So this challenge is to reinvent the art of conversation within your organization. You should do this because the meaningless business jargon that litters corporate communication is harming your business, and destroying trust between your stakeholder groups, and that in turn is impacting on the value of your brand.

And be very clear – I’m not talking about the plain English movement – useful as that is. I’m talking about conversation. Our terror of litigation means that virtually all our communications now are so buttressed about with disclaimers and qualifiers as to be virtually meaningless.

We answer questions nobody asked, and tell people what we want them to know. A conversation opens the possibility of dialogue – a two way street that presents the opportunity to learn exactly what it is our customers want to know. The language of business is now so exclusionary that the average punter sinks back exhausted, and thinks “there’s nothing here that’s relevant to me”.

In my view, all corporate communication needs to be written as though you were explaining something to your mother. If she wouldn’t understand it, it’s too complicated, try again. Your tone should be warm, human in scale, and empathetic. It should acknowledge the possibility of error, and offer the opportunity for feedback. The gap between how we talk, and how we write, in business, has becoming a yawning chasm, and we need to reel it back in.

Effective communication builds trust through simplicity and transparency. Communications littered with legalese invite suspicion, and don’t work as hard for you. So put the lawyers back in their box, and lighten up a little. I promise you it’s good for business – and if you do find yourself with an outraged stakeholder on your hands, and it’s your fault, can I suggest that a simple apology is a very good strategy.

You may have seen a recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald, where a US state has made it possible for doctors to apologize for mistakes, without admitting legal liability, and the outcome has been a significant drop in malpractice suits. There’s a lesson in there for all of us.Third business challenge – Business needs to figure out how to deal ourselves back into debates on important national issues.

I find tiresome the protestations of CEO’s who insist that it is not their job to get involved in thought leadership on important national issues. That their sole responsibility is to their shareholders – and who seem almost insulted at the notion that they might have time to reflect on important issues of the day. This sense of isolationism which some business leaders seem to have cultivated so assiduously in recent times strikes me as just plain silly, because it’s so unreal.

Business, like everything else, does not exist in a vacuum. If globalization means anything then it means everything. If business is global, so is education, the environment, human rights, the arts, media, religion – and for us, as individuals, it means that we are global citizens. What is done to one, is done to all.

As business leaders we can get all fired up about the level playing field, the abolition of tariffs, the importance of free trade. But we leave ourselves open to charges of hypocrisy if we support the free flow of capital, but not the free flow of human capital.