Inclusive Decision Making Process

• Only members participate in the decision making process
• Concerns / ideas / fears are addressed, members feel heard and equal in the team
• Individuals can delegate their vote to other members where they do not feel competent to make a decision
• Individuals can call for 3rd party advice where there are not enough competencies in the group
• Members want to be open about how decisions are made
• Members hold the ideals of the group in mind when decisions need to be taken
• Members want to learn from our experience by documenting the process
• Members are open to consider the facts and evidence presented when voting

• Documents concerns, comments, fears and ideas - can be referred back to when needed
• Members feel confident that their concerns and fears are addressed before a decisions is made

• It may take some time to address everyone's concerns
• Self identification of competencies may lead to overestimation of one’s competency to make technical decisions

• Adaptable model, success criteria can be changed as needed by the group
• Room for alternative proposals and amendments to proposals by members before final decision is made

• Malicious intent could sabotage decision making process built on trust
• Missed opportunities if there are time constraints on decisions making

• Name of person making proposal: Person A
• Time frame for initial vote: 4 weeks
• Proposal: Our criteria are organic and/or regional - based on decision already made in this meeting. Now we need to define what this means in practice so that the person/s responsible for making contact with suppliers & producers knows which products we want to stock in the shop.
• Defining Regional: 100km radius or 150km radius includes some parts of Poland or 190km radius this includes more parts of Hamburg. Additional option: perhaps we should add to the criteria that we would like to go as local as possible ie less than 25km radius.
• Defining Organic: with certificate and/or without certificate based on trust

A: Confirmation that the suppliers we have contact with are within the 150km radius would be nice but should not stop the decision. 190km would be already have a greater environmental impact which I would like to avoid.

B: I am afraid that if we set the radius limit too low (below 190km) we won’t be able to find enough suppliers / producers - but I do not know this to be true unless a list of producers is available. Before the final vote I would like to see the list of producers in the 100km and 150km radius.

C: 190km would be already have a greater environmental impact which I would like to avoid. I would like more information about how many suppliers we would have in above 150km and below 190km to be able to make a more informed decision.

D: I think we have enough suppliers in the 100km, other larger options would carry increased cost and environmental impact however if this isn’t true I would be open to hearing more about it.

E: I feel that our preferred radius (25km) is much too small in addition to more info about how much suppliers we have there I would like to propose an additional option for 50km preferred, this would be inclusive of agricultural areas like Plau am See where we already have contacts. I also feel negative about making the area too large for environmental impact reasons and increased costs due to transportation and because I believe we have enough suppliers in the nearby areas (150km). For organic status we should document how many/which members trust the supplier and status should be revised once a year.

F: I do not have enough information about the producers we have to know where they fall on the map, in general I would prefer if the radius is as low as possible. Idea: we can have a map in the shop with pins pointing to our suppliers and preferred radius.