Welcome to the Global Collaboratory

Read the campaign story

DuPont’s Global Collaboratory connected its science positioning with collaboration across organisations. Creator portfolios describe a website, print, leadership films and content partnerships. An International Post Corporation case documents the Horizons programme running from May to December 2011 through broadcasting, short films, events and digital material. These activities make the proposition more than a standalone slogan.

A later Ogilvy PR account describes the food-security programme and an index developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This 2012 activity remains within the same family rather than becoming an extra case. The sources establish work by 2011 but do not conclusively fix the platform’s original launch, so the year is left unknown. Reported media value and broad claims of leadership are not treated as independent impact evidence.

Editorial interpretation: a company can convene useful discussion without claiming it can solve a complex problem alone. The communication format matters because it determines who can contribute, which questions are asked and what information becomes available. A credible adaptation should make those choices visible. Collaboration is not established simply by placing several organisations’ logos on a stage or describing a sponsored conversation as a neutral public forum.

Editorial interpretation: a shared index or information resource can give a discussion continuity beyond an event. However, its categories, assumptions and funding shape what it reveals and what it leaves out. The strategic lesson is to make the resource inspectable rather than use its appearance of precision as a persuasive shortcut. Awareness of a problem, engagement with a tool and improvement in the underlying condition are separate outcomes that require different evidence.

Define the contribution the sponsor can legitimately make

Choose a bounded question where the organisation has relevant knowledge and can support useful exchange. Explain why other perspectives are needed and invite disagreement rather than treating participation as endorsement. The sponsor’s role may be funding, access or technical expertise, not ownership of the problem. This makes the programme more credible and helps participants understand what they are being asked to contribute.

Publish the rules behind the resource

If a campaign includes a score, index or comparison tool, explain its inputs, weighting, limitations and update process. Do not let a single number conceal contested assumptions. Make sponsorship and authorship clear so readers can evaluate the material appropriately. A small team can begin with a transparent checklist rather than an authoritative-looking ranking that it lacks the expertise or evidence to maintain responsibly.

Separate conversation metrics from changes in conditions

Attendance, coverage and downloads show exposure or participation, not that a social challenge has been resolved. Define what the programme can realistically influence and keep broader outcomes outside its claims unless there is appropriate evidence. This prevents a useful communications initiative from being overstated. It also creates a better evaluation plan, because the team can identify whether the resource helped people understand or discuss the issue more accurately.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: organise a small, clearly sponsored discussion about a non-sensitive local resource-sharing problem and publish an openly explained comparison checklist.

Measure whether participants understand the alternatives, identify missing information and distinguish the sponsor’s role from independent judgement. Collect anonymous feedback about usefulness, not claims of community transformation, and document disagreements rather than editing them out of the public summary.

Stop if participation is portrayed as endorsement, the resource conceals material assumptions or the programme requires sensitive personal data.

• Use consenting adults and avoid personal hardship or health disclosures.
• Invite at least one relevant perspective outside the sponsor’s organisation.
• State assumptions, funding and limitations beside the checklist.