Postal
Post's take on stakeholders
(3 March 2010) The word "stakeholder" has become one of those warm, fuzzy terms used in management circles to give a vague "nod and a wink" to groups of people who have an interest in the way you manage an organisation's affairs - if corporations talk to their stakeholders, they feel like they have done just enough to demonstrate that they don't make decisions isolated from the community they operate in.
A number of members have contacted the CEPU after reading about Post's revamped "Stakeholder Council", in the Jan/Feb edition of Post Journal. The Journal said the members of the Council represent a mix of business, consumer, local government, LPOs and interest groups, including unions (apparently unions that represent over two-thirds of your workforce are just "interest groups").
We were surprised that the union was supposed to have a seat at the table of the Stakeholder Council. We've been asking for that to happen for nearly a year now, but Post apparently said we were represented by the inclusion of a former senior official, Brian Baulk. Brian's done a lot of work for our organisation and its members in the past, no doubt. But he retired three years ago and while we are grateful for his efforts he does not maintain a day to day link to the CEPU.
When we approached Post about this, it told us that members to the stakeholder council are appointed on an "individual basis for the contribution they are in a position to make".
So groups aren't represented on a stakeholder council - only individuals are. That's a novel approach to stakeholder engagement - in a nation of over 21 million people, Post only talks to nine "individuals" about its products, services and corporate responsibilities.
Should 35,000 individual employees get an individual seat at the Council? How about LPOs - who aren't represented on the council by POAAL (their industry association) - but by one LPO out of SA? Major mail users aren't even represented on the Council. How is that possible?
There is a good group of "individuals" on the Council but when you scan down the list of members, there are a lot of people who are described as "former" or "past" representatives of organisations or stakeholders.
It begs the question: how serious is Post about meaningful engagement with stakeholders by maintaining membership of the council with such distant links to their previous organisation?
And does Post really want to tell the rest of the country that when it is talking with stakeholders about its corporate responsibilities, talking to nine "individuals" not organisations, is good enough for consultation?
It's not right and Post has to get real about consultation and stakeholder engagement.
For more information, contact the CEPU via feedback@cepu.asn.au