 |
||
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
   
|
||
|
 |
|
Different Types of GANs
The following is an excerpt from an article that will be appearing in the Journal of Corporate Citizenship in late 2003.
GANs’ societal learning and change characteristic is particularly important, and different types of GANs can be identified on the basis of their strategies to do this change work. The way they structure themselves to do this work is influenced by their origins within the sectors of business, government, or civil society. There are four basic types.
One type of GAN is where the societal learning and change work is a core internal activity of the GAN, and might be referred to as an Internal Collaboration GAN. These are GANs that have particularly open structures and encourage broad membership. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) are the classic examples of this type. The GRI is organized around three “stakeholder constituencies” which represent its theory about how to create sustainability through its core change strategy of application of a triple bottom line framework. These constituencies are businesses, civil society activist organizations (including a labor category), and intermediating organizations which refers to research and professional groups. The FSC is organized around three “chambers” which represent its theory about how to create sustainable forestry practice. These are economic, environmental, and social chambers.
|
Model 1. Internal Collaboration GAN
|
|
A second type of GAN is one where these divisions are less explicit, and might be called an Associative GAN. It is one where business’ role is particularly important. This type of GAN includes in its governance the key issue stakeholders, but does not create formal groupings for them. Whereas multi-stakeholder GANs highly value mass participation, Associative GANs are more circumspect about who should be involved. Transparency International (TI), for example, makes sure that it has legal experts, business representatives, and people from government on its board and core committees. At the international level, these are identified by National Chapters rather than by stakeholder groups. Similarly, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is mainly business people and experts at its Board level, and it has an advisory committee that includes activists and a broader range of people.
|
Model 2. Associative GAN
|
|
A third type of GAN is a Civil Society-Derivative one, which is perhaps least clear because civil society global organizing in general lags behind the other two sectors. It might be called a Supportive GAN, since through it one aims to support change in another. The Access Initiative (TAI), for example, is a global network of civil society organizations but it works with governments to build their capacity with respect to environmental decision-making issues. It is creating a separate organization, PP10, where all stakeholders will join, and in which TAI will be a critical component network.
|
Model 3. Supportive GAN
|
|
A fourth type of GAN is a Government-Derivative one that reflects adaptation of the traditional government-led process to create international agreements. (See Climate Change sidebar.) It is an Adaptive GAN. The climate change negotiations demonstrate how these are changing. This type of GAN is heavily influenced by the tradition of lobbying government, and of forming business and civil society coalitions to do this. In this model, governments retain final authority, but integrate roles for other sectors. In this model, it is important for other sectors to have strong and unified voices in sub-networks that can claim to represent large parts of the economic and social systems.
|
Model 4. Adaptive GAN
|
|
To further illustrate the distinctive quality of GANs, it is useful to give some examples of organizations that are not GANs. Oxfam International is a network of national Oxfams engaged in aid and development work. It is not a GAN, since it has highly restricted membership. The national Oxfams are not GANs since they are neither global nor is their programmatic activity focused upon societal change. Friends of the Earth, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Greenpeace, and WWF are not GANs, considering their broad range of programming that does not focus upon building collaborative interactions with other key sectors. It is important to note that such organizations may, however, have programs that do this. Moreover, these programs can grow into GANs. For example, for five years during its initial development, the GRI was technically a program of the Boston NGO called CERES.
|
Climate Change Negotiations: A GAN Turning Point The climate change negotiations around the Kyoto Accord represent a sort of halfway point between the Government and Governance Worlds. That process began with the assumption that governments would get together and hammer out an agreement. However, at the 1992 Rio environmental summit, where 10,000 NGO representatives appeared, they made it clear that a more open process was necessary. Subsequently, the decade-long United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations established a process to recognize NGOs, businesses, and non-national levels of government. Although the actual engagement of these other organizations in the process was extremely constrained, it gave rise to some important networks. In particular, on the NGO side it spurred the development of the Climate Action Network as a single global civil society voice. The business side was less unified, but global business associations like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development also had an important presence. To be influential globally, the organizational sectors had to organize themselves into a unified voice. The climate change negotiations, therefore, were GAN-like in that all the parties were present. However, the governments kept such tight control for themselves that it was not GAN-like in process. |
The Climate Action Network is not a GAN, but it is a component of a GAN-process that is particularly worthwhile describing because the process represents a transition from the Government World to the Governance World. It is a social movement, civil society network that has managed to bridge the North-South NGO divides to create a unified voice in the climate change negotiations, but it has no significant life outside of those negotiations. (See: Climate change sidebar)
Particularly with the government-derivative GANs, a key organizing challenge is to create component GAN networks like CAN, to do the inter-sectoral societal change work. Advocacy networks like Global Forest Watch, Blue Planet (water issues) Fair Trade Labeling Organization, Jubilee 2000 (poor country debt reduction), and the World Social Forum, all have potential to be GAN components, given the right circumstances, choices about strategies, and the ability to create a coherent civil society voice. Similarly, global business groups like the International Business Leaders Forum and the WBCSD, and regional ones like Ethos and BSR, all have potential to play important roles in societal learning and change, and hence in GANs.
It is government that has the greatest difficulty adjusting to the Governance World, since it is one where government is no longer in control and the final arbitrator. The new approach implies reformation of organizations like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations, and World Trade Organization, which traditionally were charged with taking leadership to address global issues. In the Governance World they must learn co-leadership skills and strategies. There are signs of some change as these organizations struggle to create space for non-governmental and business organizations – with initiatives such as the U.N.’s Global Compact aimed to engage business, and the World Bank’s growing emphasis on participatory processes. One remarkable recognition of the importance of GAN strategies came in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The U.N.– recognizing the failure of global environmental agreements among governments to result in change – promoted GANs (called “Type 2” partnerships. By the end of January 2003, 254 of these partnerships had been registered.
© 2001 - GAN-Net
Design & Hosting by 3000K, Inc.