Please join us at http://community.isealalliance.org/impacts-code for further updates and discussions!

Yours sincerely,

Paddy Doherty, Credibility Tools Manager

Highlights
Impacts Code Drafting
The 12 pages of notes from the Impacts Code Steering Committee meeting on 18-19 June provided lots of guidance towards improving the structure and content of the draft Impacts Code. This was mainly a matter of removing redundant material (predictable, as I initially overwrote on purpose) and refining the connection between the ‘theory of change’ and the ‘what to measure’ sections.

On the latter, we came to a major breakthrough with the amalgamation of the two sections. In the latest draft, the logical sequence of developing the theory of change leading to discover what to monitor is much clearer. We changed some of the jargon associated with impact assessment into what we feel is more plain language, or at least is more widely used in the evaluation community. We removed most of the examples, for though they are helpful, they add to the length of the text (one of the recommendations from the Impacts Code Committees was that the document should be shortened). The examples will most likely end up in an accompanying guidance document, though we have not determined the exact approach for this.

We removed the ‘System Effectiveness” theme from the list of issues to measure; feeling that a standards system’s effectiveness at increasing the uptake of their standard will be captured within the development of the results chains and subsequent assumptions. The standard system will then need to develop indicators for the identified assumptions, regardless of whether these issues are listed in the Appendix 1. We amended the language to clarify that it will likely be the standard-setting organisation, not the standard system (which generally includes many organisations) that will be undertaking impact assessment.

Outreach
I have been spending a fair bit of time communicating with ISEAL members in preparation for the formal consultation on the Impacts Code. I would like to have an opportunity to work with all ISEAL members in order to help them articulate their theory of change. Most standards systems will have a theory of change implicit in their programme, but perhaps not formally expressed. Some members are familiar with the theory of change model and have already worked through this process in some manner (e.g. Rugmark) while others are at different stages in their development or have not considered the concept yet.

This will be an opportunity to further explain the draft Impacts Code to ISEAL members, and for me to gain some understanding of which issues are important to them (to show their contribution to impact). The idea of showing the common contribution of ISEAL members on a select number of indicators is still important to ISEAL, but we need to develop sample indicators that are relevant to everyone (and cheap, and easy to collect, and so on). Direct (face-to-face) outreach to members should help this process along.

Obviously, the middle of summer is not the best time to be trying to contact people and ask them to corral their management for a one-day workshop. However, I am persisting and having some success. It is expected I’ll continue this work through the end of the year.

Consultation
The draft Impacts Code is just about ready for the first formal (60-days) consultation. We are planning to begin this consultation on September 1st, using the ISEAL Online community as the primary vehicle to provide information and to collect comments. We intend to publicise this event, and we are hopeful that everyone receiving this newsletter will assist us to let others know about the consultation.

Next Steps
The current draft of the Impacts Code is with the Impacts Code Committees for their review and comment. I will then prepare the draft for the first formal consultation beginning September first. I’ll be working with Richard Brennan (ISEAL Online Networking Coordinator) to set up the ISEAL Online Community for use with the Impacts Code consultation process. I have arranged to attend an Outcome Mapping Training Workshop on Sep 21-24th. This workshop has been recommended as a very good training opportunity to help prepare me for working directly with ISEAL members.

Yours sincerely

Paddy Doherty

Highlights
Steering Committee meeting

There are 12 pages of notes arising from the two-day Impacts Code Steering Committee meeting. These notes range from discrete suggestions for particular passages e.g. “remove requirements for staff ToRs from 5.3.3” to broad comments on the draft e.g. “it is too long—need to remove redundant guidance”. Some important points:

• The need for consistent and understandable terminology—the draft still does not clarify the use of the term ‘assessment framework’ and how it differs from the phrase, ‘theory of change’
• The guidance document should be separate from the requirements (the guidance can change more frequently, without the need for elaborate stakeholder engagement)
• Agreement that we want to show common impact—just need to agree on the process
• Suggestion that the common indicators should be a separate process from the Impacts Code
• The issues list (Appendix A) is too biased towards agriculture
• Need more focus on the learning and improving aspects
• Agreement on a (rough) plan to assist standard systems to develop their theories of change
• Agreement that regional consultations will take place via webinars, or by providing seminars in conjunction with already existing meetings of stakeholders
• Agreement on a plan to get the draft Impacts Code ready for formal public consultation by 1 September
• Agreement on first steps to develop (and get agreement on) a set of common indicators.

Impacts Code workshops at ISEAL AGM

The two Impacts Code sessions held in conjunction with ISEAL AGM were important learning experiences for me. Most of the participants had little or no experience with the Impacts Code project, so it was a challenge for me to explain the theoretical basis for the Impacts Code, how it will be applied, and what is expected from standard systems.

During the first session Dave Mainenti (Marine Aquarium Council) helpfully volunteered for us to use his standard system as an example in a group process to articulate an impact pathway diagram. This interactive process worked well as a training tool for illustrating the theory of change concept. We were able to map a few rough impact pathways for the MAC and show the assumptions implicit in those pathways. This led to an idea of what could be measured (and where) to show contribution to impact.

During the second session Joleen Ong of Social Accountability International provided an example from the implementation of the SA8000 standard related to the elimination of child labour. The workshop group mapped the example in an impact pathway (inputs, outputs, outcomes, or impact). Once we had a rough understanding of where SAI aims to get to (goals) and their strategies to get there (inputs and outputs), we could start to see the assumptions built into the premise of their work that could be tested. The validity of these assumptions is what will need to be assessed in order to show SAI’s contribution to impact.

The salient message for me from these workshops was that I need to do more work with standards systems and other stakeholders to explain the Impacts Code. I have been working with a terrific group of impacts enthusiasts (Impacts Code committees) but they are enthusiasts, and I have lost touch with the idea that not everyone understands the abstract concepts that are important to the logic of this instrument. I intend to develop a communications plan that will make it easier for everyone to grasp the fundamentals of the Impacts Code. ISEAL is developing an Online Learning Community; and I will be able to use this as one tool (along with webinars, and in-person meetings) to reach out to the rest of the social and environmental standards movement.

Next Steps

My priority will be to integrate the recent comments and instructions into the draft Impacts Code in preparation for a Steering Committee teleconference in mid-August. I’ll be contacting ISEAL members to see if it would be possible to include an Impacts Code seminar in conjunction with some other meeting they are convening between now and December. In terms of outreach to members (particularly regarding assisting with theories of change) I’ll be looking for opportunities to increase my own understanding of theory of change in whatever training venue may be appropriate. I’ll be developing training materials for standards systems so they can educate their own members, and I’ll be hosting webinars on the draft Impacts Code.

Yours,

Paddy Doherty, ISEAL Credibility Tools Manager

Issues Technical Committee

The Issues Committee had the task of reviewing the “What to Measure” section, along with the “Common Impact Hypothesis” section. The issues to measure are now included in an appendix—standards systems will review their programme to see where and what they should monitor in order to show their contribution to impact. This section is complete, with detailed descriptions of the justification of the issues, how they fit in the global context, and some example indicators.

The Common Impact Hypothesis section is much less defined, as it a new concept for us (I’ve explained this section in previous newsletters), and we are just beginning to see the full implications of this section with regards the discourse on scaling-up the impact of social and environmental standards systems. Patrick and Aimee Russillo and I had worked to develop a few indicators for this section, which when monitored and evaluated (aggregate data from all standards systems) would show the overall contribution of all standards systems towards the common impact hypothesis.

However, the Impacts Code Issues Committee rightly pointed out that the proposed indicators were not applicable to all systems and that there was no logical connection with the Common Impact Hypothesis. Ideally, the core indicators would allow standards systems to collect information that can be used to test different parts of the hypothesis. By working with standards systems to understand what paths they believe are most effective in achieving social and environmental impact, we can better understand what information we need to collect to test the hypothesis. Patrick and I realised that this section needs more work and we have come up with a tentative plan:

1. Remove the Common Impact Hypothesis section from the Draft Impacts Code for the time being
2. Work with individual standards systems in a field testing exercise to develop their individual theory of change and impact pathways
3. Once we have a clearer picture of standards systems’ own theory of change, we will be able to develop more robust (valid) nested hypotheses that reflect the pathways to change followed by our members
4. Understanding these pathways will allow us to identify what common information (indicators) is needed to test the effectiveness of each pathway in bringing about positive impact
5. When we (Impacts Code Steering Committee) are satisfied with the Common Impact Hypothesis section, we will (at some point in the consultation process) reintegrate it into the draft Impacts Code

For the time being, the Common Impact Hypothesis is removed from the draft Impacts Code, but I have left the current version of this section on the wiki for reference.

Methodologies Technical Committee

The Methodologies Committee was generally satisfied with the overall flow of the draft; feeling it provides a logical pathway for standards systems to determine what to measure and how to measure it. There were some suggestions for improvement in this area, which I have tried to take into account. The committee also suggested that the draft could benefit from extra guidance on methodologies for monitoring and evaluation—but rather than add to the text (the draft is quite long now) the committee felt that an appendix or a list of endorsed resources would be useful. There is also a need for more guidance in section 11, particularly example stories of organisations that have successfully integrated a culture of learning into their programme.

Next Steps

I am preparing the agenda for the Steering Committee meeting on 18-19 June in London. Along with a review of the draft Impacts Code, the steering committee will need to review the next steps in the consultation process—formal consultation of the draft, regional consultation meetings, and the new proposal to field test theory of change with individual standards systems. I am making last minute amendments to the draft before I send it to the Steering Committee (after which I will not amend it until after the steering committee meeting). I am preparing materials for the ISEAL AGM (which includes two Impacts Code informative workshops), 22-24 June.

Please visit the Impacts Code wiki and the Impacts Code Blog to see the latest changes, comments, and my particular thinking.

It is very interesting to see the evolution in the Code. You will find my comments enclosed directly in the text. I think we need to pay more attention in the methodological issues in data analysis, because the statistical methods have their own procedures; so I suggest not to be very descriptive and let the standards define the quantitative and qualitative data handling according with the selected indicators and all the other considerations in the Evaluation design (with a good advisory sources). Congratulations for your hard work.

In this newsletter, you’ll find more good suggestions for the ISEAL Impacts Code, a theory of change for standards systems and – of course – an overview of the steps ahead.

Enjoy reading!

Paddy Doherty
Credibility Tools Manager, ISEAL Alliance

Highlights

Patrick Mallet has been taking particular interest in the overall design of the Impacts Code—ensuring it flows logically, and is neither too short nor too long, while including the necessary information. Together we have rearranged sections of the draft, splitting some sections up, and moving sections around within the document. We will be doing more of this in the coming weeks, in preparation for a final draft.

Catrina Lucero, of iScale has offered to spend some time thinking about, and making suggestions regarding how the Impacts Code can include the theory of change (as its theoretical framework) and especially how the theory of change is linked to the notion of ‘scaling-up the impacts’ of social and environmental standards systems. Catrina suggests:

Theory of change is about systemic change and is tied to a broad level VISION that is shared by many. For example, many if not all of the standards systems have as their ultimate goal/vision a socially and environmentally sustainable world. Clearly, standards systems are necessary but not sufficient for achieving such a world. They are one of a series of simultaneous, overlapping, and mutually reinforcing pathways for achieving impact. This means that there is a whole host of other actors working on different impact pathways that are also needed to reach the vision.

One could imagine a social movement that needs representative from civil society, labor, business etc… to bring about some kind of social change. They each do different things and have different strengths but it is only through their combined efforts that the ultimate goal is reached. A set of systemic level progress markers can be set and progress towards generally and an individual actor’s specific contributions to these intermediate indicators can be measured, monitored, and evaluated.

One level down is the standard system. While each has a broad level vision that is aligned with many other actors, they also have a more individualized MISSION of HOW they specifically contribute to the vision – what impact pathway(s) they follow. The theory of action is a further elaboration of the individual’s mission. It creates a sort of blueprint directly tied to mission but still aligned with the vision and thus the broader level theory of change as well. This means that an individual actor can both monitor and evaluate their own actions AND asses their CONTRIBUTIONS to the outcomes and impacts embedded within the theory of change one level up.

Evaluation becomes a multi-level question of “What/how well am I doing?” AND “What/how well is the system doing?” The theory of change (at the systems level) and theory of action (at the individual level) then become the theoretical structure for the M&E system—showing us what to measure, and where to measure it.

The Impacts Code will show standards systems how to answer the question, “What impact are we having?”, but more importantly perhaps is the question, “Why isn’t there more impact?”  A common theory of change for standards systems will help us answer this question as a coordinated movement, and show us where we stand in relation to the “broad level VISION that is shared by many”, as Catrina suggests.

Common theory of change

I continue to struggle with the notion of a common theory of change for social and environmental standards systems, with assistance from Patrick, Catrina, Aimee Russillo, and Ruth Norris (Packard Foundation):

Standards systems influence markets to choose products or services that are compliant with social and environmental standards, and by doing so, contribute to healthy ecosystems, social well-being, and economic resiliency.

Assumptions (or nested hypothesis)

1. The implementation of our standards will contribute to healthy ecosystems, social well-being, and economic resiliency
2. Standards mechanisms will encourage increased demand (from the market) for products or services that are compliant with our standards
3. Increased demand will result in incentives for participants (profit, risk management), thus increasing participation and thereby more positive impact

This is just the start of what seems at times to be a theoretical exercise, but should actually lead us towards the appropriate questions of what we should be assessing to show our common contribution to impact.

Next Steps

There is a lot of work to do between now and early June, when I need to provide a working draft to the Impacts Code Steering Committee. The Issues section (what to measure) in particular needs more effort, but I am working closely with Aimee Russillo to complete the list of issues to measure, and describe how standards systems will choose the indicators of what they will measure. I am confident we will come up with a good working draft for this section.

Please visit the Impacts Code wiki and the Impacts Code Blog to see the latest changes, comments, and my particular thinking. Patrick and I will be meeting with the Impacts Code Steering committee in London on June 18, 19 in order to review the working draft and get it ready for formal posting for comments (July).

The presentations and subsequent discussions were excellent, and I took away some good feedback on the Impacts Code. One important point was that the economic theme was not as well developed as the social and environmental themes. This is true, and has prompted me to spend more time on the economic issues.

Since returning from Lansdowne, I have been working fulltime on the draft Impacts Code. This involves lots of research, thinking, and writing, deleting and writing again. I have spoken or exchanged emails with many of you during the past month and I appreciate all the help I am getting—the resulting Impacts Code will be better for it.

Highlights

The Impacts Code wiki has been very useful as a way to enable everyone to see the latest thinking on the draft Code and to take part in its development. It allows me to upload current drafts and to manage them online. Use by others is growing slowly, and I realise not everyone will want to contribute to the wiki, but most people are happy to view the latest draft online. The Impacts Code Blog is growing slowly, and requires constant input on my part—to make it interesting for people to want to go there.

I have been considering ways to make the theory behind the Impacts Code more understandable and relevant for standards systems. Concepts like the ‘theory of change’ are developed and discussed by social scientists, who have interest and background in this area. However, I am trying to construct a document that can be readily understood and implemented by management and staff of standards systems, who generally do not have this background.

I am writing lots of guidance, to try to explain the theory in plain language. This is not easy—there is a reason why specialists speak in their own vernacular—but I am persevering and I believe, getting somewhere.  I have just completed a draft of section 7 (Developing the Assessment Framework), which explains to Standards Systems how to describe a theory of change for their work, and subsequently how to use that theory to determine what to monitor.

This is tough going for me, but as I said above, things are becoming clearer. I have rearranged the draft code a bit (this was expected, as the draft I put up in the wiki was quite rough) and developed the introductory section titled “The Context for Impact Assessment”. This new section explains the theoretical basis for the Impacts Code in what I hope is plain language (though any comments you want to provide in this area are very much appreciated).

Next Steps

The drafting procedure is going as planned, with a draft ready for review by the Impacts Code Steering Committee in June. Once the Steering Committee is satisfied with the draft, it will be posted for formal review. I’ll be posting new sections of the Impacts Code on the wiki today. So please review the draft, make some changes to improve the document, or leave a comment.

This suggestion is similar to what has been proposed by the researcher ISEAL contracted (Aimee Russillo) to write the two impact research papers that inform the theory behind the draft impacts code.  Aimee suggested that standards systems should develop monitoring and evaluation programs, then use the data from ongoing monitoring and evaluation to develop stand-alone impact studies.  The impact studies would be carried out by independent researchers (acedemics, consultants, NGOs, perhaps other standards systems) on specific aspects of the standards program.

The suggestion (that standards systems should not do their own impact assessment) is reasonable from the viewpoint of credibility, but it may make impact assessment (already a large task) even more daunting for standards organisations. We are developing a tool that will provide credible results; yet is understanable, and reasonable to implement.  Is there a middle ground? If a standard system should wish to undertake impact assessment within their monitoring and evaluation programs, there may be ways to ensure the credibility of the results.  But what about perception–will those results ever be viewed as credible? All of us involved in this project are having to consider the implications–eventually we’ll have to make a decision.  I’d appreciate your point of view.

Paddy

Paddy Doherty, Credibility Tools Manager

Update

Since my last newsletter, we’ve had a meeting with the Impacts Code Steering Committee (teleconference, Feb 26). All three committees (Steering committee, Issues committee, Methodology committee) have been working hard on the Issues (what to measure) section of the Impacts Code in preparation for posting on the Impacts Code wiki today. I have been communicating with many of you in the development of the draft code and I can happily say that I am pleased with the results of our efforts. Until I began work on this project, I thought that sheep shearing was the hardest thing I had ever done.

Highlights

Perhaps the biggest news is the Common Impact Hypothesis for Standard Systems. This idea originated during the Impacts Code Methodology Committee meeting in Boston on January 28^th. The (draft) common hypothesis:

“Standard systems are an effective tool to deliver on healthy ecosystems, social well-being, and economic stability.”

Though it’s a simple concept, agreement on a common impact hypothesis allows for a collective perspective on standard systems as an entire movement. The common hypothesis brings the voluntary standards movement beyond compliance with standards (our usual focus); to allow for the progress of the movement to be evaluated as whole; against other types of interventions.

Coupled with this notion was the idea that the effectiveness of standard systems should then be assessed along with their contribution to environmental, social, and economic goals.  Thus, the Impacts Code Committees have come up with four meta-themes (what to measure):

1.    Effectiveness of the standard system

2.    Environmental

3.    Social

4.    Economic

The committees have developed draft (level 1) meta-themes, (level 2) themes, and (level 3) sub-themes. Our intention (so far) is to develop example indicators for all the level three sub-themes. How prescriptive the Impacts Code will be regarding what standard systems will be required to measure is a matter for you to ponder and comment about. At present, I believe the Impacts Code committees are thinking that standard systems will need to consider their contribution to impact across all three meta-themes (‘effectiveness of the standard system’ will be required) and if they do not monitor and report on all three, then they will need to explain why not.

Consultation

As promised, ISEAL has developed an Impacts Code Blog and an Impacts Code wiki. Please visit both sites; sign in to the wiki site so that you can modify the draft text and leave comments. Using these tools is a new experience for me and I am enjoying learning about ways we can work more effectively and reduce the need to travel to meetings.

The draft themes document (what to measure) is now posted on the Impacts Code wiki for review and comment. The draft themes will remain on the wiki, and I will post other draft sections of the code as they become available. I’ll let you know in subsequent newsletters when new sections are available for review.

The steering committee will meet in June to review the draft Impacts Code before it is posted for formal public comment.

Next Steps

Sasha and I are attending the “Growing a 21^st Century Agricultural Revolution” in Lansdowne Virginia on March 18-20. We’ll be presenting about the Impacts Code project and I expect there will be opportunity to discuss some of the details of the draft Impacts Code.  I am currently working on section six (Defining the Monitoring and Evaluation Program) of the Impacts Code and getting sections one through four ready for posting on the wiki.  I’ll be working on section seven (Theoretical Models) throughout March and April; and I will really need your help with this.

Paddy Doherty
Credibility Tools Manager, ISEAL Alliance

Overview

Purpose

The purpose of this project is to develop a Code of Good Practice for Measuring the Impact of Social and Environmental Standard Systems (the Impacts Code). The process (for developing the Impacts Code) follows the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards; especially concerning stakeholder involvement and managing the consultation process.

Impacts Code Committees

The process to develop the Impacts Code began in September 2008 when ISEAL announced its intention to develop the Code; and called for nominations to the steering and two technical committees (Issues Committee & Methodologies Committee – see below).

Stakeholder Mapping

While the Impacts Code committees were being assembled, the stakeholder mapping process was being undertaken. This involves identifying any persons who might have an interest in the Impacts Code and creating a little database that shows their organisational interest (NGO, CB, Gov., industry and others) and the region of the world where they are located. The process is inexact, but it does provide us with an idea of what types of interests are being represented, and where they are located. Then (throughout the process) we can work to ensure there are more persons involved from the less represented groups and regions. As would be expected, the list is heavily weighted towards Europe and North America. Organisationally, the list is more evenly balanced between government, ISEAL members, researchers, other standards bodies, industry, donors, and consultants. There is an obvious lack of the voice of the producer and the consumer (though it is often pointed out that we are all consumers). Stakeholder mapping will continue throughout the Impacts Code project.

Research

Concurrent with the development of the committees and stakeholder mapping ISEAL commissioned Aimee Russillo to research the state of the art in impact measurement within standards systems. Aimee’s two reports “R082 ISEAL Key Impact Issues WHAT” and “R083 ISEAL Methodology HOW” are now available of the ISEAL impacts webpage.

What we’ve learned

Now that we have had an in-person meeting of all the committees (Steering Committee Dec 8 2008, Technical Committees Jan 27, 28 2009) we are getting an idea of stakeholders expectations, and how we might be able to meet those expectations within the Impacts Code. Here are some of the more salient observations:

• traditional impact assessment is not a useful model for standard systems, which are ongoing intereventions that change over time—therefore we are focusing on measuring our contribution to long-term impact;
• impact assessment must be integrated into an overall monitoring and evaluation system within a standard system;
• we need to develop common language and metrics for impact assessment;
• clarity on the goals of the standard systems is the necessary first step towards developing an ‘impact pathway’ model for impact assessment;
• the impact pathway will illustrate the causal chain of assumptions that lead from inputs to activities to outputs to outcomes, and finally towards our contribution to impact;

Stakeholders have provided us with some notions of what they want to see in the actual document:

• The Impacts Code should be affordable to implement;
• We need to explain the concepts in the code in very clear language;
• The code should be a prescriptive as possible but no more detail than needed;
• The code should include some guidance on the data management process.

Consultation

The process leading to the development of the Impacts Code is just as important as the product. We want standard systems to use the Impacts Code; the best way to ensure this happens is if the potential users of the product are involved in its development.

There has been so much interest in this project that we have amended our consultation plan; to include more consultation earlier in the process. Patrick and I are feeling that a complete draft, produced for consultation, is not always well received by participants—people want to be involved in the actual drafting phase. For this reason we are endeavouring to publish portions of the draft Impacts Code as soon as possible; and invite comments on those sections. Our current consultation and drafting process looks like this:

Online Consultation Tools

Thanks to the efforts of ISEAL’s new Online Networking Coordinator (Richard Brennan) we are presently setting-up an Impacts Code Blog, and an Impacts Code Wiki. All contributions to the Impact Code development process will be treated equally and will be made publicly available through the wiki. This will not be your only opportunity to comment (I’ll still be reading email, and taking phone calls) but the wiki will allow us to aggregate the comments and ensure everyone has an opportunity to view them.

I’ll be offering up my views and learning’s regularly through the Impacts Code Blog. This will provide an opportunity for me to update you on the progress of the Impacts Code Project and to archive comments and suggestions. There is also an opportunity for anyone to comment on the Blog!

Next Steps

I’ll be working with the Issues Technical Committee to reach final agreement on the main themes and sub-themes (what to measure) in preparation for posting on the Impacts Code wiki. I’ll be learning how to manage the online consultation tools (blog and wiki). Then I’ll start drafting sections of the Impacts Code in preparation for posting on the wiki.

Appendix A – Impacts Code Committee members

Steering Committee

1. Daniele Giovanucci, – Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA)/IISD
2. Deanna Newsom, – Rainforest Alliance
3. Alan Knight/Daniel Waistell – AccountAbility
4. Chris Grieve – Marine Stewardship Council
5. Christof Walter – Unilever
6. Sanjeev Khagram & David Bonbright (1 position) Impacts Community of Practice (ICOP)/Keystone
7. Hal Hamilton – Sustainable Food Lab
8. Luis Fernando – Imaflora
9. Britta Wyss – UTZ Certified
10. Steve Homer – Bios Partners
11. Rob van Hout – Fairtrade Labelling Organisation
12. Patrick Mallet – ISEAL Technical Director
13. Paddy Doherty – ISEAL Credibility Tools Manager

Issues Technical Committee

1. Chris Wunderlich – United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) /International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) – Jason Potts IISD (1 position)
2. Bill Vorley – International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
3. Deanna Newsom – Rainforest Alliance (RA)
4. Chris Grieve – Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
5. Don Seville – Sustainable Food Lab (SFL)
6. Francisco Bustamante – UTZ Certified
7. David McLaughlin – World Wildlife Fund
8. Catrina Lucero/Natalia Kiryttopoulou (1 position) IScale/Keystone Accountability
9. Patrick Mallet ISEAL Technical Director
10. Paddy Doherty – ISEAL Credibility Tools Manager

Methodologies Technical Committee

1. Chris Grieve – MSC
2. Marion Karmann – Forest Stewardship Council
3. Jason Donovan – Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Ensenanza (CATIE)
4. Gerd Ramm – COMO Consulting
5. Tessa Laan – UTZ Certified
6. Natalia Kirytopoulou/ Catrina Lucero (1 position) IScale/Keystone
7. Catherine Vogel – GTZ
8. David Mainenti – Marine Aquarium Council
9. Aimee Russillo – Liseed Consulting
10. Patrick Mallet – ISEAL Technical Director
11. Paddy Doherty – ISEAL Credibility Tools Manager