THE BIG SOCIETY, SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY & THE BOTTOM LINE

The Big Society consists of all the local communities. Social responsibility is government and companies taking responsibility for their impacts on the local community, on a day to day basis, and for new projects.

Taking social responsibility involves listening to peoples’ concerns, ideas and expectations. Government needs to listen, since many of its members have little experience of the real world. Companies need to listen, as the local community is a key stakeholder that can make a significant difference to their bottom line.

The Big Society idea is about delegating responsibility to the local level where the people debating, negotiating and resolving the issues are those affected by the outcomes. It recognises that “top down” management as employed in the armed forces doesn’t work in business or in everyday life – the MOD is a prime example of this. “Bottom-up” management has been successfully developed over the past 30 years in Business, led by unions and workplace committees in areas such as health, safety and the Environment. It has resulted in substantial improvement in standards and reductions in injuries, pollution and other costly losses. Similar opportunities for cost reduction are available within the local community, working together to exploit opportunities and avoid costly delays and disruption, for example during projects.

All Projects are “local” for the people living and working in the local community, and these are the people who have the greatest influence on the success of the project. Engagement and involvement of key local stakeholders in the workplace, marketplace, environment and community is critical to the success of every project.

By engaging the community the company gains “local knowledge” and an understanding of the local culture, the likes and dislikes, the sensitivities. The process identifies local resources and potential partnerships and synergies to exploit for mutual gain. It also uncovers risks and sensitivities that can be negotiated to reach a compromise acceptable to all parties – proactively, not as a reaction to an incident, delay or other setback.

So the message to Business is that the Big Society Idea is a wake-up call to the opportunities for added value and cost savings that are available in partnership with the local communities.

Irresponsible and unsustainable: the worst criticism ever!

A response to the Futerra blog........ http://www.futerra.co.uk/blog/921#

There are some valid criticisms to be made about the BP Sustainability report, but these are the wrong ones!

The report has 7 pages relating to the Gulf of Mexico disaster and it spells out in some detail the amounts of money paid out and what it is doing, much of that with named local NGO’s and scientists. Would we really fell better informed if there was a broad range of numbers of barrels of oil spilled; except, of course, that it would have to be in gallons, because that’s a bigger number! The number, in any case, is meaningless; what’s important is the impact and that is very complex to assess. However, as the report says, significant funds have been made available to understand the implications more fully; we should be ensuring that BP report on these issues promptly and that BP help commentators to understand them.

But this is not an argument about facts, it’s emotional. You talk about sustainability as if it’s possible to sustain anything without fossil fuels and then rubbish an investment of $1 billion, which is quite a lot of money, particularly when invested in long term projects, with no guaranteed rate of return. Yes, I understand the environmental implications, but there is disagreement about what the objectives are and how they might be achieved.

 There are 8 pages in the report, which describe BP’s view of the energy future and what they are doing, which in simple terms seem to revolve around energy supply, efficiencies, sequestration  and renewables; how much of each you may not like, but don’t deny it’s there!

The third party voice given most space is not a third party at all, but the company that ‘assures’ the report, so one would expect comment. It would be more relevant to challenge the use of auditors to fulfil this role, than simply to describe them as BP’s auditors!

There is no denying that this was a dreadful accident and much remains to be done to ensure that it doesn’t happen again and we should all be wary of the risky nature of oil exploration, but more regulation is not the way and carping criticism does not get you listened to, except by your own constituency. The Gulf of Mexico is one of the most heavily regulated oil provinces in the world; those regulations and the regulators also failed; more won’t help.

In the aftermath of the disaster, BP acted with commendable speed and commitment, whilst saying some pretty dumb things; and I hope the chairman has a torrid time on Thursday. But we should consider that no government or insurance company would have paid out so much, so quickly as BP did. This does not by any means excuse what happened, but they took responsibility and action and for that they deserve some credit!

As one of my colleagues said ‘A blind bat could criticise BP after last year’s disaster’, we should be more constructive than that.

In the interests of transparency, I am a BP pensioner and shareholder.

The Ethics of Internships

As Nick Clegg drives forward a new policy to end unpaid internships I find myself reflecting on the ethics of internships.  

As I fast approach a year’s worth of internships, both paid and unpaid, there is no doubt in my mind that there is great experience to be gained, invaluable lessons to be learnt and hopefully a step further to be taken in finding that dream job..   

However, as Clegg has now started to acknowledge, the reality is that unless you are supported through an unpaid internship it is very difficult, near impossible to take advantage of the various job placements that are available.

Is it therefore ethical for companies to exploit the market by abusing the free labour which is available to them?

The competitive nature of interning means that companies can demand a great deal when they are advertising for an intern, more often than not for a graduate, with a good degree, from a good university and in some cases with relevant experience and background. It goes without saying that they must be willing to work full time, unpaid, from anywhere between one month and six.

If the job the intern gets is one worth doing, then by definition it is adding value to the company;  value that would ordinarily be paid for but is not as a result of the thousands of jobless graduates ‘willing’ to work for free.

Regardless of the pressure put on the government to produce some guidelines on unpaid internships it has taken until now for them to start thinking seriously about subject.

Prior to Clegg’s changes, the House of Commons were offering the following guidelines to its members:

"As soon as they [interns] are expected to be at work at specific times or to complete specific work, they are no longer volunteers but employees and some employment legislation will apply, such as the minimum wage." Which seems very confused and unclear.

To add to the confusion, the guidelines contradicted the ‘work for an mp’ website (http://www.w4mp.org/) where several unpaid internships were advertised to work full time for a period of around three months. It will be now interesting to see whether Clegg’s new rules of travel expenses and lunch of up to £5 for lib dem interns will make a real difference to opening up opportunities.

An intern is not an employee, but nevertheless and an employer still has a duty to take care especially in the current climate when it is so difficult for graduates to find full time employment. If the employer is looking to enhance its reputation by providing opportunities for young people it should treat them fairly; in the end they will be positive advocates for the company.

What it will come down to is whether Clegg’s push to end unpaid internships will be powerful enough to facilitate real change.