Industry Leadership at World Mail Awards. Markus Mantwill, VP, Strategy, Postal Markets and Business Development, Pitney Bowes (right) and Nadine Hollmann (left) a German media personality. - May 26, 2009
Pitney Bowes Promotes Industry Leadership with World Mail Awards Sponsorship
For the 10th consecutive year Pitney Bowes continued to support achievement and innovation in the postal industry by sponsoring the Industry Leadership Award at this year’s World Mail Awards in Munich.
The award was presented to Peter Bakker, CEO and chairman of the Board of Management of TNT by Markus Mantwill, Vice President of Strategy, Postal Markets and Business Development at Pitney Bowes. It recognises the exemplary leadership of an individual in advancing the postal industry and carries a charitable donation of 7,500 euros to the educational initiative of the winner’s choice.
Accepting his award, Bakker said: “It is a huge honour for me and TNT to be awarded the World Mail Award for Industry Leadership. I would like to dedicate this award to all of my colleagues at TNT, who truly deserve this honour. The past 15 years has seen great changes in the mail and express market, TNT has been closely involved in these developments. The industry has come a long way; we will weather the current difficult economic circumstances. I would like to thank the jury for recognising TNT. We are very proud of this award.”
The Industry Leadership Award reflects an individual’s record of accomplishments, honouring that person for promoting innovation and effective management. These accomplishments can include: development of novel industry partnerships; a unique commitment to postal customers; and exemplary management of an institution to bring benefits to various postal industry stakeholders.
The panel for the Industry Leadership Award consists of past World Mail Award winners and other leading figures from the postal industry appointed by Pitney Bowes. For 2009, the panel included:
• David Treworgy, Partner, IBM Global Business Services, who is the non-voting chair • Jean-Paul Bailly, CEO of La Poste • Ulrich Gygi, former CEO Swiss Post • Helge Israelsen, CEO Post Danmark • Graeme John, Managing Director of Australia Post • John Potter, Postmaster General and CEO of the United States Postal Service • Elmar Toime, former CEO of New Zealand Post • Klaus Zumwinkel, former chairman of Deutsche Post World Net
Markus Mantwill, Vice President of Strategy, Postal Markets and Business Development at Pitney Bowes, noted: “This award goes to the heart of what Pitney Bowes wishes to see in the industry – innovation and accomplishment. Our company was founded by an inventor and was built on developments that helped advance communication for both businesses and individuals. We wish to continue that tradition and to promote these qualities in leaders of the postal industry worldwide as it evolves in the 21st century.”
Selected presentations from the 2009 National Postal Forum held in Washington DC on May 17-20, 2009. - May 19, 2009
"Maximize Cash Flow and Improve Responses with Reply Mail” by Elizabeth Lombard, National Postal-Carrier Manager, MSM Learning & Performance, Pitney Bowes Inc. [Presentation]
"M&M's...Not the Candy, Measurement & Metrics" by Elizabeth Lombard, National Postal-Carrier Manager, MSM Learning & Performance, Pitney Bowes Inc. [Presentation]
"Mailing and Shipping to Optimize Your Mail” by Elizabeth Lombard, National Postal-Carrier Manager, MSM Learning & Performance, Pitney Bowes Inc.[Presentation]
"USPS Extra Services – When, Why, How?" by Elizabeth Lombard, National Postal-Carrier Manager, MSM Learning & Performance, Pitney Bowes Inc. [Presentation]
"Address Quality - Product vs. Process” by Jeff Stangle, PBMS and Adam Collinson, PBMS. [Presentation]
"Virtual Mail Management™ Solutions: Leveraging the mail center to lower costs and create a more efficient & sustainable workplace” by Terry Doeberl, Director, Business Development. [Presentation]
Lord Mandelson Opening Remarks: Postal Services Bill Report Stage - May 13, 2009
[Media Newswire.]
This legislation arises from the Hooper Report, commissioned by the Government in line with our 2005 manifesto and urged on us, at the time, by the CWU. The Hooper Report was not specifically about ownership. At its heart was the Universal Postal Service, and how to maintain it. And that drives the entire report from start to finish.
This legislation arises from the Hooper Report, commissioned by the Government in line with our 2005 manifesto and urged on us, at the time, by the CWU. The Hooper Report was not specifically about ownership. At its heart was the Universal Postal Service, and how to maintain it. And that drives the entire report from start to finish.
Hooper found a Royal Mail which was critical to our country but which was labouring under several huge burdens, including the decline in the number of items sent through the post due to the shift to new technologies and a substantial and volatile pension deficit.
And while the company had a modernisation plan, in reality chronic industrial relations and obstruction at the local branch level by the CWU, as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher has said, has meant modernisation is too slow and too often bogged down in a draining attrition between union and management.
Hooper made his recommendation about a strategic partnership to help drive essential change - the most controversial aspect of his report - as a RESULT of his analysis. He didn't begin there.
Of course some people find it easier to agree with the review's other parts - on pensions and regulation - than on the need for a partner. But Hooper was clear all his proposals were a package, but to be taken in total, not as individual parts.
The government could have ignored what Hooper found and his recommendations. We could have found the nearest shelf, cleared a space, commented on the interesting nature of the report, patted Mr Hooper on the back and moved on. That response is not exactly without precedent. But what would have been the result? A Royal Mail we knew was in decline, with the universal letters delivery service under threat, put into the "too difficult" box because the government of the day didn't have the courage or the energy to take on the task.
In the Government's view, there is simply not an alternative. It's a dereliction of duty. And the Cabinet was not prepared to see it happen. I might say, I didn't seek this issue. I didn't seek a quarrel with anyone. The subject came on to my watch after I returned to government. But our postal service is too important for me to accept the advice from one ardent critic of the Bill which was to leave well alone and "manage decline". I believe our postal service - and the public - demand better. And that's why we are discussing this package of change today.
We can't turn the clock back. We can't wish away the internet, direct debit or any of the other liberating advances in technology that have freed up time for hard pressed people. There is no going back. Life has changed. This is about a Royal Mail for the 21st century. And there will be no "managing decline" sought by this Government.
Our goal is to put a publicly owned Royal Mail on a clear, and swift, path to modernisation and, in so doing, to secure the future of the universal postal service. That was our 2005 manifesto commitment, which said, and I quote:
" Our ambition is to see a publicly owned Royal Mail fully restored to good health, providing customers with an excellent service and its employees with rewarding employment."
In other words, there were two parts to our commitment - keeping Royal Mail in public ownership and restoring it to good health. Not to do the second part would be an abdication of responsibility.
As Hooper outlined, to deliver the modernisation it requires, Royal Mail needs:
- commercial confidence to act freed from the perception of political interference and through constructive engagement with the workforce rather than the mutual suspicion we have today;
- it needs expertise introduced from a postal or other network operator with a sound commercial track record;
- and, finally, access to fresh capital.
Hence the partnership approach for the company.
My noble friend, Lord Clarke's amendments reject our and Hooper's partnership proposals and instead would provide for the dissolution of Royal Mail Holdings plc and its replacement with a company limited by guarantee.
Perversely, the Noble Lord's suggestions remove the very important protections on future ownership of Royal Mail Group Limited and Post Office Limited enshrined in this Bill. In turning Royal Mail Holdings plc into a private company limited by guarantee, the amendments remove this company from public ownership and hence also remove Royal Mail Group Limited and Post Office Limited from public ownership.
This is a rather surprising effect sought by my noble friend who, throughout, has been attached to 100% pblic ownership. It is also counter to our key objective for the Royal Mail Group of companies which is that they should remain publicly owned, with Post Office Limited owned in its entirety by the Crown. I therefore could not support the amendments for that reason alone. However, there are other concerns.
Typically the company limited by guarantee structure is used for smallish charitable bodies and membership organisations. We have some limited experience in a commercial environment: Network Rail and Glas Cymru - Welsh Water.
Neither Network Rail nor Glas Cymru - unlike Royal Mail - are in the public sector. They are private companies. They are monopolies with fairly stable demand. And all of their earnings are determined by economic regulators, not by the choices of individual customers. They are run on a "not for dividend" basis and are accountable to a board of "stakeholder" members rather than to shareholders. Both of the businesses rely heavily on "contracting out" the actual provision of services - in the case of Glas Cymru it is 100%. his is hardly right for Royal Mail.
My Lords, whatever the merits of Network Rail and Glas Cymru as a model for the water and railway network, I don't believe the model would work in the increasingly competitive and fast-changing environment of the postal market.
A successful Royal Mail needs a different model that addresses each of the issues:
First, where does the needed investment come from? Funding for Glas Cymru and Network Rail comes from regulated charges, Government grants and external debt. But Royal Mail could not rely on these for its funding needs.
Royal Mail is not a monopoly. It operates in a competitive market place. As Hooper made clear it faces competition not just from the postal sector but from the broader communications market. It cannot meet its investment needs by hiking up prices. Customers would just switch increasingly to alternatives. And Royal Mail cannot tolerate more debt. Although Royal Mail has an extensive property portfolio, the Royal Mail's existing debt is already secured on this. There are no further assets to offer as collateral. However, the proceeds from a new private sector partner for Royal Mail would fund modernisation.
Second, where would the necessary experience to drive modernisation come from? There needs to be a major step change in Royal Mail's performance. Today's constraints on progress need to be countered by effective management and significant change in the industrial relations environment and union practices. To get this we need the practical, corporate experience of transforming a network company only a commercial partner could bring. Bringing in more consultants or changing one or two of the senior management will not suffice.
Third, where would the impetus - the drive - to modernise come from? I simply don't believe a company limited by guarantee model would provide that impetus and drive. Accountability to a group of stakeholders, with disparate interests, wouldn't provide the strong and focussed leadership Royal Mail needs. This is an organisation that needs to change, to become more efficient, not stand still. "Stakeholders" would be no substitute for shareholders - the government and a strategic partner - with capital at risk, and with a strong incentive to secure change. A company limited by guarantee model would be dependent on the regulator to drive change and improvement. And experience shows effective regulation is vital, but it isn't sufficient to drive the necessary change in a large and complex organisation like this.
Looking at this amendment, my view is that its proposition is led by politics first and what's necessary for Royal Mail a distant second. We can all vote for all sorts of nice sounding structures but the bottom line is: do they offer a convincing chance of delivering the very urgent modernisation which is required in a Royal Mail remaining in public ownership? And, I suggest, the answer is no.
I accept the thinking behind the amendment is not, as such, opposed to collaboration between Royal Mail and any outsiders. But on what basis would such a partner enter the business? On what basis would it be incentivised to drive the modernisation the company needs? The reality is that only a partner with an equity stake in the business will be motivated to help deliver the change required in the timeframe required, because it is the business's success that would produce a return on its investment.
My Lords, I hope you will understand why the Government, after due consideration and discussion involving the Prime Minister last week, has concluded that the alternative approach outlined by the Bill's opponents is unworkable and does not meet the challenges Royal Mail faces.
Turning to the other amendments in this Group covering commencement of Part 1 of the Bill, the Government's rejection of these flows from this conclusion.
We cannot afford to take a "wait and see" approach by building in a three year delay, as the amendments suggest. We have been waiting many years as it is. The evidence is clear that we must act as soon as market conditions and the bidding process allow.
We want to see Royal Mail become a leader in the postal market, not spiral into decline. To do that, we must not build in further delay.
Partnership offers a fresh start for Royal Mail. It is the best way of meeting the requirements for transforming Royal Mail highlighted by Hooper and which Government accepts: commercial confidence, access to capital and experience of managing change. Action on pensions and regulation alone will not modernise Royal Mail. It provides no incentive for Royal Mail to change, or the external drive and push to make it happen. Only the full package of measures which Government proposes will deliver our objectives in full, and secure the universal postal service.
“European Postal And Regulatory Reform: An Industry Perspective” by Tim Walsh, VP, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs, Pitney Bowes Inc. - April 27, 2009
Presented at the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority, 24th April 2009, London
“UPU Revenue Protection Activities” by Guy Marcenac and JP Ducasse (UPU Plenary Meeting, 23 March 2009) - March 24, 2009
“UPU Revenue Protection Activities” by Guy Marcenac (La Poste), Chair, PSG International Revenue Protection Group – Bulk Mail and Postal Meters
and JP Ducasse (Pitney Bowes, representing PostCom),
Chair, CC Postal Revenue Protection presented at UPU Postal Security Group, Plenary Meeting, Bern, 23 March 2009
“Collaborative Policy Development For An Efficient and Innovative Postal Services Sector: Experience of the EU” by Tim Walsh, VP, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs Pitney Bowes International - February 19, 2009
Delivered at the State Postal Bureau of The People’s Republic of Chinaand DG Internal Market Directorate of The European Commission, EU-China Trade Project Postal Seminar, Beijing, 12-13th February 2009.
