Posted by Sigrun Bekkevold December 4, 2012

Are we ready to eat the whole fish?

As a DNV employee I was assigned full time to the RUBIN Foundation for 20 years – the last 13 years as the general manager.  The main focus of RUBIN has been to increase the utilization of marine by-products – the part of the fish that we normally don´t eat in the western countries, parts like heads, guts, fish skin, backbones, etc. Utilization of by-products and by-catch is sustainable business. These materials represent valuable resources in a world seeking more proteins for feeding an increasing population.

RUBIN has been owned by the organizations in the seafood industry in Norway, and financed by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Norwegian Seafood Research Fund. Now RUBIN is history, and challenging new tasks in Business Assurance, including sustainable fisheries, takes up my time. However, the sustainability approach in RUBIN can be of great relevance for the DNV business further on. 

Are you ready to eat the whole fish?

Big challenges: Turning by-products into sustainable business implies big challenges. But we are also looking into big opportunities, since we are talking about almost one million tons of by-products in Norway, representing about 30% of the total catch. The by-products contain proteins and oils needed by humans and animals. Today more than 75 % is used, but still almost 200 000 tonnes are dumped in the sea. In addition to by-products, there are globally huge volumes of discarded by-catch from the fisheries, estimated by FAO (The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) to about 7 mill tonnes per year. 

The catch of wild fish is hovering around 90 mill tonnes, which is unlikely to increase due to limited fish stocks and a considerable overfishing. The demand for marine resources for food and feed is increasing, so the high amount of discards is there for a huge paradox.

A change for the better: There are two ways to decrease this waste of resources: 1) stricter regulations and 2) adaptation of new technology and seeking market opportunities. RUBIN focused mainly on the technology- and market side to make profitable business from the by-products.  RUBINs role was to be a national driving force and coordinator for the increased utilization and value creation of by-products, including initiating and funding market work and R&D projects in the industry and research institutes. However, removing regulatory bottle necks did also have a priority. The projects and publications are listed at www.rubin.no.

It has been very interesting to follow the development of the by-product sector in Norway all these years, and there has been a great change. In 1992 the by-product volume was about 300 000 tonnes, and 190 000 tonnes were utilized. In 2010 more than 900 000 tonnes of by-products were generated and 700 000 tonnes were utilized. The value creation has in the same period increased from 0,4 to 2,4 billion NOK.

Increasing the value – Moving from feed to food: Most of the utilized by-products are still used in the feed sector, but increasing volumes go to food applications in Asia and Africa and for production of high priced ingredients for human applications; like omega- 3 in functional foods and dietary supplements, protein hydrolysates for bioactive applications, medical food, etc.  The potential economic value of Norwegian by-products is roughly estimated to be 5-10 billion NOK (0,7-1,3 bill. €) per year. In a global setting, including both by-products and by-catch, the potential is formidable. 

DNV can play a role for additional improvements: Utilization of by-products and by-catch is sustainable business. Although RUBINs work is finalized, DNV can contribute to the further development. Much work still needs to be done in order to release the value creation potential. There is a need for more R&D, investment willingness, improved leadership and structural changes, as well as systematic approach, creativity, stubbornness and some madness. Sustainability is a focused issue for DNV, and DNV can be a contributor based on increasing needs for advisory services, documentation, standardization and certification.

Further info about our services on sustainable seafood can be found here: http://www.dnvba.com/Global/food-beverage/Seafood/Pages/default.aspx 

The final report from RUBIN in Norwegian can be accessed at: http://rubin.no/images/files/documents/RUBIN_Sluttrapport_nett.pdf

Sigrun Bekkevold, Sustainability Risk Management in DNVBA

 

 

1 Comment , , ,
Posted by Stein B Jensen October 1, 2012

Certificates and global responsibility

The Norwegian green certificate scheme is in the media spotlight. Researchers argue that the scheme is not good for you or your wallet and may even lead to negative environmental consequences. Surely it is relevant to discuss how we can best contribute, and not simply criticise the scheme based on narrowly set system boundaries for our own thoughts and models.

The Brennpunkt programme on the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) channel last week was a depressing example of how powerless we seem to be about the climate threat facing the world. The programme clearly showed that we are bound by our immediate, day-to-day challenges and do not want, or cannot manage, to free ourselves from short-term own-benefit considerations when a global problem needs to be resolved.

Certificates and global responsibility: Do we have any reason to be optimistic about our children and grandchildren's common future?

The programme was entirely linked to a discussion on the benefit and reasonableness of introducing so-called green certificates, which will lead to the subsidised development of renewable electricity.  The programme’s main conclusion was clearly against the entire scheme and was supported by various researchers who, with professorial expertise, stated the necessary objections and supported the programme’s main conclusion, which is that this is not good for you or your wallet and may even lead to negative environmental consequences.

The entire programme was completely out of context. The climate challenges were not mentioned; in just over 15 years, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have exceeded the limit that climate researchers agree will lead to an increase of two degrees in the earth’s average temperature. We are very probably in reality well on our way to a temperature increase of 4-6 degrees within a few decades. The fact that the fossil industry on which we base our prosperity is also subsidised was not mentioned. Within the G-20 countries alone, it can be assumed that each tonne of CO2 produced by oil, coal or gas consumption is subsidised by around USD 9. In comparison, climate quotas are currently being traded at around €2 per tonne of CO2. So it is profitable to pollute.

Naturally, wind turbines on a mountain may not be desirable for those who want to make a living from offering so-called untouched, beautiful nature. But is this a particularly relevant system boundary when we are to find the global solutions that climate gas emissions require? Of course, in a global context, the energy consumed by five million people in Norway has very little effect on the development of the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. However, we are responsible for taking part in the common, global efforts that are necessary in order to turn developments towards a more sustainable future for our children and grandchildren. And it is relevant to discuss how we can best contribute, but not simply to criticise based on narrowly set system boundaries for our own thoughts and models.

The climate issue and solutions are linked to power and the distribution of economic goods between us and the seven billion other citizens of the world, all of whom want to participate in the increase in prosperity.  What the world’s ministries of finance have so far not managed to do is to put a globally applicable cost on greenhouse gas emissions. We are basing our common future on the consumption of subsidised fossil energy and quarrelling strongly about the effect on the individual of crucial measures to resolve global problems. There is not much time left to find the essential new mechanisms for creating a more sustainable future, and in the meantime the few effective global schemes are disintegrating due to countries selling too many carbon credits. Do we have any reason to be optimistic about our children and grandchildren’s common future?

Stein B. Jensen

1 Comment , , , , ,
Posted by Dave Knight September 13, 2012

Is there a business case for sustainable development?

Returning to work, hopefully refreshed from the summer vacation, is often a good time to consider the challenges ahead and how we can deliver improved returns for business.  Sustainability professionals tend to have a hard time demonstrating that sustainable business makes sound commercial sense. Fear not, help is at hand.

A recent report, launched at Rio +20 earlier this summer, argued that there is a sound business case for companies to invest in sustainable development and the so called ‘Green Economy’.   The research, conducted by UNEP, evaluated the most significant work on the business case for sustainability from the last five years or so. It found that there is a compelling business case now. Scientific and financial data shows a clear win-win situation for companies making the transition towards a green economy, both in terms of fiscal outcomes and the value added benefits that a resource efficient, socially aware business model can bring to a company and wider society. 

Is there a business case for green development?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNEP invited DNV Two Tomorrows to draft a summary of the business case for the Green Economy.  I was fortunate to lead on this project and was pleased to see such a significant body of evidence, which confirms DNV Two Tomorrows’ position that business should be taking action now in order to reap the rewards. Allow me to elaborate:  the paper presented a Green Business Case Model, demonstrating how actions taken by companies to improve their sustainability performance have resulted in improvements to leading indicators of financial success, such as employee satisfaction, resource efficiency and reputation, which in turn resulted in improvements to six key financial metrics:

- Sales growth
- Duration of sales
- Capital expenditure
- Profit margin
- Tax rates
- Cost of capital

For example, as market and regulatory demand for sustainability increases, flexible businesses with the foresight to shape their products and services in line with this trend will find themselves at a distinct advantage.  This helps to attract customers, improve brand value and reputation and ultimately, sales growth and customer loyalty. 

Businesses which take the lead and embrace the transition to the Green Economy are already reaping many rewards. The report is supported by many case studies from around the world. For example, the Egyptian company SEKEM-LIBRA launched a commercial compost project in 2007, transforming waste products from SEKEM’s agricultural activities into compost, a high-value and sustainable good. This stimulates employment and land reclamation opportunities whilst saving emissions and generating income. Sales have increased over 13 times and the company generates additional income through the sale of certified emissions reductions certificates.

 At a larger scale, the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan sets about 60 time-bound, publicly reported targets designed to reduce costs, support customers and grow its brands, opening up new markets in a sustainable way. Socio-economic benefits include engaging at least 500,000 smallholders and 75,000 small-scale distributors in Unilever’s supply network by 2020. Unilever has already saved €10m per year in its European factories and believes it will ultimately reduce its operational expenditure through effective management of supply-side risks and efficient use of resources.

Myriad more benefits come from making the leap to resource efficiency and sustainable products and services. These include: supply chain resilience; reduced dependency on natural resources; new investment opportunities; the ability to secure capital at a lower cost by developing a better risk profile; and mitigation against the negative financial risk from environmental impacts, to name but a few. 

The implications of a Green Economy on business are profound. It is great that governments and supra-national institutions like the UN introduce policies and blueprints paving the way to a sustainable future, but often they don’t go far enough, are not enforced, not supported politically and other policies are not aligned to them. It is therefore business that holds the key to implementation; business has the potential to move further and faster than governments. It is well placed to innovate and transform, which is what a transition to a Green Economy requires.

And by business, I don’t just mean large corporations and international conglomerates.  Small and medium sized organisations are responsible for a greater share of employment and GDP and they are therefore central to our economies. Increasingly, large organisations are looking to collaborate with their value chains to meet targets such as emissions reductions and labour conditions.

The prevailing attitude has been to focus on the financial short-term: quarterly and annual results. This has all too often led to the sidestepping of sustainability, backed up with the rather weak justification that long term actions in this sphere make little financial sense. 

However, the transition to a Green Economy will not be easy; there are significant challenges to be overcome in addition to financial short-termism.  Informed by surveys of opinion formers and experts, these include the need to move away from regulations that encourage unsustainable practices, increase leadership knowledge of the business imperative and improve international standards.

The report offers a nine-point action plan to help catalyse the sustainable return on investment. Some companies, and perhaps whole industries, will not survive the transition. Success over the long-term will require new skills, diverse collaborations, continuous innovation, investments with uncertain returns, and increased scope of market valuation. For those companies, and especially the early movers who rise to the challenge, the rewards are there for the taking.

The report can be accessed at: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/partnerships/UNEP%20BCGE%20A4.pdf

 Dave Knight, Sustainability Services Director and Louise Ayling, Consultant at Two Tomorrows – A DNV company.

1 Comment
Posted by Sven Mollekleiv June 20, 2012

Rio+20: Can a piece of paper become sustainable business?

Rio+20 – The UN Conference on Sustainable Development – will result in a piece of paper. We want that paper to help make the world a little better. In order for that to happen, industry has to be encouraged. That will require a change in political priorities and specific action to be taken. 

 The UN’s Secretary-General has decided that 2012 is to be the year when access to sustainable energy for everyone is put on the agenda. This is the 20th anniversary of the conference at which “sustainability” was launched as a concept – also held in Rio. Now, ministers from all over the world are gathering to talk once again. We hope the politicians will agree on how to strengthen industry’s role and contribution – and this has to be followed up by specific actions.

Since the beginning of the year, 14 Nordic companies that are members of the UN Global Compact have looked at how companies can contribute to sustainable development based on the UN’s focus on access to sustainable energy. This process has resulted in three main items which must be in place if we are to see a change from small individual initiatives to global sustainable development in which the private sector is a key player:

 1.  Common sustainability goals

The UN’s Millennium Development Goals will soon be out of date. The work on these goals has shown that access to energy is key to improved welfare – and affects people’s opportunities to get a job, be healthy, have an education, be treated equally and, not least, have access to clean water. A common goal of working to ensure that everyone has access to energy must motivate innovation in the energy sector, and ambitious goals to develop low-carbon solutions and energy-efficiency measures must be set.

2.  Energy maturity ranking 

In order for investors to notice countries that arrange for energy-efficient solutions and manage scant energy resources in a sustainable manner, a neutral ranking in these areas will be important. Companies and investors do not go into projects with a high level of risk, uncertain yield and unstable production unless incentive schemes are in place to make it attractive to invest in innovative energy-related business concepts.

In the same way as the UN currently ranks countries according to human development, we support the development of an index showing the extent to which countries make conditions suitable for investments in renewable energy and energy-efficient solutions.  This will give countries incentives to shape a policy that paves the way for companies that generate green energy, have environmentally friendly production methods and sell energy-efficient products. Countries and sectors that achieve a high score in such a ranking will thus be able to attract investors and private renewable-energy initiatives.

 3. Preparations for public-private partnerships

Public-private partnerships are essential for increasing the rate of investment in renewable energy. Better preparation for co-financing and cooperation between various private and public players can reduce the uncertainties related to investments and business development in developing countries.

Through its Global Compact, the UN has established corporate social responsibility networks.  In many places, local networks have created a constructive dialogue between member companies, civil society and public agencies. We believe these local networks can play an important role in preparing for public-private partnerships and function as a sound platform if they are given a mandate.

From paper to action

The above three proposals may sound simple. We believe they are realistic and will help us to turn words into action. This will require the proposals to be raised at an international level – and companies to be included when the discussions at Rio+20 end and we are left with a piece of paper that has to be put into practice.

Have a good trip to Rio – we are ready to contribute to good global sustainability initiatives!

Sven Mollekleiv, DNV
and Eli Bleie Munkelien, KLP

 

Leave a comment , , , , ,
Posted by Mette Vågnes Eriksen May 9, 2012

How to consume and produce sustainably?

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in collaboration with the European Commission, has recently published a report entitled ‘The Global Outlook on SCP Policies. Taking an action together’ . 

How can you produce sustainable?

The main objective of this report is to share best practices globally through examples of effective policies. The document also proposes recommendations to adapt, replicate and scale up Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) initiatives. The report looks at areas such as energy, transport, food and waste management. It includes 56 cases studies of initiatives across the globe: 

  • City sustainable consumption and production plan (Egypt)
  • Plastic bag waste management (Kenya)
  • Greening the supply chain (Thailand)
  • Water – free environmentally friendly sanitation (China)
  • Sustainability standards for housing (Brazil)
  • Energy efficient housing (Ukraine)
  • Sustainable clothing Action Plan (UK)
  • EU Ecolabel (Europe)

It is also interesting to note that the Global Outlook provides a set of recommendations that covers: 

  • Integrate SCP into policy frameworks and strategic plans
  • Ensure the collection of more SCP data to measure policy effectiveness and track progress
  • Learn from experience to develop an optimal policy mix
  • Provide enabling policy frameworks to encourage business investments on SCP
  • Give more emphasis to the demand side to promote sustainable lifestyles
  • Enhance responsible marketing and media through policies and campaigns
  • Draw on and further develop partnerships among all actors and regions

These are all challenging issues in challenging times – but I’m optimistic about consumers demanding better products and producers innovating more sustainable solutions – meeting the expectations of tomorrow.

Best regards, Mette

Leave a comment
Posted by Bjørn Haugland April 11, 2012

Managing risks and seizing opportunities in renewables in Africa

African countries are on the verge of an economic breakthrough and offer great opportunities for those seeking to turn risk into reward in an increasingly complex global economy. China has grasped these opportunities and Norwegian public and private enterprises could do so too. The scene is set for a win-win situation. If risks are managed in a good way, there will be rewards – both for African nations on a path to reaching their development potential and for Norwegian and international public and private enterprises seeking to achieve returns on their investments while at the same time contributing to a sustainable future for Africa.

Tables have turned in the global economy

In a new paper, which was recently published in a report by WWF Norway, I share my reflections on Chinese investments in Africa, the opportunities this implies for Norwegian renewable energy actors, and how the investments risks can be managed.

 -Bjørn Haugland

 

 

2 Comments
Posted by Mette Vågnes Eriksen February 23, 2012

Corruption in the EU

The European Commission has recently published a Eurobarometer report on Corruption in the EU. The publication presents results of a survey carried out in the 27 EU Member States in September 2011.

The main aim of this research was to see how European citizens’ opinions about corruption have changed since 2009 when a similar survey was carried out. The questions asked during the survey focused on the European citizens’ perception of the extent of corruption in the EU, the levels of government (local, regional, national) facing the biggest problem with corruption, the correlation between corruption and business culture, and also their views about who should be responsible for fighting corruption.  

The main outcomes of the survey are the following:

  • The majority of respondents think that corruption is a major problem in their country (less positive than in 2009) and almost half think that corruption in their countries has increased in the last three years
  • Most respondents think that corruption exist at all levels – local, regional and national and 73% of them think that corruption takes place within the EU institutions
  • The majority of respondents think that there is an insufficient level of transparency and supervision of the financing of political parties
  • Two in three Europeans sees corruption as part of their country’s business culture
  • The institutions that Europeans are most likely to think have a responsibility for fighting corruption are national Government (63%) and judicial system (59%)

In the press release of 15 February presenting the report, the Commission highlighted its previous policy initiatives on fighting corruption. In more detail, in June 2011 an anti-corruption package was adopted calling for a stronger focus on corruption in all relevant EU policies. Since then, the Commission established a specific EU monitoring and assessment mechanism and will publish in 2013 the first EU Anti-Corruption Report, which will give an account of the state of play of anti-corruption efforts in EU Member.

To assist in the works on this report, the Commission established also a group of experts on corruption that advises the Commission on issues related to establishing indicators, assessing Member States’ performance, identifying best practice, proposing new measures. You can find the list of experts here:

http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/crime/List_of_selected_experts-Group_of_Experts_on_corruption.pdf. You can also find the whole report here: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_374_en.pdf 

The Commission also plans to set up a network of research correspondence that will complete the work of the expert group by collecting and processing information at national level. The EU anti-corruption policy also includes proposals for legislation in the following areas: confiscation of criminals’ assets, the reform of public procurement rules, more advanced statistics on crime and an enhanced anti-fraud policy at the European level.

In DNV we believe in handling fraud and corruption before it happens. Few things have such a profound and detrimental impact on the reputation as fraud and corruption. Few companies have so sound practices that they can ignore risks related to unethical business behaviour.

However, there is a way to build a shield. We call it the corporate integrity profile. It delivers an independent assessment of how robust your business culture is and your ability to manage risks – and a road map for how to improve transparency and integrity. We help your organisation with risk mapping, preventive measures, code of conduct implementation, “Think-as-a-Thief” workshops, dilemma training, monitoring and compliance reporting.

It’s all about trust.

Leave a comment , , , ,
Posted by Thomas Gosselin January 19, 2012

Supply Chain: The New Frontier for Sustainability Risk

An estimated 3,200 companies will feel the effects of The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 which entered into force on January 1, 2012. The law requires retailers and manufacturers with annual worldwide gross receipts that exceed USD $100 million and doing business in the state of California to provide information regarding their efforts to eliminate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains. Furthermore,  the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to adopt the final rules of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act covering the requirements for managing conflict minerals in the supply chain.

For a significant number of companies in the U.S., there will be challenges in adapting to these two recent pieces of legislation addressing supply chain operations.

Picture the likes of Nike, Levi’s, HP and Disney with their established supplier management programs, their risk mapping, their audit programs and the resulting  increased levels of transparency that are the inevitable outcome. For companies such as these, overlaying the supply chain risks emerging from these recent regulatory requirements (of higher immediate consequence and probability) on existing supply chain risk analysis will pose considerable challenges and dilemmas.

New laws in California with focus on sustainability in the supply chain.

It is increasingly clear that the roles of sustainability and supply chain officer are co-dependent. In some cases, the sustainability officer may own the risk whereas the supply chain officer will address the control of the risk. This, in itself, raises a barrier to implementation.

In implementation, aside from the risk ownership and control, addressing sustainability risks throughout the supply chain already poses interesting dilemmas.  These risks can be at odds with traditional procurement risks of cost, availability, lead times, quality and aspects of business continuity.  Is management adequately equipped with the resources to balance these risks in an increasingly constrained supply base?

If we highlight the electronics industry as an example, with its deep-dive into the supply chain beyond Tier 1 to control a myriad of risks, no less the risk to innovation, the term co-dependency is never truer. Circumstances have already manifested where the provision of certain vital components are constrained to less than a handful of possible suppliers; none of whom have emerged unscathed by risk on the supply chain dashboard. The efforts and direct costs of controlling these risks are often omitted from compliance cost estimations and the cost of alternative sourcing is hardly ever factored in.

Our fear is that the lack of a clear supply chain risk profile will lead to trade-offs. Certainly, this will be the case should the sustainability officer and the supply chain officer work in risk silos. However, we also see a clear opportunity, if done well, for these two functions to ensure that their organization’s supplier risk profile is complete, credible and accountable to itself, not least to the wider stakeholder community.

We also see that this will bring additional opportunities for early warning, where effective tools will allow a proactive approach to controlling the risks. Early and staged intervention may be required at some established suppliers, and engagement and enablement may be more appropriate in other instances where suppliers may have to be qualified.

But all this, as said, is applicable to the larger companies with established supply chain management programs addressing sustainability risks through voluntary social responsibility and environmental efforts. For the vast majority of the 3,200 companies affected by the California law, as well as those companies  (and their suppliers) affected by the conflict minerals legislation on a national level, these new laws are likely to be a rude awakening.

Initially, to the majority of affected companies these laws may be considered purely compliance issues, but it is expected that such increased transparency is likely to be thin end of the wedge, exposing not only the companies themselves, but also their suppliers to greater scrutiny and oversight. Will these companies be far-sighted enough to prepare for this? We hope so.

2 Comments , , , , ,
Posted by Priti Nigam January 12, 2012

Key Sustainability Risks and Challenges in the Telecommunications Sector

In a sector where the next revolution is just around the corner, the Telecoms industry is characterised by high rates of innovation in a rapidly changing technological landscape. This in turn is associated with a vast array of sustainability risks and challenges for Telecoms service providers.

The Telecoms sector has been revolutionising at a furious rate, especially so in the past few decades, with the widespread introduction of the internet, followed by mobile phones and more recently the transition to using smartphones and smart meters, which has led to an increase in mobile data services. New technologies, rapidly changing consumer requirements, the need for continuously modernising infrastructure to keep pace with these requirements, peaking demand in mature markets, countered by rapid advancement in emerging markets and increased outsourcing of services present a number of sustainability challenges for Telecoms service providers.

DNV works extensively in the Telecoms sector, carrying out H&S and ethical supply chain audits, assisting organisations with putting in place frameworks for identifying and managing their supply chain risks, training suppliers to embed sustainability within their own supply chains, and DNV’s International Sustainability Rating System (ISRS), which includes requirements of ISO14001, ISO9001, SA8000 and other international standards within one comprehensive system, is widely used. Based on our extensive project experience and through discussions with key sustainability personnel in some of the world’s largest Telecommunications companies, I have summarised what I think are the key sustainability risks in the Telecoms sector associated with 4 key categories: Environment, H&S, Supply Chain and general Corporate Responsibility requirements. Understanding and addressing these risks and integrating the most material ones within an organisation’s strategic and operational risk management processes would help convert these risks into opportunities, facilitating business continuity and enabling long term success in a rapidly changing sector.

Key Sustainability Risks in the Telecom sector

 

 

1 Comment , , , ,
Posted by Simon King December 15, 2011

You know your reputation is important

We know from our experiences working with larger organisations that they are the ones who are more likely to recognise that their reputation is so important that they “allow” it to appear among their top corporate risks. The big question is however: When Board members and senior executives say that maintaining their reputation is important; do they really understand how their reputation is impacted?

Many will see their reputation as being impacted by negative comments in the press. They may even assess this impact in terms of whether the criticism is local or national, and how long it lasts. But do they fully understand the complex dependencies within their business processes that could cause the actions or inactions that receive criticism?

Yes, there are differences between brand and reputation. And there is a lot that people do to project positive images of what they do. But is all the effort clearly focused, and are there plans in place to address actual concerns of stakeholders with deeds? Does effort get wasted window dressing the perceived or typical concerns of stakeholders?

Do you really understand how your reputation is impacted?

This could seem to drive organisations down a rather narrowly focused approach to managing a sub-set of risks, but two things should stop this:

  1. The most successful companies plan and act consistently on a much wider range of risks than this. It may be getting a tired cliché, but enterprise wide risk management helps to put the right effort into the right places.
  2. Sustainability is a long term game. The immediate impacts of something going wrong may not be on your reputation, your wider stakeholders, or your longer term strategic objectives. If something really goes wrong the impact could be long and far reaching.

Imagine doing a post mortem on your organisation, looking back and seeing what you could have prevented going wrong. How could you have done things differently? It really helps if you can see what the important things really are, and make sure that the right things get done at the right time!

 

SK

Leave a comment , , , ,