CCIC Learning Circle on NGO Engagement

with the Private Sector on an Agenda to Eradicate Poverty

First Workshop Strathmere House, North Gower, Ontario

January 27-29, 2000

Richard Marquardt for

Canadian Council for International Co-operation Policy Team

CCIC learning circle on NGO engagement with the private sector on an agenda to eradicate poverty

First workshop Strathmere House, North Gower, Ont.

January 27-29, 2000

Background During recent years, a renewed interest in the role of the private sector in development has returned to the policy agenda. NGOs are using a variety of approaches to influence corporate behaviour and to promote corporate accountability, from confrontational advocacy to dialogue, strategic alliances, and programming partnerships. As part of its efforts to support the learning and policy dialogue of its members, CCIC organized a learning circle, with participation from organizations in both the North and South, on NGO engagement with the private sector on an agenda to eradicate poverty. A learning circle is a co-operative effort in which all participants are both learners and resource people. The aim is to increase our knowledge of critical issues and to better prepare ourselves for work in a particular field. This learning circle is a multi-stage process that began in January with an in-depth, two-day workshop, the subject of this report. There will be a second two-day workshop in June. During the intervening period, participants will engage in a number of research tasks identified during the first workshop and bring the results back to the second workshop; CCIC will provide support to this work. In preparation for the first workshop, a background issue paper1 was prepared and forwarded to participants. The objectives for the first workshop were: • To build a learning environment (trust, critical but supportive reflection) and a

framework for learning agreed by participants; • To explore and build knowledge on the role of the private sector in reducing or

deepening poverty and in enabling sustainable development; • To look at a range of experiences in NGO engagement with the private sector and

initial thoughts on their effectiveness in ending poverty; and • To identify key issues to explore over the next five months during the learning circle

and to determine timing and structure for the second workshop.

1 The Background Issue Paper prepared for the Learning Circle by Moira Hutchinson: “ NGO Engagement with the Private Sector on a Global Agenda to End Poverty: A Review of the Issues” is available on the CCIC web site at : http://www.web.net/ccic-ccci. Many participants in the workshop expressed appreciation for its high quality and suggested we try to make a better use of it in the discussions.

Thursday, January 27 The facilitator led the group through warm-up exercises designed to introduce participants to each another and begin the dialogue. Participants were asked to introduce themselves and to give a one-sentence statement of their perspective on NGO engagement with the private sector. Then participants were asked to form a line, with those who saw the private sector as a solution to the problem of poverty at one end, and those who saw it as a source of the problem at the other end; those with mixed views could situate themselves at an appropriate point along the continuum. These exercises quickly brought out the wide range of views in the group: • Some were skeptical about the value of any form of engagement with the private

sector; • Others warned that corporate power is increasing rapidly, and that we cannot afford to

ignore it; we have to find effective ways of engaging to have some influence on corporations and get them to behave responsibly;

• One agreed that engagement was good, but worried that marriage could be tricky; if

NGOs engage with the private sector they have to ask who determines the terms of engagement, and how NGOs can expect to have any leverage;

• Some felt that the focus should not be on the private sector as such but on the system

in which corporations operate; it might be more effective to focus on having governments and international organizations change the rules around production and trade than to pressure corporations to change their behavior;

• Some pointed out that the private sector is quite diverse and favoured working with

small companies and strengthening the co-operative movement as alternatives to domination by TNCs;

• Several were at least cautiously optimistic about developing relationships between

NGOs and the private sector to engage corporations in strategies to eradicate poverty; • One spoke of creating a model of the socially responsible corporation, and of building

widespread consumer demand for social justice and equity; • Another related positive experience in working in programming partnerships with

private corporations and believed NGOs could do so effectively without being co-opted;

• One reported that, when she worked with an NGO, dialogue with corporations almost

always ended in conflict, whereas when working with a union the relationship usually

3

went from conflict to settlement; this suggested to her that there might be more effective methods of NGO engagement with corporations; and

• Finally, several participants expressed the hope that we could find common ground

across all of these points of view as a basis for co-operation. Friday, January 28 Reference Group. It was established to serve as a planning and steering committee through the course of the workshop. The members were: Andrea Botto, Tim Draimin, Mark Lee, Marlene Modaca, Rieky Stuart, Brian Tomlinson, and Simon Zadek. Guidelines. Participants to the Learning Circle workshop agreed on the following guidelines for the two-day workshop: • Information about relationships between specific NGOs and the private sector will

remain confidential if requested by a participant; • In our discussions, we will transcend the labels and stereotypes we may have of one

another and aim to build trust; • We will take advantage of participation from around the world, and will check

particularly whether perceptions are shared North-South; and • We will be concrete and specific in our discussions, to the greatest extent possible. Small groups activity Participants then formed four small groups all of whom worked on the following tasks: 1. Each participant will write down on cards key examples of their engagement with the

private; each small group will post the cards on the wall grouping them under three or four types of engagement (i.e. Advocacy, Direct Dialogue with Private Sector, Strategic Alliances, Programming Partnerships);

2. Discuss the assumptions and challenges involved in the different types of engagement

chosen by the organizations; and 3. With the information shared, the group will create a map of their worldviews,

assumptions, and understandings of the change process. Find the relationships between different worldviews and strategies.

Since the last task was not able to be completed by any of the groups in the time available, the groups were given some more time and were asked to report to the plenary on the following two questions:

4

1. What are the one or two issue areas we should explore more deeply during the

Learning Circle process? 2. What assumptions / premises lie behind the themes chosen? In Plenary i. Reports from the small group activities Group 1: Bill Brassington, Peter Chapman, Tim Draimin, Rene Gravel, Mark Lee, Yves Rochon, John Samuel and Linda Yanz. The group began their presentation explaining their worldviews and assumptions (see figure 1) and followed with the identification of areas that need more exploration.

• Worldview and assumptions General context The global context is dominated by the neoliberal paradigm. There is a high degree of concentration of wealth and increasing poverty and inequality. The rights of citizens are being eroded, as are traditional values and accountability. Institutional positions Within this general context, institutions adopt different positions:

a) See corporations as necessary and powerful and favour working in co-operation with them;

b) Some are ethically driven and begin from the position that justice, equity, and fair distribution matter;

c) Some are politically driven and take the position that the rights of marginalized people precede every other consideration; and

d) Some favour a moderate approach with an emphasis on mediation. Strategies Based on these different positions, institutions choose different forms of action:

a) Mobilization of citizens, consumers, shareholders, and/or communities - various forms of grassroots, non-violent confrontation;

b) Negotiation, dialogue, or mediation (between corporations and communities, or between corporations and NGOs);

c) Joint ventures in order to build organizational capacity and economic strength; d) Confrontation with an emphasis on discourse, reframing issues, changing the

paradigm, “naming and shaming,” by working through the media on public opinion, and by lobbying to change legislation; and

e) Networking and alliance-building that in fact could be a part of any of the above strategies.

5

Figure 1 : Assumptions and Worldviews about how change to end poverty occurs in relation to corporations.

media opinion lobbying legislation

Action citizens

consumers shareholders community

Alliapeople, institutions,

Mediationbrings out the best

Marginal’d people first

Corp’ns necessary& powerful

nce trade unions, churches

dialogue mediation

Justice, equity matter

6

• Areas and themes to explore 1. When do you cross strategy boundaries? (i.e. when as an organization we decide it is

time to move from advocacy to dialogue, or vice versa?) 2. To what degree should NGOs strategies vis a vis an industry or enterprise inform

each other and/or overlap? 3. Can one organization employ different strategies at the same time?

This is not only a question of capacity; it also asks if you can engage in effective advocacy at the same time as sitting down to dialogue with corporations you are trying to influence;

4. How can you practice effective due diligence with private partners, to evaluate whether or not you should engage with them?

5. What do you do if the local community is divided, or uninformed, or not organized

for action? There may be no clear message on which to take a position. When is it ethical to engage? and

6. Who determines the rules of engagement with the private sector? How do you

identify the boundary between partnership and being co-opted into a process that diverts time and resources? A sub-theme to this issue is the one related to the co-option of language by corporations.

Group 2: Andrea Botto, Kerry Buck, Eugene Gonzalez, Joan Kuyek, Marlene Mondaca, Kevin Thomas, Kathy Vandergrift and Simon Zadek. The group identified the following key issues that need to be explored more deeply: • Key Issues to be explored 1. The question of NGOs working on the same issue with competing or conflicting

strategies (advocacy/dialogue/program partnership, etc); 2. The issue of accountability. The group identified the following three levels of

accountability: a) accountability of the NGO vis a vis its NGOs colleagues; b) accountability of the NGO vis a vis its donors; c) accountability of the NGO vis a vis the communities with whom it work or the people it claimed to serve.

In addition, regarding the accountability issue, there is another aspect that needs much more attention: measurement of the levels of accountability. How should the accountability be measured? a) Through formal systems of representation or through simple a matter of trust? It was noted that much of the chosen strategy depends on whom we are to account to at the end of the day.

7

3. How can an NGO create its own space for innovation and for risk, taking into account that their constant pressure to conform to certain norms;

4. How should we measure change? How should we decide what exactly we expect

corporations to do? That may affect whether we want to engage them directly, to get them to change their practices and policies, or indirectly, through changing government policy. Sometimes corporations don’t have the power to do what we want them to do, so we have to look to a different level of engagement;

5. How do we monitor change, once we have succeeded in having a corporation change

its practices or policies? How do we keep the pressure on the corporation? How do we follow up? How do we build on initial gains? We may, for example, engage at the level of corporate strategy or values (see Figure 2).

Typically, we first engage a corporation by placing direct pressure on it to change its behaviour. This represents the most basic level of learning by the corporation. But corporations may be capable of higher levels of learning, resulting in changes of strategy or values, going beyond reaction to immediate pressures. If we do not go beyond the immediate level, then corporations may return to previous behaviour as soon as the pressure is removed;

6. How can we create and preserve NGO leverage and bargaining power? Do strategy

and tactics need to evolve over time? Will what we think is a credible threat today be a credible threat tomorrow? Although, we may know what the current response is to a particular tactic, there is very little research on the underlying thinking of corporations, and how they calculate their responses.

Figure 2: Changes in corporate behavior

Changes in corporation’s values

Changes in long – term strategies

Changes in short –term behavior (reactive)

8

Group 3: Tobi Davidge, Moira Hutchinson, Philippe Jean, Apo Leung, Esperanza Moreno, Melanie Beth Oliviero and Rita Parikh. The group combined its summary of four key issues with the assumptions that were underlying each, as follows: • Key Issues and Assumptions 1. What happens to the role of governments when NGOs and private sector “engage”?

• Assumptions/premises: a) There is a role for government, and b)The basic rights are a government responsibility, particularly citizenship rights such as health and education;

2. Where are the people most affected in these processes of “engagement”?

• Assumptions/premises: a) These people should be at the centre of these processes; their participation is primary; b) Their empowerment can be enhanced through partnerships with NGOs; and c) Checks and balances with have-nots are essential;

3. What is the relationship between conflicting strategies, between short-term gains and

achieving the over-arching vision (eradicating poverty)? • Assumptions/premises: a) That there is a diversity of tactics; and b)

That these tactics may be in conflict; 4. How are international NGOs accountable to southern partners? How can we monitor

ourselves to be more accountable? • Assumptions/premises: a) That all NGOs must be accountable to their

constituencies and partners; and b) That there may be (will be) conflicts that must be addressed.

Group 4: Medea Benjamin, Stuart Clark, Danny Gillis, Rick McTaggart, Magaly Pineda, Alain Roy, Nancy Smyth and Nina Winham. The group reported the themes identified and the issues around each of them. 1. How do we preserve NGO integrity? Possible solutions: a) use of coalitions; and b)

use of specialized “engagement” and “protest” groups, so that protesters can hand off to the engagers, and vice versa, as appropriate.

• Issues around transparency: a) Being open and clear about what we are doing,

even to the point of the public release of information. For example, if we are co-operating with the private sector, say doing research, then we should build into contracts the right to public release of information, and b) North-South transparency around decision-making. We used the term transparency instead of accountability because of cases we discussed in which Northern NGOs had consulted with Southern NGOs and then done something other than what they had been advised to do because they had to bear in mind

9

all the local factors. Therefore, they were not being accountable but they would argue that they were being responsible and transparent;

2. Who pays the bills, and how? This is part of the issue of integrity, and it is also a real

issue, and practical problem, in its own right. Where does the money come from? Do we need different institutional arrangements to do this kind of work?;

3. Impact assessment - measuring real change. Implied in this is the coordination of

NGO action, both between “protesters” and “engagers” and between North and South; and

4. What is the role of government in NGO-private sector dialogues? ii. Discussion The facilitator asked participants to amplify critical issues they felt were missing or understated in the summary of the reports. • North-South Accountability A Southern participant stressed that the issue of North-South Accountability is critical. Although much of the action and protest is in the North, many of the outcomes are in the South, in the factories, maquilas, and free trade zones. If campaigns result in the loss of jobs, it is the NGOs in the South who must answer to the workers. We need to think more about the effect of campaigns on workers. We need to make education and information materials available in the local languages so that workers, unions, contractors, and others at the local level can be informed. We need to include all social actors in the discussions. For example, local contractors are key actors in the process. In the North, the contractors are often seen as the bad guys who impose the demands of the Gap, Nike, etc. But these are people who live and invest in the country and speak its language, and most are not really much better off than the workers. We also need to think more about the role of governments in the South. We hear about the positions of the governments of the UK, USA, Canada, and Netherlands, but what about the governments of Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic? They are not involved. Accountability is not a Northern problem, nor is it just a Southern problem; it is a North-South problem. It’s a global problem. • Tools and Capacities The issue of what tools or structures might be missing in our capacity to do this work better was raised. This might include such things as intermediary structures for channeling funds. It might include skills for bargaining with companies, the kinds of skills that unions have but that many of us may lack. It also includes the capacity to translate materials, or to have regular consultation. • When to target and What The question of how to move from one strategy to another was especially important. It was also suggested we expand the question of impact assessment to include the strategic

10

question of whom to target, and why. We need to develop some ideas about what changes we want and how much we can expect from given targeted corporations. • Mandate and Accountability A participant pointed out that when corporations look for NGOs to negotiate with, they often try to establish an elite group of organizations they can work with. There is a danger in some NGOs thinking they can speak for others. For example, here in Ontario, in the “Lands for Life” process (a crucial process of decision-making about land use in Ontario) a few environmental NGOs ended up speaking for the environmental movement without any mandate to do so. This is a critical aspect of the issue of accountability. • Who speaks for whom, from what realities, and answering why to engage Another participant continued on that point, noting that the issue of legitimacy, and of who speaks for whom, arises especially in the North-South context. It affects a lot of other things, including the capacity to raise funds, and institutional positioning. The perspective of NGOs in the South is very different from that of NGOs in the North. In the South, the issues are immediate, here-and-now struggles for survival, in a context where economies are being ravaged and communities destroyed. Much of the work of Southern NGOs is day-to-day firefighting. NGOs in the North begin from a moral and ethical position, but their positions are frequently viewed with suspicion in the South as a part of the neoliberal agenda. We have to recognize at the same time that the North-South divide is a fallacy. There is a South in the North and a North in the South. It is important in this context to go deeper in our thinking, to get at why we need to engage corporations, for it is in our answer to this that many strategic questions are answered. For example, should we focus on getting individual corporations to change specific behaviour, or should we try to change the behaviour of all corporations? To answer this we need to know why we are engaging corporations in the first place. The plenary then turned to the assumptions that seemed to underlie the various issues from the small group discussions: • Do we need to agree on our basic assumptions to move further in our work? Some were concerned that there were still many basic assumptions that have not explored. For example, some participants made the point that there is an important role for governments in ensuring citizenship rights such as health and education. But is there an implicit assumption that this is the exclusive role of the government? Little emerged as well on the issues and assumptions about partnership with the private sector. To affect change do we need to try to get everyone working with the same assumptions? Let’s agree to disagree about what constitute Utopia and concentrate now on the assumption that, as long as corporations are around, we have to work with them or work on them, force them to change. One participant suggested that we have accepted certain parameters to the learning circle discussion. Some may feel that the long-term goal is to challenge corporate hegemony, or the capitalist system. That kind of discussion is now viewed by most people as utopian.

11

In fact, that view is a part of corporate hegemony. In the past, it would have been normal to discuss how short-term, immediate efforts could contribute to the long-term building of a social movement to challenge the state or corporate rule. That kind of discussion is not happening here. An either – or mentality is wrong: either you trash capitalism or you engage with corporations. Strategically, there are all kinds of ways to take on a battle. Engaging with corporations is one way of working on the long-term task. It does not imply that those who do think corporations are necessary and desirable. • Tendency to jump into the “how” to engage without looking at the why and what The political aspects of engagement cannot be avoided. There is a tendency to circumvent the issues of “why” and “what” and jump into the issues of “how” Raising the issues of “why?” and “what?”brings up contradictions in the group. We cannot leave them aside and look for the lowest common denominator. We read many different meanings into terms such as accountability or transparency. Engagement does not mean we go along with corporations. In fact, resistance is a prerequisite to engagement. The reason corporations will come to the negotiating table is that we present a “credible threat”. There is a three-stage process: resist – engage – persuade. It is not either-or. At times you need to resist. A good strategist will know when you begin the engagement, and then know how you persuade without being co-opted. But to work together, we need to map the “whys”. Not everybody needs to have the same perspective, but it is desirable that they have compatible perspectives. If we don’t understand the perspectives of each other in this learning circle, we will go in circles. The Reference Group was given the task of integrating the reports and discussions into a number of core issues. These were to be presented to the plenary the next morning when participants will be asked to choose two or three issues on which to focus the work of the learning circle for the six months.

12

Saturday, January 29 In Plenary The purpose of the work on Saturday was to go more deeply into the identified core issues and to choose two or three for in-depth study between January and June when the second workshop of the learning circle will take place. The Reference Group first brought to the plenary a core or focal issue around which to build the learning circle. a) Determining the core issue for the learning circle The Reference Group asked Simon Zadek to present a synthetic framework that highlights a core issue that could define the work of the learning circle. He started by explaining that the central issue in his framework is effectiveness. In this learning circle we define it as effectiveness in ending of poverty. There are three major factors affecting effectiveness, each with a number of key issues related to effectiveness (see figure 3): • Accountability (institutional level) What is the relationship between accountability in the different civil society processes and their effectiveness to end poverty? What types of accountability generate what kind of institutional processes leading to what kinds of effectiveness? • Foundational assumptions (ideological level) What is the connection between foundational assumptions and effectiveness in ending poverty? Is there, in practice, any difference in what organizations with different assumptions are doing? • “Credible threat” (pressure level) How do we stay effective as corporations evolve ways of coping with the methods we use? What do we do that presents sufficient cause for corporations to change their behavior? Some NGOs are looking ahead five years and continually developing new forms of “credible threat”. People who had difficulty with the term “credible threat” interrupted Simon here. It seemed to remove the whole positive (carrot) side of strategies, one said. Another suggested “point of leverage” or some other term that made it clear that threatening corporations was not the only approach. Simon explained he was speaking about anything that affects business processes, and direct frontal pressure was only one such method. • Modes of engagement After explaining the three types of factors affecting effectiveness, Simon explained that modes of engagement should be understood as a general term for all forms of actions designed to change corporations’ behavior, from aggressive advocacy to programming partnership and all points in between – advocacy campaigns with specific goals, pressure for new or changed regulations, strategic alliances, etc.

13

• Tools (competencies, institutional processes) Tools affect all the above areas and are affected by them. They are the “how” and are defined by the different modes of engagement. It is important not to confuse the type of engagement with the tools. All the questions (modes of engagement and tools) need to be related to the fundamental question of effectiveness to end poverty. Figure 3: A framework to understand the core issue of the Learning Circle

Modes of engagement

Accountability

Foundational assumptions

Credible threat

Effectiveness in poverty eradication

The Reference Group then presented a statement of the core question for discussion: How effective are the different modes of engagement with the private sector in the agenda to end poverty? Discussion • The obvious answer is: “it depends.” A mode of engagement is effective in specific

contexts. We need to ask “How and in what context? And “engagement by which actors…”

14

• This question does not weigh engagement with the private sector against other forms

of action, such as building up the co-op movement. In response, CCIC pointed out that it had been necessary to limit the focus of the learning circle to NGO engagement with the private sector and not to include alternative forms of action affecting economic relations.

• We need to consider what conditions need to exist for a mode of engagement to be

effective.

• The question implies that engagement with the private sector is, or can be, effective. It leads directly to the question “how” and avoids the questions “why” and “what”.

• The question should at least include the implication that the best mode of engagement

is “ not to engage”. The question should ask about effectiveness “over time”. The question was then reformulated as follows: How, and in what context over time, are the different modes of engagement with the private sector (including not engaging) effective in the agenda to end poverty? Who are the critical actors in bringing about change? Recognizing that this was rather long and inelegant, the group moved on to look at the statement of specific themes and issues that had been drawn up by the working group the previous evening. b) Summary of potential areas for research and learning In understanding NGO engagement with the Private Sector, the following issues and questions need to be considered: 1. Complex relationships of accountability and ownership of strategies

• How do we rectify the current imbalance between North and South? • How do we assure that our strategies are accountable to communities and

people they aim to serve, North as well as South? • How do we balance our accountability to different actors (colleague NGOs,

donors, communities)? and • How do we improve transparency in North-South relations?

2. Measuring change and impact

• How do we build an evaluative framework for NGO-corporate engagement? • How do we set achievable outcomes from corporations? and • How do we monitor change, and who participates in the monitoring?

15

3. Synergy or undermining by simultaneous strategies • When do you cross strategy boundaries (e.g. from advocacy to dialogue to

other)? Can one NGO have multiple strategies? • How do NGOs assess when strategies complement or conflict? • How do we assess (and reconcile) assumptions about why /why not to

engage? • In a diversity of tactics, how do we assess the relationship between short-term

gains and the overarching vision of poverty eradication? 4. Maximizing leverage

• How to target the appropriate corporation for maximum leverage and impact? (E.g. do we go for market leaders, or are there other strategies?)

• How to generate new NGO strategy over time to build and maintain leverages and impacts? and

• How to identify and involve appropriate external actors (e.g. government, consumers, investors, media, etc.)

5. Role of government

• What happens to the role of government when NGOs and the private sector engage? and

• What are the potential roles for government in NGO/private sector dialogues? What do we expect from government?

6. Who pays the bills? (without undermining integrity and effectiveness) 7. Creating social space for NGOs to innovate & takes risks

• How do relationships among NGOs affect the space for innovation and risk, and what are the costs of failure (for the innovated NGO)? and

• What space do we create within the NGO movement for those NGOs that are innovating and taking risks?

8. Due diligence (in the choice of private sector partners)

• What exercise does a group go through to ensure its goals are not jeopardized, and in fact are amplified, by a partnership with a private sector corporation?

c) Identification of focal themes for Learning Circle The facilitator clarified that the first task was to choose from this set of themes and issues no more than three pieces of research to serve as the agenda of the learning circle from now until June. She asked the group to use as its main criterion that the issues be forward-looking. That is, what can help us to be more effective in the future, to work more effectively, or to decide which is the most effective kind of work to do? Following the choice of themes the next task for the day – in small groups – would be to develop a manageable research project in each area.

16

During the discussion, the following points were made: Some participants suggested that some of the topics could be combined, such as 7 and 1. Or the question of risk-taking and innovation could be considered in each area. Others suggested that it was difficult to make these decisions on a focus without an idea of the extent of resources at CCIC’s disposal. Brian Tomlinson reminded the group that this is a learning circle. The group is not determining CCIC’s agenda. The learning circle is setting its own agenda. The research work between workshops is part of the learning process. In a previous CCIC learning circle, the group had found that its own capacity for conducting the research agenda it had set for itself between meetings was much less than anticipated. This time, therefore, CCIC was offering to take on some of this work on behalf of the group. Nevertheless, the group should be giving thought to what role each member would be able to play in contributing to the research between meetings. CCIC could then identify a useful role for itself in this process, such as coordinating the gathering of information, finding additional materials, or synthesizing the contributions of a variety of participants. In setting research tasks, the group should keep in mind its own limitations and those of CCIC to support them. The aim would be to come back to the next workshop with enough input that all members can further their knowledge in the areas we have chosen. We need to define the questions now in such a way that we can make some progress on them between now and the next meeting. Brian also mentioned that CCIC will develop a “Deliberative Dialogue” process to engage its members around crucial issue areas. IDRC provides supportive funding for this. This process could be expanded to promote dialogue with other actors – in the private sector, perhaps, or government. Participants observed that none of the research topics could be addressed adequately by CCIC without a good level of resources. There is already extensive research for many of the topics. If the purpose is to make a net addition to knowledge, there are some real issues about how much value CCIC can hope to add. On the other hand, it was pointed out that the purpose is to increase our mutual learning based on the assumption that participants bring diverse knowledge to the table. We need to design ways to learn from each other’s experiences. Considering the limited resources, an analysis of several successful case studies related to the 2 or 3 issues we choose might be manageable and improve the capacity of CCIC members to do this kind of work. We need to be clear about what we can accomplish. We could do case studies with an eye to identifying common themes and issues, and use them to generate advice, cautions, resources, and so on. Understanding that CCIC’s resources are limited, we cannot project an ambitious research project to come up with a complete analysis. It might be better to do the case studies, and see what themes come out of them for the second workshop.

17

We might also catalogue existing resources and research, or set an electronic forum (list server) on strategies, actions and impacts. On behalf of the Reference Group, which had met during the break, the facilitator presented a set of three tasks for each small group: 1. Make offers of personal and institutional knowledge, information, contacts, and so

on, that could be contributed to work on case studies and other pieces of analysis. Assess the time availability of each member between now and June. Identify any needs to be reported back to the plenary;

2. Identify tools and resources that can be applied to this work; and 3. Define researchable questions that will help advance our learning under the priority

headings. Use the following criteria: • Questions should be placed in a North-South context (i.e. issues should not be

exclusive to Canada or a particular country in the South); • Questions should take Canadian particularities into account. e.g. Most TNCs

active in Canada are branch plants, except in the natural resources sector; and • Questions should be forward-looking, helping us to work more effectively in

the future. In plenary i. Report from the small groups Group 1: “ Complex relationships of accountability and ownership of strategies” 1. Checklist of the kinds of information proposed to find or develop before the June

workshop. • NGO partnership guidelines for coalitions. There is a whole series of issues

around campaigning work. It would be useful to develop a draft set of partnership guidelines that could be used, especially for North-South relationships or internal-to-country relationships;

• Corporate codes of conduct. Identify what codes are out there, and what the

trends are;

• Catalogue or map all corporate social responsibility (CSR) advocates and actors. Who is doing what at national level, business level, NGO level, international level, around the world; and

• Create a checklist of key northern and key Southern campaigns. Find overlap

of corporate targets. Look at NGO partnerships, particularly where there are accountability issues

18

2. Proposed list of case studies that would be useful to look at particularly around the issues of accountability and ownership:

• Nike. “Two sides of a campaign” (would allow us to look at the Northern and

Southern perspectives on a particular campaign) ; • Bhopal/Monsanto ( a southern-initiated campaign); • Jubilee 2000. Offers (positive) examples of best practices in North-South

relationships, and particularly Canadian experience; 3. Research tasks

• Develop an NGO code of conduct by looking at the different types of relationships NGOs have, different forms of governance, how they relate to each other, how Northern NGOs relate to Southern partners, etc;

• Analysis of examples in the Jubilee 2000, with a particular focus on North-

South relationships and positive campaigning;

• Compare community accountability issues, both the North-South dynamics and the internal-to-country dynamics;

• Research of accountability and control, given the reality that we have

elements of North in the South and of the South in the North: a) Who sets the framework for the initiative? b) Who pays the bills? c) How does alliance formation happen? d) How do we evaluate the impact on those most directly affected?

• Institutionalization: as these processes continue, they become more

institutionalized. Certain structures develop. Various issues arise: alliances, decision-making structures, the growth of tokenism as people try to ensure that certain constituencies are included, legitimacy of representation. Tension arises around the level of effort to be invested in the governance structure vs. in the actual work;

• Transparency in North-South relations: there are several issues that could be

examined here: a) What screening processes do NGOs use? b) Who has access to the criteria that NGOs use to decide who they are going to partner with? c) What forms of disclosure are there? and d) What are the operating principles?

• Accountability of donors. Donors are now making decisions on their support

for campaigns based on their own institutional dynamics. Some of the problems here are: donors who want to be on the cutting edge, moving to the issue-of-the-moment, then leaving it when something more current arises. There are many issues regarding how donors make decisions without participation from the South;

• The phenomenon of Northern NGOs developing TNC-like characteristics.

19

• North-South NGO solidarity. This issue focuses on accountability and the question of setting agendas for funding. The example raised here was the difficulty of NGOs in raising money for advocacy because donors were moving to support for dialogue. If the community could stick together on the importance of campaigning, they might be able to shift the funding priorities of donors.

4. Resources available for these research task

• Work on a draft code can be developed in the North; • The MacArthur Foundation is building an inventory of organizations

involved in C.S.R. work; • National Centre for Advocacy Studies can provide an overview of Indian

experiences, particularly on Bhopal/Monsanto; • CIPAF/Levi Report; Nike Critical Assessment – Maquila Solidarity Network/

Label Behind the Label. • Canadian Assn. Women & Sport example / Alain; • Business Social Responsible has code research; • Global Reporting Initiatives / Ceres; • Triple bottom line – multi-constituency – existing research/action; • Mining Watch Canada - May Conference with Southern partners; • Impact on the South - Inter Pares; • Commonwealth Federation Research; and • Learning Circle Background Issue Paper on Accountability and Ownership.

Discussion • NGOs codes. Asked if the group proposed simply collecting NGOs codes that already exist or actually writing a new one, the reply was that the task proposed was to put together a template for a code. The code would deal with NGO behaviour and relationships among themselves, dealing with the question of accountability within coalitions. A participant, referring to the discussion within Group 3 (below), pointed out that problems of accountability within coalitions usually come up quickly at critical moments, for example when gains have been made and there is an opportunity to move from advocacy to dialogue. Events can move rapidly and unexpected situations arise. The challenge in writing a code is how to combine the formalism that is helpful in guiding strategy and implementation with the flexibility needed in a situation where the patterns of accountability are having to be rejigged very quickly to cope with the discontinuity associated with success. • NGOs codes and strategic flexibility A member of the small group replied that the idea was for a guide that could be dynamic and able to deal with exactly that kind of moment. The objective is to hold a coalition together through such a moment. We need to understand such situations better by carrying out the case studies proposed. Others wondered whether a code of conduct

20

would be very helpful in solving problems in particular situations, given the level of generality at which they are written. Another approach might be to think of extracting a set of “lessons learned” from case studies. On another vein, a code forces key issues onto the agenda, especially in the context of the dramatic imbalance of power between North and South. A participant suggested that since the word “ code” is highly charged it might be better to speak of guidelines. Group 2: “ Impact assessment and monitoring” The group began to develop an analytical framework for impact assessment, as shown in Figure 4. The matrix is a framework for specifying impacts (on poverty reduction) at local, national, and international levels, for specific changes in corporate short-run responsive action, long-term strategies, and corporate values. The matrix looks at different changes we seek from corporations and tries to identify their impact on poverty reduction. The matrix as presented is a working model, developed in the time available to the group. It needs refining for practical use. Examples of impacts at the international level might be such things as structural change in international regimes – treaties, trade agreements, etc. -- affecting poverty and human rights. At the national level, it might be pushing on a regime, for example where taxes affect national economic policy on poverty and human rights. At the local level, the focus would be on short- and long-term impacts on poverty where people live as a result of changes in corporate behaviour, strategy, and values. The questions this framework tries to address include: 1. How do NGO strategies change corporate behaviour (given an individual country

context)? 2. How effective are we within the box we have chosen? (i.e. the change we are seeking

at the right level of intervention) and 3. Have we chosen the boxes where we are working in full knowledge of the potential

impacts of working in other boxes and the synergy between boxes? Some of the issues raised are:

• Can we evaluate a range of strategies in relation to each other? • Who fills in the boxes? (i.e. who does the assessment?) • What coalitions are possible? • Who is accountable to whom and at what level is this accountability located? • What are the relationships between the boxes? Does change in one level affect

positively or negatively the potential for change in others? and • What are the mechanisms for early warning and correction?

The group noted that the framework could be used as a planning tool, and as a basis for discussion among NGOs with different perspectives and strategies. The group suggested that CCIC do further work to develop the matrix and use it for case studies at the next meeting.

21

Figure 4. Matrix for the analysis of the impact of NGO action on corporate behaviour.

Corporate Behaviour

Level of Intervention

Corporate

Short-run action

Corporate Strategy

Corporate

values

International

e.g. corporation takes progressive position on labour standards at WTO

National

Local

e.g. corporation funds a health centre

Discussion • Assessing how NGOs change A participant observed that the matrix is set up to analyse how corporations change, but not the way NGOs change through the process. Clearly, the fact of multiple actors in any scenario was a complicating factor. It was pointed out that the framework is supposed to highlight sustainability – whether the impact has been a short-term corporate reaction or something that has been embedded in its values. This is a tool for measuring the impact of alternative strategies. It is a framework for analysing strategies in relation to one another, whether alternative or complementary, whether by the same actor or by different actors. It can be used as a planning tool in advance of an action, and after the fact for impact assessment. • Changing strategies and values It was pointed out that changing the set of conditions within which corporations operate could have a major impact on their behaviour without having any impact at all upon their values. One outcome might be that changed values in a corporation results in its acting proactively to advocate progressive change, for example on the labour standards in a multilateral trade agreement at the WTO. But is a change in corporate values the highest order of change; a structural change would be more significant. On the other hand, it is not until change is embedded in the underlying assumptions and values of the organization that it is going to continue in a sustainable way.

22

It was also noted, that when corporations speak of changes in values they mean changes in the structures of behaviour within the company. Companies are made up of individuals, and if you impress upon them that this is behaviour that is expected, then that becomes corporate values. It is structuralized or institutionalized. At the same time, external structures – public policy – can be imposed, and that is important too. • Institutionalizing change and the intended dynamics of corporations The point in both cases is to institutionalize the expected behaviours. A participant noted that in one of the small groups was an interest expressed in understanding more about the internal dynamics of corporations. There are several levels of learning within organizations. At the most basic level, if you kick them they respond. If you kick them long enough, they will learn to respond before you kick them. This can be called the first level of learning. But understanding corporation only as first-level learning organizations is limited. Systems also learn at higher levels. Large organizations have complex sociologies. It might be interesting as part of this process to explore how NGOs in coalitions can understand more about the internal dynamics of corporate decision-making behaviour. At the moment, we are operating at two levels: the kick-response level, and the external regulatory framework level. These are both perfectly valid, but we need to learn more about other levels of learning at which corporations internalize behavioural norms.

Group 3: “ Strategies and leverage” The group worked from the experience of its members on several different cases. They looked for commonalties in the experience they had in each case: how they engaged with the private sector and what kinds of problems they had. The group observed that work on strategies goes through a cycle that begins with issue identification and moves through capacity development, education, dialogue, then back to issue identification (Figure 5). Figure 5. The circle in NGO strategy

Issue identification

Education

Dialogue Capacity

They observed that when NGOs put pressure on a corporation, there are effects both within the corporation and within the NGO sector itself. The group was interested in both sets of effects. In the case of the NGO sector, the group felt it would be most useful to

23

look at the impact on coalitions. Pressure on corporations can lead to a point at which NGOs are invited to be involved in the corporate decision-making process and potentially co-opted into the corporate process. This is a critical moment that can lead to a split in an NGO coalition. It would be useful to study how coalitions change at these critical turning points. It would also be useful to identify stages in the behaviour and decision-making of corporations in the course of a campaign. This led the group to its one research question posed to the learning circle: “Close Encounters of a Corporate Kind”: Within the evolution of the campaign, at the point of transition from pressure to closer engagement, what are successful strategies for sustaining and evolving coalitions to be effective in the eradication of poverty? The group proposed that this question be addressed through three case studies: Talisman in the Sudan, Placer Dome in the Philippines, and the Ethical Trading Action Group (ETAG). The Talisman case has the advantage of being current, so there may be opportunities to extract information that will not be retrievable later. Placer Dome is a case within the crucial mining sector. The ETAG is a case of a coalition. Discussion • Tension in the evolution of strategies The emphasis on analysing critical moments in the evolution of strategy arose from stories we told each other about the activist base that built pressure being left out of the process after a certain point. There was a lot of tension in some coalitions around what the activists wanted to do and how they would stay involved. Another element is the North-South tension. If you are a Northern NGO working with a Southern partner and you have a lot of activists ready to bring pressure to bear, sometimes the timetables do not work together very well. • Case Studies We have several case study proposals. People need to see what is possible. We can also look at the case studies done in the environmental movement and in other organizations, such as labour support or aboriginal organizations. We need to be conscious of a limitation of case studies is that that they are backward-looking. Corporations are learning, changing, talking to each other. Conclusion Brian announced that the Reference Group would review the research proposals coming from the three groups and get back to the participants by the end of February. The record of the meeting should be ready by mid-February and e-mailed to the participants. By the end of February it should be possible to communicate a draft plan for the research and get feedback from participants.

24

After a review of possible meeting dates in June, the dates of June 18-20 appeared to be the most favourable, with June 11-13 second best. Brian announced that firm meeting dates would be communicated as soon as possible. The schedule of the second workshop was subsequently confirmed for June 18 (early in the morning ) to June 20. Brian and Andrea also confirmed that a small number (2 or 3) people who had been unable to attend this workshop could be invited to the second round. Thanks were expressed to the Reference Group and others who aided with logistics, to Rieky for her facilitation, to IDRC for its support, and to all participants for the wealth of experience and insight they brought to the learning circle. Eugene spoke for all participants in looking forward to missing the –40 degree weather at the next meeting.

25

List of Participants Benjamin, Medea Global Exchange Medea@globalexchange.org Botto, Andrea Paula CCIC – Policy Team Abotto@ccic.ca Brassington, Bill Co-Development Canada Association Bwcodev@web.net Buck, Kerry DFAIT/Global Issues Kerry.Buck@dfait-maeci.gc.ca Clark, Stuart Canadian Food Grains Bank S_Clark@foodgrainsbank.ca Chapman, Peter Canadian Friends Service Committee Pchapman@web.net Davidge, Tobi Canadian Business for Social Responsibility Tobi@cbsr.bc.ca Draimin, Tim CCIC – Policy Team Tdraimin@ccic.ca Gillis, Danny Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace Dgillis@devp.org Gonzalez, Eugene Foundation for Sustainable Societies Inc. Emgonzales@fssi.com.ph Gravel, René Socodevi Administration@socodevi.org

26

Hutchinson, Moira Steelworkers Humanity Funds Mhutch@web.net Kuyek, Joan Mining Watch Canada Jkuyek@magma.ca Lee, Mark CCIC’s Code of Ethic Review Committee/BSR Mlee@bsr.org Leung, Apo Labour Rights in China (LARIC) Amrc@HK.super.net Mc Taggart, Rick CIDA – Policy Branch Rick_MCTaggart@acdo-cida.gc.ca Mondaca, Marlene Save the Children Canada Mmondaca@savethechildren.ca Moreno, Esperanza CCIC – Deputy Director Emoreno@ccic.ca Oliviero, Melanie Beth Mc Arthur Foundation Molivier@macfound.org Parikh, Rita Mountain Coop (MEC) Rparikh@web.net Pineda, Magali Centro de Investigacion Para la Accion Femenina (CIPAF) Cipaf@aacr.net or cipaf@tricom.net Philippe, Jean Center for International Studies and Cooperation (CECI) PhilippeJ@ceci.ca

27

Rochon, Yves Inter Pares Yrochon@web.net Roy, Alain CCIC – Communication Aroy@ccic.ca Samuel, John National Center for Advocacy Studies Ncas@wmi.co.in Smyth, Nancy IDRC Nsmyth@idrc.ca Thomas, Kevin Students Against Sweatshops Kthomas@utoronto.ca Vandergrift, Kathy World Vision Canada Kathy_vandergrift@worldvision.ca Winham, Nina Citizen’s Bank of Canada Nina_Winham@citizensbank.ca Yanz, Linda Maquila Solidarity Network Perg@web.net Zadek, Simon Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability Zadek@compuserve.com Facilitator Stuart, Rieky Oxfam Canada Riekys@ott.oxfam.ca

28

Resource People Marquardt, Richard Consultant Richmarq@web.net Tomlinson, Brian CCIC – Policy Team Btomlinson@ccic.ca

29

The Canadian Council for International Co-operation is a coalition of over 100 Canadian non-profit organizations who seek to change the course of human development in ways that favour social and economic equity, democratic participation, environmental integrity and respect for human rights. CCIC conducts research, disseminates information and creates learning opportunities for its members, co-ordinates their collective efforts to shape new models for world development, presses for national and international policies that serve the global public interest, and builds a social environment for global citizenship in Canada. In 1998 the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and its 100 member organizations launched in common, a Canada-wide campaign, to move global poverty from the margins of the Canadian public agenda to the very centre of that agenda. The campaign seeks to mobilize all Canadians in a single unstinting effort to end poverty. The centrepiece of the campaign is a 10-point international policy agenda for global action against poverty. It analyzes the forces that conspire to keep 1.3 billion people in conditions of extreme poverty, outlining concrete steps that individuals, corporations, organizations and the government can take to turn the situation around.

Canadian Council for International Co-operation 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 300 Ottawa Ontario K1N 7B7 Canada Tel: (613) 241-7007 Fax: (613) 241-5302 E-mail: abotto@ccic.ca or btomlinson@ccic.ca Internet: www.web.net/ccic-ccci