7K0A0129Today, I conclude a three-part series on risk assessments in your Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act anti-corruption compliance program. I previously reviewed some of the risks that you need to assess and how you might go about assessing them. Today I want to consider some thoughts on how to use your risk assessment going forward.

Mike Volkov has advised that you should prepare a risk matrix detailing the specific risks you have identified and relevant mitigating controls. From this you can create a new control or prepare an enhanced control to remediate the gap between specific risk and control. Finally, through this risk matrix you should be able to assess relative remediation requirements.

A manner in which to put into practice some of Volkov’s suggestions was explored by Tammy Whitehouse, in an article entitled “Improving Risk Assessments and Audit Operations”. Her article focused on the how Timken Company, assesses and then evaluates the risks the company has assessed. Once risks are identified, they are then rated according to their significance and likelihood of occurring, and then plotted on a heat map to determine their priority. The most significant risks with the greatest likelihood of occurring are deemed the priority risks, which become the focus of the audit/monitoring plan, she said. A variety of solutions and tools can be used to manage these risks going forward but the key step is to evaluate and rate these risks. 

LIKELIHOOD 

Likelihood Rating Assessment Evaluation Criteria
1 Almost Certain High likely, this event is expected to occur
2 Likely Strong possibility that an event will occur and there is sufficient historical incidence to support it
3 Possible Event may occur at some point, typically there is a history to support it
4 Unlikely Not expected but there’s a slight possibility that it may occur
5 Rare Highly unlikely, but may occur in unique circumstances

‘Likelihood’ factors to consider: The existence of controls, written policies and procedures designed to mitigate risk capable of leadership to recognize and prevent a compliance breakdown; Compliance failures or near misses; Training and awareness programs.

PRIORITY 

Priority Rating Assessment Evaluation Criteria
1-2 Severe Immediate action is required to address the risk, in addition to inclusion in training and education and audit and monitoring plans
3-4 High Should be proactively monitored and mitigated through inclusion in training and education and audit and monitoring plans
5-7 Significant
8-14 Moderate
15-1920-25 LowTrivial Risks at this level should be monitored but do not necessarily pose any serious threat to the organization at the present time.

Priority Rating: Product of ‘likelihood’ and significance ratings reflects the significance of particular risk universe. It is not a measure of compliance effectiveness or to compare efforts, controls or programs against peer groups.

At Timken, the most significant risks with the greatest likelihood of occurring are deemed to be the priority risks. These “Severe” risks become the focus of the audit monitoring plan going forward. A variety of tools can be used, such as continuous controls monitoring with tools like those provided by Visual RiskIQ, a relationship-analysis based software such as Catelas or other analytical based tools. But you should not forget the human factor. At Timken, one of the methods used by the compliance group to manage such risk is by providing employees with substantive training to guard against the most significant risks coming to pass and to keep the key messages fresh and top of mind. The company also produces a risk control summary that succinctly documents the nature of the risk and the actions taken to mitigate it.

The key to the Timken approach is the action steps prescribed by their analysis. This is another way of saying that the risk assessment informs the compliance program, not vice versa. This is the method set forth by the DOJ in its FCPA Guidance and in the UK Bribery Act’s Adequate Procedures. I believe that the DOJ wants to see a reasoned approach with regards to the actions a company takes in the compliance arena. The model set forth by Timken certainly is a reasoned approach and can provide the articulation needed to explain which steps were taken.

In an article in Compliance Week Magazine, entitled, “Lessons on Risk Assessments from Winnie The Pooh” Jason Medford articulated that a key use of a risk assessment is to assist the internal audit function in developing their internal audit plan. He cited to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) standard 2010.A1, which states “The internal audit activity’s plan of engagements must be based on a documented risk assessment, undertaken at least annually.” He went on to note that “In order to have a truly integrated GRC capability it is necessary for internal auditors to work with other GRC professionals in their organization. They must align their annual audit plan with the organization’s objectives, strategies, and initiatives of the other GRC professionals. They must collaborate, coordinate, and align their audit activities with other GRC professionals to increase visibility, improve efficiency, accountability and collaboration.

Carol Saint, Vice President of Internal Audit for 7-Eleven, who was interview by OCEG President Carol Switzer for the same article said that “We start with a risk assessment, beginning with business units because this is how the organization has designed accountability.  We decompose business units into the processes and sub-processes they own and execute. We evaluate how sub-processes align to achievement of strategic objectives: How do they affect the company’s value drivers? Next, we map financial statement lines to the sub-processes to help prioritize from that lens. Finally, for each sub-process we consider specific risks that could hinder achievement of strategic objectives, as well as fraud risks, significant accounting estimates, benchmarking/ hot topics, and ERM risks. We created an “intensity rating” that measures how often a process/sub-process was mentioned in our stakeholder interviews as a risk to the company. And we also considered how cross-functional a process is so that the element of complexity—a risk accelerator—could help determine audit plan priorities. This year’s plan development process was quite intense, but I think we did a good job of creating a baseline so that future risk assessments are more efficient.”

I hope that you have found this series on risk assessments useful. If you have any questions or better yet would like me to work on a risk assessment for your organization, please contact me.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014

7K0A0223One of treats each month for the compliance professional is reading the GRC Illustrated column by Carole Switzer, President of the Open Compliance and Ethics Group (OCEG), in the Compliance Week magazine. Not only does Switzer write a highly informative and useful column but she also includes two standard features. The first is an illustrated guide that lays out visually her counsel and the second is that she also includes interviews from a Roundtable of compliance industry participants. In the July edition Switzer discussed an issue that brings much gnashing of teeth to both compliance practitioners, lawyers from the legal department and business folks alike; the situation where you must terminate a third party relationship.

In the article, entitled “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do”, Switzer relates how ‘to avoid pain by planning for the end of a third party relationship’, together with an illustrated diagram of “Third Party Risk Management in Financial Service”; she couples these with a Roundtable on “Financial Sector Third Party Risk” with participants Walter Hoogmoed, Jr., a Principal at Deloitte, Marie Patterson, VP-Marketing at Hiperos, and Billy Spears, Chief Ethics, Privacy and Compliance Officer at Hyundai Capital America.

Switzer begins by noting that it all should begin with “an exit strategy, a transition plan or a pre-nup—whatever the title, it’s best to begin by planning for the end which, in the case of business at least, will always eventually come. Whether due to contract completion or material breach, turning over responsibility to another party, or abandonment of the contracted activity altogether, contract termination is an inevitable phase in the third-party relationship lifecycle.” Planning for the end is important because,  “The more long term and layered the relationship, the more difficult it will be to disentangle. The deeper the third party is embedded in and uses the confidential information of the company and its customers, the greater the risks presented by failing to design a smooth transition process.”

It should originate with clearly specified contract termination rights but that is only the starting point, “ To work out a smooth transition, the plan must also include internal change management processes and policies, designated transition team members, contingencies, and adequate resources and time allowances.” While speaking to risk from cyber-security, Switzer details some of the points for consideration. You should have clear procedures for “data retention or destruction, termination of access control for shared technology, and removal of system connectedness, including consideration of what fourth parties (your third party’s third parties) may have.” Your corporate values must be protected by “clearly designating the disposition of shared intellectual property and infrastructure assets.” Next you need to think through your transition plan by “ensuring rights to hire or continue use of key contractor employees who have been servicing your account, arranging to bringing new contractors or internal managers up to speed, and filing any regulatory or other required notifications.” Finally, bear in mind that your reputation must be protected during this transition process “by controlling and planning for issuance of public statements and social media postings by terminated contractors or their employees, or the best laid transition plans may be for naught.”

In the Illustrated component to her article, Switzer lays out a five-step integrated risk management process, which is a useful view of the entire cycle:

  1. Plan and Organize. Under this step you should develop a plan to evaluate the level and complexity of risk. Switzer suggests some of the things you should consider are the volume of business engaged in by the third party representative, the nature of the risks involved, the extent to which the third party representative will use sub-contractors and any required legal or regulatory approvals required for the geographic areas which the third party representative will conduct business with or for you.
  2. Perform Due Diligence. Here you should assess each third party’s compliance controls relative to the level of risk you have determined is present. Here the standard inquiries are such items as ultimate beneficial owners, anti-corruption compliance and risk management controls currently in place, incident management and reporting and conflicts of interest.
  3. Manage Contracts. This step involves the ongoing review and assessment of the contractual relationship. If new or greater risks arise and they have not been previously addressed, you may need to add new contract terms to address them going forward. In addition to your standard anti-corruption compliance terms and conditions, you should have key performance indicators (KPIs), confidentiality terms and conditions and sub-contractor requirements.
  4. Conduct Ongoing Monitoring. Under this step, you need to “oversee and pro-actively monitor and review each third party relationship at a level commensurate with risk” and “ensure that issues are identified and appropriately escalated for remediation.”
  5. Manage Terminations. If required, you should follow your established plan for transition to ending the relationship and transitioning to another third party representative. You should also consider the need to “protect information, maintain smooth operations and protect reputation during the transition.”

In her Roundtable, Switzer received some very useful information from the participants in a couple of broad areas. The first was the use of sub-contractors by a company’s third party representatives, which Switzer articulated as ‘fourth parties’. Patterson commented that “If the third party is going to sub-contract work, the bank needs to ensure that the third party has adequate controls in place to assess and manage their sub-contractor risk and that the bank has the ability to terminate their relationship with the third party in the event there is an issue with the fourth party.” Hoogmoed emphasized the ‘interdependences’ of the relationships. He said that “contract provisions should be enhanced for clarity of controls and liability, approvals for serial outsourcing should be implemented, and selective testing for fourth/fifth parties should be considered.” Spears pointed not only to due diligence but also strong contract terms as a key to the management of this issue, “Due diligence coupled with a strong legal contract team are crucial. It is very important to develop a minimum standard, in the contract with the third party, to ensure that the third party only does business with fourth parties that meet the first-party requirements… The provisions should include that no sharing beyond a fourth party is allowable. The last critical point of this is to ensure that the first party adds a mechanism for accountability. This mechanism is what prevents this from becoming a rabbit hole.”

Switzer ended the Roundtable by asking what was the most important part about third party risk management? Spears pointed that “having a solid plan for setting the tone with third parties is the key.” From Hoogmoed’s perspective, it all begins with understanding on risk, or as the FCPA Guidance intones, it all begins with a risk assessment. He said, “Developing some advanced risk tiering and assessment methods will help organizations focus their limited resources on managing the risk, compliance, and controls on the most critical/highest risk relationships. Engaging senior management in the risk analysis and reporting is also very important to balance the appropriate level of risk taking with the costs and investments necessary for the business.” Patterson took a different approach focusing on the feedback that Hiperos has received from their customers, and said, “the most important aspects of the recent guidance all deal with impact. The scope of the guidance has been broadened, both in terms of the expansion of what a “critical” activity is and the redefinition from vendor to third party. The importance of these obligations has been elevated with the explicit inclusion of the board at a much deeper level than previously, and the requirement for independent audit to be involved. And finally, the effort has been expanded significantly to include the entire lifecycle of third party management from planning through termination and every step in between.”

As usual, Switzer’s monthly column provides solid information to the compliance practitioner about what you need to know to inform your compliance regime. This month is no different. Although rarely written about, the termination of a third party relationship can be as important a step as any other in the management of the third party lifecycle. While having the contractual right to terminate is a good starting point, it is only the starting point. You not only need to have a compliance and legal plan in place but a business plan in place as well. For if you do not, you may well find yourself in the same place that Switzer started her article, quoting Neil Sedaka that “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do.”

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

Policies and ProceduresThis week, I am reviewing the importance of a Code of Conduct and anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures in your compliance program and how you should go about drafting or updating Code of Conduct and anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures. Yesterday, I reviewed the underlying legal and statutory basis for the documents as a foundation of your overall anti-corruption regime. Today, I want to look at how to go about drafting your Code of Conduct. In subsequent posts, I will consider both anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures and how to assess, review and revise them and your Code of Conduct on a timely basis.

What is the value of having a Code of Conduct? I have heard many business folks ask that question over the years. In its early days, a Code of Conduct tended to be lawyer-written and lawyer-driven to “wave in a defense situation” by claiming that “see we have one”. But is such a legalistic code effective? Is a Code of Conduct more than simply, your company’s law? What is it that makes a Code of Conduct effective? What should be the goal in the creation of your company’s Code of Conduct?

Carol Switzer, President of the Open Compliance and Ethics Group (OCEG), explored some of these questions in an article in Compliance Week, entitled “The Code of Conduct Conundrum”. As a part of her article, Switzer interviewed Jimmy Lin, Vice President (VP) of Product Management and Corporate Development at The Network, and Kendall Tieck, VP of Internal Audit at Workday, for their thoughts on what makes an effective Code of Conduct.

Tieck views a Code of Conduct as not simply a static piece of paper or document “but as a set of expected behaviors that are integral to the fabric of the business and an organization’s value system. A Code of Conduct is not a compliance activity, but how an entity demonstrates integrity and acquires trust from markets, shareholders, customers, partners, and governments. To achieve these outcomes, a careful plan, aligned with a policy lifecycle management framework, should articulate how the Code is integrated in the core of the company’s activities and culture.”

Switzer believes that one of the key components of a best practices Code of Conduct is to integrate the connection between a business’ objectives, its risk and compliance management. There are numerous factors, which can move a company towards having such an effective integration. Switzer wrote that some of these include, “external stakeholder expectations and pressures, internal culture and context, objectives for the code, process of development and implementation, content of the code, consequences for non-conforming conduct, strength of sub-codes (e.g. policies), and employee character.”

Switzer ends her piece by relating that there is a huge benefit to a company for a well thought out Code of Conduct, as a tool to drive both corporate values and sinew the expectations of conduct into the fabric of the company. By designing a Code of Conduct, which can be measured for effectiveness, you can continuously keep the goals moving.

A GRC Illustrated series, provided with Switzer’s article, entitled “The Next Generation Code of Conduct”, lays out six steps for the compliance practitioner to think through and implement during a Code of Conduct upgrade or rewrite. These six steps are (1) design; (2) deliver; (3) interact; (4) measure; (5) maintain; and (6) improve.

Design

Under this step, a company needs to define the behavior that it desires to inspire and allow employees to collaborate at all levels. Lin, said that a key aspect was relevancy, “But times change—business environments change, cultures change, risk appetites change. We all need to keep in mind that the Code, the ultimate policy, should not be a stale document on the shelf. It needs to inspire, engage, and change with the organization.” Tieck said that your Code of Conduct should be “considered a part of the entity’s overall policy landscape. Leveraging an effective policy lifecycle management framework will promote integration and alignment across the policy governance landscape.”

Deliver

Switzer also identified the delivery of a Code of Conduct as a key element of its effectiveness. She said, “modern communication methods that allow the user to engage, interact, and research further behind the Code into related policies, procedures, and helplines for additional guidance can be better monitored and measured. Code content that is integrated with efforts to monitor changes in the external and internal environment can be updated as needed rather than on a static schedule.” This should also include relevant third parties such as suppliers and sales agents. “And failure to comply with the Code can be better identified and tracked, indicating possible need for clarification, additional training, or better screening of employees.”

Interact

Lin pointed out that a Code of Conduct is both a corporate governance document and a marketing document. As such you will need to create a marketing campaign to get the message of your Code of Conduct out to not only your employee base but also relevant third parties. If you have a large number of non-English speaking personnel or employees without access to online training, these factors need to be considered when determining the delivery method.

Measure

Initially, you should prioritize both qualitative results with positive feedback by including such metrics as speed of completion, reminders, which must be sent to facilitate completion of Code of Conduct training, and the percent of employees and third parties who attest to the review of your Code of Conduct. You should also measure the effectiveness of your communication campaign. Tieck suggests drilling down further because each component of your Code of Conduct sets “an expected behavior. Selecting a few critical behaviors to measure and monitor may be adequate for most organizations. These selected measures might represent an aggregate measure of the overall conformance to the code. Large organizations may be able to mine HR data to capture statistics associated with the identified behaviors. For instance, termination reason codes may be one source.”

Maintain

All commentators note that it is important to keep your Code of Conduct design and content fresh. One of the ways to do so is by employee feedback, which can assist you in identifying if your Code of Conduct is not only effective, but also truly reflective of your company’s culture. Lin points out that to gain these insights you need to incorporate both formal and informal techniques for gauging the relevant employee and third party populations. He states, “Questionnaires, surveys, forms and hotlines can be good anonymous sources, but engaging employees in conversation is just as, if not more, important. Make sure executives and managers alike spend time in small-group and one-on-one conversations. Have these conversations throughout the year and across your employee base to get the “real” story. This helps engage the employees and ensure they know you value their input.”

Improve

OCEG advocates that your Code of Conduct should be evaluated for revision at least every two years. This should be done to keep abreast of the changes in laws and regulations and your own business operations and risk tolerances. Switzer said, “Code content that is integrated with efforts to monitor changes in the external and internal environment can be updated as needed rather than on a static schedule.”

Switzer ends her piece by relating that there is a huge benefit to a company for a well thought out Code of Conduct, as a tool to drive both corporate values and sinew the expectations of conduct into the fabric of the company. By designing a Code of Conduct, which can be measured for effectiveness, you can continuously keep the goals moving.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014

John Bell HoodReaders of this blog know I am huge Civil War buff. Growing up in Texas, I only focused on the Southern side as a youngster and while this led to a sometime myopic view of events, in my mid-20s when I did begin to study the Northern side of the war, because I had never seriously studied from that perspective an entire panorama opened up for me.

One thing that never changed however, was the disaster that befell the South from the appointment of John Bell Hood to commander of the Army of Tennessee, which opposed General Sherman’s advance into Georgia since his stunning defeat of the Confederate forces at Chattanooga and later Lookout Mountain in Tennessee in late 1863. On this day 150 years, Confederate President Jefferson Davis replaced General Joseph Johnston with John Bell Hood as commander of the Army of Tennessee. Davis, impatient with Johnston’s defensive strategy in the Atlanta campaign, felt that Hood stood a better chance of saving Atlanta from the forces of Union General William T. Sherman. President Davis selected Hood for his reputation as a fighting general, in contrast to Johnston’s cautious nature. Hood did what Davis wanted and quickly attacked Sherman at Peachtree Creek on July 20 but with disastrous results. Hood attacked two more times, losing both and destroying his army’s offensive capabilities. Over the next two weeks in 1864, Hood’s actions not only led to President Abraham Lincoln’s reelection but spelled, once and for all, the doom of the Confederacy.

I thought about the risks of appointing Hood to command when I read a recent article in the Compliance Week Magazine by Carol Switzer, co-founder and President of the Open Compliance and Ethics Group (OCEG), entitled “A Strategic Approach to Conduct Risk”. Her article was accompanied by an entry in the OCEG Illustrated Series, entitled “Managing Conduct Risk in the GRC Context”, and she also presented thoughts from a Roundtable which included John Brown, Managing Principal, Risk Segment, Financial and Risk Division at Thompson Reuters; Tom Harper, Executive Vice President-General Auditor Federal Home Loan of Chicago and Dr. Roger Miles, Behavioral Risk Lead, Thompson Reuters.

In her article, Switzer pointed to the “Ill-advised risk taking” which led to the near-collapse of the financial sector as the genesis for the creation of the UK’s new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). But she also noted that conduct risk is something that exists in industries far afield from the financial sector where “sales schemes driven by inappropriate incentive plans and outlandish short-term objectives” can cause severe financial consequences to an organization. As an example of the need for change in the financial section, Switzer quoted Clive Adamson, FCA director of supervision, on the need to address conduct risk, “Achieving an effective conduct- or customer-focused culture is challenging for firms, particularly for those whose focus has been primarily on profitability and shareholder returns. … From what we see, there are key drivers that set and re-enforce this conduct-focused culture, with the most important being clear and ongoing leadership from the top of the organization, constant re-enforcement, hiring practices, incentive structures, effective performance management, and penalties for not doing the right thing, all of which should set the tone for a framework for decision making on a day-by-day basis.”

Switzer continued that “Throughout his speech and other materials published by the FCA, there is a theme that returns over and over again to integrity, leadership, culture, the concept of controls over conduct, and strong risk management—all tied to an outcome of business success. What is this? It is a vision of principled performance—a point of view and approach to business that enables organizations to reliably achieve objectives while addressing uncertainty and acting with integrity. And it is refreshing to see leaders (and in some cases past wrongdoers) in the financial sector rising to the occasion and establishing a principled performance approach to conduct risk, even though they may not yet call it that.”

Harper described conduct risk as follows, “Conduct risk embodies elements of the risks that we have been discussing over the past few years, including not only operational and compliance risk, but also reputational risk and tone-at-the-top. The idea that organizations need to ‘do the right thing’ and balance the immediate pressure of short-term growth and revenue along with meeting the aspirations of equity holders and managers is not new. In the past, conduct risk was primarily mitigated by the long-term focus on the goals of the organization of the board and management.”

In the Illustrated Series piece included with the article, Switzer set out four principles for managing conduct risk. These principles are an excellent starting point for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), UK Bribery Act or other anti-corruption compliance practitioner in that it can be used to evaluate, assess and manage conduct risk in such a context.

Assess Conduct Risks

Miles stated that, “The idea of benchmarking “conduct” as a basis for business, or life in general, is actually of course a very old one. Constraints on behavior are exactly the right direction to go in, though it’s not yet clear how these will be framed, let alone policed. Now with the FCA’s new Risk Outlook 2014, there’s a big step forward. They have a deep commitment to sharing understanding about how various elements of behavior feed through into good and bad product design, into selling or mis-selling.” Based on this Switzer believes that you should first identify potential conduct risks in your business. After such identification, you should conduct a risk and control assessment. From this measure, you can best determine the level of inherent and residual risk. Finally, you should carry out an emerging risk workshop to develop a more complete risk profile.

Establish Risk Appetite

Brown pointed towards the increased complexity in financial institutions as a key problem. As part of the solution, Switzer writes that the first step is to connect the risks, controls and other framework elements to your company’s organization chart. From there, you should determine risk capacity, your company’s current risk profile and its risk appetite. Next you should measure your risk appetite adherence. Finally, you will need to align your risk appetite with your company’s risk governance framework.

Measure and Monitor 

Here Switzer suggests that there be a detailed information collection on any issues associated with risk events. It is important from that point, you begin to track key risk indicators. Miles noted that “Managing risks due to behaviors and cultures requires a deep understanding of psychological drivers and developing programs to modify those drivers”; as such measurements would allow your company to begin to move from simple detection and prevention to predictive controls through the use of behavioral and analytical modeling. Finally, you could use the above information to perform scenario analysis on emerging risks.

Communicate and Manage

Switzer advocates that you communicate and train your company’s employees on your organization’s risk culture. You should also work to ensure that employees have accepted their risk conduct appetite metrics. Brown said, “Behavioral drivers will vary around the world based on societal culture. I’ll focus on what might be appropriate for U.S.-based organizations. Most people operate to maximize their personal return, so compensation structures are an obvious avenue to modify conduct. If my bonus or equity compensation is based on specific targets, such as new accounts, loans written, or customer satisfaction index, I will try to maximize those targets.” This is why you should continue to collect all key data about conduct risk in one data repository. Finally, you should also continue to provide reports and analyses on conduct risk to key stakeholders and regulators, if required.

Switzer ended her article with the following quote from Gary Kasparov, “Think about it: After just three opening moves by a chess player, more than 9 million positions are possible. And that’s when only two players are involved in the game. Now imagine all the possibilities faced by companies with a whole host of corporations responding to their new strategies, pricing, and products. The unpredictability is almost unimaginable.” From this she added, “This couldn’t be truer than when facing the myriad challenges presented under the umbrella concern of conduct risk. Masterful strategic planning and execution is essential to stay in the game and win.”

The risks that General Hood was willing to engage in were catastrophic for his army and the Confederacy. If Jefferson Davis had used a risk conduct analysis to think through the effects of elevating Hood to command of the Army of Tennessee the results might have been very different for all involved. Switzer’s article provides a valuable tool for the compliance practitioner to bring to bear on specific conduct which could put a company at risk.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014

Detroit PistonsI recently watched the ESPN documentary series 30-for-30 on the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons from the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was a great review of a different era of the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the perfect way to get ready for the current playoffs, even if the Rockets did choke their way out of Round 1 as usual. But more than great entertainment, the show focused on the building blocks of a pro basketball team. The Pistons were created player by player who were pieces of the overall team structure. The team then had to become battle hardened by losing some tough playoff games, first in the Eastern Conference to Boson and then in the NBA Championship to the Lakers, before they eventually succeeded in becoming two time NBA champs. In other words, it was a lengthy process, which started in 1982 when the Pistons drafted Isaiah Thomas and it took almost 10 years for them to win the title.

I thought about this process orientation when I read a GRC Illustrated series article in the March issue of Compliance Week, , entitled “The Principled Performance Vision”, by Carole Switzer, co-founder and President of the Open Compliance and Ethics Group (OCEG) and Scott L. Mitchell, the co-founder and Chair of OCEG. In their article, and accompanying GRC Illustrated presentation entitled “Pathway to Principled Performance”, they discuss the need for companies to have a mechanism to address ever-changing business and legal risks in the context of the high performance required by internal and external stakeholders. They articulate “a point of view and approach to business that helps organizations reliably achieve objectives while addressing uncertainty and acting with integrity.”

The biggest problems that they identify are issues of loss of cohesion and insular nature of a management and reporting system between business units within an organization. For instance they point to a wide variety of disciplines within a company, such as “as governance, finance, production, and sales to adjunct areas like performance management, risk management, internal control, compliance, and audit” which must use the same data but often never share the results with each other. The authors posit that a more holistic approach is required and this “can only be achieved by integrating and orchestrating information and functions that, in many organizations, are fragmented and siloed. Then, these integrated capabilities must be supported with strong communication, effective technology, and development of the desired ethical culture.”

Coupled with the article and illustrated framework is a roundtable discussion led by Switzer of several leading compliance practitioners and thought leaders. The participants included Brian Barnier, Principal at ValueBridge Advisors; Paul Liebman, Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) at the University of Texas; Tony Miller, Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Partner at The Vistria Group and Michael Rasmussen, Principal and Chief GRC Pundit at GRC 20/20 Research LLC. Switzer asked them the basic question of how does one get started in such an initiative for a company? Barnier believes that, in large part it is about messaging by “treating it as a business initative to drive profitable revenue and risk-adjusted return” as opposed to “yet another compliance task to achieve while cutting cost.” Liebman focused on the ‘why’ he changed when he noted, “true change depends upon three things: a profound sense of discomfort in the current condition, a vision that things could be better, and a plan to get there. I think the first step is therefore to assess and explain the current level of discomfort—i.e., what is wrong and why.” Moreover, he believes that it is important to “have a vision of the direction you want to go and plan accordingly.” Finally, he said that “Focus on structure and process so that you are constantly moving forward. Slow, incremental but sustainable change in the right direction is far more important than quick, substantial but unsustainable change. Slow, incremental and sustainable change happens by taking advantage of pre-existing organizational processes and mental models that are already working well. Don’t force new or redundant processes but, rather, seek to understand how others are thinking and acting and explain how your vision is really just a logical extension of what they are already trying to accomplish.”

Miller took a somewhat different approach when he said that “Principled performance needs to be part of the culture, reflected in the strategy, and embedded in an organization’s operating systems and processes.” To accomplish this he listed three steps, “(1) the chief executive officer and the senior executive team explicitly acknowledging that this is an important problem that must be addressed; (2) establishing clear metrics and goals for improvement; and (3) assigning point accountability at the executive team level for developing and “owning” the process that will enable the organization to meet the principled performance goals.”

Switzer asked the participants if they could point to situations where there has been a failure to interconnect the various functions of GovernanceRiskCompliance (GRC) which has led to catastrophic consequences. Miller pointed to the siloed nature of the financial services industry when he said, “That’s why we’ve seen significant breaches in the financial services industry with excessive risk taking by traders, the mortgage services industry in lax and exploitive underwriting practices, and the education services industry with overly aggressive student recruitment practices.” Liebman pointed to that well known risk area under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by noting, “Third-party relationships are an example where disparate processes and strategic goals can lead to significant non-compliance, waste, and surprise. For example, companies often create a business strategy at a high level and then ask others to implement the strategy with little or no oversight or structure… Accordingly, when a problem surfaces creating a bad reality, such as bribery in the supply chain, and expectations were set too high, the result is significant unhappiness for stakeholders.” Barnier focused on the management of risk without coordination due to the insular nature of management and reporting systems when he observed, “Much of this results from typical silo behavior—especially when reinforced by a control culture with its usual compartments that diminishes individual engagement and end-to-end views. Principled performance, with its focus on outcomes, brings together a range of decisions and activities to improve the likelihood of achieving those objectives.”

While some might find it interesting that the notorious “Bad Boys” of the NBA can teach the compliance practitioner a thing or two, it is clear that their General Manager (GM) Jack McCloskey had a plan in mind when putting the pieces of the team together. That team then had to be molded together and tested. This real world example would seem to be what Rasmussen said when he summed up his views by stating, “A mature GRC program will have an integrated strategy, process, information, and technology architecture that brings efficiency, effectiveness, and agility to GRC across the business and aligned with the business.”

If you have a team left in the NBA playoffs, good luck. Otherwise I hope that you will back me in supporting the Spurs yet again.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.

© Thomas R. Fox, 2014