Margot James MP: how do you get your voice heard in company boardrooms?

I will make a single suggestion. Thanks for the opportunity to make our input, Simon.

1. The most common criticisms of a company should be put on the agenda with a view to publicly acknowledging the problems, informing the public of how these will be addressed, giving an indication of the likely timescale. If the criticisms could be applied across the sector (banks and energy suppliers come to mind) this should not be used as a reason to duck the problem. Concerns that a company may not be complying with the law should also be discussed, even if these are not the main public concerns.

Several years ago I investigated the reason why we are often expected to use web forms rather than email addresses. Not surprisingly, publishing an email address results in spam, but that’s something we all have to deal with. Another reason is that using a form prompts the sender to provide all the information that would be needed to process a request. That means we all suffer because some don’t think to provide vital information to progress their request. 🙁

For anything other than a simple enquiry, use of email is essential. It allows both parties to keep a track of the correspondence and include attachments such as photos. The very worst organisations to deal with are those that respond to a web form with an email but do not include the original text.

I agree with Malcolm on the need for prompt replies but I would exclude small charities that have no paid employees and rely on volunteers.

Web form contact systems can allow attachments, and also can send an email confirming your message content. Providing all the information needed is a very valid point in support of the email form. However, I still want to be able to directly contact a person or department directly that deals with customers when I need to.

This comment was removed at the request of the user

Unfortunately, many don’t confirm what was sent via a web form or allow attachments, and often the email is sent from a ‘no response’ address, making it difficult to continue a discussion. That may be the intention.

I have no problem with web forms to handle routine enquiries, but all organisations should also provide appropriate email addresses. One of my pet hates is when an organisation replies to an email but fails to include the original text.

I’m suggesting under the “reforms” it should be a legal requirement, duncan.

If a communication is important, create it in your word processor and save, then copy and paste onto the web form. I anticipate “you shouldn’t have to” from somebody, but as things are at the moment this will ensure you have a record.

I always keep a record of what I put on a web form before sending it, either saving it as a pdf or copy/paste the text into a word processor.

It’s just common sense, wavechange.

Maybe we should have taken prompt action against the first companies that failed to provide us with email addresses. Until the problem is resolved, perhaps companies should provide their CEO email address on the customer services page of their website.

Public servants are also rewarded for failure. We need to consider “organisations” under governance, not just commercial entities. People who ignore integrity inhabit all walks of life. How should we tackle it? What organisation has the strength and will to try? You’d need a million members with a majority of like mind to begin to do something, I would think. Where could you find that?

Malcolm, it is estimated that approximately 21% or 1 in 5 CEO’s have psychopathic tendencies. If interested, log onto: https://en.wikipedia.org – Psychopathy In The Workplace. It explains the characteristics and mindset of such individuals and emphasises the importance of corporate psychological testing and ways to avoid recruitment of another Robert Maxwell or “Fred the Shred”.