1 / 23

PRESENTER Greg M. Ilag Executive Director International Leadership Advisory Group, New York

International Conference on Governance Across Ethics, Culture, and Citizenship (What to give and what to expect). PRESENTER Greg M. Ilag Executive Director International Leadership Advisory Group, New York DBA Candidate, University of Phoeni x. RESEARCH TOPIC.

dalton
Download Presentation

PRESENTER Greg M. Ilag Executive Director International Leadership Advisory Group, New York

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Conference onGovernance Across Ethics, Culture, and Citizenship(What to give and what to expect) PRESENTER Greg M. Ilag Executive Director International Leadership Advisory Group, New York DBA Candidate, University of Phoenix

  2. RESEARCH TOPIC An Examination of the Entity Participant’s Collaborative Partnerships within the United Nations Global Compact

  3. An Examination of Entity Participants’ Collaborative Partnership within the United Nations Global Compact Quantitative Method with Cross-sectional design Survey Questions (45 Likert-type + 5 Demographics) Use SurveyMonkey Platform = Total of 90 completed surveys Random Sampling of Business, Non-Business, and Academic Institutions Statistical Analyses using MLR and MANOVA (SPSS Version 21.o for Windows)

  4. GLOBAL COMPACT PARTICIPANTS FACTS AND FIGURES Total # of UNGC Participants Non-Business

  5. PARTICIPANTS FACTS AND FIGURES: By Number and Location Largest memberships Some Middle East Countries

  6. Why Participants Collaborate • According to the 2012 UN Global Survey: • To build contacts and network with other companies • To use platforms and principles to showcase best practices • To establish more corporate and personal connections with other non-business stakeholders. • Meet right partners in line with strategic needs • Learn new tactics and appropriate strategies • Share resources (i.e., money, manpower, machine) • Mitigate costs and risks and reduce opportunistic behavior • Assess strategic fit/value, and the 7 C’s of strategic collaboration - Connection with people, Clarity of purpose, Congruency of mission, Creation of values, Communication between partners, Continual learning, Commitment to partners

  7. PARTICIPANTS’ COMMITMENTS CORPORATE COMMITMENT FINANCIAL COMMITMENT • Make UN principles an integral part of business strategy, operations, & culture • Incorporate principles in the decision-making processes of the highest level governance body (i.e. Board) • Contribute to MDG through collaborative partnerships • Integrate in its annual report a description of the ways in which it implements the principles (i.e. COP) • Advance CSR, ethics and transparency through responsible business practices, advocacy, and active outreach • Revenue $ 1B or more [$10,000] • Between $250M and $1B [$5,000] • Between $25M and $250M [$2,500] • Less than $25M [$500]

  8. PARTICIPANTS’ COMMITMENTS REPORTING COMMITMENT ALIGNMENT COMMITMENT • Communications on Progress (COP) • Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) • Social Accountability International’s (SAI) SA8000 Labor Standards • Accountability AAA1000 standards • Extractive Transparency Initiative (EITI) 10 Principles of the UN Global Compact • Human Rights (2) • Labor Standards (4) • Environment (3) • Anti-corruption (1)

  9. UNGC PARTNERSHIP CHALLENGES • Advanced performers only 8% (UN Survey, 2012) • Retention rate less than 35%(UN Survey, 2012) • Delisting of participants – 30%(UN Global Compact, 2012) • New record for non-communicating participants = 1,400 • Issues of growth - a success or challenge ? • 2006 – 20009 -- 66% (yearly 22%) • 2010 --2012 -- 108% (yearly 33%) • 2013 ----2014 -- 18% (yearly 18) • Issue of size – SMEs (62%) and BIG Corporations (38%) • Issue of business mentality – for Profit vs. Non-profit (NGOs, Academic, Foundations – 32%)

  10. RESEARCH MODEL

  11. RESEARCH PROBLEMS General Problem Specific Problem Significant diversity Lack of structure (self-regulation). Partnership principle reflects on ranking and embraces domination model. SMEs are not part of collaboration process. Lack assessment tools to examine the level of readiness, willingness, and ability of members No vital framework to define collaborative partnership effectiveness.

  12. PURPOSE STATEMENTS To examinethe factors that influence the participants’ CR and DAF when establishing collaborative partnerships within the Global Compact. To determine if job title/position is a significant factor in collaborative partnership effectiveness(CPE). To determine if experience is a significant factor in collaborative partnership effectiveness (CPE).

  13. RESEARCH QUESTIONS RQ1: To what extent do participants’ CFI readiness scores predict willingness and ability to collaborate? Stated differently, are participants who are ready to collaborate, willing and able to do so? RQ2: To what extent do differences in CPE scores, as measured by collaboration readiness and dedicated alliance function exist in participants’ job title or position? RQ3: To what extent do differences in CPE scores exist in participants’ amount of experience, as measured by their total number of collaborations and level of success?

  14. HYPOTHESES H1O: Collaboration readiness is not a statistically significant predictor of willingness and ability of participants to collaborate effectively. H1A: Collaboration readiness is a statistically significant predictor of willingness and ability of participants to collaborate effectively. H2O: There are no statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ job title or position. H2A: There are statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ job title or position. H3O: There are no statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ amount of experience. H3A: There are statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ amount of experience.

  15. Factors Related to Environment

  16. Partnership Homophilous Tendency

  17. An Examination of Entity Participants’ Collaborative Partnership within the United Nations Global Compact Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach's Alpha for the Main Study Variables • Notes: • Excellent Reliability of CR Composite Score at α = .99 • Two DAF subscales showed good (willingness α = .89) and acceptable (ability α = .62) ranges of reliability • Excellent Reliability of DAF Composite Score at α = .99

  18. Variables: CR and DAF Multiple Linear Regressions of the Six Collaboration Readiness Factors Predicting Dedicated Alliance Function Note. F(6, 39) = 7.34, p < .001, R2 = .53

  19. Variables: Position and Experience

  20. Confirmatory Statistical Tests One Sample K-S Tests for Dedicated Alliance Function and Collaboration Readiness Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance of CR and DAF Scores by Job Title or Position Box’s M Test for Equality of Covariance Matrices for both CR and DAF Scores by Job Title or Position

  21. Homophilous Partnership Tendencies

  22. FINDINGS AND RESULTS • CR is a predictor of DAF. • Participants who are quantifiably ready to collaborate also showed willingness and ability to collaborate effectively. • Job Title/Position is not a significant factor in CPE. • Job title/position does not provide competitive edge in CR and DAF scores. CEOs, NGO Founders, Deans, and Alliance Coordinators have statistically similar CR and DAF scores and they are equally ready, willing and able to collaborate effectively. • Experience is not a significant factor in CPE. • Participants who have less experience and with less number of collaborations are equally ready, willing, and able compared to those who have more experience and with greater number of collaborations. • Participants have homophilous partnership tendency. • Participants with HIGH CR scores but with LOW DAF scores showed patterns of selective partnership with homophilous tendencies.

  23. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION Contribution to Leadership/Practice Contribution to Scholarship Opens an opportunity to develop a new partnership assessment tool to measure the participant’s level of readiness when establishing partnership. CEOs and managers who intend to establish collaborative partnerships with the Global Compact can have empirical research to advance an understanding of collaboration effectiveness. This research provides success factors to measure and predict collaborative partnership effectiveness. The UN does not check the validity of reports and fails to follow-up the partnership outcomes and this research attempts to fill the gap. Insights from this research may prove to be significant to business leaders in structuring or restructuring their partnerships with the UN. The research hopes to contribute to the proliferation of more responsible partnerships and address the educational lag by incorporating the new concept of collaboration readiness in partnership education. Helps members to create educational frameworks , processes, and environment that can enable effective learning experiences for responsible partnership. Facilitates and supports dialogue, debate, and learning activities among educators, businessman, and government on critical issues of global social responsibility, governance, and sustainability.

More Related