Impact case study database

Failler’s research has had a strong and long-term impact upon public policy at both the international and national level. These policies, in turn, are leading to the improved design of environmental policy in the aquatic field across a growing number of (implementing) countries.

Impact 1: Changing International Policy

Africa is a significant testing ground for BG policies. Three of its large marine ecosystems (LMEs) rank within the first four most productive LMEs in the world. If all catches in African waters were landed in Africa, the sector could contribute a landed value of USD20 billion to national economies, with an additional USD3.6 billion injected by the small-scale fishing sectors across the value chain. This represents 1.26% of the GDP of all African countries (and up to 35% for some of the small island states). Not surprisingly, the fisheries of Africa provide a source of livelihood for 8,000,000 active fishers and their families, with the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimating as many as 6,000,000 of these could be in poverty ( R3).

Failler was appointed as the joint co-ordinating lead author (overseeing the research of 14 national experts) for the IPBES African regional assessment chapter on ‘NCP and Quality of Life’ in April 2015. His specific contributions were to; (i) identify the mix of governance options, policies and management practices that are currently available to reduce the loss of aquatic biodiversity and of NCP in that region, and (ii) provide a series of take-home messages for revitalising international policy development on the theme. His influence was strongly evident in the second of the two exhortations The Future we Want – Making it Happen Together in the final report, highlighting to policy-makers that “Governance options that harness synergies and deliver multiple benefits, supported by an enabling environment, can help to balance patterns of access and allocation of ecosystem services in Africa. Policy coherence may also contribute towards poverty reduction and help to build resilience.” (the emphasis is ours) ( S1, p. 15).

It also led the African Union to take action following at the Nairobi Sustainable Blue Economy Conference of November 2018. African leaders at the Conference directed the African Union to work with “relevant stakeholders to develop a blueprint of Africa’s Blue Economy Strategy (ABES) that will guide sustainable development and utilization of resources of the Oceans, Seas, Lakes and Rivers for blue economy growth and livelihoods” ( R5, p. ix). Failler was appointed in June 2019 as one of six experts, and his imprint is clearly evident in the final February 2020 document ( S2). Central to the Strategy was the creation of a BG Office reporting directly into the higher echelons of the AU decision-making hierarchy. Its mission is to ensure policy coherence, not only in the realms relating to the management of biological resources (i.e.: fisheries), non-biological resources (i.e.: oil and energy) and ocean governance, but also ensuring BG policy aligns with the longer-term objectives of the African Union Agenda 2063, Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy 2050, the UN Agenda 2030 (SDGs), and the 2016 Lomé Charter on Maritime Security and Safety. According to Dr. Mohamed Seisay at the Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources, the BG policy framework under the leadership of Failler is ‘likely to be a real game-changer in terms of not only more effectively measuring nature’s contribution to people at the international level, but also in providing ever more effective pathways out of poverty for many African fishers and their families’ ( S3).

ABES is accompanied by an 89 point Blue Economy Implementation Plan 2021-2025, with BG being the ‘overarching thematic area’ ( S4, p.3). The Plan pledged to implement a specialist BG toolkit combining BE natural capital accounting, marine and freshwater spatial planning, BE Standards (to ensure the sustainability of production, trade and consumption of BE goods and services) and innovative ‘blue’ funding mechanisms (such as the ‘blue bonds’ issued by the Seychelles) along the lines advocated by Failler across the region ( R5). These tools and techniques were developed under the UNECA Blue Economy and Natural Capital Accounting Systems Programme, trialled in Djibouti, Rwanda and the Seychelles, and endorsed by UNECA in December 2020 ( S5). As UNECA states : ‘The BE Valuation Toolkit and Operational Manual are superlative additions to the armoury of analytic techniques we have available for implementing environmental policy across the African aquatic arena. Failler’s role in helping us develop the toolkit in accord with BG principles is worthy of the highest praise.’ ( S6).

Impact 2: Changing National Strategy

The integration of the concept of BG and its principles into the governance of oceanic ecosystems is, moreover, growing at the national level across the globe. To cite just three examples drawn from three distinct developing regions:

1. Bangladesh (2016-):

The expansion of Bangladesh’s territorial waters by more than 30% in 2014 following the resolution of territorial differences with Myanmar offered the country unprecedented development opportunities in sectors such as fisheries, aquaculture, tourism, trade and energy. The challenge, as noted in ( R6), was how to take such opportunities and develop smart and sustainable strategies to maximise them – given more than 30,000,000 Bangladeshis are dependent upon the ocean economy. Failler was invited (September 2016) to work as part of a World Bank/EU team with the Bangladeshi government on a BE strategy and policy that would unlock these opportunities and thus realise the nation’s blue economy aspirations.

In parallel he was contracted by the Bangladeshi Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) to work more explicitly on the more immediate policy solutions required in terms of the countries extended marine space pending the approval and subsequent implementation of the comprehensive WB/EU BE strategy (published as Toward a Blue Economy: A Pathway for Sustainable Growth in Bangladesh, 2018). The MOFA policy paper (2018) lamented that current institutional arrangements in the country were based on a sector by sector management approach, which was insufficient for sustainable ocean governance. Instead a BG-centric approach was recommended with the prime task of the establishment of a coordination unit across the different government ministries that had previously been working in isolation. In policy terms interventions were proposed across eight policy domains, interventions which all found echo both in a subsequent research paper ( R6) and in the amendment of existing policies. “Mr. Failler’s work with colleagues from the Maritime Affairs Unit of the MOFA was instrumental in initiating moves towards a Blue Economy/Blue Governance approach to ocean governance in Bangladesh. The six-point solutions advocated in just one policy domain (fisheries management) have already led the government to enforce restrictions on fishing (including catching and selling undersized fish), in an effort to boost fish stocks, many of which are on the brink of collapse and indeed, it has paved the right pathway towards a sustainable fisheries management.” ( S7).

1. The Seychelles (2019-):

The Seychelles established a Department for Blue Economy to coordinate the country’s sustainable development strategy in 2015. In January 2018 it adopted the BE Strategic Policy “Roadmap” 2018-2030 which mandated the development of strategic guidelines for the development of a sustainable ocean-based economy. Failler, given his expertise, was asked in April 2019 to develop a Blue Economy Vision for the Seychelles. The Blue Economy Action Plan ( S4) was approved in April 2020. It; (i) proposed practical ways to address the gaps in existing BE policy documents; (ii) identified priority areas for BE interventions, and (iii) offered a detailed set of actions for the next five years. The Plan advocated a governance framework that emphasised the importance of blue financing and integration across aquatic sectors, while highlighting the need for policy to be informed by an understanding of culture and the social impact of changes in the ocean environment. Embedded centrally within the Action Plan was a commitment to develop a blue natural accounting framework. According to Mr Kenneth Racombo, Principal Secretary at the Ministry of Fisheries and the Blue Economy (Republic of Seychelles), Failler’s “ideas and counsels have played a major role in helping bring this policy document to fruition”. ( S8).

1. The Bahamas (2019-):

Following the adoption of its first National Maritime Policy in 2015, the approximately 100 islands making up the Commonwealth of the Bahamas chose to embrace BE principles for the valorisation of its ocean space and the diversification of its economy. Failler was contracted in September 2019, and the Bahamas Strategy for Blue Activities over the period 2020-2025 was delivered and approved in Summer 2020. Though it shares similarities with the strategy for Seychelles, in that it encourages cross-sector and cross-ministry cooperation, as well as regional integration of management, it focuses more on the use of NCP arguments to justify the mitigation of hazards, the reconstruction of natural coastal defences and enhancing the resilience of ecosystems ( R3). This was perhaps logical as the impact of Hurricane Dorian (August-September 2019) made all too clear to national policy-makers the importance of coastal ecosystem restoration if the country were to cope with future climate change-related events. As a direct result of the strategy, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) provided a loan of USD200,000 to the country to finance the BG strategy, including the restoration of reefs on the two islands that were almost entirely submerged during Hurricane Dorian - Grand Bahama and Great Abaco (which have a combined population of almost 65,000 people) ( S9).

Together, the above international and national impacts have contributed to shifting discourses relating to aquatic ecosystems in order to better recognise their importance beyond economic output, instead considering their more holistic role in terms of NCP and climate change mitigation.

Introduction

Lee’s research has led to significant quality of life benefits for operators of Reaper aircraft, new understanding and awareness among senior RAF staff and managers of the psychological and emotional jeopardy faced by Reaper operators. It has influenced the wider policy debate around the military and civilian use of drones. The main pathway to impact saw Lee invited as an expert witness to the APPGDrones Inquiry into the UK’s Use of Armed Drones. His input into that Inquiry directly led to introducing new training practices for all UK Reaper Operators ( Impact 1). Lee has also influenced the broader policy debate around the use of drones through his advice to two APPG roundtable events on ‘The Future of Civilian Drones in the UK’ ( Impact 2).

How RAF Reaper drones ‘work’

An RAF Reaper crew has three members. A pilot who remotely flies the Reaper aircraft (known colloquially as a drone) and fires laser-guided 100-pound missiles and 500-pound bombs when authorised under specific legal frameworks/ Rules of Engagement. They are supported by a Sensor Operator who manually controls the missiles and bombs onto the designated targets (physical objects or human combatants), and a Mission Intelligence Coordinator who ensures that the correct person/people or object is being targeted. The pressures on such crew are immense. Defence Procurement International noted that 100,000 hours of flight time had been notched-up by the UK’s two drone squadrons (equating to more than 11 years of being airborne, or flying around the world 550 times) by December 2017. Moreover, drone strike statistics show that UK Reaper drone operators launched 985 Hellfire missiles or bombs against ISIS in Iraq and Syria between August 2014 and December 2020 ( S10).

Yet a crucial finding in Lee’s 2013-15 (R4) research was that more than 50% of all Reaper crew members he had interviewed – precise numbers not given for security reasons – did not have a clear ethics framework or vocabulary within which to make their life and death, kill or no-kill decisions. Decisions they would live with forever and which, inevitably, impacted detrimentally upon their wellbeing. The legal element was clear, but the ethical aspects had not been addressed. For example, Respondent 8 had no ethical consideration beyond ‘operating within the law’ ( R4, p.71), while Respondent B strived to ‘answer the personal question, “is what I am doing morally justified?”’ ( R4, p.71). Subsequent research ( R5) confirmed there was no bespoke Ethics element in the training of RAF Reaper crew members. Yet, the ability to align actions with core ethical values is important for the psychological wellbeing of the Reaper personnel: a strong sense of ethical purpose is a protective factor against moral injury ( R4, pp.122 ff.).

Impact 1: Influencing policy and practice: The APPGDrones Inquiry into the UK’s Use of Armed Drones.

In 2016 the APPGDrones initiated a Special Inquiry into the UK’s Use of Armed Drones as “… there is a political and ethical imperative for the Government to review and clarify its procedures for using drones and all the multi-national systems that back them …” (Michael Clarke, Chair of Inquiry Panel, http://appgdrones.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/APPG-Drones-Master-final-amendments.pdf, p.3). Evidence submitted to the Inquiry by Air Marshal Greg Bagwell’s in December 2016 raised concerns that UK Reaper pilots faced ‘some incredible moral dilemmas here’ given “The demand for these systems to operate is relentless, as with the demand to keep growing and training these crews. It’s fair to say we have had some crews who have left because they’d had enough” ( S1, p.13). On being informed of Lee’s research in this area, he was invited to submit written evidence to the Inquiry in March 2017 ( S2). His 15-page submission was delivered on 12 June 2017 and detailed the impact remote warfare had on Reaper crews and their partners – and strongly recommended four mitigating actions; (i) a specific ethics induction (“Remote warfare asks new questions of conventional war ethics and Reaper personnel  should, from the outset, fully understand the practical and ethical demands of their roles”) ( S3, p.13), (ii) individual workload, lifestyle and sustainability assessments, (iii) mandatory psychological support every 3-6 months, and (iv) recognition in the form of medals/awards for “meritorious service that has significant tactical or operational impact and  which incurs significant mental and social costs to the personnel and families involved” ( S3, p.12). At the same time, the report and recommendations – including the proposal “Upon joining the Reaper Force – and perhaps even at the recruitment/ enquiry stage – I recommend that all personnel should undergo an introduction to remote warfare ethics.” ( S3, p.13) - was also submitted to the Officer Commanding, RAF Reaper Force.

On 26 June 2017 the RAF not only accepted Lee’s recommendation to include mandatory professional ethics training for its operators but invited Lee to provide relevant materials to implement this bespoke ethics education programme in both RAF Reaper drone squadrons, “to ensure that personnel selected for Reaper are suitably prepared and understand the role for which they are volunteering” ( S4). Moreover, the RAF also highlighted they were in the process of exploring options for providing psychological support for operators at regular intervals based on what Lee had also advocated. They concluded by thanking Lee for “your work so far, it is of great importance to the Reaper Force […] The ethical dimension is critical and your input is greatly appreciated” ( S4).

The following year, Lee delivered in-person teaching on the ethics of remote (drone) warfare to 80% of RAF Reaper drone crew members (total around 400 personnel but specific number not provided for security reasons) on two training days: one at [text removed for publication] (February 2018), and the second at [text removed for publication] (June 2018). In line with the RAF request, he produced “an audio-visual presentation, relevant recommended reading, and a staff induction to enable current squadron personnel to teach this package in the future” ( S4). To ensure programme continuity, Lee employed a ‘train-the-trainer’ approach, and 6 members of each squadron were taught how to conduct ethics teaching for all new Reaper drone personnel.

The Reaper Force Commander subsequently highlighted (18 June 2018) the value of having a clear ethics framework to guide their work: “Understanding the ethical background, as well as the underlying principles, of the responsibilities and decisions these crew make is a key part of the work the Reaper Force undertakes daily. The ethics training that Dr Lee has delivered is clearly an essential part of helping my crews understand the work they consistently perform to such a high standard, and builds strongly into the Resilience [health and wellbeing] Package Reaper operators now undertake” ( S5).

Two Reaper personnel subsequently wrote independently to Lee describing the impact his ethical guidance had on them in the context of their Reaper Force working environment. A recently appointed sensor operator described how, following Lee’s ethics briefing, they “felt more informed and knowledgeable than ever before […] and could properly go home that night to answer some difficult questions him and his wife had” ( S6). Separately, a pilot wrote: “From my perspective… the work you have done on the Reaper Force has been enlightening and has significantly helped inform the wider community guiding the ethical principles not only of those actually conducting Reaper Operations but more significantly those commanding the Operations.” ( S7).

Impact 2: Influencing the wider policy debate on the use of drones.

In December 2018, Lee was invited to become an Expert Advisor to the APPGDrones in recognition of his “extensive research with the RAF Reaper Force and unique insights into the human dimension” ( S8). He extended his influence on the policy debate to drones' civilian use by offering advice at two APPGDrones Roundtable events in May 2019. Later that year he provided ‘expert support’ in the APPGDrones meeting with [text removed for publication] to discuss the implications of the Roundtables’ findings. In March 2020, the APPG wrote of his contribution:

“His extensive research with the RAF Reaper Force and unique insights into the human dimension of remote air warfare provided invaluable insights into the situation of UK personnel, and his broader research background in the ethics of military drone operations, with regard to the use of both piloted and autonomous drones continues to offer a crucial sounding board to inform the Group’s thinking […] Professor Lee was an invaluable partner, advising and assisting us in planning and chairing two Roundtable events on 8 and 22 May on ‘The Future of Civilian Drones in the UK’.” ( S9).

Anderson’s research has had a significant impact upon the development and adoption/implementation of national and international standards in HRM professional practice.

Impact 1: Development of new National and International Standards

In January 2014 the BSI invited Anderson to contribute her academic expertise in standards and standardisation to help the BSI Human Capital Standards (HCS) Technical committee formulate HRM practice standards. In recognition of her particular expertise Anderson was appointed to the important ‘drafting sub-committee’ charged with formulating the first HRM standard. Anderson’s research provided an initial and highly distinctive contribution to the articulation of the HRM standard as it was agreed by the sub-committee at the outset that a principles-based approach, rather than a traditional ‘rules-based’ approach, would be adopted. Her central role in establishing the overarching framework that would be employed for the development of the HRM standard BS 76000 - Valuing People in Organisations ( S1) is acknowledged by the other committee members. [Text removed for publication], for example, indicates that Anderson “made an immediate impact on the discussions concerning the creation of these standards. She was an influential member of the drafting committee for BS 76000 and led the group that developed BS PD 76006” ( S2). [Text removed for publication] states Anderson “was a key member of the drafting committee for the first UK principles-based people management standard – BS 76000 which set out the principles and requirements for organisations who valued their human capital and wished to demonstrate and evidence to their stakeholders that their people practices were both principled and sustainable” ( S3).

This work was expected to be forward-looking as standards, by their nature, need to exhibit longevity. HR standards of practice that provide the basis for ethical practise, values workers 'voice and discretion’ in all workplace contexts, CIPD. (2019), retrieved from https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/hr/standards-factsheet) and ensures business continuity through multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral and multi-professional cooperation in the face of emerging social and economic pressures are extremely valuable management tools.

Nevertheless, Anderson’s early research into coaching and strategic alignment ( R5) cautioned against a ‘one size fits all’ approach in framing the standard. Her advocacy of the need for the ‘horizontal integration of HR activities and processes’ ( R5) was instrumental in ensuring BS 76000 provided a framework for “an organisation to create an individually-tailored management system, or to align existing systems, to realise the full value (actual or potential) that people provide to the organisation through their capabilities, knowledge, skills, networks, experience, behaviours and attitudes” ( S1, p.1). Similarly, her insights into the importance of dialogue/bartering between senior managers and HRD practitioners in influencing strategic thinking and practice within the organisation ( R5, p.275) found further and wider resonance in BS 76000: “By establishing a dialogue between the organisation, its people and stakeholders, mutual respect can be fostered to acknowledge the diverse contributions these bring to the organisation and to its shared values and social sustainability” ( S1, ibid).

Following publication of BS 76000 in July 2015, Anderson was appointed as chair of a BSI committee responsible for developing the Learning and Development guide (Published Document [ PD] 76006) underpinning BS 76000. The guide was intended to provide ‘useful tools to help tackle organisational learning and development more effectively’, BSI, (2017) retrieved from https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030350673), and drew heavily upon the principles-based approach espoused in Anderson’s research. [Text removed for publication] acknowledges that Anderson’s “ *leadership was crucial to the development of the content of BS76006 (Learning and Development)*”, content that was directly linked to “ her expertise and research-informed knowledge” and which “was recognised by other committee members and provided the basis from which to progress the construction of the standard quickly” ( S4). Anderson was also invited to scrutinise the drafts of BS 76005 (Valuing people through diversity and inclusion: Code of practice for organizations - the ‘Diversity and Inclusion standard’) and recommend revisions and content prior to its publication in April 2017. The media release preceding the release of BS 76005 explicitly acknowledges the principle-based approach advocated by Anderson - ‘ BS 76005 is informed by and supports the principles contained in BS 76000 Human resource - valuing people - management system - requirements and guidance, an existing standard which specifies high-level strategic requirements for a management system for valuing people’ BSI (2017). Retrieved from https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/media-centre/press-releases/2017/june/British-Standard-for-diversity-and-inclusion-launched/) - and its direct lineage to the HRM BS 76000 panel on which Anderson participated.

The centrality of Anderson to the development of BS 76000 and PD 76006 led to her being invited to support CIPD in helping develop the Mayor of London’s Good Work Standard (GWS) in February 2018. The brief was to draft a capital city standard that would enable London based organisations to (i) attract, recruit and retain the best skills and talent; (ii) reduce absences and sick leave; and (iii) maintain higher levels of employee engagement and motivation, outcomes which would manifest themselves in increased productivity, cost savings and reputational gain. Her role was to help develop the standard from ‘where it is now to where we would like it to be’ by creating an initial draft, leading an internal workshop with the Greater London Authority (GLA), producing and testing a second version with employers and other key stakeholders, and then developing a final version ( S6). The GWS was launched in July 2019, establishing a benchmark that the Mayor wanted every London employer to work towards and achieve. Aimed at employers of all sizes across public, private and voluntary sectors, the GWS Employer Guidance ( S7) produced by Anderson and the CIPD team is linked to an online self-assessment tool, enabling organisations to seek accreditation and recognition so that they might stand out as exemplary employers.

Anderson’s expertise in HR Standards and Standardisation also extends into the international arena following her appointment as Convenor of the Working Group (ISO/TC 260/WG 11) to develop the first International Standard for Learning and Development in Organizations on behalf of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee (Human Resource Management) in October 2018. ‘ Valerie’s contribution was not just to lead the development of PD 76006 but to build a firm bridge between applied research in the domain and using that to guide practice by professionals. This has been recognised by the international committee of experts from nearly 30 countries in TC260 who approved the proposal from the UK to develop an international standard in L& D helmed by Valerie’ ( S3). This role enables Anderson to lead the process of agenda-setting and prioritisation in relation to the development of a global HR standard (due end 2021) and is further evidence of how her research is helping to shape the development of new professional HR standards at the international level.

IMPACT 2: Adoption/Implementation of Standards

The Standards that Anderson has helped formulate have impacted directly at organisational level as a consequence of adoption/implementation. This diffusion has taken place through three principal channels:

First, directly by organisations themselves. Organisations intent on adopting the BSI standards have purchased them with a view to adoption and certification. Reasons of data protection prevent BSI from releasing the names of purchasing organisations, but [text removed for publication] confirms that as at the REF census date BS 76000 Human Resource Valuing People had been purchased by [text removed for publication] organisations. BS 76005 Valuing People through Diversity and Inclusion had been purchased by [text removed for publication] organisations, and [text removed for publication] organisations had purchased BS PD 76006 - Guide to Learning and Development ( S5). Three examples, drawn from organisations that have adopted the standards in different parts of the UK, serve to illustrate the local-level impact and reach of such standards. [Text removed for publication] acknowledges that: “ the impact of these standards has not just been on the employed workforce … but reaches across our expanding volunteer workforce”, going on to state ‘ Adoption of these standards has impacted positively on our strategic and operational achievement’ and ‘ There is also a wider social impact of these standards through the expansion we have been able to undertake in developing and empowering volunteers, peer mentors and members of marginalised and overlooked communities’ ( S8). [Text removed for publication] (a medium sized enterprise [text removed for publication] specialising in HR support, employment law and employee relations), was the first to implement BS 76005, indicates that it has led to a ‘ direct business improvement effect’ as ‘the range of tasks and client services that we can offer has increased’ ( S9).

London-based organisations do not have to purchase the Good Work Standard, they can simply apply for accreditation using the GSW online self-evaluation tool. By end 2020 89 organisations had received accreditation as GWS employers, ranging in size from the Cripplegate Foundation (10 employees) and Jewellery Box Ltd (25), up to the London Fire Brigade (5,992) and the Metropolitan Police (41,862 employees and an annual budget of GBP3.24 billion.)

Second, through their widespread acceptance by HRM professional bodies. The CIPD, the professional body for human resource management and people management with a global membership of 150,000 HR practitioners, confirms that the national Standards developed (and the international Standards under development) with the input of Anderson are strategically important to the CIPD vision. [Text removed for publication], confirms ‘ Her work PD 76006 was ground-breaking in that it codified evidence-based L&D practices for organisational implementation’ and that these standards “ continue to gain steady adoption” with important impacts on “productivity, managerial capability and enhanced workforce welfare” ( S3).

Third, in facilitating the work of Standards Accreditation and Certification Organisations (SACO). SACO carry out formal, third party recognition and assessment processes of BSI accredited organisations that want independent verification to demonstrate (to their stake/shareholders) that they have met the requirements of any given Standard(s). One of these SACOs, the [text removed for publication], a market leading UK and international accreditation service provider with a portfolio covering more than 2500 companies), has carried out [text removed for publication] UK organisational HR based audits in sectors as varied as NHS Informatics, legal services, construction, education; security and criminal justice; surveyors, training provision; housing association, and charity. In the view of [text removed for publication] the work of Anderson is crucial as it serves to *“‘raise the bar’ in people management, drive quality and other performance improvements and helps client organisations to win customers, retain staff and build loyalty” ( S2) .

The impact of the research of Cox and team was two-fold. It not only occasioned a change in central government policy relating to the funding of local authorities (Impact 1), it also leads directly to improved welfare of IoW citizens through enhanced public spending on the island (Impact 2).

The comprehensive research completed by Cox and team ( R3) was used to frame an independent and objective assessment of the most significant factors and consequences resulting from separation, identifying a prioritised long-list of separation related issues that have a direct impact on the delivery of public services ( R1). This report ( R1) was produced to ‘better inform local and national strategy and decision-making’, and its principal findings provided the main substance of the IoW Council’s March 2018 submission to the Government’s Fair Funding Review. In their submission, the IoW Council explicitly referred to both reports ( R1 and R2) and the factors responsible for an island’s extra costs identified therein. It stressed that “recognition for [these factors] is the council’s most important outcome from this consultation”, and attached a copy of R2 to the submission letter, so as to allow DCLG to scrutinise the methodology and findings ( S1). The research ( R2) was further cited as evidence in the Island Infrastructure Investment Plan that was published by the Solent Local Enterprise Partnership in May 2018 ( S2). The purpose of this report was to ‘provide an identification of the future infrastructure needs of the Isle of Wight across a range of “economic infrastructure” categories. This is in the context of the need to support sustainable economic growth on the Isle of Wight, and having regard to national and local priorities’.

The research also informed the IoW MP Bob Seely’s political agenda, and empowered him to secure a Westminster Hall debate specifically on the topic of “ Local Government Funding: Isle of Wight” with the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Rishi Sunak, on 16 January 2018. In this debate Bob Seely stated that in a “ study by the University of Portsmouth, the extra cost of providing local government services on the Isle of Wight – the island factor – was estimated at GBP6.4 million per annum” and called for the Minister to “respect, accept and act on, this year and in the future, the costs outlined in the University of Portsmouth report”. In his response, Rishi Sunak acknowledged the study’s “thoughtful and detailed analysis”, which he promised “will not be analysis for analysis’ sake”, going on to state that the factors identified in the study *“are exactly what we need to hear about and consider in formulating a new funding formula” (*both quotes are taken from S3). Bob Seely also cited the UoP research findings in making the case for additional funding for the IOW for services (including healthcare and transport) during a debate with the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Islands on the Economy of UK Islands (10/5/2018, S3). And, following the Economies of Islands debate (May 2018), he further cited the research in a debate on Provision of Healthcare on English Islands (27/6/2018, S3).

Subsequent Parliamentary debates triggered by the research findings also led to the intervention of the Prime Minister - and a promise of an ‘island deal’. In the Prime Minister’s Update on 25 September 2019, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced “ I thank my hon. Friend, who is a doughty and mighty campaigner for the Isle of Wight, as I have seen for myself. I thought that he was going to ask me about the island deal that we are going to do—I can assure him that we are, do not worry” ( S4). Bob Seely further cited the research at the Government debate Improving Healthcare: Isle of Wight on 1 October 2019, and again cited the research in relation to the annual additional costs of providing local government services on the island in his follow-up letter on the subject to the Prime Minister dated 23 October 2019 ( S4).

Concurrently, following the Westminster Hall debate of 16 January 2018, Cox and his team received an invitation to brief Rishi Sunak, the then Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on the wider research findings relating to public good spillovers. On 3 March 2018 Cox and his team, in conjunction with Bob Seely and leading representatives of the IoW Council, met Rishi Sunak at the Houses of Parliament (Portcullis House) for further detailed discussion of the research and its implications for adjusting the Government’s funding mechanism ( S5). At the conclusion of the meeting, the Under-Secretary requested the Portsmouth team brief his civil servant colleagues on the implications of their research for the UK local authority funding mechanism.

On 19 July 2018 the Portsmouth team met with the Analysis and Data Directorate for Local Economic Policy, the officials working on changes to the funding mechanism. In the meeting Cox and his team provided the Directorate representatives with a detailed overview of their research, responded to questions on the methodology and the results, and responded to the explicit question: “We’d value your views on this, and in particular our suggested measures of “accessibility” and “remoteness” in the context of the Isle of Wight.” ( S6).

In December 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, published ‘ A Review of Local Authorities’ Relative Needs and Resources’. This explicitly acknowledged that; “some local authorities face unique pressures related to their geography; such as the costs associated with conducting business from isolated or peripheral communities (including islands and coastal areas).” It further went on to say that; “The Isle of Wight is a uniquely isolated and remote authority as it is only possible to reach a major town or city from households on the island via a ferry journey. The Government therefore considers it necessary to take account of the additional time taken by ferry transport in any measure of remoteness, including the time taken on board the ferry and at embarkation and disembarkation.” ( S7).

The subsequent June 2019 report ‘Review of Local Authorities’ Relative Needs and Resources: Area Cost Adjustment’ followed up by outlining the structure of area costs adjustments in terms of remoteness, specifically highlighting the Isle of Wight as a case in point ( S8) (Impact One). This new method of calculating local authority funding has been of particular benefit to the IoW, which received an increase of GBP9 million in the annual Local Authority budget 2020-2021, 60% (GBP5.5 million) greater than the national average increase for local authorities. Strikingly, this above average increase in the IoW local authority budget (GBP5.5 million) is almost exactly identical to the aggregate social costs of this geographic separation as computed by the Portsmouth team (GBP381.69 per capita across a population of 141,606 equates to GBP5.4 million). To place this ‘island premium’ in context, this funding increase exceeds the sums currently spent on providing Housing Services (GBP6.65 million), Fire and Rescue services (GBP6.9 million), or Public Health Services (GBP7.65 million) on the island each year. Moreover, this is not a one-off benefit, as the new method will be used for allocating annual local authority funding for the foreseeable future (Impact 2).

Furthermore, the changes the research has instigated has not only raised the IOW’s profile in the corridors of Westminster, but has also influenced the way the Government considers the Isle of Wight more broadly in funding terms. In August 2019, the Health Minister, Matthew Hancock, announced an extra GBP48 million funding for the Isle of Wight NHS Trust. In response Bob Seely stated ‘Last month in Parliament, Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, agreed with Bob that the Island faces additional challenges in providing healthcare because of its isolated status as an Island.’ and ‘When I became the Island’s MP, I promised that Government would listen to the Island more. I am delighted that this Government is beginning to do so’ ( S9).

Just over a year later, at the end of October 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic took hold the IOW local authority was awarded an additional GBP11.4 million in general-purpose grant funding to accommodate council’s COVID-19 pressures, equivalent to GBP79.56 per capita. This placed the IoW in the top 25% in terms of allocation per capita, well above the mean of GBP44 per capita, despite the Island being one of the very few regions in the UK in the lowest Tier (1) at the time.

In a letter of support sent to the Portsmouth team, [text removed for publication] ‘ The Impact of Physical Separation from the UK Mainland on Isle of Wight Public Service Delivery has been the key piece of evidence [text removed for publication] the research undertaken by Dr Cox and his colleagues from the University of Portsmouth has given us the empirical evidence to make a much stronger case for the Island than we would have done. Realistically, it has been the building block on which we have made that case.’ ( S10) .

The research underpinning this ICS has been influential in class actions, criminal prosecutions, financial litigation cases and surveillance systems around the world - to help define, detect and prevent manipulative and collusive behaviour in the global OTC markets. The route from publishing the research to engaging with key stakeholders has included an active dissemination agenda.

Stenfors’ research has attracted widespread interest. To raise general awareness of the problems and the need for change, Stenfors actively engaged with the media through op-eds and interviews. His research (particularly R1, R2 and R3) has been referred to in multi-page in-depth interviews in the Wall Street Journal (30.04.2016 / Circulation: 2,617,000), The Guardian 07.05.2017 / 134,000), The Times (09.05.2017 / 417,000) and Helsingin Sanomat (16.07.2017 / 365,000). Furthermore, he discussed and explained the issues on the radio (e.g. Newshour BBC World Service, Today Programme BBC Radio 4, Eye of the Storm BBC Radio 5 Live) and TV (e.g. CNBC, YLE Uutiset, BBC One Show).

To inform and educate more specialist audiences, Stenfors shared his research findings in leading industry magazines (e.g. Chartered Banker, FX Week) and gave talks and keynote speeches at major professional conferences. Keynotes include V-FI: Valuation of Financial Instruments Conference (London, June 2015; New York, October 2015 - the largest conference of its kind worldwide) ( S1) and Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) conferences (Frankfurt am Main, April 2018; London, November 2018; Dubai, February 2020). According to [text removed for publication] ACFE (with its 85,000 members, the world's largest anti-fraud organisation), Stenfors’ participation in the ACFE Fraud Conference Europe was “an integral part of making the event successful.” ( S2)

To contribute to changing practices and behaviour, Stenfors engaged more closely with key stakeholders through in-house seminars, workshops and conferences (such as Nasdaq, S3) and the Bar Association for Commerce, Finance & Industry ( S4). This activity typically resulted in follow-up conference calls, conversations and meetings with a range of key stakeholders including financial institutions, law firms, regulators, exchanges and electronic trading platform providers, as well as NGOs across the world. This engagement led to three key material impacts:

1. The research has been central in defining the legal boundaries in a [text removed for publication] FX price-fixing class action and a landmark criminal prosecution of EURIBOR manipulation in the UK

Between May 2016 and March 2017, his research findings on market structure, conventions and social norms ( R3, R4) were used by lawyers in the [text removed for publication] FX price-fixing class action. The action alleged that between [text removed for publication], banks (the defendants) conspired with each other to fix, raise, maintain, stabilise, control, or enhance unreasonably prices in the FX market. Stenfors assisted [text removed for publication] (acting on behalf of the claimants) to define the scope and limitations of the [text removed for publication] class action in terms of the jurisdictional and cross-border perspectives. He also assisted the law firm in the process of identifying the ways in which the market was susceptible to manipulation. [Text removed for publication] ( S5) To date, the case has resulted in over [text removed for publication] million (equivalent to over USD75 million) in settlements for [text removed for publication] institutions and investors.

Between December 2017 and June 2018, Stenfors’ research findings on market structure, conventions and social norms ( R1, R3, R5), and on the internal and external communication and signalling process between market participants ( R2, R4) were used in the world’s first criminal trial related to EURIBOR. EURIBOR is the Brussels-based version of LIBOR and used in financial instruments with a notional value of approximately EUR300 trillion. More specifically, the research was used to clarify the burden of guilt of bank employees involved in the EURIBOR rate-setting process. In the highly complex landmark trial (with senior bankers sentenced to more than 13 years in prison), the findings were crucial for legal arguments in securing the acquittal of a [text removed for publication] trader who was charged by the Serious Fraud Office with conspiracy to manipulate EURIBOR between [text removed for publication]. Legal arguments presented to the judge and jury at the Southwark Crown Court in London were prepared by [text removed for publication] ( S6) The impact is significant because the defendant received a fair and fact-based trial and was the only acquitted person among the accused. An identical logic was used, and the same outcome reached, in a similar trial in 2019. It not only set a precedent for future potential prosecutions and trials, but also helped to define the line between legal (but perhaps unethical) and criminal wrongdoing by individuals working in the global fixed income, FX and money markets. By doing so, it has clarified clearly to financial institutions their responsibilities to educate, supervise and monitor the behaviour of their employees.

2. The research has underpinned legal arguments in major financial litigation cases of LIBOR manipulation and collusion to reach significant financial settlements [text removed for publication]

Stenfors’ research findings on the LIBOR fixing mechanism ( R1, R3), the communication and signalling process in OTC markets ( R1, R4), and the competition and anti-trust aspects of LIBOR and its underlying interbank money market ( R2, R4) have been crucial in a multi-class lawsuit alleging a global conspiracy by some of the world’s largest banks to manipulate the LIBOR. The lawsuit brought in [text removed for publication] is one of the largest ever filed against financial institutions.

Stenfors was contacted by [text removed for publication] (the claimants) in April 2013, after having read an op-ed on LIBOR that he had written in the Financial Times. Since 2014, Stenfors’ research findings have influenced legal arguments and been used to define what kind of data (indicative prices, transactions, transcripts of conversations etc.) would be needed for the case, to interpret the data to determine if, how, when and by whom claimants have suffered as a result of the actions by the defendants and to quantify damages and appropriate financial settlements. [text removed for publication] ( S7). From 2016 to date, the [text removed for publication] Plaintiffs have reached proposed settlements exceeding USD68 million [text removed for publication].

Within the same multi-class lawsuit, the research has also been used by the [text removed for publication] Class. [Text removed for publication] ( S8). From 2015 to date, the [text removed for publication] Class has secured settlements totalling USD590 million [text removed for publication].

3. The research has defined new parameters and alerts, as well as developed new methodologies, within the world’s leading surveillance system to detect, limit and prevent market manipulative and collusive behaviour

Since 2015, there has been a strong push by regulators for market participants to put in place more robust and systematic OTC surveillance systems generally, and fixed income specifically. To this end, Stenfors was approached by [text removed for publication] to significantly improve their fixed income surveillance platform. [Text removed for publication] is the world’s leading market surveillance service, being used by stock exchanges, financial regulators and over [text removed for publication] banks worldwide to detect, and ultimately prevent, trading behaviours that may represent market abuse or other forms of irregular trading.

Between May 2019 and August 2020, Stenfors helped [text removed for publication] define and document risks, data inputs, metrics, logics and approaches in [text removed for publication] based on his research findings on manipulative and collusive practices ( R3, R4) and new forms of market manipulation ( R6). [Text removed for publication] ( S9).

The UoP-LWC linkage dates to January 2014 when Thorpe encouraged his second-year International Development Studies students to launch a series of fund-raising activities to sponsor projects advertised on the LWC platform. In May 2014 he followed up on this by writing to the LWC team expressing his interest in “What factors determine whether (and the extent to which) individuals are prepared to engage with what is, in essence, a developmental crowdfunding scheme like yours? At Portsmouth, we believe the issue of individual engagement in crowdfunding and indeed, within wider citizen science initiatives, is currently badly under-researched, and we are keen to remedy this.”

LWC responded promptly and, in agreeing with his views, requested a meeting to discuss matters further. Following a meeting in London in early June, an informal collaborative relationship was established. LWC provided the UoP team with comprehensive data scraped from the LWC platform (Impact Strand 1) and reported they would ‘think about what specific questions we would like to get the answers to.’ By late June LWC confirmed two questions they were particularly interested in were 'what are the factors that affect the amount of money and/or numbers of projects supported by lenders?' and ‘'are certain types of entrepreneur significantly more/less likely to be funded by certain types of lender?' The questions that underpinned the research were subsequently published ( R1, R2). In parallel, LWC requested support from UoP as independent experts in evaluating the effectiveness of their MFI lending programme in the field (Impact Strand 2).

Impact 1: Research-led changes in Practice - Growing the Lender Base

Findings from Impact Strand 1 improved LWC’s understanding of how to attract new lenders and how to better represent the profiles of borrowers appearing on the website ( R1, R2). The research team made several specific recommendations regarding increasing lender visibility and placing greater emphasis on the community of lenders and their public profiles ( R1), and highlighting lender preferences based on characteristics such as activity type, borrower type and gender ( R2). The recommendations demonstrated how LWC could generate more interest among lenders by improving particular aspects of borrower funding pitches, and increasing the promotional efforts directed towards different groups of potential lenders.

In 2015, LWC employed preliminary recommendations from these studies in a major redesign of their platform. The recommendations emerging from Impact Strand 1 informed the design of several elements of the new platform, including the lender community and visibility of public profiles. The new platform also presented borrower funding pitches in new ways, placing greater emphasis on the borrower characteristics highlighted by the UoP research. The research, notably on lender characteristics and observed donor behaviour was not only influential in helping LWC more effectively target their annual fund-raising campaigns to potential donor groupings. Findings from Impact Strand 2 were also used to give greater authority to these campaigns (i.e., UoP research shows LWC “microloans are proven to empower women and lift them out of poverty” ( S1). LWC considers the redesign as having played a significant role in increasing the number of lenders active on the platform, which increased from 20,794 at the end of 2014 to an aggregate 66,002 (up 217%) in January 2021. Over the same period, the aggregate loan capital issued via the platform increased from GBP5.5m to GBP31.5m, resulting in more than 120,000 additional loans. According to LWC, “the redesign of our website following recommendations from the University of Portsmouth has played a major role in achieving these increases, particularly as a result of demonstrating impact and providing credible evidence to lenders”. Furthermore, “the research was so valuable that we highlighted several of the findings directly on the new website” ( S2, S3).

Impact 2: Improving Social Welfare across Borrower Communities

As the underlying aim of LWC is to improve the lives of poor people through promoting financial inclusion, the LWC team wanted to understand if indeed this was the case, and if so, how was it being achieved. The UoP team were asked to supply technical help and research expertise. Over time this grew to training local interviewers, preparing training manuals in English and Spanish, monitoring the fieldwork, analysing the data, and producing both academic outputs ( R3, R4) and practitioner friendly reports ( R5, R6). The research team also presented at several workshops and events with LWC and their MFI partner institutions, most notably a workshop in London in March 2018 attended by representatives from partners in Ecuador, Peru, Zambia, Malawi, Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Philippines (S4). Participation in events such as these, not only allowed the research team to disseminate their findings to LWC and their MFI partners but also offered an opportunity to make policy recommendations relating to the way in which impact is assessed.

AIM in Pakistan had been selected as the first field partner to participate in the evaluation, and a first visit was made by the LWC team and UoP staff in April/May 2015 to survey 500 loan recipients (and 100 in a control group) in four branches based around Lahore. A follow-up visit took place in 2017 (2019 cancelled due to COVID-19). Evaluations also commenced in Zimbabwe (Thrive) in 2016 and 2017, and Ecuador (Fundación FACES) in 2019, the latter a direct consequence of a FACES request following the March 2018 London workshop.

Central to this evaluation process has been the provision of regular outputs (R3, R5 and R6). These reports serve two purposes. First, they provide LWC with robust evidence from the field that can be shared with partners and prospective partners. According to Ajaz Khan; “the quality and independence of the work [was] praised by different partners and stakeholders (internal and external)” ( S3). Second, and more critically, they also offer the local MFI relevant and timely information on their clients that is then used to inform its management decisions and improve their microcredit programme. These reports have had particular impacts in three specific areas:

1. **Streamlined loan selection processes for existing borrowers (Pakistan)

The 2020 Pakistan report ( R3) gave AIM management an understanding of the requirements and potential benefits of developing internal social performance assessment mechanisms, convincing them to introduce such mechanisms when they updated their updated management information systems. Furthermore, a number of the questions employed in the UoP/LWC impact evaluation survey have been incorporated as part of Akhuwat’s standard client questionnaires ( S5). The improved and streamlined selection processes has enhanced the positive welfare impact resulting not only from LWC funded loans, but also all other current and future AIM borrowers. “We expect the consequences of embedding new internal social performance mechanisms, as advocated by Lendwithcare and the University of Portsmouth in their report, will ultimately feed through to increase the majority of our 800,000+ borrowers’ welfare and wellbeing” ( S5).

1. **Refined loan supervision processes and client training procedures (Zimbabwe)

The 2018 Zimbabwe report ( R6) recommended that Thrive should review its targeting processes carefully as evidence indicated that the MFI was not reaching the poorer segments of female entrepreneurs. It also highlighted that the compulsory training offered by the MFI was necessary, but was too lengthy. In response Thrive made the previously optional training programme mandatory, but shortened its length (the initial 8 sessions were reduced to 3, thereby shortening the loan application time from approximately 1 month to 10 days). In addition, a social performance officer was appointed to; ensure more effective targeting, systematically monitor progress and, help clients to work more effectively with their loans ( S3).

1. Rebalancing the loan portfolio in favour of more marginalised groups (Ecuador)

The 2020 Ecuador report found evidence that female entrepreneurs, and those based in rural locations and/or engaged in informal business activities, were significantly less likely to be educated and more likely to be living in poverty than other groups ( R5, p.36). These findings led the MFI partner FACES to review their loan portfolio with a view to rebalancing in favour of these more marginalised groups. As a result, the organisation is better able to address their aims as a social development organisation and to “provide better services to the most relevant groups of borrowers” ( S6).

One unanticipated outcome of the collaboration saw “the quality and independence of the work developed within the project [which has been] praised by different partners and stakeholders (both internal and external)” ( S3). Moreover, the ‘higher cost-effectiveness of the UoP-LWC project’ compared to other impact assessments commissioned by CARE International from external consultants led LWC “to increase the time and budget dedicated to impact assessment activities.” The monies directed to this line of work was substantially increased, LWC contributing GBP60,000 to fund a Postdoctoral position at UoP (Afonso), as well providing GBP30,000 for a doctoral bursary oriented to examining the effectiveness of microfinance evaluation processes. In addition, one of LWC team members received external training on evaluation, and her job description was broadened to “include specific impact and social performance related goals” ( S3). In addition, moving forward, CARE International report “we will most likely privilege collaborations with academic institutions in the future as a direct result of our experiences with the University of Portsmouth.”

The online returns research started in early 2017 with data collection finished by October 2017. Further work was then undertaken to develop the cost model and validate it with stakeholders through workshops organised by ECR. The report, together with its recommendations, was published online in January 2019 and has since been downloaded 59 times including by 19 retailers with annual turnovers between GBP10 million and GBP10 billion from UK, Europe, Russia and the USA, six manufacturers and industry associations from Europe and the USA and 16 solution providers from the UK and Europe. ECR Retail Loss launched a new website in late summer 2020, and an open access version of the report has been made available ( R1).

Building engagement with the research through industry events and media

ECR Retail Loss have run several events to help their members implement the recommendations from the research. The events included a first Webinar on 12 February 2019 ( S1) hosted by ECR Retail Loss, translating the research insights into strategic implications for businesses. The webinar included a representative of [text removed for publication] who elaborated upon how the report was used by senior management to alter their returns management policy so as to focus on the profitability of returns ( S1). In all, 61 people registered for the Webinar from Europe, the USA, Russia, Brazil, Australia and Kazakhstan. Feedback included the following comment from the USA, [text removed for publication]: “Very interesting work that the team has assembled – including highlighting the cost of the CREDIT CARD transaction as a cost of the return; I have not heard that in any discussion including Walmart, US Industry Groups or other areas (truly insightful)” ( S2).

Loss Prevention Magazine (28 March 2019) ran a feature on the back of the report. The team also disseminated the results through an article in The Conversation (21 January 2019), which achieved 61,500 hits and 47 reprints, translated into Indonesian and Romanian ( S3). Jack has been invited to present the work on this project to: the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants Irish Spring Seminar in Cork on 6 March 2020; in an international online seminar for AICPA/CIMA Ireland on 19 November 2020 for practising accountants along with the lead accountant for returns in a major online retailer (annual turnover GBP80 million in Ireland); and a webinar with the University of Sheffield on reverse logistics recorded by AICPA-CIMA in Summer 2020.

Following the first webinar on 12 February 2019, ECR Retail Loss also organised a workshop for a wider stakeholder group on 2 April 2019 in London that led to a selected group of retailers requesting an additional workshop on 25 April 2019 to discuss the implementation of the cost of returns model specifically. 22 representatives from 14 major UK, European and North American retailers attended, along with ECR Community grant providers and industry representatives, with 75% saying that the event met or exceeded their expectations (see S2).

Improved profitability through greater visibility of hidden costs of online returns

According to Colin Peacock, Strategy Coordinator of ECR Retail Loss, the true cost of returns model “has delivered an estimated GBP55 million to the bottom line profits” to their members in the two years following the publication of the report in January 2019. He further states that Jack’s research “remains one of the most important pieces of research we have undertaken, and its relevance and importance is now more relevant than ever with the growth of e-commerce.” ( S4).

In addition to the workshops mentioned earlier, ECR Retail Loss organised another workshop for its members in 15 July 2019 based on the report ( R1). An important part of the impact strategy was to provide a space in which retailers could share experiences of similar and growing issues with online returns, which fed into reviews of returns policies across the sector in 2019/20 ( S4) . One major retailer later responded to say that the findings from the report and workshop had made a significant impact on their review and initiatives for managing returns ( S5).

The workshop was attended by loss managers from four UK, one Spanish and one South African based companies with average annual turnovers of between GBP0.8 billion and GBP56 billion. The workshop took place in the [text removed for publication] of an international clothing retailer (annual international turnover of GBP900 million) in [text removed for publication] on 3 July 2020 and focused on the implementation of the new cost model. The same retailer then set up an NDA with the University of Portsmouth to test and develop the cost model. The data analytics team used the new cost model as a starting point to demonstrate to senior management that customers making returns in store was significantly more cost-effective than any other means of return, something that had not previously been apparent and which would change customer interactions. Subsequently, the international clothing retailer “used the model to inform a change of returns strategy that has led to a GBP10 million saving to the bottom line” ( S4).

Furthermore, the retailer stated that by using the cost model they identified that encouraging customers to return to store rather than by post could realise circa GBP1 million in a further reduction of costs to return goods in a full year. This information is still being reviewed to highlight further benefits to the business ( S6). During the covid-19 pandemic, ECR Retail Loss reported that several of their members have leveraged the model to account for the increased cost of returns being sent to fulfilment centres rather than being returned in store, enabling budget write offs to be estimated. Increased rates of return and the closures of stores will therefore increase the cost of returns and drive further innovation in this field ( S3).

In addition, the University of Portsmouth is negotiating an NDA with a European logistics company with an annual turnover of GBP60 billion who will begin a similar data analysis investigation based on our cost model in 2021. As a result of reading the report and follow-up conversations, one software company in Portsmouth also developed concepts for new products ( S7). These are expected to be introduced through 2021 in the previously mentioned international clothing retailer and the European logistics company.

In September 2020, ECR Retail Loss asked Jack to extend the cost model into an online self-assessment tool and to adapt the model to the cost of food waste to retailers ( S4).

Improved returns management through adoption of lean management and circular economy approaches

A smaller, invited group of ECR Retail Loss members was convened by ECR on 23 January 2020 at the headquarters of one of the major UK retailers. [text removed for publication] from that group have said that the research has been a definite prompt and input to change in their organisations, as well as enabling them personally to feel more confident in developing their evidence to present to company leaders ( S8). A [text removed for publication], working for a British fashion retailer with a turnover of around GBP1.8million, explained how the research helped them to engage with senior management to assess the potential of various changes in their current systemic and operational processes and procedures for handling digital web returns. This involved incrementally assessing all contributing factors to the operational cost and customer mindset when returning goods. Particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, the research helped companies to implement new procedures that changed the way their customer care and warehouse teams worked with customer returns, leading to a stronger business model during an unprecedented trading year ( S8).

ECR Retail Loss organised another workshop for a wider stakeholder group with a focus on how technology can help with returns management, which took place online on 15 July 2020 and was attended by retailers with annual turnovers of between GBP1 billion and GBP400 billion. ECR Retail Loss reported that the series of workshops has enabled retailers to share best practice and build capacity. In addition, they have changed their workshop programmes to increase their promotion of work around the returns process with the aim of ‘selling more and wasting less’ and to integrate a circular economy which was not previously on the agenda for research ( S4).

Integrating returns management into wider strategic planning processes through cross-functional teams and changed returns reporting practices and returns policies

One of the key issues identified in the research is the lack of cross-functional teams and Executive Director oversight of the returns process. A very serious concern of the loss prevention managers interviewed ( R1) was the difficulty in getting investment and intervention to mitigate returns because of the lack of involvement of other sections of their organisation. Through ECR Retail Loss the new cost model has been communicated at board level in the majority of retailers and that several retailers have already implemented cross-functional teams to tackle the growing rate of returns ( S4). ECR Retail Loss also report that others have leveraged the model to make significant changes to the way in which returns are managed, such as changing the threshold value for free deliveries ( S4).