Consider this: have you ever found yourself in a situation where you had to choose from a multitude of recipes, all seemingly similar? How would you decide (assuming the reviews are comparable)? Now, imagine these recipes come with a price tag, each one significantly different from the other. Which one would you choose? Something affordable, mid-range, or high-end? Your budget might dictate your decision, but what if you have some discretionary spending?
This recipe problem is the experience of many people I work with.
Yesterday, for example, I spoke to a renewable energy company. They’re seeking investment to expand and acquire projects in new markets. As a condition of the investment, they must enhance their risk management framework (environmental, social, integrity). My role (supporting investors and investees) is to assess risks, identify gaps in the existing framework, and develop a rightsized and realistic action plan.
On the call, we discussed a bunch of things, including:
👉 How to risk-rank third-parties (including major contractors). 👉 How to monitor fraud risk exposure. 👉 How to set up a low-cost whistleblower system. 👉 How to triage issues (allegations, whistleblower concerns, audit findings, etc.). 👉 How (not) to investigate said issues.
The senior leaders - experienced and having previously worked internationally with reputable multinational renewable firms - knew what the end product should look like but not which recipe to choose. They could go to market and look for recipes (law firms, advisors, even freelancers). But how do they choose the recipe most likely to secure their desired outcome?
For those of you working in-house in risk-mature firms, can you help your key suppliers, partners, investees, etc.? How? By creating a toolkit with simple guides and resources on familiar topics (like those above). Sharing is caring, and it’ll achieve a world more than tick-box due diligence forms requiring simple Y/N answers to questions that sit on a continuum.
If that’s not feasible (capacity, IP, or other concerns), guide them to the better recipes. You’ve probably made the dish many times if you’ve worked across several organisations. That insight is gold for people wanting to do the right thing but unsure how.
After every Ethics Insight project, I review the output and determine what could be anonymised, sanitised, and generally made more accessible. Over those five years, this led to a library of ~230 pieces of content, resources, policies, tracking tools, etc. So, when I’m asked those “how” questions, it’s easier to share a few examples (or customise them if the scope allows).
Most advisors aren’t incentivised to commoditise knowledge. Hourly billing is antithetical to knowledge conservation; it’s better to do it ground-up each time, charging for every minute. As a purchaser and seller of services, I now see both sides. It takes years to acquire knowledge and do things efficiently. That has a value. But indeed, there’s a middle way. Back to the recipe analogy:
Private chef work (in my world, onsite advisory, like investigative support) costs the most. Then, there’s a restaurant (a selection of options customised for the consumer). Next, we have cookery classes (guided implementation support with pre-defined ‘ingredients’). Finally, cookbooks, blogs, videos, etc., for mass-market consumption (that library of resources).
Where can you use the cookbook approach with the content you create, supporting key stakeholders accordingly? If we want to reduce supply-chain, third-party, or whatever-we-call-it risks, we need to change the existing models to help them quickly select recipes that satisfy their needs.
Conflicted weight loss
Weight loss drugs are all over the news. I read, with interest, this article by Tortoise Media about possible/inferred conflicts of interest involving the drugs’ development (text extract for those short on time, below). Why raise this? Conflicts of interest are a recurrent topic and challenge in every organisation I’ve come across. But they’re often daunting and confusing for employees: when, what, and to whom should I disclose?
This article highlights what a challenging, sometimes grey, and confusing area this can be. Why is that good? Discussing these situations helps organisations arrive at a collective approach, spurs learning, and destigmatises a human challenge.
Not the whole picture. Dr Piotr Ozieranski, who researches conflicts of interest at the University of Bath, analysed the ABPI’s disclosure database and reports published on Novo’s Nordisk’s website, which found:
- Between 2015 and 2021 the company more than doubled its spending on research and development in the UK from £5.3 million to over £13 million. This includes payments to unnamed healthcare professionals and organisations.
- Novo also increased payments to named healthcare organisations, professionals and patient organisations from £5.7 million to £8.1 million.
This doesn’t mean the studies based on the SELECT trial are unreliable or the results are inaccurate. The researchers all declared their interests and there is nothing to suggest they were unduly influenced.
But… Ozieranski says there are “clear and proven risks” associated with conflicts of interest which “can have a detrimental impact on patient health and safety” if medical professionals prioritise their interests over providing care.
Ozempic and CoI: