Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Better Late than Never'

There's been a late payment furore this week, in my world at least. I was interviewed on 5Live Investigates on Sunday and then on Monday the Prime Minister announced that BIS is going to launch a consultation on the subject.

In the midst of Cameron's announcement he repeated the suggestion made by Vince Cable in August that there might be penalties or fines for late payment. Quite apart from the debate about the practicalities of implementing such a step, the point missed is that the Late Payment legislation introduced in 1998 and strengthened by subsequent Statutory Instruments, most recently in March this year, allows for a fixed fee to be charged and supplemented by additional recovery costs for invoices paid late. The Institute's press release issued on Monday makes the point that the late payment charges are, by definition, a fine or levy for late payment.

Lord Digby Jones entered the fray stating that the Prompt Payment Code wasn't effective. He said it was merely a nice statement of intent. But that's exactly what it is: a voluntary commitment to treat suppliers fairly and pay them according to the terms agreed! If it had the teeth that he is demanding, it would cease to be a voluntary code. Now I'm not saying it couldn't be improved nor am I disagreeing with the sentiment for other or more stringent measures but I do get frustrated when people say something isn't working when it's doing what it says on the tin!

Some critics have suggested that I'm personally responsible for the Code and its defender-in-chief. I'm not, the ICM simply hosts and administers it for government but let's not dismiss the benefits out of hand: nearly 1,500 organisations have signed up, including 72 of the FTSE100; many have made fundamental changes to improve their internal systems and processes; and a dialogue has started where conversations didn't previously exist. If the Code didn't exist, by the way, the debate wouldn't be taking place and the issue wouldn't be getting airtime in the way it is. These are tangible benefits and should neither be ignored nor trivialised.

The fact is that the Prompt Payment Code was introduced as a measure to drive a change in culture complementing other measures such as the late payment legislation, naming and shaming by business organisations, and good credit management practice which - all too often - is missing from business relationships. This last point was driven home to me at an ICM Regional Roadshow in London yesterday when attendees heard about the breadth of influence credit management has, and the value it adds, across the entire business.

Credit management isn't just about collecting cash from recalcitrant customers. Good credit management starts before an order is even received by assessing the risk of a potential customer, establishing its identity and status, ensuring that it is good for the sums of credit likely to be incurred, submitting invoices correctly and promptly, understanding its invoice processing and approval systems so that they can be met, and taking swift action if payment isn't going to arrive when it's expected.

I'm capturing a huge amount of activity in a single sentence and not doing it justice but my point is this: we have to change the culture to one where treating suppliers fairly is part of the corporate responsibility agenda and we have to stamp out exploitation of small businesses by organisations that wilfully take advantage of their supplier base but that's not the whole story. We also have to help businesses to help themselves by getting the basics right. Unless we do that, we'll never see the improvement we all seek.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Making a date with Destiny'

My Executive Assistant at ICM HQ, Tracy Carter, is also responsible for driving our social media strategy and activity. Last week she started a discussion on LinkedIn that has generated a riveting discussion. The question she posed was: "I had an interesting conversation with my 13 year old nephew about choosing a career, and he asked me if a career in credit management would be good and if it is important? How would you answer?"

There have been plenty of long-standing credit professionals like me saying what a brilliant career credit management is. They have highlighted positive aspects of the profession such as the variety it brings, the different skills it develops, the fact that it touches every part of the business, and delivers real value in many ways.

Some, including much younger contributors than me I'm pleased to say, have recognised that the role will become more strategic and less operational as technology continues to change the way we work. Others have stressed the need for personal and professional development as a way of building what is an interesting and satisfying job into a real career.

As with all discussion forums, the debate deviates from the original question and there is some disagreement, but the divergence of views adds to the vibrancy of the thread and I'm pleased to note that the underlying mood has remained positive. It should do so because many of the very senior people in credit I know could vouch for the career prospects as they have reached the top of their chosen profession and become key players within their own businesses.

As I write these words, I'm preparing for the latest quarterly meeting of the ICM Credit Industry Think Tank, the participants on which are all a testament to the opportunities afforded by credit management as a profession. Credit management is a dynamic and thriving profession and Tracy's nephew can be assured that it would be a good career choice. But let's not kid him. The reality is that it will be down to him to take hold of the opportunity with both hands and make the most of it. As one of the contributors to the LinkedIn discussion said: "....each individual is responsible for their own destiny."

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Shuffling the pack'

 

I'm always fascinated by arguments about correct usage of words and I was amused by a debate on the Radio 4 Today programme on Tuesday about whether, since the bulk movement of Ministerial appointments was the first by David Cameron, it should actually be called a shuffle rather than a reshuffle. A complete irrelevance but nevertheless quite fun!

 

More interesting has been the debate about the real reasons for the changes and whether they are to achieve policy shifts, to recognise good or poor performance, to change the political spin brought to specific areas of government activity, or simply to change the shape or style of the ministerial team. There are many and diverse views about this, and I suspect the reality is that it is a combination of all four and some more besides.

 

Speaking personally, I'm sorry to see Mark Prisk move from his role as Minister of State for Business and Enterprise. Although I haven't always agreed with him, he is tuned into business and seems to understand well the challenges they face. It will be interesting to see whether Michael Fallon maintains the momentum started by Mark but the inactivity caused by ministerial transition is always frustrating even though it's nothing new and expected.

 

Whatever the motivations for the changes, many issues remain and require resolution, one of which is the amount of debt owed to central government estimated to cost the public purse £7-8billion per year. Earlier this year, the interim report 'Tackling Debt owed to Government' was issued by the Cabinet Office's Fraud, Error and Debt Taskforce and since then the Institute has continued its engagement with the task force and the Debt Expert Panel in identifying how professionalism in debt management across government can be enhanced and improved. As part of that work, we are pleased to be working in association with Dods who are delivering a conference in London on 15 October considering the issues raised by the report, reviewing the activity underway, and looking to the future. If you're involved in working in, or with, the public sector in any way and want to attend, please register here, and I'm pleased to say ICM members can gain a £200 discount from the standard conference fee.

 

 

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'A source for good'

A slightly unusual topic for me this week prompted by recent personal experience. I was involved with a police force at the weekend about a missing person. The details and circumstances aren't important but the police wanted to know everything I knew about the missing person who has gone AWOL many miles from home and may need help.

My wife and I shared all we knew (which wasn't much to be honest) and my wife referred the police to Facebook which included a number of friends in the area where they were looking, and had comments that might give clues as to their whereabouts. We were asked if we had a picture of the individual and we confirmed we had but pointed out that a more recent and clearer one was on Facebook.

Extraordinarily, a few minutes later we received a phone call asking if we could download the picture and email it, along with any other relevant information, because the police didn't have access to Facebook and so couldn't use that source of information! I don't know if this is common to all police forces and I don't know the detailed reasons why access is denied but - in today's age - I was incredulous that such a productive source of information couldn't be used!

I discussed the use of Facebook in tracing debtors following the release of the OFT's Debt Collection Guidance a few weeks ago and shared my view that the content of the guidance was being misrepresented by the media. We've also recently heard the ongoing debate about how social media was insufficiently monitored during the riots across the UK in the summer.

Social media is a powerful tool that can be used for good - as well as bad - but it strikes me that the potential 'dangers' of Facebook et al and sensitivities over privacy, while understandable, are getting in the way of progress. It certainly seems absurd that the police could not pursue what to me would have been a blindingly obvious line of enquiry.

Whether we like it or not, social media is here to stay and we can't just ignore it. The ICM has heavily embraced Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook because we know a proportion of our members are using them and we see many benefits.

I fear, however, that in certain cases bureaucracy is winning and the loser is someone who could really need help!