A new report explores approaches to lifelong learning for the 21st century.

By Peter M. Robinson

More and more, technology is eradicating traditional jobs faster than individuals can learn the skills necessary to adapt to new opportunities. The business community acknowledges that the “creative destruction” inherent in globalization and technological innovation can impact individuals differently. We believe that both the public and private sectors must help citizens and workers elevate their skills to meet the needs of the changing job market.

Increasingly, we see a disconnect between what we teach our children and the skills needed to succeed in today’s economy. We need to rethink the fundamental process of how we educate our young and train our workforce. In the 21st century, educators, policy makers and the business community must develop a common global approach to education, skills development and lifelong learning.

This was the focus of a new white paper from the United States Council Foundation, USCIB’s educational arm, and The McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. Summarizing the conclusions of a Roundtable on Education and Human Capital Requirements held earlier this year, the paper calls for a continuous, cogent conversation to respond to the global and personal challenges of the 21st century.

Beyond math and science

Rejecting efforts to elevate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) over the humanities or other disciplines in favor of a more flexible approach, the report encourages educators to address both individual learning styles as well as the changing demands of the workplace.

It became clear at the roundtable that we do not have a coherent strategy to skills development that will meet the economic needs of the 21st century. Research is fragmented among stakeholders, with business, educators and policy makers each looking at the problem through their own prism. We need a global, multi-disciplinary approach to solving the problem.

As James H. McGraw, IV, president of The McGraw-Hill Research Foundation, noted: “Disruptive events around the world underscore dramatic changes occurring in societies; yet one truism remains unchanged: the key to unlocking a brighter future is forged in education. If we are to tackle the problem of stubbornly high unemployment and meet the job needs of global employers over the long term, we need to embrace a wide range of ideas about education and consider new possibilities.”

The paper offers a number of suggestions made at the roundtable to help improve education, including:

• Focus first on early childhood, where the best return on investment lies.
• Build resilience into education systems, improving their ability to respond to rapidly changing needs.
• Push for mastery of the foundational curriculum through middle school.
• Focus on processes to reach deep understanding of the knowledge areas covered.
• Improve the connection between school and work-based learning via apprenticeships and internships.
• Rethink the front-end-loading of education, as in many cases formal education is continuing well into adulthood via personal re-skilling and corporate training.
• Develop a better understanding of the role of corporate training and development and its contribution to life-long learning.
• Place increased value on informal learning avenues (such as after-school programs, museums, etc.) as critical supplements to the inevitable gaps of formal learning.

In the words of Charles Fadel, author of 21st Century Skills and founder and chairman of the Center for Curriculum Redesign, which prepared the white paper: “What is clear is that there is an urgent need to bring to the fore a deeply cogent, synthetic, open-minded and continuous conversation.”

You can download a copy of the white paper here.

The United States Council Foundation and The McGraw-Hill Research Foundation plan to convene a second roundtable to focus on the white paper’s suggestions for immediate action and identify key areas for further study and research. We encourage you to get involved and help us disseminate the results of this project further.

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

Other recent postings from Mr. Robinson:

Ensuring a Dynamic and Secure Internet (Spring 2012)

Green Growth: Getting the Policies Right (Winter 2011/2012)

Supply Chain Challenges (Fall 2011)

Opening the World for Business (Summer 2011)

The OECD at 50 (Spring 2011)

For the online world to continue to grow and prosper, we need to ensure integrity and policy coherence.

By Peter M. Robinson

Reading the news recently – with social media’s explosive role in the Arab spring, increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks, and recurring uproars over privacy – you might think the Internet is flying apart in all directions.

But in fact, things are converging. The world is increasingly data-driven. Public reliance on the global Internet as a channel for essential communication and information has increased exponentially. Cross-border data flows continue to grow, as does the proliferation of mobile devices. This means that how the Internet is managed is now everybody’s business.

So it’s important that we all – businesses, governments, consumers, everyone – look closely at proposals to shift responsibility for Internet governance away from the multi-stakeholder model, which has held sway for over a decade, toward a more government-dominated approach.

This will be a core topic at December’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. The treaty conference is convened by the UN’s International Telecommunications Union, and many have voiced concern at proposals by Russia and some Arab countries to increase the ITU’s authority. As an alternative, USCIB and its sister business organizations around the world are pushing hard to maintain and reinforce a vibrant multi-stakeholder model.

Why? In two words, interoperability and integrity. By interoperability, we mean policy coherence, ensuring that national and regional policy regimes work in concert with each other. By integrity, we mean avoiding the fragmentation of the global Internet into many separate networks. The digital economy can’t function without both of these, and with more and more of our lives now taking place online, neither could a lot of things.

To ensure continued interoperability, USCIB and allied groups are engaging closely with policymakers to update the OECD’s privacy guidelines, the international standard for privacy protection, which date to 1980, before the widespread use of personal computers, much less the Internet, cloud computing and the rise of “big data,” in a way that maintains the original, and still useful principles.

We are also focusing business attention on proposed new privacy regulations in the European Union, which have the potential – if done right – to harmonize rules and increase legal certainty throughout Europe. But if done wrong, the new rules could hamper Europe’s economic recovery and prove difficult to implement.

And business is also closely engaged in discussions surrounding a new White House “consumer privacy bill of rights” and related U.S. efforts to promote online security and innovation. We are heartened that the Obama administration has recognized the importance of ensuring international interoperability, including recently agreed OECD Internet principles and APEC cross-border privacy rules to which USCIB and business have contributed mightily (see the last issue of International Business).

Equally important, we are working hard to ensure the continued integrity of the global Internet and fight back against efforts to fragment it. This will be important as we approach the WCIT conference, and also at the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which takes place in November in Baku, Azerbaijan. The IGF has been an essential bulwark for the multi-stakeholder approach, engaging business, civil society and the Internet technical community along with governments in discussions on a range of Internet policy issues, and focusing on building capacity across all groups to address challenges and ensure continued growth, investment and innovation.

WCIT has the potential to open the door for greater government involvement, via the ITU, in regulating the Internet, for example through proposals to broaden the definition of “telecommunications” to encompass the entire Internet. Such proposals may seem incremental, but they would really prove revolutionary and quite damaging.

Business believes that the existing ITU mandate is sufficient for it to continue to perform its essential work in regulating global telecommunications – traditionally a heavily regulated field, after all. But the Internet has grown and prospered, and we along with it, precisely because it has been lightly regulated and effectively governed via the multi-stakeholder model. Now is not the time to throw that all away.

As a broad-based, multi-sectoral organization with links to essential global policy platforms, USCIB has long played a vanguard role in representing industry in this critical area. We look forward to working with our members to promote a dynamic and secure Internet.

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

Other recent postings from Mr. Robinson:

Green Growth: Getting the Policies Right (Winter 2011/2012)

Supply Chain Challenges (Fall 2011)

Opening the World for Business (Summer 2011)

The OECD at 50 (Spring 2011)

Many groups represent business in Washington and internationally, but few can match USCIB’s experience, geographic reach and credibility.

By Peter M. Robinson

People often ask me to explain how USCIB can help their company, and what distinguishes us from other business associations. Even our members sometimes ask us how best to articulate USCIB’s value to colleagues who are not as familiar with us.

USCIB does something no other business group does: we represent our members’ business interests around the world. We provide access and influence to regulatory bodies and policy makers at the national and international levels. We work to open markets, foster innovation and fair competition, and secure the free flow of information so our member companies can succeed wherever they do business.

Our role is essential because business is increasingly international. We understand that the success of our member companies increasingly depends on the ability to proactively shape the rules and regulations that will influence the way they do business in the years ahead.

Our approach is built upon our commitment to the core values of open markets, competitiveness and innovation, sustainable development and corporate responsibility. Those values support our key objectives of open trade and investment and job creation, in order to create a better world for our children. We see these values and objectives as best supported through international engagement and prudent regulation.

Many organizations represent U.S. business interests in Washington, D.C., and others do so internationally. But few, if any, can match USCIB’s experience and geographic reach, or the credibility we have earned in successfully advocating on behalf of members from all sectors and industries, in an increasingly complex global regulatory environment.

We could not do this without the global platform provided by our network of business affiliates – including the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Organization of Employers, and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD. These groups open doors overseas, provide a “seat at the table” with key international bodies and allow us to rally foreign business opinion in support of our members’ views. Working through this unmatched network, USCIB is a proven, trusted and credible partner with foreign governments and international regulatory bodies at all levels.

The breadth of issues we cover is remarkable – ranging from climate change to Internet governance, from human rights to the conditions and rules affecting overseas investment, from tax policy to customs and trade facilitation, to name but a few. Our comprehensive policy agenda and our flexible structure give us a unique ability to work on cross-cutting and complex business issues.

Influencing policy and regulatory outcomes on a global scale requires proactivity and sustained commitment. USCIB’s consensus-based approach ensures that our views and positions represent the broadest possible range of companies across all affected industries. And our long-term outlook allows us to “see around corners,” effectively helping our members tackle tomorrow’s business challenges today.

Another thing that sets USCIB apart is our working relationship with organized labor and civil society groups. With the urgent need for job creation high on the international agenda, our work in the tripartite International Labor Organization, as well as in the OECD, where labor also has a voice, gives us a platform for pursuing shared interests in promoting growth and employment.

Finally, when distinguishing USCIB from other U.S. trade associations and business organizations, I emphasize that this not an either/or proposition. As a broad-based, globally engaged, consensus-driven and “outside the beltway” organization, we frequently complement and leverage positions taken by our member companies in their vertically oriented industry associations and other business groups. We also work collaboratively with these groups in numerous coalition efforts.

Think of us an “amplifier.” Where an industry’s policy positions in Washington touch international issues and fit with USCIB’s core values, we can help create a broad international consensus in support of these positions through our global platforms.

In a nutshell, USCIB’s mission is to open the world for American business. We welcome your support, and if you’re not already a member of USCIB, please consider joining. (Call 212.703.5064 or e-mail membership@uscib.org.) Working together, we can ensure business leadership and engagement in building a better, more prosperous world.

Other recent postings from Mr. Robinson:

The OECD at 50 (Spring 2011)

Dealing With State-Owned Enterprises (Winter 2010-2011)

Leadership’s Legacy, and Its Promise (Fall 2010)

Jobs Take Center Stage (Summer 2010)

Winter 2010-2011

With multinationals going up against government-owned firms around the world, how can we ensure “competitive neutrality”?

By Peter M. Robinson

Around the world, companies face the challenge of competing with state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which are often favored by their governments in official policy and through less obvious means.  In China, for example, state-owned companies often enjoy preferential treatment in such areas as government procurement, subsidies, taxation, export financing, and the application and enforcement of regulations.

And it’s not just China – such practices are unfortunately still common in many countries.  This is problematic enough when the competition is on the SOE’s home turf.  But multinational firms are increasingly going up against SOEs in third markets, with governments sometimes lending strong support for bids.  In such circumstances, how can we ensure fair and equal treatment?

This is a high-priority issue for the U.S. government.  In addition, the 34-nation Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development is investigating the possibility of building upon its existing guidelines for governments on SOEs, which underscore the importance of “competitive neutrality.”  With many emerging nations increasingly drawn to models of “state capitalism” in the wake of the financial crisis, this work is taking on new urgency.

In December, we hosted an in-depth discussion of the challenge of SOEs with OECD Secretary General Angel Gurría and U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Robert Hormats.  The get-together provided a timely opportunity for USCIB members to voice their views and share intelligence on a topic not generally tackled by other industry groups.

Mr. Gurría drew attention to a recent report on investment protectionism from the OECD and the UN Conference on Trade and Development.  That report notes that, while barriers to cross-border investment worldwide have not increased in an overt manner, there are signs that countries are becoming more insular – by rejecting deals, by imposing capital controls and through regulations.

Recent OECD work has produced a stocktaking of concerns about competitive neutrality.  These include: available remedies to counter anti-competitive behavior; reasons why SOEs may operate on an uneven playing field; and discussion of the relevance of the existing OECD guidelines to ensure competitive neutrality in such cases.

At the meeting, USCIB members readily provided examples of how U.S. companies have been squeezed out of national markets, and specific deals, by state-owned enterprises, and encouraged enhanced attention to this issue in the OECD.

Mr. Hormats reiterated the importance of this problem to the U.S. government, saying it was moving faster than discussions of policies on how to deal with SOEs.  He welcomed the thoughts of members to press forward in the OECD and elsewhere to establish disciplines and raise awareness.

USCIB and our affiliate BIAC (Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD) have urged that this subject be accorded higher priority on the OECD agenda – a point reiterated by USCIB members at our meeting with Messrs. Gurría and Hormats.

For example, we would like to see the OECD define competitive neutrality in detail.  Other options being considered include monitoring the implementation of the SOE guidelines, leading to peer review and best practices, and possibly inviting non-member countries to participate in further OECD work, including monitoring.

Such actions could help bridge a broad gap between the rules applied to the private sector and those applied to state-owned firms in many key markets.  Stay tuned.

Mr. Robinson’s bio and contact information

Other recent postings from Mr. Robinson:

Leadership’s Legacy, and Its Promise (Fall 2010)

Jobs Take Center Stage (Summer 2010)

Reflections From Copenhagen (Spring 2010)

Now More Than Ever: Competitiveness and Innovation Matter (Winter 2009/2010)