Credibility Principles Consultation - Brazil
Workshop notes
The Credibility Principles workshop consultation in Brazil was a great success. There were approximately 35-40
people at the workshop and excellent discussions throughout the day. Sectors represented included state and
national government, standard setters, certification bodies, capacity builders, NGOs, academia, finance, and
business.
Meeting overview
Roberto Smeraldi, Director, Amigos da Terra - Amazônia Brasileira, and a member of the international steering
committee for the project, opened the meeting by describing the emergence of a new generation of standards
and the importance of clearly communicating what is important. He also noted that it’s important to consider
the adaptive nature of the sustainability standards sector, and to remember that various factors including
timing, state of the market and technology available affect the relative credibility of standards systems.
The group then heard more about the ISEAL Alliance, and the process so far to develop the draft of the
Credibility Principles currently under consultation. Then the group participated in a brainstorming exercise that
asked what was important for credibility for them. Each table presented their conclusions. A summary of the
points that emerged is provided here as a list that captures the discussion. It does not try to demonstrate
consensus or order of importance, and in fact, some contradictions arose. The various tables stated that
credible standards systems must:

Be usable, and accessible to all types and sizes of participants

Be affordable

Deliver impacts / Change behaviour

Have a standard that is reached based on consensus

Standard must be rigorous, focused on the relevant issues (one group noted LCA, another ‘hotspots’)

Be simple enough to be easily understood, but detailed enough to recognise the complexity of the subject
matter involved. Be written in clear language.

Be inclusive – invited and affordable participation of stakeholders that are impacted

Be transparent, with the caveat that just publishing on the internet is not enough to achieve real
transparency. Include transparency about process (e.g. accreditation)

Allows for mutual recognition to save time and cost for users

Communicate clearly, including information about what is being certified, what the standard considers, and
what it does not do

Incorporate traceability, and verification of the supply chain when there is a product claim

Incorporate accreditation by a government or international agency

Have clear, measurable indicators that are auditable

Have the ability to innovate, update new concepts

Actually deliver what it claims to deliver

Have an ideal that it always strives towards – there is a need for dynamic standards in relation to the
evolution of the state of the art of technology, social demands, business leadership, etc. It was about the
evolutionary nature of standards and their role in pioneering trends, therefore the relative and not absolute
attributes of them.

Operational efficiency – so processes have a standard financial model
It was recognised that all of the principles are connected, and that strong consistency with one principle may
require less reliance on another. Many noted that there should be fewer principles but were unable to identify
those that should be removed.
‘Simplicity’ emerged as a potential new principle, but when discussed further in the afternoon was dismissed as
a new principle, though the concept should be included in several others, particularly in standard design.
There was a specific question raised about the need for Inmetro to be involved in the accreditation, and some
discussion around this. It was agreed that there is an important role for a national standards body, but we
shouldn’t make a principle that all accreditation is done by a national body.
There was then a short panel presentation by representatives from business, government and the consumer
movement. Main comments about the Credibility Principles were:

that in Brazil we needed to get more input from businesses, and ensure good, diverse participation in
general

that we must remember to emphasize the importance of accreditation and bring Inmetro, Brazil’s national
accreditation body, into the conversation

that we must be able to communicate to the public about why this is important and seek to co-ordinate
with other initiatives.
Regarding the process, it was suggested that it would be useful to have more introductory material to ensure a
shared ‘common knowledge’ to allow informed comments on the principles. It was also noted that the process
would benefit from holding workshops outside of Sao Paulo because of the different perspectives outside of the
capital, noting the challenge posed by communicating with the whole population of such a large country.
After lunch the group discussed each principle in detail in small groups. In the report back, most principles were
scored as a ‘10’ for importance, though Accuracy, Operational Efficiency, Accountability and Accessibility scored
between 7-9. There was a significant discussion about whether the principles could be re-organised, or
combined to decrease the total number, but also the recognition that this is very difficult to do. The detail of
the comments will be recorded as formal input to the consultation.

There was some discussion on the possible overlapping between the principles of "accuracy" and
"truthfulness".

here was long and intense (but not conclusive) discussion on if/how better grouping the principles that are
related to governance (accountability, transparency, operational efficiency, etc.)
In all it was a successful workshop with interesting feedback and a good sense of the important elements to
Brazilian stakeholders was received.
Registrants
Organisation
Name
Amata
Alan Rigolo
Amigos da Terra
Kemel Kalif
Amigos da Terra Amazônia Brasileira
Roberto Smeraldi
Associação Igtiba
Letycia Janot
Associação Vida Verde da Amazônia
Barbara Schmal
BrainStock - Consultoria Empresarial Ltda
Almir José Meireles
BSD
Beat Gruninger
Centro de Estudos em Sustentabilidade da FGV
Lígia Ramos
Ecossistemas
Mariana Grimaldi
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária
Geraldo Stachetti Rodrigues
Forest Stewardship Council
Fabiola Zerbini
GBC Brasil
Felipe Faria
IFC
Deborah Batista
Ilanet
Gregorio Bittar Ivanoff
Imaflora
Mauricio Voivodic
IMO do Brasil
Daniel Schuppli
Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor
Carlos Thadeu
Instituto de Estudos do Comércio e
Negociações Internacionais
Paula Moura
Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas
Claudio Padua
Instituto Ethos
Caio Magri
Instituto LIFE
Anke Manuela Salzmann
Instituto Vale das Garcas
Sergio Teruel
Institutos Ethos
Betina Sarue
ISEAL Alliance
Amy Jackson
ISEAL Alliance
Karin Kreider
ISEAL Alliance
Marcus Nyman
ISEAL Alliance
Norma Tregurtha
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
Laurent Viguie
Minam
Vilma Morales
ONG A Pratiquecologia
Fernando Villalba
Organismo Supervisor de las Contrataciones del
Estado - OSCE
Denise Roman Bambaren
Rabobank
Daniela Mariuzzo
Reporter Brasil
Leonardo Sakamoto
Sabesp
Luiz Roberto
Santander
Christopher Wells
São Paulo School of Business Administration of
Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV - EAESP)
Thiago Hector Uehara
Sao Paulo State
Denize Coelho Cavalcanti
Sextante Ltda
Guilherme Witte
Suzano
Lineu Siqueira
TNC
Ana Cristina Barros
Universidade Luterana do Brasil / Cenro
Universitário Luterano de Palmas
Fernando Vieira Machado
University of São Paulo
Gabriele Salvo
USP
Pedro Jacobi
Utz Certified
Eduardo Sampaio
Independent
Ana Cristina Silva
Independent
Laura Valente de Macedo
Independent
Nicole Gobeth Di Martino