Governance review Q&A

[This is a copy of a comment that originally appeared in https://conversation.which.co.uk/which-membership/governance-review-committee-report/ ]

I have only read the latest report once however it is glaringly obvious that a call for a wider representation of shareholders has been sidelined.

In case readers wonder why there is a need for a further body, rather like the National Trust has, beneath the Trustees who can more easily take up member concerns on Trustees, often from a narrow range, going off-piste in terms of the charity’s aims.

For an example in the 2000’s in Scotland there was much discontent with builders selling on amenity land on new housing estates in an underhand manner . Sound faintly familiar? This consumer charity failed to mention it though as one of the charity Trustees was part owner of the amenity management company that was mentioned in the Scottish Press and the UK Parliameny you may well think that this “consumer champion” was missing in action.

Possibly encouraged by the success they had had in Scotland the use of this and other leashold naughtiness crossed the border. In the decade from 2008 when Grenbelt was mentioned in Parliament to 2018 Which? failed to print anything on the subject. It also failed to mention the problem of hardly completed houses being sold and the problems of owners obtaining rectification.

You may feel that this was a one off blip is hard to believe though it is. But is it really conceivable that no members were righting in at all to complain. Certainly I know one member who wrote twice and being an executive in the building trade you may have thought his insights as to the fiddles going on would draw a response.

But then Which? Ltd is actually the operational arm and that is run by staff and businessmen, active and retired, co-opted to the Board. A consumer organisation run by businessmen does seem rather strange and perhaps their actions in hindsight justify the concern.

When the EU were informed by Henkel that they had been part of a cartel with Unilever and P&G in raising prices of detergents there was a lengthy enquiry and the two giants of the industry were fined several hundred millions euro. As Henkel has negligible presence in the UK it was not party to a cartel in the UK. However it would seem highly probable that as Unilever and P&G dominate the UK market that they did have an arrangement that was detrimental to consumers.

Did Which? print any of the EU judgement? Did it ask for an investigation? No.

It may be the staff did not think it important to mention to UK consumers how two household name giants were prepared to rig markets. Especially given that it may have embarrassed the businessmen from those firms co-opted as Trustees of the charity, or Directors of Which? Ltd. Of course personally I am sure they had nothing to do with the price fixing as revealed by the EU investigation.

The perception that a consumer charity is run by businessmen who come from the industries that may be subject to criticism is an uncomfortable one. Indeed these businessmen seem to have been responsible for the two commercial ventures, in India, and in mortgage broking, that will have taken £40m of income and lost it. Also the payment of multiple bonus schemes the first of which paid out £2.24m to four executives.

Just some of the reasons why a wider body of members is needed to ensure that the charity never again misses the major stories and is profligate with charity money.

[This is a copy of a comment that originally appeared in https://conversation.which.co.uk/which-membership/governance-review-committee-report/ ]

The Which Report.

Forward.
A good opening, especially paragraph three which expresses clearly what Which? Should aim to do.
The Forward sets out laudable aims but there is less evidence that these are being adopted.

I agree with all of page 2. Which? recognises what Which? needs to do for the future to appeal to a wider public. There is a reason for the older membership demographic. Which? should probe this and ask why.
Page 3 Why else would one access Which? and subscribe? This is their core role. The purchasing and access on line are business matters and should not be confused with the core content Which? provides.
Paragraph 2 outlines what Which? should be doing for its members to provide the content they seek. This research provides the content but is not what is printed in the magazine; it is the background to it.
The membership interaction is poor at present. Your aims are there, the action isn’t. Which Connect, in particular, is flawed in what it asks and what it publishes as a result of what it asks.

If Which? isn’t a driving force already, after so many years, then it needs to ask why instead of making it a goal to aim for.

Page 6 is a surprise. You seem to be suggesting that the Governance Framework needs updating. After all these years it should be firmly embedded and flexible to the changes that happen in the World. You are playing catch-up rather than evolving.
It should go without saying that employed staff and governors are qualified and capable.

Listening to members is one thing, acting on this is another, which is currently missing.

Page 8 is accurate as is page 9. I tend to agree about a membership senate but still want to see a better link between members and the Which? Board Of Directors. Perhaps this could be achieved by having an elected board member who can feed members ideas and thoughts directly to the board and feed back what is done with them.
Individual members and subscribers may have more – or less – incentive to get involved with governance. Those that choose to be involved should be given the opportunity to meet with board members on a regular basis. Others should be able to make occasional thoughts and comments known to these meetings by using a recognised and easy to use contact process. Thus the chain would be: subscriber, interested members, consumer board member and a fluent link between each in both directions.
Your assessment on page 12 is probably correct, but access to The Board and The Commercial Board should be easier so that part of their agendas is to consider what has been discussed at lower levels without holding up the decision making process.
Page 13 goes some way to adopting the ideas I have suggested above. It needs to clarify these further than this brief outline does here.
Excellent Stewardship.
Why isn’t Which? this already? Why three years?
Trustees need to be qualified to do their jobs and properly remunerated for doing them. Trustees need to have time and inclination to take on the work, younger members may not have one, or the other, or both.
The membership demographic is interesting, and a challenge that needs addressing now that it has been highlighted.
Page 16. I probably support option 2. – Members Approval. You don’t express your opinion here.
Over all an honest and good report but one that recognises the problems rather than one that might solve any of them. That next stage needs to happen before this report is forgotten about.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the report to be an honest attempt to examine the organisation and to address the questions that members (at least in this forum) have leveled at it. The age demographic is significant and I’m glad you have identified this in the report. The long standing demand for a better interaction with members is also within the report and contained in the Membership section of the introduction above. Reference back to the many pages of Which Conversation over the years would put detail to this frustration and also to the willingness of contributors here to assist and be a part of the Which team. Some contributors here have both historical links with past Which forums and a deep background of skill and knowledge in many fields. Some of us also simply reflect our real world experiences and how they match the actual findings of the magazine and your general consumer research. As a data base it should be worth mining and, for us, recognising.
While much thought and introspection has gone into this report, it does seem to highlight the areas of concern without going into the solutions. In some parts you suggest alternative strategies and occasionally outline a conclusion you have come to. There has to be a timetable, a “who does what and when” document and a “has it been done and what’s happened” follow up. This cyclical approach is the basis for assessment in the educational world and it works elsewhere with the same rigour.

Why is Which? a charity? Because for a long it it wasn’t. It didn’t actually gain charitable status until 1987, and then only for the research part of their work, “achieving a long sought-after goal”.

The question is important, since in most ways Which? doesn’t behave like a traditional charity. It’s subscription-based, does not use volunteers – a major difference between some of the largest charities and Which?, has (in the recent past) paid its CEO more highly than any other in the general charity sector, and at a time when its income was under enormous pressure, the crucial test – that of Public Benefit – is debatable, because of its subscription-based income model, has lost millions through projects which, examined dispassionately, were either inadequately researched or poorly thought-through and, perhaps worst of all, betrayed its own longest-serving subscribers by arbitrarily eliminating the email service, billed as ‘The ISP you can Trust’ on which so many depended.

In fact, it’s also true to say that most of what Which? does is run and dominated by Which? Ltd. the corporate arm of the organisation, whose sole aim has been (and continues to be) the survival of Which? as a business.

Set in this landscape, then, Which? is far more a commercial publisher than any sort of Charity. So the question remains: why is Which? a Charity?

The Charity question I posed earlier goes to the root of the Governance question. In simple terms, I suspect it suits Which?’s image to be called a Charity, whilst managing to avoid any of the messy ‘hands-on’ stuff that real charities have to do.

Which? isn’t, of course, unique among charities that prefer to avoid the messy stuff. A prime example is NSPCC, where the charity spends far more on advertising than it does on what is supposed to be its prime role, and in fact has, for some years, been simply a telephone answering service which passes all allegations and reports onto Social Services and the Police. Its only other function is producing ‘research’, much of which has been roundly condemned as lacking in transparency and factual basis.

If Which? does not want to be compared to an institution that, despite a once proud start, has now degenerated into a self-serving coterie of the waffling, it almost certainly has to take some tough decisions.

A start could be made by dropping the charitable status. Originally awarded because of its research work, Which? no longer does its own testing or products and, instead, chooses to issue a plethora of press reports every day, many of which are self-publicising, such as the three separate reports published on 20th June, each of which referred merely to a winner of a Which? award.

The current council is largely toothless, as was revealed with uncomfortable clarity over the which.net email elimination saga. It acts – if ‘acts’ is the word – on strong recommendations from Which? Ltd or the CEO. Some CEOs are perfectly capable of presenting complex and superficially convincing recommendations, comprehensively supported by advice garnered from numerous apparently reputable sources, but which just happen to play to an often well-concealed agenda. Ultimately, it begs the question ‘Why have a Council at all?’, as it’s only the charitable status which makes it a prerequisite.

Of course, one advantage of being a Charity, at least in name, is the endearing loyalty of its members. But some businesses manage that without being charities. Notable examples include Apple and John Lewis.

So it’s possible. And perhaps worth considering.

At the moment the membership demographic does not seem very diverse. How do you plan to increase diversity, generally?

Which? has developed into a rather moaning and compensation culture.

I would like to see a much more pro-active leadership that looks at problems and investigates how they can be solved, going for real solutions and not hiding problems with a sticking plaster called compensation or passing the buck.

Consumers deserve to be compensated for genuine loss, but £millions paid out for inconvenience could be better spent on rectifying those problems.

I nearly missed this! I am mainly concerned about Which? making real use of Members in its everyday operation rather than I am about governance, although the two are intermingled. For several years we have suggested that the experience Members have and the experiences they have enjoyed have contributed greatly to Convos, for example, but their potential simply seems to be rarely taken on board by Which? Reports are issued without reference to suggestions made, campaigns continue with an imbalance of information, staff rarely answer questions raised. I have also concerns that Which? often tends to “report” rather than make constructive proposals; examples are the loss of ATMs, parking penalties, excessive packaging/plastics.

So, does Which? have any enthusiastic intention to have Members work with them? If so, what has it in mind and when might it happen?