couple of mining companies to trace the gold and diamonds for its “Love, Earth” jewelry line. Tiffany & Co. and Birks have designed unique supply chain strategies. The Responsible Jewellery Council brings together industry participants at each step in the supply chain for jewelry with an eye towards designing social and environmental standards and a system to verify member compliance. The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) is working across sectors (industry and civil society) to determine standards for metals mining. The Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM) and the Diamond Development Initiative (DDI) focus on developing responsible gold and diamonds sources from the artisanal and small-scale mining sectors. These initiatives (and others analyzed in our report) have critics, but woven together, they can create a sustainability fabric, which offers hope (and a baseline) to those focusing on metals used in electronics.
What Is Next?
Many of the companies who responded to our survey are beginning to work on strategies to ensure that smelters can validate their sources as conflict free and in compliance with environmental and social norms. Smelters represent a key point of consolidation, or narrowing, in the supply chain. Others have begun to explore how to source responsibly from the DRC and the Great Lakes region of Central Africa, in the hope that mining in the region can promote economic development, stability, and effective governance. Evidence from our research shows that pilots, testing, and learning, will be essential and that cross-sector collaboration is a key to success.
What Do You Think?
We designed our research so that it could foster collaborative discussion and problems solving. We believed that collaborative inquiry and relationship building was as important an outcome as was the supply chain findings. What do you think? Was this the right approach? What did we miss? What were the limitations? What still needs exploration and further inquiry? What are the next steps?
Join the conversation by visiting the project wiki, commenting on this blog post, or following me on twitter
Stephen D'Esposito
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)