The question of Gender and the workplace....

A range of evidence supports Connell and Crawford work that suggests that segregation occurs due to societal needs and this is apparent in a working environment. Women and men tend to engage in different types of jobs, and/or at different levels within job hierarchies with important consequences for pay and for prospects for training and promotion, among other things (J. Pilcher and I. Whelehan, 2005: 64). A study conducted by ‘Opportunity Now’ shows that only 9% of the construction industry is made up of women, while in the legal industry more than 20% are partners in the top 100 legal firms. The survey shows the construction industry is more dominant with male workers while the legal industry has a significantly higher population of female professionals than can be found in the construction industry. This shows how different types of jobs are more appealing to different genders and how segregation is due to the environment of the role rather than segregation as a form of discrimination.

Additionally, J. Pilcher and I. Whelehan (2005: 64) articulate gender segregation occurs when women and men are located separately from one another, while otherwise practising in a broadly similar set of activities. They propose that segregation happens knowingly and due to human decision but fail to provide why separation occurs.  

For example in Saudi Arabia, while there may be educational provision for both boys and girls, rather than being educated together in the same institutional location, they are instead deliberately segregated on the grounds of gender and are educated separately in ‘single sex’ schools or universities. It occurs in the way that boys and girls often study different subjects. This is example of gender segregation which may arise, not as the result of deliberate, legal and or traditional policies of segregation, but rather as the outcome of a complex number of social and religious norms.

Pilcher et al proposition appears to be slightly different to Hakim’s suggestion that Gender segregation happens due to societal values i.e women perform chores for their husbands. Pilcher et al do not clearly explain what would happen if, genders were not separated. Would this prevent segregation? This could suggest that genders working separately are a catalyst to segregation seems non-credible. In contemporary working conditions men and women work together in the office, yet segregation still occurs. Furthermore, the above authors’ suggestion that segregation occurs either because of society or the environment in which gender lives or work e.g. work or home, they fail to give a clear reason for segregation.

Sylvia Walby’s (1988) contends that gender segregation has more to do with capitalist’s desires to maintain low wages and flexibility, and with the behaviour of men. This argument appears to have a broad consensus among other key scholars in Gender study. In support, Hartmann (1982: 448) also suggest that men hold a higher ranking position at work. She advocates segregation, a ‘patriarchal system,’ as the ‘primary mechanism in capitalist society‘, to ensure the ‘superiority of men over women.’ The reason for this is to allow men to control the labour power of women and children in the family. Furthermore, Pilcher and Whelehan (2005:65) also suggest that segregation allow men to work in jobs with ‘greater material rewards, not least relatively high wages, compared to women.’ This in turn, implies that women earn lower wages and ‘keep women dependent on men because they encourage women to marry.’

Hartmann, Pilcher and Whelehan proposition may seem significant if recent facts and figures relating to power positions held by women are considered. For example, there has never been woman head of government in modern Russia, China, France, Brazil, Japan, Egypt, Nigeria. Every secretary general of United Nations and every head of the World Bank has been a man. The APEC forum, 2007, statistics from the inter-parliamentary union showed that 82.5 % of members of the world’s parliaments were men. Although women are substantial part of the paid work force they appear to be lower down the hierarchy. Women normally will be associated with jobs dealing with clerical work, cleaning, call centres and caring i.e. teaching and nursing. On the other hand, men are normally associated with jobs like labour, accountancy, law and technical professions. (Raewyn Connell, 2009).

Although, many authors agree there is an interrelation between the gendered division of labour in the home and the gendered nature of paid work (Hartmann and Beechey, 1982 and 1987), there appears to be a disparity as to the reason for segregation. On the one hand, Hartman and the above authors suggest a conspiracy theory that gender segregation exists to allow men to hold power over women. On the other hand, the counter argument (provided by, Connell, Hakim, Pilcher Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter and Edwin R. Mcdaniell) that there are natural differences in gender and this in turn means that gender segregation is necessary to allow men and women to live within their biological, social and cultural means.

A recent survey conducted by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2007) supports the view that segregation is not deliberate and women have equal chance to be in power. The report shows that women are half as likely to be involved in business start-up activity as men. It also illustrated most businesses are owned by men, and no significant change in the position of women (Minniti et al, 2006). It is also suggested that women do not set up business as they are better placed in roles that allow them, to commit time for other priorities such as child care and family. The report could be viewed as providing evidence that women would be unable to provide the necessary hours for roles even if opportunities existed, which displaces Hartman’s view that women are deliberately not given roles higher in the ranking order. Ultimately, the report suggests that women have equal opportunity in setting up businesses but do not take the opportunity. This would support Connell and Crawford proposition men and women are different biologically, socially and culturally.

Additionally, Annette Fitzsimons (2002: 25), book reveals the ‘embarrassing fact’ that woman are making ‘conscious choices’ about their positions at work and this supports the finding that The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor report, that it is women’s choice to work in roles that have lower pay and power positions. Fitzsimons dispute is adopted from the Marxist-feminist analysis, which argues the theoretical framework adopted within the study of gender 'obscures women's power by purely focusing on ‘patriarchy of men.' While little theoretical consideration has been given to ‘resistance practiced by women and men at the workplace'

She also argues persuasively that any study of gender segregation cannot be restricted to women--that in order to understand the positions men occupy in both the formal and informal organisational structures and networks, it is also necessary to explore the discourses that constitute male practices in organisations.

The Protocol That Needs To Work: Kyoto

The Kyoto Defacto...

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement set by the ‘United Nations’ (“UN”) to tackle the issue of Global warming (www.unfccc.int). The protocol has been signed by over 40 ‘industrialised’ nations and since 1997 a series of meeting have taken place on setting targets to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being release to the environment. This paper will use Realism – an, ‘International Relations’ (“IR”) theory - to assess the issue of global warming and will in particular focus on the global governance of the Kyoto protocol. It will use the Realist perspective to assess the current developments and will consider the potential future outcome of the Kyoto Protocol.

To successfully assess the Kyoto Protocol from a Realist perspective, this paper will first, justify the application of Realist theory in context to the Kyoto Protocol by providing an overview of the importance of IR theory and Realism. Second, The Realist perspective will be used as a framework to assess the Kyoto Protocol. Third, a prediction on the future outcome of the Kyoto Protocol from a Realist perspective shall be outlined. Fourth, it will critically assess whether the Realist perspective is in fact a sustainable perspective to gain a better understanding of the Kyoto Agreement. Finally, this paper will argue that Realism provides a useful analysis of the Kyoto agreement and in turn identifies serious flaws in the way States behave within the Kyoto Protocol and needs to be worked through to tackle global warming; however the theory comes short by not providing workable solution.

It is accepted by experts and academics, IR theory plays a significant part in trying to understand the complex relationship between people, states and power in the world. According to  Nicholson (1998, p.8) by understanding these elements it is then possible to predict future events.

The ability of a theory to explain and predict the future is what determines the ‘strength of the theory’. Other factors that give gravitas to IR theory is determined by “how well it can explain behaviour…”( www.princeton.edu)

The Realist perspective is considered to be one of the driving forces in IR and respected as a workable perspective in order to gain understanding of IR behaviour [Source]. In this context the realist theory should be able to provide an understanding of the Kyoto agreement.

According to Sutch & Elias (p, 43) the Realist perspective provides an understanding of the ‘conviction’ of the decisions taken by a state. In addition, the realist perspective allows an intimate understanding of state behaviour, including, the statecraft, security and configuration of power (Sutch & Elias, p43). By using the Realist perspective to assess the Kyoto Protocol should therefore provide an understanding of the way States are behaving and the potential future outcomes of the protocol.

According to John J Mearsheimer, the Realist belief is based around a ‘body’ of theories that share common beliefs. The fundamental belief is based on the assumption that ‘states are the principle actors in world politics’ (Sutch & Elias, p.43). This would mean any decisions taken within The Kyoto agreement would be interdependent of each State, rather than any other potential factors (http://unfccc.int). Then it would seem logical to think, If the state is the ‘principle’ decision maker, it seems inept, for any state to influence another state to abide to any Global warming initiatives. Instead, the initiative would need to advocate incentives for a State to be involved.

The Kyoto protocol seems to establish a form of incentive through the Carbon trading initiative that allows states to trade its carbon in the form of credits. That a state can then use to offset any carbon that it may feel unable to reduce.

The Realist theory focuses on ‘power relations between states’ to effectively deliberate on international affairs matters (Sutch & Elias, p.42). The term ‘power’ used within the realist sphere is determined by two factors, economical or military. In other words, the amount of power a state influences, the amount it is able to leverage in a given agreement and adjudicate upon itself and other states. In this respect, although Kyoto Protocol is primarily focused on tackling the environment, the behaviour of states and the level of involvement will in effect be shaped by the scale of the states economy and military capabilities.  

The Realist perspective of power certainly provides interesting observation within the Kyoto Protocol. There appears to be strong evidence, that wealthier states have increased leverage with the direction of the Kyoto Protocol. For example, the EU and Australia lead the Kyoto agreement in terms of the legal and policy framework, yet they represent less than 15% of global greenhouse gas emission. According to a recent UNEP report, the largest Greenhouse producers in the world, Russia, China and the USA produce 40% of the world Greenhouse emissions (http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf). However, according to the UNEP report these states are not bound to any commitment to reducing their emissions, while other less emitting states are bound to targets. The realist perspective expound these states are able to exercise such autonomous behaviour due to their economically and militarily strength.  

This can be clearly seen by, both China and the USA, who are the fastest growing economies in the World. China for example has ‘the fastest growing economy for past thirty years’ in addition to the third or fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world (Herd, 2010, p.137). Both of these states produce the largest amounts of CO2, yet both are not bounded to any legal agreements.

Waltz explains for the Realist perspective, States indulgence for power derives from the need to ‘act only for self-interest with primary goal of own security, sovereignty and survival’ (www.aiu.edu). China or USA adhering to its own-interest is very apparent. By acting in this way both states seem to be protecting its own security, sovereignty and survival.

Other developed nations manipulating the formulation of policies set within the Kyoto protocol for sovereign reason also seem apparent. The UK for example, was able to ‘easily meet its Kyoto target’ by cutting its domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 23 per cent from 1990 levels by 2011. But several assessments of its total carbon footprint - including emissions produced from the manufacture of imported goods - reveal an increase of around 10 per cent since 1990, even allowing for the recent economic downturn (www.newscientist.com). This ‘self interest’ behaviour provides a strong example of more developed States being able to manipulate the policy to gain a competitive advantage. These states are for example, able to use easily accessible energy sources e.g. oil, coal, in doing so they are not required to invest large amounts in building new emission friendly energy sources or impose policies restricting industry to operate.

Although, It would be easy to flaunt doubt over the Kyoto agreement if ‘power’ is used as a benchmark to assess the success of the Kyoto Protocol. The inequality of power is substantiated within the Realist perspective, as Hobbes defines it as a “key features of world politics”(cited, Sutch & Elias, p.45). Arguably, the thematic of more powerful states dictating international policy upon less powerful states does seem to be a normal phenomenon in the realms of global politics.

The consequence of stronger States acting for their ‘self-interest’ may bring distrust within the Kyoto Protocol. This is especially true, when it is quite evidential that action of each State engaged in the Kyoto Protocol is placing its’ own interest before any other. With states such as China and other developed nations being able to decide their own levels of greenhouse emitted. This in turn, places the Kyoto Protocol, under the provision of being a tool for wealthier nations to become stronger while displacing developing nations. Although, this may be a cynical view to take, the fact remains, most of the new manufacturing nations are both highly inefficient users of energy and power their manufacturing largely with the dirtiest of the major fuels, coal. The result is higher emissions. This brings further contention on the sustainability of the Kyoto Protocol, with Energy economist Dieter Helm from the University of Oxford asking: "What exactly is the point of reducing emissions in Europe if it encourages energy-intensive industry to move to China, where the pollution will be even worse?" (www.newscientist.com).

The inequality of Power in the Kyoto Protocol could also have far reaching negative impact. First, other states in effect may feel intimidated by the fact that other states are controlling the overall policy regime. By feeling intimidates, would certainly discourage a less able state to get involved with the protocol. Second, the inequality in power may also cause further tensions between states and this in turn can affect other bi-lateral policy areas. Third, the policies that were initially developed may in turn be distilled further, to counter any thought of unfairness within the agreement itself. Fourth, the balance of power is constantly changing in international politics, meaning that further friction is likely.

An example can be drawn from the formation of the ‘BRIC’ compact, that comprises of Brazil, Russia, India and China who have formed mutual trading agreements. In doing so, these countries have bypassed trade agreements imposed by the West (http://www.economywatch.com). The formation of BRIC was a direct result of western powers trying to manipulate the trade policies within the World Trade Organisation.  In doing so, it has created a very difficult position when trying to negotiate trade agreements. 

While Hobbes explains the reason for such inequalities in global politics is mainly due to no overall global authority. The idea of any ‘global authority’ seems a far fetch dream, even if the UN is considered to be acting in such manner. The UN, also falls short of acting autonomously in the interest of every State, and also shows similar disparity in power between stronger and weaker states (Doyle, 2011). Although, it would be premature to think the UN is acting as some kind of global regime to enforce the Kyoto protocol. Instead the UN appears to be acting as the ‘depositary’ organisation hosting the Kyoto protocol (www.unfccc.int). The UN’s capacity to enforce agreements on other nations appears to be incapacitated. Instead it would appear that economic power of a nation super-seeds the legal underpinning of any agreement or decision. Even the governance structure of the United Nations, appears to exercise the same hierarchy pattern as seen in the Kyoto Protocol.

However, the power hierarchy system does not appear to prevent other nations from being part of the Kyoto Protocol or the United Nations. This would suggest, other factors obviously play an important role in influencing nations to join agreement. Professor Keohane, from the realist school of thought, outlines three distinct reasons that nations benefit from joining a voluntary or international organisation. The first, by joining an international organisation, a nation is able to share and gather information on various mutually beneficial areas, such as intelligence on trade. Second, by joining the nation receives incentives and trade concessions. And finally, resolving disputes that may have otherwise not been possible to be resolved (Joffe, 2007). This would imply even though, what may initially appear to be unfair to less prominent States from the peripherals, the benefits from an agreement such as the Kyoto protocol, applies to all states.

Realists place the reason for states being habituated for power due to the very architecture of the way a state is set up. The concept of ‘sovereignty’ is defined by Morgantheu, as how effectively a state can operate in an international context with the primary goal of meeting its’ own interest (Morgenthau & Thompson, 1985). This in turn, seems to encourage the idea that each state should have it’s own authority, as the state is accountable to it’s own public. This would suggest the very underpinning of State governance is in part responsible for the ‘self interest’ attitude experienced within a global context.  As Hetcher (2000:15) explains, the State is acting in the interest of its constitutional gate-keeper, the electoral (Rourke 2005, p104). In this respect, what the electoral demands dictates significantly in the way a State behaves in relation to the Kyoto Protocol.  Furthermore, in context of the electoral, the realists also believe people possess a ‘inherently dark side’, and this will always mean that self interest will be the starting point of any agreement (Rourke p17, cited Spegele, 1996;).

While it can be learnt from the Realist Perspective, there are many different dynamics to State power and has a push and pull effect on any internationally related matter. The Kyoto Protocol certainly illustrates States do have a certain degree of autonomous power in how far they endorse the Kyoto Protocol.  In many cases it shows how economic strength and military strength such as the USA, can bring huge amounts of leverage in the way a state dictate the overall conclusion of an international agreement such as the Kyoto protocol.

Furthermore, a key question can be drawn through the Realist perspective, and that is whether the Kyoto agreement is a sustainable or best way to tackle global warming? If indeed the states dictate their own interests, and power is the instrument that dictates the direction of the Kyoto agreement. Worst still, it appears to bring to light, a certain amount of doubt on the level of success by the Kyoto Protocol in terms of meeting its objectives. Evidence would suggest, these doubtful claims are becoming reality, as CO2 monitoring stations in Hawaii have discovered the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed 400 parts per million (ppm); levels not seen in several million years (http://oilprice.com).

However, Morgenthau (1948) belief of the State having ‘principle authority’ is not completely realistic. As certain States do not have such privileges, due to stronger States imposing restrictions on their movements – in this sense the Realists perspective appears to be too simplistic for the Kyoto Protocol in labelling a State to be the ‘principle’ decision maker. Morgenthau idea of the State being the principle decision is further flawed, if the electorate are the gatekeepers to the movement of the state, then surely it would seem sensible to gain a better understanding would be through a deeper understanding of the population. This in turn would provide a better understanding the way the State is behaving and might behave in the future.

Furthermore, Hobbes statement almost provides a ‘precursor’ for more powerful states to behave in such manner, as he is almost accepting this behaviour as the norm and therefore it is somehow justifiable. Although Hobbes statement maybe a general consensus within international agreements, a clear distinction needs to be made with the Kyoto protocol and cannot be viewed under the normal rules of just another global agreement. The failure of the protocol has a global impact upon all States. It has been recognised that climate change does have correlation in causing conflict and mutating a state into a volatile environment (Herd, p.88).

The Realists perspective argues that by eliminating the moral and jurisprudence underpinning when considering the behaviour of a state, can provide a better understanding of global politics (Joffe, 2007). This may be true from most international political settings, however, by not accepting the moral arguments, provides an acceptance for States to act in immoral manner as it is considered something normal, therefore it should almost be accepted. By not considering the moral argument for China or India not being able to reduce that amount by Japan for example, it would be a reasonable argument that China and India are the fastest growing economies and due to their growth, their demand for high emitting CO2 energy is for their self-interest. However, only by considering the moral justification, such as, the large population of China in comparison to Japan, means the country is unable to meet those levels. In this sense, if power and self-interest is used as a analysis tool, it provides a double edged sword argument, and both sides (i.e China, India v. Japan) can be justified for their behaviour, with no real solution to the debate. This may be one of reasons the Realist perspective fails to provide an alternative to the existing set up of Global politics. While it quite clearly indicates the potential issues surrounding the Kyoto Protocol through the core principles of power, there appears to be no distinction between a complete hostile state rather than a state being difficult. The USA within the Kyoto agreement is not bound to any agreement, however it is still providing funding and leverage to ensure the agreement is being pursued.  The senior advisors on the UN panel regarding climate change have facilities based in the USA. Therefore, it cannot be labelled as being self interested to a point of greed. Instead it would appear the USA is employing a different approach to the problem of global warming.

India for example will not take on binding emission reduction commitment as it considers it morally wrong to agree to reduce, “when 40% of Indians do not have access to electricity”(Herd, 2010, p.93). The big population in emerging economies makes it different from many developed nations – hence China is unable to be as energy efficient to Japan. Thus a deeper understanding is required to make a fair assessment of the States behavior and the moral justification plays just as important role in understanding as power relationship between states.

Whilst there are debates about the opinions and history of the Realists theory, and many critics from the liberal wing, would denote Realists as a failing idea. The Kyoto Protocol is more than a political ideology, and the author of this paper would argue to effectively tackle Global Warming through the protocol requires a pragmatic approach. The winning argument for the protocol is a moral one, and it should be strongly presented by those wishing to make a success of the agreement. Unfortunately, the Realists analysis provides a pessimistic view, even though it may be close to the truth, it is not an option anymore to push aside Global Warming, and by providing such negative analysis certainly provides fuel to the pessimist table.  Although it should be noted that any theory is working from agreed set of rules, and this is not true of the realities of international politics. Therefore theories need to be put aside, and instead States need to observe a mutual understanding that Global Warming is happening and needs to be tackled, with every state taking responsibility in whatever capacity it can within its boundaries. The Kyoto protocol should act as a framework or a vision rather than the principle agreement to tackle Global Warming. By each State acting independently, it is able to fulfill is responsibilities to its Electoral, while the Kyoto Protocol enables a global vision. 

Political sleaze infecting the UK...

The BBC Panorama program secretly filmed two peers and an MP agreeing to do work for money – which is being blamed on the lobbyists. What has happened has obviously, confirmed to the general public the current political system is both inadequate and filled with sleaze.

However, within all of this sleaze, it is the term ‘Lobbying’ that seems to be labelled for the problem and making the headlines recently for all the wrong reasons. Although this article isn't supporting the lobbyists, it does ask some critical questions about the new lobbying bill being proposed. 

The coalition government has taken the decision to introduce new legislation by the end of July. It is rumoured it will make it compulsory for lobbyists to register their interests in Parliament. It will also target trade unions, getting rid of self-certification for trade unions.

What is frustrating in this matter, the problem is pointed towards the lobbyist who are mere information provider to the decision-makers, instead of dealing with the actual heart of the problem, the UK political system.

The government’s response to this matter seems unclear. The introduction of new legislation to resolve the most recent scandal is questionable.  Any individual could in theory provide money to peers or MPs, and they don’t necessarily have to be ‘lobbyists’. MP and Peers are approached by the public about various issues.

How can you differentiate between a ‘lobbyist’ and a normal person exercising their right to contact their representative? Does this mean all these people will have to register? Also, how can any legislation effectively be enforced, and what’s to say someone who is willing to take a bribe, has the morals to register their interests?

It is necessary to take a response to this issue, however it would be better to assess the situation more before taking the decision to introduce any new legislation. 

BBC Article Link Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22749803

FT Article on Cameron's response Link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/318b2d0c-cb73-11e2-8ff3-00144feab7de.html

Which comes first, reputation or responsiblity? A paradox for companies and organisation alike.

Introduction

 

This article will discuss, whether an organisation can manage an issue that is critical to its reputation without compromising its position on social responsibility. First the relationship between an organisation and society will be examined. Secondly, contemporary case studies will be outlined to help identify the differing role issue management plays in managing an organisation’s reputation.  Finally, this paper will conclude whether issue management compromises an organisation’s social responsibility.

 

Perspectives

 

Milton Friedman's believes ‘the business of business’ is business. He argues that management's overriding obligation is to increase value for shareholders. If organisations try to pursue the social good directly, they will impoverish society by taking bad decisions.(Citizen, 101) 

 

In contrast, both Peter Drucker and Charles Handy argue that organizations should become "membership communities".(Citizen, 101). By ‘membership communities’, Handy and Drucker mean that organisations should serve in the interests of the community, and in doing so will bring benefits both to society and the organization.

 

There are various types of organisations e.g government, charities, businesses. Society relies on organisations to bring many social, economic and political benefits through their services and products. For example, organisations provide services such as health, education, income and goods such as food, medicine and fuel. In this respect an organisation can be viewed as supplying the demands of society.

 In contemporary times social activism campaigns have targeted organisations to operate socially responsible. Grunig (1992) defines activism as groups of people that act to influence other publics through action. They may include NGO’s, Charities or even QUANGO organisations. (e.g. Green peace, Friends of the Earth, Age Concern, United Nation). The actions that have been used by these groups have included demonstrations, lobbying government to change policy, as well as bringing attention to the media of bad practises that organisations engage in.

Furthermore, organisations operate in a very competitive environment because of new markets and technology.  For example, the UK manufacturing industry is under increased competition from China.

An organisations reputation allows it to differentiate from its competitors but also to gain support with its customers, stakeholders and society as a whole. (Tench, 2006, p541) Therefore, it is critical for an organization to manage its reputation because it is an asset that enables it to survive an increasingly competitive environment. By not managing an issue effectively, an organizations reputation can be tarnished.

 

Burson-Marsteller, defines an issue as being ‘the challenges to an organisations reputation, stability and freedom to operate.’ The consequence of which can lead to  ‘disrupting operations, create media firestorms and lead to crises.’ (www.bm.com) This can then result in pauperising society.

 

To operate Socially responsible “an organisation needs to promote the good of others and avoids the harm of them.” (Moloney, ‘CRS and ethics’, p.1, 2006). Therefore, by managing an issue and protecting its reputation an organisation can be seen to be working in the interest of society. As managing an issue allows an organisation to function properly and meet the demands of society.

 

 

By not managing the issues effectively an organization is acting irresponsibly as can be seen from Northern Rock in 2007. Northern Rock failed to identify the weakening economy in the UK. As a result of the weakening economy, investment banks could not lend money to Northern Rock for mortgages. This resulted in Northern Rock borrowing money from the Bank of England.. (www.economist.com)

 

The issue created panic with Northern Rock customers and caused the share prices to drop by 37% in a single day. Additionally, policies surrounding mortgage lending were made stricter resulting in 1.4 million homeowners facing a sharp jump in loan repayments – “up to 60 per cent in some cases”. As a result, higher repayments for existing mortgage holders and the possibility of people becoming homeless. (www.ft.com, 2007, a).

 

Issue management (‘IM’) is ‘a managerial function’ that identifies ‘potential and emerging issues’ allowing an organization to establish the impact of the issue and co-ordinating and mobilizing organizational resources to ‘strategically influence the course of those issues.’ Meng (1987) (p, 27) (Richard Alan Nelson, (2000)‘Bias Versus Fairness: The Social utility of issue management’)

 

According to Vickers (2007), there are four key practices for effective IM. Firstly, an organization should release all bad news immediately. Secondly, it should apologise, and illustrate contrition. Thirdly, bring in independent advise and finally to cite previous track record.

 

For example, The Labour Party in November 2007 had a major issue relating to third party donations from a wealthy businessman David Abraham, donating a total of £600, 000 pounds. The main concern was Labour party’s failure to register the donation to the Electoral commission.  This consequence of this issue could have led to many crises including the disruption of government operations, the day to day decisions needed to be made on welfare matters and Gordon Brown’s (‘GB’) reputation as Britain’s prime minister could have been undermined. By effectively managing the issue effectively GB prevented any disruptions.

 

GB was able to limit the damage caused by the donation scandal, firstly, announcing all the bad information at the beginning. Most information was communicated through various mediums including TV, Radio and the internet. Gordon Brown was able to communicate the facts to the public and prevented any further information from being leaked and wrongly advocated.

 

Secondly, in the House of Commons Gordon Brown acknowledged the donation was given to the labour party, however it was a mistake to accept the money. This portrayed he understood the fustration and worries of the public preventing panic in government and the country.

 

Thirdly, GB announced a full investigation in to the matter by the Electoral commission. This allowed the opportunity to offer rationale comments and discussion to occur. This illustrates that issue management can also act as a tool to encourage the freedom of information. (Richard Alan Nelson, ‘issue management: An overview’, p.4)

 

Finally, GB reminded the people that the Labour Government introduced the legislation relating to party funding. (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/) By doing this it allowed GB to

establish his credibility as the prime minister, by establishing that although this was a mistake, ultimately he exists for good of the country.

 

IM also helped to identify the problem with party funding and as a result a full investigation looking in to reforming the political funding system. Furthermore, IM enabled Gordon Brown to take day-to-day decisions during the issue and preventing any disruption in the running of government.

 

 

 

 

IM has three essential functions. Firstly, IM integrates public policy with the organisations strategic business plan and management. This allows an organization to meet its own interests i.e. profit, without conflicting the public interest. As the business plan takes into consideration of issues concerning the public. For example, Dutch Shell recognizes the issue surrounding oil refineries and has developed in to its business model investing in to researching in to renewable energies.

 

The second function of IM is to communicate issues to key stakeholders of an organisation. By communicating the issue helps maintain confidence with the organizations key stakeholders. It illustrates the organization has recognized an issue exists and is not trying to hide the facts. This prevents information to be sensationalized by the media that can cause panic among the public. Which can then result in to a crises. For example, The Virgin Train crash in Cumbria, Richard Branson made an announcement on national TV about the crash, this illustrated to the stakeholders of the organization that the company recognizes that an issue, preventing any bad publicity and panic. Furthermore, by Richard Branson announcing the incident suggests Virgin Train Company is taking the matter seriously. As a result , the share price of the company was unaffected and the reputation of the company was maintained.

 

Finally it involves, monitoring and analysis of the issue so that an organisation can meet the changing standards of Corporate social responsibility (‘CSR’). By monitoring the issue, the organization is able to understand the concerns of the public and its stakeholders and develop policy that meets the public needs. It also enables an organization to engage in CSR. 

 

“CSR is the commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development and also to improve the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large”. (Raymond Ewing, ‘Issue Management: An overview’, p.4) By “monitoring” an issue, an organization is able to identify what is considered to be ethically acceptable and then able to contribute in resolving the issue and as a result benefiting the community. For example, 

 

 

IM brings many benefits to society and can be used to help organizations to understand the needs of society and as a result protect its reputation.

 

However, IM benefits can be seen to be a tool that fundamentally protects the interest of the organization. For example, the amount of money invested by Shell in to renewable energy is millions of pounds in comparison to the billions on refining oil. This suggests that Shell is interested in making profit rather than actually resolving the issue highlighted by activist groups such as Green Peace and Friends of the Earth. Instead IM enables Shell prevent activist groups from taking further action and prevent any damage to its operations.

 

Instead, It could be argued that IM is used as a veil to enable an organization to engage in to practices that would otherwise be considered not socially responsible. IM can be seen to be as a form Sophistury.

Furthermore, IM best practices suggested by Vickers (2007) can help manage an issue. However, by following these practisies does not mean an organization can protect its reputation. For example, even though GB managed the issue according to the best practices, the issue still affected his ratings in polls. Furthermore, it impacted upon his reputation as prime minister and may have an adverse affect at the next general election.

 

By implementing a CSR program it allows an organization to dampen the real issue. So instead of managing an issue, IM could be seen as a tool to divert attention. Additionally, if pressure groups such as Green peace or Friends of the Earth did not exist whether Shell would introduce any CSR initiative is questionable.

Furthermore, measuring the success of IM practise is not very easy. Even though there are best practices, these do not necessarily mean that an organization can successfully deal with an issue and prevent an issue from effecting an organizations reputation.