GPSNR Working Groups Update: November 2021

Share This Post

It’s been a busy month, to say the least! If you haven’t had the chance to take stock of everything that has happened, here is the update: 

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

The group has finalised the Theory of change, which is currently in the process of being designed for public communications. They have also published the Environmental Risk Study, which can be found here

Currently, the group is working on developing the RFP for the Economic Risk Study. 

Smallholder Representation Working Group

After three successful smallholder onboarding workshops for smallholders from Indonesia, India and Cambodia since July 2021, the working group completed three more onboarding workshops for Thailand, Ivory Coast and Sri Lanka. 

More than 80 smallholders from all three countries participated, and the working group is now working on inducting those who apply for membership into the GPSNR ecosystem. The group is also busy with the fourth smallholder international call of 2021 on 25th November to prepare smallholders for GA 2021, as well as to seek smallholders’ views on plans for 2022. 

Policy Toolbox Working Group

The group has finalised the reporting requirements which have been put up for vote to all ordinary members before the General Assembly on 14th December. Take a look at the resolution here.

Capacity Building Working Group

This month, the group worked on presenting GPSNR’s position on rubber agroforestry at COP 26 via the agroforestry Task Force and completed the first review of the GPSNR Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs).The GAP Task Force is now working on finalising the GAPs, including preparations for pre-GA webinar on 2 December 2021, while a separate Task Force has started work  on commencing developments on the GPSNR Knowledge Sharing Platform. The work on the strategy review and implementation plans for Indonesia and Ivory Coast remain in progress. 

Traceability and Transparency Working Group

This working group has finalised the traceability benchmark internally, and will be holding a introducing the document  during the pre-GA webinar on 30th December 2021. The document will go out for broader consultation among the membership soon. The WG will also  provide a summary of possible tools to the EC based on traceability studies conducted last year. 

Shared Responsibility Working Group

The group has discussed and explored solutions to identified root causes for each focus area of shared responsibility. It is also continuing to draft activities and a framework for Shared Responsibility for integration into other processes such as the Implementation Guidance, which will include consultations with GPSNR members and WGs to ensure alignment on Shared Responsibility for the platform. 

More To Explore

News

Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber holds inaugural General Assembly, appoints Executive Committee

Singapore, 21 March 2019: Today, natural rubber stakeholders convened for the inaugural General Assembly of the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR) – an independent platform that will lead improvements in the socio-economic and environmental performance of the natural rubber value chain.

Development of the GPSNR was initiated by the CEOs of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Tire Industry Project (TIP) in November 2017.

Members of the platform include tire manufacturers, rubber suppliers and processors, vehicle makers and NGOs. Representatives from each of these stakeholder groups have contributed to the development of the Singapore-based platform and the wide-reaching set of priorities that will define GPSNR strategy and objectives.

Following a ceremonial launch in October 2018 interest in the GPSNR has seen membership grow to 39 Founding Members including recruitment of the platform’s first civil society members. The GPSNR remains open to membership applications from all natural rubber stakeholders.

The General Assembly saw the approval of organizational Statutes and Code of Conduct, and the formation of an Executive Committee that has the mandate of overseeing the strategic and operational activities of the GPSNR. As required by the Statutes, the Executive Committee comprises representatives from each of the four GPSNR membership categories – 1. Rubber producers, processors and traders; 2. Car makers, Other downstream users of natural rubber, and financial institutions; 3. Tire makers and other natural rubber makers/buyers ; and, 4. Civil society organizations.

Reacting to the formation of the Executive Committee, GPSNR Director Stefano Savi, said “The appointment of the Executive Committee is a critical piece to a landmark achievement. It has taken considerable effort from all stakeholders to bring us to this point. We know that the real hard work lies ahead, but today from Singapore we send a clear message – the GPSNR is open for business.”

The platform is working to finalize its operational strategy, guided by the stakeholder-agreed GPSNR priorities of harmonizing standards to improve respect for human rights, preventing land-grabbing and deforestation, protecting biodiversity and water resources, improving yields, and increasing supply chain transparency and traceability.

Following proceedings from Geneva, Peter Bakker, WBCSD’s President and CEO said “We are enormously proud to see the GPSNR take this important step. The commitment of TIP members to achieve sustainable natural rubber has been a crucial driving force in taking the GPSNR from concept to reality. Today, our members are joined by a growing and increasingly well-balanced GPSNR membership of rubber value chain and civil society members – the actors are in place, and the foundations for transformative action along the natural rubber value chain have been laid. Now the real work can begin.”

For membership enquiries and more information on the GPSNR, please contact info@gpsnr.org

GPSNR Founding Members at the time of the platform’s inaugural General Assembly, March 2019, per GPSNR membership category, alphabetical order:

Producers, processors and traders:

Halcyon Agri Corporation, ITOCHU Corporation, Kirana Megatara, MARDEC, PRASIDHA, SIPEF, SIPH, Socfin Group, Southland Global, Thai Eastern

Car Makers, Other Downstream Users, and Financial Institutions:

BMW Group, Ford Motor Company, General Motors

Tire Makers and Other Natural Rubber Makers/Buyers:

Bridgestone Corporation, Continental AG, Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Hankook Tire Co., Ltd., Kumho Tire Company Inc., Michelin, Nokian Tyres, Pirelli & C. S.p.A., Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., Toyo Tire Corporation, The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.

Civil Society organizations:

BirdLife International, Conservation International, HCV Resource Network, FSC, Mighty Earth, PEFC, Rainforest Alliance, RESOURCETRUST NETWORK, SNV, World Resources Institute, WWF

Affiliate Member Organizations:

Tanintharyi Region Rubber Planters and Producers Association (TRRPPA), ProForest, Control Union

For membership enquiries and more information on the GPSNR, please contact info@gpsnr.org

News

Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

‘’Taking the first step even when you don’t see the entire staircase’’: Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

                                                                            Bani Bains, Communications Manager, GPSNR

GPSNR offers a unique common ground, for peers to engage from across a complex supply chain. This makes it possible for us to have a more holistic perspective of each others’ challenges and aspirations for a sustainable and equitable natural rubber supply chain.

For Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien, co-chairs of the Policy Toolbox and Implementation Guidance Working Group, the aspirations and challenges of all member categories became most apparent as they worked on putting together the GPSNR Policy Framework, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2020. Today, all member companies must comply with the policy framework within six months of their membership into GPSNR.

As the first batch of member companies publish policies that are in line with the policy framework, Amy and Pierre had a conversation with me about the journey so far, and how the framework guides their current work around the development of different aspects of GPSNR’s assurance model.


BB: To start off, for anyone who isn’t familiar with GPSNR, could you very quickly tell us what the policy framework does and who it is for?

AS: The policy framework guides the company members at GPSNR with a common set of commitments for sustainable natural rubber. This aligns all categories in their pursuit of a sustainable supply chain and ensures we’re all headed in the same direction to uphold a specific set of environmental, social and economic values. The alignment is key in achieving GPSNR’s goals.

PB: The adoption of the policy framework across the supply chain also denotes a shared responsibility towards GPSNR’s objectives.

AS: Beyond these, there are also benefits for companies to have a policy. It can help companies to orient their actions to achieve sustainability, it can also help in engagement with their shareholders and in reflecting leadership. The next step after this, of course, is putting their policies into action, for which we are working on Implementation Guidance.

BB: If you were to go down memory lane, what was the process like of creating this policy framework from scratch? Is there any particular meeting or memory that stands out as an ‘aha’/goosebumps moment?

AS: We started with looking at the Accountability Framework for best practice guidance for developing a policy to develop the main elements of the framework: the policy components. With that in mind, we formed a drafters’ group which included some working group members including Pierre and myself, a representative from the Accountability Framework and two consultants. This group developed the first draft of the policy framework and then facilitated the incorporation of suggestions from other working group members.

What stands out for me is that it was a very, very long process – do you have anything in mind Pierre?

PB: Yes! Just to remind you, I joined the working group and the drafters’ group only in February 2020. By then, Amy and team had already taken care of a lot of work. But after I joined, I recall that it took us a long time to discuss all the components of the policy framework. Each word, each sentence, each idea had very important outcomes linked to them. It was a big feat to reach consensus, and sometimes that meant compromise among civil society and industry members. I think it took us almost one year to decide on the 37 components of the policy framework.

AS: Yes, there was painstaking detail to choose every word in the framework, and several rounds of consultation. Another challenge was the fact that we couldn’t have face to face meetings – and so reaching consensus took even longer than what we expected.

PB: Do you know the 80:20 rule? 80% of the work was completed before I joined, but the final 20% took 90% of the time. And even now, some of the language may need to be tweaked, especially as companies are now adopting these policies and are looking to move into implementation.

BB: Was the framework designed to be a ‘do no harm framework’ covering the minimum requirements from companies, or was it meant to go above and beyond that?

AS: I would consider legality as the minimum for companies to be complying with, but the actions proposed in the policy framework take quite a bit of work and go well beyond that.

Rubber supply chains are very complex, and getting visibility on the ground can be daunting, but it isn’t impossible. And that’s what civil society players are stressing upon: the fact that you need to have transparency on the ground.

BB: And was that a point of contention during the discussions leading up to the policy framework?

AS: We did a lot of discussion around clauses 7.1 and 7.2, and how to deal with the fact that the majority of rubber comes from smallholders.

I think there is another piece to this puzzle – which is that the processors, who are going to be doing a majority of the work, want some assurance from the downstream, that they’re going to be supported financially and technically in doing that work.

PB: Each conversation had a watermark of a significant question: who is going to pay for externalities? While we don’t have answers to some of these questions even now, the policy framework as it stands serves as a good starting point in a continuously evolving, complex but very exciting process.

BB: Did either of you have any non-negotiables in the policy framework that you would have not compromised on?

AS: Ah, yes! The commitment to no deforestation and having a cut-off date was important, because without that you can never define what deforestation is. We spent a lot of time on these points. And then there are others, like the commitment to human rights and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which we would have insisted on – but we didn’t have to because they were included straight away.

That alignment always existed across the board, because we are all committed to the principles of GPSNR. Nobody was saying those parts of the framework shouldn’t be there, though how they were framed was debated at length. This is because that would directly inform the implementation.

PB: From my side, the one non-negotiable was to use the HCV and HCS approach as the only tool to implement the zero deforestation policy. It was globally agreed among the members, but we were very cautious about the words.

BB: What can companies that have adopted the policy framework do before the implementation guidance is developed?

AS: There are several companies that have been active in this space for years now. And they’ve been contributing to the various working groups in applying their on ground knowledge to the requirements and tools. Beyond that, doing everything they can to achieve supply chain transparency is critical to be able to prioritize areas for action and to make any eventual claims about rubber’s sustainability.  You can’t have sustainability unless you know the origin of your raw material.  Companies can also refer to the Accountability Framework’s operational guidance for support regarding how to put their policies into practice while GPSNR’s Implementation Guidance is being finalized. 

PB: They might know more than they think they do! When I start to write a sustainability report for a company, they don’t always have all the data or figures in one place. Most of the time, they have the information, but sometimes don’t know where to find it.

BB: If you had the opportunity to say something to members who may still be hesitant to comply with the policy framework, what would you say?

PB: I can understand fears around implementation and commitment to some components for members who are quite far from the field. But, we still have to find a commitment to reach the desired state. The policy is simply a part of the journey to sustainability, as are the challenges. We are not looking to blame anyone for non-compliance, but encourage intention to comply. So, just be fair, be honest, and do your best. And if you find some challenges in the implementation, bring them to us.

AS: The benefits of having a policy are numerous, including but not limited to: sending a signal internally and externally that the issues covered by the policy are important to the company and that resources and capacity will be dedicated to its implementation; providing clarity on a company’s goals and facilitating the roll-out of company commitments to suppliers upstream and buyers downstream; enabling the effective monitoring and measuring of progress; and supporting a company’s compliance with existing and emerging legislation on avoiding deforestation and upholding human and labor rights.

I think there is a misunderstanding that after a policy is adopted, companies have to be in full compliance with it from day one. That’s not a realistic expectation  for any company; first companies need to understand where they are at as a baseline and from there, they will need to demonstrate continuous improvement. As responsible GPSNR members, companies will have to submit their action plans that outline how they will implement the different parts of their policies. They will also track progress and show continuous improvement through submission of annual reporting to GPSNR.  The working group is currently developing the tools they’ll need to do this – the Implementation Guidance that’s designed to help orient companies on their sustainability journey, and the reporting requirements that are a key element of GPSNR’s assurance model.  We still have a lot of work to do to finalize these two bodies of work, but fortunately, the Policy Framework provides a solid foundation from which to develop them.    


In a complex supply chain historically burdened by social, economic and environmental inequality, the policy framework Pierre and Amy speak of serves as a guiding document for a hopeful future. As GPSNR members take this first step, even though the entire staircase isn’t fully visible just yet, their commitment towards transforming an entire supply chain is commendable.If you’re a GPSNR member looking for support around aligning with the policy framework, please reach out to us at info@gpsnr.org.

Scroll to Top