Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives (MSI) are a foundational aspect of credible standard systems.
There is a lot to unpack in this sentence since ‘MSI’ and ‘credible’ are both loaded terms.
First of all, there is no agreed definition of MSI. So…I’ve assembled a set of characteristics that are found in various definitions [1].
MSIs are generally understood to include one or more of these elements:
Stakeholders self-identify as having an interest.
Decisions are made by some form of consensus or general agreement of the participants.
Participants agree to support the agreement(s) reached by the group.
They are civil society actors.
As a result, government representatives that participate (if there are any) normally would have ‘voice’ but no ‘vote’ in the agreements reached.
They can work on issues of any scale, local, regional, national, or global.
They can work on any topic that they choose.
They can form solely for the purpose of reaching an agreement(s) and some may establish organisation(s) that will implement a program based on the agreement(s).
It should also be crystal clear that MSIs are non-governmental[2] and do not include initiatives that are started by, report to or whose scope of work, agreements or decisions are subject to the approval of governments or government agencies.
It should be noted that a well-organized and effective MSI can make governments extremely nervous and sometimes, very angry. Governments tend to consider themselves the only legitimate forum for reaching collaborative agreements. Also, when not actively opposed, the agreements reached by MSIs can be seen by governments as constraints on the range of available policy options. As such, they sometimes resist the work of MSIs. In general, the more successful an MSI is, the more likely governments will resist them, except, of course, when the subject is one that has long stymied governments.
Secondly, there is the issue of credibility. Credibility is a measure of trust and believability (according to Wikipedia). In brief, credibility has both objective elements and subjective elements. For me that means that we can build transparency and accountability into the system to provide objective evidence of credibility but that does not mean that everyone will trust the MSI. Subjective elements can support this by getting endorsements from respected organizations and individuals and finding ways to present the objective evidence in ways that appeal to organizations and individuals. In short, its marketing, but based on evidence.
MSI’s are foundational to standards systems because they provide for the full spectrum of stakeholders to come together and agree a standard and how that standard is to be used for a product or service.
MSIs are not ‘representative processes’; that is where a representative of a sector or group of stakeholders is appointed to develop a standard. In an MSI the actual stakeholders have an opportunity to be part of the process. The only threshold that they must reach is their willingness to be a part of the MSI and to support (or at least not actively oppose) the decisions taken.
MSIs can be a challenge for many organisations and individuals. This is because most people and organisations do not have training or experience in MSIs work and how best to be part of the process (for more on this see the post: How to Build an Agreement).
Other factors to consider include how to establish an MSI, how to design its governance and how elements of an MSI can inform the ongoing work of an established standard system. Maybe these will be topics of future posts.
———————
[1] Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity (MSI Integrity), Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), The World Bank, and Wikipedia
[2] Some people disagree with me on this point, but, quite frankly, they are wrong.