Tag: CCO

Categories
Blog

From the Tower of Babel to the Boardroom: Part 4 – AI, Truth, and Corporate Trust

Employees trust that leadership will tell them the truth. Investors trust that disclosures are accurate. Customers trust that representations are reliable. Boards trust that management reporting is complete. Compliance officers trust that records, interviews, hotline reports, emails, chats, invoices, certifications, and audit findings reflect reality.

Artificial intelligence now challenges that foundation. AI can generate text, audio, images, video, records, summaries, identities, and narratives at speed and scale. It can help a compliance function become more effective. It can also make falsehood more convincing, fraud more sophisticated, and manipulation harder to detect.

In the first three posts in this series, we used Magnifica Humanitas to move from governance principle to compliance program design and then to internal controls for shadow AI. In this fourth post, we turn to one of the most important themes in the Encyclical Letter: truth. Pope Leo XIV says the digital transformation requires us to rediscover truth as a common good, protect the dignity of work, and safeguard freedom against dependence and commercialization (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶131). For boards and compliance leaders, that is a powerful governance lesson. Without truth, there is no trust. Without trust, there is no culture. Without culture, no compliance program can be effective.

Truth as a Common Good

Magnifica Humanitas warns that digital platforms and AI systems are transforming public and institutional communication. The Encyclical identifies a core risk: AI can construct distorted narratives, blur the boundary between truth and falsehood, mix facts with opinions, and manipulate content, images, and video (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶132). It also reminds us that truthful information requires verification, cross-checking of sources, responsible argument, and shared practices of trust (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶132).

For the compliance professional, this is not abstract philosophy. It is an operational reality. A corporation is built on records and representations. A company’s compliance program depends on accurate policies, reliable data, trustworthy reporting, credible investigations, authentic communications, and truthful escalation to leadership and the board. If AI weakens the company’s ability to know what is real, AI becomes a compliance risk.

The issue is not only misinformation in public discourse. It is misinformation inside the enterprise. AI-generated falsehood can appear in emails, invoices, employee complaints, due diligence materials, contracts, investigation files, synthetic images, training materials, board reports, and financial documentation. Truth is no longer only an ethical value. It is a control objective.

From Encyclical Principle to Corporate Trust Requirement

The corporate translation is direct. If truth is a common good, information integrity is a governance requirement. If AI can distort narratives and manipulate content, companies need verification controls. If truthful information depends on cross-checking and responsible argument, compliance cannot treat AI outputs as self-authenticating. If communication creates culture, as Magnifica Humanitas teaches, then AI-generated communications must be governed because they shape how employees, customers, investors, and directors understand the company (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶135).

The Encyclical also calls for an ecology of communication grounded in transparency, personal data protection, rigorous verification, and the proper use of digital tools (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶137). In corporate terms, that means controls over high-risk communications, rules for AI-generated content, validation of AI-assisted summaries, protection of the integrity of investigations, and reporting systems that enable the board to trust what it receives.

Synthetic Reality and Corporate Risk

We are entering the age of synthetic reality. Companies must assume that audio may be cloned, video may be fabricated, documents may be AI-generated, and digital identities may be false. This does not mean every communication is suspect. It means the company must build verification protocols for high-risk decisions.

The Arup deepfake fraud demonstrates the corporate risk. The Guardian reported that in 2024, public reporting stated that engineering firm Arup was victimized in a deepfake scam involving its Hong Kong office, where fraudsters reportedly used AI-generated video impersonations in a call that led to the transfer of approximately $25 million. That incident should be understood as more than a cyber story. It is a governance story, a finance controls story, a human factors story, and a compliance story.

A traditional approval process may fail when a trusted executive appears to be present on a video call. A fraud-prevention control may fail when an employee believes their identity has already been verified. A payment control may fail when urgency, authority, secrecy, and synthetic trust converge. The compliance lesson is clear: in an AI-enabled environment, trust must be verified when the risk is high.

AI and the Integrity of Corporate Information

Boards and CCOs should treat the integrity of corporate information as part of AI governance. This includes information created by AI, information summarized by AI, and information used to make AI-supported decisions.

Consider internal investigations. AI can help summarize documents, cluster communications, identify patterns, and organize timelines. But Magnifica Humanitas reminds us that AI lacks moral conscience, does not understand what it produces, and does not bear responsibility for its consequences (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶99). A compliance investigator cannot delegate credibility findings to a machine. AI can support the investigation record. It cannot become the investigation record.

Consider hotline reporting. AI may help triage allegations, identify themes, translate complaints, and route issues. But if the system misclassifies a serious allegation as low risk, strips away nuance, or fails to identify indicators of retaliation, the company may miss a critical signal. Consider board reporting. A polished AI-generated report may look authoritative while masking weak data, incomplete controls, or unsupported conclusions. In compliance, elegance is not evidence.

The DOJ ECCP and Trustworthy AI

The DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) now asks how companies identify and manage emerging technology risks, including AI. It asks how companies govern AI in commercial operations and in their compliance programs; whether controls monitor trustworthiness and reliability; whether AI is limited to intended uses; what human decision-making baseline is used; how accountability is enforced; and how employees are trained.

This is where the Encyclical’s moral mandate and the DOJ’s compliance test meet. Magnifica Humanitas says responsibility must be clearly defined at every stage and that accountability requires identifying who must account for decisions, justify them, monitor them, challenge them, and remedy harm (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶105). The ECCP asks whether a company has converted that accountability into governance, controls, training, monitoring, and evidence. For CCOs, the question is not whether AI can help compliance. It can. The question is whether compliance can explain how AI-supported information is validated, reviewed, escalated, corrected, and documented.

NIST, COSO, and the Control Language of Trust

NIST provides a practical vocabulary for this discussion. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework identifies trustworthy AI characteristics, including validity and reliability; safety, security, and resilience; accountability and transparency; explainability and interpretability; privacy enhancement; and fairness, with harmful bias managed. For this post, reliability and transparency matter most. Reliability asks whether an output can be trusted for the intended purpose. Transparency asks whether the company can understand, explain, and govern the system.

COSO also matters here. COSO’s internal control framework is designed to help organizations achieve operations, reporting, and compliance objectives, and COSO’s GenAI guidance translates that internal-control discipline into AI governance. In the AI context, companies need controls over the creation, use, review, approval, and communication of AI-generated or AI-assisted information. This is where CCOs, internal audit, finance, legal, and IT must work together. The company should identify where authenticity matters most and design controls accordingly.

Practical Controls for AI, Truth, and Trust

A practical compliance program should include controls for AI-enabled truth risk.

First, companies should adopt verification protocols for high-risk communications. Payment instructions, executive requests, wire transfers, confidential transactions, changes to vendor banking information, M&A activity, crisis communications, and sensitive employment decisions should require independent verification outside the original communication channel.

Second, companies should require labeling or disclosure where AI-generated content is used in official corporate communications and authenticity matters. Third, companies should protect investigations from unverified AI outputs. AI-generated summaries should be treated as work aids, not evidence. Investigators should validate source documents, preserve original records, and document human review.

Fourth, companies should train employees on synthetic fraud. Magnifica Humanitas warns that AI-enabled manipulation of images and videos can make exploitation and deception more insidious (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶141). Employees should learn the red flags: urgency, secrecy, unusual payment instructions, refusal to use normal channels, unexpected video calls, requests to bypass controls, and pressure from apparent senior leaders.

Fifth, companies should create an incident response process for AI-enabled deception. A deepfake attempt, a synthetic invoice, a cloned executive voice, a fake employee profile, or an AI-generated document should be reportable, investigated, tracked, and remediated.

Board Oversight and Corporate Trust

For boards, AI and truth raise a serious oversight issue. Directors rely on management reporting to fulfill their duties. If AI affects the integrity of that reporting, boards need to understand the control environment.

The Caremark lesson is not that directors must become forensic AI experts. Directors must make a good-faith effort to ensure that reasonable information and reporting systems are in place for central compliance risks. In Marchand v. Barnhill (Bluebell Ice Cream), the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized the importance of board-level monitoring and reporting systems for mission-critical compliance risks.

Magnifica Humanitas gives this oversight obligation a deeper accountability mandate. It says AI governance requires defined responsibility, justification of decisions, monitoring, challenge, and remediation (Magnifica Humanitas, ¶105). The board’s obligation is not technical mastery. It is a reporting and monitoring system that shows management can authenticate what matters, identify AI-enabled truth risks, escalate concerns, and remediate failures.

5 Lessons for the CCO
  1. Treat truth as a compliance control. Accurate records, authentic communications, validated reports, and reliable investigation files are essential to the effectiveness of compliance programs. Truth must be designed into the control environment.
  2. Build verification into high-risk processes. Payment approvals, executive instructions, vendor bank changes, crisis communications, and sensitive decisions should require independent verification.
  3. Govern AI-assisted evidence. AI can support investigations and reporting, but human review, source validation, preservation of original records, and documentation must remain mandatory.
  4. Train employees to challenge synthetic reality. Deepfakes, cloned voices, fake identities, and AI-generated documents should be part of fraud, cyber, finance, and compliance training.
  5. Report information integrity risk to the board. Boards need evidence that management has identified AI-enabled truth risks and designed controls to prevent, detect, respond to, and remediate them.
Conclusion: Corporate Trust Must Be Protected

Magnifica Humanitas reminds us that truth is a common good. That is a moral principle, but it is also a compliance principle. A company cannot govern itself if it cannot trust its information. A board cannot oversee what management cannot verify. A CCO cannot certify program effectiveness if the underlying records, reports, and communications are unreliable.

Compliance professionals should embrace AI. It can improve risk detection, strengthen monitoring, support investigations, and expand analytical capacity. But AI also requires vigilance, responsibility, transparency, governance, and human primacy. In the age of synthetic reality, compliance must help the company protect truth as part of the control environment.

In the next and final post in this five-part series, we will broaden the lens again. We will examine the Human Supply Chain of AI: Workforce Transformation, Third-Party Risk, and Modern Slavery. That post will tie together the human impact of AI, the dignity of work, vendor risk, data governance, and the compliance responsibility to look beyond the visible interface to the people, suppliers, and systems that make AI possible.

Categories
Blog

From the Tower of Babel to the Boardroom: Part 1 – Governing AI

Artificial intelligence is no longer a future issue for boards, CEOs, general counsel, chief compliance officers, audit leaders, or risk professionals. It is already inside the enterprise. It is in employee workflows, vendor platforms, data analytics, customer engagement, monitoring tools, investigations support, training design, due diligence, and decision-making processes. The compliance question is no longer whether the company will use AI. The real question is whether the company will govern AI before AI becomes embedded into the business without accountability, transparency, controls, or human judgment.

That is the danger of the modern Tower of Babel. Babel was not a failure of engineering. It was a failure of purpose, humility, and governance. It was a project built on power without accountability and ambition without restraint. For modern corporations, ungoverned AI can become a similar project. It may promise efficiency, scale, speed, and competitive advantage. Yet without proper governance, it can also produce bias, opacity, data misuse, weakened accountability, employee overreliance, vendor risk, and board blind spots.

What Is Magnifica Humanitas?

Magnifica Humanitas is an Encyclical Letter issued by Pope Leo XIV on May 15, 2026, titled “On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence.” (Magnifica Humanitas herein). The document places AI within the long tradition of Catholic social teaching and asks how humanity should respond to the “new things” of the digital age. Pope Leo frames AI not as a narrow technology issue but as a profound question about human dignity, work, truth, freedom, power, data, social justice, and the common good. The letter opens with two biblical images, the Tower of Babel and the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah, to present the central choice of the AI age: will we construct systems of domination, or will we build communities of shared responsibility? (Magnifica Humanitas, paras. 1, 7-10).

The significance of Pope Leo issuing Magnifica Humanitas is that he places AI in the same broad moral and social category as prior industrial and economic disruptions. He expressly connects the document to the legacy of Pope Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum, the 1891 encyclical that responded to the labor, capital, and social disruptions of the industrial age. Pope Leo writes that digitalization, AI, and robotics are rapidly transforming the world, shaping decision-making and affecting both human dignity and the common good (Magnifica Humanitas, paras. 3-4). For this five-part series, we will use Magnifica Humanitas as the foundation for translating its core concepts into practical lessons for the modern compliance professional, the board, and the executive leadership team. This will not be a theological series. It will be a governance series. We will apply the moral force of the Encyclical Letter to compliance program design, board oversight, internal controls, data governance, third-party risk, workforce transformation, and corporate trust.

The Compliance Lesson of Babel

The Tower of Babel is a powerful compliance metaphor because it shows what happens when a project has capability but lacks discipline. Pope Leo describes Babel as an impressive feat with “a single language, a single technology, a single direction,” yet one that sacrificed human dignity for efficiency and sought power through self-sufficiency (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 7). In corporate language, Babel is the business transformation project that mistakes technical capability for good governance.

Pope Leo’s warning is direct: technology is never neutral because it takes on the characteristics of those who design, finance, regulate, and use it (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 9). That sentence should sit in every boardroom AI discussion. AI is not neutral in the compliance sense either. It reflects data, design, deployment, vendor, incentive, and governance choices. The first board question is therefore simple: What are we building?

Nehemiah as the Governance Model

If Babel is the warning, Nehemiah is the governance model. In Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo contrasts Babel with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Nehemiah listens, inspects the damage, assigns responsibility, coordinates work, addresses opposition, and rebuilds section by section. The city is reborn through shared responsibility, not through the initiative of a single person (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 8).

That is the model compliance professionals should bring to AI governance. The CCO does not need to become a data scientist. The board does not need to manage model architecture. But the organization needs a disciplined governance structure that brings together compliance, legal, privacy, cybersecurity, IT, HR, internal audit, procurement, finance, and the business. AI governance cannot sit in a silo. It must be cross-functional because AI risk is cross-functional.

For compliance, that means asking practical questions. Where is AI being used? What problem is it solving? What data does it access? Who approved it? What risks were identified? What controls were designed? What human review is required? What could go wrong? How would we know? Who is accountable if the AI produces a harmful or unlawful result? Those are not anti-innovation questions. They are business discipline questions.

From Encyclical Principle to Corporate Governance Requirement

The bridge from Magnifica Humanitas to corporate governance is straightforward. Human dignity becomes a human impact assessment. The common good becomes enterprise risk governance and stakeholder impact. Subsidiarity becomes cross-functional governance, meaningful participation, and decision-making as close as possible to the affected process. Transparency becomes documentation, explainability, board reporting, and auditability. Accountability includes named owners, escalation rights, challenge mechanisms, and remediation.

Pope Leo makes this bridge explicit when he calls for responsible planning, human and social impact assessment, inclusion of the vulnerable, digital literacy, and guiding research and industry toward justice and peace (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 14). He also warns that control over platforms, infrastructure, data, and computing power can become opaque and evade oversight, producing dependency, exclusion, manipulation, and inequality (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 95). For the CCO and the board, that is the language of AI inventory, data governance, vendor management, access controls, model oversight, incident response, and internal audit testing. That is not only a moral framework. It is a corporate governance requirement.

AI Governance and the DOJ ECCP

The Department of Justice has already made AI a compliance program issue. The logic now runs together. Pope Leo provides the mandate for moral governance. The DOJ Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) supplies the compliance program test. The ECCP asks whether companies have a process for identifying and managing emerging risks, including risks related to new technologies such as AI; whether AI risk is integrated into enterprise risk management; how AI is governed in the business and in the compliance program; whether controls monitor trustworthiness and reliability; whether AI is limited to intended uses; what human decision-making baseline exists; how accountability is enforced; and how employees are trained.

That is a roadmap for the CCO. AI governance should be part of the compliance risk assessment. It should be reflected in policies and procedures. It should include training and communications. It should be monitored, audited, and improved. It should generate evidence. The company should be able to show not only that it has an AI policy but also that the policy has an operational effect. In other words, AI governance must move from aspiration to controls.

Board Oversight and Caremark

For boards, AI governance also raises Caremark oversight considerations. Directors are not expected to run the company’s AI systems. They are expected to make a good-faith effort to ensure that reasonable reporting and monitoring systems are in place for central compliance risks. In Marchand v. Barnhill (Bluebell Ice Cream), the Delaware Supreme Court emphasized that boards must make a good-faith effort to put in place a reasonable board-level system of monitoring and reporting around central compliance risks.

The board obligation is not technical mastery. It is a reporting and monitoring system that shows management has responded to the Encyclical’s accountability mandate. If Pope Leo requires that responsibility be defined, decisions be justified, systems be monitored, harms be challenged, and errors be remedied (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 105), then the board must ask whether management has built a governance system capable of producing that evidence. The board does not need technical comfort. It needs governance confidence.

Human Primacy as a Control

One of the most important lessons from Magnifica Humanitas is that AI is a tool, not a moral actor. Pope Leo explains that AI systems may imitate language, analysis, behavior, and even empathy, but they do not possess lived experience, conscience, wisdom, moral responsibility, or the capacity to understand what they produce (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 99). That matters deeply when AI affects employment, reputation, access, rights, opportunities, or treatment.

For compliance professionals, human primacy must be designed into AI governance. Human review is not a bureaucratic obstacle. It is a control. Pope Leo warns that sensitive decisions concerning employment, credit, access to services, and reputational risk are being delegated to automated systems that lack compassion, mercy, forgiveness, or the hope that people can change (Magnifica Humanitas, para. 102). The company should decide which AI outputs can be used automatically, which require review, which require escalation, and which uses should be prohibited altogether. The more consequential the decision, the stronger the human oversight must be.

5 Lessons for the CCO
  1. Treat AI as a human dignity and compliance risk. AI should be included in the compliance risk assessment, enterprise risk management process, and board reporting because it can affect rights, opportunities, status, freedom, privacy, and trust.
  2. Build an AI inventory because governance begins with visibility. The company cannot govern what it cannot see. The inventory should include business tools, vendor tools, embedded AI, compliance tools, and employee use of public AI.
  3. Require controls before scale because technology is never neutral. AI policies must be supported by approval processes, data controls, access controls, monitoring, testing, escalation, and remediation.
  4. Preserve human judgment because accountability cannot be outsourced. Human review should be required for high-risk and consequential decisions. Accountability must remain with people, not systems.
  5. Give the board evidence because governance requires reporting, monitoring, and remediation. Boards need dashboards, metrics, incident reporting, audit findings, risk rankings, and documentation that AI governance is working.
Conclusion: From Babel to Compliance Program Design

The lesson of Babel is not that building is wrong. The lesson is that building without humility, accountability, and purpose leads to fracture. AI is here to stay, and compliance professionals should embrace its promise. AI can improve monitoring, strengthen risk analysis, support investigations, enhance training, and identify patterns that humans might miss. But it must be governed with vigilance, responsibility, transparency, and human primacy.

Magnifica Humanitas gives us the mandate for moral governance. The ECCP gives us the compliance program questions. Caremark gives boards the oversight framework. Together, they point to the same conclusion: AI governance must be built before AI risk becomes unmanageable.

In the next post, we will move from principle to program design. We will examine why AI governance is a compliance program issue, how the CCO should help structure AI oversight, and how compliance can use AI responsibly while governing the risks AI creates.

Categories
Creativity and Compliance

Creativity and Compliance: Compliance 6-Pack: Part 4 – Using “Yes, And”

Tom and Ronnie continue their six-part series highlighting the role of improv in compliance.  This series links improv lessons to corporate compliance and some of the key tools and strategies Ronnie has brought from his former world of improv to the corporate compliance communications realm. In today’s Improv & Compliance Lesson 3, they focus on using “Yes, And” to Shift Compliance from the Office of No to a Collaborative Advisor.

Tom and Ronnie discuss the improv principle “Yes, and,” which means agreeing with the reality presented, dropping one’s agenda, and adding a new piece of information to build collaboratively. They explain how this mindset helps compliance move beyond the “office of no” by affirming and acknowledging business requests, then bridging to relevant risks, laws, and policies (e.g., gifts and entertainment, conflicts of interest) to problem-solve together without immediately shutting ideas down. Ronnie emphasizes “Yes, and” as both a personal communication technique and an organizational philosophy: learn the business, speak its language, and design simple, action-oriented, accessible policies and training that provide timely, embedded guidance. The episode ends with a preview of the next lesson on truth in comedy.

Resources:

Ronnie

Tom

Instagram

Facebook

YouTube

Twitter

LinkedIn

Creativity and Compliance is a multiple-award-winning podcast and was recently honored as one of the Top 35 Podcasts on Creativity by Feedspot.

Categories
Blog

The Culture Builder’s Trilogy: Part 3 – The Art of Celebration: What Compliance Chooses to Honor Becomes Culture

Ed. Note: We conclude our three-part blog post series on three recent books by Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny. There are The Art of Ideation, The Art of Celebration, and The Art of Implementation.

The final book in Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny’s trilogy, The Art of Celebration, completes the arc. Ideation imagines what is possible. Implementation gives that possibility form. Celebration sustains the culture by recognizing what matters, reinforcing what works, and creating the memory that carries the organization forward.

For compliance professionals, celebration may sound like the least obvious compliance discipline. That would be a mistake. The authors make clear that celebration is not decorative. It is strategic. It is a feedback system. It teaches people what the culture values. It turns behaviors into norms and norms into identity. The compliance lesson is profound: what the organization celebrates, it multiplies.

Lesson One: Recognition Is a Control Signal

The DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) focuses on incentives and consequences, providing compliance professionals with a regulatory rationale to take compliance seriously. The DOJ’s compensation and clawback Pilot Report states that prosecutors consider whether companies use positive incentives for ethical behavior and compliance leadership, whether compensation systems include compliance criteria, and whether companies penalize breaches of the compliance program.

That means recognition is not merely an HR activity. It is part of the control environment. When a company celebrates only sales growth, deal speed, cost reduction, or heroic problem-solving after avoidable chaos, employees learn what really matters. When a company celebrates employees who pause a transaction over a red flag, escalate a concern, improve a control, cooperate in an investigation, or protect a colleague from retaliation, employees learn a different lesson. The question for the CCO is not whether the company celebrates. Every company celebrates something. The question is whether those celebrations are aligned with the Code, controls, risk appetite, and ethical commitments.

Lesson Two: Celebration Can Strengthen Speak-Up Culture

The Art of Celebration explains that appreciation and recognition can foster conditions of trust, belonging, openness, and moral reasoning. The book ties celebration to the willingness to speak up, take healthy risks, protect colleagues, and choose integrity. This has direct compliance relevance. Employees do not report concerns simply because the hotline exists. They report when they believe the organization values truth over comfort. They report when managers respond with care. They report when prior reporters were not punished, isolated, or ignored.

Celebration can reinforce this. A company should not publicly identify confidential reporters, but it can celebrate the behavior of raising concerns, asking hard questions, and improving systems. It can share anonymized stories showing that reports led to meaningful improvements. It can recognize managers who receive concerns well. It can reward teams that identify and remediate control gaps before they become enforcement problems.

Lesson Three: Celebration Must Be Aligned, or It Becomes Dangerous

The authors are careful to address the shadow side of celebration. Misaligned recognition can distort culture. They cite examples where companies celebrated the wrong behaviors, including aggressive sales targets, engineering brilliance without ethical oversight, deal-making over transparency, speed over safety, and ambition over rigor.

This is where compliance professionals should pay close attention. Wells Fargo did not fail because it lacked stated values. It failed because its operating incentives and recognition systems pushed employees to open accounts at any cost. Boeing’s 737 MAX crisis offers another cautionary tale about what can happen when cost, schedule, and production pressure overwhelm engineering judgment and safety culture. Volkswagen shows the risk of celebrating technical performance while ethical guardrails lag. Celebration is therefore not harmless. It is a governance tool. If the company celebrates the wrong thing, it creates evidence of cultural misalignment. If it celebrates the right thing, it demonstrates culture in practice.

Lesson Four: Metrics of Morale Must Be Ethical

One of the most forward-looking sections of The Art of Celebration addresses the “metrics of morale.” The authors explore how organizations can use communications data, sentiment analysis, wearables, AI-assisted pattern recognition, and cultural dashboards better to understand trust, stress, belonging, and burnout. They also warn that these tools must be used as coaching, not surveillance, systems. Participation should be voluntary, data should be aggregated, and insights should improve systems rather than punish individuals.

That is a critical lesson in AI governance. AI can help compliance detect cultural signals, emerging risks, retaliation patterns, training gaps, and control friction. But AI can also chill speech, invade privacy, amplify bias, or turn culture monitoring into employee surveillance. For CCOs, the right framework is clear. Use AI to improve governance, risk sensing, and employee support. Anchor it in transparency, purpose limitation, access controls, human review, and documented risk assessment. Align the work with NIST AI Risk Management Framework, ISO/IEC 42001, privacy principles, and the company’s own AI governance program.

Lesson Five: Rituals Preserve Culture Under Pressure

The book’s discussion of rituals is especially important for compliance. Rituals are repeated practices that teach a community what to remember. In compliance, rituals can include investigation debriefs, quarterly risk reviews, third-party red-flag meetings, manager speak-up moments, annual code refresh discussions, control-owner certifications, AI use reviews, and post-remediation lessons learned.

A ritual is stronger than a reminder. A reminder tells people to do something. A ritual teaches people who they are. This matters under pressure. When a quarter-end target is at risk, when a sales team faces a red flag, or when a senior leader wants to move quickly, the organization will not live up to the words in its code. It will fall to the level of its practiced rituals. If those rituals include escalation, challenge, documentation, and accountability, the culture has muscle memory.

Compliance Application

Celebration belongs in the compliance program because it helps answer one of the DOJ’s most important practical questions: Does the company incentivize compliance and ethical behavior in a meaningful way? The Criminal Division’s compensation pilot report states that companies that proactively design compensation systems to incentivize ethical behavior and that adopt company policies are better positioned to prevent misconduct, generate reports, address incidents before they escalate, and build a company-wide culture of compliance.

A mature compliance program should therefore examine recognition, promotion, compensation, awards, leadership messaging, and performance management as part of the control environment. The CCO should ask not only what misconduct is punished but also what integrity is honored.

CCO Questions

  • What behaviors does the company currently celebrate, formally and informally?
  • Do performance reviews, promotions, bonuses, and awards reflect ethical leadership and control ownership?
  • Are speak-up, cooperation, remediation, and control improvements recognized as business contributions?
  • Do we use cultural data and AI responsibly, or are we creating surveillance risk?
  • What rituals reinforce the compliance program under pressure?

Practical Takeaways

  1. Inventory what the company celebrates in awards, town halls, performance reviews, and leadership communications.
  2. Align recognition with the Code, internal controls, speak-up expectations, and risk management priorities.
  3. Create anonymized speak-up success stories that show reporting leads to improvement.
  4. Review incentive structures for misconduct risk and compliance-positive behaviors.
  5. Build compliance rituals that preserve culture: pre-mortems, post-investigation lessons learned, recognition of control owners, third-party red-flag reviews, and AI governance check-ins.

Conclusion: The Compliance Culture Builder’s Discipline

Taken together, Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny’s trilogy offers compliance professionals something more than a culture-building framework. It offers a practical operating model for program effectiveness. The Art of Ideation reminds us that compliance begins with better questions, deeper listening, and the courage to design around employees’ lived experiences. The Art of Implementation shows that even the best ideas fail unless they are operationalized through alignment, ownership, testing, adoption, and iteration. The Art of Celebration completes the cycle by showing that culture is sustained by what the organization chooses to recognize, repeat, and remember. This is the full arc of a mature compliance program: imagine wisely, execute consistently, and reinforce intentionally.

For the CCO, the message is clear. Culture is not an abstraction, and it is not a slogan. It is built through the systems employees use, the controls they trust, the concerns they feel safe raising, the incentives they see rewarded, the investigations they experience as fair, and the stories leaders choose to elevate. The DOJ’s ECCP asks whether a compliance program is well designed, adequately resourced, empowered to function, and working in practice. This trilogy gives compliance professionals a human-centered way to answer those questions with evidence. Ideation creates the insight. Implementation creates the operating discipline. Celebration creates the cultural memory.

The larger lesson is that compliance professionals are not simply policy owners, trainers, investigators, or risk managers. They are culture builders. They help organizations decide what matters, operationalize those commitments, and ensure they endure under pressure. In an era of AI governance, third-party complexity, speak-up expectations, incentive scrutiny, and board oversight, this work is more important than ever. The compliance programs that will matter most are not the ones with the most polished documents. They are the ones where employees know how to act, leaders know what to reinforce, controls work in practice, and the organization honors integrity as a business discipline.

That is the power of the trilogy. It takes us from possibility to practice to permanence. It reminds us that compliance effectiveness is not created in a single policy rollout, annual training event, or investigation report. It is created over time through disciplined attention to what people need, how work happens, and what the organization chooses to celebrate. For the modern compliance professional, this is both the challenge and the opportunity: to build a culture where ethics is not episodic, controls are not ornamental, and integrity is not merely stated. It is lived, reinforced, and carried forward.

Categories
Blog

The Culture Builder’s Trilogy: Part 2 – The Art of Implementation: Where Compliance Culture Lives or Dies

Ed. Note: We are in the midst of a three-part blog post series on three recent books by Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny. There are The Art of Ideation, The Art of Celebration, and The Art of Implementation.

If The Art of Ideation is about imagining better compliance, The Art of Implementation is about making it real. Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny write that implementation is where culture lives or dies. That single sentence could serve as a mission statement for every Chief Compliance Officer.

Compliance professionals know this problem well. A program can include a strong code of conduct, a comprehensive policy inventory, a well-designed training calendar, a hotline, third-party procedures, and investigation protocols. Yet the DOJ does not ask whether a company has merely created compliance artifacts. It asks whether the program works in practice. It goes directly to the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). The ECCP continues to ask whether a program is well-designed, adequately resourced, empowered to function effectively, and working in practice. That is why The Art of Implementation matters. It moves from aspiration to action. It asks how values become systems, how ideas become habits, and how culture becomes durable.

Lesson One: Mindset Before Method

The book begins with a critical insight: implementation begins with how you think. Lomax and Dubriwny identify four commitments of the culture builder’s mindset: empathy before enforcement, curiosity over control, influence rather than insistence, and legacy as a lens. For compliance professionals, this is not a rejection of enforcement. It is a recognition that enforcement without trust creates fear, not culture. A CCO must enforce standards, discipline misconduct, and protect the company. But a CCO must also understand why employees resist, where controls create friction, and how people make decisions under pressure.

This is the difference between a compliance function that says “no” and one that helps the business get to “yes, with controls.” The former may be respected in moments of crisis. The latter is trusted before the crisis arrives.

Lesson Two: Think, Build, Ship, Adopt, Tweak

One of the strongest frameworks in the book is the five forces of implementation: think, build, ship, see it adopted, and tweak. The model is practical and deeply consistent with the ECCP. “Think” means design the change with empathy. “Build” means operationalize the intention. A ship means starting before every detail is perfect. Adoption means embedding the practice into the culture. “Tweak” means to learn, adjust, and improve.

This is what compliance program effectiveness should look like. A CCO should not wait three years to discover that annual training did not change behavior. A third-party control should not remain unchanged after repeated red flags. An AI acceptable use policy should not sit static while employees quietly adopt new tools. A speak-up program should not wait for a scandal before testing whether employees trust it. The compliance application is straightforward. Build compliance like a product. Test. Measure. Listen. Improve.

Lesson Three: Alignment Accelerates Implementation

The book’s discussion of alignment is essential for compliance. Lomax and Dubriwny use Ocean’s Eleven as a cultural reference point. The plan works not because one person is brilliant, but because purpose, people, and process are aligned. Implementation fails when a good idea lacks the right coalition, operational fit, or timing.

This is a core challenge for the CCO. Compliance cannot implement an effective third-party program without the support of procurement, finance, legal, sales, audit, and business leadership. Compliance cannot govern AI without IT, data science, privacy, cybersecurity, HR, legal, and business users. Compliance cannot build a speak-up culture without managers. Stakeholder mapping is therefore not an administrative exercise. It is a governance control. It identifies who can accelerate the initiative, who can block it, who must own it, and who must maintain it after launch.

Lesson Four: Find Failure First

The pre-mortem section of The Art of Implementation is one of the most useful tools for compliance professionals. The authors ask teams to imagine that an initiative has failed and then work backward to identify why. This is precisely how CCOs should approach major program changes. Before launching a new hotline platform, ask why employees might still avoid reporting. Before deploying AI-assisted monitoring, ask about potential privacy, bias, transparency, and explainability concerns. Before rolling out a third-party due diligence platform, ask why business teams might work around it. Before redesigning incentives, ask what unintended behaviors the new metrics could create.

Pre-mortems are internal controls in action. They force the organization to identify failure modes before the market, the regulator, the whistleblower, or the plaintiff does. They can be and are a powerful tool at your disposal as a CCO or compliance professional.

Lesson Five: Movements Beat Mandates

A particularly powerful theme in the book is the distinction between mandates and movements. Mandates may produce obedience. Movements produce ownership. For compliance professionals, this is a critical distinction.

The Wells Fargo fake sale scandal remains a cautionary tale about mandates, metrics, and fear-based performance pressure. Employees may comply with the apparent demand for results while violating the organization’s deeper values. That is why incentives matter. The DOJ has emphasized that companies should use both incentives and consequences to promote compliance. Its compensation and clawback pilot report states that affirmative metrics and benchmarks can reward compliance-promoting behavior and that financial penalties can deter risky behavior.

This is where compliance culture becomes real. Employees need to see that ethical leadership, controlled discipline, speaking up, and responsible business performance are recognized, promoted, and rewarded. They also need to see that misconduct, retaliation, and willful blindness have consequences.

Compliance Application

The CCO’s implementation challenge is to convert program design into operational evidence. That evidence includes adoption data, control testing, investigation metrics, remediation tracking, third-party monitoring, AI use inventories, exception reporting, and incentive alignment. Implementation also requires courage. A CCO must be willing to ship pilots, gather feedback, and make changes. The compliance function must stop equating launch with success. Launch is the beginning. Adoption, evidence, and improvement are the proof.

CCO Questions

  • Which compliance initiatives have been launched but not adopted?
  • Do we have stakeholder maps for our most important compliance priorities?
  • Are we running pre-mortems before major program changes, including AI governance, third-party risk, speak-up enhancements, and incentive redesign?
  • Do our incentives reward ethical behavior, promote control over ownership, and ensure transparency?
  • What compliance practices would continue if the current CCO left tomorrow?

Practical Takeaways

  1. Identify one compliance initiative that stalled and run a pre-mortem on why it failed.
  2. Build a stakeholder map for AI governance or third-party risk.
  3. Convert one compliance aspiration into a measurable operating practice.
  4. Review incentives and promotion criteria for compliance signals.
  5. Treat implementation as the evidence layer of the compliance program. Regulators do not reward intentions. They evaluate what works.

Implementation is where compliance culture is tested. It is where the organization discovers whether its ideas can survive business pressure, competing priorities, operational friction, and human resistance. Yet even the best-implemented program must still be sustained. Controls must be reinforced. Speak-ups must be protected. Ethical behavior must be recognized. Employees should see that integrity, not just performance, is valued by the organization. That is the work of the third book in the trilogy, The Art of Celebration.

Join us tomorrow for Part 3, where we will turn to celebration as a compliance discipline and explore how recognition, incentives, rituals, morale metrics, and cultural memory shape what employees believe the company truly values.

Categories
Blog

The Culture Builder’s Trilogy: Part 1 – The Art of Ideation: Compliance Begins with Better Questions

Ed. Note: over the next three blog posts, I will be running a short series on three recent books by Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny. There are The Art of Ideation, The Art of Celebration, and The Art of Implementation.

Hemma Lomax and Ashley Dubriwny’s The Art of Ideation is, on one level, a practical guide for culture builders. On another level, it is a challenge to compliance professionals: stop treating compliance as a function that merely publishes rules, delivers training, and waits for reports. Start treating compliance as a discipline of curiosity, engagement, design, and shared intelligence.

The book begins with a simple but powerful premise. Culture builders need ideas, but more importantly, they need the skill to generate better ideas through peer ideation, storytelling, and crowdsourcing intelligence. Lomax and Dubriwny describe the spark that came from compliance professionals exchanging creative approaches at a conference table and then ask why that energy should be limited to a once-a-year event. Their answer is to make ideation intentional, repeatable, and community-based.

For compliance professionals, this is not a soft concept. It goes directly to the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). The ECCP continues to ask whether a program is well-designed, adequately resourced, empowered to function effectively, and working in practice. The compliance lesson from The Art of Ideation is clear: a program that does not ask better questions will not get better answers.

Lesson One: Know Your Audience Before You Design the Control

One of the book’s strongest lessons comes from the São Paulo story. Hemma arrives in Brazil to speak to more than 200 sales executives. Rather than deliver a generic compliance presentation, she uses images and experiences from the city itself to connect with the local audience. The lesson is not simply that visuals work. The deeper lesson is that compliance must demonstrate cultural awareness before it asks for behavioral change.

Too many compliance programs are still designed from the top down. Policies are written in legal language. Training is translated late, if at all. Hotline posters are posted in areas where employees do not work. Codes of Conduct speak to an imagined employee rather than the actual workforce.

The ECCP lens is unforgiving here. A risk-based program must be tailored to the company’s risk profile, business model, workforce, geography, and operations. If field employees, sales teams, or third-party-facing personnel cannot access guidance in the moment of need, the control may exist on paper but fail in practice.

Lesson Two: Storytelling Is a Control Enhancement

Dubriwny’s discussion of training emphasizes that facts alone rarely change behavior. Stories create context, emotion, and recall. In compliance, that matters because most misconduct does not arise from someone misunderstanding a policy title. It arises in moments of pressure, ambiguity, fear, loyalty, or perceived business necessity. A good compliance story can show what a conflict of interest feels like. It can show why a facilitation payment creates risk. It can show how retaliation begins quietly. It can show a manager what it means to receive a concern well.

This is especially important for a culture of speaking up. Employees do not speak up because a poster says they can. They speak up because they believe the organization will listen, protect them, and act. The Art of Ideation repeatedly returns to the need to meet people where they are, involve them, and design engagement pathways that feel safe. That maps directly onto the ECCP’s focus on confidential reporting, anti-retaliation, and investigation processes, as well as employees’ trust in those systems.

Lesson Three: The Code of Conduct Should Be Designed to Work

The book’s chapter on Codes of Conduct is especially useful for CCOs. It asks whether the Code is an external artifact, a regulatory box-checking document, or a decision-making tool for employees. The answer should be all the above, but the priority must be the employee user. That is a powerful compliance point. A code should not merely state values. It should operationalize them. It should be accessible, visually clear, mobile-friendly, translated appropriately, and supported by examples that reflect real roles, geographies, and pressures. The authors argue that a Code should be co-created, tested, and designed so people can see themselves in it.

This has implications for internal controls. A policy no one reads is not a meaningful control. A code no one uses is not a cultural anchor. A decision tree that helps an employee escalate a third-party red flag is more valuable than a beautifully written paragraph no one remembers.

Lesson Four: Crowdsourcing Risk Intelligence Is Compliance Modernization

Perhaps the most compliance-relevant section of the book is the discussion of crowdsourcing intelligence. Lomax and Dubriwny argue that leadership does not have a monopoly on the perspectives needed to identify risk. Employees across functions, geographies, and levels see vulnerabilities long before they appear in formal reporting channels. This is exactly where modern compliance must go. Annual risk assessments remain useful, but they are not enough on their own. A CCO needs real-time, near-real-time, and frontline input. This includes surveys, focus groups, collaboration tools, investigation themes, hotline trends, third-party feedback, and data analytics.

AI governance fits here as well. The book encourages responsible experimentation with AI, including using AI to make policies more accessible, generate first drafts, synthesize information, and provide decision-useful guidance. In compliance terms, AI should not be a gimmick. It should be governed, risk-assessed, monitored, and used to improve the employee experience.

Compliance Application

For the compliance professional, ideation is not brainstorming for its own sake. It is how the CCO identifies gaps, improves controls, tests training, strengthens speak-up systems, modernizes the Code, and uses AI responsibly. It is how compliance moves from headquarters’ assumptions to operational intelligence.

The lesson is also relevant to investigations. The book’s discussion of investigations emphasizes empathy, transparency, gratitude toward participants, and learning from the process. That is an important reminder that investigations are not simply fact-finding exercises. There are moments when employees decide whether the compliance function is credible.

CCO Questions

  • Does our compliance function know how employees actually experience our Code, training, reporting channels, investigation process, and third-party controls?
  • Are we using peer ideation, frontline feedback, and cross-functional input to improve the program?
  • Where are we still relying on headquarters assumptions rather than operational evidence?
  • How are we using AI to improve accessibility, consistency, risk sensing, and employee guidance without weakening confidentiality, privacy, or human judgment?

Practical Takeaways

  1. Redesign one compliance communication from the user’s perspective. Make it shorter, clearer, more accessible, and easier to act on.
  2. Create an ideation circle around one major compliance risk, such as third-party due diligence, gifts and entertainment, speaking up, or AI use.
  3. Test your Code of Conduct with employees from different geographies and functions before the next refresh.
  4. Add crowdsourced risk intelligence to your risk assessment process.
  5. Treat ideation as a compliance control. Better questions produce better evidence, and better evidence produces a more effective program.

Ideation is where the compliance professional begins to see what is possible. It gives the CCO better questions, stronger engagement, richer risk intelligence, and a more human understanding of how employees experience the program. But ideas alone do not create culture. A redesigned code, a better speak-up message, a sharper AI policy, or a new third-party risk insight only matters if it moves from concept to practice. That is where the second book in the trilogy, The Art of Implementation, takes us next.

Join us tomorrow in Part 2, where we will examine how compliance professionals turn good ideas into operating discipline through alignment, stakeholder ownership, pre-mortems, adoption, incentives, and the hard work of making values real inside the business.

Categories
Blog

The Warner Bros. Bidding War: Part 3 – The CCO Playbook for Transactions Under Pressure

The Warner Bros. Bidding War: Part 3 – The CCO Playbook for Transactions Under Pressure

The Warner Bros. (WBD) bidding war is not simply a Board story. It is a compliance operating model test. When a superior proposal emerges, the Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) must move from program design to execution discipline. Today, we conclude our short review of the Warner Bros./Netflix/Paramount dance and sale by considering lessons for the compliance professional.

In Part 1, we focused on the deal mechanics that led Warner Bros. Discovery to move from an agreed transaction with Netflix to a superior proposal from Paramount Skydance. In Part 2, the focus shifted to Board governance and fiduciary duty. This final post, Post 3, answers the operational question. What must the Chief Compliance Officer do when the process accelerates and governance must be proven in real time?

The answer is grounded in the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP). The core question remains constant. Is the program working in practice? A live transaction provides the answer.

Move Compliance Into the Transaction Control Room

Too many compliance functions treat M&A as a legal and financial activity. That approach fails when the transaction becomes contested. Once a superior proposal is identified, the compliance function must:

  • Participate in transaction governance meetings
  • Map control risks across disclosure, communications, and decision-making
  • Establish escalation pathways for new information

This is consistent with the expectations embedded in the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy, which rewards companies that demonstrate real-time awareness, escalation, and action. A compliance function that is not present during the decision-making process cannot later demonstrate that controls were effective.

Build and Execute an Evidence Protocol

The most significant compliance failure point in transactions is not misconduct. It is the absence of a reliable evidentiary record. In the WBD process, multiple streams of information were created simultaneously:

  • Board materials
  • Banker communications
  • Draft proposals and revisions
  • Internal analyses and emails

The CCO must ensure that the company has an evidence-based protocol that includes:

  • Centralized collection of transaction-related materials
  • Defined custodians for document integrity
  • Time-stamped records of key decisions and communications

Under the DOJ’s framework, this directly ties to the question of whether the company can demonstrate effectiveness through data and documentation. If the company cannot reconstruct its decision-making process, it cannot defend it.

Treat Disclosure Controls as a Real-Time Compliance System

Post 2 emphasized that disclosure is a governance issue. For the CCO, it is a control system. The compliance function should validate that:

  • The disclosure committee is activated and functioning continuously
  • There is a clear trigger matrix for Form 8-K filings and proxy updates
  • All external communications are coordinated and controlled

This is not theoretical. In a contested transaction, the volume and speed of information create a risk of selective disclosure, inconsistent messaging, or delayed filings. The CCO must ensure that disclosure controls meet the same standard as financial controls. They must be tested, documented, and operational.

Control Third-Party and Advisor Risk

Transactions introduce intense third-party engagement. Investment banks, legal advisors, consultants, and communications firms all operate at speed. In the WBD scenario, third-party actions included:

  • Structuring revised proposals
  • Communicating deal terms
  • Interacting with market participants

The CCO must ensure:

  • Clear protocols for third-party communications
  • Defined boundaries on who can speak on behalf of the company
  • Documentation of all material third-party interactions

This aligns with long-standing expectations under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the broader third-party risk principles embedded in compliance programs. Even in a domestic transaction, third-party risk remains a control issue.

Align Governance With Internal Controls Frameworks

The events described in Parts 1 and 2 map directly onto internal control frameworks such as the COSO Internal Controls Framework. For the CCO, this means:

  • Control Environment: Tone at the top regarding disciplined decision-making
  • Risk Assessment: Identification of disclosure, litigation, and regulatory risks
  • Control Activities: Implementation of approval processes and documentation protocols
  • Information and Communication: Real-time disclosure and coordination
  • Monitoring: Ongoing review of transaction-related controls

This mapping is not academic. It is how the company demonstrates that governance is structured, repeatable, and effective.

Prepare for Day Two Risk

The transaction does not end with signing or closing. It creates a new risk profile. The CCO must plan for:

  • Integration of compliance programs across entities
  • Review of legacy decisions made during the transaction process
  • Preservation of records for litigation or regulatory review

This is where the DOJ’s focus on continuous improvement becomes critical. The company must show that it learns from the transaction and strengthens its program.

Connecting the Lessons Across the Series

Part 1 showed that deal terms, including termination fees and superior proposal mechanics, can change outcomes. Part 2 demonstrated that the Board must govern those changes through documented, disciplined processes. In Part 3, we demonstrated the connections between the two. The compliance function is the mechanism that allows the company to prove that governance worked. Without compliance execution, governance is an assertion. With compliance execution, governance becomes evidence.

Practical Action Steps for CCOs

  1. Embed compliance into the transaction governance structure at the outset of any deal.
  2. Implement an evidence protocol that captures all material transaction activity in real time.
  3. Test disclosure controls under accelerated conditions, including mock 8-K scenarios.
  4. Define and enforce third-party communication protocols.
  5. Map transaction governance to COSO and DOJ ECCP requirements before a contested situation arises.

Questions for the CCO

  1. If a regulator requested the full decision record tomorrow, could the company produce it?
  2. Are disclosure controls capable of operating continuously under transaction pressure?
  3. Is there a single source of truth for transaction-related documentation?
  4. Are third-party interactions fully documented and controlled?
  5. Has the compliance program been stress-tested in a high-speed governance scenario?

Final Thoughts

The Warner Bros. Discovery bidding war is not unique. What is unique is how clearly it illustrates the modern role of the Chief Compliance Officer. Compliance is no longer limited to preventing misconduct. It is responsible for enabling the company to act, decide, and disclose with integrity under pressure and then prove it. That is the standard set by the DOJ. That is the expectation of Boards. And that is the future of the compliance profession.

 

Categories
Blog

The Warner Bros. Bidding War: Part 2 – Board Governance Under Pressure

When a superior proposal emerges, the Board is no longer evaluating strategy. It is proving governance. The Warner Bros. transaction shows how fiduciary duty, disclosure discipline, and control execution must function in real time. We are exploring Warner Bros./Netflix/Paramount’s bidding and purchase processes for lessons for the compliance professional. In Part 1, we focused on what happened. This post focuses on how the Board must respond when events accelerate.

The process moved from a negotiated transaction with Netflix to a contested situation with a rival bidder, Paramount. At that moment, the Board’s role shifted from approving a deal to managing an auction under fiduciary duty. This is the precise moment contemplated by Delaware fiduciary law and the Board oversight obligations often framed through the lens of Caremark duties. The question is no longer whether the Board can approve a transaction. The question becomes whether the Board can demonstrate that it acted on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the best interests of shareholders. That is not a conclusion. It is a record.

Waiver Discipline and the Fiduciary Record

In a live bidding environment, the Board will be asked to consider waiving contractual provisions, including standstill agreements, exclusivity clauses, and information-sharing restrictions. The governance risk is not the waiver itself. The governance risk is undocumented decision-making. A Board must ensure that every waiver is:

  • Reduced to writing with a defined scope and duration
  • Reviewed by counsel with a clear statement of fiduciary rationale
  • Reflected in contemporaneous Board minutes that explain why the waiver was necessary

Under the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP) framework, the question is whether the company can demonstrate that its processes work in practice. A waiver without documentation is indistinguishable from a control failure.

Termination Fees as Board-Level Risk

The WBD transaction turned the $2.8 billion termination fee into a live issue. When Paramount agreed to fund the fee, the Board had to evaluate more than price. It had to evaluate:

  • Who ultimately bears the economic and legal risk
  • Whether the funding mechanism introduces new contingencies
  • How the arrangement should be disclosed to shareholders

Termination fees are often treated as deal protections. In a contested process, they serve as mechanisms for risk allocation. That places them squarely within Board oversight. A Board that does not interrogate the assumptions behind a termination fee, including third-party assumptions, is not exercising informed judgment.

Real-Time Disclosure Controls

Disclosure obligations in a transaction are not periodic. They are continuous. Once a superior proposal is identified, the company must:

  • Update proxy materials where required
  • Ensure that all material information is disclosed without selective leakage
  • Align communications across legal, investor relations, and management

The governance challenge is that information moves faster than process. Emails, banker discussions, draft proposals, and internal analyses all become part of the evidentiary record. Boards must ask whether the company has a real-time disclosure protocol. This includes:

  • A defined disclosure committee process
  • A single point of accountability for filings such as Form 8-K
  • Controls over who can communicate with external stakeholders

This is where governance intersects directly with compliance. Disclosure failures are not merely technical. They can trigger enforcement exposure.

The 8-K and Proxy Playbook

In a fast-moving transaction, the company does not have the luxury of drafting disclosures from scratch. A Board should expect management to have a predefined playbook that includes the following:

  • Trigger thresholds for filing obligations
  • Pre-approved disclosure templates for common scenarios
  • A documented approval chain involving legal, finance, and executive leadership

The absence of such a playbook creates a delay. Delay creates inconsistency. Inconsistency creates risk. From a COSO internal control perspective, this is a failure in control activities and information and communication. From a DOJ perspective, it is evidence that the program is not operationalized.

Regulatory Readiness and Remedy Planning

Both competing transactions carried regulatory risk. The difference was how that risk was allocated and mitigated. A Board must understand the following:

  • The regulatory approval pathways
  • The likelihood of a challenge
  • The remedies available if regulators object

More importantly, the Board must ensure that management has pre-developed the following:

  • Divestiture scenarios
  • Behavioral remedies
  • Escrow or holdback mechanisms tied to regulatory outcomes

This is not theoretical planning. It is part of the decision to determine which proposal is superior. A Board that does not understand regulatory risk is not fully evaluating the transaction’s value.

Post-Termination Control and Evidence Custody

When WBD terminated the agreement with Netflix, the transaction did not end. It transitioned into a new phase of risk. The company must:

  • Ensure proper handling of confidential information shared during the termination process
  • Preserve all records relevant to the decision-making process
  • Maintain audit trails for potential litigation or regulatory review

This is where evidence discipline becomes critical. The record must be complete, organized, and defensible. In the absence of such controls, the company risks being unable to demonstrate how decisions were made.

Why This Matters for Boards

The WBD process illustrates that governance is tested when conditions change rapidly. A Board cannot build governance in the middle of a transaction. It must already exist. The DOJ and SEC will not evaluate the Board based on the outcome. They will evaluate the Board based on the effectiveness of its processes, documentation, and controls. This is the essence of modern corporate governance. It is not about whether the Board chose Netflix or Paramount. It is about whether the Board can prove how and why it made that choice.

Practical Takeaways for Boards

  1. Ensure that superior proposal mechanics are understood at the Board level before a transaction is signed.
  2. Treat termination fees and regulatory protections as governance issues requiring full Board engagement.
  3. Demand real-time disclosure controls with clear ownership and escalation protocols.
  4. Require a pre-built 8-K and proxy playbook to manage disclosure risk under time pressure.
  5. Mandate regulatory scenario planning as part of transaction evaluation.

Questions for the Board

  1. Can the Board demonstrate, through contemporaneous documentation, how it evaluated a superior proposal?
  2. Does the company have a real-time disclosure control framework that supports rapid filings and updates?
  3. Are termination fee structures and third-party funding arrangements fully understood and documented?
  4. Has the Board reviewed regulatory risk scenarios and approved a default remedy strategy?
  5. Who is accountable for evidence preservation and record integrity during and after the transaction?

Please join us tomorrow; in our final post, we’ll focus on the Chief Compliance Officer. The question will be direct. What must a CCO do, in operational terms, to ensure that the company can execute governance under pressure and prove it after the fact?

 

Categories
Innovation in Compliance

Innovation in Compliance: Invitational Leadership for Employee Engagement Success With Dr. Dennis Cummins

Innovation comes in many forms, and compliance professionals need not only to be ready for it but also to embrace it. Join Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, as he visits with top innovative minds, thinkers, and creators in the award-winning Innovation in Compliance podcast. In this episode, host Tom visits with Dr. Dennis Cummins to discuss his new book, “Invitational Selling: The Human Connection Advantage.”

Dr. Dennis Cummins, a globally recognized authority on invitational selling, champions a sales approach that prioritizes building authentic connections over traditional hard-sell techniques. Rooted in his extensive experience selling from the stage, Dr. Cummins believes in the transformative power of meaningful conversations to understand and effectively meet customer needs. His philosophy is detailed in his new book, “Invitational Selling: The Human Connection Advantage,” which promotes inviting customers to engage rather than pressuring them into a purchase, fostering authentic relationships that extend beyond mere transactions. Proceeds from the book benefit the Make-A-Wish Foundation. His book also underscores the potential of invitational selling to inspire collaboration within organizations and families, reflecting his commitment to empowering others through shared skills and talents.

Key highlights:

  • Relationship-Driven Sales Approach
  • Invitational Leadership for Employee Engagement
  • Profitability through Open Communication Culture
  • Humanizing AI to Build Trust and Connection
  • Invitational Selling: Creating Authentic Business Connections

Resources:

Dr. Dennis Cummins on LinkedIn

Dr. Dennis Cummins Website

Invitational Selling: click here 

Innovation in Compliance was recently honored as the Number 4 podcast in Risk Management by 1,000,000 Podcasts.

Categories
Blog

The Warner Bros. Bidding War: Part 1 – What Happened and Why Compliance Professionals Should Care

A fast-moving corporate auction shows how deal terms, fiduciary duties, disclosure controls, regulatory risk, and evidence discipline can determine the outcome of a major transaction. Over the rest of this week, I will be exploring the Warner Bros./Netflix/Paramount bidding war, which

The Deal That Changed Direction

The Warner Bros./Netflix/Paramount bidding war is one of those corporate stories that looks like Hollywood drama on the surface but is really a governance story underneath. At first, Warner Bros. (WBD) had an agreed transaction with Netflix. That deal carried a $2.8 billion company termination fee payable by WBD under specified circumstances, including termination to enter into a superior proposal. The proxy materials also disclosed a $5.8 billion regulatory termination fee payable by Netflix if the deal failed for certain regulatory reasons. (SEC)

Then Paramount Skydance (Paramount) came back with a revised proposal. It raised the bid to $31 per WBD share in cash, added a ticking fee, offered a $7 billion regulatory termination fee, and agreed to fund the $2.8 billion termination fee owed to Netflix. (SEC) Reuters reported that WBD said the revised Paramount proposal could be considered superior, which set the process in motion. (Reuters)

By February 27, 2026, WBD terminated the Netflix agreement and entered into a merger agreement with Paramount Skydance. WBD later disclosed that Paramount Skydance paid the $2.8 billion Netflix termination fee on WBD’s behalf. (SEC)

That is the transaction story. The compliance story is deeper.

This Was Not Merely a Higher Price

In M&A, price matters. But price is rarely the only issue. Boards also look at certainty of closing, regulatory risk, financing, timing, shareholder value, legal exposure, and execution risk. Paramount did not merely increase the cash price. It addressed several deal objections at once. It offered to cover the Netflix break fee. It added a ticking fee if closing was delayed. It increased regulatory risk protection. It positioned its offer as cleaner, faster, and more certain than the existing transaction. (SEC)

That matters because boards do not evaluate superior proposals in a vacuum. They evaluate the entire package. The better governance question is not simply, “Which offer is higher? ”It is, “Which offer delivers the best risk-adjusted value to shareholders, and can the Board prove how it reached that conclusion? ”

The Termination Fee Became a Governance Issue

The $2.8 billion termination fee is an important part of the story. In ordinary conversation, that number sounds like a barrier. In this transaction, it became part of the competitive bidding structure. Paramount agreed to fund the termination fee, which changed the economics for WBD shareholders. WBD’s own annual report language later stated that, after the Board determined it had received a Company Superior Proposal and Netflix waived its right to propose revisions, WBD terminated the Netflix agreement and Paramount paid Netflix the $2.8 billion fee on WBD’s behalf. (SEC)

For compliance and governance professionals, this is the control point: when a large termination fee can be assumed, reimbursed, funded, or otherwise neutralized by a rival bidder, the company needs clear documentation showing who approved that structure, how it was analyzed, how it was disclosed, and how conflicts were managed.

Disclosure Was Not a Back-Office Exercise

In a contested transaction, disclosure is part of the control environment. The company must update shareholders, respond to rival communications, track proxy statements, preserve drafts, document board deliberations, and avoid selective disclosure. The Netflix proxy materials laid out the termination fee structure and the circumstances under which the fee could become payable. (SEC) Paramount’s revised proposal was also publicly communicated through SEC filings, including the increased $31-per-share cash price and the regulatory termination fee. (SEC)

This is where compliance should pay attention. A transaction can move faster than the company’s document discipline. Emails, banker calls, board materials, draft press releases, proxy supplements, and negotiation notes can become evidence. If the company doesn’t have a real-time evidence protocol, the record will build itself, which isn’t ideal.

Why Compliance Professionals Should Care

Some believe this is a board-and-banker story. That is too narrow. It is also a compliance story because compliance is about governance, controls, documentation, accountability, escalation, and evidence. A high-stakes transaction tests whether the company’s control environment holds up under the highest pressure. It tests whether the Board receives complete information. It tests whether management understands escalation obligations. It tests whether legal, finance, communications, investor relations, and compliance can coordinate without losing the record.

This is exactly the kind of moment when the DOJ’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs is relevant, even outside an enforcement action. The central question is familiar: is the program well-designed, adequately resourced, empowered to function, and working in practice? In M&A, that means the compliance function should understand how deal governance intersects with disclosure controls, third-party risk, regulatory commitments, document preservation, and post-closing integration.

The Larger Lesson

The WBD bidding war shows that corporate governance is not theoretical. It is operational. A superior proposal clause is not just legal drafting. A termination fee is not just a financial number. A proxy supplement is not just a filing. Each is a control point. The companies that manage these moments well do three things. They make decisions through disciplined processes. They document the basis for those decisions in real time. They align governance, legal, finance, disclosure, and compliance before the crisis point arrives.

Practical Takeaways for Compliance Professionals

  1. Major transactions require evidence discipline from day one.
  2. Disclosure controls must be ready before a rival bidder appears.
  3. Termination fees and regulatory commitments should be treated as governance issues, not simply deal terms.
  4. Board minutes and waiver records must tell the fiduciary story.
  5. Compliance should have a seat at the broader transaction control table, especially when regulatory, third-party, data access, communications, and post-closing integration risks are implicated.

That is the lesson for every CCO. You may not be running the auction, but your program should help the company prove that it made decisions with integrity, evidence, and accountability.