What keeps GCs up at night
Ethical mishaps top an in-house counsel's list of worries.
August 31, 2011 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
Recently I was asked to speak at a conference where my assigned topic was “things that keep me up at night.” I offered three subjects: 1) my five-year-old daughter; 2) my new puppy; or 3) the neighbor kid who appears to be learning every conceivable percussion instrument. The sound of crickets indicated that I misunderstood the assignment. On the topic of ethics, two “ripped from the headlines” situations concern me, and prompted me to give serious reflection on the effectiveness of our business ethics programs.
The first situation involves the seemingly cavalier way that otherwise successful individuals jeopardize their careers through the pursuit of curious dalliances. The incomprehensibility of these ethical collapses is confirmed by these well-known examples: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mark Hurd, Anthony Weiner, David Wu and so on. It's well beyond the scope of this column and my expertise to explain why these individuals acted in such a manner, but their willingness to do so compels us to ask whether business ethics programs are capable of protecting organizations from these types of ethical failures.
Here are a few diagnostic questions that may help you with such an assessment. First, are there any organizational “sacred cows” for which compliance measures are relaxed? Compromising compliance processes in the name of respect for a title, position or a person presents needless risk to the organization.
Second, is the ethics program tuned to permit effective surveillance of high-risk corporate activities? This requires updated corporate policies that enable the maximum allowable surveillance of employee activities. For instance, if you have not updated your email review policies in light of recent case law, then you have some work to do.
Third, are you influencing the internal audit team's audit plan? Don't underestimate the expertise, resources and processes under the control of the internal audit group. Point the internal audit team to politically sensitive compliance risks; it will keep you above the fray and assure that otherwise uncomfortable investigations, when warranted, are pursued.
The second situation involves risks inherent in globalization. As companies push to establish a foothold in “low cost” regions, the business culture in those locales may permit activities that could be considered inappropriate or illegal at the headquarters. Bribery is a well-known example but one that should already be managed given the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement activity. Other examples come in the form of less-obvious activities, such as entertainment expenses, uses of petty cash and gift giving. Managing these activities is tricky because they are defended as a business necessity under local custom. The intersection of corporate policies and local activities requires thoughtful articulation.
Here are a few tips to manage this tricky ethical challenge: First, make sure local teams understand what behaviors are expected. Translate corporate policies and training. Ensure that your policies are easily locatable. Every employee should know exactly where your company's policies can be found.
Second, make sure that the tone from top executives provides unwavering clarity on corporate expectations. Use corporate blogs, all-hands meetings and the company's intranet to enforce the message. Finally, get out from behind the desk and get to know the leadership who work away from headquarters. Policies that are articulated through face-to-face interactions are easy to understand and respect. While meeting with local executives, speak with local law firms and seek counsel on how other multinationals are managing the same issues.
These are two challenges worthy of your attention; don't let them keep you up at night.
Brian Martin is SVP and general counsel of KLA-Tencor Corp. Send your comments and best ethics practices to him at [email protected].
Recently I was asked to speak at a conference where my assigned topic was “things that keep me up at night.” I offered three subjects: 1) my five-year-old daughter; 2) my new puppy; or 3) the neighbor kid who appears to be learning every conceivable percussion instrument. The sound of crickets indicated that I misunderstood the assignment. On the topic of ethics, two “ripped from the headlines” situations concern me, and prompted me to give serious reflection on the effectiveness of our business ethics programs.
The first situation involves the seemingly cavalier way that otherwise successful individuals jeopardize their careers through the pursuit of curious dalliances. The incomprehensibility of these ethical collapses is confirmed by these well-known examples: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Mark Hurd, Anthony Weiner, David Wu and so on. It's well beyond the scope of this column and my expertise to explain why these individuals acted in such a manner, but their willingness to do so compels us to ask whether business ethics programs are capable of protecting organizations from these types of ethical failures.
Here are a few diagnostic questions that may help you with such an assessment. First, are there any organizational “sacred cows” for which compliance measures are relaxed? Compromising compliance processes in the name of respect for a title, position or a person presents needless risk to the organization.
Second, is the ethics program tuned to permit effective surveillance of high-risk corporate activities? This requires updated corporate policies that enable the maximum allowable surveillance of employee activities. For instance, if you have not updated your email review policies in light of recent case law, then you have some work to do.
Third, are you influencing the internal audit team's audit plan? Don't underestimate the expertise, resources and processes under the control of the internal audit group. Point the internal audit team to politically sensitive compliance risks; it will keep you above the fray and assure that otherwise uncomfortable investigations, when warranted, are pursued.
The second situation involves risks inherent in globalization. As companies push to establish a foothold in “low cost” regions, the business culture in those locales may permit activities that could be considered inappropriate or illegal at the headquarters. Bribery is a well-known example but one that should already be managed given the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement activity. Other examples come in the form of less-obvious activities, such as entertainment expenses, uses of petty cash and gift giving. Managing these activities is tricky because they are defended as a business necessity under local custom. The intersection of corporate policies and local activities requires thoughtful articulation.
Here are a few tips to manage this tricky ethical challenge: First, make sure local teams understand what behaviors are expected. Translate corporate policies and training. Ensure that your policies are easily locatable. Every employee should know exactly where your company's policies can be found.
Second, make sure that the tone from top executives provides unwavering clarity on corporate expectations. Use corporate blogs, all-hands meetings and the company's intranet to enforce the message. Finally, get out from behind the desk and get to know the leadership who work away from headquarters. Policies that are articulated through face-to-face interactions are easy to understand and respect. While meeting with local executives, speak with local law firms and seek counsel on how other multinationals are managing the same issues.
These are two challenges worthy of your attention; don't let them keep you up at night.
Brian Martin is SVP and general counsel of KLA-Tencor Corp. Send your comments and best ethics practices to him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 2A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 3Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 45th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 5Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250