Members of four political parties have supported the Fair Tax Mark in a new parliamentary Early Day Motion tabled last night (click the image for a bigger view):
Thanks to all concerned. I look forward to their number growing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Could you please disclose what checks these (and the ICAEW and other endorsers) have made before making their endorsements.
The only information I have about the Fair Tax Mark is from its website, yours, and ECRA’s. This is very limited, and leave a lot of unanswered questions. There is just no way anyone can give an endorsement on this information alone.
One question I have is the fitness of ECRA (which publicly encourages boycotts) to be an organisation that can impartially manage a kitemark of sorts. The 2 activities just don’t seem to marry up at all.
Another question is one of governance. I don’t just mean the team disclosed on the website, but the checks and balances to ensure allocation or refusal of the mark is conducted in a fair, transparent and independent manner. Free not just from the companies being assessed, but independent from internal pressure from Tax Research or ECRA.
Have these endorsers been given a deeper insight than these publicly available sources? Is this information just available to Michael Meacher, Caroline Green & Co, or can anyone have a look?
You clearly have enough information to form a view
I am sure all others can as well in that case
I do not think we could have been more open for a small new project
Yes, I have enough information to form a view that I don’t have enough information to form a view on the fairness, independence and transparency of the award (or non-award) of the mark.
I don’t know how your endorsers can meaningfully form a view, unless they are privy to information beyond that available to the public. Have they? I assume from your reply that they haven’t, but you can tell me my assumption is wrong.
I am surprised at your ‘I do not think we could have been more open’ comment.
As a suggestion, you could have put together and published a governance structure (and I don’t just mean a board, but a structure showing the checks and balances). For example, can a candidate complain? How are they dealt with? How are findings published? How is the independence of the assessors preserved?
No one has information you have not got
We have a board
That’s what most companies have
We currently employ all the assessors. That may change. If so, we’ll say how
We have a panel of experts who have advised us
Findings are not published
Of course a candidate can complain – but our decision is final, always. But no one will know we have turned anyone down
Now let’s compare this with an audit firm and apart from the fact there is no ICAEW et al I think we’re doing pretty well
And we are remarkably consistent with other such schemes – especially when they start
Over time I am sure much will change
Adrian
“One question I have is the fitness of ECRA (which publicly encourages boycotts) to be an organisation that can impartially manage a kitemark of sorts. The 2 activities just don’t seem to marry up at all.”
So any organisation, be it the UN,EU,FA,RSPCA whatever which has encouraged a boycott, for whatever reason, should not then be allowed to introduce a kitemark?
You do have a very strange view of the world. Do you pride yourself on your individuality?