Stop Re-writing the Rules

The announcement by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) that from the start of this month it has taken over the regulation of the way banks treat their customers is not new.

Since 2006, the FSA has been urging banks and building societies to ‘Treat Customers Fairly’ (TCF), developing a principles-based regulatory agenda designed to help consumers achieve a fair deal*. By 31 December 2008, banks, building societies and financial service providers were expected to demonstrate to the FSA that they were consistently treating their customers fairly. Yet although this system of regulation was supposedly in place, complaints about the way banks, building societies and specialist lenders treat their mortgage customers have soared by 40 per cent in the last six months. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/complaints-about-mortgage-lenders-rise-40-in-six-months-1811630.html

The government has even gone over the FSA’s head by proposing that unfair credit card terms be outlawed stating that it is not acceptable for credit card companies to impose complex and confusing terms and conditions that leave consumers baffled. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8326485.stm

What the FSA needs is not a new rule but a commitment to regulate and audit financial service providers to ensure that customers really are treated fairly. Regulation can only be effective if rigorous tests of fairness are carried out. Independent audits must be central to this process of testing. This should include mystery shoppers and customer surveys as well as an audit of marketing materials, consumer information and a thorough review of policies and practices. Without intelligent and independent scrutiny, banks will carry on trying to wriggle out of their duty to treat the customer fairly.

How banks treat customers is under the spotlight as never before, but unless the regulators insist on independent checks, consumers will continue to be treated unfairly.

Do unto others

While staying in a hotel during an assessment recently, one of our assessors read an article in the Wall Street Journal about various ways some hotels were gouging their customers through hidden fees and surcharges. Readers subsequently added other examples to the list. Some of these unethical tactics included:

·      Mandatory parking and/or valet fees, even for those guests who didn't arrive by car (or parked themselves).

·      Mandatory "gratuities" for housekeeping and bell staff, not all of which are actually being distributed to the workers.

·      Mandatory "resort fees" for the pool and gym, even if not used.

·      Fees to use the in-room safe or refrigerator.

·      Exorbitant but unmarked fees for bottled water placed in the room.

With respect to the last, our assessor noted the bottled water in his room came with a "complimentary" tag. At another hotel, there was no such tag, and he assumed that if he enjoyed the water, there would be a consequent hefty charge added to his bill. (He also noted the bottled water came from Norway, a continent away, making a mockery of the hotel's claims of "green" products and of sourcing locally.)

Many WSJ readers noted that hotels would often reverse these fees if customers noticed them and complained, reinforcing that the charges were inappropriate in the first place.

During our assessments, we interview client staff from sales and customer service to understand how the organization deals with its customers.  We review advertising, contracts and other records, and interview a sample of actual customers to understand their own experiences. Some of the things we're looking to verify include:

·      Are pricing and terms of sale clear and complete?

·      Are product labeling, marketing, and advertising completely truthful?

·      Are product claims (capabilities, environmental, etc) objectively substantiated before being made?

·      Are warranties and other after-sales promises honored by the vendor?

·      Is there a process to receive and meaningfully respond to customer complaints in a time manner?

Devious pricing practices, false advertising, "greenwashing", and other ways of deceiving customers are all examples of unethical business behavior. This is very much an area where the golden rule applies: treat others as you would wish yourself to be treated. Treating customers fairly is a cornerstone of a good corporation. 

 

 

Social Media Monitoring

An American town recently generated controversy when it asked municipal job applicants to hand over account information (including passwords) for any social media sites they subscribe to.  As part of their pre-employment background checks, the employer apparently wanted to see if the applicant had engaged in any personal activities that might be deemed inappropriate. A blizzard of negative publicity and threatened lawsuits quickly ended that practice.

Other employers have found themselves in the newspaper after disciplining staff for Facebook-documented personal activities that management deemed inappropriate, or over published comments an employee made about the employer or workplace on blogs.

Managers do have legitimate rights to protect the reputation of their organisation, while employees have a duty of care towards their employer, which includes not acting in ways that would bring disrepute to the organisation or that may poison the workplace, and to maintain confidentiality of private matters.

As all employees have a right to privacy, especially for activities unrelated to their workplace, employers must restrict pre-employment checks or monitoring of employees’ online activities to those strictly related to any legitimate requirements of the organisation. It’s not for the employer to agree or disagree with whatever staff do on their own time, with a few narrow exceptions.

Thinking through appropriate and inappropriate uses of online media ahead of time will allow the organisation to provide appropriate guidance to their managers and employees on how to handle potential situations.

·      With a few notable exceptions, (police officers, clergy, teachers) the personal time, activities and friends of a typical employee should be off limits to the boss.  Any legitimate exceptions should be well documented and known by all parties.

·      Conversely, employees need to know that it is not acceptable to criticise or otherwise bring disrepute to their employer, managers, or colleagues in a public forum (whether online or elsewhere).

·      The employer should have a communications policy that encourages appropriate online engagement by relevant employees in the course of business, backed by appropriate guidelines (e.g. full disclosure of identity and connection with the organisation).

·      Employees need to keep their professional and personal lives separate. A social media site intended for one’s friends should not include work-related matters, especially without the consent of the employer or colleagues impacted (e.g. photographs of one’s colleagues in swimsuits from the company picnic shouldn’t be posted in a personal forum without their knowledge or permission).

·      Employers concerned about what people may be saying about their organisation can generically monitor online media such as Twitter, and respond to any concerns as appropriate. In other words, there is no need to specifically monitor employee’s personal accounts.

Issues such as these regularly come up in our assessments.  The use and abuse of social media sites is a relatively new phenomenon for employers to deal with.  Consequently it is important for organisations to have well-defined and clearly communicated rules firmly in place. 

Should the office romance be off-limits?

Should the 'office romance' be off-limits?

Managing a workplace romance can be a hassle and not just for the parties involved! While stolen moments behind the photocopier or deciding whether or not to go public are usually of prime concern for those having the affair, work colleagues often have issues that are rather more fundamental.

An office romance can lead to variety of allegations from favouritism and collusion to skiving and skulduggery. While few companies actually prohibit relationships in the workplace, many have policies in place to minimise any possible fallout.

Relationships should be out in the open without fear of reprisals. It should be company policy to ensure that a couple in a relationship do not report to one another, nor should they be jointly responsible for any decision-making be they business decisions or ones relating to performance and remuneration. Ensure that there are well-known consequences if the romance creates a negative impact on the workplace or the business as a whole; in many organisations the enforced resignation of one or both parties is considered entirely acceptable.

It should be made clear that the relationship must not affect the work environment and that professional conduct is expected, with clear boundaries between personal and business interactions.

In larger organisations, managers should be trained to identify any potential warning signs, be familiar with the office policy and ensure that it is consistently applied. It is also wise to discourage supervisor-subordinate relationships which can have extreme consequences be it resentment among colleagues or allegations of sexual harassment.

While office affairs may be an inevitable product of the modern workplace, the majority end in tears, making clear and consistent policies a life-line for those left to pick up the pieces.

Is corporate drug testing legitimate

Testing for substance abuse is becoming a concern in many organisations and has been raised a number of times in our recent assessments. Employers have legitimate interest, indeed often a legal requirement, in maintaining a safe workplace. Alcohol and drugs are readily available in many communities, and their use and abuse may be endemic. Dangerous equipment and hazardous substances often have the potential to inflict harm far beyond the operator, as the Exxon Valdez incident tragically showed.

In responding to these legitimate concerns, however, an employer must balance its own interests and responsibilities with the legitimate privacy rights of employees. Not everything an employee may do in their spare time is within the legitimate domain of the employer. Some test regimes appear to be rather one-sided in this respect.

Here are some of the considerations that should be factored into any policy:

• What are the legal requirements of each jurisdiction in which the employer operates? Testing is often mandated in the event of certain types of accidents or near misses. Some jurisdictions allow widespread testing while others restrict it to narrow circumstances.

• What are the locations or job functions where there is a legitimate requirement to test current or prospective employees? The truck driver hauling dangerous cargo is in a very different position than the receptionist in the front lobby.

• Is the company sending out mixed messages about safety-sensitive positions? The courts in at least one country have ruled that an employer can’t claim a position is safety-sensitive (and thus has a legitimate need for drug screening) if people are allowed to start work before being tested.

• Is there appropriate provision for employees to self-disclose a substance abuse problem and receive appropriate help (for example, through an Employee Assistance Plan (EAP)) without fear of disciplinary action?

• Does the organisation have appropriate policies regarding consumption of alcohol within the workplace or while on company business? Some jurisdictions (even in the western world) prohibit alcohol altogether while on the job. Are company social events and business entertainment being conducted appropriately?

Vacancies

GoodCorporation is a business assessment and certification organisation working exclusively in the field of corporate responsibility. As part of our continued growth we are seeking to fill the following positions with qualified, motivated individuals.

Assessors

GoodCorporation is a unique business which undertakes independent assessments of the ethical and corporate responsibility practices of clients using the GoodCorporation Standard. Since its launch in 2001 GoodCorporation has conducted nearly 300 assessments in 45 countries, working for 11 FTSE100 companies.

As part of our continuing growth and development we are looking to recruit two new assessors to be based in our head office in London. For both positions complete command of French as a working language is needed.

For the senior position the assessor will be responsible for:

Design and scoping of assessments
Management of client relationships on-site
Management of sub-contractors
Analysis of client’s operations against the GoodCorporation Standard
Stakeholder interviewing
Client presentations
Report writing
Business development
New lead and business generation
The senior assessor should have the following experience:

Minimum five years’ of experience in a variety of management functions such as HR, purchasing, sales or environmental management
Alternatively, similar management consulting experience
Client management
Proven business development capability
Fluent French
Ideally other European language capability
The second position involves similar tasks but as a team member rather than manager and hence less experience is expected. This position will involve more office-based support to the business.

The assessors will be expected to travel regularly. Typically the senior assessor will expect to spend about 50% of time on client sites, with up to two weeks at a time at client sites. The remainder of time will be spent on client reports and working on business development.

For the right candidates, GoodCorporation offers a competitive salary, a friendly and fun working environment and considerable responsibility to help grow and develop this exciting business.

For more information see our website

GoodCorporation debate at the House of Lords

At a debate organised by GoodCorporation at the House of Lords on 20 May 2009 Will Hutton, Vice-Chair of the Work Foundation spoke on corporate governance and corporate responsibility. Will said that companies need to have a much clearer statement of their purpose which should be challenged and agreed by more active non-executive directors. He criticised current notions of CSR which he said could distract companies from focusing on their core purpose. He lamented the last minute changes that were made to the operating and financial review which he felt had missed an opportunity to embed better long-term thinking into business.

Cash for Moats

There are a lot of red faces around the corridors of Westminster and despite the manure, paid for by the public purse, few have come up smelling of roses.  From plasma screens to pot plants, swimming pools to student flats, chandeliers to custard creams, MPs from all parties have been caught with their hands deep in the till.   Were they from the ranks of the unemployed they would be facing criminal charges for benefit fraud.  As it is, Members’ cheque books will be depleted as excessive expense claims are repaid and party leaders compete to demonstrate their desire to preside over a more responsible system.

So once the hair shirts have been dispensed with and the apologetic proclamations heard, what happens next?  Clearly the advice contained in the Green Book that states: “the MP’s signature [on the claim] verifies that the expenditure was wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties” is not properly understood or applied.  And therein lies the problem with principles-based regulation such as The Green Book: principles-based regulation without powerful, independent monitoring is like a football game without a referee.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life is undertaking a review of MPs expenses.  While none would wish to return to a system where only those of independent means can afford to be a member of Parliament, a system of effective monitoring, a culture of responsibility and total transparency are essential if public trust is to be restored.