INTRODUCTION TO THE ASIAN FORUM 2007
Welcome to the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy
by Ben Quinones
Welcome to the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy
by Ben Quinones
1. OBJECTIVES OF THE ASIAN FORUM
The Asian Forum 2007 is an unprecedented event where various stakeholders meet to:
● arrive at an articulation of a uniquely Asian solidarity economy as a people- and eco-centered
way of governance over the production, financing, distribution, and consumption of goods and
services;
● enhance the process of deepening reflections on solidarity economy in Asian countries;
● undertake a mapping of solidarity economy stakeholders in Asia in order to establish a base
from which to build both knowledge and best practices; and
● build an advocacy and resource network of various organizations and networks involved in the
dynamics of solidarity economy in Asia, and facilitate exchange of knowledge and best
practices among them, and between them and their counterparts in other continents Asia is
host to new economic practices that have flourished in the contemporary era.
There is a growing interest in them especially among those who are looking for an alternative to the current global economic system which has deepened the wedge between the haves and the have-nots, and further alienated those who are already marginalized. But many questions remain unanswered, viz: What do these practices have in common ? Do they share the same vision on what the economy should be? Are they part of a coherent vision for an alternative global economic system or are they only random examples? Who are the main stakeholders involved? What strategies can be built to enhance business links among them?
These are some of the burning questions that will be explored in the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy 2007. The meeting will take place on 17-20 October 2007 at the Bahay ng Alumni, inside the campus of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. It will gather representatives of solidarity-based economic initiatives from a dozen different Asian countries. It is organized by the Coalition of Socially Responsible SMEs in Asia (CSR SME Asia) with the initial support of the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for the Progress of Humankind (FPH) and the cooperation of the global network of WSSE (Workgroup on Solidarity Socio-Economy) and various other partner organizations. .
2. EXPECTED OUTPUTS
The expected outputs of the Asian Forum are the following:
1. Models of Solidarity Economy initiatives in 6 countries have contributed substantively to the articulation of a uniquely Asian perspective of solidarity economy and to a deeper understanding of its dynamics.
2. Asian Forum delegates have contributed to a mapping of solidarity economy stakeholders in Asia by joining the Stakeholder Assemblies.
3. Asian Forum delegates have endorsed a Proposal for Collective Action that advances deeper reflections on solidarity economy, promotes the enhancement of solidarity economy advocacy and resource networks in Asian countries, and facilitate exchange of knowledge and best practices among them
To realize these outputs, some 40 resource persons from 12 countries will share their knowledge and experience in the Plenary and Associated Sessions on five core themes of the Asian Forum. These core themes are Governance and Servant Leadership, Socially Responsible Investment, Socially Responsible Financing, and Socially Responsible Enterprise. Researchers from 6 countries (China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Philippines and Thailand) will present case studies that seek to highlight various facets of solidarity economy. Selection of these models were based on the WSSE definition of solidarity economy, to wit: “Solidarity Economy is an economic system that strives towards producing and sharing enough material wealth among all in order to generate sustainable conditions for self-managed development of each and every member of societies, the peoples and the planet .The overarching goal of SE is socioeconomic, self-managed development and the empowerment of working people to become the subjects of this process, individually and collectively.”
Some countries (e.g. France, Canada) adopt the term “social economy” instead of solidarity economy, the latter being more widely used in Latin America. But both perspectives share similar basic principles For example, the five key principles established by the Chantier l’ Economie Sociale of Quebec to distinguish social economy enterprises can well be applied to solidarity economy initiatives . These are:
• the objective of the social economy enterprise is to serve its members or the community,
instead of simply striving for financial profit;
• the social economy enterprise is autonomous of the State;
• in its statute and code of conduct, it establishes a democratic decision-making process that
implies the necessary participation of users and workers;
• it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and surplus;
• its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and individual and
collective responsibility.
3. CORE THEMES & THEMATIC WORKSHOPS
Core Theme 1: GOVERNANCE AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP
A determining characteristic of solidarity economy is socially responsible governance, and the elaboration of such governance framework is a challenge that Asian Forum participants will have to tackle. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations Charter, twin pillars of international conventions, have greatly contributed to social development, but they have not sufficiently addressed the widening economic gaps within and between nations, the concentration of economic and political power in ever-fewer hands, threats to cultural diversity, or the over-exploitation of natural resources. Failure is evident as unrest and conflicts world-wide continue, which give rise to even deeper concerns on the future of our planet.
Regrettably, the social institutions invested with the responsibility of governance have not been able to meet development challenges. The pervasive power of international markets is undermining the traditional role of states. Scientific institutions, pursuing their narrow specialist interests, are increasingly pulling back from analyzing and confronting the global issues and their interactions which challenge humanity. International economic institutions have failed to turn the rising tide of inequality. Business has often pursued its profit goals at the expense of social and environmental concerns. Religious institutions have not adequately fulfilled their role to provide responses to the new challenges faced by our societies.
The Asian Forum Workshop on Governance and Servant Leadership, better known as the “Workshop on Governing Differently” proposes that all people have an equal entitlement to human rights, but their responsibilities are proportionate to the possibilities open to them. This, in fact, is the Preamble of the Charter of Human Responsibilities (CHR), a cornerstone upon which the Workshop on Governing Differently stands. The more freedom, access to information, knowledge, wealth and power someone has, the more capacity that person has for exercising responsibilities, and the greater that person’s duty to account for his or her actions. This fundamental thesis of the CHR echoes the words of Jesus: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48, NIV). The CHR aims to provide a new framework, not only for personal conduct, but for the political, institutional and legal domains as well. The CHR is proposed as the basis of a new social contract, creating new rules for every social and professional group in its relationship with society.
Every one has the capacity to take up as his or her responsibilities, at the individual and the collective levels. The Charter of Human Responsibility maps out responsibilities and how these responsibilities can be exercised. It is a step towards developing a democratic global governance based on human responsibilities. The Workshop on Governing Differently seeks to contribute towards developing a supportive social, cultural, economic and political framework within which these responsibilities may be exercised.
While a revolutionary framework for a new social contract is necessary, it is not sufficient to transform individuals from being self-centered operators of the old, exploitative social order into socially responsible citizens who purposely create wealth so as to enhance the well-being of all mankind and conserve the environment for future generations. It is equally important that people who govern under the new social contract undergo a personal transformation that leads them to possess the attributes of a servant leader. Jesus said: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:24, NIV)
In sum, the main thesis of the Workshop on Governing Differently is this: Those who are entrusted with much (e.g. information, knowledge, wealth, and power) are called to be compassionate, competent, servant leaders in their own fields of specialization.
Asian Forum 2007 focuses on the expression of the new social contract in the economic sphere of human activity, and more particularly in an emerging initiative within this sphere called ‘Solidarity Economy’.
Core Theme 2: SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT (SRI).
The growth and development of Solidarity Economy depends to a large extent on the availability of investors who invest not solely on the basis of financial returns but also on their commitment to social development and ecological balance. Developing countries offer incentives to attract foreign direct investments, yet the response of socially responsible investments (SRIs) appears rather weak. For solidarity economy to prosper, there has to be a substantial influx of SRIs to developing countries.
What is SRI? Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) aims to invest in companies that advance positive impacts on society at large while mitigating negative impacts. The SRI mechanism was born in the US as part of evangelical churches’ ethical movement in 1920s. While two-thirds of SRI asset under management are found in the US ($2.29 trillion, US SIF), the highest growth is seen in Europe (real growth rate of 36% between 2003-2006, to €1.033 trillion, Eurosif 2006) where governments and institutional investors take a lead. European SRI has witnessed a transformation from a limited grass-roots movement focusing on home markets into a tool for risk management for pension funds in the light of global challenges such as climate change (Eurosif, 2003, 2006). European institutional actors therefore contrast with the main SRI actors in the US, who are activist retail investors. But both US and European SRIs have a shared goal: to redefine the relationship between corporations and society while seeking a quasi-regulatory mechanism to exert power over corporations (Louche and Lydenberg, 2006) . This goal has led them to focus predominantly on large and liquid enterprises that exert power on the way in which global markets are run. In parallel, disclosure, accountability and transparency have become central issues to the activity of socially responsible investing.
SRI in Asia: An agenda for SRI in Asia is likely to differ from that experienced in the US and Europe. The still relatively low level of investment education across the Asian region and relatively weak disclosure standards of Asian companies are the challenges ahead cited by the Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia (ASrIA). for growing the Asian SRI market Indeed, the SRI markets in Asia represent just a fraction（$2.5 billion）of the global SRI market ($3 trillion). They are not liquid and transparent enough, thus risky, for international investors and at the same time they are shun by risk-averse local Asian retail investors. Also Asian nations are too diverse to fit all in the same SRI size. Japan’s experience is unique in a sense that it created a market for SRI without having had a grass roots movement nor common philosophical/political roots and goals as American and European investors. The Japanese corporate sector however is responding to the new genre of investors by voluntarily disclosing CSR information.
In developing economies of Asia where stock market capitalisation are smaller compared to Japan (see Appendix 1), the SRI approach that is marketing and product driven might not yield similar expected impacts compared to SRI that focuses on sustainability and company behaviour. Many companies are small local players rather than global market players. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are strategically important for Asia, as they play a crucial role not only in “growing out” of a state-dominated economy as an agent for innovation and technology advancement , but also in “giving a breadth and depth to public voice” - which is key for the development of democratic processes in developing countries. In such a setting at least two sets of challenges for developing SRI in developing Asia emerge: (1) how to gain more knowledge about strategies and prospects of SMEs which are often too resource-constraint to produce the same level of disclosure as large companies, and (2) how to measure the sustainability performance of SMEs whose evaluation and impacts are determined by the local micro-level cultural and political context rather than standardised common indicators.
The first question addresses the need for an innovative mechanism of connecting likely-minded investors and SMEs in order to grow together through shared visions and trust. A long-term investment horizon is realisable only if both investors and enterprises commonly understand the competitive nature of a given market place as well as share a common view about what sustainability means to them. The second question addresses the need for a measuring tool for both evaluating and monitoring. If a successful strategy is one that is built on organisational capacity and competencies as Henry Minzberg (1987,1993) argues, then what measurement or which indicators could help international investors to evaluate SMEs in their relevant local economic-social, environmental and cultural context. In this, contribution of local smaller credit institutions’ ability to assess better small size companies than large hierarchical banks might be worth examining. How useful would be a relationship research for SRI in SMEs and how would it be possible to use a less prescriptive assessment for SRI instead of indicator-oriented research? Economic and technical viability of such an innovative research approach might be worth exploring during the workshops.
Core Theme 3: SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FINANCING (THE CASE OF MICROFINANCE)
Mike Lewis argues that most people do not act on the basis of a historical or theoretical rationale; rather, their interest arises from their lived experience. The words solidarity and economy may be uttered in the same breath in the process of concrete and diverse struggles of the people. There are several development strategies that enhance solidarity of people in economic activities. A popular strategy is to organize/ mobilize marginalized segments of a community to access basic services. One of the most successful approaches to community organizing/mobilization is Microfinance.
Microfinance involves offering viable financial services to poor households, especially the women of those households. Microfinance clients largely are self-employed people with small-scale businesses or "microentrepreneurs", who are unable to access the formal banking system. Financial services of microfinance institutions (MFIs) basically include loans and deposits, but they may also offer other specialized services such as insurance or leasing. Microcredit enables these people to start up a small income-generating activity, or expand an existing microenterprise. They repay their loans from income generated from this microenterprise, which may also allow them to set aside some funds for savings or financing other needs.
Microfinance is a unique solidarity economy initiative that has succeeded in attracting SRIs to developing countries. In fact, the level of success attained by microfinance is such that big commercial banks are now induced to do microfinance, but largely for profit considerations. Consequently, some SRIs wonder whether MFIs have followed suit and are drifting from their original social mission. As a result, there is an increasing demand from donors, social investors, and from the MFI themselves to measure social performances. Different initiatives have flourished, aimed at measuring either social impact of the MFIs or defining a tool for auditing social performance. Some of these tools will be discussed by organizations like Cerise/ ProsperA and Grameen Foundation at the Asian Forum.
Core Theme 4: SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ENTERPRISE (SRE).
Demand for socially responsible investment (SRI) can only legitimately come from the SRE sector. Without the SRE sector, there is no justifiable place for SRI. The hoped for influx of SRI will not happen until developing countries have adequately built up and strengthened their SRE sector. This challenge appears even more daunting when considered against the fact that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) comprise the bulk of enterprises in developing countries. These SMEs are struggling to survive and could hardly give a thought to social responsibility.
The subjects of business ethics and corporate social responsibility continue to polarize economic actors. NGOs usually suspect the “socially responsible projects” of multinational companies as no more than "window dressing" acts or part of their marketing strategy that do not really produce substantial benefits to a significant number of people. On the other hand, NGO's tend to be critical of any initiative of the business world in ethical matters, no matter how sincere these efforts may be. These tensions slow down the emergence of more ethical ways of producing and upset the consumer who would wish to enter into a more responsible way of consumption. Against this backdrop, the workgroup on Socially Responsible Entrepreneurship proposes a consensual dialogue among various stakeholders with the aim of restoring balance.
Amidst the lack of consensus of what constitutes social responsibility of enterprises, alternative trade practices have emerged among companies that subscribe to a set of ethical principles and practices. Generally known as ”Fair Trade”, this alternative trading system evolved as an alternative to the mainstream global trading system which marginalizes micro and small enterprises. Fair Trade is as an instrument for realizing sustainable development , but not all solidarity economy initiatives abide by its principles.
A Fair Trade network is a solidarity-based supply chain consisting of Producer Groups and Traders. Producer groups of Fair Trade networks usually comprise of marginalized but organized small and medium enterprises (SMEs) labeled as “Fair Trade producer” and have the ability to export. They are fair to their workers by providing them freedom of association. Their business practices are democratic and transparent. Fair Trade buyers buy largely from registered producers. They provide business, design or credit support, and they engage in long-term cooperative relationship with producers.
Stakeholders of a Fair Trade network are encouraged to be constantly conscious of their social responsibility and to practice it by: (1) integrating social objectives with other buying functions; (2) engaging with stakeholders throughout the value chain; (3) understanding the supplier ; (4) conducting their business in the community context, not in isolation from the community; (5) understanding business risks; (6) adopting transparent communications; (7) maintaining a pricing policy to cover cost of labour and capital employed; and (8) developing partnering relationships. All these principles will be elaborated in the Asian Forum.
4. BAYANIHAN BANKING WINDOW (BBW): AN EMERGING SRI IN THE PHILIPPINES
In 2006, an opportunity arose that allowed CSR-SME Asia to partner with a bank in developing a facility called Bayanihan Banking Window. ‘Bayanihan’ is a Filipino word that denotes solidarity, helping one another and caring for each other. BBW is a banking facility that seeks to link socially responsible investors (SRI) with socially responsible enterprises (SRE). BBW is an entirely new vehicle created by a Planters Development Bank bank based on technical inputs of CSR-SME Asia.
BBW seeks to attract savings and funds of institutions and individuals from the Philippines and abroad who support CSRSME Asia’s vision of a solidarity-based, compassionate economy. These funds are meant to be invested in or loaned out to socially responsible enterprises (SREs) that do business not solely on the basis of financial returns but also on their commitment to social development and ecological balance.
To ensure that BBW fulfills CSRSME Asia’s social mission, BBW stakeholders shall be organized into groups which adhere to certain standards of performance (see Annex 1). Diagram 1 below illustrates graphically the role of BBW in bringing together various stakeholders that support a solidarity-based, compassionate economy.
● BBW sources funds from socially responsible investors (SRI)
● BBW lends to socially responsible entrepreneurs (SRE).
● Socially responsible service providers (SRS) supply appropriate knowledge, technology, and
human/ material resources to SRI and SRE.
● Socially responsible consumers/civil society (SRC) promote and buy the products of SRE.
BBW stakeholders participate in a Learning Journey that aims to inform stakeholders on available resources that could address their various developmental needs. A social performance management (SPM) system shall be established to backstop the implementation of BBW.
Participating CBU Contributions
The initial paid-in capital of BBW is targeted at P25 Million or roughly $500,000. The principal equity contributors are also called Participating CBU (Capital Build Up) contributors since they participate in the capital build up of BBW and in the distribution of BBW dividends. Among the initial PCBU contributors are CSRSME Asia, Bayanihang Pilipino Inc., Tekton BDO, Impok Bayan Association, Uplift Philippines, and On Eagle’s Wings Foundation.
An important characteristic of PCBU contributors is the capability to disburse loans to socially responsible enterprises (SRE) or provide equity capital. To qualify as a PCBU contributor, an institution must have at least 3 years experience in providing financing support to end-users with a recovery rate of no less than 98%. Only PCBUs can be accredited as BBW retail lending institutions or venture capital providers.
A PCBU contributor is expected to comply with the equity contribution requirement by channeling funds to SRE through BBW. In other words, the utilization of BBW as a banking facility for disbursing loan/equity funds to SRE is accepted as compliance with the equity contribution requirement. Such bank transaction entails the opening of a BBW account of the financing institution, and through this account fund disbursements to end-users will also be recorded. In effect, the equity contribution of a lending institution is equivalent to the amount of funds it has disbursed to/invested in SRE through BBW with the use of its own funds.
Funds invested in non-SRE shall not be qualified as compliance with the BBW equity requirement. Therefore, funds intended for non-SRE cannot be channeled through BBW. BBW is a banking facility dedicated to serving the financing needs of socially responsible enterprises.
The financial terms and conditions of BBW venture capital funds shall be as follows :
● Purpose: to finance socially responsible enterprises (SREs). The term ‘SRE’ includes
microfinance institutions (MFIs) and individual enterprises belonging to the category of
small and medium enterprise (SME)
● BBW Lending rate to PCBU contributors: 9 % p.a. + 1% service charge (subject to change
without prior notice)
● Expected rate of return to PCBU venture capital funds: To be announced periodically
● Loan security: Guarantee by depositor (s) thru assignment of postdated check (on principal
sum) to BBW
● Payment mode: monthly payment of interest, payment of principal sum at maturity date, by
postdated checks
Hypothetical Illustration: Five (5) socially responsible companies applied for loan financing from Tekton BDO amounting to a total of P15 million (roughly $333,000). Tekton BDO approves the P15 million loans and decides to use Planters Development Bank for channeling funds to the end-users. Tekton transfers funds to its BBW bank account and releases appropriate loan amounts to the client companies. The global BBW account registers the Tekton loans to the 3 SRE as Tekton’s equity contribution to BBW
Non-Participating CBU Contributions
NPCBU contributions are savings deposits of institutions and individuals who support the vision for a solidarity-based, compassionate economy, and patronize BBW not merely on the basis of financial returns but also on its commitment to social development and maintenance of ecological balance. NPCBU contributors do not have the experience and capacity to retail funds to end-users and, therefore, they are not authorized to engage in financing under BBW. NPCBU contributions do not participate in the distribution of BBW dividends. Rather, NCBU contributions shall fetch a guaranteed, fixed rate of interest which shall vary according to maturity of placement.
The PCBUs are the ones that transform NPCBU contributions into SRE loans or investment.
The financial terms of BBW deposits shall be as follows
● Minimum contribution Institution – P100,000 or $2,000 (Deposits can be denominated in
peso or dollar); Individual member-client of the Institution P5,000 or $100;
● Interest rate
3-year placement 3.0% p.a. (hard currency, e.g. US dollars); 7.0% p.a. (local currency)
5-year placement 3.0% p.a. (hard currency), 7.5 % p.a. (local currency)
● Maturity: 3 - 5 years
● Payment mode: monthly payment of interest, payment of principal sum at maturity date, by
postdated checks (the depositor gets postdated checks instead of deposit certificates)
In case a NPCBU contributor is a membership based organization and it participates in BBW for the purpose of providing credit access to its members, it may enter into a MOA with a PCBU for the latter to lend to its members. Tekton, for example, may have MOAs with several NPCBU contributors for the purpose of transforming NPCBU contributions into SRE loans to individual companies.
Hypothetical Illustration: The Christian Businessmen’s Forum (CBF) participates in BBW by making a non-participating BCU contribution of P1 million. In addition, CBF mobilizes another P1 million from its member companies throughout the country and deposits the amount in BBW as a non-participating CBU contribution. CBF does not have any experience in loan financing and has no immediate plans to engage in it, but it desires to provide its member companies access to BBW funds. To realize this, CBF enters into a MOA with Tekton for the latter to transform the P2 million CBF deposits into loans for CBF member companies. Tekton can leverage other sources of funds if the financing requirements of CBF members exceed the amount of their BBW deposits.
5. PROPOSAL FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION: INITIATING THE LEARNING JOURNEY IN PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
Asian Forum delegates who have filled up and submitted the Stakeholders Assembly Membership Form (see Annex 1) will participate in the Business Meeting on October 20, 1.30 -5.30 p.m. at the Bahay ng Alumni. They will be inducted as Founding Members of the Asian Forum Stakeholders Assembly (AFSA). The AFSA will comprise the backbone of practitioners who will initiate a Learning Journey in their respective countries. The objective of the Learning Journey is to map out Solidarity Economy stakeholders in respective countries and promote dialogue and cooperation among them for the advancement of solidarity economic initiatives.
The Learning Journey
This Proposal for Collective Action elucidates the objectives and steps of the Learning Journey to provide a general guide to AFSA members. The Learning Journey provides a framework for participatory and collective learning process aimed at bringing together various stakeholders of a given industry or supply chain, but whose short-term interests may not necessarily be congruent with each other. In the Solidarity Economy, for example, producers may prefer higher prices for their commodities while consumers would want lower prices. Lenders/investors may desire higher interest rate/ rate of return on their funds, but entrepreneurs would want to avail of capital funds at lower interest rates. Natural contradictions such as these could be ironed out through dialogue and cooperation. The Learning Journey provides a space on which dialogue and cooperation could emerge and flourish.
In sum, the Learning Journey is:
● a framework for various stakeholders of Solidarity Economy to learn/re-learn together
● a means for building bridges between SRIs and SREs
● an occasion wherein partner organizations (both SRIs and SREs) will visit one partner at a
time in order to get to know each other in a deeper way
● a process aimed at : 1) building up trust and confidence among partner organizations; and 2)
paving the way for concrete proposals and business transactions among stakeholders.
Stage 1 - Observing the current reality, carefully and in depth .
During Stage 1:
● the Learning Journey Facilitator invites various stakeholders of Solidarity Economy to an
initial orientation meeting during which one of the participating organizations will volunteer to
host the first Learning Journey. At this orientation meeting, the rules of engagement are
explained to participating organizations. A fundamental rule is that the host organization (i.e.
the organization that hosts the meeting) is the object of learning. The host organization
explains its vision, mission, goals, objectives, achievements, and areas for partnership. The
visiting organizations listen and asks questions with the view of understanding the current
reality of the host organization.
● individual participants from other stakeholder organizations undertake a deep inquiry into
their own mental perception of what the host organization represents. They have to “see”
the current reality of the host organization beyond their mental “filters” (i.e. biases,
presumptions, etc.).
● deeper inquiry by other stakeholders should be allowed by the host organization including
talking directly with the latter’s staff and clients, its suppliers, and other partners. This stage
of deeper inquiry is represented by the downward sloping curve that ends at the bottom of
● one (1) stakeholder organization may host the Learning Journey per month. In other words,
the Learning Journey is undertaken at least once a month, each meeting should last not
more than 5 hours. Hosting is rotated among stakeholder organizations. If here are 24
stakeholder organizations participating in the Learning Journey, one organization will have
the opportunity to host the Learning Journey only once every two years.
● the host organization makes available the venue for the meeting, follows up on the other
stakeholder organizations for the confirmation and registry of their participants, and serves
snacks to the participants
● at the end of each Learning Journey, the Learning Journey Facilitator distributes small pieces
of paper where participants write their answers to the question “What Have I Learned
Today?”. The Facilitator records the Lessons Learned/ observations of participants and
share these among all the participating stakeholders
Stage 2 – Retreating and reflecting to allow new insights and wisdom to emerge from within
During Stage 2:
● Participants will move to a deep process of true quiet and deep reflection. This quiet time
(also called ‘presencing’) is intended to evoke genuine caring and a sense of calling.
● Ideally, the Retreat and Reflection Stage should last for 3 to 5 days and held in a place far
away from the office or work area of participants. Mobile phones should be shut off. This is to
keep participants free from concerns outside the Retreat area and focus on reflections about
the current reality of stakeholders in the industry/supply chain.
● every stakeholder organization contributes to the costs of the Retreat.
● the Learning Journey Facilitator coordinates the preparations for the retreat and reflection,
and records the Lessons Learned by participants for subsequent distribution to the latter
Stage 3 – Prototyping and piloting system innovation
At Stage 3:
● Participants move into rapid prototyping to translate visions into concrete working models
from which feedback can be garnered and further adjustments made. This process is
represented by the upward sloping curve of Figure 1
● Team learning becomes especially important because the creation of alternative systems
involves continuous deepening of shared understanding and clarifying visions
● the Learning Journey Facilitator coordinates the formation of workshops among stakeholders
working on a particular collective action or “initiative”, and records the Lessons Learned by
each Workshop/ Initiative for subsequent distribution to all participants
The Expected Results of the Learning Journey may consist of the following:
● Mapping of Stakeholders of Solidarity Economy: Participating organizations have classified
their clients and allies according to stakeholder groups, given the following basic framework:.
SRI – socially responsible investor; SRE – socially responsible entrepreneur (producer); SRS
– socially responsible service provider; and (SRC) – socially responsible consumer
group/civic organization.
● Exchange/Sharing of Knowledge & Information: Results of Learning Journeys are shared
among participating countries. A web-based dialogue platform can be arranged through the
Asian Forum website to expedite the exchange of information.
● Facilitation of socially responsible trading or Fair Trade exchange of ‘socially responsible’
products/ commodities (those produced by socially responsible enterprises): South- south
Fair Trade is promoted and enhanced between and among organizations participating in the
Learning Journey in their respective countries.
● Facilitation of socially responsible financing of South - South Fair Trade exchange: An Asian
Solidarity Fund Is established by by Fair Trade buyers to finance Fair Trade exports.
● Upgrading of knowledge and skills of human resources: Staff of participating organizations are
trained on marketing and export promotion geared towards compliance of ethical standards of buyers/ end-users..
● The social performance of participating organizations are monitored and evaluated. The
social performance of participating organizations shall be monitored , evaluated, and
published in an SRE Information Exchange facility.
Asian Forum II: Convergence of Country Learning Journeys
The Asian Forum can serve as a convergence point for the Learning Journeys in different Asian countries. The Second Asian Forum can be organized in October 2009 to take stock of achievements made by participating organizations and to further promote socially responsible trade exchanges among them..
CSRSME Asia as Coordinating body
Asian Forum participating organizations may endorse CSR-SME Asia as the regional level facilitator of knowledge/ information on the Learning Journeys and convenor of the Asian Forum itself. .
