The government is this week scheduled to unveil its industrial strategy for Britain. It promises to be a fascinating document. Although this industrial strategy has received far less publicity than Brexit, it could have a more significant long-term impact on Britain then leaving the European Union. But that impact depends on the government not only producing a substantial plan but also sticking to it over years and parliaments, which will not be an easy task.

Until Theresa May made her speech on Brexit last week, there were growing fears in the business world that the industrial strategy could be a damp squib. It is understood that there have been splits within government about how detailed the industrial strategy should be – because of fears that it could show Britain’s hand too early in negotiations with the EU on Brexit.

So while Greg Clark, the business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, understandably wanted to produce a weighty plan, those in the department for exiting the European Union were wary about the government telling the world which industries it considers most important.

In her speech, the prime minister said not only that Britain intended to leave the single market, but that she wanted the country to be a cheerleader for global free trade – and she cited key sectors for this, including car manufacturing and financial services. By outlining Britain’s approach to Brexit negotiations, May gave the industrial strategy a platform to build on.

The contents of the strategy are likely to focus on what sectors the government believes have potential, how they will be supported, and how it intends to develop skills, infrastructure and research and development.

The prime minister established the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy soon after she succeeded David Cameron in July. That move in itself was a notable step away from Cameron’s approach.

Sajid Javid, Cameron’s business secretary, had expressed his dislike for government intervention and avoided the phrase industrial strategy altogether. His argument was that industries and companies who were not part of the strategy felt isolated.

Nonetheless, almost nine out of 10 business leaders surveyed by the influential Institute of Directors (IoD) said that they were in favour of an industrial strategy. Javid’s predecessors in the role of business secretary, Lord Mandelson and Sir Vince Cable, both happily adopted the concept.

Although their industrial strategies were never put into writing, they formed task forces in the automotive and aerospace sectors made up of government figures and industry leaders. These so-called councils allowed the government to communicate regularly with chief executives in sectors it considered important, and to develop joint policies. It should be remembered that Javid’s laissez-faire approach ended in a tangle when he was forced to step in and offer financial support for the steel industry as thousands of jobs hung on the line.

Clark used to work for Boston Consulting Group, so drawing up a strategy should not be a problem for him. He has already provided clues about areas the industrial strategy will focus on.

Last September, Clark told the IoD conference in London that the industrial strategy had to focus on local areas and that “for too long government policy has treated everywhere like it is identical”. He added: “Many of the policies and decisions that form our industrial strategy will not be about particular industries or sectors, but will be cross-cutting.”

Then, in November, he said at a speech at Jaguar Land Rover that making Britain a world-leading hub for next-generation electric vehicles would be at the heart of the new strategy. He described the automotive sector, particularly electric vehicles, driverless cars and battery storage, as an “emblematic area of focus”.

We will find out this week how Clark and the government plan to electrify the economy. Even if the industrial strategy is just one page long, it will provide more clarity than Javid offered.

SFO has done a good job on Rolls-Royce. But it shouldn’t stop there

Apart from the banks, it is hard to think of a bigger British corporate scandal than Rolls-Royce in the past two decades. If Brexit and Trump weren’t happening, the tale of bribery and corruption at Rolls-Royce over three decades would have been front-page news for days. To recap: a company long deemed one of the UK’s finest agreed to pay £671m in penalties via a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the Serious Fraud Office and parallel agreements in Brazil and the US. Rolls-Royce’s behaviour amounted to “egregious criminality,” according to the senior judge who approved the agreement.

Sir Brian Leveson’s comments and the statement of facts were admirably clear on what happened – such as the handing of $2.25m and a Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit car to an individual in Indonesia in exchange for a “favour to Rolls-Royce” – but silent on who was responsible. The silence was because individuals could still be prosecuted.

But note one aggravating feature described by Leveson: “The conduct involved senior (on the face of it, very senior) Rolls-Royce employees.” In another passage, the lawbreaking was said to implicate “senior management and, on the face of it, controlling minds of the company”.

The obvious question is whether any prosecutions will materialise. Due process must be followed, of course. But public confidence in DPAs – used by the SFO since 2013 – will be maintained only if they are not seen as allowing a company to make a legal problem go away by writing a large cheque.

For Rolls-Royce – whose board was praised for its full cooperation with the SFO – that must mean one of two outcomes. Either the relevant senior managers should be prosecuted where possible; or the SFO must provide compelling reasons why not.

A fudged outcome, in which the question of individual prosecutions is perpetually delayed, would undermine faith in DPAs. The SFO was rightly praised last week for securing the settlement, but its work is not finished.

Some of the things Soros says have to come true

George Soros, hedge fund speculator extraordinaire, has not become a star turn in Davos by being dull. His current opinions, shared with the gilded set at the Swiss shindig, were suitably bold. Donald Trump is a “would-be dictator” who is “going to fail”. Theresa May “will not last” and British people are “in denial” about the cost of Brexit. Financial markets will “not do very well”.

He may well turn out to be right in some or all of his views. But timing in markets is everything, as Soros, who made a fortune by betting against the pound on Black Wednesday in 1992, knows. A week after the UK referendum, he said the result had “unleashed a crisis in the markets comparable in severity only to that of 2007-08”. The squall passed and the FTSE 100 and Dow Jones are close to record highs. Never mind, Soros grabbed attention –the chief requirement at Davos.