Meet the Team: Amy Jackson, Head of Programmes at ResponsibleSteel

Earlier this year, we welcomed Amy Jackson to ResponsibleSteel as our new Head of Programmes. With a background spanning ethical trade, to agriculture and responsible investment, read on to learn more about her experience in the standards industry, what brought her to ResponsibleSteel, and what she sees as key priorities for the standards and assurance programme moving forward.

1.     You’ve spent a significant amount of time working on global sustainability standards. What originally sparked your interest in this work?

My journey began as a case of being in the right place at the right time. After completing my degree in Animal Biology and Marine Conservation, I moved to London, seeking adventure, and worked in a restaurant whilst job hunting. I overheard some regulars speaking about sustainability and oceans - I introduced myself, started volunteering, and eventually, a paid opportunity opened at the Marine Stewardship Council. I stayed for 11 years!

I’ve always had a passion for sustainability, and the inclusive, science-based, solutions-focused approach of sustainability standards appealed to me. They acknowledge the importance of ensuring good actors are recognised and rewarded for their work, and to me, this seemed a very constructive way of engaging people and businesses in improving practices.  

Joining MSC in its early days helped me experience all sides of the system, from standard-setting to assurance, fundraising, communications, commercial engagement, and all from within a global organisation. The diversity of the challenge, the evolving landscape in how standards are seen and used, and the commitment to credibility are what kept me involved for so long.  

2.     Your experience spans ethical trade, agriculture, sustainable cotton, and responsible investment. How has your work in these areas shaped your approach to sustainability at ResponsibleSteel?

I’ve been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to engage with this wide range of sectors and different groups of stakeholders. In each of these, the basis has been on a defined agreement of good practice (the most important first step!), then the organisations work to find different ways to aid, verify, and reward progress towards the good practice. So, the basics are quite similar, with different organisations employing different theories of change as to the most effective levers to pull.

The most significant benefit of learning each new area has been the important reminder that, apart from your key partners and stakeholders, no one is thinking about your area of work as much as you are, or as much as you think they are. This means it’s very important to be clear about the benefits that each stakeholder gets from engaging with your system, and to make sure you are listening.

3.     At ISEAL, you played a role in developing best-practice frameworks. How will those experiences influence your work on ResponsibleSteel’s International Production Standard?

The most valuable learning from those processes was how to bring diverse stakeholders together to reach an agreement. In a multi-stakeholder environment, differing opinions on some of the specifics are inevitable, so we must instead focus on the objectives we are trying to achieve, which is usually where we can find common ground.

It is also essential to ensure each group’s voice is heard, and not just the loudest! For our standard revision, we will ensure we are clear, from the outset, about the stakeholder map and the minimum level of response needed from each group. At the same time, we need to be aware that because of the differing perspectives, it will likely be impossible to reach overall (enthusiastic)consensus in all areas. At ISEAL, finalising the Credibility Principles involved asking stakeholders to indicate for each one whether a) they were happy and wouldn’t change a thing, b) could not live with it, or c) they could live with it, but had some tweaks or improvements to suggest. This allowed us to understand where the deal breakers were and what was causing them. It also allowed us to move forward and finish the document, while still noting the potential areas to review for the next version.

4.     What excites you most about the future of sustainability in the steel industry, and what role do you see ResponsibleSteel playing in it?

It has been an exciting and sharp learning curve coming into the steel industry, and I know this will continue for some time. This might be a standards nerd thing to say, but the thing that excites me the most is the agreement on the need for harmonisation and alignment of the methodologies we’re using to assess steel sustainability.

When I was preparing for my interviews for the job, I learned that depending on the methodology used, emissions numbers could vary by as much as 30%! This makes comparing performance and tracking improvements very difficult and means so much time is wasted on completing different reporting templates, rather than focusing on times and resources on making sustainability improvements.

With the Steel Standards Principles and the efforts of ResponsibleSteel and others to ensure interoperability, I think we are in a good place. In other sectors, this need for alignment has been noted. For example, in disclosure with the TCFD and TNFD, it allows all efforts to be pointed in the same direction, resulting in greater effectiveness and less wasted time.

What also stands out is the passion of the people involved –from the ResponsibleSteel team to our members and other stakeholders. There is a personal commitment to improving how steel is produced, and this passion and leadership are essential for making a difference.

5.     You’ve worked on standards development, chain of custody, and assurance. What do you think are the most essential components when it comes to forming credible and impactful sustainability initiatives?

One reason I have come back to working with voluntary sustainability standards systems is because I love how beautifully all the different pieces fit together. Agreeing on what good looks like, assessing progress, assuring that a certain level is met, building capacity - it’s a whole system designed for continuous improvement, and it's what makes sustainability standards systems unique and special actors in the landscape. There are other standards, but it’s one thing to say what to do, it’s a whole other (harder)thing to make sure everyone’s doing it (assurance), and an even greater challenge to be certain that we’re making a difference (MEL: monitoring, evaluation and learning). This continued engagement with ensuring the effective implementation of the standard once it’s released is perhaps one of our collective community’s most understated USPs.