12.3.3.4 Evaluation: How successful was the intervention?

In general, all participants provided positive feedback on attending the workshop. The participants indicated that they had gained new insights and perspectives through the workshop. Some of them informed us that they already had translated these into their daily practices. Furthermore, several relationships had been established between participants. Solid changes at the system level did, however, not take place.

The analysis showed that the workshop delivered results, especially in the Upper Left quadrant. Some results have also been booked in the Lower Left quadrant. Although it seems that some progress has been achieved in the Upper and Lower Right side, the concrete steps still appear to be limited in number.

Referring to the aims set out in section 12.3.2, it can be concluded that the creation of an open space was accomplished and resulted in some new perspectives and increased understanding. However, the first aim of extending the participants view on the system was only partly realised. Subsequent developments towards concrete collaborative action or the formulation of a shared strategy (i.e. the second aim) have been limited. The workshop was probably most successful as a network event, which was the third aim.

The ambition to create a shared understanding as a basis for concrete collective action in just a one-day workshop can — with hindsight — be considered too high. Part of the explanation is that, although in the initial set-up the frontrunners of all stakeholder groups were selected, due to some last-minute cancellations, the profile of the group changed. The ambitions should have been adjusted. A key significance of action research is that the process should be tailored to the needs of the actual group. The facilitator has the responsibility to create the right conditions and to facilitate the process which enfolds. However, even with the ' right conditions , the outcomes can differ from the researchers expectations. In this case, the workshop was considered to be valuable by the participants, because it suited their needs at this point, even though it did not meet all of the researchers ambitions.

Change processes that involve multiple stakeholders and concern complex sustainability issues, provide a difficult setting for easy success. This has also been noticed by other academics, e.g. Brydon-Miller et al. indicate that action research settings are generally very successful in local settings, but that scaling up to large-scale societal-level changes proves to be difficult. Broader social change strategies and commitments would be needed.1 It is important to realise that change processes need to grow.2 In that respect, the workshop can be evaluated as one step in a range of events. In view of the fact that 2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity, this research project has contributed to the visibility of BES. Furthermore, it is interesting to note the explanation of Huxham as to why collaboration between organisations appears to be difficult to achieve, even when there is an obvious collaborative advantage. She asserted the following reasons:

All these complicating factors can be considered to be applicable in the case at hand. The mutual understanding between the stakeholders needs to be improved. The workshop participants agreed that the BES information market could greatly benefit from a common framework which could be used to understand the link between BES and business, in particular when it would be detailed on a sector or industry level and on various BES themes. The development of such a so-called 'materiality matrix' could increase mutual understanding and improve communication. However, in the current situation, there is no authority that can induce change or collaborative action, e.g. as could be achieved within a single organisation. In bringing together the participants for the workshop, the research team relied on persuasion based on the importance of the issue.4

Since ESG Agencies generally play a modest role in a competitive market, the short-term competitive advantages of developing and using one s own tools seem to outweigh any potential future advantages resulting from developing a common tool in collaborative action. Asset management companies have a different perspective. They are more willing to collaborate on BES issues, e.g. by aligning their engagement activities with other investors. Initiatives like the UN PRI already offer a joint investor platform. To connect all actors in the field, some sense of identification with the entire field of BES information would be needed. As one of the participants mentioned after the workshop: "the stakeholders involved should be forced together in a room to develop a joint strategy, and only let them out if they all agree". This also touches upon the third complicating factor: the time needed for the logistics. The stakeholders are spread around the globe and do not encounter each other on a regular basis. Cooperation — in whatever form — needs to be facilitated. A common structure would need to be established, but each individual stakeholder is caught up in everyday activities. Apart from time constraints, financial resources were mentioned to be another constraint for realising good ideas for a follow-up.