Painting a true picture for tourists 30Ways to better wellbeing at work 14Breaking down barriers in Africa 22 ISSUE 27 Lancaster University Management School | the place to be DOING GOOD BUSINESS and make a difference Exploring how organisations can go beyond profit FIFTYFOURDEGREES
Check out the podcast from the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business New episodes every Monday Available on most major podcast platforms – search ‘Transforming Tomorrow’ or visit: pod.co/transforming-tomorrow trAnsfoRming toMorrow Series Four out now
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 3 Tuning Financial Instruments Reporting Financial instruments shape markets, but the information investors receive can be complex and uncertain. Professor Argyro Panaretou explores how accounting standards can make markets more transparent. 6In this issue... 34 When Your Newest Analyst Is an Agent How do you properly embed AI within your organisation? Reena Pathak shares her leadership lessons from guiding a security team. 22 Leading When You Can Never Be Fully Secure Avril Palmer-Fye explains why responsible digital leadership has become one of the defining challenges for today’s organisations 14 Breaking Barriers, Making an Impact How do women researchers in subSaharan Africa gain traction and make an impact with their work? Professors Sarah Jack and Lola Dada investigate. Ways to Better Wellbeing at Work Employee health and wellbeing is increasingly important, but difficult to implement effectively. Dr Kay Greasley sets out research that shows how organisations might use a different approach. Painting a Truer Picture From reindeer to Rio, tourists are not always given the full picture when they visit somewhere new. Dr Josiane Fernandes and Dr Teea Palo show communities can take a stand to tell the true story of their peoples and cultures. The First Step is the Hardest What obstacles are there preventing young people from entering the workplace? The Work Foundation’s Jon Fitzmaurice explains analysis on the current situation facing those eager to get started. When the Right Network Is Not the Official One Entrepreneurial networking is often presented as a formal activity. But Dr Sharmin Nahar’s research shows a different picture for many female-owned SMEs in the Global South. 38 Personalising the Organisation Do you work for a courageous company, or an empathetic one? Dr Felix Martin looks at how we humanise the organisations we work for. 42 Realising Good Growth Is business all about the money? It does not have to be, and Professor Steve Kempster shows how success can benefit people, planet and prosperity. You’re not in the Army Now What happens when people make the shift from the armed forces to the boardroom? Emad Noureldeen’s research examines how corporate leaders with military experience shape the tone of reporting. 10 26 30 46 18
4 |
Foreword Welcome to Issue 27 of Fifty Four Degrees. Professor Claire Leitch Dean, Lancaster University Management School FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 5 It is all very well doing business, but what about doing good business? I do not mean making a big profit and being able to reward shareholders handsomely every year. Business goes beyond that, and so does doing good – for your organisation, your employees, and your community. I would like to think that a large number of those who work for Lancaster University Management School can see the difference, and that their work helps companies ensure they are achieving more than just a strong bottom line (though that remains an important part of any successful venture). Helping organisations to make this shift towards a broader view of good – be it in terms of results or growth – has the focus of Professor Steve Kempster’s work for many years now. He has collaborated with and guided people around the UK, showing them a different way of operating that offers wider benefits. Under Steve’s models, business operations allow people, planet and prosperity to bloom together. It has been proven to work and is a path many organisations could benefit from following. There are businesses all around the world whose operations are affected by global accounting standards. As a School, we are proud to have Professor Argyro Panaretou at the heart of shaping how financial reporting standards can contribute to better-functioning financial markets. Argyro was an external consultant for the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation and is a member of the Academic Panel of EFRAG (formerly known as the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group). Through these roles, she ensures that the knowledge and expertise we have here in LUMS goes a long way. The same can be said of the RECIRCULATE project. While now concluded, the Lancaster-led initiative worked closely with businesses, research organisations and communities in Africa on eco-innovations for the circular water economy. That work has been covered in these pages previously, but the knock-on effects of the collaborations continue to be felt. Professors Lola Dada and Sarah Jack have been working with colleagues here in the UK and in Africa following RECIRCULATE to see how women researchers in SubSaharan Africa can take strides when it comes to making an impact with their work. These researchers are operating in societies and systems shaped by and for their male counterparts. It is no easy task to make your mark, but there are methods by which to do this. There are also ways for organisations to make it easier to improve employee health and wellbeing, Here in the UK, and elsewhere around the world, this is an important area for all businesses, but finding and implementing the most useful policies is not straightforward. Through her work, Dr Kay Greasley has drawn up a list of guidelines that companies can follow to achieve noticeable results that can benefit all concerned. There are many young people out of employment, education or training who long for the opportunity to have an employer in the first place. There is a growing focus on NEETs in government and broader society – and recent events across Europe show populations concerned for ‘lost generations’. The work of the Work Foundation is seeking ways to improve pathways for young people into work. It is an issue affecting nearly a million people in the UK aged between 18 and 24. There are suggestions for what can be done, and action needs to happen sooner rather than later. When you have perused these articles, you can also enjoy stories of Santa Claus – it is nearly that time of year – Rio, cyber security and AI, female business networks – an area where I have some expertise myself – business leaders with military experience, and how we can give our organisations human characteristics. LUMS hopes you enjoy them all and looks forward to being back in touch soon. Subscribe online at lancaster.ac.uk/fiftyfour SUBSCRIBE
REALISING GOOD GROWTH 6 |
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 7 Business does not have to be solely about profit. Through his work, Professor Steve Kempster has shown companies the benefits of Good Dividends and Good Growth, allowing them to succeed in a way that allows the people, planet and prosperity to flourish together.
What if the purpose of business was to help human flourishing? That simple question launched our leadership research project in 2015 and continues to shape it today. Answering it required looking beyond the boundaries of the traditional leadership concept. It meant asking questions about political economy, governance, accounting and sustainability. What is the role of business in society? To whom do organisations owe their responsibilities? What should we measure? How can businesses use resources to enable profit, people and planet to flourish? These questions lie at the heart of responsible leadership, where the focus is on the relationship between leaders and stakeholders: customers, employees, suppliers, investors, communities, and Mother Nature. This is about a strategic focus on realising value for all. Rather than giving priority only to the bottom line and one stakeholder, e.g. shareowners, attention is spread across all as a systemic perspective. This may sound idealistic and naive. We thought so too. Good intentions alone are insufficient; businesses need evidence that creating wider value strengthens commercial performance. This became the foundation of our Good Dividends project. The idea is simple. Businesses possess multiple forms of capital: human, financial, operational, knowledge, place and reputation. Investing in one often generates returns across others. Strengthening community relationships, for example, can enhance reputation, deepen employee engagement and improve long-term business performance. As these dividends flow through the system, value grows for every stakeholder. This is Good Growth. But let us assume good dividends and good growth still seem unrealistic and half-baked. Why? NOT ADAM SMITH’S FAULT The modern economy often traces its intellectual roots to Adam Smith, particularly his observation in The Wealth of Nations that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”. This passage has become shorthand for the idea that self-interest drives prosperity through an invisible (guiding) hand of the marketplace. The self-interest permeates through to an axiom that the purpose of business is profit. Yet this reading overlooks Smith’s earlier and, in his own view, more important work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. For Smith, the invisible hand works through social and cultural norms that shape what people expect from one another, how they should think and behave. He makes the point with an example about clothing: “A man would be ridiculous who should appear in public with a suit of clothes quite different from those which are commonly worn, though the new dress be ever so graceful or convenient”. The norms and expectations of the 18th Century shaped Smith’s central argument in the Wealth of Nations, hence the selfinterest of the butcher, the baker and the brewer. Are societal assumptions of the role of business the same today? Perhaps. But in a glacial way things are changing. Ideas are emerging of a different role. The B-Corp movement is but one of many responses to changing assumptions. And the Good Dividends project at Lancaster is another. We have engaged with more than 200 SMEs here in north-west England and in the south-west (with LUMS alumnus Dr Stewart Barnes) to explore a purpose-led multi-capital approach. PURPOSE IN PRACTICE One example is Cotteswold Dairy, a family-owned business in Gloucestershire that has supplied milk for more than 85 years. Employing around 470 people and sourcing milk from 65 local farms, its purpose is ‘To be at the heart of a responsible and sustainable dairy community.’ Following Covid-19 and Brexit, however, the company faced a significant challenge: recruiting and retaining staff. I shared with them a story of a business I had worked with that was tackling labour shortages through working in partnership with a local charity supporting survivors of modern slavery. Some months later, Cotteswold Operations Director Justin Young described how Cotteswold had adapted this thinking to develop a partnership with a local open prison, offering placements to prisoners preparing for release. The initiative required careful planning. Employees needed reassurance, operational procedures had to be 8 |
redesigned, and close collaboration with prison authorities was essential. Cotteswold involved employees throughout the programme’s development. The results extended far beyond recruitment. Employees designed a buddying system to support prisoners entering the workplace. In doing so, they created a stronger onboarding process that the company subsequently adopted for all new employees. As Justin explained: “Our staff realised tangible value in the prisoner programme and became thoroughly committed to its success. The buddying system created an entirely new approach to training that benefited existing employees, prisoners and every new recruit.” The programme also transformed lives. One participant reflected: “Work is reintegrating me back into society.” Another said: “Having money means I can buy my daughter lunch and provide for her for the first time.” Recognising the importance of restorative justice, prisoners received full wages, with the proportion they could not legally retain being donated directly to a victims’ charity. This decision emerged through consultation with employees and became central to the programme’s credibility. The benefits extended throughout the organisation: • Employee engagement increased. • Staff turnover fell. • Vacancies halved. • Annual savings exceeded £250,000 through improved retention and reduced recruitment. Justin summarised the experience: “The work made business sense. It was producing good dividends for everyone.” The company’s approach has since expanded to include partnerships supporting people experiencing homelessness, individuals recovering from addiction, and Feed Cheltenham, a social enterprise tackling food insecurity. Each week, surplus milk that would otherwise be disposed of is redistributed through local food banks. Employees even raised more than £20,000 to purchase a delivery van, enabling thousands more families to access nutritious food while reducing business waste. These initiatives are not corporate charity. They are examples of commercial success and social impact reinforcing one another. A NEED FOR DIVERSITY Cases such as Cotteswold Dairy raise a fundamental question. Instead of asking whether the economy is growing, what if we ask whether society is flourishing? Financial performance remains essential but profit alone is an incomplete measure of success. Flourishing businesses depend upon flourishing employees. Flourishing communities support flourishing businesses. Both ultimately depend upon a flourishing planet. Rather than viewing commercial and social value as competing priorities, Good Growth recognises them as mutually reinforcing. Over the past 10 years, our research has documented hundreds of examples demonstrating how organisations create value simultaneously for shareholders, employees, communities and the environment. We brought these lessons together in Realising Good Growth: A Practical Handbook for Business Leaders, accompanied by practical tools to help organisations put these ideas into practice. The opportunity now is to move from isolated examples to mainstream business practice. A FORK IN THE ROAD Robert Frost’s (1915) poem The Road Not Taken describes two paths diverging in a wood: ‘I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I — I took the one less travelled by And that has made all the difference’ Business leadership faces a similar choice. One path follows the familiar model of pursuing growth measured primarily through financial returns whilst being increasingly obligated to compliantly address environmental and social problems. The other asks organisations to rethink why they exist, how they create value, and who ultimately benefits. It challenges leaders to conceive of commercial success through a strategic process of enabling people, communities, and the natural world to flourish. It is undoubtedly the more demanding path. Yet it may also be the only one capable of delivering lasting prosperity. If we continue to pursue growth as we always have, future generations may well ask why we failed to act when better alternatives were available. If instead we choose Good Growth, the answer may be different. Leadership is defined not simply by how we lead, but by what we lead towards. Leadership is ultimately a process of enabling people to flourish. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 9 Steve Kempster is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Lancaster University Management School. His expertise is in the area of leadership, covering leadership learning; leadership practice; responsibilities and purposes of leadership; and social impact. Realising Good Growth: A Practical Guide for Business Leaders, by Professor Steve Kempster and Dr Stewart Barnes, is published by Routledge. s.kempster@lancaster.ac.uk trAnsfoRming toMorrow Listen to Steve talking about his work on Good Growth and Good Dividends on the Transforming Tomorrow podcast episode ‘Good or Evil in Business’ here: https://pod.fo/e/279742
10 |
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 11 Financial instruments shape everything from the stability of banks to the flow of money towards sustainable activities. Yet the information investors receive about them can be complex, uncertain and difficult to compare. Professor Argyro Panaretou explores how accounting standards can make financial markets more transparent, and why better reporting can have wide consequences. Tuning financial instruments reporting
Reliable information helps us make better decisions. From food labels that warn us about allergens to weather forecasts that influence our plans, we depend on information to understand risks and act accordingly. Financial markets are no different. But what happens when the information we need is about an uncertain future? Accounting information quietly underpins many of the decisions that shape our economy. Investors use it to decide where to put their money. Companies rely on it when making investment and financing decisions. Regulators use it to monitor risks to the financial system. For this information to be useful, it needs to be reliable and understandable. But achieving this is not always straightforward, particularly when it comes to financial instruments. Financial instruments, such as loans, bonds and derivatives, are contracts whose value can depend on a complex combination of future events. Estimating that value often requires assumptions about interest rates, economic conditions and the likelihood that borrowers will repay their debts. In other words, accounting sometimes requires organisations to put numbers on things that have not yet happened. Our research, funded by a Leverhulme project grant, examines how financial reporting standards can help make this information more useful and transparent and ultimately contribute to better-functioning financial markets. LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE The global financial crisis of 2008 demonstrated the importance of understanding financial risk before it is too late. One important response was a major change to international financial reporting standards (IFRS). In 2018, a new accounting standard, IFRS 9, changed how companies account for financial instruments. Among its most significant changes was a move towards recognising “expected credit losses”. Previously, banks generally recognised credit losses after evidence emerged that a borrower was unlikely to repay. The new approach asks them to look forward and consider what losses might reasonably be expected in the future? At first glance, this seems like an obvious improvement. If risks can be identified earlier, investors and regulators should have a clearer picture of a bank’s financial health. But there is a complication. The future is uncertain. Two banks looking at similar portfolios of loans may make different assumptions about future economic growth, unemployment, interest rates, or the probability of borrowers defaulting. As a result, a system designed to provide more timely information may also introduce greater managerial judgement into financial reporting. Our work examined whether these changes improved the comparability of accounting information across banks internationally. The answer was nuanced. Some elements of IFRS 9 appear to have improved comparability. However, the move towards estimating expected future credit losses reduced it. This highlights an important tension in financial reporting: looking further into the future may reveal risks earlier, but it can also make financial information more dependent on assumption. MORE IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER If accounting estimates involve uncertainty, one possible solution is to provide investors with more explanation. But this raises another question: does more disclosure in financial statements automatically mean better information? 12 |
Our research suggests not. Annual reports have become increasingly long and complex. While companies may provide extensive information, readers can struggle to identify what matters. Generic or highly standardised disclosures can satisfy regulatory requirements without necessarily helping investors understand the specific risks facing an organisation. We therefore examined disclosures relating to expected credit losses in banks. In particular, we investigated which types of information appear most useful to markets and financial analysts. The findings point to an important distinction between the “quantity” and “quality” of information. Disclosures appear to be most useful when they are specific to the organisation and provide meaningful explanations of uncertainty. Information about alternative economic scenarios and forwardlooking assumptions can help users understand not simply the number reported, but how that number was reached, and how it might change. This is particularly important when financial markets face uncertainty. The lesson extends beyond financial instruments. In an information-rich world, transparency is not simply about producing more data. It is about communicating information that helps people make better decisions. RARELY SIMPLE ANSWERS The challenge is to identify what information genuinely helps people understand economic reality. In this sense, financial reporting standards are part of the hidden infrastructure of financial markets. They shape how risks are measured, communicated and understood. Getting financial reporting right may sound like a technical challenge, but at its heart lies a much broader question, one that matters to investors, businesses and society alike: How can we make better decisions when the future is uncertain? Finding better answers to that question is essential to building financial markets that are more transparent, resilient and sustainable. Developing financial reporting standards that provide reliable, transparent and useful information is an important challenge for global standard setters and regulators, and one to which research such as that we are undertaking at Lancaster can make a direct contribution. MAKING A CONTRIBUTION Academics cannot do this in isolation. We need to work with those on the front line. I was appointed as an external consultant to the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation in 2023. The Foundation oversees the development of IFRS Accounting Standards, used across much of the world. I support projects of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) relating to IFRS 9: Financial Instruments and IFRS 7: Financial Instruments: Disclosures, and collaborate with IFRS technical staff, IASB members, and other academics, to contribute research evidence to discussions about the application and effectiveness of these standards. This policymaking involvement extends beyond international standard-setting. I am a member of the Academic Panel of EFRAG (formerly known as the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group). We contribute to the development of IFRS Accounting Standards and provide endorsement advice to the European Commission on their adoption within Europe, while EFRAG as a whole leads the development of, and provides implementation support for, the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). I bring academic expertise and research evidence, providing input on research priorities, project scope, methodologies and research outputs. Through this work, I have contributed to a range of projects spanning financial and sustainability reporting. Ultimately, the close relationship between research and policymaking helps ensure that financial reporting regulation is shaped not only by technical considerations, but also by robust evidence of how it works. By bringing research such as ours into the standard-setting process, policymakers can better understand how reporting requirements affect investors, companies and financial markets, while also anticipating the unintended consequences of new rules as markets and business practices evolve. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 13 Argyro Panaretou is a Professor of Accounting in the Department of Accounting and Finance at Lancaster University Management School. Her research focuses on the fields of accounting for financial instruments, fair value accounting, credit risk reporting, and hedge accounting. She has received a Leverhulme Trust Research project grant for Reporting financial instruments for better markets between 2023 and 2026. a.panaretou@lancaster.ac.uk
BREAKING BARRIERS, MAKING AN IMPACT How do women researchers in sub-Saharan Africa gain traction when it comes to making an impact with their work? Through the RECIRCULATE project, Professors Sarah Jack and Lola Dada worked with Dr Afua Owusu-Kwarteng and Dr Cynthia Forson to explore how women navigate systems largely shaped by and for men. 14 |
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 15
There is a growing expectation for us, as academics, to deliver not just high-quality teaching and research, but to generate societal impact through engagement activities. Increasingly, we engage with businesses and communities to instigate positive change, stimulate innovation, and advance the achievement of sustainable development. We have seen this engagement with non-academic organisations increase in importance here in the UK, but expectations are not confined to our shores. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), engagement activities have been developing since the launch of the Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa. This was when governments sought to achieve socioeconomic development by strengthening the engagement of higher education institutions with industry and local communities. But while governments have adopted the policies and strategies of developed countries, there are distinct challenges in the SSA region. Some are related to a relatively weak institutional context, with little or no access to policies, incentives, and the socioeconomic conditions that drive and encourage collaborations. Others come down to the individuals involved, their motivations and characteristics. Our work with Dr Afua Owusu-Kwarteng and Dr Cynthia Forson – which builds substantially on the research Afua undertook during her PhD at Lancaster – looks at the specific challenges facing women researchers. We wanted to find out how gender shapes their participation. This is a region with long-standing patriarchal structures, where there is distrust in women’s expertise, and where there are systemic constraints. SSA higher education institutions were mainly created to train men for leadership roles in post-colonial governments. Gender tends to create and sustain advantages for men rather than women, and only 8% of women in the region go into higher education (HE), compared to a global average of 42%. It is a region where being in HE in the first place is an achievement for women. Enjoying success and engaging with industry is even more challenging. OBSTACLES AND LIMITATIONS As part of her PhD research, Afua interviewed researchers across six subSaharan African countries – Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Zambia – to understand women’s experiences of academic engagement and the particular constraints they encountered. The research showed how women’s involvement in academic engagement activities can be shaped by barriers and limitations that their male counterparts do not experience in the same way. Some of the women were involved in the RECIRCULATE project, a collaboration between Lancaster University, businesses, research organisations and communities in Africa. RECIRCULATE trained researchers in knowledge exchange and created opportunities for them to work with local communities and nonacademic organisations. The research highlighted the gendered environments within which this engagement takes place. Research organisations can be shaped by traditionally masculine norms and expectations, while the businesses and other organisations researchers engage with may also be maledominated. These structures and practices can create particular challenges for women seeking to build relationships, gain legitimacy and advance their careers. Even when women do gain access to those spaces, they are battling against the cultural norms of a region where women are expected to prioritise marriage and motherhood over their careers. The interviewees used three main methods to overcome institutional challenges if they are not seen as matching the masculine image of the ideal worker. In the HE context, an ideal researcher is seen as an ‘older man, with a beard, and a big stomach’. To counter this, the women engaged in networking with others in the same situation; they adopted masculine characteristics expected of successful men in the same sphere; and they enhanced their own skills and competencies, showcasing how they aid them in the activities. BUILDING NETWORKS Women researchers describe how domestic responsibilities limit the time available for networking and other engagement activities. These pressures were reinforced by gendered social expectations. For example, neglecting domestic responsibilities could be viewed as inappropriate, while meeting a man professionally in informal settings, such as a bar, could attract social disapproval. If institutional structures that would allow them to flourish in academic engagement are missing, then our participants talked of independently building and maintaining collaborations. By networking with other accomplished women engaged in collaborations with industry, the interviewees saw what was possible. It allowed them to create ‘an environment where [they] would thrive and grow without being apologetic for it’. They can do this using digital environments, where they can freely communicate with other female colleagues, mentors and role models, gaining support and guidance. They could foster important relationships of trust and reciprocity. But while there are benefits to these women-only networks, they also have constraints. They limit access to valuable resources and information only available in male networks, and as a result they might only allow women to get by rather than to get ahead. A MAN’S WORLD? Some participants felt being a woman could work in their favour. One described being assigned certain roles because they were the only woman in the organisation. While this may sound positive, it risked trapping her in a tokenistic position, where her visibility and opportunities were shaped by her gender as much as her expertise. Our research showed that women in the ‘hard’ sciences tended to be looked on with a form of benevolent sexism that sometimes had positive results but could also lead to sexual harassment from male industry partners. It was important for women researchers to learn behaviours such as emotional resilience and confidence that appealed 16 |
to the cultures of male-dominated firms. “You must not be emotional,” one expressed. “Because they will definitely play with your feelings.” Participants highlighted the need to adopt masculine attitudes and postures to have a better chance of fostering relationships with men in industry. While culture might say women should remain at home and be submissive, some of our interviewees took the opposite approach. “We need to be more visible at the workplace,” one told us. “So, for industry collaborations, we must go out there and sales pitch ourselves and let them know that we have this expertise.” Embodying masculinity could allow women researchers to avoid the risk of being underestimated. It might allow them to be recognised for their competencies. While these habits may reap results in the short-term, in the long-term it is unlikely to have any transformative effects on women’s circumstances in work and organisations. WOMEN CAN MAKE IT WORK Our participants noted that industries preferred to work with men because of the ‘motherhood problems that women come with’. We heard how employers discriminate against academic mothers because of the perception they may not be able to work at certain times or for longer hours. But they also told us how they would shape people’s perceptions of them as academic mothers who can accomplish activities designated to them. “You must set an example for people to see what you are capable of,” one interviewee told us. “When they see it, they visualise it, and then they talk to you, their confidence level goes up, they know you can do it and then they give you the job.” Some participants showed their dual work-family identities on LinkedIn, showing others their capabilities and gaining a positive profile. MORE CHANGE NEEDED We see throughout our research how women researchers recognise the gendered influences on their work in academic engagement. We see examples of sexual harassment, stereotyping and sexism (benevolent or otherwise) in dealing with maledominated firms, and little institutional support for them. The responses they undertake are gendered as well – be it an emphasis on femininity or masculinity. What is needed is action on a grander scale, with policies designed to support marginalised groups that consider the differing factors that affect their participation in academic engagement activities. Existing diversity policies can often fail to capture these complex factors and can encourage the affected groups to become complicit in the inequalities. Without change, these women academics face being trapped in a cycle of low wages, limited career opportunities, and harmful working conditions that can widen gender inequality across academia and broader society. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 17 Lola Dada is Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Department of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Lancaster University Management School. Her core research areas are in entrepreneurship, innovation, franchising and strategy. l.dada@lancaster.ac.uk Both authors were part of the RECIRCULATE project, a £7m project funded by the UK government’s Global Challenges Research Fund, through UK Research and Innovation. RECIRCULATE worked closely with businesses, research organisations and communities in Africa on eco-innovations for the circular water economy. This research was supported by RECIRCULATE under the UK Research and Innovation through the Global Challenges Research Fund Grant Ref. ES/P010857/1. The article In pursuit of the third mission: Exploring women’s participation in academic engagement activities in sub-Saharan Africa, by Dr Afua Owusu-Kwarteng, of Northumbria University (formerly a PhD researcher at Lancaster University); Professor Sarah Jack, and Professor Lola Dada, of Lancaster University; and Dr Cynthia Forson, of LU Ghana, is published in the journal Technovation. This article builds on Dr Afua Owusu-Kwarteng’s research, while she was a funded PhD student in the Department of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Lancaster University Management School, as part of the RECIRCULATE project. Sarah Jack is Distinguished Professor in the Department of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Lancaster University Management School. Her research focuses on the social aspects of entrepreneurship. s.l.jack@lancaster.ac.uk
What obstacles are there preventing young people from entering the workplace? Jon Fitzmaurice, from the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, explains analysis on the current situation facing those eager to enter employment. THE FIRST STEP IS THE HARDEST 18 |
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 19
Youth employment has risen rapidly up the political agenda over the past year. Nearly a million young people aged between 16 and 24 in the UK are now not in education, employment or training (NEET). Much of the debate on why has rightly focused on the complex barriers that can prevent young people from entering work. However, there has been less attention on whether employers are creating enough suitable opportunities for young people to take their first steps into the labour market. Previous Work Foundation research found that starter job vacancies have fallen by 49% over the past decade, leaving just one starter vacancy for every three NEET young people nationally. Our latest research, drawing on a nationally representative survey of 1,001 UK senior business leaders, examines how employers view the youth employment challenge and how their recruitment practices are changing. EMPLOYERS’ UNDERSTANDING Nearly three quarters (73%) of employers say the level of young people who are NEET is a national crisis, while 76% agree employers have a responsibility to do more. The findings also challenge the narrative that young people are failing to meet employers’ expectations. Three in five employers (60%) say 1624-year-olds are generally ready for the world of work, while 73% believe they face greater barriers to entering employment than five years ago. Yet 36% of employers say they have reduced entry-level jobs over the last year. This rises to 48% of mediumsized employers and 46% of large employers, compared with 24% of small firms. These findings suggest that many young people are ready for work but are finding it increasingly difficult to secure a job. EXPERIENCE NEEDED The UK is facing a youth jobs drought and employers have more applicants than jobs available. This means two thirds of employers now prioritise education qualifications (63%) and previous work experience (62%) when recruiting for entry-level roles. Some vacancies will legitimately require particular skills, but the need for previous experience creates a trap. Employers value experience, but many young people cannot gain it when entry-level roles increasingly go to candidates who already have it. In workshops in Morecambe and Liverpool earlier this year, young people told us that ‘no-one is hiring’ and ‘I want the work, but the work does not want me’. While almost three in five employers (59%) offered placements, apprenticeships, internships or work experience over the previous year, supportive practices and restrictive entry requirements continue to coexist. DOUBLE PRESSURE FROM AI Artificial intelligence and automation are adding another layer of complexity for young jobseekers. More than two in five employers (44%) say they have used AI or automated systems to screen applications, while 43% report investing in AI or automation that has reduced entry-level roles. 20 | 60% of employers say 16-24-year-olds are generally ready for the world of work
Among large employers, these figures rise to 64% and 60% respectively. For employers, these technologies can help manage applications, reduce costs and redesign routine tasks. But there are potential consequences for young people. Entry-level work often consists of routine tasks through which young people gain valuable experience. If automation removes these tasks, employers may need fewer junior workers or could redesign roles around higher-level capabilities. At the same time, automated recruitment is changing how young people compete for the jobs that remain. Young people have previously described to us how online and AI-led recruitment are complex and demoralising, with some unsure whether a person had even seen their application. Technology may be starting to reduce some entry-level opportunities, but it is already making recruitment processes more inflexible and less personal for jobseekers. EMPLOYER CAPACITY GAP Creating more jobs is only part of the challenge. Employers also need the capacity to support young people once they enter work. Most employers (72%) say they can support young people taking their first steps into employment. However, this falls to 62% for those who have been NEET for six months or more. Business size reveals an important divide. Four in five large employers (80%) say they can support young people who have been NEET for six months or more, compared with just 44% of small employers. This creates a challenge for policymakers. Larger employers may be easier for government to work with at scale, but they are more likely to be reducing entry-level opportunities. Smaller employers may offer an important source of additional jobs, but financial incentives alone may not give them the capacity to participate. MAKING POLICY WORK The UK Government has responded to the youth employment challenge by introducing new measures, including the Jobs Guarantee, which is expected to provide 90,000 eligible young people with six-month paid jobs over three years. These interventions may drive improvements but are unlikely on their own to significantly increase longer-term employment opportunities, particularly in weaker local labour markets. Government has an opportunity to take a more daring approach, working alongside employers to expand access to good quality jobs. Our analysis highlights three priorities: • Take a bolder approach to job creation. Ensure subsidised roles are genuinely additional, offering a living wage, training, security and clear progression. • Strengthen practical support for employers. Smaller firms may need help with recruitment, induction, mentoring and workplace adjustments. • Make entry-level recruitment more accessible. Employers receiving public funding should review unnecessary experience requirements, how AI is used to screen applicants, and whether young people receive meaningful feedback. Our findings suggest employers do not need convincing that youth worklessness is a serious problem. The challenge is creating enough good opportunities, keeping entry-level roles accessible and giving employers the capacity to support young people. Without targeted intervention, more young people risk becoming disconnected from the labour market, with lasting consequences for individuals and the wider economy. By strengthening support for employers and expanding access to good quality jobs, Government can help more young people take their first steps into secure and rewarding employment. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 21 Jon Fitzmaurice is Head of External Engagement at the Work Foundation at Lancaster University. This article draws on First steps: How employers and Government can tackle the youth employment crisis, by Jon Fitzmaurice, Ben Harrison, Emelia Williams and Christopher Wood. The analysis is based on a nationally representative Survation survey of 1,001 UK senior business leaders conducted in May 2026. j.fitzmaurice@lancaster.ac.uk 44% of employers have used AI or automated systems to screen applications
22 |
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 23 Cyber risk is no longer a technical problem to be handed to the IT department. Avril Palmer-Fye explains why responsible digital leadership has become one of the defining challenges for today’s organisations, and how a new Lancaster initiative is bringing research and practice together to meet it. Leading when you can never be fully secure
When a cyber-attack strikes an organisation, the damage rarely stays in the IT server room. In September 2025, an attack on Jaguar Land Rover halted production for around five weeks. The independent Cyber Monitoring Centre later estimated it cost the UK economy about £1.9 billion and disrupted more than 5,000 organisations across the supply chain. It is the most economically damaging cyber event in the country’s history. For years, cyber security was treated as a specialist concern. It was delegated to a Chief Information Security Officer, budgeted as a cost and reviewed by the board perhaps once a year. That model is breaking down. Digital technology is no longer one part of the organisation; increasingly, it is the organisation. Supply chains, customer relationships, financial systems and critical national infrastructure all depend on interconnected technologies, and artificial intelligence is accelerating that dependence. Even the supermarket freezer is now a networked device. In October 2026, attackers remotely switched refrigeration units in more than 500 French shops to temperatures as high as 50°C overnight, spoiling tonnes of food and causing fires in some stores. Weeks later, a further wave hit supermarkets in Belgium, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Estonia and Ireland. These are not really stories about firewalls. They are stories about leadership: about decisions made – or not made – in boardrooms long before any attacker arrived. A LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE Regulators and governments have noticed. Expectations that boards and directors own digital risk, rather than simply receive reports about it, are rising across sectors. The question leaders face has shifted from “Are we secure?” to something harder: “How do we lead responsibly when we can never be completely secure?” That question sits at the heart of the new Cyber Leadership Forum (CLF) at Lancaster University Management School. Bringing together experts from academia and from practice, the CLF organises its work around three interconnected pillars. TRUST, GOVERNANCE AND STRATEGIC RESPONSIBILITY The first pillar asks: how can organisations govern digital risk responsibly while building trust, resilience and sustainable strategic capacity? Governance and accountability come first. When an incident occurs, who owns the decision to shut down systems, notify customers or engage with attackers? Boards do not need to become technical experts, but they do need enough digital fluency to ask the right questions and challenge the answers they receive. 24 |
Trust and legitimacy follow closely. Trust is built slowly and lost quickly, and how an organisation responds to a breach (how openly, how quickly, how humanely) often shapes public confidence as much as the breach itself. Resilience and preparedness require leaders to assume that disruption will happen and to rehearse their response before it does. Recovery is a strategic capability, not an afterthought. Finally, ethics and responsibility raise genuinely hard dilemmas: whether to pay a ransom, how to use customer data, and what obligations an organisation owes to the suppliers and communities that depend on it. ADAPTIVE CAPABILITY AND CULTURAL INTEGRATION The second pillar asks: how do organisations cultivate the capability, culture and organisational resilience needed to adapt in evolving digital environments? Technology alone has never kept an organisation safe. Many incidents begin with a human moment: a convincing phone call, a rushed approval, a password reused. The answer is not to blame people but to build cultures in which they can spot risks, admit mistakes quickly, and report concerns without fear. The focus is on people and capability, culture and behaviour, learning and development, and inclusion and engagement. The cyber skills gap is well documented, but the leadership gap is just as pressing. Organisations need leaders who can translate between technical teams and the boardroom, and who treat security as part of everyone’s role rather than a specialist silo. Inclusion matters here too. Diverse teams notice different risks and imagine different responses. A sector that draws on a narrow talent pool will struggle to anticipate a broad range of threats. DIGITAL FUTURES, AI, AND SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION The third pillar looks ahead, asking: how should leaders navigate technological futures while balancing innovation, responsibility and societal impact? AI and other emerging technologies promise significant gains in productivity and insight. They also introduce new risks, from AI-enabled fraud to automated systems making decisions no-one can fully explain. Leaders are being asked to adopt these tools quickly while remaining accountable for their consequences. This brings together AI and emerging technologies, innovation and transformation, foresight and future thinking, and society and impact. Foresight is a leadership skill in its own right: the ability to scan the horizon, test assumptions and prepare for several possible futures rather than betting on one. The societal dimension is equally important. Digital transformation affects communities, public services and small businesses that lack the resources of large corporations. Responsible leadership means asking not only “Can we?” but “Should we, and who might be left behind?” THREE PILLARS, ONE PURPOSE The pillars are deliberately interdependent. Governance without a capable culture produces policies that exist only on paper. Capability without foresight prepares organisations for yesterday’s threats. Innovation without trust erodes the legitimacy organisations need to operate at all. Together, they point towards four outcomes: trust and legitimacy, capability and resilience, responsible innovation, and sustainable leadership – leaders able to navigate uncertain digital futures for the long term, not just the next quarter. FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 25 Avril Palmer-Fye is Co-Director of the Cyber Executive MBA and Director of Engagement for Professional and Executive Management Learning (PEML) at Lancaster University Management School. She chairs the Cyber Leadership Forum steering group. a.palmer-fye@lancaster.ac.uk THE CYBER LEADERSHIP FORUM The Cyber Leadership Forum (CLF) is an interdisciplinary initiative at Lancaster University Management School that brings together academics, practitioners, policymakers, industry leaders and students to explore one question: how can organisations lead responsibly in increasingly complex digital futures? The Forum grew out of the School’s work in cyber leadership education, including the Cyber Executive MBA and the Cyber Leaders in Residence programme, which connects senior leaders from sectors such as energy, nuclear, consulting, and data with Lancaster’s students and researchers. It was launched in September 2026. Its ambition is to build a community where practice informs research and research strengthens practice. Its outputs will shape a research agenda, executive education, partnerships and policy dialogue, in a continuous cycle of learning and impact.
26 |
FIFTY FOUR DEGREES | 27 Tourists are not always given the full picture when they visit somewhere new. Dr Josiane Fernandes and Dr Teea Palo show how the communities of two destinations on opposite sides of the world took a stand against their homes being shaped by external operators and began to tell the true story of their peoples and their cultures. PAINTING A TRUER PICTURE
How much do you know about Lapland? Be honest, you just thought about Santa Claus, didn’t you? Maybe throw in a reindeer or two, some sparkling Christmas decorations, and a sleighride through the snow if you’re lucky. Now what about the favelas of Rio de Janeiro? This one is harder. There is a chance you do not know anything at all. If you do know anything, you might be thinking of dangerous streets, gang crime, precarious homes. Both images have been crafted and shaped for you by many actors, including media and travel companies. They do not reflect the full truth of either location or the lives of the people who live there (Santa excluded). Between us as researchers, we have expertise on both the favela and Christmas tourism markets. We have built relationships with the people, the places and the markets, and have come to see the conflicts between indigenous people and those from outside looking to market their communities to bring in tourists. In Rio, you can look at how far away the favelas are from the hotels of visitors, creating a distance – and disconnect? – between them. Most of the area is invisible in representations of Rio’s landscape, and these framings add to the image of the favela as a problem needing to be solved or eliminated from Rio. When a new metro line passed by Rocinha ahead of the 2016 Olympics, the nearest station was named São Conrado, denying the Rocinha favela visibility and excluding the community once more. Favela residents are seen as ‘other’ from the rest of the city, separated from surrounding wealth and institutions. In Lapland, Christmas tourist infrastructure manufactures a world unlike that inhabited by the communities who have lived there for many generations. Indigenous communities in both locales have not stood idly by and let this happen. In our work, we have seen them change how the place is framed, and how they are portrayed. They have resisted the way their homes were marketed and have moved to roles that are part of the marketisation of their areas. RIO’S ‘SUBNORMAL’ WORLD Several Rio favelas have become tourist destinations, attracting thousands of visitors each year. Tours started in the 1990s, with businesses from Rio ‘proper’ taking visitors to see the distinctive architecture. But this also helps to ‘other’ them. Tours by non-indigenous guides would see jeeps pass through. Guides told tales of poverty, violence and drugs gangs. Tourists observed the place and the people through cameras, with their preconceptions reinforced of a dangerous and exotic place. They could pass through; they should not engage. Money went out of the favelas with the tour companies. There were no stops to spend money in local businesses, the jeeps ‘safeguarded’ tourists from speaking to the people – the economic separation of the area continued. In essence, outsiders were appropriating the areas and creating a market with no local involvement. There came a steadily growing dissatisfaction among locals towards outsiders shaping their home. They railed against the lack of interaction between tourists and residents, and wanted their stories told by themselves. They wanted to show the ‘real’ favela. A TRUE REFLECTION Tours run by outsiders began to be called ‘safaris’, which showed no respect for the community and reinforced historic boundaries between the favela and the city. To reframe Rocinha from ‘safarisation’, community members focused on creating new practices and representations of their homes. People shifted to become entrepreneurs, offering ‘reality tours’ far removed from the safaris. They campaigned for inclusion in brochures such as the city’s Guia Oficial and proposed guidelines for ‘community-based responsible tours’. The tour operators live in the favelas, they walk people through their neighbourhoods, talk about their history, encourage speaking with community members, eating in restaurants, buying from traders. Social media is a powerful ally of these new tour guides. They can use it to create and share representations of Rocinha as an inclusive, authentic part 28 |
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=