ReFED, a collaborative, cross-sector non-profit committed to reducing the $218 billion of food waste in the US, recently unveiled two new tools: a database of innovative food waste solutions, and an interactive map that centralizes federal- and state-level food waste policy to assist advocates and policymakers.

"ReFED's 2016 ‘Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste’ identified concrete opportunities to save money and resources, feed people and create jobs," said Chris Cochran, Executive Director of ReFED. "The Innovator Database and Policy Finder build on the Roadmap by creating a one-stop shop for stakeholders interested in understanding food waste policy and innovation – two levers that have the power to make change across sectors. These tools reveal that food waste reduction is both a source of viable, scalable business enterprise and a potentially significant job generator."

ReFED's Food Waste Innovator Database enables users to explore 400+ commercial and non-profit entities in the dynamic food waste innovation sector, broken down by solution type and geography. ReFED's Food Waste Policy Finder, developed in partnership with Harvard Law School's Food Law and Policy Clinic, features an interactive map that navigates the federal and state policy landscape.

"To reach the national 50% food waste reduction target, we need supportive policies at all levels of government. This year, more than a dozen states are considering new food waste legislation," said Emily Broad Leib, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic. "We hope this tool will help businesses and food recovery organizations better understand the applicable laws so that they can make better food recovery decisions, while also helping policymakers implement better laws and even experiment with new policies to reduce the waste of healthy, wholesome food."

"Tools like the Innovator Database and Policy Finder give public and private sector stakeholders the insights they need to make smart decisions that generate the most impact," said Devon Klatell, Associate Director at The Rockefeller Foundation. "Food is wasted at every broken link in the supply chain, giving all of us a role to play in tackling this critical issue. Repairing those links depends on collaboration across sectors, and we need organizations like ReFED to identify and encourage the opportunities to do so."

"Meeting our national food waste reduction goal depends on the entrepreneurial spirit of innovators, action across the food system, and the strong commitment of funders like The Rockefeller Foundation and Walmart Foundation, and many others. We hope these tools will convene stakeholders who haven't – or otherwise wouldn't – collaborate on food system challenges, and guide them to use insights, backed by robust economics and data analysis, to identify proven solutions to immediately cut food waste," said Cochran.

(Source: ReFED)

Canadians who use medications to improve or maintain their health and wellbeing rely on Health Canada to continue to monitor the safety of drugs it has authorized for use in Canada, and to take prompt action if new risks are identified.

To further advance these efforts, Health Canada is proposing new regulations that would allow it to identify, assess and respond more quickly and effectively to safety issues that emerge after a drug comes on the market.

Under these proposed regulations, Health Canada would be able to require companies to conduct new tests or studies, or to compile new information and report back to the Department.

Companies will also be required to notify Health Canada of any actions requested or required by a regulator in another jurisdiction such as risk communications, label changes, recalls, or licence suspensions. Failure to comply could result in companies being subject to increased fines and penalties which have already come into force under Vanessa's Law.

When the regulations are finalized, these provisions of Vanessa's Law (the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act) that did not come into effect immediately when the law was passed will come into force.

These changes will lead to improved patient safety and better health outcomes for Canadians.

(Source: Health Canada)

Adecco recently launched research which found that almost half of employees (48%) think Artificial Intelligence (AI) will positively benefit them, by helping them to work more flexibly.

The 'Humans vs Robots' report, based on responses from 1,000 board level and senior decision makers and over 1,000 workers in 13 sectors across the UK, reveals the potential impact robotics and AI will have on the workplace.

Despite the rhetoric that robots will steal our jobs and leave us redundant, two-thirds (65%) of employees believe that overall, technology has actually increased the number of jobs available to them. For the world as a whole, the majority also believe that advances in technology will continue to create more jobs than it destroys over the next decade (54%).

Dr Carl Benedikt Frey, Co-Director and Oxford Martin Citi Fellow, Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment commented: "In many ways, robots could enhance careers rather than destroy them. The introduction of automation in the workplace will usher in a time where our jobs will become more creative and involve more social interaction. Although robots will render some occupations obsolete, as technology has in the past, humans and robots will also complement each other in many tasks, creating new types of jobs."

Alex Fleming, Managing Director, Adecco UK and Ireland, adds: "Far from the widespread fear that automation will make employees redundant, our research shows that the workplace of the future could create opportunities for more flexible and fulfilling work. Many organisations and employees are buying into the idea of flexible working, but struggling to implement the reality. Our research suggests that robots could be a significant part of the solution."

A large proportion of workers (87%) across the UK think that computers will make their role easier within the next 10 years and of these, more than half (57%) think their jobs can be made a lot easier. This belief was high in the IT and telecoms sector, in which 68% of respondents agreed. What's more, 58% of UK workers think that the introduction of robots in the workplace will give them greater scope to choose to work on more valuable projects by allowing robots to take on the more routine jobs.

In order to futureproof jobs, however, employers almost unanimously (95%) agreed that upskilling will be essential. In fact, almost two-thirds (62%) of them believe it to be the single most important factor in preparing people for the workplace of the future.

As new jobs are created and existing roles evolve, organisations need to be ready to re-train, deploy and recruit the necessary workers to ensure humans and robots can work harmoniously. They also need to investigate new ways of working that will afford employees greater flexibility.

(Source: The Adecco Group)

In recent weeks, major supermarket chain Tesco found itself penalised after a two-year probe carried out by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), resulting in an agreement to pay a fine of £129 million for overstating profits in 2014. The shock admission by the leading retailer revealed that it had identified an apparent £250 million overstatement of its profits.

The result of the SFO’s large-scale investigation led to subsequent financial and reputational damage, as well as the supermarket chain being faced with significant share-price falls and the intervention of regulators when the admission was made.

David Haylor, Managing Director at Internal Audit Connections (IAC), specialist recruiters of internal audit and enterprise risk staff, provides Lawyer Monthly with insight into how an effective internal audit strategy can help to safeguard an organisation against falling victim to huge financial losses and the subsequent reputational damage.

An Effective Internal Audit Function

In reality, the discovery of a major fraud is rarely a direct result of scheduled internal audits. The scale and resources of the internal audit team do not provide the coverage to ensure all fraud and malpractice can be eliminated. If the fraud involves collusion amongst senior management, it is particularly difficult to unravel the issue with a standard audit approach because the audit trail of individual transactions may well have followed the documented processes and procedures and be compliant.

These types of fraud become apparent only when individuals with a deep insight into a particular area of the business or someone operating at a strategic level notices an inconsistency in the numbers. They may not fully understand the implications of their discovery, but in a well-governed environment these concerns should be passed on to the internal audit team either formally through the “whistleblowing” helpline, which can be anonymous, or – more usually – through an informal conversation where the concern is raised with audit, which may then lead to a more formal audit or investigation.

Mitigating Risks

Time and again, we hear organisations talk about “company culture”, and this remains the most important influence on the successful running of an organisation. Culture permeates all aspects of the organisation’s relationship with the internal audit function. If the audit team faces a “blame” culture, fear and a lack of communication, transparency and accountability, you have the ingredients that can foster negative behaviours and enable fraud and malpractice to thrive.

Themes you consistently observe in top-calibre internal audit functions include:

Strategic Vision – Does the function interact at the strategic level with the C-Suite Executives and is it privy to key decision-making conversations?

Suitable Audit Director – Do you hire an Audit Director with the attitude, abilities and experience to balance the commercial priorities of the organisation whilst also being able to really understand the business and speak truth to power?

Reporting Structure – Do you create a reporting structure that creates genuine independence? This includes the strengths of your non-execs, Board structure, audit leadership and communication and reporting structures.

Empowerment – Do you empower that individual and their team to create their plan on well-assessed risk, or do you push them down a narrow, pre-programmed path?

Value – Do you value your audit team by fully backing their reports, recommendations and talent progression?

If organisations do not see assurance from the perspective described above, they are more likely to be put at risk. If not followed, that business will also miss out on the dissemination of best practice, the ability to take risks that are well understood and a trusted partner able to prevent damage to the organisation.

In summary, a well-led, well-resourced and well-supported internal audit function, combined with assurance centred on empowerment, structure and values, will safeguard an organisation from financial risk. This will also lead to well-understood risk-taking and best practice filtering through an organisation.

However, whilst internal audit does serve to raise red flags, spread best practice and protect an organisation, the scope of internal audit is far broader than just the prevention of financial losses.

Last week UK PM Theresa May announced a snap general election set for June 2017, to "guarantee certainty and security.” Since 2011, parliamentary terms state calls to election every five years and, even before this, elections were commonly only called by prime ministers every four or so years.

This announcement came on the back of previous remarks saying she would not call a snap election, and media tumult has ensued. The House of commons then proceeded to vote in approval of the election, and now two parties are in par facing.

Below, a number of contributors share their thoughts with Lawyer Monthly on the impact, both immediate and long term, of this snap election in the UK.

Liam McMonagle, Partner, Thorntons:

Well, firstly, it seems the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is barely worth the paper it’s written on and hasn’t really made any practical change to the previous position whereby a Prime Minister could call an election more or less at will.

Secondly, it will be interesting to see whether the Brexit vote has changed UK politics to something we’re more used to seeing in Northern Ireland and, recently, Scotland.  There, dividing lines are now set primarily around constitutional issues rather than left/ right.  Labour will want to talk about austerity, fiscal unfairness and degraded public services but the Brexit process is the pretext under which the election has been called and is crowding out most other topics of discussion.

Thirdly, for those of us in Scotland we are probably headed for a messy outcome where all sides could claim victory.  Just gaining one extra seat would double the Tory, Labour or Lib Dem parliamentary headcount who would claim any sort of progress is significant and evidence that SNP popularity has peaked.  Even then, however, the SNP seem likely to retain most of their Scottish seats which would be claimed as endorsement for a second independence referendum and opposition to a hard Brexit in the next parliament.  The most likely outcome - a Conservative win with an increased majority - will leave the UK and Scottish Governments with clear, but diametrically opposed, mandates and policy priorities for the next 4 years as the Brexit process takes shape.

Fourthly, in a world of badly-kept secrets, it’s hard not to be impressed at how quiet the story was kept until Theresa May announced it.

Lynn Sedgwick, Managing Director, Clayton Legal:

The announcement that we are to face an election in just a few short weeks has come as a shock especially since Theresa May has, on several occasions, said that a General Election wouldn’t be until 2020. However, given the huge uncertainty in the air that Brexit has caused, a win for the Conservatives and a clear mandate behind May, should enable the new government to effectively focus on negotiations for a post Brexit Britain.  There are so many ‘ifs, buts and maybes’ surrounding our future relationship with Europe – from trade deals to freedom of movements laws – so I am hopeful that a win for the Tories with a larger majority behind them can only be a good thing for businesses and professionals in the UK. However, a reduction in their overall majority could potentially make ongoing negotiations a rocky road.

Carl Reader, Author of The Start Up Coach, Co-owner of Dennis & Turnbull, Co-founder of The Bear Group:

My belief is that the self-employed space will become a warzone between the two major parties. Whilst Conservatives have historically been seen as pro-business, the recent attack on the self-employed with national insurance changes would have unsettled the vast number of "solopreneurs", the numbers of which have swelled with the increase of platforms such as Uber and Deliveroo. Combined with the potentially dubious practices exercised by some corporates who engage self-employed workers to avoid employment obligations; I believe that Labour will focus on this workforce as a potentially untapped source of voters. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of the respective manifestos!

Anthony Woolich, Head of competition and regulation, Partner, HFW:

Prime Minister May’s announcement of the upcoming snap election is a shrewd move, and one that appears generally to be seen in a positive light across the EU. Having a strong leadership in place, which is unfettered by a domestic political tightrope, is intended to give the UK the best possible chance of a smooth exit from the EU.

A smooth exit is, at the moment, contingent in part on the UK agreeing an exit payment with the EU, with Brussels reported to be starting the negotiations at around €60bn. Following a convincing victory in the snap election, Britain’s leader should have more flexibility to agree terms, and quickly – whereas delays could prolong uncertainty about the UK’s exit terms as well as its future trading relationship with the EU.

There is, however, still a lot of uncertainty for business, as Mrs May’s own line is difficult to determine, as is the likely response of the EU. From a politician who voted remain (although notably, didn’t campaign too strongly on this), to one whose rhetoric has veered towards a hard Brexit, the snap election should allow us to get a better understanding of what an ‘elected-in-her-own-right’ May would do going forward.  Clarification of the EU's position may need to await the outcome of the German election in October 2017.

However, this is not to say that leaving the EU will be easy. Indeed, my conversations with people across the Channel has confirmed that even if the EU does honour its openness to considering a ‘going forward’ deal before we have agreed an exit deal, we are in for a bumpy ride. The EU will want to seek a balance between the message it sends to the other twenty-seven member states, and the UK’s valuable contribution to the bloc including its strong financial services industry, monetary contributions, intelligence and defence, as well as its pre-eminent legal services.

Darren Maw, Managing Director, Vista:

It is inevitable that during this snap election, Brexit will be the biggest campaign battleground.

For lawyers, Brexit has a potentially far-reaching impact, more so than traditional political battlegrounds. EU law as it applies on our jurisdiction will require repatriation, and even settled interpretations may be re-opened. The Brexit government will have to grapple with the thorny issue of where the repatriated powers will sit when they come back from Brussels. In campaigning for votes and attempting to appeal to ever more nationalised (or localised) priorities, there is an increasing risk that legal cohesion will suffer.

Of course it is not just Brexit, calls for a further independence referendum in Scotland take it further still. In pursuing these causes, the narrative ignores the day-to-day value and importance of a largely unified approach to some legal rights heavily regulated by the EU, such as employment rights.

Conversations about repatriation of powers when caught up in issues of 'national identity' (for the nationals of the UK) tend to ignore how we function as a society. The value of a UK wide legislative framework and justice system, which already has some regional variations, should be recognised and valued.

This snap election will be costly, because there is no time for political entities to think through policy properly. It is difficult to be confident in impromptu manifestos that are required to have ever more granular detail.

Recent political history shows the rise of the demagogue - in the US and Europe. In the race to win the popular votes over the next few weeks, we should guard against exploiting the nationalist concerns (or nationalist pride), by repatriation rhetoric of post-Brexit powers, which could cause a genuine issue for the cohesion of our legal system.

Politics of taxation, defence, education and the like are qualitatively different from the legislative protections and freedoms that individual citizens receive, and cannot be inextricably bundled together. Our parliament is our legislature as well as the home of our political leaders - it needs to act like both, including during elections.

Mark Briegal, Partner, Aaron & Partners LLP:

My initial thought is a rather technical constitutional law point that took me back to my days at law school.  One of the precepts of our unwritten constitution is that Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments.  That arcane point means that Parliament is supreme and can’t pass a law that fetters a future Parliament’s rights to pass or repeal laws; there are other checks and balances along the way.

The Fixed Term Parliament Act said no snap elections without a two thirds majority in the House of Commons.  Alternatively, Parliament could have voted on a simple majority to repeal the Act!  At the first opportunity, Parliament voted overwhelmingly for an election; I assume that opposition parties will nearly always want an election in the hope that they will win more seats.

This links interestingly to the whole Brexit question as the European Communities Act passed in 1972 may possibly bind future Parliaments.  Whilst Parliament could easily repeal that Act, it would not undo the treaties made under the act - and that is where the Brexit challenges lie.

Some specific issues affect legislation that was proposed or in progress.

We don’t know what will happen to that legislation in the new Parliament.  One casualty so far is the dropping of the Prison and Courts Bill, which would have altered the whole landscape of personal injury legislation.  This gives lawyers in that field some breathing space - but it is likely to be reintroduced as the current government (if they get in again - as is suggested) are keen on it.

However, the next Parliament is going to be pretty busy with Brexit legislation and so other bills will have little time for debate. For a detailed review of what bills may or not make it through see here.

The big issue with any election is uncertainty, which is not good for business and, following the global political turmoil of the past few years, the public are less certain on opinion polls, so may be nervous of the outcome.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

Google Inc. and a proposed class of AdWords advertisers, represented by the law firm of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, recently announced that they have reached a proposed $22.5 million settlement of claims related to Google's placement of their ads on parked domains and error pages.

Plaintiffs alleged that from July 11^th 2004 through March 31^st 2008, Google failed to disclose to its AdWords customers that it placed their ads on websites known as parked domains and error pages. Parked domains are websites with little or no content, and error pages are websites that users visit when they enter an unregistered address into their web browser. Google denied these allegations.

"We are gratified by this excellent result for millions of AdWords advertisers," said Noah Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe, Lead Counsel for the Class, "It has been a hard-fought nine-year case including an important victory in the Ninth Circuit."

On March 9, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. If the settlement is finally approved, Google will pay $22.5 million into a settlement fund. Under its terms, class members who submit claims will receive payment in proportion to the amount they spent on ads on parked domains and error pages during the class period.

If, during the period from July 11^th 2004 through March 31^st 2008, you were a United States resident who had a Google AdWords account and were charged for clicks on advertisements appearing on parked domains or error pages, you are a class member and may be entitled to a settlement payment.

(Source: Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP)

On April 17^th 2017, seven days into the 2017 Louisiana Regular Legislative Session and two days prior to the deadline for filing bills, Governor John Bel Edwards filed his key piece of legislation, the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT), as House Bill 628 (HB 628) by Representative Sam Jones. A copy of the bill can be found here.

As of last week, indications are that the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee will schedule the bill for a hearing this week. The hearing may span multiple days, and the committee will likely vote on the bill at the conclusion of testimony.

The main components of HB 628 are as follows:

"Louisiana gross profits" is defined as Louisiana gross receipts reduced by cost of goods sold attributable to Louisiana gross receipts.

Entities exempt under HB 628 include:

• Financial institutions
• Insurance corporations
• Non-profit organizations
• Agencies, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions of the state
• Farmers cooperatives, homeowners associations, political organizations and rural electric and rural telephone cooperatives
• Cooperative, nonprofit membership corporations organized for the purpose of supplying electrical energy and promoting and extended the use thereof

There are many other details with regard to the 14-page bill. Ryan's Advocacy team will be analyzing the details, watching for potential amendments and following the bill through each step at the Capitol.

(Source: Ryan)

With the recent tabling of federal legislation Canada continues its march towards the legalization of marijuana. A new State Farm Canada survey released last week found a number of emerging trends which reveal Canadians' perceptions about marijuana use, its safety, and driving while under the influence are evolving.

Generally, the path toward legalization seems to be changing how Canadians feel about marijuana, largely in a more accepting way. One out of 4 survey respondents say that their views on marijuana have changed since Prime Minister Trudeau announced his promise to legalize marijuana. And of those whose views have changed, nearly 70% feel that marijuana use has become more acceptable.

On the issue of marijuana and driving, those who use marijuana see things quite differently from those who do not. One in 10 respondents admit they have driven under the influence of marijuana (45% within the past 12 months), but nearly half of this group say they don't believe marijuana impacts their ability to drive safely. This is an increase of five per cent from 2016, but also shows that users have a very different view of driving while high than the rest of the population. When the same question was asked of Canadians in general, 73% felt that marijuana use would impair the skills necessary to drive.

"It's clear that those who admit to driving while under the influence of marijuana don't believe it's as dangerous as those who don't. With legalization now imminent the need for more public education and awareness is clear, marijuana is a drug, and like alcohol it affects your abilities and senses," says John Bordignon, Media Relations, State Farm Canada. "Law enforcement and the legal system need the necessary tools and laws in place to ensure the safety of all Canadians on our roads."

Marijuana and impaired driving – survey points:

• 80% say they are concerned about people driving under the influence of marijuana
• 83% feel there is not enough information available about the risks associated with driving under the influence of marijuana
• 3 out of 4 don't believe, or are unsure, that police have the tools and resources to identify marijuana-impaired drivers
• 38% believe that stiffer penalties would discourage people the most from driving while high. This is closely followed by stronger road side testing (30 per cent) which jumped up by 11 per cent when compared to the 2016 survey
• 75% said that people who drive while high should have the same legal penalties as those who drink and drive
• 73% believe that people who drive high should be given an impaired driving (DUI, DWI) charge
• 68% do not feel that the Canadian legal system has made progress over the past year to deal with people who drive under the influence of marijuana, whether in the form of testing, legislation or public awareness

Prescription and over-the-counter drugs

The survey also revealed that 86% of Canadians say they have not driven under the influence of a drug, whether prescription or illicit. However, 14% of respondents admit they have driven under the influence of a prescription or over-the-counter drug that was a stimulant or sedative, and 7% of respondents say they have driven under the influence of an opioid (narcotic) medication.

75% of Canadians worry about people driving under the influence of prescription drugs. When asked what age group people associate with prescription drug-impaired driving, respondents were split between people aged 16-25 (27%) and people aged 55 and over (27%). Interestingly, respondents in these two age groups associated their own age bracket with prescription drug-impaired driving the most.

(Source: State Farm)

The legal sector has been praised for leading the way on preparations for the EU General Data Protection Regulation – after a survey revealed other industries are mistakenly ditching reforms because of Brexit.

The regulation, which has been years in the pipeline, is designed to harmonise data protection regulation across Europe and provide citizens with more control over their personal data.

It has been ratified by the UK and is due to come into force in May 2018 – almost certainly before Britain completes its exit from Europe, despite the recent triggering of Article 50.

However, a survey of IT decision makers by information management experts Crown Records Management has revealed some shocking results.

It showed that:

• A quarter of firms have cancelled all preparation for the regulation.
• A further 4% have not even begun preparation.
• 44% think the regulation will not apply to UK business after Brexit.

Results in the legal sector, however, were very different. The results in this industry showed:

• Not a single respondent had cancelled preparations for the EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) – in banking the figure was 33%
• Only 33% thought the regulation wouldn’t apply after Brexit – in banking the result was 55%.
• 44% had already appointed a data protection officer, one of the requirements of the EU GDPR.

John Culkin, Director of Information Management at Crown Records Management, believes the results are good news.

He said: “These results are encouraging for the legal sector because so many other sectors have failed to understand the impact of the EU GDPR and why it will affect them despite Brexit.

“Firstly, it is likely to be in place before any Brexit. Secondly, although an independent Britain would no longer be a signatory it will still apply to all businesses which handle the personal information of European citizens.

“When you consider how many EU citizens live in the UK it’s hard to imagine many businesses here being unaffected. So it is vitally important that the legal sector has understood the implications.”

UK officials and politicians were heavily involved in the drawing up of the new regulation and Culkin believes the general principles behind it are set in stone.

“The reality is we are likely to continue to see stringent data protection in an independent UK rather than a watered down version,” he said.

“Our survey revealed that at least half of companies across the board saw Brexit as an opportunity for Britain to position itself as the safest place to do business through even more robust legislation.

“In fact, this premise was also supported in the legal sector with 55% calling for more robust data protection in an independent UK.

“This means the best course is to prepare now and have a watertight information management system in place as soon as possible. This issue is not going away.”

The EU GDPR will bring in massive fines for data breaches - as high as 20million Euros or up to 4% of global turnover - as well as new rules to ensure privacy is designed in to data policies, plus new rights for citizens to ask for their personal data to be edited or deleted.

(Source: Crown Records Management)

New research has revealed a widespread lack of visibility and awareness of board members amongst Financial Services (FS) employees, with 30% of respondents unable to name a single member of the board at the firm they work for, and more than one quarter saying their board was either barely visible (19%) or not visible at all (10%).

The research with 1,000 UK employees across different sectors, conducted by TLF Research for technology firm eShare, saw 56% of respondents say their board is out of touch with day-to-day operations, while 72% of respondents say the board at their FS company could do more to be visible to employees.

“Two keys elements of good governance and a strong corporate culture are the visibility of the leadership team and a strong employee understanding of what that company stands for and is aiming to achieve,” said Alister Esam, CEO, eShare. “But many FS boards in the UK are not delivering on this, and they must do more to demonstrate transparency and to engage better with their employees.”

FS firms do not compare favourably to the overall findings when it comes to board diversity. While 67% say there is a woman on the board at their organisation, compared to 63% overall, only 52% say there is no-one under the age of 40 or any ethnic diversity, compared to 58% and 55% respectively overall. 66% felt that employee representation in the boardrooms would be a good thing, 11% higher than the overall findings.

“Like most other sectors, FS firms have a long way to go in making their boards more diverse,” continued Alister Esam. “The addition of an employee to the board would certainly add a different perspective and is on the face of it a positive move. However, it is actually fraught with issues, from the possibility of immediate disclosure of company plans to employees, to the selection process of the employee representative, and there are more effective ways of improving senior level diversity.”

“The pressure on boards to behave better and do business in a transparent fashion is greater than ever, and the best place to start is through smarter engagement with internal stakeholders. Most businesses are better governed than they ever have been, but need to demonstrate this more effectively.”

(Source: eShare)