120 likes | 133 Views
STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION IN EHF GOVERNANCE. Stakeholder integration in EHF governance. THE LONG WAY TO STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION IN THE EHF THE STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES ACHIEVED RESULT ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION AS A TOUCHSTONE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE A DYNAMIC PROCESS.
E N D
Stakeholderintegration in EHF governance • THE LONG WAY TO STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION IN THE EHF • THE STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES ACHIEVED • RESULT ASSESSMENT • STAKEHOLDER INTEGRATION AS A TOUCHSTONE FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE • A DYNAMIC PROCESS
The long way to stakeholderintegration in the EHF • November24 2006: foundation Group Club Handball inspired by soccer G14. • October 2007 / Rome Congress • 4 EHF ExecutiveCommittee motions rejected by Congress • January 2008 / Lillehammer Congress • GER motion adoptedinvolvingprofessionalleagues • September 2008 / Vienna Congress • No progress
The long way to stakeholderintegration in the EHF (2) • April 21 2009 • Complaint lodgedwith EU Commission against EHF and IHF by ASOBAL and FCH • Players’ release to national teams • Exclusion of clubs fromgovernance • Prohibition to resort to civil courts of justice • October 2009 / Limassol Congress • ExecutiveCommittee motion to create Professional Handball Board • rejected
The long way to stakeholderintegration in the EHF (3) • ExecutiveCommittee motion to allowresorting to civil courts of justice • Adopted • October 2010 / CopenhagenCongress • ExecutiveCommittee motion to create Professional Handball Board • Adopted • Specificrun up to Congress • Conference of Presidents (May 2010) • Withdrawal of FCH complaint
The long way to stakeholderintegration in the EHF (4) • Processevaluation • 5 Congresses • 4 years • FCH leadership • Quality of EHF / FCH dialogue • Need for legal pressure • Benefit to all stakeholders • Accelerator of development for stakeholders • First PHB meeting : November 24 2010
The long way to stakeholderintegration in the EHF (5) • Processevaluation (continued) • Feeling of deprivement on the part of national federations • Concept of power-sharing perceivednegatively • Issue of democratic dialogue • Motions rejectedbecause of • Toomuchprecision • Not enoughprecision
The structural and operational changes achieved • Politicalleadership and administration • Shared information • Sharedresponsibility • Co-leadership • ExecutiveCommitteeremainsonlydecsion-making body betweenCongresses • Specificdevelopment in EHF Marketing
Resultassessment • New forum combiningdemocraticelegitimacy and sectional expertise • Impact on stakeholders • Nations • Clubs • Players • Leagues • Specific issue of Women’s Handball Board
Stakeholderintegration as a touchsone for good governance • Solidarityof European handball • Qualitative development of EHF workingmethods • Qualitative development of stakeholder groups • Addedquality of joint approach • Cf. EuropeanGamesdebate • Specificdevelopment of EHF Marketing • Impactedmost areas listed in PolishMinistry’s Code of Good Governance
A dynamicprocess • Co-responsibility in economic leadership of European club competitions • Memoranda of Understanding • Players’ representation • League’srepresentation • Creation of women’s nations’ board • Creation of women’sprofessional handball board