June 26, 2008   

Waya Quiviger, Director of Special Projects, Social Impact Management

IE Business School is pleased to announce a new collaborative agreement with the Women’s Forum, an organization based in Paris, France that promotes women's vision on the economic and social issues that matter most and that are at the heart of the most compelling concerns of our times. Rated by the Financial Times in 2007 as one of the world's top five international most influential forums, the Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society has become in only three years an international must-attend event.

At its third edition last October, the Women’s Forum Global Meeting organized in Deauville (France) reached a new dimension. It welcomed nearly 1,200 leaders and opinion trendsetters from all walks of life – the economy, politics, culture or academia. Participants represented over 70 countries; there were 150 speakers of international renown and a programme containing over 60 lectures, debates and workshops.

In an attempt to integrate the future generation of leaders, the Women's Forum invites every year an International Student Delegation to attend its flagship Global Meeting in Deauville. The International Student Team aims at opening the Women’s Forum to a selected number of students to create links between the 1,200 women leaders and the future generation of businessmen and women. It is a unique opportunity for young students to attend and contribute to an exclusive event. It is the chance for those students to meet influential leaders and conduct research with a team of international students from high-ranking universities. The Women's Forum will welcome two female MBA students from IE Business School in Deauville from October 16th to 18th. They will be part of a group of 20 students from all over the world that have been specially selected because of their outstanding profiles and keen interest in promoting women's issues. IE Business School is delighted to participate in this special initiative.

   June 23, 2008   

Max Oliva, Associate Director, Social Impact Management

The Economist is holding an online debate on Corporate Sustainability. The main question their asking is weather outside pressure is required for companies to take meaningful action on sustainability. The debate will be held during this week and until June 27th.

On the Pro side, Mindy Lubber, President of Ceres, comments on her opening statement the following:
“Outsiders—investors, environmentalists, public interest groups, other industry experts—have an essential role in pressuring companies on their handling of environmental and social threats. They should be asking tough questions; they should be offering creative, out-of-the-box ideas; they should be demanding real action; and they should be holding companies accountable.”

On the Con side, Björn Stigson, President of the WBCSD opens with the following statement:
"The resolution puts the relations between business and the rest of society into unhelpfully antagonistic terms. Business, in the black hat, is the recalcitrant offender, with no internal motivation to do the right thing while outside parties are the good sheriff, enforcing meaningful action on sustainability in an otherwise lawless frontier.

The resolution implies the following:
1. External influences are the main motivation for corporations in addressing sustainability issues.
2. Pressure is the best description of the relations between stakeholders and business.
3. Corporations always resist external accountability.
4. External pressure is both necessary and sufficient to get corporations to take meaningful action on sustainability."

Where do you stand on this debate? Take part on the conversation at the Debate Hall.

   June 09, 2008   

Joaquín Garralda, Vice Decano de IE Business School, Director del Centro PwC & IE de Responsabilidad Corporativa

El día 5 de junio asistí a un seminario para docentes que patrocinaba la Fundación Rafael del Pino en colaboración con la Universidad Complutense, en el que participaba la profesora María Guadalupe de Columbia Business School. Extraigo una observación que hizo el profesor Alvaro Cuervo en su presentación: “Los banqueros que formaban parte del jurado que te dió el premio a tu artículo, estaban muy contentos con las conclusiones de tu investigación”. En su artículo académico, la investigadora se cuestionaba sobre las razones del importante aumento de los salarios de los altos directivos en los años pasados. Se planteaba si la razón fundamental era un “pay for luck”, fruto de su poder en la empresa que en momentos en que el ciclo económico es muy positivo les es fácil subirse el salario, o si se debía más a la complejidad competitiva de sobrevivir en un mercado más globalizado.

La conclusión era que el factor que explicaba mejor el ascenso en retribuciones, no era el posible efecto de la “Teoría de la Agencia” que permite a la alta dirección subirse el sueldo en contra de los intereses de los accionistas, sino el aumento de complejidad atribuible al incremento de importaciones competitivas como resultado de la globalización de los mercados.

El artículo tiene más razones que podrían considerarse a favor de la justificación de las subidas retributivas - como el aumento del porcentaje de la parte variable sobre la retribución total - , pero la reflexión que hago aquí es si una justificación académica tiene suficiente fuerza frente a una percepción generalizada de abuso, que se desprende de muchos artículos en los medios de comunicación. A pesar de que a los banqueros les haya gustado, no creo que lo vayan a utilizar como argumento “fuerte” en debates públicos en los que prefieren mantener un perfil bajo sobre el tema.