Shaping Globalisation -

Impacts of Voluntary Standards

International Conference

24 - 25 October 2006 Berlin, Germany

Table of contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The conference and this document A timely event A meeting of minds An interactive process Development co-operation and beyond

Standards and globalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Contradictory pressures Consensus on the need for sustainability but divergences of emphasis Goals worth striving for A step change

Premises for impacts: Recommendations for introducing voluntary standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Commitment from the top and transparency in goals A participatory multi-stakeholder process Make the standard setter independent An integrated management system that thinks long-term

The impacts of voluntary standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Approaches to continuous impact monitoring in different dimensions . . . . . 13

Outcomes, impacts and the attribution gap Lacking data, lacking studies Science or sentiment? Practical problems Independent monitoring

Impacts of standards at company/producer and worker level . . . . . . . . . . . 16 An enormous challenge Positive effects on visible issues, lesser effects on invisible issues The exclusion of casual, migrant and third party contract workers The business case for voluntary standards Suppliers and their challenges

Impacts of standards on trade, markets and global supply chains . . . . . . . 18 Trade promoter or trade hinderer? Impacts on markets and marketing For export only? Complex supply chains as barrier to change Negative effects of too many voluntary standards Responsible investment and the financial market From niche to mainstream

2

Political impacts of voluntary standard initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Tackling governmental failure Undermining or reinforcing the rule of law? Binding global rules or not? A difference between voluntary codes and laws? Just one part of the solution Challenging traditional lifestyles An impact on politics locally

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

More comprehensive research and joint efforts More dialogue But talk and study is not enough Speeding up, mainstreaming, simplifying More demand, more supply

Annexe 1: The Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Annexe 2: The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3

International Conference

Shaping globalisation – Impacts of voluntary standards 24 –25 October 2006, Berlin

Executive Summary

A wide variety of initiatives aiming at developing and implementing voluntary social and ecological standards in sectors ranging from agriculture and forestry to textiles and toys have emerged during the last two decades. Voluntary social and ecological standards are one possible answer to the call for a socially and ecologically compatible form of globalisation. In their efforts to fight poverty, a number of donor agencies and Non Governmental Organisations support initiatives advocating the introduction and implementation of voluntary standards. Businesses - multinationals and even small firms, purchasers and suppliers - see competitive advantages in adopting voluntary standards. They offer branding advantage, reduce risks, and can raise supply chain productivity, quality, and innovation.

The Conference aimed at gaining a deeper insight into the impacts of voluntary social and ecological standards, with the first day focused on political perspectives on the topic and the second on the impacts of voluntary standards on different levels (impacts on producer level, on markets and trade and on the political level) and on impact monitoring and assessment in general. Key questions of the conference were: whether voluntary standards really meet their objectives; how impact monitoring and assessment should be done and by whom; and what methodologies are successful.

The German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ) was the initiator having commissioned a desk study, which summarises the findings of selected and previous outcome and impact assessment studies and which will be part of a bigger evaluation of German Development Cooperation support to different voluntary standard initiatives. The German Round Table Codes of Conduct (CoC) is a multistakeholder forum, which elaborates recommendations for the introduction, monitoring and verification of codes of conduct and aims to improve social standards in developing countries, supported the event. Reflecting the desire for an exchange of experience between different stakeholder groups, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), organized the conference.

Increasing globalisation demands the balancing of the three pillars of sustainability in order to bring about profound change to the world’s system of production and exchange, and thereby to alleviate poverty, reduce social inequity and maintain an ecological balance. The nature of globalisation has changed as emerging markets now exert great pressure on all firms to cut costs. This price pressure may undermine sustainability. In this context, voluntary standards represent a chance to palliate the lack of international regulation, or encourage enforcement of (often-ignored) national rules or to go even beyond legal compliance. As long as the standards are combined with efforts to strengthen the rule of law, they can help, but must be recognised as being only one instrument available, and not a panacea.

4

The workshops showed that the outcomes of voluntary standards on producer level is more assessed than on markets and trade and on political level.

The evaluation of projects suggests that the effects on individual producers are greatest with regards to easily auditable issues (e.g. workers’ health and safety, protective clothing) and permanent employees of direct suppliers. It is harder to prove any impact on issues that require qualitative process changes (e.g. collective bargaining), or on casual, migrant and third party contract workers, or on more distant sub-contractors in the supply chain, even if supply chain integration is generally improving.

The World Trade Report 2005 on the links between trade, standards and the WTO does not give a clear picture on the impact of voluntary standards on trade and markets. The Reports says that economic theory suggests that standards are both trade creating as well as trade hampering. In one of the conference workshops discussants said that voluntary standards could have a negative effect if they cause suppliers to cease exporting in the face of high compliance costs. This could hinder trade. On the other hand compliance with standards and codes of conducts can give market access and help producers to cope with highly segmented market. Standards are said to be a useful tool in the management of global supply chains. However, at the consumer end, given that a proliferation of ethical trading labels seems to be causing some confusion to consumers, there may be room for marrying systems by benchmarking. This would also make life less complicated for producers. The debate on impacts on trade, markets and supply chains sometimes seem to be influenced by ideological view points.

On the political level, there is evidence that voluntary standards force politicians everywhere to place sustainability on their domestic agendas and encourage participatory political processes. However, there is a certain dynamic between voluntary and mandatory instruments, which needs to be investigated further. Also, in order to move to scale, there is no one single pathway, but rather a need for an interplay between voluntary standards and government regulations, public pressure, financial markets, procurement policies, etc.

To maximise the outcomes of voluntary standards, it is useful to have the buy-in of top management of private sector, and also of all relevant other stakeholders, including workers and civil society, in the establishment of voluntary standard schemes. Moreover, processes for consultation and feedback become essential to reaching change beyond the easily auditable issues, implying a long-term commitment by all parties. Some form of constant independent monitoring helps and is all the more effective if a premium is placed on transparency.

The conference showed that • the standard community and donors need a clearer picture about the

impacts of voluntary standards beyond the production level • methodological questions still have to be answered, impact

assessments on a larger scale needs to be done in order to overcome the anecdotic phase of impact monitoring

• more cooperation between stakeholders in impact monitoring and assessment is needed; a common code of good practice and joint efforts in this field would be a step ahead

5

• compliance, outcomes and impact are different issues and shall be regarded and addressed with differentiation

• a clear understanding of the relationship between economic profitability, environmental and social performance is still needed

• more is known about the impacts of the longer existing fair trade and organic movement than about more recent standard initiatives which have developed under the framework of Corporate Social Responsibility

• voluntary standards are a useful tool to shape globalisation, however their role and impact should not be overestimated – standards alone can not save the world

6

Introduction The conference and this document The International Conference on “Shaping Globalisation – Impacts of Voluntary Standards” took place in Berlin on 24 and 25 October 2006. It was initiated by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development (BMZ) to accompany a sector evaluation on this subject, and coincided with the presentation of a desk study on this subject. The event was supported by the German Round Table Codes of Conduct, which elaborates recommendations for the introduction, monitoring and verification of codes of conduct, aims to improve social standards in developing countries and implements pilot projects. The event itself was organised by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). The Conference aimed at gaining a deeper insight into the impacts of voluntary social and ecological standards, with the first day focused on political perspectives and the second on the impacts of voluntary standards on the different levels (impacts on producers, on markets and trade, and on politics) as well as on impact monitoring and assessment in general. This document provides a synthesis of the main points evoked theme by theme, rather than giving a chronological account (the agenda is provided for information in the annexe). Reflecting the frank exchange of opinions and Chatham House rules, it does not attribute quotes to individual participants. The quotes shall reflect the lively and sometimes controversial debate during the conference.

First Insights into the Impacts of Voluntary StandardsDesk study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development

A timely event It is some thirty years since the first fair trade initiatives started, often on a very small and rudimentary basis. Thanks to the patient and determined hard work of many individuals over the years, it is now possible to see that voluntary standards and codes of conduct are making their mark, and are being noticed by big players. Hence the timely nature of the conference, and its ability to attract more than 160 key actors to exchange views - often with passion and vigour - on the impacts of voluntary standards, and how to spread the positive effects further.

7

A meeting of minds Despite the heterogeneous nature of the participants, coming from all major stakeholders - multinational corporations, small supplier companies, donors, regulators, Non-Governmental Organisations including Trade Unions, academics, consultants, standards and implementing organisations - there was a high level of agreement from the conference, as to the overall goals to be strived for when using voluntary standards, even if the best means were debated.

“It may be easy for all stakeholders to name the change we want to see, but it is much harder for us to agree on how we should get there.”

An interactive process

The event deliberately sought to differentiate itself from traditional conference settings by placing a dialogue-oriented process. Interviews, coffee-table chats, and round tables were the core of the information transmission method, moderated in a dynamic and challenging way by Dr Thomas Henschel of the European School of Governance. This is important as the aim of standard setting is

also to provide an adequate dialogue–oriented methodology that meets the requirements of a complex and dynamic situation, integrating many different stakeholder perspectives. Only if experience is shared and retained can decision makers take knowledge-based decisions. Development co-operation and beyond Clearly the growth and impacts of voluntary standards have to be taken into account by all those involved in development co-operation work, as they mobilise actors who are not otherwise involved in such matters, and affects the core of our global trading system. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that this is only a matter for those interested in importing tropical products. It also emerged that attention needs to be paid to up-holding of standards within western European countries as well.

8

Standards and globalisation Voluntary standards are one response to globalisation, resulting in a proliferation of initiatives ranging from agriculture and forestry to textiles and toys in the last decade. The conference thus looked at the expectations that participants held with regards to the ability of standards to shape globalisation and to give globalisation a human face. Contradictory pressures Producers and suppliers are told to meet higher social and environmental

standards; at the same time they are often pushed to offer lower prices, better quality and more punctuality in supply. But we do not need to have a race to the bottom where the cheaper the better prevails, whatever the human or ecological cost. In the United States, where states also compete with each other, there are forces in both directions. On the one hand there is the “Delaware effect” which reflects the pull downwards, as Delaware offers particularly beneficial statutes and taxes for corporations: the result is that that many US companies register in that state to avoid higher regulation regimes elsewhere. On the other hand

there is the “California effect”, which reflects the pull upwards exerted by a major State, (if it were a country, California would be one of the ten largest economies in the world). California strives to impose stricter environmental standards (for instance in automobile emissions), with the consequence that other States, and sometimes the federal level, follow suit. Globally it is hoped that voluntary standards could have a California effect. Consensus on the need for sustainability but divergences of emphasis Even though donors, corporations and NGOs come at the issue from different angles, they largely concurred as to the goals of voluntary standards, with emphasis on all three pillars of sustainability:

“To ignore the economic pillar of sustainability for small-suppliers and producers would be a major mistake.”

1. economic: the financial incentive and

increase in profitability and efficiency must exist for corporations and producers to make the changes needed;

2. social: there can be no compromise on human rights and it is to everybody’s advantage to strive for greater social justice;

3. environmental: the ecological balance must be respected if there is to be a future worth living.

However, given their different roles, stakeholders colour their interpretation of the three pillars differently; hence business inevitably approaches sustainability

9

in a very different way to NGOs. Donors see the need for voluntary standards to give an impulse on broader issues like poverty reduction at a large scale, environmental protection and living and working conditions in developing nations as well as on a trade regime that a beneficial to all, whilst business sees them as an instrument to gain competitive advantage, develop new markets and reduce risk. The NGOs meanwhile stress the need for effective processes to be multi-stakeholder involving representative from developing countries and participatory and the need for transparency, whilst those engaged in running voluntary standards initiatives counsel against expecting all problems to be solved by this tool alone. All stakeholders agreed that co-operation is the key to success.

oals worth striving for

eyond the convergences and divergences on the sustainability trilogy, there as a sense that the end game is not just to produce a marginal change, but to se voluntary standards as an instrument to promote a major change in the ature of global commerce. This implies a long-term investment by producers nd consumers in ethical and free trade. In the process, the proportion of

going to producers will increase, reducing poverty, nd releasing funds for investment in ecologically and socially sustainable

ry standards. A crucial issue for the future is therefore how to ring those new emerging economies on-board fast, so as to avoid a race

G B “The aim for

corporations is nothing less than to make all production sustainable.”

wunabenefits and improvementsaproduction. A step change Nevertheless, by way of warning, it was noted that a shift in purchasing power to Asia and other emerging markets is taking place, and this could have a more fundamental impact on the nature of global trade than any action undertaken with volunta

“We must break out of the old North-South rhetoric.”

bto the bottom.

10

11

Premises for impacts: Recommendations for introducing

tary standards emerged in the conference. ISEAL (the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance) an umbrella organisation for several standard-setting organisations has published such a code with the support of BMZ and gtz (www.isealalliance.org). Commitment from the top and transparency in goals To get the commitment needed for a long-term switch to sustainability, it is essential that top management buys-in from the beginning, and makes ethical production a priority for the company. Also it is important for the top management to set goals, which are clear for all including the purchasing personnel, and then to be truthful about how well the firm is achieving the goals. Only in this way can learning take place and momentum be developed. Moreover, with time, improvements can be introduced – targets made more explicit, wider in coverage or tougher in their nature. This process is how sustainability spreads to become standard practice in individual companies. This approach also creates credibility and shows that a company is not only paying lip service to Corporate Social Responsibility. A participatory multi-stakeholder process When establishing a new standard it is essential to have a participative process, which includes all parts of the supply chain. The more suppliers,

NGOs, donors, purchasers and workers can buy-in to the process, the more likely they are to implement the voluntary standards effectively. Coop of Switzerland noted that success in their introduction of fair trade bananas came partly through involvement of NGOs from the very beginning. Others reported on the importance of allowing the suppliers shape the programme from the start.

Others still stressed the need for involvement of trade unions locally on the ground, or even globally. In any case multi-stakeholder processes generally provoke an “attitude shift” where those involved are finally able to see the points of view of the others, and hence to comprehend what is important to take account of. Multi-stakeholder processes thus contribute to a culture of participation, dialogue and trust, which should not be underestimated in a global environment.

voluntary standards The outcome and impact of voluntary standards their credibility and acceptance depends on the way they are developed and implemented. Thus, something close to a best practice set of recommendations for corporations wishing to introduce volun

„We need to concentrate on stakeholders not on shareholders.”

“Would companies be prepared to invite NGOs into their boardrooms to discuss win-win strategies?” asked one NGO participant. “Would NGOs be prepared to go into those boardrooms if they were invited?” asked one business participant by way of reply.

Mak

ne barrier in this context of NGOs which inevitably

ards already exist, a panies involved can

system of standards and outcome of benchmarking and

sier for producers, reducing costs

A multmanagthe sucompacommis essproduc

improve sustainability more deeply. Likewise, the exclusion of a supplier is not automatically the best approach. Better are long-term partnerships so as to allow the supplier time to get on the right track. Experience suggests this can be helped by direct contacts with the supplier, regular visits, capacity building and training. Considered a management tool standards can help suppliers to improve their business.

e the standard setter independent

are the limited resources Ohave to ask “what is the relevance” of participating in any given initiative, and may even be criticised by other NGOs for having “sold out” if they are seen as

getting too close to companies. One solution is to ensure that once a standard is established, it is made independent of both the NGOs and the companies, and given its own resources, as happened with the Marine Stewardship Council. Also, within sectors

„All our members are competitors. It was hard enough to get them to agree. If we had brought in Trade Unions and NGOs, I do not believe we would have managed to establish any voluntary standards at all.”

where voluntary standnetworking of the combring great benefits and useful outcomes. However there is a natural reticence between

competitors to share data, and the choice of one criteria or another may lead to a particular company being favoured. This can create difficult dynamics in the establishment and monitoring of industry wide voluntary standards: hence again the importance of making any standard setter independent of individual stakeholders. The Eurep initiative on Good Agricultural Practices is indicative of what can be achieved, as retailers felt the pressure to provide consumers with products that meet product safety, environmental and occupational health and safety standards, and at the same time producers were struggling with multiple audits from different certification systems. By seeing that the challenge was a ommon one, it was easier to develop a harmonised

cprocedures for conventional agriculture. Thearmonisation of standards is to make life eah

for certification. Market access is easier to achieve. An integrated management system that thinks long-term

i-stakeholder process leads to a more holistic ement approach, where all those involved in pply chain – from workers in sub-contracting nies, through suppliers to purchasers – are in

unication about what is and is not working. This ential not just to sustainability but also to ing better quality products in a timely manner.

Indeed, this integrated approach can then become embedded as part of corporate culture, helping firms to avoid the pitfall of a counter-productive “comply or die” attitude to suppliers. After all, if faced with

exclusion, a supplier will adopt the “tick-box” mentality and try to make the superficial changes that are needed to achieve compliance, without actually adopting any fundamentally new ways of doing business. This may allow the supplier to pass an audit, but does not

12

The impacts of voluntary standards

assessment. Certainly the impacbetter documented and understothose on the political level, not ledocumented, and indeed can be that compliance outcome and impmonitoring and assessment goindependent auditors. Approaches to continuous im

In the discussions and workshops numerous impacts were identified, but with differing levels of research supporting the findings, given the lack of data, and different approaches and practical problems involved in monitoring and impact

ts on companies, producers and workers are od than those on trade and markets, or than ast as they have been better researched and measured more easily. It became very clear act are different things. Outcome and impact

beyond standard compliance checked by

pact monitoring in different dimensions The conference gave a brief insight into methodological approaches related to impact monitoring and assessment and showed how impact assessment is handled in German development cooperation. German development cooperation has broadly taken over the OECD terminology and approaches. Throughout the conference and in a workshop, the questions were asked whether voluntary standards really meet their objectives, how impact monitoring and assessment should be done and by whom; and what methodologies are successful? Outcomes, impacts and the attribution gap

“Many people are content to stick with measuring outcomes, as measuring impact is simply too difficult”

Clearly it is good to measure the resources given to a voluntary standard initiative (inputswhat was done usingresources (activities), towhat was produced as athose activities (output) the outputs affected thoseinvolved (outcomes). this is not enough fomakers. For them it is vita

), to see those gather

result of and how directly

However r policy l to see if there is at least a plausible link between the

outcomes and the impacts at a macro-level, as it is at the impact level that social, environmental and economic conditions of countries are determined. Establishing this link is, however, very hard, given the existence of “The Attribution Gap”. The attribution gap reflects the fact that so many other factors that have nothing to do with voluntary standards may also affect the impacts.

“We have a reasonable idea of what is happening with Fair trade and organic initiatives. In all other sectors we have much less data.”

13

Lacking data, lack

en by the European Union’s conomic and Social Committee suggests 5% of global trade is covered by

an pressive amount of anecdotal experience, they had to admit that the great

en that feedback is an essential re-requisite for improving impact, action is

this, it was agreed that hould be teased out

of the main monitoring baseline data, before standards are put into

paring the information that is already ers use the same glossary, thus hindering the lack of a single “right methodology”.

measure if these goals are being met. each initiative is measured using different(and hence judgement of which is the moa whole range of unintended side-effects Marine Stewardship Council was also aggregate categories of indicators (instiand operational-result gains) and to develo

ing studies Even if one had a method to see through the attribution gap there remains a problem: the lack of data and -if available- their quality. Only a limited number of impact assessments have been produced, and even in the realm of outcomes, where monitoring and evaluation is commonly used, the knowledge base is focussed on certain industry sectors, whilst others (where fewer initiatives exist) are not well studied. Even regarding basic questions like the market-share of ethical trade, there is no consensus: one figure givEethical trading, but this figure has been challenged as being too high. Science or sentiment? Hence, although donors, companies and NGOs know the direct outcomes of introducing voluntary standards in their own projects, thanks to studies and

“We are only at the beginning when we talk about impact assessment. This

we

imexpectations expressed as regards the positive impacts of voluntary standards were based more on sentiment than on science. Giv

is not evidence based, we often only have anecdotes, and even lack a baseline.”p

needed. In the light ofa maximum of meaning s

f the information already possessed, and to olook for possible side effects. One lessons learnt from current activities is the necessity to collect practice. Practical problems There are many problems in comavailable. To start with, not all reviewcomparison. More important still is Indeed it would probably be wrong to try and create such a single method, as each initiative has a particular set of goals and it is important first to

This however creates a tension, as if criteria, not only is cross-comparison st useful instrument) difficult, but also may be ignored. One lesson from the that it could be useful to develop tutional, research, operational-action p generic indicators.

“Implementation is bound to vary from place to place, not least because the legislation, for instance on

will minimum wages, be different from country to country.”

14

15

issioned by any

tudies on impacts of voluntary

tice that uggests a set of principles to follow. In addition it was not clear who

for impact monitoring and assessment – the tandard organisations themselves, donors or companies. The role of

terviews with employees; ; ndent of audits conducted on

problems. For instanceembers of the ISEAL alliance

ular tool kits r both monitoring and

The study desk commthe BMZ showed that m sstandards are rather based on outcomes or existing literature, others only have a too small number of samples to draw more general conclusions, others again draw conclusion which are not based on empirical findings at all, but on anecdotic insights. Studies can not be compared with each other as they often cover special interests in different impact dimensions. Participants felt that there is a need for a more coherent methodology and for a code of best pracsshould be responsiblesNGOs was not clear. For impact assessments it was suggested by participants that additional sources could include: - country studies; - questionnaires, including e.g. off-work site in- data collection systems using e.g. Utz Kapeh- existing knowledge of local auditors, indepe

participating firms; - other resources (e.g. market shares). There are already activities growing to support knowledge sharing and best practices that overcome these practical mare developing modfoevaluation, as well as for impact assessments. This includes creation of a database, production of standard questionnaires, and reflections on common approaches to organisational planning.

Independent monitoring Consumers aby corporatiofirms have a mconducted. Butrather than fomore elaboraand macro estakeholderssystem, a suggestions

through any internal filters) is essmaintained. This system should be extended to casual and external workers as well.

16

re generally sceptical of the claims made ns about their own performance, hence arketing incentive to have external audits also external audits check for compliance

r impact. Hence it is important to develop te processes for looking at both micro ffects in co-operation with all relevant

. Also, outside this formal monitoring mechanism of open complaints and for improvement (which does not pass ential to making sure that sustainability is

Impacts of standards at company/producer and worker level

Chiquita made a conscious choice to seek out an existing voluntary standard system, run by the Rainforest Alliance, and to use its mark (the frog) on their bananas, rather than trying to build the brand directly. It was felt that this third party mark of approval was much more credible.

In general it was felt that we have more information as regards the impacts that oluntary standards havv e at company, producer and worker level than at other

: in coffee production alone there er 25 million farmers worldwide.

hange life for all those farmers is a sive task, requiring years of effort. The e of the challenge can be seen by this re of coffee beans: those coloured in represent the proportion already

uced sustainable, whereas those in black n are not. Similar stories can be told sectors.

ects on non-visible issues

ed for

was an overall positive impact of voluntary standards on both social justice and ecological sustainability. Indeed, a study research conducted on the implementation of the base code of the Ethical Trading Initiative in

levels. An enormous challenge One participant gave the example of coffee to illustrate the scale of the

problemare ovTrying to cmasscalpictugreenprodor browin other

Positive effects on visible issues, less eff Change exists already however:

desk research conduct“We may not be able to stop children helping their parents to pick cherries, but we can certainly make sure that they go to school before doing so.”

athe BMZ suggested that there

the UK found that the positive effects of the voluntary code were most direct in “visible” areas, such as health and safety, child labour and minimum wages

not change much.

l it is clear that the most profound and effective pacts are the results of participative processes.

t workers, often received few or none of the benefits extended to orkers. While it was stressed that the use of third

s not seen as a way of working around the voluntary

led to a rise in the number of doubof illegal labourers, and non-respeETI study also looked at the UK). The business case for voluntar For a multinational planning to essential to have a strong bus

participantlikely to inc

es;

e corporate reputation; tion of risk exposure; quality and productivity;

ved staff recruitment, morale and retention.

witzerland indicated a threefold economic ocial and ecological standards. Moreover,

loss of trust in their name - e.g. after factories making their goods - costs vastly

n exercises) than an ex-ante investment in So why do products obeying these

(http://www.ethicaltrade.org/Z/actvts/rsproj/impact/index.shtml). It also had its greatest impact on permanent and regular workers. For these issues, and these workers, it was easiest for outside auditors to identify (non-)compliance – for instance it is easy to spot if a fire extinguisher is in place or not. However, the same study indicated that in areas, which were less “visible” (such as collective

imination), and hence less easy to measure, things did This has however to be qualified by the fact that where

collective bargaining already existed in the workplace, the study showed “no change” either. In genera

bargaining and discr

A pilot-project of the

for

an isation of

sic

German Round Table in Romania “Enabling dialoguebetween management and employees” led to institutionaldialogue which not only helped achievement of banorms, but also led to a series of innovations in production techniques, quality control and workingpractices.

im The exclusion of casual, migrant and third party contract workers Moreover, the ETI study found that (even contrary to the declarations made by the firms concerned) there was a considerable increase in the use of third party contractors, and that these employees, along with casual and

igranmpermanent and regular w

arty or casual workers wapstandard, but rather as simply a necessity in the face of pressures to reduce price, the existence of such a trend is of even more concern, given that it has

tful employment activities, including the hiring ct of laws in western European countries (the

y standards

invest in a sustainable supply chain, it is iness case. Using the evidence provided by s, core elements of this business case are lude:

“One firm cut working hours at its suppliers, and discovered that productivity rose as far fewer rejects were made.” - the ability to create a new market/product lin

- improved brand image; - positiv- reduc- better - impro

A study in S

return on investment in meeting ssome companies have learnt that revelations of use of child labour in more (in ex-post damage limitatiosustainability would have involved.

“Coffee tastes the same regardless of whether it is produced by child labour or not.”

17

standards have such a relatively small market share, and why have some ustainability as a short term marketing gag,

The answer is in part that companies fear the he switch in a world of cut-throat price

eat pressure to produce good results for the s sustainability requires long- term strategy

als from rich countries to be convinced of the need for change. Small and medium-sized companies from both rich and poor countries also need to see tangible benefits if they are to change. While some of the arguments listed ab

companies in the past used swithout investing in it seriously?short run costs of making tcompetition, and are under grnext quarterly report, whereaand investment. Suppliers and their challenges It is not enough for multination

ove may also play role, additional factors can be presented as

ompanies:

abeing part of the business case for these c - entering into partnerships for sustainable production creates a long-term

bond in the supply chain, increasing financial stability, overall reliability, and making it possible to innovate jointly;

- new business can be much more rapidly obtained once certification has already been obtained, as purchasers or customers can be assured that the right standards are being met.

Impacts of standards on trade, markets and global supply chains

“Once we achieved SA8000 certification we were able to convince new clients to source with us much more rapidly.”

Throughout the conference and in a workshop, the question was asked: “do we markets and trade?” In general

was felt that too little was actually known about the impacts on markets, trade

Trade promoter or trad The World Trade Report 2005 on the links between trade, standards and the WTO does not give y standards on de and m orts says that economic theo suggests e creating as well as trade hampering. The debate on impacts on trade, markets sometimes seem to be mor deological it looked as if the intension count If standarachieved. If standards shall be usa promoting instrumen

know what impacts voluntary standards have onitand global supply chains although certain broad themes could be identified.

e hinderer?

a clear picture on the impact of voluntartra arkets (www.wto.org). The Repry that standards are both trad

“Of course they can promote trade: In the case of tropical timber, the choice was between voluntary

e i in nature. To some participantss. ds shall be used to hinder trade, this can be

ed as a trade facilitator, they can also become t.

Nonetheless some governments in poorer countries see the promotion of voluntary standards by richer countries as a deliberate attempt to prevent them from using their competitive advantage in cheap labour and natural

standards or a complete ban.”

18

costs in global competition by countries which have already pillaged the resources of themselves and others. As a result, voluntary standards are perceived by their opponents as being trade inhibiting measures. Supporters however affirm that voluntary standards could be trade facilitators, by encouraging suppliers and producers to offer a higher quality product that may be less price-sensitive, and also anchoring them in global supply chains, or even allowing them to avoid trade protection measures from rich countries. On balance however, it is felt that the impact on trade promotion was only

gistered in the long run at best. In the framework of the debate on impacts on ion on whether to integrate social and

nvironmental standards into the WTO was raised. The majority of participants

rds in the WTO.

to segmentation of markets. An ich today is highly differentiated nic and Fair Trade coffee, shade the increasingly demanding

an be kept interested in a certain commodity. In addition, the ebate revealed that retailers approach standards also for marketing reasons:

issOth ues to attract consumers that are

Over the time, voluntary standards have developed their own markets. The market for ethical products is developing rather slowly. The organic market shows a different development: In Germany organic products are not only sold

an lic

facilitated this process. Other discussants niche market since only a minority of

retrade and markets a discussefelt that this is politically not feasible for the timestrictly against social and environmental standa Impacts on markets and marketing Discussants felt that standards can contribute example is the consumer market for coffee, wh(specialty coffee, coffee of special origins, orgagrown coffee etc). With this segmentationconsumers c

being. Some participants opted

dDue to consumer differentiation, certain brands rather link to environmental

ues – these brands tend to match with standards that protect the rainforest. er brands rather link to social iss

concerned about negative social impacts of globalisation.

in ordinary supermarkets – there are organic supermarkets now attracting environmental concerned urban population. Participants said that pubprocurement policy could also help to increase the market for ethical products. There was an intense discussion on the term “mainstream” standard. Fair Trade considers itself develop into mainstream nowadays, as Fair Trade

roducts have made their way from “one-world shops” into supermarkets. The pintroduction of a trade label has onsidered Fair Trade still belonging to a c

consumers purchase such products, making only a minority of producers benefiting from the system. Some participants considered only such standard initiatives as mainstream which have the potential to cover the majority of producers and consumers. In addition it became clear that fierce competition is already apparent in the standard community. More collaboration might be advisable to develop the ethical trade market. The question was raised whether voluntary standards also have impacts on the labour market. This interesting topic could not be deepened due to the limited me. ti

19

For export only? There was some discussion as to the degree to which voluntary standards only affected production for export, and not production for domestic markets: after all, systemic change should affect all production. Anecdotal evidence suggests that for some schemes such as EUREPGAP there is also a strong take up in the domestic sectors of e.g. India and Brazil. Moreover, as retailers from rich countries gradually start to open stores in emerging markets, they often spread the same ethical criteria to production for these stores as they do for their home markets. However, more broadly it was felt that whilst exporters to rich country markets were under increasing pressure to become more sustainable, this pressure was much weaker on those suppliers exporting to emerging markets (e.g. China) or for local consumption. C

“If all that happens is that children cease to work for export and go to work instead for domestic production, we have achieved nothing.”

omplex supply chains as barrier to change

part from suffering under the constant pressure to deliver more for less cost, a

egative effects of too many voluntary standards

rget the economic pillar, but another is also a warning not to allow too great

ion process, being business to usiness initiatives and forming part of the supply chain management. These

Anumber of other problems exist when seeking to spread adoption of voluntary standards. In many cases those to be affected are Small and Medium Sized Enterprises which simply lack the infrastructure, time and even management skills to effect a major change. Furthermore, a supply chain is often very complex, with not one, but a whole series of companies delivering components and skills to each other. Trying to reach beyond one immediate supplier into suppliers’ subcontractors, and even beyond is a great challenge. This has led a lot of companies to reduce the number of suppliers they have, so as to build up the skills in a more targeted manner. N There is always a risk that the multiplication of voluntary standards, and the pressure from purchasers on their suppliers to adopt these standards, could overburden the producer, leading them to drop out of the market altogether. This would be an irony, as it would not promote sustainability and would result in standards being trade hindering. One response is clearly that we should notfoa proliferation of certification processes. Moreover, the increase in number of business to consumer labels may risk being a problem. If consumers are unable to differentiate between the various levels of sustainability being offered by different labels (some of which focus on environmental standards, other on social standards, others on both, and of course with varying ease of compliance), there is a risk of competition between labels, or even of consumers being “switched off” by the experience. Some participants raised attention to the fact that many standard initiatives do not make claims to consumers. These initiatives do not operate with a label but only with a certification or validatbinitiatives are invisible consumers in order to avoid confusion thus benchmarking and harmonisation is as important.

“Multinationals often get badly treated. But we should recognise that when operating their own factories, they run them to the highest standards, regardless of what country they are in.”

“Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Each certification costs money, and too many may lead to producers just giving up on exports!”

20

Responsible investment and the financial market

sources. Separately schemes to fund the transition to sustainability have

tives. Voluntary standards and e debate on Corporate Social Responsibility have contributed to the

that they are niche market. Ethically motivated consumers are the bedrock clientele, but

e it is essential to move thical production into the mainstream. Some discussants suggested that

The practice of “responsible investment” by financial institutions has grown in recent years, and is an important way of spreading ecological and social

values. Many responsible investors are not motivated by public spiritedness alone, perceiving this as a form of active risk management that adds value to their investments. Companies seeking investment may themselves conduct an audit using inside measures - based on fixed criteria provided by the investors - to establish their environmental and social rating. In other cases an outside rating can be conducted, based on information available in open

been created, either by donors or by local initiathdevelopment of an ethical financial market segment. This market in turn will have an impact on companies to invest in sustainability and social and ecological standards. Public banking institutions such as the World Bank and the International Finance Cooperation only give out loans when compliance with certain standards is guaranteed. Some private banking institutions have followed this path with the Equator Principles. From niche to mainstream? A challenge for voluntary standards is to break out of the mindsetatheir number can be increased only slowly. Hencebusiness to business standard initiatives that cover bigger segments/portions of markets could serve as a starting point for producers to embark on the more ambitious label initiatives. This would be a step by step approach and a process of continuous improvement for producers. It became apparent that an intense debate exists as to whether offering “watered down” standards as an “entry level” for mass markets would be harmful, undermining trust in other labels, or whether it would bring benefits by mainstreaming ethical products. The best that could be agreed was that there is no single “magic path”, but rather a mix of approaches is needed, probably including voluntary standards, government regulation, public pressure, financial markets, procurement policies etc.

The Swiss Co-op sources all its bananas from sustainable locations, and about

l es r .

10% of Coop’s totaproduct range comfrom sustainable oorganic production

21

Political impacts of voluntary standard initiatives

Evidence of this kininitiatives such as foresocial standards. In pentered into public prprocesses up to somprofile of key issues (i Tackling governmen Voluntary standards

. Many ountries have signed up to

Whilst companies often see voluntary standards as a practical means of doing business without the burdens of heavy regulation, some non-governmental organisations are concerned that voluntary standards should not become a way of avoiding or undermining laws. The potential tension here was less perceived on the national level, as voluntary standards generally affirm the primacy of compliance with national laws. Moreover, nobody challenges that the worst forms of abuse e.g. child or slave labour, should simply be illegal. Indeed there is some experience that the introduction of voluntary standards can actually encourage national legislators to introduce binding rules of equivalent strength, and that this can even

In general it was felt that still too little was actually known about the impacts on the political level, although certain broad themes could already be identified.

d of impact was demonstrated by analysing standard st certification and round tables for the implementation of articular processes of forest certification amongst others ocurement policies, stimulated more participatory policy etimes even influencing policy change and raised the

.e. land tenure) in political debate.

tal failure

are means of shaping globalisation in a more balanced way by trying to fill a number of gaps that exist at the governmental level. In the first place, the rapid globalisation of markets has not been followed in all areas by national and global adoption of common rules and regulations. Voluntary standards can be a way of “filling in the gap” where national and global regulation is lacking. However, voluntary standards often also play another role: that of ensuring implementation and enforcement of rules that already exist at an international or national levelcinternational agreements, be they from the International Labour Organisation, the UN or even regional bodies. The problem is that countries either lack the political will or the ability to enforce those rules on the ground (and not just in poorer nations). As one donor commented, in such situations it is often easier to talk to corporations and enterprises to effect change on the ground, than it is to talk to the governments concerned. Especially in countries which undergo a transition from a state-controlled economy to a market economy company and labour law is in many cases new. This also might be a reason for the difficulty to enforce legal regulations. Undermining or reinforcing the rule of law?

The Global Compact started by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan already has over 3100 companies signed up to meeting basic social and environmental commitments listed, and is being developed more widely in Sub-Saharan Africa with support of German governmental funding.

22

have regional effects, with a scaling-up of existing codes for all competing ountries concerned, as happened in sustainable timber production.

l and social standards be a part of the Doha round, this was rejected by many other trading

m of closet protectionism. This route currently eems unlikely to lead anywhere, and some thinking exists that bilateral free

, it was stated by some participants that ersion of voluntary codes into laws

troy their effective capacity for legislation can encourage a “tick-box”

here the minimum requirements as the law are reached with the help of change), or worse still lead to an ycle of firms resorting to bribery to on-compliance charges. Voluntary

engagement of all parties concerned in

t was expected and on offer e.g. when a label claims that a roduct is “organic”. In order to move to scale there is no single pathway. The

between voluntary standard,

c Binding global rules or not? Potentially more controversial is the question of whether voluntary standards should be codified into further international agreements as a part of deals made in institutions that (unlike the International Labour Organisation) have the teeth to bite: most notably the World Trade Organisation. Whilst the EU had pushed for environmentatopartners, who feared it to be a forstrade agreements could be used as a vehicle for introducing these considerations instead. However, it is worth compiling existing experiences and stimulates ways ahead on how to combat the widespread sense in some parts of the world that such standards are simply a form of protectionism. A difference between voluntary codes and

Moreoverthe convcould deschange: mentality (wstated in cosmetic infernal cescape n

standards on the other hand require thethe supply chain in a dialogue which seeks more far-reaching changes in process and thus are able to produce voluntary agreements even above minimum requirements. Moreover, some suggested that the flexibility of voluntary standards meant they were more easily adapted to meeting the needs as found on the ground. This said, others pointed out that the clarity of having a law made it easier for both business and ultimately consumers, to know exactly wha

laws?

“Donors, business and NGOs have an impact on each other – so why did they not talk with each other about this fact?”

pneed to examine more about the interplay

overnment regulation, public pressure, financial markets, procurementgpolicies etc. is evident.

23

Just one part of the solution Whatever the exact mix between voluntary standards and law, it is clear that

art of a solution to the broader problems of nbalanced development.

such codes can only be a pu Indeed, often there will be vital steps that need to

ny change is going to affect traditional lifestyles. The empowerment of i in many parts of the world,

ill challenge existing way of doing things, and often be seen as a “foreign” imposition. But if one believHuman Rights – rather than bethis is something that must be An impact on politics locally Another effect of voluntary participatory and multi-stcompliance assessments on

gang labour groups, often made up of poorly paid and badly treated immigrants. The findings provoked an outcry and stimulated legislation requiring gang labour leaders to be licensed.

be undertaken before producers can even hope to become part of a voluntary standards initiative – for instance many farmers do not have title for their land, and hence are unable or unwilling to invest in projects that bring returns only in the longer term. For them, property rights are essential. Moreover, to combat poverty effectively, it is clear that many other issues, including good governance, gender equality, education, access to resources (water, finance…) need to be addressed. However standard initiatives can raise the profile of these key issues in the political debate as it is the case with land tenure in forest certification. Challenging traditional lifestyles Auntouchables in India or promotion of gender equ tyw

es in the universality of basic values such as lieving that there are distinct e.g. Asian Values – lived with.

standards has been to put the issue of akeholder decision making beyond pure the table in many places – and not just poorer

countries. By bringing together the various actors concerned, there has been a gradual attitude shift, as even witnessed in the conference itself by a much lower level of “we are right, you are wrong” views from the stakeholders than once the case. Moreover, the political class in many countries has been forced to address the issue of multi-stakeholder processes negotiating sustainability by the existence of voluntary standards. However, even in

Western Europe, simply the inspection of compliance with voluntary standards can bring practices to light which then lead to regulation. For instance in the UK, such inspections revealed the extensive use of

“It is a myth to believe that the most vulnerable sections of poor societies will be able to leap straight into global trade.”

24

Recommendations

check their own performance, donors will look at the effectiveness of their projects, and NGOs,

media, will seek to identify weaknesses. However, all involved should make a systematic

how to those who oppose voluntary tandards that they do not act as a barrier to trade, and that they bring benefits

f the attribution gap. Funding should be made vailable for such studies. In addition participants called for more

ybetterment of the current situation.this process, but as a necessary not a sufficient condition. Audits and monitoring at the impact and outcostakeholder qualitative review measshould also shape the methodoloinput. Moreover, among those whformal network could be createdby ISEAL. This network looks at e.g - a code of best practice in monitoring and evaluation, as well as impact

assessment; - exchanges of case studies; - examination of how voluntary standards and governmental legislation

interact; - a mapping of who is involved, their roles, and give a conceptual framework.

A number of recommendations emerged in the course of discussions for governments but also for all others involved in voluntary standards. More comprehensive research and joint efforts Given the lack and quality of data, especially in impact assessment, it is important to encourage more research into what is actually happening as a result of voluntary standards. There is no single body which should be

given the task: whoever can do this, should conduct a review, but one suggestion is to use OECD definitions. Of course multinationals will

even

effort to look at the impacts level, and not just at the outcomes, and to start studies in sectors of

trade that are not yet well covered by voluntary standards. Likewise more research is needed into the impacts on markets, trade and politics, where less is known than is about the impact on producers and workers. Indeed such work really needs to be able to ssby piercing through the fog oacollaboration in the standard community on this topic. More dialogue There is a need for a continuous exchange of best practices and sharing of problems between companies, donors and NGOs, thus allowing brains, ideas, tools and methodologies to be pooled. A pre-condition for this exchange is to promote transparency in all voluntary standards. From what is in the standard, through to who is involved, up to actual performance – including

is essential to collective learning, and the The use of auditing is to be encouraged in

me level should be accompanied by multi-ures to be effective, and these stakeholders gy of the review, not just provide content o are involved in such reviews, a more , with a common approach as promoted .:

“Auditing teams should be made up of both insiders and outsiders with a diversity of backgrounds. They should also interview all stakeholders.”

where failure exists – transparenc

25

But talk and study is not e

uing about hat colour socks it should wear. It is much better to go out on the football field,

playing. In the same spirit, time hould not be lost in disputes about definitions of words, or in finding the “right”

Speeding up, mainstreaming In order to speed up the spreathere is no reason to start fromtime when introducing one toWhilst it is clear that eachspecificity, it is also the cestablished in one industry Hence it is recommended that

premium market. his concept was not universally loved, as it implies watering down of

mainstream, but so long as the aim is to increase the strength f the standards over time, this could pull all production up to a higher level of

by means of effective communication, the general public starts to demand

l production, the greater the incentive to change. This could vention to extend consumer education

of new product segments - such as bio-diesel, or of ethical

nough One participant used the analogy of a soccer team: the worst thing a team could do, would be to spend the game sitting in the locker room argwto play, and to learn from mistakes made when smethodology. By all means have a dialogue, but above all try, try, and try again.

, simplifying

d of voluntary standards, scratch each and every a new industry sector.

business will have its ase that many criteria will be valid for another. some “common core list”

shall be established, which contains items that are likely to be valid in all industries, and that can be used as a template. Moreover, rather than starting any new initiatives (with the risk of over-burdening producers and confusing consumers) there is a need to benchmark existing ones, thus making them mutually reinforcing. Hence the idea emerged of some form of graduated ladder, where less demanding schemes form an “entry level” for the mass market, whilst other more demanding ones exist for aTstandards for theosustainability in the longer term. Additionally, it was recommended that to broaden their impact, companies should “marry” (i.e. link) initiatives that take only one aspect into account (e.g. only the environment), with initiatives taking other (e.g. social, quality) factors into account, making them a single package offered to consumers, and associated with their brand name. More demand, more supply Clearly if the perceived cost of switching to sustainable sourcing can be reduced, more companies will join-in, and hence the greater the mainstreaming that will take place, and the greater the potential pressure exercised on those companies not committed to change yet. Here a push-pull strategy is recommended. On the push side, the cost of not changing rises if: -

“I am disappointed as progress is too slow: how can we make it go faster?”

more sustainable sourced products. The more it is clear that the customer expects ethicaimply some state interprogrammes that promote such schemes generically. Furthermore, promotionprocurement criteria for governments, can all stimulate demand;

26

- financial institutions are encouraged to consider unsustainable sourcing of products as an economic risk that needs to be factored in when

rs can help build the infrastructure of service providers offering technical assistance and training for workforce/management;

to clear economic and a wide range of other advantages (e.g. risk management, transparency) for those

with information about s, hence rewarding

assessing the value of a corporation. Likewise support can be given to engagement strategies where all shareholders can be encouraged to ask for change.

On the pull side, more can be achieved if: - dono

- Corporate Social Responsibility leads

firms engaging seriously and in a long-term manner; - public rankings of sustainability provide the consumer

the different strategies being pursued by corporationgood companies with a better reputation.

“Trust is a pricelesasset for reputation

s ”

27

Annexe 1: The Agenda

Tuesday, 24 October 2006

14:00 Opening Peter Conze Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

es - Objective assessment What do we expect from voluntary standards and what can we achieve?

e

International, Netherlands Sibyl Anwander Phan-huy, Coop, Switzerland Martin Meyer, Kraft Foods Europe, Germany Karl-Hermann Blickle, sunlife GmbH, Germany Ingo Ammermann, Otto GmbH & Co KG, Germany

Round table 3: NGOs Paul Bendix, Oxfam, Germany Aziz Celik, Turk-Is, Turkey Alfred Schumm, WWF, Switzerland Elisabeth Strohscheidt, Misereor, Germany

Round table 4: Initiatives response to expressed expectations Stefan Wengler, Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI), Belgium Diego Pizano, National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia (FNC), Colombia Bernward Geier, Rainforest Alliance, USA Eileen Kaufman, SAI, USA Kristian Möller, EurepGAP, Germany Gelkha Buitrago, Fair Trade Labelling Organisations (FLO), Germany

17:30 Desk study presentation: First Insights into the impacts of voluntary standards Gudrun Grosse-Wiesmann Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany

18:00 Keynote speech Erich Stather State Secretary, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Wednesday, 25 October 2006

09:00 Coffee session Strategies for achieving impacts – presentation and discussion of two different approaches Anja Osterhaus, International Fair Trade Association, Belgium Achim Lohrie, Tchibo GmbH, Germany Moderation: Thomas Henschel, European School of Governance

14:30 Four parallel round tabl

Moderation: Thomas Henschel, European School of Governanc

Round table 1: Donors Evita Schmieg, BMZ, Germany Jonas Wendel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden Stefan Denzler, SECO, Switzerland Asha Ramnathsing, DGIS, Netherlands

Round table 2: Companies George Jaksch, Chiquita Brands

28

09:45 IntrodImpact iding through the maze of terms

tandards at company/producer and worker level

ania

nce

and trade

rmany ny

, Switzerland

tadt, Germany

cussion t be

om?

Scholz, GTZ mas Henschel, European School of Governance

15:45 t, Misereor, Germany

uction to workshops monitoring and assessment – gu

and definitions Peter Conze Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

10:00 Parallel workshops Presentations, discussion and evaluation of impact in different dimensions

s. and of methods applied. Identification of gaps/needs for further analysi

Workshop 1 Impacts of s Yasemin Basar, Yesim, Turkey

tes, Romania Dana Nicolescu, Opportunity AssociaCostica Basiu, Confectil Vaslui S.A., RomStephanie Ware Barrientos, University of Sussex, UK Moderation: Adrian Taylor, European School of Governa

Workshop 2 Impacts of standards on markets Michael Windfuhr, Brot für die Welt, Germany Jan Eggert, AVE, Germany Stefan Seidel, Puma, GeMatthias Bönning, oekom research AG, GermaSibyl Anwander Phan-huy, CoopSimeon Onchere, EAFCA, Kenya Moderation: Vera Scholz, GTZ

Workshop 3 Political impacts of voluntary standards initiatives Michael Jenkins, Forest Trends, USA Melanie Zimmer, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt HSFK, Germany

ersity of DarmsLothar Rieth, Technical UnivModeration: Jürgen Hess, GTZ

Workshop 4 Standard initiatives’ approaches to continuous impact monitoring in different dimensions Patrick Mallet, ISEAL, UK Nola Barker, MSC, UK Moderation: Katrin Gothmann, GTZ

14:00 Plenary session Knowledge capturing and knowledge sharing. Presentation and disof workshop results. How should impact monitoring and assessmendone and by wh Reflection: Vera Moderation: Tho

Summing up results of the conference lisabeth StrohscheidE

Ingo Ammermann, Otto GmbH & Co KG, Germany Evita Schmieg, BMZ, Germany

29

Annexe 2: The Participants Surname Name Institution Ammermann Otto GmbH & Co KG Ingo

Anwander Phan-huy Sibyl Coop Bahn Evelyn Clean Clothing Bajorat Harald Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Barker Nola Marine Stewardship Council Barth Nicole WWF Germany Basar Yasemin Yesim

Basiu u S.A. Costica Confectil VasliBaumann Dorothee Fair Labor Association Europe

Becker echnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Sabine GmbH Deutsche Gesellschaft für T

Beisheim Marianne Freie Universität Berlin

Bendix Paul Oxfam Berg Nina DGB-Bildungswerk e.V.

Bertenbreiter Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Wolfgang Deutsche Gesellschaft für bH Gm

Billen H & Co KG Gerd Otto Gmb

Blickle Karl-Hermann sunlife GmbH Bongartz Heinz Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Bönning arch AG Matthias oekom reseBotsch Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB) Andreas DeutscherBuitrago Gelkha Fair Trade Labelling Associations (FLO) Burckhardt Gisela

Burger ity Freiburg Dietrich Albert-Ludwigs-UniversBusch ty Lawrence Michigan State UniversiCastells Development Nuria United Nations Conference on Trade and Castor Tanja BASF AG Celik Aziz Turk-Is Chahoud Tatjana German Development Institute (DIE)

Conze Peter aft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) bH

Deutsche GesellschGm

Courville Sasha ernational Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL) Alliance Int

Daelman or International Cooperation Herta Flemish Agency f

Damodaran Indian Institute of Management Bangalore Appukutan de Vries Daan AidEnvironment Decraen Steven Belgische Technische Coöperatie Deja TIMA GmbH Achim G. Demtschück Elke Denzler Stefan State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO)

Derzi Vasile CNSLR Fratia Diender Rachel Utz Kapeh Dubbers Elizabeth Universität Bremen Duchateau evelopment Agency Kristin Austrian DEdler Antje Forum Fairer Handel Eigen Peter Transparency International

30

Surname Name Institution Eisbrenner Services International Katja AccreditationElisa Manukjan d, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Federal Ministry of FooElshorst Hansjörg arency International Transp

Falk Gertrud FIAN-Deutschland e.V. Fedtke Norbert Henkel KGaA Feldt Heidi Fischer Economic Cooperation and Development Helmut Federal Ministry for Fleckenstein ermany Martina WWF GFleischer e Christian Como GmbH

Fransen Luc Amsterdam School for Social Science Research Freier Ines Fuchs Heinz Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst Gebauer for Ecological Economy Research Jana InstituteGeier Bernward Rainforest Alliance Göbel Thorsten sunlife, Karl Bitzer zur Rose GmbH & Co.

Goldenberg Sophie Sustainable Agriculture Initiative - Platform Gomes dos Santos Virginia Gordon Tina Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst

Gothmann r Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Katrin Deutsche Gesellschaft füGmbH

Greiff Miriam Habitat for Humanity Germany Grosse Wiesmann n and Development Gudrun Federal Ministry for Economic CooperatioHabel Gisela Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Hartmann he Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Jörg Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechniscGmbH

Hatzfeld n erwaltung Graf Herma Hatzfeldt-Wildenburg'sche V

Heise Jenni Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Hennes Volker German Development Service (DED) Henschel Thomas European School of Governance (eusg)

Hess Jürgen Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Hicks Frank Forest Trends Hillner Ulf Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Hinzmann Bernd INKOTA

Holthus Paul Marine Aquarium Council Jaksch George nternational Chiquita Brands IJenkins Michael Forest Trends Kaan Christopher tät Berlin Freie UniversiKaeser Steffen nited Nations Industrial Development Organisation UKasch Volker MISEREOR Kaufman ity International Eileen Social Accountabil

Kirse Stefanie esellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Deutsche GGmbH

Kocks Peter Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Köpke Ronald Florece Consultants Kotschi es Johann Agrecol

31

Surname Name Institution Krämer Claudia ation and Development Federal Ministry for Economic CooperKreuzaler Ernst Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Künkel Petra Collective Leadership Institute

Küppers Barbara ny terre des hommes GermaKutzinski y, Center of the Americas Vera Vanderbilt UniversitLaszuk rzata C Management Consultants Malgo DLeuppert Birgit Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer ProtectionLinse Helga DaimlerChrysler Lohrie Achim Tchibo GmbH

Ludwig Ingrid Gerling GMBH Lüers Gerd

Mallet Patrick tal Accreditation and International Social and EnvironmenLabelling (ISEAL) Alliance

Margraf beit (GTZ) Britta Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammenarGmbH

McDermott licy and Constance Yale University, Yale Program on Forest PoGovernance

Meinecke Anja PricewaterhouseCoopers AG

Meyer Martin Kraft Foods Europe

Möller Kristian oup on Good Agricultural Euro-Retailers Produce Working GrPractice (EUREPGAP)

Neves Luis Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GESI) Nickoleit Gerd gepa Fair Handelshaus

Nicolescu Dana Opportunity Associates Romania Onchere Simeon Eastern African Fine Coffee Association Opal Charlotte Trans Fair USA Oppermann Nicole Nicole Kraft Foods Optiz Michael Neumann Foundation / EDE consulting Osterhaus Anja onal Fair Trade Association Internati

Pensel Annette Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Peters Ute GTZ Consultant Conference Management Peters-Halbrodt y Krafts Foods GermanPizano Diego National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia (FNC) Ramm Gerd Como GmbH

Ramnathsing Asha rlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Directorate-General The Nethefor International Cooperation

Ranke Julia Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Reichert Joachim Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology Reiser Commerce Katrin International Chamber ofRieth Lothar Technical University of Darmstadt Roesen t für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe Gisa Bundesanstal

Rust Jenny Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Sarch Terri Department for International Development (DFID)

Schindler Jörg Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Schläger g Catrina Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftun

32

Surname Name Institution Schmieg Evita Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Scholz Vera Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Schubert Tina Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

Schukat Philipp enarbeit (GTZ) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammGmbH

Schumm WF) Alfred World Wide Fund for Nature (WSeidel Stefan Puma

Singer Christine chaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Deutsche GesellsGmbH

Smith Alan Forest Stewardship Council

Stather ate Secretary, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation Erich Stand Development

Strohscheidt Elisabeth MISEREOR Suhr Katja GTZ AgenZ Taylor Adrian European School of Governance (eusg)

Thorns Matthias The Confederation of German Employers' Associations (BDA) Thorun Christian rband e.V. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesve

Uhlig Kerstin Euro-Retailers Produce Working Group on Good Agricultural Practice (EUREPGAP)

Untied Bianca Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZGmbH

)

Vallejo Nancy PI Environmental Consulting Vargas Carole Deutscher Bundestag

Vogel Catherine che Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnisGmbH

von Rauch eutschland Wasilis Verkehrsschutz DWaldenburger Lutz Landespflege & Projektentwicklung Wallenstein Burkhardt Lange Wallenstein Consulting Walsh Juan Rodrigo Round Table on Responsible Soy Ware Barrientos e Stephani University of Sussex Institute of Development Studies

Weiligmann Bärbe alitie l KoffiecoWeingärtner and Development Lioba Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation Wendel Jonas ign Affairs Swedish Ministry of Fore

Wengler Stefan Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI) c/o Foreign Trade Association

Westphal Sandra International Labour Organisation Wilhelm Brett Fair Labor Association Europe Windfuhr el Micha Brot für die Welt Zimmer Melanie Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (HSFK) Zintl Michaela ation and Development Federal Ministry for Economic CooperZoss Marc Swiss Centre for International Agriculture (ZIL)

33