A consummate communications professional with a 20 year track record in corporate and financial PR, investor relations, marketing and advertising, Mark also has significant international expertise having worked in Europe, the Middle East, China and Japan.   Mark joins from Dubai International Capital and prior to that he worked at Kreab Gavin Anderson.

Commenting on his appointment, Mark said: “I am delighted to be joining College Hill at such an exciting period in the company’s expansion and to support their commitment in growing their international presence in both established and emerging markets.”

Mark Garraway and Matthew Smallwood, Managing Partners of College Hill said: “Mark brings a wealth of experience and expertise and we are pleased to welcome someone of his calibre to the team”.

This debate fuels my own view that the urge and need for reinvention also applies in business attitudes towards the environment and sustainability. At the moment, as soon as the “E” word is mentioned it induces well rehearsed arguments along the lines of “the debt crisis and recession are infinitely more important issues”, “head-hunters are telling me that demand for sustainability professionals has fallen off a cliff”, “we comply with legislation, and that is enough of a cost burden” or “our customers are not asking about this stuff”.

While fully accepting that there are, of course, many and competing external pressures on business, there is a growing band of companies that have redefined the importance of sustainability and are seeing the rewards in cost savings, enhanced employee motivation, better management control and a much greater degree of competitive advantage.

One firm is Interface, the world’s biggest producer of carpet tiles, founded by the late, great Ray Anderson in the 1970s. In the mid-1990s he reinvented the business with environmental sustainability at its heart. While still subject to the vagaries of the global market, Anderson showed that sustainability and business success are not separate. The company remains at the top of the flooring tree.

For small businesses, that decision to place sustainability to the fore can be daunting, particularly as the first task is to decide what it means in its own context. Having done so, and defined priorities, the next major challenge is one of performance measurement, which means some data crunching. All this takes time and resources, but there is lots of free advice and support out there from the likes of Zero Waste Scotland, Carbon Trust and business organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses or the Scottish Food and Drink Federation. Once the groundwork is done, the business can then review its performance or report to customers or financiers.

The latter are playing an increasingly interesting and important role as agents of sustainability, for if we accept the enhanced importance within a business, it inevitably has financial consequences. Through having performance information to hand and a willingness to communicate, the business can respond to external scrutiny from customers and investors. This scrutiny may be in the form of tendering requirements, where a ready response on questions about sustainability, not only saves on management time, but might help to win the business.

Where investment is required, the company’s bank may profit through working with a stronger business and providing asset finance for new plant or equipment. Getting closer to the customer is an oft quoted banking aspiration, so, in the form of a sustainability dialogue, there is a way for the banks to [1] understand and de-risk their customers, existing and potential; [2] unearth new business from those customers and [3] promote some creativity and innovation within the bank’s own product development teams.

The opportunities presented around sustainability are there for businesses and their financiers. It just needs a bit of guts and some creativity. That’s why I welcome the conference and its effort to provoke a debate on the wide ranging benefits of “creativity” to Scotland.

The Creativity Applied conference is organised by the RSA Fellows’ Media, Creative Industries, Culture & Heritage Network, founded by Ann Packard, and the Institute for Capitalising on Creativity, University of St Andrews.

The College Group Limited (“College Group” or “the Group”) announces that independent private equity group Vitruvian Partners LLP (“Vitruvian”) has invested in College Group, valuing the business at approximately £45 million. College Group management and staff will continue to retain a substantial equity investment in the business, in partnership with Vitruvian.

This investment comes towards the end of a four-year period during which College Group has more than trebled in size, expanding beyond its origins as a financial public relations consultancy based in London, to a broadly based international communications consultancy with over 300 people supporting clients out of 13 owned offices in Europe, Africa, Asia and the US, with an annual turnover of £40 million.

From its core practice of Business Communications, incorporating both capital markets and corporate brand building PR, College Group has broadened its service to clients into four further complementary practice areas: government and regulatory affairs; employee engagement; strategic research and branding, design, reporting and digital. The Group will continue to build out its industry sector expertise.

More than a quarter of College Group’s clients already use two or more of the Group’s practices and a growing number of clients are drawing on the Group’s international capability, with approximately one third of Group staff based overseas.

Following Vitruvian’s investment, Alex Sandberg will step down as Group Chairman and away from day-to-day management. However, Alex will remain with the business, focussing on working with clients and developing the Group’s Business Communications practice. Toby Wyles and Ben Johnson, Partners at Vitruvian, will join the College Group board.

The College Group management team, led by CEO Richard Nichols, has ambitious plans to continue to build services to clients organically as well as by investing in talent and complementary businesses. College Group views this partnership with Vitruvian as the logical next step in accelerating growth, since Vitruvian has committed to provide the capital to fund expansion both by service and by geography.

The College Group was advised by Osborne Clarke, KPMG and Clarity. Vitruvian was advised by Deloitte, Weil Gotshal & Manges, AMR International and KPMG.

Alex Sandberg, College Hill founder said: “I’m really proud of how we’ve built College Hill into the Group it is today, with the broader range of services for our clients and our increasing international reach. Fresh capital from a blue chip investor adds a game-changing dimension to our ambitions. I believe our greatest potential still lies ahead of us and I’m backing Richard and the team to deliver the next stage.”

Richard Nichols, College Group Chief Executive said: “We will continue to look for businesses and talent who want to share in our ambition to be one of the select few international business communications consultancies serving the world’s leading organisations. We have the platform, the team and a focussed ambition. And we now have access to the capital to accelerate our plans.”

Toby Wyles, Managing Partner at Vitruvian said: “We want to invest in high quality companies that have focussed, proven business models and very talented people, who don’t want to sell out but need capital to realise their ambitions. That’s our role, to provide the fuel for growth. In College Group, we’ve invested in a company that’s absolutely in our sweet spot. We look forward to our partnership with College Group shareholders, helping them to continue to realise the full potential of their business.”

ENQUIRIES:

College Group
Alex Sandberg
+44 (0)20 7457 2027
+44 (0)7831 851 844
alex.sandberg@thecollegegroup.com

Richard Nichols, Chief Executive
+44 (0)20 7457 2009
+44 (0)7798 865 453
richard.nichols@thecollegegroup.com

Vitruvian Partners
Toby Wyles, Managing Partner
+44 (0)20 7518 2800
+44 (0)7774 107 314
toby.wyles@vitruvianpartners.com
 

Notes for editors

The College Group
www.thecollegegroup.com
The College Group is a fast-growing international business communications consultancy employing over 300 people in thirteen offices in Europe, Africa, Asia and the US. With five core complementary practices and specialist industry sector teams, College Group consultants bring the strategic advice and implementation needed in times of change as well as in the day-to-day management of their clients’ corporate reputations and ultimately, their business objectives.

Vitruvian Partners
www.vitruvianpartners.com
Vitruvian is an independent private equity firm which specialises in investing in growth companies in Northern Europe. Vitruvian focuses on investing in ‘dynamic situations’ in industries characterised by growth and change such as Information Technology, Media, Telecoms, Financial Services, Business Services, Healthcare and Leisure. Vitruvian is currently investing its inaugural fund of €925 million.

A ‘flat’ season

Conferences 16 months after a general election are always the quietest and in some ways the dullest – there’s not the excitement of the election post-mortem, new ministers, new inquiries.  This set of conferences had the feeling of a dull team meeting which was held ”because it was in the diary”.

Indeed, the last three weeks of the 2011 party conference season have been a largely unmemorable experience in the Midland and Northern post industrial cities of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester. The word ‘flat’ has been used by many political commentators such as Bruce Anderson to describe the conference season and it would be hard to disagree with this description.  It’s the first time anyone can remember when there were empty seats at a Conservative leader’s speech whilst the loss of seven hundred Liberal Democrat councillors clearly left a significant gap in the usual democratic throng at Liberal Democrat conference. Ed Miliband’s speech which was widely viewed as a ‘car crash’ can’t have put a spring in the step of many Labour delegates apart from ardent trade unionists departing from Liverpool. As one member of the CPP team put it: “In the 24 Labour Conferences I have attended, Ed Miliband’s speech was the worst I have ever heard.  It had no coherence, no vision, no passion and a set of bizarre policies which were unravelling before the evening was out.  I doubt we will ever hear anything more about “a new bargain for the economy” (unless Poundland adopts it for their new stores) and I bet that the Labour frontbench will cringe whenever they are asked how they define a ‘predator’ or a ‘producer’ business.”

It was rumoured that the Coalition Partners had purposefully turned down the volume of their conferences feeling that ‘tub thumping’ speeches might look inappropriate with the economic storms swirling around Greece and other Eurozone economies. Whatever the edict from the respective leaderships, we the delegates  saw the two Coalition partners acting managerially and Her Majesty’s Opposition going through their ‘mea culpas’ and testing ‘moral socialism’ on the electorate.

Diversity in fringes

The divide in fringes is now greater than ever.  The more general, political, often newspaper-hosted fringes are of real interest to the party activist and these are now enormous events.  Elsewhere, there are small rooms with a think-tank, a sponsor and a Minister on the platform, with 15 people in the audience who are probably professionals in the field being discussed.  Although to the outside world this may look to be a failure, for the sponsor it is very likely a great success: they got the Minister to listen to the 10 minute pitch and then have to respond.  However, if the Minister arrives after the sponsor’s pitch, this of course is a complete disaster.

In terms of content, themes were beginning to emerge in the fringes for the 2015 General Election. The right wing of the Conservative Party continue to push for a ‘in or out’ referendum on Europe and a more purist and radical form of localism. The Labour Party continue to struggle with whether to embrace Big Society or not and the Liberal Democrats missed few opportunities to Tory Bash and discuss when and how to best divorce the Party that put them back into Government after 80 years in the political wilderness.

Future leaders

Speaking to many Labour MPs it was clear that no-one outside his close shadow-ministerial team thinks he can win the next election, but strangely no-one was talking about getting rid of him.  Both Iain Duncan Smith and Ming Campbell were leaders of their respective Parties who got dumped before they could fight a general election, but somehow it isn’t what Labour does.

Conservative representatives are still very sceptical of David Cameron.  In the packed hall for George Osborne’s speech, they gave William Hague a far bigger ovation than Cameron. On the contrary, Boris was bigger than ever: the biggest performance on stage, the biggest stand in the exhibition and the biggest lapel badges.  The battle to become the next leader is well underway, with David Cameron knows who he is backing.  He said that George Osborne chose “The Man Who Would Be King” for his audio book reading for the blind, while he reminds us of Boris Johnson’s past problems with “The Joy of… Cycling.”

So there you are…

There is more that could be written but we’ll stop here and leave you to ponder the above whilst we retreat into our first conference-free weekend. A good rest, will no doubt, help when Parliament resume its normal business next week.
 

After a half an hour wait to get into Portcullis House, we were in. We were just in time to hear Dr Meghan Benton recount her findings of how successful select committees had been in holding the Labour Government to account in its 13 years in office.

Out of 7 committees researched, around half of their recommendations in this time had been accepted. Not that surprising you may think, Government will cherry-pick the easiest recommendations to meet. However, what did come as a shock was that a third of all substantial recommendations were implemented.

Whilst you cannot always attribute a recommendation to a Government policy change, it does show that committees are an effective tool of executive scrutiny. One of the speakers, Health Committee member, Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, reflected that it was the most effective channel of (Government) examination in Parliament and an extremely fulfilling part of being an MP.

But what can committees do in the future to become more effective? Well, there seemed lots of support for committees to follow-up their recommendations to ensure implementation in key areas. From my own experience of lobbying, I can think of several areas where a committee made a recommendation, never to be heard of again. There were mixed views on whether select committees should scrutinise bills as they progress through Parliament – better scrutiny on one hand, to damaging a committee’s work flow and the impact of whipping on select committees on the other.

One of the most noteworthy points for the future was that, beyond the Public Accounts Committee, the other committees may start to receive more dedicated National Audit Office support. The objective being to make select committees more forensic in their approach and begin to drill down to a greater extent on value for money like the PAC does. It’ll be interesting to see if select committees do head in this direction. Those likely to be called to give oral evidence will hope not.

There’s a clever Economist advertising campaign running on the London Underground. It promotes debate by passionate advocacy of the pro and anti case on controversial issues such as immigration and drugs.

Such extreme polarisation of views is evident in perceptions of today’s energy industry where, more than ever before, excellence in communication will be needed if the world’s rapidly rising demand for clean energy is to be met.

The nuclear industry has done a great communications job in getting its messages across to decision makers over the last decade or so.

But in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and in the midst of a global recession, I believe that the industry has to be more proactive in stating its case in the years ahead.

Power U-turns

Switzerland’s government has begun a nuclear phase-out. In Italy the Berlusconi government has shelved plans to reintroduce nuclear energy.  And Germany, one of the west’s most energy intensive nations, has now begun a nuclear shut-down. There are even rumours that Japan, one of the world’s leading nuclear energy consumers, could be re-evaluating its energy sources.

And in Russia it has recently been reported that part of the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant 2, currently under construction, has recently collapsed, raising serious safety concerns in the region, where several new plants are planned.

In the UK we are lucky to have an experienced Energy Minister – Charles Hendry – who has a deep rooted knowledge of how energy markets work and how important it is for Britain to have a strong, low carbon, base load electricity generation capability. 

Hence his informed support for nuclear energy. But as any lobbyist will tell you, a government Minister will only support your industry if he thinks you are making a strong case to stakeholders.

Building relationships

Westinghouse, one of the world’s leading reactor builders, is certainly stepping up its communication post-Fukushima.

“The industry has come a long way in improving its communication in recent years, but we all recognise the need for building even stronger relationships with our multiple stakeholders after the Fukushima incident and as the pace of new build quickens,” says Adrian Bull, Head of EMEA Stakeholder Relations for Westinghouse, whose AP1000 reactor is winning and bidding for new orders in the US, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

He added: “The events in Japan sharpened our focus on communicating two important messages: Firstly the high levels of safety in current operating stations across the world, and secondly the major technical advances which are embodied in the very latest reactor designs. Older designs are safe – but newer ones will be safer still.”

Nuclear new build in Britain will rely on the financial muscle of French and German energy giants EDF and RWE/E.ON. The German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung recently suggested that RWE and E.ON have all but abandoned the idea of building nuclear plants in the UK.

With their home country Germany deciding to withdraw from the nuclear industry, there would be little to be gained from starting a standalone atomic power business in the UK, says the paper. For the sake of future clean energy supplies, let’s hope the rumours are unfounded

Overly defensive

Academic and nuclear expert Malcolm Grimston recently spoke about winning hearts and minds in the nuclear energy industry. He feels that the industry’s PR has been too defensive and reactive in the wake of Fukushima.

“The industry’s obsession with communicating its safety message is in danger of arousing, not allaying, public concern,” he said. “It’s a bit like an airline running an ad that says ‘If you fly on one of our aircraft, there’s a very good chance the wings won’t fall off – and if they do, we provide you with a lifejacket’.”

He has a point. Nuclear energy is among the safest forms of electricity generation and safety has to be portrayed as a given, especially with the new reactor designs coming on stream.

But recent events in Japan have sparked new safety concerns in the US, where many nuclear reactors are built and planned in earthquake zones, such as the huge New Madrid Seismic Zone in the Midwest and in Georgia.

Demands for new seismic evaluations post-Fukushima are giving seasoned nuclear communicators in the US a PR headache.

In July, the Wall Street Journal quoted a spokeswoman for Georgia Power’s nuclear plant at Vogtle – where seismic data is being re-evaluated – as saying it “doesn’t mean the plants aren’t safe. They are safe.”  Grimston’s point exactly.

Nuclear power is also economical and emits no carbon. Moreover, with growing global demand for energy, it limits reliance on oil and gas from the Middle East and Russia.

It is these positive, emotional messages that will win the day.

In the 1990s the UK nuclear industry appointed a highly experienced corporate affairs specialist to head a communication forum which put the industry’s positive messages across forcefully.

But the breakup of the CEGB and Nuclear Electric led to a decline in the nuclear industry’s influence, to the point where the incoming Labour government relegated nuclear power to the back burner in favour of renewable energy development.

Responding to NGOs

Once again the industry responded by strengthening its industry body, the Nuclear Industry Association, and giving it a communications voice to compete with the alarmist cries of NGOs. A new campaign, using third party influencers to deliver positive, focus-group-tested messages, once more built public and political support for nuclear new build. 

This period saw a marked turn around in attitudes towards the industry, helping it to recover its reputation and win broad government and public support. At the same time, the UK’s last state-owned nuclear giant, BNFL, was successfully privatised.

Following Fukushima, the industry has responded by once again ramping up its communication activities. NIA Comms Head John Macnamara is issuing regular briefings to the media and opinion formers, and the association has recently appointed former government heavyweight Lord Hutton as part-time Chairman.

Already, Hutton’s high profile has attracted significant media attention and in recent weeks Macnamara has arranged hard-hitting interviews with the Telegraph and Independent.

“Fukushima”, Hutton told The Independent, has “changed the game” for atomic energy.

“We have a heavy obligation to be open and transparent with the public about the safety case for nuclear in the UK.”

Today, the industry is in the hands of new owners, with hugely experienced industrialists focused on the building of new plants and the safe clean up of nuclear waste.

But, as an incident like Fukushima clearly demonstrates, the nuclear industry cannot afford to become complacent or defensive in its communications. A sustained, proactive communication campaign must remain at the forefront of the industry’s mind if the world is to meet its rising demand for secure, low carbon energy.

Philip Dewhurst, FCIPR, is a Senior Consultant at College Hill and a former Communications Director at BNFL and past Chair of the Nuclear Industry Association.   This article first appeared in IPRA Frontline on-line

As 2011 marks the Tercentenary of Enlightenment Philosopher, David Hume, it is a good time to reflect on his ‘sentiments’ and their resonance today.  One such sentiment was echoed by Ove Arup, engineer, designer and philosopher and founder of the eponymous company, who firmly stated that “the ultimate immoral act is choosing not to think.”  This was quoted in a series of lectures given by Professor Emeritus Peter Jones, in which he draws on his knowledge of Hume and holds that the “cement of society is conversation and that when we ignore or lose our capacities for conversation we are in peril.”

While views vary on what constitutes a conversation, indeed, some hold that there is no such thing, the definition given at the lecture reads thus: “Conversation is a sacred and improvisatory practice in which the duty to listen precedes the right to speak.”  It is essentially a practice because the skills required to be a good conversationalist have to be learned.  A duty to listen reinforces the need for participants to understand the context and display appropriate manners.  Consequently, the practicing conversationalist welcomes the opportunity to approach a topic from many directions and be open to the views of others while being happy to formulate and present their own arguments.

Ove Arup brought an array of experiences and an open, enquiring mind into the world of architecture and engineering.  He noted that practitioners of both were not conversing and therefore, in his view, these disciplines needed reform.  While the current economic situation has further reinforced the need for architects, engineers and designers to innovate and find new business models, the need to break out of disciplinary ruts and actually think and converse is crucial for all companies and indeed governments and other institutions,

At the micro-level, this could begin by turning business meetings into conversations.  Rather than mechanistic encounters where agenda items are ticked and the senior manager pontificates, all present have been schooled as conversationalists and all enter the meeting with an open mind and desire to tackle the agenda from many quarters, to learn, to assess, to think.  While retrofitting a conversational ethos onto a company can be beneficial, the ultimate gift to society will be through structural changes to the way we educate young people – from nursery to university.  Only the most ardent educational ideologue would disagree that we could be doing more to empower our school and university graduates with an ability to critically appraise, to question conventional methods and to posit their own views.
Business too, is not a hotbed of thought and conversation, as the pressure to deliver on ‘key performance indicators’ takes precedence.  The bigger the company, the less thought takes place as the job is driven by process and procedure and the infrastructure is an innovation killer.  The smaller, dynamic entrepreneurial company though, is more of a cradle for silo breaking and thoughtfulness, but even then speed is more the order of the day.
For the businessman hungry for debate and conversation, there are opportunities out there, beyond the normal run of conferences and award ceremonies.  Organisations such as The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), has promoted debate and thought for over 250 years.  It is highly rewarding for those willing to take the time to contribute to its multi-disciplinary, politically independent activities.
As Professor Jones concludes

“Let us not further deceive ourselves into believing that, over the centuries, Governments or Institutions or Professions have always, or even very often, put into place people and resources to promote relentless, self-critical and exploratory thinking.”

Far from being a luxury that a business cannot afford, finding the time to think might be just what all Chief Executives need right now.

Nanotechnology involves the engineering of functional systems from a molecular and atomic scale, with at least one characteristic dimension measured in nanometres (where one nanometre is 50,000th of a hair width).  Food application areas include lowering sugar, salt and fat levels with no taste loss, increasing nutrient or vitamin content or developing satiety-inducing foods. 

In a new report, Matter noted that responsible development of new technologies with biotechnology and genomics applications was the new corporate social responsibility (CSR) focus for firms active in the food, energy, cosmetics, medicine and chemical sectors.

Director Hilary Sutcliffe, said: “Companies … are taking steps to learn the lessons of the past and consider the issues around the responsible development and use of these new technologies, particularly nanotechnologies.”

Positive social benefits
Problems with the introduction of past technologies including GM, nuclear power and food irradiation suggest that a “more accountable, responsible and transparent approach” was needed, Matter said.

Namely, in the development of products that have a “positive social benefit and are safe for humans, animals and the environment", it added.  Chris Woodcock, managing partner at communications consultancy College Hill said: “The simple rule is always to state the social benefit or aim first. For instance, population growth is forcing us to find new, sustainable and safe food sources.”

She added that the public needed to be treated as grown-ups, with “straight-talking and clear rationales…now much more acceptable”.

Reviewing 23 publications on various technologies such as nanotechnology, Matter concluded that the public was “excited but sceptical” about their potential.

The think tank said openness about the use of nano was a “no brainer”. There are at least 350 nano-based products available in Europe, some of which are listed in the US-based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Nano Consumer Products Inventory, Matter noted. But it claimed that the relevant company websites contained virtually no information about use of the technology.

‘Trivial’ application distrust
Beyond the “standard sales message”, firms should educate consumer to understand the benefits, social and environmental impact of such technology, Matter said, while government incentives to prompt disclosure, including regulation, were also needed.
“Where a technology is perceived as new and scary, much more detail is required on why and how this approach is necessary, its use and the research that goes into proving its efficacy, safety and superiority over existing solutions,” Matter said.

Choice was also crucial, Matter added, given increasing perceptions that technology is being forced on consumers or ‘smuggled into’ products, which could affect product acceptance and the technology as a whole. Matter’s conclusions reflect those of a Soil Association report published in April. This reported Food Standards Agency (FSA) consumer survey views on  anotechnology, conducted between last November and February.  Participants valued benefits nanotechnology could offer people with, say, dietary concerns, or when it was used in
packaging, the report authors found. 

However, consumers were wary of “unnecessary or trivial applications”, thought to be unduly risky on social and environmental grounds. These included products inducing people to feel fuller, or the creation of foods with new textures and flavours.

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/World-News/Techno-disasters-Matter-think-tank-warns-nanotech-supporters