| Step 1: Identify the problem the EO wants to change | |
|---|---|
| What is the problem? | Outline in detail what exactly the EO has a problem with (e.g. how legislation is specifically impacting on firms’ operations ) |
| What brings it to attention? | Is the issue new? Has something changed which has highlighted the issue? |
| Why does the problem occur? | Explain in operational terms. For example if the issue is skills mismatches can you point to deficiencies in the education systems and curricula? |
| What conditions led to it? | Were there other contributing factors? What were other stakeholders seeking to maintain/change? |
| Step 2: Identify the stakeholders | |
| Whose behaviour is affected or whose concerns are relevant? | Which types of firms? Large or small or both? Which sectors? Firms in certain geographical locations? Firms owned by women? |
| Who are the target beneficiaries of the EO’s solution to the problem? | Obviously its members – but outline wider beneficiaries such as consumers (e.g., lower prices), workers (e.g., securer jobs by growing firms), other enterprises (e.g., increased trade), government (through tax revenue) |
| What stakes do each (affected groups, target beneficiaries, implementers of policy) have in the problem? | Outline who potentially wins and who loses from the issue as it is and as it would be under the EO’s proposal |
| How does each stakeholder define the problem? | Examine how fundamental the issue is to each of the identified stakeholders. How committed will they be to changing/persevering the status quo? |
| What ideals or values (equity, liberty, efficiency, security, loyalty) or ideologies (vision of how the world is or how it should be) are expressed in each definition? And what conflicts of value or ideology are evident among stakeholders? | This exercise will help in identifying possible bridges on the issue (e.g. job preservation and creation) – and major obstacles to collaboration. |
| Step 3: Specify alternative solutions and relevant criteria for evaluating them. | |
| What are the goals/objectives of the EO’s policy to rectify the issue? | Are these realistic in a given timeframe? |
| What tools should the EO use to advance its proposal? | For example: research report on the current impact of the status quo/projected impact of policy change; survey of businesses impacted; information campaign in media |
| What policy instruments might achieve the goals/objectives? | For example: change in legislation/application of current legislation |
| Describe at least one (alternative) policy to meet the need. | The EO for example may be seeking to stop a piece of legislation – this can be its first goal. Failing that it will advocate a code of practice to regulate voluntarily on the issue. Failing that it will seek to temper the legislative proposals by government. |
| Step 4: Recommend an alternative and explain your reasoning (if you are making a recommendation) | |
| What is the basis for the EO’s recommendation? | For example,: regulation could stifle small enterprise growth and is unnecessary. A code of conduct can address the issue and the EO can point to all the main firms who are enthusiastic about a code. |
| What type of analysis supports the proposal? | EO carried out cases studies/surveys of members/looked at best practice from other jurisdictions. |
| On what conditions (political, organizational) does successful implementation of your choice depend? | Government buy-in – other stakeholder acceptance. |
The example below outlines how the EO can work through above methodology.
| Step 1: Identify the problem |
|---|
| The garment sector in the fictional country of Erlandi is of extreme importance to the national economy, employing 280,000 workers and generating $3 billion in annual revenue – nearly half of which is generated from Erlandi’s principal export Market EtatLand. This sector has also driven wider growth in the economy. Much of this success is due to the government following sound macroeconomic policies while the country is reasonably politically stable, it is open to investment, and the government vigorously seeks to attract growing numbers of investors. Erlandi is currently negotiating a new Bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with its largest export Market for Garments: EtatLand. Due to domestic pressures in EtatLand its negotiators are insisting on inserting a number of ‘labour provisions’ in the FTA. These provisions would entail a number of changes to the Labour legislation and Industrial Relations framework in Erlandi. Erlandi has a poor industrial relations climate with sporadic and frequent strike action. There are multiple unions and this has made dispute resolution more challenging. The EO has been making some progress on improving the IR climate and relations with some of the unions are making slow but steady headway. The EO feels that if the issues in the FTA came into the political discourse they could set back this steady progress, complicate the situation further, and potentially make a bad situation worse. There are four stages of govt-to-govt consultation before an expected final FTA in 18 months. This is now the preliminary stage. |
| Step 2: Identify the stakeholders |
|
| Step 3: Specify alternative solutions and relevant criteria for evaluating them |
The EO commissions a report on the likely impact of the labour provisions – this requires some international technical help. This is decided as the best tool to articulate its concerns. It requires an investment by the EO but such is the fundamental importance to the economy that it is considered essential. It works closely with allies in the Trade Ministry in this endeavour and the Chambers of Commerce. A national business coalition is initiated by the EO bringing all business groups into an alliance.
|
| Step 4: Recommend an alternative and explain the reasoning |
| The EO’s counter proposal is for increased technical help to improve the IR framework, and improve relations and conditions in the workplace where there is a need. The counter proposal aims to do the following:
|
