Odd one out Governance Ethics
When it comes to governance, discussions about ‘Best Practice’ are frequent. What is often forgotten however: Governance, and notably ‘good’ governance, stands and falls with people. WHO sits on the board is hence at the very least as important as HOW that board is set up to operate by its procedures and surrounding legal constraints. Why is that so? And why is this often ignored?
Paradox
It's a funny state of things: One where investors complain that ESG data is not standardised; where at the same time companies – and notably their boards – complain that investors do not ask for data in a standardised way. And where the very same companies and boards nonetheless prioritise proprietary measurement systems over any other one for their own supply chains and products. It's a paradox. One that is not efficient, effective, or conducive to impact. A call to leave politics to the side, focus in impact, and standardise, standardise, standardise.
Conflict
An NGO comes after you – for the right or the wrong reasons. A journalist publishes an article. The content: inconvenient truths, or equally inconvenient fake news. Or simpler: The staff churn in your company is way above average. And no one seems to know why. The meetings, the clashes, the disagreement, the blaiming that comes with it. Yes, been there, done that. Thankfully, there were times I was not a party in the conflict. Instead I was assigned the (ungrateful?) task of figuring out how to resolve it, build bridges, and ‘get stuff done’. Not just once, but a few times. What initially was of me ‘winging it’, over time – with trial and error – turned into something more structured. Still not perfect – it never will be, there is always room for improvement – but a flight-by-instrument rather than a blind adventure. This post is my first try at illustrating, verbalising, this process.The steps I use, and what their intention is. With the hope of it being as useful to others as it is and was to me.