Strengthening FCPA and UKBA Enforcement
There are always umpteen examples of the enormous costs
of companies behaving badly as far as bribery and corruption compliance
is concerned. Effective compliance, governance and ethics programs are a
means to reduce such costs. Another useful method fosters a culture in enterprises
where unethical behavior is either prevented, excluded, detected and resolved
promptly. Businesses can also provide encouragement thru a proper mix of
incentives. Carrot and stick philosophy is inadequate.
It is always premature and unrealistic
to suggest that bribery, fraud and corruption (BFC) will be significantly
reduced as a result of the introduction of a business' compliance and
ethics program. Such a program is just the first step. The BFC journey
first begins here. There are many other factors to get to the root of
corruption. The next step is to scope the BFC program.
The third step is to ensure disclosure of anti-corruption programs; both
enforced, monitored and audited. The assumption however is that businesses
have the framework, roadmap and other relevant mechanisms in place to
recognize that when a Bribery or Corruption disclosure is not in compliance
with the companies transparency policy.
The business is then ready to take collective action after achieving BFC
issue identification. The next stage of work is the implementation phase
with in-depth analysis of BFC processes, third party supervision and monitoring,
and benchmarking. First at this next stage the program will deliver tangible
and measurable results.
After implementation come disclosures
In many countries, this is not a simple and straightforward process because
fairness and transparency of the BFC process is not possible. There must
be an adequate internal retribution when a disclosure is neglected and
nor being reported to the right internal monitoring office or oversight.
In many other instances, it gets more complicated, when determining if
the Bribery or corruption mistake, error or information that is reported
is also truthful. One way to handle such an issue is to review/examine
the report or information and to perform random audits.
In many countries, the likelihood of oversight or government authorities
discovering illegal corporate conduct like bribery and corruption is low.
The carrot and stick approach provides an incentive for companies to establish
effective compliance and ethics programs, but only to a degree that such
entities believe they will get caught breaking the law.
The odds of getting caught breaking the law
The result is often that compliance programs have no real effect in helping
companies prevent risky behavior. They do little to protect the public
from the enormous costs of compliance misconduct. There can be no perfect
solution to this problem, as the nature of BFC risk ensures that there
will always be dangers in the future that we cannot possible foresee and
prepare for today.
With corruption being one of the greatest risks facing multinational companies
today, transparency of anti-corruption programs in the private sector
may be the best place to start.
Therefore achieving the right level of accountability and transparency
is an appropriate option. Not only does it motivate employees and officers
take greater ownership for the work to reduce their risk of severe behavior
by implementing effective compliance and ethics programs, regardless of
their odds of getting caught breaking the law.
"Success" in raising business standards is achieved not by reducing BFC
crime as by creating the right conditions to reduce corruption... or by
increasing trust.
Bribery
and corruption session
