• 10 Apr 2015 4:02 PM | Louise Stokes

    The Benevolent Society, Australia’s first charity, has appointed Joanne Toohey as Chief Executive Officer, after nine months of serving as acting CEO. The appointment comes after an extensive and rigorous nationwide search following the departure of Anne Hollonds in July 2014.


    “Ms Toohey has proven to be an exceptional interim CEO and the Board is confident that she is the right person to lead The Benevolent Society at this point in its more than two hundred year history,” said Lisa Chung, Chairman of the Board.


    “The Board is deeply impressed by Ms Toohey’s capable and calm leadership, and the extent of internal consolidation she has achieved in a relatively short time. We are confident that under her leadership the organisation is building a sound platform for even more success in the future.”


    The Benevolent Society is a not-for-profit, non-religious organisation that has helped people, families and communities achieve positive change since 1813. It is recognised as a leader in developing Social Benefit Bonds, for its centre for leadership development (Social Leadership Australia) and for delivering flexible social support services for families in crisis, people living with a mental illness in the community and older people needing help at home.


    The Benevolent Society has an annual turnover of more than $100million, employs nearly 1000 staff and is supported by 600 volunteers across 55 sites in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. In  2014 the organisation reached more than 84,000 people through its services, programs and events.


    Ms Toohey joined the Benevolent Society in 2013 as Executive Director of NSW Operations, with an impressive track record as a senior executive in the aged care sector with experience in residential and community care and housing services.


    As Director of Operations at UnitingCare Ageing, Ms Toohey was part of a leadership team responsible for 6,500 staff and an annual turn-over of more than $500million.  Previously, as Regional Executive Manager for Property at Uniting Care, she managed a capital budget of $45million and developed a regional strategic plan that included an innovative model to provide low cost housing and care for socially and financially disadvantaged older people in inner Sydney.


    Ms Toohey is excited to have her appointment confirmed: “My goal is for The Benevolent Society to build on our reputation as an innovative provider of services, and become an even greater place to work.  I am motivated by our commitment to social justice and want to see The Benevolent Society continue to be a leader in improving social impact and advocacy for a just society where all Australians are able to thrive.”


    This article originally appeared on the Benevolent Society website.

  • 10 Apr 2015 3:24 PM | Louise Stokes

    From design skills to startup work environments, leaders from the most innovative nonprofit organisation share how hiring is changing.


    Technology and social media is helping nonprofits widen and deepen their reach to the people they serve. "From enabling the poor to access important information such as market prices and pay-as-you-go services, to enabling organizations to collect data faster, cheaper, and more efficiently, mobile is a key component of our future, and this will only increase as we hone new ways to measure social impact," says Jacqueline Novogratz, founder and CEO of Acumen, a nonprofit that raises charitable donations to invest in companies that tackle world poverty.


    This increased access to data will also set the bar higher for talent, according to Thomas Tighe, president and CEO of International Relief agency Direct Relief. Because nonprofits' success relies on being able to prove how they are making a difference, they will have an increasing need for people who can use data to tell that story in the most elegant way possible.


    "If anyone is a behavioral economist that can do infographics and engaging 15-second, socially shareable videos after having analyzed enormous amounts of disaggregated data and also translate the findings into coherent, low-cost activities that demonstrate results—you are desperately needed today and will be worshipped!"


    A more diverse workforce


    With the economy on the rebound, we’ll likely see an increase in charitable giving, which lends itself to the prediction that nonprofits will do more hiring than the private sector over the next five years. "Coupled with the fact that more millennials are entering the workforce with the intention of doing good, the nonprofit sector will be a magnet for top talent, creating a pipeline of future leaders who are committed and skilled at delivering a double bottom line," says Judith Rodin, president of The Rockefeller Foundation.


    In fact, it’s predicted millenials will make up almost half of the U.S. workforce by 2020, and according to several recent studies, this generation more than any other generally places a higher emphasis on incorporating causes and big issues as an integral part of daily life.


    Rodin also predicts the sector will become even more diverse, not just in terms of women and minorities in leadership positions, but also with the inclusion of a more global workforce.


    "The perception of the nonprofit industry is changing significantly, from a ‘nice-to-have’ source of funding and work, to an essential component of a functioning society and economy," Rodin explains.


    She cites one reason as the diminishing business model differences between the not-for-profit and for-profit sectors. "Social-impact organizations are moving towards more operational effectiveness and sustainability, while traditional for-profits seek an infusion of social value and passion. This shift in perception is making us much more attractive as both an employer and a partner," she says.


    How nonprofits can engage a new workforce


    A recovering economy also means the marketplace for top talent is more competitive than ever. "This requires that nonprofits be crystal-clear on their value proposition and what makes them unique—and be able to articulate these in a compelling way," says Anna Maria Chávez, chief executive of Girl Scouts USA.


    "Once an organization has this message down, it can incorporate it into strategies and communications that will attract the right talent," she explains.


    Tighe agrees, citing a nonprofit’s mission as the most powerful attractant of talent. To draw the best, he says, nonprofits have to close the gaps between the challenges they mean to address and how they plan to do so. "Just cursing the darkness of the challenges themselves isn’t particularly inspiring to anyone. The mission matters, but fulfilling it provides meaning to everyone involved, and connecting those pieces is an important part of the bargain when calling people to serve."


    Chávez acknowledges that today’s and tomorrow’s high-potential talent wants to thrive in an agile, fast-paced environment similar to that of the startup. Nonprofits, then, must create a similar environment that will allow people to demonstrate their abilities by implementing dynamic ways of work and removing barriers that might impede them. 


    One key way to do this is by allowing flexible work. "Where you work will not be as important as your ability to deliver with excellence," Chávez explains. "Incorporating practices that support this environment will give nonprofits a clear, competitive edge."


    Tighe admits that nonprofits will likely never be able to match or beat the compensation available to top talent from the for-profit sector. This is further complicated, he explains, by higher levels of student debt for the rising generation of talent.


    "But not all top talent is motivated purely by financial considerations, so finding ways generally to make the nonprofit workplace both more attractive as a job or career and as flexible as possible in inviting the talent to the causes will be essential," he says. What’s crucial, though, is always ensuring these decisions are ultimately sensible and reasonable in advancing the organization’s mission.

    This is an excerpt from a Fast Company article by Rachel Gillett which originally appears here.

  • 10 Apr 2015 3:17 PM | Louise Stokes

    With seemingly unlimited information and networking available online, members are increasingly questioning the value of their membership. At the same time, you know that members who participate more actively, or “engage” with your organization, are more likely to renew. So it makes sense that a strategy for combining engagement and renewal communications should have an impact on your renewal rates.


    An article in Marketing General Inc.’s recent MGI Tipster newsletter  – Improve Your Renewals? It’s Time to Get Engaged – outlines the strategy behind a program MGI designed for one client that saw “a 6% increase in overall renewals”.


    The program MGI proposes includes three steps:

    1. Question Your Value Proposition: At the core of any successful membership marketing program is a constant reassessment and improvement of your value proposition. By value proposition here, we mean the actual value you deliver to your members.
    2. Deploy Binary Member Communications to Engage – designed to enable communication “flow two ways by asking for clicks of feedback” and to ask members their opinion. The communications channels MGI suggests can include: “word of mouth, email, personal calls, your website, social media, and yes, even direct mail when designed with a QR code, special link, or even a faxback form.”
    3. Combine Custom Messages with Monthly Updates: This involves using your typical renewal sequence but using “custom messaging to overlay those renewals. For example, the announcement of the annual conference first appears in April. All April renewal notices, no matter which stage of renewal the individual members occupy, also feature the lavish announcement of the annual convention.”

    In the MGI article, they offer up the formula: Rn = v(m) to illustrate that “maximum success in renewals is roughly equivalent to increasing the delivery of overall value as defined by the members themselves."


    You can read the entire article in the MGI Tipster Volume 14, Issue 3 here.

    This blog post originally appeared on the Wild Apricot blog here.

  • 10 Apr 2015 3:07 PM | Louise Stokes

    “Our strength grows out of our weaknesses.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson


    What do you think your weaknesses are? Are they keeping you from starting something new, from pursuing a dream?


    Sometimes we have fears about our weaknesses without realizing it. Take a minute to think about what you’ve always wanted to do, or what you’re doing now. What are your fears? What do you perceive to be your weaknesses? What are your limitations, and what’s holding you back?


    Take assessment, and then read on to change your mindset about these weaknesses.


    Turn Your Weaknesses Into Strengths


    I won’t be able to do an exhaustive list of weaknesses, but the main thing to learn is to have the mindset where your weaknesses can ALL be turned into strengths. There might be exceptions, but I haven’t thought of one yet. Even if there are, it is extremely useful to always look at your weaknesses and see how you can use them to your advantage.


    First step: examine your weaknesses.


    Second step: figure out your strengths.


    Third step: figure out how to move your weaknesses into the strengths column.


    Here are just a few examples … again, I can’t list all of them and the main idea is to figure them out yourself. The more you practice this mindset, the better you’ll get at it.

    • Not a good public speaker. Be an intimate communicator instead. If you aren’t good at talking to large crowds, talk to small groups or communicate one-on-one instead — and learn to be really good at that. Talk in ways that connect intimately with people, that draw them to you. Learn effective small-group communication and one-on-one skills.
    • Not a good writer. Be a people person instead. If you can’t write a great proposal, make it in person. If you can’t write a great report, do a presentation. If you can’t write a great blog, do a video blog or podcast.
    • Don’t have a lot of money to start a business. Be lean and creative instead. Small is actually an advantage in business. You can develop products without bureaucracy, witha quick turnaround, without too much planning or meetings. You can market using guerilla tactics. You are faster and more nimble than a larger competitor. You can adapt faster.
    • You aren’t fast. So be deliberate. Be more thorough. Be more thoughtful. Work on important stuff instead of cranking out a lot of stuff.
    • Don’t have large blog audience. So be more intimate and build stronger bonds with the small audience you have. Turn them into your biggest advocates, and really get to know every new reader. Have fun with your small audience in a way a bigger blogger can’t.
    • Not a people person. So work on brilliant stuff alone. Find your niche and make amazing stuff with the talents you have. Find people who are people persons to promote your stuff for you.
    • Not organized. Simplify things so you don’t need to organize (if you only have a few things, you don’t need to organize them). Be a creative genius instead of a diligent organized person.
    • Not good with tech. Go low-tech. Work with paper or simple text files. This will allow you to concentrate more on your work rather than always being online, always trying out the latest tech stuff, always learning new coding methods or whatever. Let others figure out technology for you.
    • Don’t have enough time. Great! So take what limited time you have and use it to maximal effect. Limitations are good — they force us to choose, and in doing so, they force us to choose what’s most essential. That increases our effectiveness. Choose only the task that will have the most impact.

    You get the idea! Now get started on turning your weaknesses into strengths — start right now.


    For the original/full article please click here.

  • 10 Apr 2015 2:45 PM | Louise Stokes

    This post originally appeared on LinkedIn Pulse and was written by William Patel


    Leadership is perhaps one of the most important aspects of management. This is because leadership is a major factor which contributes immensely to the general wellbeing & uplifting of organisations. Organisations such as General Electric and Chrysler had been turned around from the brink of bankruptcy to become two of the world’s most profitable organisations through the effective leadership. Great nations like the USA, Britain, France and India are some of the most prominent nations in the world today on the wings of effective leadership. This is because leaders in organisations and nations make things happen. 


    Several theories have and are being put forward to explain leadership effectiveness. Two of the most prominent leadership theories are Transformational and Transactional leadership theories. Since the late 1980s, theories of transformational and charismatic leadership have been ascendant. Although most agree that Transactional and transformational leadership are different in concept and in practice, many believe that transformational leadership significantly augments transactional leadership, resulting in higher levels of individual, group, and organizational performance. Others believe that Transactional leadership is a subset of transformational leadership.


    Transformational Leadership: A transformational leader is a person who stimulates and inspires (transform) followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes. He/she pays attention to the concern and developmental needs of individual followers; they change followers’ awareness of issues by helping them to look at old problems in a new way ; and they are able to arouse, excite and inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals. Transformational leadership theory is all about leadership that creates positive change in the followers whereby they take care of each other's interests and act in the interests of the group as a whole. The concept of transformational leadership was introduced by James Macgregor Burns in 1978 in his descriptive research on political leaders, but its usage has spread into organisational psychology and management with further modifications by B.M Bass and J.B Avalio.


    Transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the project and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them and makes them interested; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that enhance their performance.


    Transactional Leadership: Transactional Leadership, also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of supervision, organisation, and group performance; transactional leadership is a style of leadership in which the leader promotes compliance of his followers through both rewards and punishments. Unlike Transformational leadership, leaders using the transactional approach are not looking to change the future, they are looking to merely keep things the same. These leaders pay attention to followers' work in order to find faults and deviations. This type of leadership is effective in crisis and emergency situations, as well as when projects need to be carried out in a specific fashion.


    Within the context of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, transactional leadership works at the basic levels of need satisfaction, where transactional leaders focus on the lower levels of the hierarchy. Transactional leaders use an exchange model, with rewards being given for good work or positive outcomes. Conversely, people with this leadership style also can punish poor work or negative outcomes, until the problem is corrected. One way that transactional leadership focuses on lower level needs is by stressing specific task performance. Transactional leaders are effective in getting specific tasks completed by managing each portion individually.


    Comparison Between Transformational and Transactional Leadership:


     Transactional  VS   Transformational
    Leadership is responsive   Leadership is proactive
    Works within the organisational culture   Works to change the organisational culture by implementing new ideas
    Employees achieve objectives through rewards and punishments set by leader   Employees achieve objectives through higher ideals and moral values
    Motivates followers by appealing to their own self interest   Motivates followers by encouraging them to put group interests first
    Management-by-exception: maintain the status quo; stress correct actions to improve performance.   Individualised consideration: Each behaviour is directed to each individual to express consideration and support. Intellectual stimulation: Promote creative and innovative ideas to solve problems.

    Transformational and Transactional leadership theories represent bold attempts by researchers to explain the nature and effect of leadership. Both theories have their various strengths and weaknesses’ However, the influence of situational variables on leadership outcomes within the context of both styles of leadership.

  • 10 Apr 2015 10:55 AM | Louise Stokes

    A landmark report by the Alternative Commission on Social Investment, launched in London has wide ranging implications for the Australasian social investment market, according to social impact investor and analyst, Emma Tomkinson.


    After the Gold Rush, the final report of the Alternative Commission on Social Investment, contains 50 recommendations for improving the social investment market.


    Australian analyst Emma Tomkinson said the Commission report is a response to growing recognition in the UK that the social investment market is not meeting the needs of the organisations and individuals it seeks to serve.


    “It was established to take stock, investigate what’s wrong with the UK social investment market and to make some practical suggestions for how the market can be made relevant and useful to a wider range of charities, social enterprises and citizens working to bring about positive social change.”


    The commission was funded with a grant from the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and was led by David Floyd, managing director of social enterprise Social Spider. It was established to assess whether the social investment market in the UK was meeting the access to finance needs of social sector organisations.


    Commission Secretariat and Managing Director of Social Spider CIC, David Floyd said: “We often hear from Ministers, champions of social investment and the G8 that the UK is a world leader in social investment. Yet for charities and social entrepreneurs here in the UK, it doesn’t feel like that.


    “The Alternative Commission on Social Investment was set up to ask why and to make some practical suggestions as to how things could be improved.”


    The report recommends that Social investment in the UK should produce less social investment hype that might inflate expectations, deliver more transparency from lenders and more focus on the needs of charities and social enterprises if it is going to succeed.


    The commission delivered five key areas for action:


    1. Transparency

    • Publish information on all social investments across all investors – with investees anonymised if required (Big Society Capital, SIFIs, the Social Investment Forum). Delegates at roundtables also called for upfront transparency from social investors on:
      • what they will and won’t fund
      • where the money goes
      • the terms of investment
      • how to present a case for investment
      • what the application process will involve

    • Explain if and how social value is accounted for within your investments – do you expect investees to demonstrate their impact as a condition of investment? Do you offer lower interest rates based on expected impact? Are you prepared to take bigger risks based on expected impact? (Big Society Capital, SIFIs)

    2. Wholesale changes

    • Reconsider the role of Big Society Capital – prioritise building a sustainable and distinctively social investment market over securing a sustainable existence for Big Society Capital – (Big Society Capital, Cabinet Office)
    • Consider splitting the investment of Unclaimed Assets and Merlin bank funds. Unclaimed Assets, allocated by law to Social Sector Organisations, could be invested on terms that better meet demand than currently, while Merlin bank funds could be invested in a wider group of organisations, with a focus on positive social value – (Big Society Capital, Cabinet Office)

    3. Social investment is dead!

    • Minimise all forms of social investment hype that might inflate expectations and under no circumstances imply that social investment can fill gaps left by cuts in public spending (Cabinet Office, DWP, MoJ, HM Treasury, Big Society Capital, Big Lottery Fund, NCVO, ACEVO, Social Enterprise UK)
    • Avoid treating the development of the social investment market as an end itself – social investment is a relatively small phenomenon overlapping with but not the same as ‘access to finance for social sector organisations’ and ‘increasing flows of capital to socially useful investment’. These wider goals should be prioritised over a drive to grow the social investment market for its own sake – (Cabinet Office, Big Society Capital)

    4. Long live social investment!

    • Work together in equal partnership with the social sector to develop a set of principles for what makes an investment ‘social’ - (Policymakers, Big Society Capital, Key Stakeholders, SIFIs, Umbrella bodies, the Social Investment Forum, SSOs)
    • Social investors should better reflect and understand the market they are seeking to serve by getting out and about, meeting a broader range of organisations – particularly organisations based outside London – recruiting from the sector and cutting costs that deliver no social value – (SIFIs)

    5. Doing it Ourselves

    • Create a ‘Compare the market’/’trip advisor’ tool for social investment – enabling organisations to rate their experiences and comment – (Umbrella bodies and SSOs)
    • Back yourselves and invest in each other – Social sector organisations should consider cutting out the middleman and developing models where they can invest in each other, where legal and appropriate – (SSOs)

    Emma Tomkinson said the report enables Australia to learn from the mistakes of the UK market. Tomkinson created the Social Impact Bond Knowledge Box for the Centre for Social Impact Bonds at the UK Cabinet Office and also developed the social impact bond concept for application in New South Wales.


    “The report should also encourage us to embrace our own failures and learn as we go. We can build an Australian social investment market that better meets the needs of social purpose organisations and the communities they serve.


    “This is also an important report because it is a reflection on the UK Social Investment market by social enterprises, using information gathered from social enterprises, investors and research.”


    “As the Australian social/impact investment market is still being designed, we have a precious opportunity to learn from the UK and the report has lots of great recommendations that we can easily implement as we go.”


    “We also have an opportunity to correct some of the things that didn't go so well, rather than repeat the mistakes.


    Tomkinson said that the particularly relevant lessons for Australia from the Alternative Social Investment Commission's report are:

    1. Minimise the hype: e.g. “Best available estimates are that the domestic market could reach A$32 billion in a decade (IMPACT-Australia 2013)”. This is not a forecast, but the most optimistic of goals. We can track the progress we do make, rather than set ourselves up for failure and disappointment. We can likewise cease talk of social investment filling the gap left by funding cuts unless there is any evidence that this has occurred.
    2. Increase investor transparency: information on investments made will help organisations seeking finance navigate investors more efficiently. It will also help coordinate efforts and highlight gaps between investors.
    3. Don’t just replicate the mainstream finance market for social investment: some mainstream finance models don't transpose well to social investment - we can develop a social finance market that is fit-for-purpose and takes advantage of modern technology.
    4. Understand the market we seek to serve: we can avoid some of the 'us and them' mentality that has arisen in the UK by seeking and listening to the voice of the investee in order to develop social investment that is useful to them.
    5. Fill the gaps: similar to the UK, there is a funding gap for small, high-risk, unsecured investments. If this is the type of investment we are going to talk about all the time, let's provide it.
    6. Redefine social investors: social investors don't have to be just rich people and financial institutions. In order to achieve the three points above, we should encourage and highlight social investments by social purpose organisations, individuals who are not 'wholesale' or 'sophisticated' investors and superannuation funds. Individual investment currently occurs in Australia through cooperatives, mutuals and small private investment. Crowd-sourced equity funding reform is being considered by the Australian Treasury and may reduce the regulatory burden and cost associated with making investments available to individuals who aren't already rich.

    Download the report and its summary of recommendations at http://socinvalternativecommission.org.uk/home/.


    This articled was sourced from ProBono and originally appeared here

  • 10 Apr 2015 10:20 AM | Louise Stokes

    New Zealand’s tourism industry is in a strong position to take advantage of growth opportunities, according to the State of the Tourism Industry 2014. The report records a year of solid and continued growth, marked by a return to strong international growth for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis.


    Released in March 2015, the report is the latest in an annual series produced by the Tourism Industry Association New Zealand (TIA) and Lincoln University.


    Download the full report and see highlights below.



  • 10 Apr 2015 10:10 AM | Louise Stokes

    The NZAS's (New Zealand Association of Scientists) conference in Wellington today had experts sharing their experiences, and encouraging others, in speaking publicly. The conference, titled Going public: scientists speaking out on difficult issues, focused on exploring the issues surrounding and challenges for experts stepping up and speaking to the public on topical science-related issues.


    NZAS president Nicola Gaston kicked off the day by describing how fear and peer-pressure often discouraged scientists from speaking out.


    “The fear of being wrong is compounded by the myth of scientific expertise, where a person is seen as having to be right all of the time,” she said.


    Dr Gaston said that when dealing with controversial issues there was seldom one right answer, but it was important the right scientists were speaking at the right time.


    The Science Media Centre’s Peter Griffin emphasised the need for scientists to get on the front foot when science issues were in the headlines.


    “Put your hand up, or it is more likely you will get pseudo science and vested interests controlling the narrative.”


    Dominion Post journalist Nikki Macdonald agreed that scientists needed to be heard for the media to get it right.


    “Journalists are looking for information, we want to understand the issue and understand the science. The more access to different voices, the better we have the complete picture.”


    While there were no easy answers, Auckland University researcher Siouxsie Wiles captured the sentiment of the room as she described the difficulties, and rewards, of good science communication.


    “A lot of people say “what the hell do you know about this”, but the reason that I’m here, it’s not about me, it’s about wanting New Zealand to be a scientifically literate country.”


    You can follow the conference on Twitter, using the hashtag #GoingPublic


    This article first appeared on NZ Doctor website here.

  • 10 Apr 2015 9:00 AM | Louise Stokes

    Notes of a  presentation to ASSR September 2007 Forum by Andrew Rae (Stats NZ) and Diana Suggate (OCVS – MSD) about Classifying New Zealand’s Non-Profit Sector For Comparability with International Standards.


    Context


    Diana Suggate, Senior Analyst at the Ministry of Social Development’s Office for the Community & Voluntary Sector, and Andrew Rae, representing Statistics New Zealand’s Non-Profit Institutions team, were part of a research effort that brought together Stats NZ, MSD, Massey University, and private researchers in an ambitious international drive to map the non-profit institutions of more than 40 countries.


    Non-profit institutions contribute almost 5% to the country’s gross domestic product in 2004, and marshal the efforts of more than a million New Zealanders—half of whom made a habit of volunteerism. These findings were part of a presentation to the September Forum by two researchers working across departmental boundaries to produce a taxonomy of the New Zealand non-profit sector. The taxonomy will then become an essential reference for policy makers and help to drive policy.


    The New Zealand team also consulted an expert advisory committee that included Not-for-Profit Sector representatives, several academics, Maori community advisors, and others. The team met an important benchmark a month ago in launching the New Zealand Satellite Account through Stats NZ. Just what a satellite account is, what it allows one to discern, and how the team constituted it, provided the body of the Forum presentation.


    Please find original post here.

  • 07 Apr 2015 12:11 PM | Louise Stokes
    Research into businesses across Australia and New Zealand has found that 34% of companies with offshore operations have encountered a foreign bribery or corruption incident over the past five years – up from 21% in 2012.

    The 2015 Deloitte Bribery and Corruption Survey had respondents from 269 organisations in New Zealand and Australia, finding that 23% had experienced at least one case of domestic corruption since 2010. More than half of these transpired during the last year.

    The survey was the second of its kind conducted by Deloitte, but was the first to ask questions about domestic bribery and corruption. “Almost one in four organisations reporting an incident is a significant level of corruption,” Barry Jordan, lead forensics partner at Deloitte, told The New Zealand Herald. “There is no longer any excuse for complacency against this risk. Apart from the legal ramifications, which can include heavy fines or even jail time, the long term reputational damage from corruption can have serious long term flow on effects on an organisation's bottom line.”

    According to the report, the most common types of corruption cited were undisclosed conflicts of interest, supplier kickback and personal favours. Over 25% of the incidents occurred within organisations with over 5000 employees, while 68% of incidents involved private or business individuals. It was also found that corruption was occurring within all sectors.

    The whistle was most often being blown on domestic corruption in management reviews, internal controls and tip-offs from employees; but in larger organisations with more than 5000 employees, the most common way of informing employers of corruption was via a dedicated hotline.

    “Hotline channels have increasing potential in terms of incident detection and deterrence,” Jordan said, adding that the report’s findings emphasised that large organisations should provide a platform to enable tip-offs to be made.

    Several countries, including China, India and Indonesia, have begun to increase their efforts to combat corruption, the report stated. However, just 31% of respondents with offshore operations reported having a comprehensive understanding of relevant legislations.

    Forty per cent also reported either not having or not being aware of a formal compliance program to manage corruption risk, while almost one in five participants operating in high risk jurisdictions did not discuss the risks at management or board level.

    “A large percentage of respondents do not have adequate systems in place to identify foreign bribery risks, nor have they carried out foreign bribery and corruption risk assessments,” said Julie Read, chief executive and director of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office. “This is surprising given the success of Kiwi companies overseas, in jurisdictions identified by Transparency International as high risk, and where UK, US and NZ legislation all apply. We see the potential for an increase in foreign bribery cases given this profile and would encourage all companies trading in international markets to be proactive in taking steps to identify and respond to risks of foreign bribery in their organisations.”


    This article originally appeared here.



The Australasian Society of Association Executives (AuSAE)

Australian Office:
Address: Unit 6, 26 Navigator Place, Hendra QLD 4011 Australia
Free Call: +61 1300 764 576
Phone: +61 7 3268 7955
Email: info@ausae.org.au

New Zealand Office:
Address: 159 Otonga Rd, Rotorua 3015 New Zealand
Phone: +64 27 249 8677
Email: nzteam@ausae.org.au