Archive for the ‘Corporate Governance’ Category

27
Oct

Max_P.jpgMax Oliva, Associate Director, Social Impact Management
For third straight year, the Social Responsibility Forum will be taking place at IE Business School, November 14 and 15. This is our annual main event which brings together experts who engage in social and environmental issues, be it through corporate social responsibility, starting their own social enterprises or through business endeavours in the environmental arena. Led by IE Students, this years program is fantastic! From social entrepreneurs such as Jonathan Robinson, Barry Colemand and Dr. Andreas Heinecke, who design novel business ideas to tackle social and environmental problems, to trendsetters who work inside today’s mature companies as advocates of policies that take into account the whole range of stakeholders and the environment.
This year we will welcome Mr. Jeremy Legget, chairman of Solar Century and climate change specialist as our keynote speaker.
Find Your Impact 2.jpg
See the full program.
See the list of speakers.
Take part on the career fair and networking event on Saturday.
Compete at the Social Entrepreneurship Buiness Plan Competition, by Sumaq.
Save your spot! We have limited capacity and it promises to be a blast.

2
Sep

Max_P.jpgMax Oliva, Associate Director, Social Impact Management
GE Citizenship Matrix.gif
GE has taken a proactive stance on Corporate Citizenship with initiatives such as ecomagination, which brings together needs from society with their core business. They have now a new site dedicated to reporting their commitments to corporate citizenship, as well as the steps they’re taking when “integrating their business strategies with today’s major trends in world development”. They include an interactive citizenship matrix which explores the areas which meet the priorities of both society and their company.
What’s most interesting is that they also bring to the conversation different perspectives from global stakeholders in relevant issues like energy and climate change trends, supply chain management and labor challenges worldwide. One of these perspectives is from Sean Ansett, Founder of At Stake Advisors, an international expert on the matter.
AtStakeAdvisors.jpg
“Companies with global supply chains face significant challenges in order to ensure that their suppliers make safe and quality products and that they are produced on time and at competitive prices. In addition, stakeholders increasingly expect companies and their business partners to respect and implement national and international labor and environmental standards in their workplaces. This challenge becomes even greater when companies source suppliers from countries without adequate government enforcement.”
It is when bringing multi-stakeholder perspectives from around the globe in order to analyze our most pressing problems, and linking them with our core competences, that we can come to collaborative and much more ambitious actions and solutions.

23
Jun

Max_P.jpgMax 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.

9
Jun

Pay for luck

Written on June 9, 2008 by Max Oliva in Corporate Governance, Corporate Responsibility

Joaquin Garralda 2.jpgPwC&IE Logo.gif
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.

27
May

Joaquin Garralda 2.jpgPwC&IE Logo.gif
Joaquín Garralda, Vice Decano de IE Business School, Director del Centro PwC & IE de Responsabilidad Corporativa
Ayer asistí a un taller sobre la Iniciativa de Transparencia de las Industrias Extractivas (EITI en inglés), en el que la doctora Karl, profesora de la Universidad de Stanford, mantenía que la causa de la pobreza e inestabilidad social de la mayoría de los países que son ricos en recursos naturales, en especial en petróleo, no se debía fundamentalmente a que los gobiernos fueran corruptos – que lo son a menudo y que es la parte visible del iceberg en muchos casos -, sino porque se había truncado la relación “natural” entre los ciudadanos y el estado.
Históricamente el estado va creciendo a partir de las aportaciones que hacen los ciudadanos con sus impuestos; sin embargo, en el caso de muchos países ricos en petróleo, el estado puede crecer mediante las transferencias de recursos de los demás países, sin tener que apelar a las rentas y ahorros de sus ciudadanos. Esta diferencia, tiene varias consecuencias. Por un lado, el estado, al no pedirles nada, no necesita tenerlos de su lado o aprobar sus proyectos. Por otro, al tener una fuente de ingresos que no está sometida a un intenso escrutinio por los ciudadanos, suelen utilizar los recursos de una manera arbitraria, favoreciendo a unos grupos frente a otros. Estos grupos favorecidos, suelen estar elegidos por el líder político de tal manera que le deban todo – como ya recomendaba Maquiavelo en su obra “El Príncipe” – lo que les hace ser profundamente fieles – en formas y conductas – a quien les ha favorecido. Para tratar de evitar la más mínima posibilidad de que el poderoso albergue una ligera duda de su lealtad, que le indujera a cambiar de colectivo favorecido con la misma arbitrariedad con la que les benefició en su momento, sus comportamientos son radicales y repetitivos. La consecuencia lógica de esta situación es que los líderes que alcanzan el poder cuando el precio del petróleo está alto, permanecen en él durante un período mayor que la media de los países, siendo además muy posible que el sistema político degenere en una dictadura deshumanizada.

Read more…

18
Jan

Max_P.jpgMax Oliva, Associate Director, Social Impact Management
thebigissue.gif
Check the economist of this week. A special report on CSR is included which has certainly evolved from that presented a couple of years ago and which clearly contributed to strengthen the conversation.
As one of the articles says, “Three years ago a special report in The Economist acknowledged, with regret, that the CSR movement had won the battle of ideas. In the survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit for this report, only 4% of respondents thought that CSR was “a waste of time and money”. Clearly CSR has arrived”.
The Economist now brings thoughts and insight into how once CSR was a do-gooding sideshow, and how it is now seen as mainstream. From ethics to consumers, going green and global, and most importantly how managers are trying to get it right and align it with their companies’ strategy and gain a competitive advantage. As they put it, CSR is just good business.

31
Aug

Max_P.jpgMax Oliva, Associate Director, Social Impact Management
We’re back from the summer break and eager to continue the conversation on corporate responsibility and sustainability. As last year, I include a list of events and topics which took place in the month of August:
The winner’s of the “Disruptive Innovations in Health and Health Care” have been announced.
5 new Ashoka fellow’s in Mexico
Echoing Green.gif
Echoing Green has announced their 2007 Fellows
Cemex is considered as one of the leaders in BoP space both through Construmex and Patrimonio Hoy
Harvard Business Review’s article on the dangers of Microcredit
GE Money and their Earth Rewards credit card
The 2007 Global Development Awards and Medals Competition is now open
$100 laptop production launched
Take a look at people who live in Manhattan and yet receive agricultural subsidies from the US federal government
Interesting initiative of “Executives Without Borders” shared by Pablo Halkyard
Global Migration.jpg
Snapshot at Global Migration
Upcoming Social Venture Conferences
Social Enterprise Competitions

23
May

J.Pozuelo-Monfort, MSc candidate in economic development at LSE.
Jaime PM.jpg
Extreme, External, Eternal
Published at elPeriódico.cat (In Catalan).
The three words that the debt and the poverty of the developing world have in common.
Extreme because debt and poverty have reached levels that are so regretful, so inhumane, and so beyond the normal levels, that need to lead to serious thinking in the industrialized world as to when and why this has happened.
External because the current levels of debt and poverty have been fostered by external causes. Their root might be in the developing world itself, but oftentimes not in its citizens, but in its corrupt leaders that once upon a time where given a wildcard to borrow as much money as they felt they needed to undertake their personal vision, far away from being backed and supported by their own citizens.
Eternal because debt and poverty risk to be long-time companions of a world that heads off in the wrong direction. An unequal world that operates according to the rules of a minority that is powerful and wealthy. An unequal world that operates according to the rules of a select club of nation-states unable to move forward and face the real challenges of the XXI century.
The Triple E. A challenging trilemma. One wonders who in this world of ours is responsible and can be accountable for a change. We are reaching a point in which the developing world will cry out loud and say it is enough. It is enough. We need public administrators ready to deliver. We need public administrators eager and willing to deliver. A huge responsibility lies on our shoulders as citizens of a democratic world whose leaders are not being consecuent and coherent.
The Triple E. Let’s get to work.

7
May

Corporate governance

Written on May 7, 2007 by Max Oliva in Corporate Governance

J.Pozuelo-Monfort, MSc candidate in economic development at LSE
Jaime PM.jpg
Corporations are oftentimes like families. Corporations are oftentimes structures governed on a one-vote per share basis where some parties have many more votes than others, and therefore much more control. Corporations are therefore non-democratic in essence in what can be considered a plutocracy where only the powerful determine the direction of corporate strategy. Today’s capitalism is conceived as a top-down approach. Capitalism is built from the roof to the floor. The rules of the game need to be reversed. Today the universe of consumers follow the directions dictated by corporations. Today the consumer arena renders to the persuasion of advertisement. Today marketing is a weapon of mass persuasion, capable of driving trends and enforcing likes.
Once upon a time, in the middle of the XIXth century, corporations were more democratic. However today academics have decided to describe purely undemocratic behavior within corporations with such terms as agency problem.
In this scenario corporations have created its own code of conduct they have decided to denominate corporate governance. The architects of capitalism once built a basis unable to prevail over time, the same architects who now attempt to reinforce that same basis. The architects that once failed to construct properly should not be given a second opportunity under the likely event of failure. Third-parties with no stake in the game ought to take responsibility for what has become a matter of serious consideration. Corporations need to fulfill a set of ethical principles and be judged by consumers for its ability or inability to comply with the regulation. The consumer will then have real purchasing power. A consumer’s purchasing power will then have an impact on corporations. The marketplace will then be democratic in essence and corporations will not be ruled by the better off, but by individuals who make thousands of purchasing decisions every year.
A new capitalism will then arise. A more democratic capitalism.

4
May

Julio Gómez-Pomar.gif
Julio Gómez-Pomar, Director del Centro PwC & IE del Sector Público
Las relaciones entre la administración y, en general, los poderes públicos y los ciudadanos han experimentado una profunda transformación en los últimos años. Hoy día, los ciudadanos no perciben a las administraciones públicas como instituciones que les son extrañas y cuya existencia y forma de actuar es plenamente independiente de su voluntad. Bien al contrario, éstos quieren y exigen que las administraciones y los empleados que las sirven sean eficaces y que su comportamiento sea transparente y responda a unos principios éticos. Ello ha motivado que más allá de las normas que establecen los derechos y deberes de los empleados públicos, muchos países hayan elaborado “códigos de conducta” o “códigos éticos” que constituyen un conjunto ordenado de reglas y principios de comportamiento o deontología especialmente adecuada para el desempeño de la función pública. Hablar de ética pública no es novedoso; lo que es más reciente es la preocupación por regularla, por establecer un catálogo de principios que les sea exigible a los empleados públicos y que traslade a la ciudadanía la forma en la que hoy los poderes públicos entienden el desempeño de sus cometidos. Indisolublemente unido a la idea de comportamiento o conducta ética está la idea de responsabilidad. Si al empleado público le son exigibles una serie de deberes y un comportamiento respetuoso con unos principios éticos, unos y otro solo cobran pleno sentido ante la sociedad cuando encuentran un nivel correspondiente y proporcionado de responsabilidad.
La forma en la que los países han abordado esta cuestión ha sido muy diversa. El nuevo Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público, aprobado el pasado 12 de abril, adopta una posición intermedia entre los países que recogen, como era nuestra tradición, los derechos y deberes de los funcionarios en una ley y los que más allá de la norma disponen de un código de conducta que no tiene un rango normativo. El nuevo Estatuto da un tratamiento a los principios éticos de actuación y comportamiento de los empleados públicos se sitúa entre lo “dispositivo” y lo “orientativo”. Los artículos 53 y 54 del nuevo Estatuto contienen, respectivamente, el catálogo de principios éticos y principios de conducta de los empleados públicos. Previamente, el artículo 52 enumera la relación de principios que deben guiar la actuación de los empleados: Objetividad, integridad, neutralidad, responsabilidad, imparcialidad, confidencialidad, dedicación al servicio público, transparencia, ejemplaridad, austeridad, accesibilidad, eficacia, honradez, promoción del entorno cultural y medioambiental y respeto a la igualdad entre mujeres y hombres.

Read more…

1 2 3 4

We use both our own and third-party cookies to enhance our services and to offer you the content that most suits your preferences by analysing your browsing habits. Your continued use of the site means that you accept these cookies. You may change your settings and obtain more information here. Accept