Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Dr Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique Corporate Governance Model increasing the bottom line profits for organizations
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj has developed a unique and revolutionary model that can identify the characteristics requisite for effective Corporate Governance within an organization that strikes the ideal balance between the formal and informal rules and regulations. Dr. Maharaj has researched with the top oil and gas, mining, chemical, and pipeline companies in North America. She continues to transform ideas into actions, ultimately increasing the bottom line for organizations.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, GROUPTHINK AND BULLIES IN THE BOARDROOM Dr Rookmin Maharaj
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This research study discusses corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint. It makes a distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations: CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values and groupthink.There are three main conclusions:1) This research clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in board governance.2) Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to board members' decision making. There is, however, a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members' knowledge.3) Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink and three behavioural characteristics should be considered by boards to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members.
Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascos. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past, boards have asked: who are our board members? The most important question a board can ask today, however, is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation? This can be achieved by recruiting new board members who fill the needs of an organisation, in contrast to nominating 'friends' and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
It should be noted that out of the 100 of the largest economies in the world, 57 of these are corporations and 49 are countries. Corporations are powerful entities in our society, operating in a manner similar to representative governments. Like heads of government, at the top echelon of each corporation is the board of directors; their decisions have enormous ramifications for everyone.
Although most citizens have a limited or a passive interest in corporate governance, we each depend on these corporations for jobs, salaries and as investors. Governance of these gargantuan corporations, which wield considerable economic power in the world, concerns each and every citizen.
My research draws novel conclusions about the state of governance today, and presents practical solutions for corporations to consider when selecting board members. The detailed discussion about what happens in the boardroom demystifies board process and provides the bases for three critical objectives when selecting new board members or evaluating current board members performance:
1) ascertain and embellish the knowledge base of directors;
2) motivate directors to share and gather information to ensure personal values are congruent with organisational values; and
3) ensure clear and fluent transmission channels exist to reduce the potential of having groupthink on board.view Dr.Rookmin Maharaj's full journal article at:
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/2050074a.html
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 8:21 AM
Labels: behavior, boards, corporate governance, decision making, directors, Dr. Rookmin Maharaj, oil and gas, SOX
3 comments:
Anonymous said...
nice job
January 13, 2008 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...
What's happening in the different areas in society? Financial? educational? governmental? Just look at the housing market in the US? What impact would this Corporate Governace Model you talk about have on improving the system in these sectors?
January 31, 2008 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...
No one wants to take responsibility when things go bad in a corporation......but when things seem to be going good it is always "I was responsible for implementing this or that." I think that corporations are being run by a bunch of crooks, what do you think?
February 7, 2008 7:57 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
PRE- EMPTIVE FORENSIC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Dr. Rookmin Maharaj
Saturday, January 26, 2008
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses. Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit.
Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).
SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers" (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future.
However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals.
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal Systems Investigated corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint and makes a clear distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations that is, CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:
1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.
2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.
3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrXAnqyB9avT4zvg1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of course it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. This model was developed after two years of research conducted on 1200 CEOs, Chairs, board members and upper management in Canada and the United States.
The premise of my corporate governance model is that nominees to the board are pre screened, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization.
However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider. In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider.
In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him. In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders).
According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’ As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Q: With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?A: This question of more rules and regulations!!!, rules and regulations can only act as a guide. An important issue is who are these people who are chosen as board members?
We NEED TO wake up to reality. If board members are handpicked by management there must be a reason, for example, in a recent high profile fraud case, an experienced, well respected audit chair ‘under oath’ stated that ‘the documents he SKIMMED were prepared by management and counsel, and if anything was INCORRECT he RELIED ON MANAGEMENT TO DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE non-compete agreements’. THIS, MAY I REMIND YOU was A WELL RESPECTED AUDIT CHAIR!
The fact is that he left due diligence to management, in other words he left his job to management, and rubber stamped their decision. The questions remain, was this audit chair unaware that his job involved investigating whether non-compete payments are legal in the pertinent jurisdiction or he was aware of this and instead of ‘causing waves’ or being a ‘trouble maker’ he succumbed to a groupthink mentality?
“Groupthink occurs when a person’s thought process and decision-making capabilities become marred by peer pressure. This may cause the group to overestimate their power and morality, causing the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. This behaviour can encourage an illusion of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encourage the group to take extreme risks” (Maharaj, 2007).
The probability of nominating board members with a groupthink mentality can be reduced by using Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model. Dr. Maharaj’s research is based on both qualitative and quantitative research conducted over a period of two years on over 1,200 executives in both Canada and the united States.Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model suggests that there is a temporal linkage between board characteristics which are Values, Groupthink and Knowledge and the three tools Evaluations, Skills Matrices, Interconnections on Decision-making (Maharaj, thesis, 2007).
Therefore, corporations, Universities, health care organizations, and political institutions, (to name a few) should use Dr. Maharaj’s model to nominate board members who are not afraid to question the status quo or encourage creative tension in the board room instead of being merely parsley on fish. References:Maharaj, R., (2008). International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 68–92 "Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom. "Maharaj, 2007, Thesis Dissertation.
February 7, 2008 6:52 AM
Post a Comment
Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
While corporate failures, such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International Ltd, Peregrine Systems, iVillage, Adelphia Communications Corp, Hollinger International , Barings Bank and the recent Societe Generale bank have focused attention on issues of accounting and financial indiscretion, there is nothing inherently new in the reasons behind these corporate collapses. Neither is there anything original in the media's hurry to name a scapegoat. For example, at “Barings Futures Singapore (BFS)'s [the] management’s structure through 1995 enabled Leeson to operate without supervision from London headquarters. Leeson was not only the floor manager for Barings' trading division on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange, he was also the head of settlement operations. Leeson was responsible for ensuring that accurate accounting information was reported to the unit.
Normally the head of settlement operations and floor manager would have been held by two different employees. In other words Leeson reported to himself. This absence of checks and balances short-circuited normal accounting and auditing safeguards. After the collapse, several observers, including Leeson himself, placed much of the blame on the bank's own deficient internal auditing and risk management practices. People at the London end of Barings were all [know- it- all’s] that nobody dared ask a stupid question in case they looked silly in front of everyone else” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barings_Bank).
SO WHO GAVE LEESON ALL THIS AUTONOMY? WAS IT NOT TOP EXECUTIVES??If …… “Most important, the corrective actions taken to date [cannot] be sufficient to reduce the frequency and magnitude of corporate bankruptcies. …Without changes in the policy-related conditions that contribute to corporate failure, improved accounting and auditing procedures [will] accelerate bankruptcies with little effect on their frequency or magnitude. Almost all of the public and press attention, however, has focused on reducing the accounting violations, not on those policies that contribute to business failure. The major lesson from the collapse of Enron and other large corporations is that the rules of corporate governance do not adequately protect the interests of the general shareholders against the increasingly divergent interests of corporate managers" (www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-22.pdf).
It is argued that a combination of legislation, regulation, effective risk management and appropriate sanctions are needed, if such unethical behaviour, and resulting corporate failure, is to be prevented in future.
However, what is required is an astute, independent, assessment of these financial collapse debacles. This may establish that failures within these companies' corporate cultures and management systems allow, if not encourage, unethical behaviour by key individuals.
COULD IT BE THAT THE CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BOYS CLUB may be the fundamental reason for the blatant disregard and perception of invincibility/groupthink mentality of same.
COULD IT BE THAT ONCE AN EMPLOYEE IS INCREASING THE PROFITS AND BOTTOM LINE OF AN ORGANIZATION HE/SHE IS SHELTERED BY TOP EXECUTIVES, WHO MAY TURN A BLIND EYE TO UNETHICAL PRACTICES?
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj’s research on:Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors:Study of the Importance of the Role of the Formal & Informal Systems Investigated corporate governance issues from a behavioural viewpoint and makes a clear distinction between strict adherence to formal rules and regulations that is, CEO/Chair separation, independence of board members and board size and informal characteristics of board members: knowledge, values, and groupthink.There are three main conclusions from her research and corporate experience:
1. Clearly proves that formal rules and regulations are inadequate; they have little effect upon decision making by board members. Informal characteristics must be considered in unison with the formal system when nominating board members, management and employees in order to restore shareholder confidence and to rebuild trust in corporate governance.
2. Similar values and groupthink can contribute positively to corporate decision making. However, there is a high possibility for groupthink and values to become redundant, masking board members’ and managements’ knowledge thus affecting their decision making process.
3. Skills matrices that include questions related to values, knowledge and groupthink should be considered by corporations to ensure the nomination of well-rounded members, management and employees.Changes to board process, and board decision making, are seminal in preventing future Enron and WorldCom fiascoes. It is only by changing the behaviours of the board of directors, through adopting skills matrices, that sweeping changes can occur.
In the past boards have asked: who are our board members? However, the most important question a board can ask today is: how can the skills and knowledge of our board members be used in service of the strategic direction of the corporation?
This can be achieved by recruiting new board members, management and employees who fill the needs of an organization, in contrast to nominating ‘friends’ and continuing the tradition of the old boys club.
Dr. Maharaj argues that, and has tangible evidence, that what should be done is a forensic audit on 'the people that we hire' and 'employees, managers, board members' should also conduct an audit on their potential employers. What is your opinion?Does your opinion change with this update?According to alleged rogue trader Jerome Kerviel, " his bosses turned a blind eye to his massive, questionable trades as long as he made money for the bank"(EMMA VANDORE, http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ncvzDOrXAnqyB9avT4zvg1iJTQD8UG7MBG0Societe Generale Board Meets).
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 2:05 PM
10 comments:
Anonymous said...
Dr.Maharaj,Do you really believe that the old boys network still work today?
January 29, 2008 11:39 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
The old boys/girls network is alive in many different manifestations. For example, there are many studies/research that indicate that people hire those that are similar to themselves. Is this a manifestation of the old boys/girls network? Of course it is!!!
January 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...
How then do you ensure board independence?
January 29, 2008 2:30 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
You can and will ensure board independence by using Dr. MAHARAJ'S corporate governance model. This model was developed after two years of research conducted on 1200 CEOs, Chairs, board members and upper management in Canada and the United States.
The premise of my corporate governance model is that nominees to the board are pre screened, not only regarding their technical knowledge, or who they may know on the board, but on their values. Are their values congruent with those of the organization? Does the potential board member fit with the other board members, will he or she have the will to ask tough questions of other board members and of management? This can be accomplished with an in-depth skill matrix in the pre-assessment stage. Then the post stage follows with an annual peer review and evaluations on each board member including the chair and CEO. These evaluations should be conducted by a (independent) third party.
February 4, 2008 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Why are there so few women on boards?
February 4, 2008 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...
Taking into context recent events in the stock market, should boards have forseen the enormous losses? What could they have done differently?
February 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?
February 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
In recent interviews I conducted with several Chairs, board members, and CEOs, I asked questions about “boards’ foresight regarding situations that are just inappropriate, whether the actions or inaction by management and the board manifest as losses to shareholders or blatant fraud perpetrated by the board and management.” The general consensus is that boards’ are in a position to govern, not manage the day to day operations of an organization.
However, if the board realizes that the CEO/management are taking advantage of stakeholders, there is lag time that it takes to actually oust a CEO and this affects the amount of losses that may occur. In order to reduce the probability of management/CEO taking advantage of stakeholders, boards members must be vigilant and astute by questioning management if they have concerns about risky projects or are aware of improper risks being undertaken by management and quick and precise action should be taken by the board to rectify the indiscretion.However, there is not only the principal-agent problem for shareholders/stakeholders to consider. In today’s global economy stakeholders cannot depend solely on the invisible hand. Stakeholders must investigate and look at who are the board members. Is there collusion between board and management, there is the ‘old boys’ network’ to consider.
In a recent high profile fraud case one board member (a well RESPECTED U.S. attorney) stated that he ‘skimmed’ documents that were given to him by management since he believed that if there was anything amiss management would have advised him. In other words this example suggests that board members are yes men/women to management. A reasonable person may be under the impression that the board of directors will enforce and ensure that the agents (CEO/management) will not take unfair advantage of the principals (investors, shareholders and all stakeholders).
According to modern governance theory the board of directors is considered the intercessor to the principal-agent problem. But in most of our corporations in Canada and the United States the principals are the agents they are one and the same or alternatively this is called the ‘small pool problem.’ As investors, community members, and stakeholders we as individuals must make a concerted effort to exercise our right as shareholders/stakeholders to ensure we police the police (board members), remember we can attend annual meetings and chose to vote out the board.
February 6, 2008 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
February 7, 2008 6:50 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Q: With all the regulations in existence, there are still too many corporate scandals. How can this be avoided,if at all?A: This question of more rules and regulations!!!, rules and regulations can only act as a guide. An important issue is who are these people who are chosen as board members?
We NEED TO wake up to reality. If board members are handpicked by management there must be a reason, for example, in a recent high profile fraud case, an experienced, well respected audit chair ‘under oath’ stated that ‘the documents he SKIMMED were prepared by management and counsel, and if anything was INCORRECT he RELIED ON MANAGEMENT TO DRAW HIS ATTENTION TO THE non-compete agreements’. THIS, MAY I REMIND YOU was A WELL RESPECTED AUDIT CHAIR!
The fact is that he left due diligence to management, in other words he left his job to management, and rubber stamped their decision. The questions remain, was this audit chair unaware that his job involved investigating whether non-compete payments are legal in the pertinent jurisdiction or he was aware of this and instead of ‘causing waves’ or being a ‘trouble maker’ he succumbed to a groupthink mentality?
“Groupthink occurs when a person’s thought process and decision-making capabilities become marred by peer pressure. This may cause the group to overestimate their power and morality, causing the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. This behaviour can encourage an illusion of invulnerability, creating excessive optimism and encourage the group to take extreme risks” (Maharaj, 2007).
The probability of nominating board members with a groupthink mentality can be reduced by using Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model. Dr. Maharaj’s research is based on both qualitative and quantitative research conducted over a period of two years on over 1,200 executives in both Canada and the united States.Dr. Maharaj’s Corporate Governance decision making model suggests that there is a temporal linkage between board characteristics which are Values, Groupthink and Knowledge and the three tools Evaluations, Skills Matrices, Interconnections on Decision-making (Maharaj, thesis, 2007).
Therefore, corporations, Universities, health care organizations, and political institutions, (to name a few) should use Dr. Maharaj’s model to nominate board members who are not afraid to question the status quo or encourage creative tension in the board room instead of being merely parsley on fish. References:Maharaj, R., (2008). International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 5, 68–92 "Corporate governance, groupthink and bullies in the boardroom. "Maharaj, 2007, Thesis Dissertation.
February 7, 2008 6:52 AM
Post a Comment
Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN THE UPSTREAM PETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN CANADA Rookmin Maharaj
Sunday, January 13, 2008
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN THE UPSTREAM PETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN CANADA
OBJECTIVES :There are four different reporting guidelines that could be used by Canadian upstream petroleum companies in the preparation of sustainability reports. These four guidelines are:• Enhanced Business Reporting Framework (EBR);• Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI);• Sustainability Reporting Guidelines by International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) and American Petroleum Institute (API); and• Stewardship Benchmarking Guide produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).The current research compares these guidelines and attempts to determine what obstacles they present, if any, for both preparers and users of sustainability reports. We present recommendations for streamlining the reporting process and making it easier to access sustainability information for use in decision making.Please visit the published report at:http://www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 12:24 PM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
SUSTAINABILITY REPORTING IN THE UPSTREAM PETROLEUM INDUSTRY IN CANADA
OBJECTIVES :There are four different reporting guidelines that could be used by Canadian upstream petroleum companies in the preparation of sustainability reports. These four guidelines are:• Enhanced Business Reporting Framework (EBR);• Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI);• Sustainability Reporting Guidelines by International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) and American Petroleum Institute (API); and• Stewardship Benchmarking Guide produced by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).The current research compares these guidelines and attempts to determine what obstacles they present, if any, for both preparers and users of sustainability reports. We present recommendations for streamlining the reporting process and making it easier to access sustainability information for use in decision making.Please visit the published report at:http://www.iseee.ca/iseee/files/iseee/ABEnergyFutures-09.pdf
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 12:24 PM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES Rookmin Maharaj
Sunday, January 13, 2008
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES
Teaching is a profession which is so enormous and so packed with significance that the issues related to it have a consistently high ranking with members of society in virtually every public opinion poll. These issues include multicultural education, teacher training and accreditation, burn-out, teaching under conditions particular to a worldwide certain country, student behavior and preparation, computers in the classroom, parental influence on the teaching process, the changing curriculum and its meaning for teaching, budgetary problems, and a multitude of similar issues. This new book presents issues current to the field from educators and researchers from around the globe.Table of Contents: Chapter 4.- Developing Critical Thinking Skills through the use of Computer-Mediated Conferencing; pp. 79-99
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 8:57 AM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
PERSPECTIVES ON TEACHING AND TEACHER ISSUES
Teaching is a profession which is so enormous and so packed with significance that the issues related to it have a consistently high ranking with members of society in virtually every public opinion poll. These issues include multicultural education, teacher training and accreditation, burn-out, teaching under conditions particular to a worldwide certain country, student behavior and preparation, computers in the classroom, parental influence on the teaching process, the changing curriculum and its meaning for teaching, budgetary problems, and a multitude of similar issues. This new book presents issues current to the field from educators and researchers from around the globe.Table of Contents: Chapter 4.- Developing Critical Thinking Skills through the use of Computer-Mediated Conferencing; pp. 79-99
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 8:57 AM
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Newer Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Mahatma Gandhi
VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mahatma Gandhi.s Ideas as Seen through the Eyes of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru TodayPlease visit Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's article at:http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 9:00 AM
2 comments:
Anonymous said...
If Ghandi was alive today what are some comments,in your opinion, would he have made pertaining to global warming?
February 7, 2008 8:00 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Global warming is a term used very loosely today, according to wikipedia.org, “the term "global warming" is a specific example of climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In common usage, the term refers to recent warming and implies a human influence. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes. Human influence in this case refers to our influence on the earth due to our everyday activities as humans. Our everyday activities as humans are influenced by our needs, however, in 2008 our needs are overshadowed by our WANTS. Our WANTS as humans are dictated by big business, marketing enterprises and the invisible hand(s). Let us take a look at what are some of the causes of global warming:Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants In 2002 about 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. Coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry. (US Emissions Inventory 2004 Executive Summary pg. 10).Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars About 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps.)(US Emissions Inventory 2006 pg. 8)The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day.If Mahatma Gandhi was alive today I do not think his comments with regard to global warming would be any different to his advise in 1947 as mentioned in the Journal article VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Mahatma Gandhi noted that we as humans, fail to ask a fundamental question which the Mahatma used as a benchmark to determine the viability of progress, the question is:“Does moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?Mahatma Gandhi believed, if we use this gauge when initiating any technological advancement we may avoid reaping the negative or adverse effects of development in the long term. Like the business of poverty or the business of the reintroduction of once eradicated diseases or the business of the sale of weaponery, the business of global warming is now the new fad. One person has even won the nobel prize for mass producing a sophisticated power point presentation about this topic. I conclude my answer to your question “If Ghandi was alive today what are some comments,in your opinion, would he have made pertaining to global warming?” with the conclusion in my Journal article VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:Conclusion:Bapu, it would be foolish to assume that we have all the answers to our current global problems in the form of Purna Swaraj and sustainable initiatives. However, you once advised another discouraged soul saying, .Please do not carry unnecessarily on your head the burden of emancipating India [or the world]. In your emancipation is the emancipation of India [and the world]. All else is make-believe. Additionally, your prophetic words echo our woes today: It is not the British [or globalization] that are responsible for the misfortunes of India [or the world] but we who have succumbed to modern civilization [marketing ploys of big multinationals]. And the solution: It is not an attempt to go back to the so-called ignorant Dark Age. It is an attempt to see beauty in voluntary simplicity, poverty and slowness. (xvi). Extrapolating the words of the Bhagavadgita to this context, being able to discriminate between what is truth and what is untruth with respect to honouring our sacred earth is of prime essence. It was because of our inability to discriminate that India was lost to the British in the first place. Are we to lose our earth in the same way? This means, of course, that as consumers each one of us can effect positive changes. We can compost our vegetable waste in our gardens We can plant vegetables. We can try to encourage manufacturers to reduce packaging (they will change if we as consumers do not buy over-packaged products). We have to stop following the Jones’s or Singhs and carpool and reduce our carbon emissions. We can refuse to change our cars only for the sake of getting the latest model. We can look into the viability of using wind power or solar power. It is amazing how much electricity can be generated from one windmill. These are just some small steps, but I truly believe like you, Bapu, that when others see the positive tangible results in small initiatives, bigger things can happen. As you said, India [the world] was once looked upon as a golden land, because Indians [people] then were people of sterling worth. The land is still the same but the people have changed and that is why it has become arid. To transform it into a golden land again we must transmute ourselves into gold by leading a life of virtue. The philosopher .s stone which can bring this about consists of two syllables: satya (truth). If therefore every Indian [person] makes it a point to follow truth always, India [the world] will achieve swaraj as a matter of course. (xlii). Make no mistake if the West does not outwardly look polluted, as for example Calgary. We just need to drive a few miles to Caroline, Alberta, where sour gas wells are emitting volumes of toxic waste in the air. In Fort Mc- Murray, the oil sand complexes emit thousands of pounds of raw toxic waste both in the air and in the rivers and streams (refer to endnote 6). Today it is essential for each one of us to know that governments can sustain geographical borders, but there are no borders that can contain toxins spreading from one part of the earth to the other by air or water. We have to adhere to satya; we have to know that we are all abusing our earth and find ways to reduce our footprints that we will all leave on this very sacred earth. Yours,Jawaharlal (Maharaj, R. 2006)
February 12, 2008 8:16 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Mahatma Gandhi.s Ideas as Seen through the Eyes of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru TodayPlease visit Dr. Rookmin Maharaj's article at:http://www.advaitaashrama.org/pb_archive/2006/PB_2006_September.pdf
Posted by Dr. Rookmin Maharaj at 9:00 AM
2 comments:
Anonymous said...
If Ghandi was alive today what are some comments,in your opinion, would he have made pertaining to global warming?
February 7, 2008 8:00 AM
Dr. Rookmin Maharaj said...
Global warming is a term used very loosely today, according to wikipedia.org, “the term "global warming" is a specific example of climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In common usage, the term refers to recent warming and implies a human influence. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes. Human influence in this case refers to our influence on the earth due to our everyday activities as humans. Our everyday activities as humans are influenced by our needs, however, in 2008 our needs are overshadowed by our WANTS. Our WANTS as humans are dictated by big business, marketing enterprises and the invisible hand(s). Let us take a look at what are some of the causes of global warming:Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants In 2002 about 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. Coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry. (US Emissions Inventory 2004 Executive Summary pg. 10).Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars About 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps.)(US Emissions Inventory 2006 pg. 8)The United States is the largest consumer of oil, using 20.4 million barrels per day.If Mahatma Gandhi was alive today I do not think his comments with regard to global warming would be any different to his advise in 1947 as mentioned in the Journal article VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Mahatma Gandhi noted that we as humans, fail to ask a fundamental question which the Mahatma used as a benchmark to determine the viability of progress, the question is:“Does moral progress increase in the same proportion as material progress?Mahatma Gandhi believed, if we use this gauge when initiating any technological advancement we may avoid reaping the negative or adverse effects of development in the long term. Like the business of poverty or the business of the reintroduction of once eradicated diseases or the business of the sale of weaponery, the business of global warming is now the new fad. One person has even won the nobel prize for mass producing a sophisticated power point presentation about this topic. I conclude my answer to your question “If Ghandi was alive today what are some comments,in your opinion, would he have made pertaining to global warming?” with the conclusion in my Journal article VILLAGE SWARAJ AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:Conclusion:Bapu, it would be foolish to assume that we have all the answers to our current global problems in the form of Purna Swaraj and sustainable initiatives. However, you once advised another discouraged soul saying, .Please do not carry unnecessarily on your head the burden of emancipating India [or the world]. In your emancipation is the emancipation of India [and the world]. All else is make-believe. Additionally, your prophetic words echo our woes today: It is not the British [or globalization] that are responsible for the misfortunes of India [or the world] but we who have succumbed to modern civilization [marketing ploys of big multinationals]. And the solution: It is not an attempt to go back to the so-called ignorant Dark Age. It is an attempt to see beauty in voluntary simplicity, poverty and slowness. (xvi). Extrapolating the words of the Bhagavadgita to this context, being able to discriminate between what is truth and what is untruth with respect to honouring our sacred earth is of prime essence. It was because of our inability to discriminate that India was lost to the British in the first place. Are we to lose our earth in the same way? This means, of course, that as consumers each one of us can effect positive changes. We can compost our vegetable waste in our gardens We can plant vegetables. We can try to encourage manufacturers to reduce packaging (they will change if we as consumers do not buy over-packaged products). We have to stop following the Jones’s or Singhs and carpool and reduce our carbon emissions. We can refuse to change our cars only for the sake of getting the latest model. We can look into the viability of using wind power or solar power. It is amazing how much electricity can be generated from one windmill. These are just some small steps, but I truly believe like you, Bapu, that when others see the positive tangible results in small initiatives, bigger things can happen. As you said, India [the world] was once looked upon as a golden land, because Indians [people] then were people of sterling worth. The land is still the same but the people have changed and that is why it has become arid. To transform it into a golden land again we must transmute ourselves into gold by leading a life of virtue. The philosopher .s stone which can bring this about consists of two syllables: satya (truth). If therefore every Indian [person] makes it a point to follow truth always, India [the world] will achieve swaraj as a matter of course. (xlii). Make no mistake if the West does not outwardly look polluted, as for example Calgary. We just need to drive a few miles to Caroline, Alberta, where sour gas wells are emitting volumes of toxic waste in the air. In Fort Mc- Murray, the oil sand complexes emit thousands of pounds of raw toxic waste both in the air and in the rivers and streams (refer to endnote 6). Today it is essential for each one of us to know that governments can sustain geographical borders, but there are no borders that can contain toxins spreading from one part of the earth to the other by air or water. We have to adhere to satya; we have to know that we are all abusing our earth and find ways to reduce our footprints that we will all leave on this very sacred earth. Yours,Jawaharlal (Maharaj, R. 2006)
February 12, 2008 8:16 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
