Corporate Culture Matters to In-House Counsel
A new report from Navex Global shows that culture is a key part of corporate ethics and compliance programs.
December 05, 2017 at 07:00 AM
6 minute read
While shaping an organization's culture doesn't normally fall under the purview of the legal department, most in-house counsel surveyed in a new report released Tuesday ranked culture as one of the most important factors affecting their companies' ethics and compliance programs.
The 2017 Ethics & Compliance Benchmark Report for Legal Professionals looks at challenges in-house counsel will face in 2018 and explores how to confront them. It is the first role-based report by NAVEX Global Inc., an ethics and compliance software company.
“The report gives general counsel the ability to look across a bunch of in-house counsel in different industries and find out what they are focused on,” said NAVEX Global general counsel Shon Ramey in an interview.
And what they are focused on seems to be helping their organizations make smarter business decisions. More and more, Ramey said, the legal department “is being pulled in to help the business side protect the company from reputational risk, so it doesn't end up as the next lead story in The Wall Street Journal.”
He said the report confirms for general counsel that demands they are likely seeing in their own companies are being experienced by in-house counsel across the board and across industries.
The report is based on responses from 427 in-house legal department professionals, mostly general or senior counsel, who were surveyed about policy and procedure management, third-party risk management and employee training by NAVEX Global in 2017.
Ramey said he found it a little surprising that the report showed that 42 percent of respondents said their organization's approach to policy and procedure management was either reactive or basic. Additionally, 22 percent said their organizations only review applicable laws and regulations “reactively” when a potential issue is raised.
Speaking of being reactive, Ramey explained, “I used to be a runner. And I always went by the mantra that if you are thirsty then it is already too late to take a drink.”
If you are reacting to a bad situation, he said, “then that's probably part of the reason you are in the soup that you're in.”
Ramey encouraged general counsel to embrace their new role as guardians of the company's reputation and proactive protectors against risk.
“Take it upon yourselves to educate the business on where these risks can be,” Ramey said. “Identify them, prioritize them, and address them with procedures and training.”
In other findings, the report said:
* The majority of respondents said the legal department has “process ownership” for ethics and compliance training (80 percent), policy and procedure management (95 percent) and third-party management (79 percent).
* The top two ethics and compliance objectives were “complying with laws and regulations” and “creating a culture of ethics and respect.”
* The top three challenges for ethics and compliance training include insufficient resources, limited hours and coverage of all necessary topics.
Navex Ethics Report. Courtesy of Navex Global.While shaping an organization's culture doesn't normally fall under the purview of the legal department, most in-house counsel surveyed in a new report released Tuesday ranked culture as one of the most important factors affecting their companies' ethics and compliance programs.
The 2017 Ethics & Compliance Benchmark Report for Legal Professionals looks at challenges in-house counsel will face in 2018 and explores how to confront them. It is the first role-based report by NAVEX Global Inc., an ethics and compliance software company.
“The report gives general counsel the ability to look across a bunch of in-house counsel in different industries and find out what they are focused on,” said NAVEX Global general counsel Shon Ramey in an interview.
And what they are focused on seems to be helping their organizations make smarter business decisions. More and more, Ramey said, the legal department “is being pulled in to help the business side protect the company from reputational risk, so it doesn't end up as the next lead story in The Wall Street Journal.”
He said the report confirms for general counsel that demands they are likely seeing in their own companies are being experienced by in-house counsel across the board and across industries.
The report is based on responses from 427 in-house legal department professionals, mostly general or senior counsel, who were surveyed about policy and procedure management, third-party risk management and employee training by NAVEX Global in 2017.
Ramey said he found it a little surprising that the report showed that 42 percent of respondents said their organization's approach to policy and procedure management was either reactive or basic. Additionally, 22 percent said their organizations only review applicable laws and regulations “reactively” when a potential issue is raised.
Speaking of being reactive, Ramey explained, “I used to be a runner. And I always went by the mantra that if you are thirsty then it is already too late to take a drink.”
If you are reacting to a bad situation, he said, “then that's probably part of the reason you are in the soup that you're in.”
Ramey encouraged general counsel to embrace their new role as guardians of the company's reputation and proactive protectors against risk.
“Take it upon yourselves to educate the business on where these risks can be,” Ramey said. “Identify them, prioritize them, and address them with procedures and training.”
In other findings, the report said:
* The majority of respondents said the legal department has “process ownership” for ethics and compliance training (80 percent), policy and procedure management (95 percent) and third-party management (79 percent).
* The top two ethics and compliance objectives were “complying with laws and regulations” and “creating a culture of ethics and respect.”
* The top three challenges for ethics and compliance training include insufficient resources, limited hours and coverage of all necessary topics.
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
© 2025 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 AllHere Are Some Answers to Employers' Many Legal Questions About the Coronavirus
8 minute readFTC Commissioner's Social Media Statement Is a Heads-Up to Advertisers, Influencers
Report: 97% of General Counsel Think a Recession Could Be Near, but Few Say They're Prepared
3 minute readTesla, CBS and United See New General Counsel: February 2019 In-House Moves
12 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
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