As EHS and risk management professionals, we are wired to think in terms of regulatory compliance. We have to know and comply with regulations. This is fundamental to how we do what we do. Our compliance orientation impacts mental models, our ways of thinking about things, and how we operate. At a certain level, this is fine-and-dandy, but it also limits us.
Because of the need for strong focus on regulatory and rule compliance, risk-related blind spots lurk. Most of the time this is not an issue, but can be problematic with the growing complexity of company risk profiles, including: higher NGO and stakeholder transparency demands; nanotechnology; shrinking production cycles; and, social media dynamics, to name a few. A compliance perspective also limits individual and team innovation and creativity – much to the frustration of leaders who are striving for this. Read More
I am excited to share with you the launch of a new body-of-work at Redinger 360. This work is focused on building Future-Ready Companies, and supporting EHS, sustainability and risk management leaders and teams bring extraordinary value to their organizations.
Future-ready is a term we use to characterize when a company reaches a point where it is providing sustained value, is making positive impacts, and is risk resilient. When future-ready – there is increased ability to anticipate, see, and respond to emerging risks.
Risk management is central to business continuity and organizational health. Structures and systems are developed for it, but time and again, organizations report challenges with developing risk management frameworks that provide confidence. Challenges include:
- Building an organization-wide view of risks
- Knowing supply-chain and strategic partner risks
- Breaking down organizational silos
- Anticipating operational and reputational risks from shrinking product cycles
- Increasing stakeholder expectations and unknown risks with evolving sustainability reporting and social business pressures
Two recent surveys present valuable and varied information about what senior executives and board members view as current organizational risks.
The first is Executive Perspectives on Top Risks for 2013, Key Issues Being Discussed in the Boardroom and C-Suite, conducted and reported by North Carolina State University’s ERM Initiative at the Poole College of Management and Protiviti Risk Management Consulting. They conducted a survey of 205 business executives about what risks were most likely to affect their organization in the near term. Respondent organization revenues ranged from over $10 billion to less than $100 million annually.
Sustainability reporting continues to be front and center in the sustainability space. GRI just released the next generation of its sustainability framework, called G4, and the IIRC is poised to publish an integrated reporting framework at the end of 2013; there is still time to provide input to the IIRC framework structure – comments will be accepted through mid-July.
Boston College’s Center for Corporate Citizenship and Ernst & Young (BC/EY) recently published findings of a robust survey conducted on sustainability reporting. The report, titled “Value of Sustainability Reporting,” is packed with useful information and contains an appendix with a nice overview and summary of the main reporting frameworks. It also reports on the continuing evolution of Integrated Reporting (e.g. IIRC) and how these are being advocated by some stakeholders.
Hold on to your seat! ISO recently published a new management system plug-in, with an addition to its 10000 series of guidance documents on quality management. The new standard is called Quality Management – Guidelines on People Involvement and Competence – ISO 10018:2012. It was published on September 1, 2012. The standard states that is intended to support ISO 9001 implementation, and that it also can facilitate “people’s involvement” in other management systems, e.g ISO 14001, 50001, 28000.
Beyond the direct ISO management system implications, my sense is that ISO 10018 will help organizations that been adverse to establishing competency criteria in EHS/S, as well as other areas. Read More
Generation Flux is a new distinction introduced in several recent Fast Company (FC) articles. This notion builds on terms, such as, Gen X, Gen Y, and Millennials, used broadly to describe generational characteristics. I learned about this evolving idea at the AIHA Fall Conference this past week in San Antonio.
This term, coined by FC’s editor, Robert Safian “is less a demographic designation than a psychographic one: What defines GenFlux is a mind-set that embraces instability, that tolerates – and even enjoys – recalibrating careers, business models, and assumptions.” Safian’s articles provide an overview on how numerous large traditional organizations (e.g. Nike, GE) and newer, smaller start-ups are embracing Generation Flux.
Increasing risk oversight is a priority of boards and management since the global financial crisis, but many are unprepared to do this according to a recent report from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). A Framework for Board Oversight of Enterprise Risk presents a nine-step roadmap to help directors identify, understand and address enterprise risk and recognize potential compounding effects when risks collide. The roadmap is sound and also can be a valuable resource for risk management professionals.
The CICA report states “a common concern among boards of directors is the lack of a comprehensive framework and toolsets to assist boards to structure an effective, robust risk oversight process.” Key activities in the CICA framework include: identifying risks; analyzing, validating and prioritizing them; determining risk tolerance and risk appetite; managing risk through various response strategies; and ongoing monitoring. These are similar to recommendations included in ISO’s risk management standard (31000) and their business continuity management system standard (22301). Read More
The importance of water cannot be over estimated. It is of course essential to life. Many businesses have known for some time that it is essential to their products and production process. From an ISO 14001 perspective, companies often list water as a significant aspect. From a business continuity perspective, many companies have identified water (or lack of) as a significant BC threat.
Since my post on July 19, I have been writing short pieces about the new ISO Business Continuity Management System (BCMS), called ISO 22301:2012 and thought about this new management system standard while reading a report from ABC News on work that beverage companies are doing to conserve water. These efforts include building alliances with NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, and proactively protecting watersheds. Read More