Showing posts with label board of directors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label board of directors. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

What is participatory decision-making?

Image via Community Empowerment Collective

The World Bank released a report in 2005 in which the authors succinctly describe five core principals of participatory decision-making that they suggested be implemented across World Bank policy and decision-making. Find these copied below. Their suggested principals could easily be applied to any governing institution. These principals applied to local, state and national governing methods, would go FAR in strengthening democracy at its core.

Click HERE to access the document in pdf.

Check it out:

Transparency and Access to Information. Effective transparency mechanisms make information available to citizens in ways that the information can influence their political choices. They provide complete information about activities and options before key decisions are made, and in local languages, culturally appropriate formats, and in ways that are readily accessible and affordable.

Inclusiveness. Inclusiveness requires that all people have the opportunity to participate in making decisions that will directly affect their lives. In particular, it involves bringing in politically disenfranchised or marginalized groups that might ordinarily be excluded from decision-making processes. This may include efforts to systematically identify all those whose rights may be affected or who may bear the risks associated with the decision; and to reach out to them and provide whatever assistance they may need to participate (e.g. translation services, travel support, etc).

Quality of Discourse and Deliberation. Deliberative processes allow affected people to freely and equally express their competing interests, perspectives, and visions of the public good. For decision-making to be based on deliberation rather than raw political power, marginalized stakeholders must be enabled to participate on an equal basis with more entrenched interests. Thus, where contested issues are highly technical, all participants should have comparable access to the expertise necessary to independently challenge the technical claims of other parties. Participants must also have the option to withhold their consent to an agreement if their concerns are not adequately addressed.

Fairness under Rule of Law. Fairness requires that both the process and its substantive outcomes comport with shared principles of justice and equity. Procedural fairness requires that policies, rules and standards be developed and enforced in impartial and predictable ways, and that processes of representation, decision-making and enforcement are clear, mandatory and internally consistent. Substantive fairness requires that the distribution of costs, benefits and risks from policy outcomes are just and equitable.

Accountability. Accountability implies that decision-makers must answer for their actions and, depending on the answer, be exposed to potential sanctions. Accountability mechanisms allow citizens to control the behavior of government officials and representatives to whom they have delegated public power. Effective accountability mechanisms require compliance and enforcement. Compliance involves evaluating their actions against clear standards that are based on publicly accepted norms. These include both procedural standards (regarding transparency, inclusiveness, etc.) and standards for assessing outcomes (e.g., on poverty reduction, social equity, and human rights). Enforcement involves imposing sanctions for failing to comply with those standards.

These principles can help to structure participatory, responsive and predictable decision-making processes that can lead to better, more sustainable development outcomes by reconciling competing interests and visions of the public good through deliberation and negotiation. To do so, they must be applied with an eye towards redressing the profound inequities of voice, access and political power between different interests in development debates. If they are applied in this way, they can be powerful tools to enhance the capacity of poor and marginalized people to influence the decisions that affect their lives. If they are not, they are unlikely to improve outcomes very much.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Facebook has a woman problem!


A few weeks ago, I blogged on the power of the petition -- it only takes a few seconds of your time to sign a petition, but the impact can be HUGE (which is why change.org has become such a hugely successful organization!). Well, this blog post is dedicated to getting your signatures on a rather interesting issue that relates to very local to global issues -- global impacts of a corporate board, and the world's most popular social networking site, Facebook.

I received an email from a friend and fellow blogger today who is upset by the fact that Facebook is going public and has formed a board on which sit 0, yes, ZERO women.

Here is what she had to say:

Sorry for the group mail, but this is an issue i care deeply about.  I've sat on 2 boards now, and i was the only female director on either of them (and these aren't small companies with 2-man boards; 1 is a UK fortune 500 company with 12+ board members; the other a music major, also with 12+ directors).  There are some women on this chain who have also sat on corporate boards, and i'm sure they could tell a similar story.

There is a real problem with corporate culture when absolutely ZERO value is placed on diversity.  I have seen firsthand how much power a corporate board wields, and I want to see a world someday where corporate actions reflect the diverse thinking / lives / consumption / etc. of a diverse world.  This includes women, people of color, the LGBTQ community, etc.  

Especially for a social networking site like FB, arguably one of the world's most influential corporations, this is entirely unacceptable.  When you have an all-star like Sheryl Sandberg working for you, or external players like Mary Meeker (THE go-to internet guru), is it really that much of a stretch to have ONE female on the board?  (Surely, we aren't all brain dead?)

Let's start with this first step.  And I firmly believe that as things progress, it will no longer be acceptable to not have women on boards, to not have people of color or gay men/women, etc etc.  And maybe I'm being naive, but I think this will in turn change the attitudes and then actions of Corporate America.

I'm writing this to brothers and sisters who recognize this is more than a "woman problem" -- it's a first step to changing a force of power that quite literally shapes the ways that you and I live our daily lives.  Please take a moment to sign, and even better -- pass it on!
-V.


HERE is a link to sign the petition to Mark Zuckerberg to put at least one woman on his board. Seriously? Do we have to do this? It is 2012 not 1950!!!

My friend blogged about this issue at the site she writes for, Qulture. Click HERE to link to her article.

Let's see how this works out...

Peace,

Nisha Namorando Vida
Founding Director
Local to Global Life Works