Dailycsr.com – 31 October 2017 – Two “ethical guidance bodies” will give advice which will prove to be beneficial to the corporate “bosses” of the United Kingdom, reports Brian Collett.
 
The Institute of Directors”, dating back to a hundred and fourteen year, is a group of professionals who support “entrepreneurship and responsible business practice”, while the above mentioned recommendations will be incorporated in Institute of Directors’ “Good Governance Report”. While Collett added:
“Environmental, social and governance data and information on business conduct risks will be contributed by RepRisk, the Zurich-based global provider of research and commercial intelligence, and the Chartered Quality Institute, the international management specialist organisation headquartered in London, which have formed a partnership with the Institute of Directors for the purpose”.
 
The said report is a flagship that comes from the institute on “corporate governance”, whereby it rates the “FTSE 100 companies” on the basis of their “corporate governance performance” and assess them on their “reputational exposure and business conduct risks”. Alexandra Mihailescu Cichon, the Head of RepRisk’s Sales and Marketing, describes the report as “trailblazing publication”. And she says:
“The integration of ESG information reflects the increasing expectations of shareholders that the topic of sustainability is an integral part of business strategy and decision-making at the board level.”
 
While, the Policy Director of Chartered Quality Institute, Estelle Clark, stated:
“The issue of reputational risk needs to be significantly elevated on the boardroom agenda of organisations of all sizes, both public and private.
“Recent high-profile governance failings at Uber, Bell Pottinger and Volkswagen, to name only a few examples, highlight the fact that when governance fails, the commercial viability of an entire enterprise can very quickly be called into question.
“The 2017 Good Governance Report has, for the first time, included reputational risk as a key metric for the board, shareholders and wider stakeholders, enabling them to gauge whether an organisation’s actions mirror the brand image and the rhetoric.”
 
 
 
References:
ethicalperformance.com

Dailycsr.com – 28 October 2017 – Chemical and process industries, even the ones in Buncefield and Texas City, have been affected by human and “organisational factors” as they led to “several major incidents”.
 
In order to manage these scenarios, the “Institution of Chemical Engineers” offers training modules regarding “core human factors” along with the ways of their effective management with safety parameters, thus creating “a safety management system”.
 
The said training modular, called the “Human Factors in Health and Safety” has its focus on “how a better understanding of human factors can drive safety standards and overall business performance”.
 
Here are some of the topics covered in the training, as mentioned by the HSE:
“…organisational change, safety culture, safety-critical communications, human error, stress and fatigue, training and competence, staffing and workload, supervision and leadership, and integrating human factors at the design stage”.
 
 
 
References:
www.healthandsafetyatwork.com

Dailycsr.com – 26 October 2017 – The British Academy has started a research study in the month of September 2017 which will be carried out for a period of three years, wherein the main theme of the study will look into public trust in “business, corporate objectives, regulation and taxation”, reports Brian Collett.
 
The rapidly changing scenario of business role and purpose in the society amid the developing fields of “artificial intelligence”, “virtual reality and the gig economy”, will be scrutinised by the researchers.
 
The British Academy specialises in “humanities and social sciences” and to conduct the study a consortium, made up of individuals, charitable organisations, business and other such bodies, have contributed “£1.5m” to the academy. The above mentioned report will bear the name “The Future of the Corporation” and will feature a “comprehensive, interdisciplinary analysis” which will also recommend policy changes or making for “a range of stakeholders”.
 
The academy foresees the trust corroding along with the “perception of corporate irresponsibility”, whereby terming them to be among the list of “biggest challenges” in the corporate world which needs to be addressed globally by the “business leaders”. Colin Mayer, “British Academy fellow”, Professor of Management Studies at “Oxford University’s Said Business School”, while leading the research, stated:
“Since the financial crash in 2008 we’ve seen widespread concern within society about business irresponsibility.
“If trust is to be regained, businesses, shareholders, educators and government need evidence to understand how faith in business can be restored.
“The Future of the Corporation research will provide an evidence base to support future business developments and new sustainable corporate models that adapt to the changing and increasingly technological nature of work.”
 
While, Google Deepmind’s Co-Founder as well as the Head of Applied Artificial Intelligence, Mustafa Suleyman, added:
“While it’s increasingly easy to see how businesses can make a positive social impact, it’s far harder to ensure that they are truly accountable to society itself and serve the broader public interest beyond simply their shareholders.
“Traditional forms of corporate governance have been struggling for years, and technology risks creating ever larger imbalances of power between organisations and the people they are meant to serve.
“Many people around the world are already working to invent new mechanisms for accountability, and I hope that this major research project from the British Academy will help provoke further answers and rally support for change.”
 
The said project forms part of the study series called “Challenge of Change” undertaken by the British Academy to look into the “world’s most demanding modern problems”.
 
 
 
References:
ethicalperformance.com

Dailycsr.com – 23 October 2017 – The role of “non-governmental organisations” and companies are “divergent” in an economic scenario. While, Vikas Vij writes that the companies hold a “primary goal” of maximising “shareholder wealth”, on the other hand, the non-governmental institutions keep the “social benefit” at the front seat.
 
However, reports Vij, that over the past twenty years’ time both the above mentioned categories are finding more and more “common ground” in “sustainable business strategy” whereby integrating the “social benefit”. The “C&E Advisory” came out with a new report named “2017 C&E Corporate-NGO Partnerships Barometer”, wherein it mentions that “companies and charities are investing more in partnerships with each other”.
 
One main “reason” of this flourishing partnerships is that the decision making board in either categories have shelved their Brexit worries in comparison to last year’s situation. As per the study, almost “two-thirds of the respondents” involved think that Brexit effect will not have any effect on company-NGO partnerships.
 
In fact, there was an increment in “the scale of resources invested in or secured from partnerships by companies and NGOs”. In comparison to 2016, there was been an increment of 9% in resource investment or securing of more than “£10 million” annually within “corporate-NGO” partnership.
 
According to the “2017 Barometer”, both the sectors’ “leading organisations” are plunging into “deeper, problem-solving”, besides enhancing “corporate reputation and generating income for NGOs”, while “purpose and mission” are grabbing more and more the lime light.
 
Companies based in the U.K. as well as international ones along with “international NGOs” have come under the influence of the “UN SDGs”, whereby there is an attempt to “revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development”. However, the 2017 Barometer concluded that NGOs based out of the U.K. haven’t geared up yet to “this particular Global Goal”.
 
While, Vij says that as per Manny Amadi, the “C&E Advisory” Chief Executive Officer, “the eighth edition of the Barometer presents a highly encouraging picture of the cross-sector partnering landscape. Leading companies and NGOs are clearly prioritizing and investing greater resources of funds, time and know-how into deeper, problem-solving partnerships with each other.”
 
Furthermore, “corporate-NGO partnerships” were singled out by the report based on their keenness to “acclaim”. While, the “2017 ‘Most Admired’ corporate-NGO partnerships included GSK and Save the Children; M&S and Oxfam; and Innocent and Age UK”. In Vij’s words:
“Over 90 percent of all respondents anticipate that partnerships between companies and NGOs will become either more or much more important over the next three years. Meanwhile, 77 percent of companies and NGOs expect their investments in cross-sector partnering to increase or increase significantly over the next three years”.
 
 
 
References:
ethicalperformance.com

Dailycsr.com – 06 September 2017 – Whether it is the “academic researchers”, the policy makers or the corporate minds, all are turning to data for solving “urban policy problems”. The “smart city movement” has been signed by most mayors as they “accepted the value of data driven policy”.
 
However, not every city leaders really know the meaning of a “smart city”, reported Bloomberg. For some it is a “futuristic city” wherein services get efficiently and effectively delivered at the click of a button, while others, “more realistic” ones, give importance to the power technology and data which could be used to “improve city services”.
 
As a result, the latter look towards making automatic street lights that would “turn on at night and go off in the morning”. In fact, all the mayors agree that “no one wants to live in a ‘stupid city’”. Therefore, in the 21^st Century, the definition of a cities success equates to a “smart city”.
 
Moreover, the term ‘smart city’ has come to be an “aspirational term” for there is a “deeply embedded” idea attach to it, whereby it is thought that in a smart city “we can develop and implement public policy without making mistakes”. While, Ethical Performance added:
“Since that is completely unrealistic, we need a more practical and empirically-based definition to work with”.
 
Therefore, one can agree upon that in a smart city technology and data can be made “usable and accessible” for addressing “urban with the promise of efficiency and effectiveness in delivering public services”. Data could be used for “good” by concentrating on the “utility of data in improving public services” instead of using the same for “private interest”.
 
Furthermore, Ethical Performance informs:
“Data can be used in every aspect of urban governance: to enhance citizen engagement; design policy; analyze the budget implications of policy alternatives; implement programs; monitor program operations for effectiveness and equity; and improve the efficiency of service delivery”.
 
For further information, kindly visit:
https://www.techatbloomberg.com/blog/smart-cities-stupid-cities-and-how-data-can-be-used-to-solve-urban-policy-problems/
 
 
 
 
References:
http://3blmedia.com