update on the governance review phase 2 - members.fsc.org · fsc governance review project...

1

Update on the Governance Review phase 2

Document: BM 80.11 H

Date of submission to BoD: 05 March 2019

Author: Andreas Reinhardt

Presenter: Andreas Reinhardt

Topic to be presented to BoD: X Yes ☐ No

Action to be taken by BoD: ☐ Decision ☐ Approval

☐ Discussion X Information

Confidentiality: ☐ BoD only ☐ FSC Int only X FSC Membership

Prior discussed by committee: X Yes ☐ No

If yes, by:

☐ ExCo ☐ BSPC X BGC ☐ BFC ☐ BCRC

☐ PSC ☐ PIPC

Topic characteristics (pilot) X Strategic X Oversight

☐ Policy ☐ Risk & control

☐Markets ☐ Finances

☐ Global Coordination & ☐ Procedural &

Operations Board matters

X Motion Implementation X Governance

☐Members’ concerns

☐ Credibility

FSC Governance Review 2.0

Presentation to the BGC on next steps and the BoD’s outreach to FSC’s membership

March 1, 2019

Andreas Reinhardt

Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Chair of International Management

--- 2 ---

FSC Governance Review

Agenda

Timeline and next steps for GR 2.0

Pre-analysis: The BoD’s outreach to FSC’s membership

--- 3 ---


Project timeline: We finished the data collection at the end of 2018 and are now preparing the 1st draft of our report for the BGC

2018 2019

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Prioritization &amendments

GRWG data analysis

RMAPAC

Online survey

Developmentof remedies

Presentation to GLT

GSM

Presentation to BoD

Identificationof key issues

Gaining adeeper

understanding

Personal interviews

Completion of report and proposed actions

Analysis of input

Presentation to BoD

Interviews with Secretariat & BoD

Discussion of draft with Secretariat and BoD

Presentationto BoD

Presentationto BGC

Total duration Data collection EvaluationMeetings/events

Deep-dive on next slide

--- 4 ---


After iterating our report with the BGC/Secretariat in Q2/2019, we want to submit the report to the BoD for the BM in August 2019

2019

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Completion of report and proposed actions

Discussion of draftwith Secretariat and BGC

Development of remedies

Analysis of input

Discussion &feedbackfrom BGC

BoD

Update to BGC

Reading time

Presentationto BoD

Phases

2 RegionalMemberMeetings

(for deliberation)

BGC/Secretariat

MeetingsFinal

remarksby BGC

Preparationfor BoD

Update of 1st draft

Development ofimplementation planfor agreed actions

Final adaptations

Presentationto BGC

GR team

Review of 1st draft

Preparation of 1st draft

BoDcall

Feedbackto BGC

Total duration Next steps EvaluationMeetings/events

--- 5 ---


Agenda

Timeline and next steps for GR 2.0

Pre-analysis: The BoD’s outreach to FSC’s membership

--- 6 ---


Executive summary

• This analysis is based on the GR 2.0 online survey (n = 2,043) and personal interviews (n = 114) and is a pre-assessment upon request by the BoD. Due to the interlinked nature of Governance topics, there will likely be more issues and recommendations in the final report that are at least indirectly linked to the BoD’s outreach to the membership.

• Many members, and in particular staff, would like the BoD to take a more active and/or directive role in the Motion process to reach more beneficial results for FSC overall.

• The BoD could offer National Board members more first-hand information to satisfy a desire by NMs to be linked to the BoD. But it should make clear it is accountable to IMs only.

• Board Webinars are very well perceived despite their low participation rate. We strongly advise to continue them. However, IMs seem to be interested in more participative formats to provide input to the BoD prior to its decisions.

• IMs perceive differences in the frequency and degree of outreach by BoD members to their respective chambers. We would encourage the BoD to define common standards on how (often) BoD members should engage with their respective chambers. Nevertheless, the BoD should also make very clear it takes decisions primarily based on their judgement what is best for FSC and its mission overall.

• IMs value face-to-face time with BoD members highly. We recommend to make BoD member participation from one representative of each chamber at FSC events like Regional Meetings a very high priority or even mandatory.

As of Feb 26, 2019

--- 7 ---


Break-down of conducted interviews

into stakeholder groups and regions

(% for each bar are share of total conducted)

We base our results on the input from >2,000 respondents and detailed input from FSC stakeholders from all regions

114 (60%) 75 (40%)

DroppedConducted

189

Africa APAC CIS EUR

11(10%)

LARO

7(6%)

NAM

2(2%)

34(30%)

41(36%)

19(17%)

Note: Interview partners may fall into one or more of the four stakeholder categories and hence be counted more than once

54

291

171

54

88

109

1.524

FSC staff

42

23

International

Members

National

Members

Certificate

Holders

Eco North

Eco South

Env North

Env South

Soc North

Soc South

370

2,043 responses from online survey Personal interviews participation rates

11

67

10

17

16

StaffIM

30(26%)

NM CH

67(59%)

Eco-N

Soc-S

Soc-N

Eco-S

Env-N

Env-S

35(31%)

25(22%)

--- 8 ---


The results of this analysis are based on input on the Motion process, links between local members and the BoD, and Membership engagement in general

Motions

1. Motion development process

2. Reduce number of motions

3. Implementation of motions

Global alignment

7. M2017/64 link local member repress. & BoD

8. Roles & responsib. among FSC entities

Policy development

4. Formation process of WG, EP, and PC

5. Adaptability to competitive environment

6. Regional/local adaptability

Accountability

9. M2017/67 Internal audit system

10.M2017/65 roles & respons. BoD, DG & Secretariat

Top 10 governance issues International Members special topics

I. Sub-chamber allocation criteria

II. Chamber allocation criteria

III. Membership engagement

Please note that our subsequent analysis of the remaining topics is likely to produce additional recommendations that affect the BoD and (at least indirectly) its interaction with Members

--- 9 ---


Many members would like the BoD to be more active in the motion process but at the same time do not want to be deprived of their right to submit motions

Findings from personal interviews

Exemplary quotes

• Many members – and in particular staff – would like the BoD to take a more active (or at least directive) role in the Motion process to reach better-designed motions that are more beneficial to FSC and its mission.

• This desire is rooted in the (perceived) better overview the BoD has across topics and its direct connection to the Secretariat.

• However, many members also wished for the BoD to focus on strategic topics and leave operational work to the Secretariat which is why we recommend that the BoD redirects content discussions to appropriate level of the Secretariat whenever possible.

• For members to welcome more involvement of the BoD in the motion process it will be crucial that they do not feel like their right to submit motions is taken away from them.

• “There should be LOWER barriers to submit ideas but HIGHER barriers to continue them and put them to a vote as a motion.” [#60, ECO-N]

• It’s an asset that FSC is a membership organization […]. But there needs to be a clear definition of the roles that members have. And the operative management and the running of the organization is the task of the international office – not of the members. [#8, ECO-N]

• “Motions are the only tool that is 100% effective insuring that your voice is heard.” [#111, ECO-N, CH]

• We need to seek other mechanisms that can make a change in FSC other than one motion, […] so that members feel their role. A motion is a simple response to a complex organization. [#37, SOC-S]

• “Currently for many members their only participation at FSC is through the GAs and the motions. If you get them more engaged between the GAs you are able to reduce this need of like really only being heard through motion.” [#62, Staff]

1. Motion development process

2. Reduce number of motions

3. Implementa-tion of motions

Moti

ons

--- 10 ---


The iBoD should consider sharing information with the national level proactively but also make clear that it is accountable to International Members only


Exemplary quotes

• There is confusion at all levels of FSC over the differences between NMs and IMs. FSC Int. and the NPs should publicly clarify the differences, e.g. on their websites.

• National Boards would like more information from the iBoD on trending topics.

• NMs thought local issues were inadequately represented by the Network Repr. to the iBoDand it seems unlikely they will feel better represented through Regional Offices. Most IMs and NMs are not aware the iBoD already meets National Boards as part of BMs.

• We recommend the iBoD clearly defines – and also limits - its interactions with NMs but also actively markets these interactions. A quick win could be to invite National Boards to iBoD Webinars. For other requests by NMs the iBoD should refer to the clarification on different membership types and their roles mentioned above. At maximum the BoD could connect the NM to the RD, and/or propose International Membership to the NM.

• “FSC needs to explain what different levels of membership mean, where the differences are.” [#69, ECO NM DK, CH]

• “It is not clear what means FSC member on local level and on international. [#90, Staff]

• “It is very hard to motivate my members to become IMs also. Because there is no offer except this vote for one week every three years.“ [#48, Staff]

• “The fact that FSC bombs us with information and we still, as members, do not know the roles of each entity (including ours) and their accountability is a sign of a problem.” [#56, SOC-S]

• “It would be great if as a national member one could put up motions through national membership.” [#69, NM ECO DK]

• “Maybe 2x/year you could have a session with all national boards[…] to share information and ask questions. This could include a presentation by the iBoD[…] to ensure in-formation flow[..] to national boards.” [#70, ENV-N, NM US]

• “Many countries’ needs are ignored. There is a communication problem between the BoD and the local level. Webinars could improve this link.” [#78, ECO-S]

• Only one board member[…] tried to connect with the NOs.Besides him/her, the BoD has been outside and really far away of NO staff. [#76, Staff]

7. M2017/64 link local member repress. & BoD

8. Roles & responsibilities among FSC entitiesG

lob

al alignm

ent

--- 11 ---


Recognition of Board webinars is better than participation rates suggest, but there is also more desire from Members to interact with “their” Board representatives


Exemplary quotes

• Almost all IMs we spoke to are aware that Board webinars exist and they appreciate the effort by the BoD as a major step in the right direction. However, some IMs are concerned with the fact that webinars are only informative and not participative which makes it less attractive for them to participate.

• IMs perceive differences in the way and frequencies BoD members reach out to their resp. chamber. ENV BoD members are perceived to be linked the closest to their chamber.

• Opportunities to engage face-to-face with Board Members are highly appreciated by IMs which is why we would recommend a strong commitment by the BoD to be present at Regional Meetings and topic forums. However, some member and staff worry about too much political influence of some members on the BoD and that the most vocal ones will be considered primarily.

• “Senior management team should explain more, how they come to decisions. Webinars are a step in the right direction, but they still don’t explain why the Board agendas are so obscurely large.” [#23, ENV-N]

• The gap between BoD and Members is far too big. The BoDshould engage directly with their members like they started doing[…] with webinars. They should do this before BMs to get input and increase transparency/openness – however, more input also means more work. [#24, ENV-N]

• “There is a lot of webinar, but almost nobody knows about its existence: clearly a communication problem” [#55, Staff]

• “A written report (on BoD decisions) might not be the solution, people might not have sufficient time to go through a complete written report. Interactive report, for example webinars or just a video with an overview would be a better solution.” [#74, Staff]

• “The Board Webinars are actually getting the thing the wrong way around: We should have webinars before the Board meeting so that the Board Members get our input. Probably more members would attend, if they can have an influence on the voting.” [#58, ENV-N]

• “Better use of webinars! Until now they are just informative instead of participative.” [#74, ENV-S]



III. Membership engagement [1/2]

IM s

pecia

l to

pic

s

--- 12 ---


IMs wish to be enabled to engage more with each other, to know whom to contact on specific topics and to be approached in a way fitting their regional culture


Exemplary quotes

• IMs wish for more opportunities besides the GA to engage with each other, potentially facilitated by the BoD, but ideally without visible involvement and directions by the Secretariat. However, many mentioned how helpful chamber facilitators where for the last GA, though there were some concerns with the facilitator for the SOC chamber.

• Some IMs feel like the only person they can reach out to is the DG which makes some perceive an over-centralization in Bonn (and the DG’s inbox overflow and responses delayed). The BoD should clarify how and when it channels Member concerns and where it is appropriate for Members to reach out to staff directly.

• IMs from the South often perceive engagement as designed in a “Northern Style” (e.g. LATAM is not used to doodle or impersonal scheduling). If possible, information should hence also be shared via more informal channels like existing WhatsApp groups.

• It would help to know whom to contact directly in the first place. When we had an issue, we sent an email to the DG, because we couldn’t find any other email besides the info@[…]. FSC does a poor job at making the right contact person clear on the website” [#92, ECO-N, CH]

• “Now you go to the regional network and the regional network says no sorry that is not within their role, they can not deal with it and then you go to PSU and PSU says no that’s outside their role they can’t deal with it. So, you end up with finding whom do I go to and end up with not

solving an issue because you simply can’t get an answer who in FSC can solve the issue.” [#110, ENV-S]

• More informed participation! FSC should reconsider the format of the meetings[…]. Not to do everything in the Northern style, but also have the initiative to communicate in the Southern style. [#108, SOC-S]

• In terms of […] internal discussion social media are more useful for example like Whats App group[…] or Telegram and have someone from the regional office doing it. [#88, ENV-S]



III. Membership engagement [2/2]

IM s

pecia

l to

pic

s

--- 13 ---


Our recommendations: continue current efforts to reach out to the membership while codifying and marketing more future engagement

1. Continue webinars at least until GA 2020 and then do a cost-benefit-analysis and collect Member feedback on the webinars. If webinars are to remain informative only, the BoD should very clearly indicate alternative ways for IMs to provide input.

2. Define rules for the BoD how (often) its members should touch base with their respective chamber to make sure all chambers (are perceived) to have the same level of formal and informal links to „their“ Board Members.

3. Invite National Board Members to BoDwebinars but make clear that the BoD is not accountable to National Members –including their boards.

1. Commit to more BoD presence at Regional Meetings and other personal meetings and market this commitment actively.

2. Rethink the role of the BoD in the motion process (see also ongoing motion process adaption by Guille & John) without giving members the feeling they are „deprived“ of their right to submit motions.

3. Develop a code of conduct how BoDmembers should deal with individual complaints by IMs. This should also include a notion that BoD Members are foremost elected to take decisions in the best interest of FSC and its mission overall and NOT primarily in the interest of their respective chambers.

Immediate recommendations Medium term recommendations

update on the governance review phase 2 - members.fsc.org · fsc governance review project...

Documents