My initial response to these discussions was that it is not realistic to think that a generalised global standard would add to the existing framework of roundtables, each working in their own context and with their own knowledge of the legislative, physical and production environment in their own country. I still believe that to be true.
The calls for a global standard continue, and it seems likely that if GRSB does not claim that space, then other organisations, such as BSI, will do so.
Since the work has already largely been done in the form of our Principles and Criteria and our goals, and we already have existing examples of country frameworks that ladder up to them, I feel that we should take advantage of all of the hard work that our members have already done and forestall the creation of a competing Beef Sustainability system by another organisation.
What does a global standard look like for something that can be produced in so many different ways in so many different environments? I think it is clear that it has to be outcome based rather than prescriptive process based.
It should be built on our own framework and leverage all of the work our member roundtables have done in their own countries. So a global standard needs to be flexible enough to accommodate national standards, as well as set a baseline level, it should also be possible to use as a benchmark for other standards or programs that may be private labels or sub national. As you would expect, development or adoption of a national standard should remain optional to the national roundtable.
There are some examples of outcome based standards in other product categories, though this paper suggests that it is the exception rather than the rule.
Clearly this is not a decision for me to take, but given that if GRSB is not involved in it, it is likely that another organisation will be. I do recommend it to our members.
