Incentives and staff compliance key to beating bribery
With the Bribery Act 2010 due to come into force on 1 July, bringing with it possible criminal sanctions for non-compliance, companies are increasingly turning their attention to improving their risk management framework. Many companies will already have drafted anti-bribery policies and set out in detail the rules surrounding gifts and hospitality. Stage two of preparation for the Bribery Act's implementation is likely to involve rolling out training to employees to ensure that they are aware of any new policies and of the behaviour expected of them.
May 25, 2011 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
With the Bribery Act 2010 due to come into force on 1 July, bringing with it possible criminal sanctions for non-compliance, companies are increasingly turning their attention to improving their risk management framework. Many companies will already have drafted anti-bribery policies and set out in detail the rules surrounding gifts and hospitality. Stage two of preparation for the Bribery Act's implementation is likely to involve rolling out training to employees to ensure that they are aware of any new policies and of the behaviour expected of them.
But putting in place new policies and providing training will be insufficient to protect companies from risk. The key for any company wishing to minimise its risk exposure is to ensure that its policies are actually complied with, and this is likely to require a further step – a change in the culture and attitude of the organisation as a whole to risk.
Analysing and making improvements to the various strands from which the culture of a company is made up will be an important tool in effecting cultural change. Cultural change within an organisation is a challenge, but a useful place to start (and one which is likely to capture the attention of employees most effectively) is with the company's performance management and reward system.
Companies can target their reward and appraisal systems in a number of ways, for example, by:
- ensuring that the remuneration of senior executives is aligned with the behaviour that the board wants to set for the company as a whole and that the remuneration committee has a clear understanding of the desired culture;
- incorporating in the appraisal process a review of employees' awareness of relevant anti-bribery policies and the completion of risk management training;
- linking remuneration levels to risk awareness and adherence to good risk management principles;
- considering the introduction of clawback provisions into benefit schemes, which may be triggered in the event of inappropriate behaviour being uncovered in the future; and
- ensuring that employees are aware of the factors that influence remuneration, and in particular that their attitude to, and awareness of, risk can impact on reward.
Some of these changes may be easier to introduce than others. Questions may arise, for example, about whether existing benefit plans are contractual and whether it is possible to effect unilateral changes. The introduction of clawback provisions is increasingly being considered by employers, although the practical application of these provisions can prove problematic. In practice a long deferral period combined with forfeiture provisions may prove easier to enforce than a clawback provision.
In addition to possible legal challenges, there will be employee relations considerations when effecting any changes to benefit plans and there may be obligations to consult with the workforce or employee representatives. Despite some potential obstacles in effecting changes to appraisal and reward systems, if proactive steps are taken to assess the legal risks, reward can successfully be used to drive cultural change. Cultural change will, in turn, be essential for companies keen to minimise their exposure to risk and the potential reputational damage and financial cost that could arise from the actions of their employees.
While the introduction of new policies and training to employees are both important steps in preparing for the Bribery Act's implementation, they should be viewed as a starting point and companies would be well-advised to turn their attention next to the more fundamental question of how to bring about a cultural change.
Caroline Stroud (pictured) is a partner and Holly Insley an associate in Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's employment, pensions and benefits practice.
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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