“Sustainable Conversation” and the Long View of Cross-Sector Partnerships

I’ve been working at the intersection of business and social good for a while, and naturally follow the evolution of new terminology and applications for the concepts of corporate responsibility and sustainable business. More recently, the term “shared value” has entered the scene. Though each addition to our vocabulary may be useful in engaging new audiences, debating the construct and refining the semantics isn’t where the action happens. We have much to learn from the people who have been working tirelessly for decades (even pre-dating most of the sector’s terminology) to find and develop opportunities for mutual benefit across sectors.

One such person is Ashley Boren, MBA ‘89. As executive director of the nonprofit organization Sustainable Conservation since 1997, Boren has been in the trenches and knows what it takes to create “shared value” in the form of cross-sector partnerships to solve environmental problems. Here is a snapshot of our conversation and the lessons she has to share.

Q: What is the mission of Sustainable Conservation and what do you do?

Ashley Boren: We believe that protecting the environment can also be good for business. Our founders drew from experiences in real estate and The Nature Conservancy. Dismayed by the litigiousness between business and environmental advocates in the late 1980s and early 1990s, they saw an opportunity to redirect the vast resources spent on fighting and attributing blame. Our climate, air, water and wildlife initiatives promote practical solutions that produce lasting benefits for California by partnering with business and other stakeholders to find environmental solutions that make economic sense. We believe that if solutions don’t work economically, they don’t work and they won’t last.

Q: Highlight one of your efforts that involved bringing unlikely partners together to solve a problem.

Sustainable Conservation brokered an unprecedented alliance to reduce the copper dust released from brake pads each time a driver slows or stops a vehicle. When we entered the discussion, all we knew was that copper dust was appearing in the San Francisco Bay and other waterways, and that copper is toxic to aquatic organisms including salmon. At the time, the science about the source of copper in our waterways wasn’t clear, but all parties understood that they needed to find a solution.

We assembled a diverse group of stakeholders (brake pad manufacturers, environmental organizations, and cities) to reach consensus on the science and the solutions. Sustainable Conservation raised the money to fund groundbreaking, peer-reviewed scientific research into the root cause, and found that up to 60 percent of copper dust in urban runoff comes from brake pads – the next largest contributor was in the single digits. The findings compelled all parties in the alliance to push for legislation to assure an even playing field across all manufacturers. Over the course of 15 years, this partnership resulted in state legislation to phase out copper in brake pads (SB 346), which was signed into California law in 2010 with unprecedented bipartisan support.

Q: How did you address the challenges of “culture” or “competing institutional logic” across the sectors?

We worked to understand the economics, the motivating drivers of all parties – to know where they are coming from and what drives their decision making. In this case, the brake pad manufacturers wanted to produce a quality product that met the performance requirements of customers (no squeaking, no shuddering). Cities wanted to meet state-level water quality standards to avoid penalties and forced construction of water treatment facilities. And environmental groups wanted a thriving salmon population and safe waterways.

We also strived to help each stakeholder understand the other. We invested in rigorous scientific research that all parties trusted, and also facilitated numerous educational activities, including a class by the federal EPA on environmental modeling and a briefing by material engineers to educate cities and NGOs on the complexity of reengineering a brake pad. Without such education, parties in the negotiation would have lacked understanding of the nuances, priorities and trade-offs required to find a solution.

Each year we convened members of the partnership in person at least once, and facilitated frequent phone calls so that the parties would remain connected. We also sought the trust of the greater community. To maintain transparency in the process and engage all stakeholders, we held a public workshop open to anyone interested in the issue almost each year. Over time, rapport developed, the parties gained trust in each other, and shared interest in a mutually beneficial solution grew stronger.

Q: How do you lead unlikely partners to engage in the negotiations and work together? Especially when the parties differ in status, size, and power?

First of all, remember that power can come in many forms. Knowledge is a form or power, as is social influence. Although it might seem like private industry holds all the power, in this case the brake pad and auto industries perceived the environmental movement, and its representative from the Sierra Club and the environmental community generally, as quite powerful. The nonprofit sector has influence over consumers, and is often a force in mobilizing public protests and shifting consumer behavior.

There were a few factors that motivated these various stakeholders to come to the negotiating table and to stay there throughout the process. First, the brake pad industry had recently gone through long litigations over lead and asbestos, so were highly aware of the many costs of such a process and open to finding a better way. Second, we focused on working with local representatives from each group – people with constituents, customers, and clients based around the Bay Area. Although the brake pad legislation ended up impacting all of California (and the rest of North America), it was helpful to form a group that was united by a common geography. The Bay Area focus helped to tighten the conversation and focus the scientific research. Third, we set ground rules that all parties agreed to, and established a consensus-based decision making process. This assured the diverse interests that they would be heard, and that this partnership was not just a vehicle to push through one particular agenda.  Finally, we hired an outside scientific advisor for the partnership as a whole. This person knew a lot about how urban pollution moves through the environment and had credibility with the brake pad industry.

Q: Reflect on timeframe, the power of perseverance, and how to sustain the fight.

Developing this partnership and passing legislation supported by all parties took almost 15 years. There were points when our board of directors asked if we should still be doing it, and times when we asked the same questions ourselves. But the facts driving the need for change and the incremental gains along the way kept us going. We now smile when we remember how our organization was dubbed “Sustainable Conversation” when it seemed the negotiations would go on forever.

In terms of timeframe, it’s also helpful to think about the people you invite to be a part of such a negotiation or project. We were careful not to include consultants and lobbyists among the select representatives of each party, for they are often peripheral to the action and come and go over time. It was instrumental to include people who have agency and influence within their organizations. People with a predisposition to innovation, problem-solving, and collaboration were targeted in forming the group of representatives, and helped the partnership maintain momentum over time.

Q: What advice would you give to someone starting or in the midst of a cross-sector partnership?

1) Do your homework and understand each party’s interests, motivations and constraints;

2) Understand what drives decision making and build common knowledge through objective research and educational outreach;

3)  Get the right people to the table. Seek out problem solvers, innovators, collaborators. It takes specific skills and competencies to do this work.