On Masters of Disaster this week, Tom Fox introduces listeners to his new podcast on leadership beginning February 2016 called Twelve O’Clock High. Below is a short excerpt from a recent article Tom wrote about the relationship of leadership to compliance and ethics:
Ethical leadership is absolutely mandatory to have a successful compliance program, whether it is based upon the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or the UK Bribery Act. Senior management must not only be committed to doing business in compliance with these laws but they must communicate these commitments down to the organization. But leadership is not limited only to senior management within an organization. Tone at the Top begets Tone in the Middle; which begets Tone at the Bottom. At each rung there is the need for compliance leadership. In an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR), entitled “Leadership is a Conversation”, authors Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind discuss how to improve employee engagement in today’s “flatter, more networked organizations.”
Thomas Fox assists companies with anti-corruption and anti-bribery compliance and international transaction issues. He was most recently the General Counsel at Drilling Controls, Inc., a worldwide oilfield manufacturing and service company. He was previously division counsel with Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. where he supported Halliburton’s software division and its downhole division.
Tom is the author of the award-winning FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog and the international best-selling book “Lessons Learned on Compliance and Ethics”. He is the author of the seminal text on the ‘Nuts and Bolts’ of anti-corruption compliance, Doing Compliance, published in October 2015 by Compliance Week.
In addition to his daily blog and bi-weekly podcast, he is a monthly columnist and blogger for Compliance Week; a bi-monthly columnist and frequent contributor to the SCCE Magazine and a Contributing Editor to the FCPA Blog. He is a well-known and frequent speaker on compliance and ethics, the use of social media in compliance and corporate leadership.
Tom Fox email email@example.com
Compliance professionals are ingenious problem solvers who help their businesses thrive in today’s regulatory environment. Too often the contributions of compliance professionals go unappreciated due to poor communication of the value of what they bring to the bottom line.
My interview for this week’s episode of Masters of Disaster is with James Kehoe who shares with us his experience with the business case for compliance. Although the field of James’ work is product regulation, his experience provides an understandable example of the basic problem of measuring the value of compliance in many other fields.
James Kehoe is a product manager at Compliance and Risks and currently has responsibility for the C2P product. Compliance & Risks provides innovative online tools that deliver the most timely and accurate global regulatory intelligence for consumer products.
James has over ten years’ experience, working in various strategic and consultative roles in engineering, project management, and business development in companies including General Electric and NECL. He also co-founded Policy Impact Assessment, a software start-up aimed at helping organizations understand how legislative changes affect commercial interests.
The Conflict Minerals disclosure requirements required companies to find information about the company’s products and supply chain that no one had captured before. What can be surprising are the things that a company may not know about its operations until they are brought together to solve a common problem. Different departments of one company can naturally develop “tunnel vision” that concentrates efforts only to knowing what that department does. How companies built conflict minerals disclosure compliance programs is a great example of the cross-functional nature of compliance within one business. More information about the Conflict Minerals disclosure requirements under Dodd-Frank is found via article links, below.
Lawrence Heim, CPEA, has been helping companies navigate the process of building compliance programs to meet the Conflict Minerals disclosure requirements since the law was passed in 2010. Mr. Heim is a Director of Elm Sustainability Partners LLC and The Elm Consulting Group International, LLC, with more than 28 years of experience environmental and sustainability management, focusing on audit programs and risk assessments. He began working on conflict minerals issues in 2010 as one of the original three audit firms approved to conduct Conflict Free Smelter audits, completing the first tantalum smelter audits under that program.
Mr. Heim was the only representative of the EHS consulting/auditing sector selected by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an expert panelist in their 2011 Conflict Minerals Roundtable convened in developing the final regulation. He was selected by The Auditing Roundtable to lead the development of auditor guidance for use in applying GAO Performance Audit standards to audits of Conflict Minerals Reports. He is the firm’s lead on conflict minerals services, is the developer of the CMCheckPoint℠ tool and is currently assisting a range of industrial companies and retailers in assessing/developing their conflict minerals programs. Mr. Heim is a frequent contributor to the media on the subject of conflict minerals programs and auditing and has made numerous public presentations across the country.
Lawrence Heim mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Peter Anderson returns to Masters of Disaster to update us on changes to federal investigations and credit given to organizations for cooperation as explained by the DOJ in the Yates Memo.
In the Yates Memo, Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates delivers the following controversial statement,
Effective immediately, we have revised our policy guidance to require that if a company wants any credit for cooperation, any credit at all, it must identify all individuals involved in the wrongdoing, regardless of their position, status or seniority in the company and provide all relevant facts about their misconduct. It’s all or nothing. No more picking and choosing what gets disclosed. No more partial credit for cooperation that doesn’t include information about individuals.
What does this mean for organizations being investigated by the DOJ? Is “identifying individuals” possible? Will investigations be shorter or longer? What are the unindented consequences?
Peter Anderson specializes in white collar crime and environmental litigation and is an expert in DOJ investigations. Peter is a principal at the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. in Washington D.C.
Peter originally appeared on Masters of Disaster on October 12, 2015, to explain how pro-active investments in compliance can keep the government treating you like one of the good guys.
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. http://www.bdlaw.com/
Peter Anderson’s Contact Information: