I trialled a webinar at the end of last year. It didn’t feel right. So why try again?
The last iteration focused on how we (risk professionals) can help make risk relevant to our stakeholders. While it’s essential, it’s a secondary step. First, we need to rightsize risk, and that’s a big job.
As highlighted in a recent LinkedIn post, a recent survey of UK manufacturers found that:
🚦 52% do not have the resources to align with increased customer demands.
🚦 27% receive support from their larger customers to improve ESG.
🚦 45% of respondents said they are not aware of supplier progress.
🚦 Only 1/4 had set more robust supplier requirements on climate.
What’s happening? We all know. Mid-caps and SMEs (the majority of people I work with) are inundated with forms, including all the acronyms - ESG, HSE, GDPR, ABC, AML, EUCSDDD, etc. In the face of this overwhelm, it’s hard to be strategic and to prioritise.
Priority tends to be afforded to whoever (customer, lender, investor, regulator, etc.) is most essential or scary. In this context, we see “governance” given greater weighting - you can more readily measure board composition or the presence of a Code of Conduct. Sometimes, a primary focus on governance makes sense, but we’re talking about manufacturers in this survey. The limited environmental focus is problematic.
Build A Bigger Fence
Creating progressively more onerous controls may not be the best use of resources. As the cost of dog fencing increases, it is presumably more costly (and seemingly more flimsy, too). At some point, the cost-benefit analysis will cease to make sense.
The vacuum is an implied consequence. Your employees aren’t toddlers. When our kids were that small, we needed fences. We can now explain the consequences if we want them to avoid icy lakes/ponds or fires. Much cheaper.
I know, I know, sometimes those explanations fall flat. But there is a vacuum in every context. What vacuums do you use to deter the behaviour you want to discourage?