Presented by: Jennifer Shkabatur (World Bank) Jay Bhalla (Project Manager, Code 4 Kenya)

Register to join the webinar here

Sponsored by: OGP Networking Mechanism (Global Integrity) & World Bank Institute To JOIN the session on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 at 10:00 AM EST, please use this link http://worldbankva.adobeconnect.com/ogpweb/ to login 5 minutes before the Webinar is scheduled to start.

Strengthening the Demand For and Use Of Open Data Initiatives The release of open government data often becomes the core of open government policies and initiatives. Yet it is just a first step on the road to tangible outcomes. A range of capacity building activities are required to put open government data in action and fulfill its social, economic, and political promise. This webinar will explore how to maximize the usage and relevancy of open government data after its release. Relying on a range of global good practices and concrete country examples, speakers will present strategies and tools that can be utilized to engage various stakeholders—policymakers, civil society organizations, journalists, web developers, and citizens—in making active use of open government data. Important issues to be discussed are: How to conduct hackathons and ensure the sustainability of their results? How to make the most out of apps competitions? How to train journalists and parliamentarians to rely on open government data as part of their work? How to enhance the capacity of CSOs and citizens to use, reuse, and adapt the data for their needs?

Speaker Bios: Dr. Jennifer Shkabatur is a consultant at the World Bank and a fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Her work examines the effects of information and communication technologies on transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. She authored several studies on these topics and conducted field research on ICT for social accountability initiatives. In the past years, she served as a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and as a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Boston University School of Law, teaching Internet Law. She holds Doctorate (S.J.D.) and Masters (LL.M.) degrees from Harvard Law School.

Jay Bhalla is an innovation strategist, who has helped pioneer Kenya’s digital revolution. He helped design the Kenyan government’s 2006 ICT policy that kick-started the nation’s digital start-up culture and more recently played a leading role in shaping the Kenya Open Data Initiative (KODI). He continues to advise both the Kenyan government and the World Bank on technologies strategies for civic engagement and appropriate technology. He has also helped build proof-of-concept grass-roots community tools for monitoring government delivery and tracking State expenditure. Outside of his Open Data work, Jay spearheaded East Africa’s largest mobile web gathering, Pivot25, and also co-founded the world’s first Swahili text-to-speech Start-up. Jay is currently the co-founder and Executive Director of the Open Institute think tank.

The Open Government Partnership Webinars is an initiative of the OGP Networking Mechanism to encourage peer learning and knowledge sharing on critical open government issues among civil society, government, and private sector participants.

US President Lyndon Johnson and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair were not the only ones with strong regrets about the freedom of information legislation enacted when they were leaders of their democracies. The landmark Right to Information (RTI) law, enacted in 2005 in India, has been the cause of similar distress for the ruling class.

Beyond the rhetoric of transparency, accountability, and participation lies an uncomfortable adjustment to redrawing the fault lines of power. This discomfort perhaps explains why the Indian government passed a powerful RTI law and then made repeated attempts to amend and dilute it.

It also may explain why the government of India withdrew from the Open Government Partnership (OGP) after being part of its formative discussions. Indian bureaucrats raised valid concerns about the unconventional nature of OGP as a multilateral organization. They argued that it went beyond the norms of a voluntary partnership. It is equally probable that the Indian experience with RTI laws, and the subsequent anticorruption movement, made the political establishment wary of any new “open government” commitments abroad for which it would be held accountable at home.

Ironically, just as India was withdrawing from the fledgling OGP, the Indian government and Parliament were actively considering a slew of new transparency and accountability legislation. The LokPal Bill (Anti-corruption Commission), theGrievance Redress Bill, the Whistle-blower Protection Bill, theJudicial Accountability Bill, the Public Procurement Bill—all have been tabled in Parliament in the last year and are in various stages of enactment.

India owes many of these systemic reforms to a vibrant, bottom-up demand for opening up government. The RTI movement in India has changed the discourse of transparency and accountability by connecting these seemingly esoteric issues to basic entitlements, empowerment, and meaningful participation by ordinary citizens in the planning, monitoring, and decision-making processes of government. The Delhi High Court remarked in a recent landmark order that the Indian RTI movement has demonstrated that the Right to Information is not only part of Freedom of Expression under Article 19 of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, but also a part of Article 21 (the Right to Life) and Article 14 (the Right to Equality). In countries where poverty and marginalization are important concerns, India’s experience with the practical application of transparency and participatory empowerment has fundamental value.

Nevertheless, India’s absence underscores the larger challenges OGP may face in the months and years ahead. This tension is endemic to the OGP process. OGP defines itself as a “voluntary partnership” that attempts to push the envelope every year. It seeks to evaluate governments against their own standards, with equal participation from an increasingly demanding civil society. Opening up governments at home and abroad will often result in redistributing power. Hostility from the establishment is logical. How creatively can this tension be nurtured and sustained?

Ironically, just as India was withdrawing from the fledgling OGP, the Indian government and Parliament were actively considering a slew of new transparency and accountability legislation.

Enforcing OGP standards will remain a big challenge. Even if there are gross and repeated failures by some countries, OGP can only name and shame, or threaten suspension. The threat of suspension is seen by many in civil society as an essential provision to enforce accountability. Yet as an enforcement mechanism it is at best a paper tiger. Suspending a country from a voluntary partnership like OGP is impractical and counterproductive.

There is also the tension of a suddenly powerful and increasingly influential international civil society. As civil society organizations become active within OGP to ensure compliance with commitments by governments, questions will arise about their own transparency and how they determine to whom and how they are accountable.

It remains to be seen whether a treatylike approach to enforcement will work. The moral pressure of “practicing what you preach” might in fact prove to be OGP’s most useful aspect. Domestic groups can and will use their leaders’ OGP commitments to demand more openness at home. Even civil society organizations, including donors, will have to live up to the rhetoric and become more transparent, accountable, and democratic. The complexities of doing so should not be a deterrent.

Nevertheless, OGP leadership could concentrate more on fostering participation and consultation and leave enforcement of OGP commitments largely to domestic groups. The platform of mutual support offered by OGP for institutionalizing domestically driven transparency aspirations is itself of immense utility. The dialogue, debate, and interactions that OGP is generating are far too important to lose at the altar of impractical and unenforceable standards.

Innovating Government on a Global Stage – OGP Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) Supplement by Open Government Partnership

The Freedom of Information Foundation and our colleagues from Russian civil society are deeply concerned by the latest declarations by federal officials regarding Russia’s position on discontinuing its present relationship with the Open Government Partnership (OGP) which Russia was poised to join in 2013. According to recent official statements, Russia has paused the process of joining OGP. There are now serious doubts that Russia will continue its relationship with OGP. The Russian Federation has stated that it disagrees with the terms of OGP membership, and is preparing proposals to increase the range of OGP activities to not only information exchange but also more “practical applications” such as enhancing attractiveness for foreign investment. Russia’s pragmatic desire for immediate applicable results of OGP is not realistic, nor is the presumption of economic benefits as a result of membership in OGP. Participation in OGP allows countries to create an attractive environment for investors through implementing transparency measures, but OGP itself is not a vehicle for attracting investors.

Participating in OGP requires close cooperation and dialog between government and civil society. This partnership was a core piece of Russia’s draft National Plan for the OGP, which was presented in December 2012 at the international Open Governance Conference in Moscow. At that time, the prospect of Russian participation in the OGP was presented as a done deal by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The latest decision to change course with respect to OGP was made unilaterally by top Russian authorities without any dialog with civil society.

Despite this very unfortunate turn of events, Russia’s withdrawal from OGP does not yet spell disaster for governmental openness. Russia still has its own national agenda for governmental openness that is guaranteed by federal and regional legislation. The government has also established the post of Minister for Open Government. We still have grounds for our activities, but if these grounds disappear, that will be a tragic end to many years of hard work and investment in openness and transparency.

Russia’s about face on the Open Government Partnership appears unsportsmanlike. It seems that the country has refused to participate in an esteemed international forum where it could demonstrate its formidable strengths related to openness and transparency because it fears to show its weaknesses. This type of behavior and the desire to always appear without weaknesses isolates our country and limits our possibility for growth and development by learning from and engaging with other countries.

Photo credit: “Catedral de San Basilio” by Pedro J Pacheco via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/23610567@N05/2369332045/  

The Open Government Partnership Africa Regional Meeting will take place on 29-30 May at the Serena Beach Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya.

The theme of the conference is Taking OGP Forward in Africa and full details can be found at: http://www.ogpafrica.org/conference/

The main objectives of the OGP Africa Conference are to:

1. Draw the structure that African countries will use as a guideline to engage in OGP activities
2. Share OGP project progress including challenges and solutions for achieving development
3. Identify strategies on promoting OGP and increasing commitments from Africa in 2013
4. Identify strategies to promote the African agenda within the global OGP movement
5. Promote new technologies to strengthen governance.

There will be an impressive line-up of speakers including: Robert Hunja, Manager, Open Government Practice, World Bank Institute; John Wonderlich, Policy Director, Sunlight Foundation; Samuel Kimeu, Executive Director, Transparency International Kenya and many more. For details on all speakers, please visit: http://www.ogpafrica.org/conference/speakers/

If you are unable to attend the conference, it will be streamed live at the following link: http://www.ogpafrica.org/media-centre/livestreaming/

The official conference hashtag is #OpenGovAfrica and @KenyaOpenData will be live tweeting throughout. Photos and videos of the conference can be found on the Kenya Open Data and Kenya ICT Board Facebook pages.

Image courtesy of  OGP Africa

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a partnership in two respects. First, it is a partnership between governments that have committed themselves to practice and to promote the transparency of government operations. Second, it is a partnership between substantial components of global civil society, to collaborate with governments that are willing to bring about the enhanced transparency of government operations.

Such a partnership is not entirely without precedent. At least two worldwide institutions that were established about a decade earlier, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative pioneered bringing together governments and civil society in pursuit of shared goals. Most observers of these institutions would agree that their effectiveness is in substantial measure a consequence of these collaborations.

OGP builds on the examples of these predecessors and more explicitly asserts that its mission can best be advanced through the ongoing interaction of governments and civil society. It seems fitting that such a collaboration should be constructed around the question of open government. In the past two decades, issues relating to governmental transparency have risen to the top of the agenda of civil society in all parts of the world. A number of new civil society institutions operating globally—among them Transparency International, Global Witness, and the International Budget Partnership—were established in the 1990s to campaign in different ways for enhanced transparency and against corruption. They were followed in the first decade of this century by the formation of a host of additional civil society institutions that have identified and focused on particular aspects of government transparency. The rapidly growing identification of civil society with the cause of open government during this period has been backed by a significant number of leading philanthropic institutions, which have recognized that transparency is the key to advances in other areas of concern. The philanthropies also have become important constituents for the engagement of civil society in OGP.

In the same era, generally in response to strong pressure from civil society, a large number of governments have adopted new laws to further government transparency. The great majority of the approximately 90 countries that now have freedom of information laws, for example, have adopted them since 1990. Although the movement for open government had its roots much earlier, it acquired the characteristics of a global movement in the 1990s—in much the way that other global movements, such as the women’s movement, the environmental movement, and the international human rights movement, developed two decades earlier. Just as those earlier movements have taken hold in all parts of the world except in a handful of the most repressive countries, the same is now true of the open government movement. In the short space of about two decades, it has become a global movement. The establishment of OGP shows how far it has come.

Of course, each of those earlier global movements has suffered significant setbacks from time to time, even as they continue to try to make progress in achieving their goals. No doubt the same will be true of OGP. Even governments that join OGP are likely to resist some proposals for heightened transparency, citing other governmental interests that may be compromised. In some cases, working out how far it is appropriate to go in the direction of transparency, while safeguarding national security, law enforcement confidentiality, trade secrecy, and individual privacy, will raise difficult issues. Some variation in the way that such questions are resolved at various times and places may be appropriate because of differing circumstances.

Yet the establishment of OGP suggests the emergence of a new norm for governance. It presumes that government operations should take place transparently and should be vigorously promoted both by the governmental members of OGP and by their civil society collaborators. That presumption can be achieved, but only if deviations from transparency are individually justified. That norm is the reverse of what had previously been the prevailing global practice. Although concealment was not often specifically articulated, in much of the world, government operations were previously expected to be hidden from view. The burden rested on the proponents of transparency to demonstrate that government operations should be visible. OGP represents the shift of that burden.

One of the early champions of transparent government in the United States, Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, once wrote, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Today, Justice Brandeis’s words could be a slogan that epitomizes the emerging norm of open government and its embrace by a global partnership of governments and of civil society.

Innovating Government on a Global Stage – OGP Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) Supplement

Crawling pubs on a Friday night in Prenzlauer Berg, one of Berlin’s hip districts, chatting up guys in bars that have as special names as “Zu mir oder zu Dir” (“to me or to you”) and getting their autographs. This is not the latest marketing idea to line up men and women in Germany’s capital renown for having too many singles. This is what you do when gathering signatures for the “Energietisch” (“energy table”), Berlin’s current citizens’ initiative.

The initiative aims at giving back the power grid to Berlin’s citizens by making it a public good and providing renewable energy. Currently, Vattenfall provides the network and it supplies most of the power in Berlin, which means that profits go into the pockets of the Swedish company. Berlin’s energy sector was privatised in the late 1990s. The current lease will run out at the end of 2014. The year 2013 therefore is the time to make use of the “Volksbegehren”, the tool of direct democracy at federal level in the Land of Berlin. It stipulates that seven per cent of Berlin’s eligible citizens must sign the law proposal to be handed over to Berlin’s parliament. This are actually 173,000 signatures but the proclaimed goal are 200,000 as ten per cent of signatures tend to be invalid.

The initiative, which is backed by an alliance of about 50 local groups, had organised a political camp to run from 10 until 29 May 2013. Hosted in an old school in the North-East of Berlin the camp invites people from everywhere to take part in the campaign. I arrived on Friday, the camp’s very first day, where I met Michael Efler. He is one of the main people behind the “Energietisch”. He had just convinced Martin Sonneborn – a well-known German satirist – to sign the citizens’ initiative. Michael was happy but eager to gather many more signatures. That is why he announced to go out in Prenzlauer Berg at night.

Having heard so much about Prenzlauer Berg it was no question for me to join. The district was a cell of the 1989 democratic revolution in the former East of Berlin. Run down and with affordable rents after the fall of the wall, the district was more and more gentrified and it is bohemian now. Daniel Lentfer, a democracy activist from Hamburg who was successful in the Hanseatic city with the Transparenzgesetz and Jorge, a Spaniard living in Berlin and volunteer in the political camp, were up to the pub crawl also.

The reactions were mostly positive. I did not have to engage in a lot of controversy. Mentioning the name of the Swedish energy company often was enough to make sign the people on a night out. Some asked curious questions about how all the energy could be provided by green energy only. Others wanted to know about the consequences of their signature, being cautious that their data might be misused. And then of course there were men and women who declined.

After two hours of pub crawling we sat down for a cocktail in “Himalaya”. Collecting 200,000 signatures feels like climbing high mountains. Three days have shown me this. Never before I have walked around that much. Never before I have talked to so many people: People I was surprised about that they are politically interested. People who have foreign roots but speak perfect German. People I would be sure they would sign but they didn’t. Collecting signatures in Berlin meant revising my perceptions of people.

I am pressing my fingers tight that Michael Efler and all the activists in Berlin will make it. As of today, four more weeks remain to collect the about 100,000 signatures that are still needed. The deadline is 10 June 2013.

Do you want to help? Go to Berlin, a part of your travel costs will be reimbursed and there is free lodging. Join the democracy hype in the Hauptstadt. It will make you feel good.

For further information please contact:

Michael Efler at efler@berliner-energietisch.net

I warmly welcome Ireland’s intention to participate in the OGP – a move strongly backed by Irish civil society.

As current lead co-chair of the OGP, the UK is evangelical about spreading the word of the benefits of open government. The essence of the OGP is collaboration between governments and civil society to forge more innovative and open ways of working that give the public more choice, foster growth and keep governments honest.

– Francis Maude, Minister for the Cabinet Office in the UK Government, current lead co-chair of the Open Government Partnership

Originally posted at gov.uk

“Inevitably, there will be questions about what we are each prepared to sign up to,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron in January, in his letter to his fellow G8 leaders. For months later, Russia has made clear it clear what it wasn’t willing to sign onto: the Open Government Partnership (OGP). The most recent update on Russia is that the Kremlin will be pursuing “open government” on its own terms. Russia has withdrawn the letter of intent that it submitted on April 2012 in Brazil, at the first annual meeting of the Open Government Partnership.

If the dominant binary of the 21st century is between open and closed, Russia looks more interested in opting towards more controllable, technocratic options that involve discretionary data releases instead of an independent judiciary or freedom of assembly or the press.

One of the challenges of the Open Government Partnership has always been the criteria that a country had to pass to join and then continue to be a member. Russia’s inclusion in OGP instantly raised eyebrows, doubts and fears last April, given rampant corruption in the public sector and Russia’s terrible record on press freedom.

“Russia’s withdrawal from the OGP is an important reminder that open government isn’t easy or politically simple,” said Nathaniel Heller, executive director of Global Integrity. “While we don’t yet fully understand why Russia is leaving OGP, it’s safe to assume that the powers that be in the Kremlin decided that it was untenable to give reformers elsewhere in the Russian government the freedom to advance the open government agenda within the bureaucracy.”

The choices of Russian Prime Minister Dimitri Medvedev, who had publicly supported joining the OGP and made open government a principle of his government, may well have been called into question by Russia’s powerful president, Vladimir Putin.

Medvedev had been signaling a move towards adopting more comfortable sorts of “openness” for some time, leading up to and following Russia joining the Open Government Partnership in December 2012. Russia’s prime minister has sought to position himself as a reformer on the world stage, making a pitch at Davis for Russia being “open for business” earlier this year at the Davos economic forum. Adopting substantive open government reforms could well make a difference with respect to foreign investors concerns about corruption and governance.

While the Kremlin shows few signs of loosening its iron grip on national security and defense secrets, Russia faces the same need to modernize to meet the increasing demand of its citizens for online services as every developed nation.

Even if Russia may not be continue its membership in the Open Government Partnership, the Russian government’s version of “openness” may endure, at least with respect to federal, city and state IT systems. Over the winter, a version of “Open Government a la Russe” – in Cyrillic,большоеправительство or “big government” — seemed to accelerating at the national level and catching on in its capital. Maybe that will still happen, and Russion national action plan will go forward.

“While Russia’s approach to open government may be primarily technocratic, there’s a sense in which even the strongest legal requirements are only tools we give to our allies in governments,” said John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunight Foundation. “FOI officers analyzing records, or judges deciding whether or not to enforce laws are embodying both legal and cultural realities when they determine how open a country will be, just as much as policy makers who determine which policies to pass. While Russia’s initial commitment to OGP was likely a surprising boon for internal champions for reform, its withdrawal will also serve as a demonstration of the difficulty of making a political commitment to openness there.”

What is more clear, however, is that the Kremlin seems much more interested the sort of “open government” that creates economic value, as opposed to sustaining independent auditors, press or civil society that’s required in functional democracies. Plutocracy and kleptrocacy doesn’t typically co-exist well open, democratic governments — or vice versa.

Given that the United States efforts on open government prominently feature the pursuit of similar value in releasing government data, Russia’s focus isn’t novel. In fact, “open data” is part of more than half of the plans of the participating countries in OGP, along with e-government reforms. In May of 2012, a presidential declaration directed governmental bodies to open up government data.

In February, Moscow launched an open data platform, at data.mos.ru, that supplied material fordigital atlas of the city. Russia established an “open data council” the same month. Those steps forward could stand to benefit Russian citizens and bring some tangential benefits to transparency and accountability, if Russia and its cities can stomach the release of embarrassing data about spending, budgets or performance.

While some accounts of open government in Russia highlighted the potential of Russia to tap into new opportunities for innovation afforded by connected citizenry that exist around the world, crackdowns on civil society and transparency organizations have sorely tested the Russian government’s credibility on the issue. This trial of anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny for corruption this spring showed how far Russia has to go.

“Open government isn’t just open data nor is it e-government, two areas in which the Russian Federal had appeared to be willing to engage on the open government agenda,” said Heller. “Many observers doubted how far Russia could take open government in a climate of political repression, civil society crackdowns, and judicial abuse of power.”

Today’s news looks like a victory of conservatives in the Kremlin over government reformers interested in reducing corruption and adopting modern public sector management techniques. “We need to use modern technologies, crowd sourcing,” said Medvedev said in January 2013. “Those technologies change the status and enhance the legitimacy of decisions made in government.”

Changes in technology will undoubtedly influence Russia, as they will every country, albeit within the cultural and economic context of each. This withdrawal from OGP, however, may be a missed opportunity for civil society, at least with respect to losing a lever for reform, reduced corruption and institutions accountable to the people. Leaving the partnership suggests that Russia may be a bit scared of real transparency, or least the sort where the national government willing allows itself to be criticized by civil society and foreign non-governmental organizations.

It’s something of a mixed victory for the Open Government Partnership, too: getting to be a member and stay one means something, after all.

“For the Open Government Partnership, this will be seen as a bit of a blow to their progress, but its success was never predicated on getting every qualifying government to join,” said Wonderlich. “In a sense, Russia’s withdrawal may alleviate the need for OGP to grapple with Russia’s recent, severe treatment of NGOs there. More broadly, Russia’s withdrawal may better define the space in which the OGP mechanism can function well. Building a movement around commitments from heads of state has allowed OGP’s ranks to rapidly grow, but we’re also probably entering a new time for OGP, where the depth and reliability of those commitments will become clearer. Transitions between governments, domestic politics, corruption scandals, hypocritical behavior, uncooperative legislatures, exclusion of domestic NGOs, and internal power struggles may all threaten individual national commitments, and OGP will need to determine how to adapt to each of these challenges. OGP will need to determine whether it wants to be the arbiter of appropriate behavior on each of these dimensions, or whether its role is better left to the commitments and National Action Plans on which it was founded. “

If OGP is to endure and have a meaningful impact on the world, its imprimatur has to have integrity and some weight of moral justice, based upon internationally shared norms on human rights and civil liberties. As press freedom goes, so to does open government and democracy.

“International boosters of open government may want to remain cautious at embracing open government reformers at the first whiff of ‘openness’ or rhetorical commitment to the agenda,” said Heller. “Within weeks of Russia first making noise around joining OGP, the World Bank and others rushed to assemble a major international conference in the country around open government to boost reformers inside the bureaucracy as they sought to move the country into OGP. While no one should criticize those efforts, they are a sobering reminder that initial rhetorical commitment to open government can only take us so far, and it’s wise to keep the political powder dry for other downstream fights.”

Given the scale of bribery and the impact of corruption on growth, Russians can only hope that more “openness” with teeth comes to their country soon.

We welcome the Irish government’s announcement that Ireland will participate in the Open Government Partnership (OGP).  This international initiative aims to strengthen cooperation between civil society and the state, enhancing transparency and openness through citizen participation and dialogue.

We commend Minister Brendan Howlin, TD, and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who played a vital role in bringing Ireland into this international effort for inclusive, open, best-practice governance.

The Open Government agenda comprises measures to secure greater openness, integrity, transparency and accountability of public administration by strengthening public governance and the effectiveness of state institutions, and is an important determinant of an economy’s sustainable long‐term growth potential.

We look forward to a constructive process, in which citizens and civil society organisations work with the government to improve accountability, transparency and reform through the co-creation and implementation of an ambitious Action Plan to which all stakeholders will contribute.

Signed,

Denis Parfenov ActiveCitizen  www.activecitizen.cc

Martin Wallace ActiveCitizen

Nat O’Connor TASC www.tasc.ie

Tom Stewart Open Learning Ireland www.openlearningireland.com

Nuala Haughey, Transparency International Ireland www.transparency.ie

Note to editors:  

Please see today’s Government statement here::

http://per.gov.ie/2013/05/20/minister-for-public-expenditure-and-reform-issues-letter-of-intent-for-ireland-to-participate-in-the-open-government-partnership/

Originally posted on Open Government Ireland Google Group

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!topic/open-government-ireland/UZF8HECl09U

Image source: government buildings2, by psyberartist, via Flickr

It is interesting to note that there are some businesses that claim to have product traceability in their supply chains but more often than not this tends to be about electronic label tracking rather than actual understanding of supplier sustainability. More businesses need to take this issue seriously.

However, understanding suppliers, their ability to be consistently responsible and to ensure they are running their businesses efficiently and not passing on unnecessary cost and risk to customers can be a difficult and costly process. So what role can open data have in helping businesses get to grips with suppliers and suppliers’ suppliers?

We would argue that unless businesses adopt a policy of open data and collaboration, any attempts to forge a long term supply chain plan will be short lived. There has to be leverage in the supply chain too. Businesses must start mandating their suppliers to openly report as this is crucial to transparency in the long term.

A recent comment on Twitter from BT’s CSO Niall Dunne said that supply chain transparency without open data was “like Ginger without Fred.” Like all great double acts, transparency and open data can and should work in tandem to form the perfect storm. Energy data in this instance is at the eye of the storm, as it can get companies used to the idea of reporting openly, eventually leading to other metrics such as diversity, building certification and even child labour.

According to a Deloitte report released earlier this year, energy data is one of the key elements of understanding the true nature of a business. Measuring and reporting energy data openly should be a baseline requirement for any modern business that takes reputation and risk seriously. There is also a hard economic reason why this should happen. With energy costs rising, emerging market supply chains increasing and competition putting pressure on products and pricing, anything that can offer competitive advantage has a value.

Analysing energy and carbon data to identify cost benefit is the first stage in building a sustainable business future, something which should have immediate impact on profitability.

If this is extended into the supply chains it is possible for businesses to quickly build a picture of potential issues but also opportunities. Understanding suppliers in terms of energy consumption and emissions would clearly identify areas of waste and inefficiency, enabling institutions to shave unnecessary costs off of the inventory.

A PwC survey revealed last week that 81 per cent of businesses who rate sustainability as important favour collaborating with their suppliers to create a responsible supply chain footprint and procurement framework. Is this enough? How do you get suppliers to participate?

Money talks, and in this case, the tired old mantra “what gets measured gets managed” is transformed into “what gets measured, connected and communicated, gets done”. By promoting transparency through open data and having businesses starting to mandate their suppliers to report, we start to develop a powerful mechanism through which transparency can evolve.

It won’t happen overnight but when you see the images in Bangladesh and Cambodia it should at least make everyone even more determined to try.