- Do we know how anti-corruption initiatives in other jurisdictions could impact us? Acting with integrity deserves to be a high priority for U.S. companies with an international presence. The likelihood of an investigation is much higher than even a few years ago. Tailoring policies to comply with U.S. law will no longer suffice. There is a lot of overlap, but jurisdictions nonetheless define aspects of corruption differently.
- Are we focused on the right risks in the right places? Instead of adding to layers of complexity, PwC asserts that it is possible – indeed advisable – to have a single global anti-corruption framework that accounts for corruption risks companies confront in different regions. Rules are not that drastically different under the various international frameworks. Moreover, regulators clearly seem to favour risk-based compliance programs, and also expect that companies do more where the risks of corruption are higher.
- Are our policies well understood by our employees? Employees should understand how the company defines corruption or bribery, and what constitutes an infraction. Those in high-risk areas like contracting should know how to report an occurrence, and importantly, feel comfortable that the company won’t retaliate. Yet employees should also know about the consequences, and that might mean publicizing reprimands.
- Are our policies well understood by the people we do business with? All parties acting on behalf of the company should understand that they, as well as the company, are liable for their actions, and know who in the company is overseeing the initiative.
- Do we have the resources to do this task? Currently available technology can be used to make due diligence more uniform and efficient. While IT systems will send up red or green flags, IT will not be able to do this alone. Upgrading controls and staffing compliance costs money and isn’t an area to do more with less. What won’t serve companies well in this climate is a paper tiger.
- Do we need to change the way we treat facilitation payments or marketing costs? The US and UK treat these small payments differently. Perhaps in recognition of the dilemma this creates, guidance from the UK and the OECD set some importance on phasing out facilitation payments. For now, companies will want to be sure they’re accounting for them appropriately, and importantly, that they’ve clearly defined acceptable facilitation payments and marketing costs.
- What do sector-wide investigations mean for our company? Risks are greater for companies in the same industry in which probes are already under way. Companies in such sectors need to carefully assess their risk accordingly. It may change the dynamics involved with taking the initiative to report any violation that the company itself uncovers to authorities.
- What is our response to possible whistleblowers in our company? In PwC’s view, the 2010 Dodd-Frank reforms are very likely to inspire complaints and tips to the SEC. In response, some smarter companies are evaluating how to change their compliance programs to address how quickly they are able to respond to reports of violations and whether ‘no retaliation’ policies are effectively in place.
via PwC Offers Guidance on Changing Corruption Risks – PR Newswire – sacbee.com.