Here in the 21st century, we are experiencing the march towards an integrated, borderless, competitive and turbulent global market place. Amidst the power struggles of nations in a world with depleting natural resources, and ever-evolving technologies, the globalizing world is creating economic opportunities and growth as well as risks and challenges for nation, its governments, industries, organizations and academia (NGIOA) all over the world.
These are changing times. Every nation, its governments, industries, organizations and academia (NGIOA) need to have a common goal of maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. NGIOA must work as a cohesive front for a better national as well as global future and need to not only demonstrate a clear sense of leadership, but also adapt to the changing national/global business fundamentals. Furthermore, NGIOA must be united to address another integral force: the growing complexity of national/global challenges. Today, more than ever before, NGIOA needs an ability to manage present and impending complex national /global challenges.
Meeting national challenges is only the first step. There is a clear need for a national /global effort to manage national/global risks. A national risk council/global risk council that proactively manages critical risks facing the nation/global community is a need of the time. It is important that such proposed councils advances professional collaboration and a proactive approach among the NGIOA and the global community to establish preparatory measures on critical national and global issues and risks. Transparency, collaboration and a proactive approach are the need of the time, and time is of the essence.
Let me know your thoughts.
Jayshree Pandya PhD
Global Risk Advisor
#1 by dlevit on March 5th, 2009 - 3:13 pm
Dear Dr. Pandya,
My thoughts: International consumerism and the new global capitalistic hegemony are not the future but the present – save for a few hold out nations. Many in the United States are hopeful our new administration will be better able to both keep dialogue and encourage positive action toward understanding/accepting ideological differences while effecting globally beneficial alterations to existing business practices. To this end, species and conservation of natural resources must be on the forefront while the bottom line is drawn in black rather than red. Without securitization and growth of assets there will be little interest in the protection of the environment regardless of the understood global impact to the collective biology.
Pathways paved between nations must be cleared and navigated by the collective legal minds in conjunction with global insurers to manage the multiple risks, perceived, real and unconsidered. If anyone is to make it through to the 22 century, we have some hard times ahead. Many are willing to roll up sleeves and do the hard work, but others, and many, are only out for gold and whatever other loot they can secure in the mad dash through the fallen ranks. We must not lose focus! And fight fire with good international contract law and creative insurance solutions. Only then will our environmental business solutions for an acceptable global economy be realized among those with no real interest in or for the future.
That’s just my two cents on your topic. I always welcome thoughtfully constructive criticism.
Sincerely,
David E. Levit
International Insurance Broker (New York)
Dlevit@frenkel.com
#2 by Marcos Nascimento on February 17th, 2009 - 1:12 pm
Dear Dr. Jayshree Panda,and group members,
I agree. There is indeed a need for an organism to act in order to safeguard the existence of the human species and has the support of the United Nations or part of their agenda.
this idea of an international community united and proactive work ideally as the old continent ‘Pangea’.
For further declare that the end of history, political and economic cycles are repeated.In 20 years, ending the dream of liberalism has exacerbated, even during the Second War, the formation of the structure of global governance that, with all its defects, has led the way for more equitable world in thirty years. But first, there was exacerbated nationalism, the Nazism, fascism.
The new world that will emerge from the crisis will be better. Will be working around the appliance, the statement of environmental protection, fighting consumerism madness, the control of major financial moves, better care and respect for the environment.
But now we are in the middle of the earthquake and the shadows: demonstrations against immigrants, protectionist moves arround the world.However , there is always the possibility that after the darkness comes the light!
The proposal of a global risk council It is a certainty that there is still light and we will not go to the bottom of the well.
Dr.Marcos Nascimento,MD.
Respiratory Care Disease
Professor of Medicine at PUCPR
Consulting inTobacco Control and Prevention at PULMÃO SA.
#3 by VoD on February 12th, 2009 - 6:11 am
While the proposal is very noble, I have a slightly different point of view. However, at the outset, I must admit to two biases. First, my PoV is ‘India-Centric’ hence may not be entirely applicable in the USA or elsewhere (although having worked in US & UK for 20 years prevents me from ignorance). Secondly, I don’t believe Committees, Councils etc add much value to any great process (they are mostly composed of individuals who are too busy to deliver on the noble causes and generally preoccupied with self-interest).
What I think the need of the hour is greater accountablity of those who are supposed to deliver on their expectations. The current crises did not happen due to the lack of a Council, nor could it have been prevented if such a Council existed. However, I suspect that if there was a robust risk assessment & management exercise on part of the NGIOA’s individually then enough alarm bells should have gone off and much sooner. The only problem is that each of these bodies looks at risk from thier own myopic prespective and on a snap-shot basis. Nobody seems to study the trends of an industry (e.g., real estate) or a particular sector (e.g., the financial sector) over a long period of time to anticipate the ensuing disaster, or if they do, they don’t have the conviction to sound the alarm bells. That’s why accountablity to hold them more responsible should be addressed, rather than another ‘think-tank’ with little or no teeth.
What a Council can deliver, at best, is a higher degree of coordination, which to my mind is already possible (in an informal manner) in this age of superior technology and global connectivity.
Lets address the real issues staring at us and not waste our time on noble thoughts and causes, which may or may not yield the desired results, especially when dealing with big bodies like the Nations, Governments etc.!