How can the RICS recover from its latest governance row?

Some 40% of real estate professionals surveyed by EG have called for the RICS to be dismantled to make way for a new representative body. That was the most popular response when the profession was polled on what the RICS should do in the wake of the mass resignation of its 10-strong independent standards and regulation board. The organisation’s governance issues stem from an internal row in 2019, when four non-executives were sacked after flagging concerns over treasury management. Since the incident was brought to light more than two years ago, there have been at least three major independent reviews into either the RICS or its valuation standards. The RICS has been striving to implement the recommendations from those reviews. However, the SRB’s exodus has sparked concerns that internal conflicts are disrupting efforts to usher in a meaningful transformation. As such, the industry has weighed in on how the RICS can preserve its reputation as a voice for the profession. Just over a fifth of more than 100 industry professionals said the government should regularly review the RICS, as proposed through Clause 221, which would give the secretary of state the power to instigate reviews into the organisation. Respondents were able to select multiple options. By contrast, 17% said the RICS should not be distracted and must continue with its existing turnaround strategy. Despite some of the factors that led to the recent resignations, 18% said more resources should be dedicated to independently led functions such as the SRB. Nearly 19% believed Dame Janet Paraskeva should be reinstated as chair of the SRB or in another leadership role. One industry player expanded on why the profession ought to back the organisation’s existing strategy, saying “RICS is absolutely right, consistent with [the Bichard review], that experienced surveyors working with dedicated staff produce technical guidance notes based on better and best practice – for scrutiny and confirmation by a standards board. “RICS is a body of members subject to independent oversight – but not independent dictatorship.” However, 23% of professionals suggested other measures, with several calling for the senior leadership team to be reviewed in light of recent events. Calls for leadership overhaul “I think it needs a massive shake-up to remove all those with any connection to the leadership in the past, say, five years,” said one respondent. “Dismantling is too strong, but something not far removed. Otherwise the RICS is going to lose so many members [and] credibility.” Another added: “The RICS should have a full-scale reform including the removal of all the current directors, CEOs and various heads,” said another. “The RICS needs to cut down its roles and schemes, cut the membership fee and take much more engagement from its members, it needs to be a member-led governing body.” Other participants called for the RICS to be reviewed by the privy council. “They have brought all this lack of trust on themselves, although I do not think this was on purpose,” said a participant, adding that the APC required on top of other qualifications to join is “a barrier to its announced words about diversity”. “It should be easier and more open to join, based upon qualifications; however, in conjunction to this it should have a hugely increased budget and be much more proactive in policing its members,” added the respondent. “It should have random audits of organisations that use chartered surveyors to ensure their processes are ethical and that clients are treated fairly.” Resetting priorities Several said the RICS’ global structure was still too sprawling, and that a separate, self-funded organisation should be set up to focus on UK sectors. “The ability of RICS to self-regulate should be removed and the organisation should be altered so that it can operate in territories and for members therein in a meaningful and straightforward way,” another respondent said. One professional called for the creation of an independent, fully funded regulator set up by statute to regulate firms, in the same vein as the Solicitors Regulation Authority. In this structure, the RICS would set the standards and that independent regulator would enforce them. “Get rid of things like… the CPD and reduce cost,” said another commentator. “Focus on two key things – the promotion of surveying as a career in schools and universities and standards and professionalism (including the APC).” The survey found the majority of the profession is keen to see further action taken to ensure its turnaround is kept on track. “It is time for the RICS to completely revamp itself,” said one participant. “Changes proposed are too slow to be introduced. The membership [is] disinterested in the squabbles – most likely to take place in London. Members get little value for the membership fees. Time to start afresh. Get rid of the men in grey suits – before it is too late.” To send feedback, e-mail pui-guan.man@eg.co.uk or tweet @PuiGuanM or @EGPropertyNews Image © EG