Categories
Daily Compliance News

Daily Compliance News: February 6, 2024 – The Tweaking DEI Edition

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee and listen to the Daily Compliance News. All from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional.

In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • Companies are tweaking DEI.  (WSJ)
  • Brazil goes after TI. (FT)
  • The DOJ is investigating ADM over accounting irregularities. (Reuters)
  • Using AI for brainstorming. (FT)

For more information on Ethico and a free White Paper on top compliance issues in 2024, click here.

Categories
From the Editor's Desk

From The Editor’s Desk – January and February 2024 in Compliance Week

Welcome to From the Editor’s Desk, a podcast where co-hosts Tom Fox and Kyle Brasseur, EIC at Compliance Week, unpack some of the top stories that have appeared in Compliance Week over the past month, look at the top compliance stories upcoming for the next month, talk about some sports and generally try to solve the world’s problems.

Tom Fox and Kyle Brasseur are back. In this episode, they look at the Department of Justice’s role in shaping corporate compliance practices through its enforcement actions, setting the tone for companies to voluntarily self-disclose and cooperate. Tom believes that the DOJ is making a concerted effort to highlight what companies are doing right in enforcement actions, particularly in relation to remedial efforts and cooperation. He sees the DOJ’s settlement documents as a clear communication of what they expect from companies going forward. Kyle emphasizes the importance of focusing on the positive aspects of enforcement actions and learning from what companies are doing right to prevent similar situations in the future. He mentions the use of data analytics and the retention of off-channel communications as examples of new expectations from the DOJ. Join Tom Fox and Kyle Brasseur on this episode of From the Editor’s Desk as they delve deeper into the topic of DOJ enforcement actions and corporate compliance practices.

Highlights Include:

  • SAP Enforcement Action
  • CNIL and Amazon’s Excessive Employee Surveillance Violation
  • Exploring Best Practices in Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
  • Highlighting Compliance Success in Financial Services
  • Insights from DOJ Enforcement Actions Roundtable
  • Bill Belichick
  • NFL Playoffs
Categories
Everything Compliance

Everything Compliance – Episode 128, The Frozen Edition

Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance as we celebrate our second century of shows. In this episode, we have the quartet of Jonathan Armstrong, Matt Kelly, Karen Woody, and Jay Rosen, all hosted by Tom Fox, joining us on this episode to discuss some of the topics they are watching during this extended cold spell across the US.

1. Matt Kelly looks at the tale of two companies, eBay and SAP, and the disparity in whether monitorships were mandated. He shouts out to Saul Dreier and the Holocaust Survivors Band, who recently played a gig at the White House.

2. Tom Fox shouts out to Sir Elton John for winning an Emmy, thus becoming only the 18th person to hold the prestigious EGOT designation.

3. Jonathan Armstrong looks at the new SFO director and his new focus for the beleaguered agency.  He shouts out to Nick Rossi (or whatever name he is using) and his 16 aliases.

4. Jay Rosen takes a deep dive into the SAP Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement action. He shouts out to the Cara Cara naval oranges.

5. Karen Woody looks at the Segway shareholder case and its duty of oversight analysis for an officer. She shouts out to all the folks in Indiana who work and fix things during a deep freeze and those manning homeless shelters.

The members of the Everything Compliance are:

  • Jay Rosen is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.com
  • Karen Woody is one of the top academic experts on the SEC. Woody can be reached at kwoody@wlu.edu
  • Matt Kelly is the Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.com
  • Jonathan Armstrong is our UK colleague, who is an experienced data privacy/data protection lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at jonathan.armstrong@corderycompliance.com
  • Jonathan Marks can be reached at jtmarks@gmail.com.

The host, producer, ranter (and sometimes panelist) of Everything Compliance is Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com. Everything Compliance is a part of the Compliance Podcast Network.

Categories
Blog

Operationalizing Compliance Through Payroll

One of the areas articulated in the 2023 ECCP was around payments and payroll. The compliance professional and the corporate payroll function have a significant role to play in operationalizing a corporate compliance program. The 2023 ECCP was replete with references to payment and its critical nature to any best practices compliance program. This includes references to foreign officials, payments to third parties, and hiding bribes in distributor payments.

The 2023 ECCP begins with a warning to stop wasting time on low-hanging fruit when there are much higher risks in your business operations. It states:

Risk-Tailored Resource Allocation—Does the company devote a disproportionate amount of time to policing low-risk areas instead of high-risk areas, such as questionable payments to third-party consultants, suspicious trading activity, or excessive discounts to resellers and distributors? Does the company give greater scrutiny, as warranted, to high-risk transactions (for instance, a large-dollar contract with a government agency in a high-risk country) than to more modest and routine hospitality and entertainment?

It then drills down into the payment and payroll systems, stating:

Appropriate Controls—How does the company ensure a proper business rationale for using third parties? If third parties were involved in the underlying misconduct, what was the business rationale for using those third parties? What mechanisms exist to ensure that the contract terms specifically describe the services to be performed, that the payment terms are appropriate, that the described contractual work is performed, and that compensation is commensurate with the services rendered?

Payment Systems—How was the misconduct in question funded (e.g., purchase orders, employee reimbursements, discounts, petty cash)? What processes could have prevented or detected improper access to these funds? Have those processes been improved?

These questions may not seem new, innovative, or even different from what payroll currently does for an organization. However, the 2023 ECCP demonstrates the role of payroll in compliance. The 2023 ECCP requires that payroll not only form a part of any best practices compliance program, but when it comes to the specific subject matter expertise, payroll is on the front lines of any attempts to prevent, detect, and remediate anti-corruption compliance violations.

The FCPA prohibits “anything of value” from being provided to foreign government officials or employees of state-owned enterprises to obtain or retain business. This “anything of value” is almost always money, and that money must come from somewhere inside the company. While the Watergate intonation to “follow the money” remains valid in any compliance issue, the 2023 ECCP speaks much more depth about payroll’s responsibility in a corporate compliance program. There must be verifiable controls that not only detect fraudulent payments but also work to prevent any such payments.

Yet when the inquiries are read together, they paint a broader picture than simply tasking payroll with the responsibility to prevent fraudulent leakage of money that could be used to fund bribes. The questions around the approval and certification process should be a standard part of any payroll system. This has the effect of operationalizing the responsibility up and down the management chain, from the individual employee up through their manager(s) and eventually to the highest level of management involved in the process. This level of operationalization is designed not only to put a set of brakes in place but also to work to put a second set of eyes on the entire payroll process.

Finally, payment systems have a role in the remediation phase of any best practices compliance program. If a payroll control failure led to or even allowed a compliance violation, what was done to fix the control issue? Here, payroll should work to perform a root cause analysis of what led to the control failure and then enhance or upgrade the control to provide a solution going forward. Of course, there should be a fully documented audit trail for this work to provide to the government should they ever come knocking, or even to your corporate auditors.

This means that not only can payroll be one of the compliance function’s strongest corporate allies, but that the role of payroll, by its nature, works to operationalize compliance. This is because to implement the appropriate internal controls around compliance, payroll must know the specific requirements of the FCPA and know what kinds of issues are likely to come up that might create a risk of bribery and corruption, all leading to an understanding of the appropriate compliance internal controls to implement around payroll and payments.

This is particularly true around offshore payments, generally defined as payments made to a location other than the home domicile of the payee or the area where the services were delivered. If a Tunisian agent who performs services in Dubai asks for payment in a location other than Dubai or Tunisia, that would qualify as an offshore payment. If you train people on the payroll on this issue, they may well pick up the phone and notify compliance when they see a request for payment in a geographic location separate from one of the two standard payment venues. Those are the types of communications, when properly documented, that demonstrate your compliance program is operationalized into the fabric of the organization.

Another way to view it is if there is a payroll control for such a scenario that notes the exception and requires the clearance of a red flag through additional investigation, elevation for approval, and documentation of the entire process; it operates as both a financial control and a compliance control as well. It strengthens the company’s internal controls to both prevent and detect compliance risks going forward.

There are several specific internal payroll controls that will facilitate a company operationalizing its compliance program, as required under the 2023 ECCP. These controls help keep an eye on the money trail, as the money to pay a bribe is usually hidden in some company expenditures. The four general areas of payroll control should include: 1) segregation of duties; 2) accountability, authorization, and approval; 3) security of assets; and 4) review and reconciliation.

To meet these four general goals, consider using a selection of the following controls for payroll systems, irrespective of how timekeeping information is accumulated or how employees are paid:

Audit. Have either internal or external auditors conducted an annual audit of payroll accuracy?

Change authorizations. Only allow a change to an employee’s marital status, withholding allowances, or deductions if the employee has submitted a written and signed request for the company to do so. Any change request should be reviewed and approved by a senior manager.

• Change the tracking log. If you are processing payroll in-house with a computerized payroll module, have secure change tracking to provide an audit trail.

Expense trend lines. This is your data, and it is within your company somewhere. Look for changes in payroll-related expenses in the financial statements and then investigate if warranted.

Issue payment reports to supervisors. Request supervisors review payroll summaries for correct payment amounts and unfamiliar names.

Restrict access to records. Prevent unauthorized access to payroll records.

Segregation of duties. You should never allow one person to prepare the payroll, authorize it, and create payments.

The role of payroll in compliance is not often considered in operationalizing your compliance program, yet the monies to fund bribes must come from somewhere. Unfortunately, one of those places is out of payroll. All CCOs need to sit down with their head of payroll, have them explain the role of payroll, and then review the internal controls in place to see how they facilitate compliance goals. From that review, you can then determine how to use payroll to help operationalize your compliance program.

The DOJ has now provided its clearest statement on how it expects a company to actually comply going forward. Long gone are the days where the DOJ simply considered the inputs of a written program as sufficient to protect companies from compliance violations. Yet the mandate to operationalize a corporate compliance program drives home the concept that compliance is a business process that should be administered by the appropriate business unit with the requisite SME. When it comes to following the money, payroll is the most well-suited corporate discipline to provide this first level of oversight and control.

Categories
Blog

Using a Root Cause Analysis for Remediation

The 2023 ECCP re-emphasized the need for both performing a root cause analysis but equally importantly using it to remediate your compliance program. It stated, “a hallmark of a compliance program that is working effectively in practice is the extent to which a company is able to conduct a thoughtful root cause analysis of misconduct and timely and appropriately remediate to address the root causes.”

It went on to state, what additional steps the company has taken “that demonstrate recognition of the seriousness of the misconduct, acceptance of responsibility for it, and the implementation of measures to reduce the risk of repetition of such misconduct, including measures to identify future risk”).” The following questions were then posed:

Root Cause Analysis—What is the company’s root cause analysis of the misconduct at issue? Were any systemic issues identified? Who in the company was involved in making the analysis?

Prior Weaknesses—What controls failed? If policies or procedures should have prohibited the misconduct, were they effectively implemented, and have functions that had ownership of these policies and procedures been held accountable?

You should begin with the question of who should perform the remediation; should it be an investigator or an investigative team which were a part of the root cause analysis? Jonathan Marks, believes the key is both “independence and objectivity.” It may be that an investigator or investigative team is a subject matter expert and “therefore more qualified to get that particular recourse”. Yet to perform the remediation, the key is to integrate the information developed from the root cause analysis into the solution.

Marks further noted that the company may also have deficiencies in internal controls. More importantly, the failure to remediate gaps in internal controls “provides the opportunity for additional errors or misconduct to occur, and thus could damage the company’s credibility with regulators” by allowing the same or similar conduct to reoccur. Finally, with both the 2023 ECCP and FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the DOJ has added its voice to prior SEC statements that regulators “will focus on what steps the company took upon learning of the misconduct, whether the company immediately stopped the misconduct, and what new and more effective internal controls or procedures the company has adopted or plans to adopt to prevent a recurrence.”

As required under the 2023 ECCP, from the regulatory perspective, the critical element is how did you use the information you developed in the root cause analysis? Every time you see a problem as a CCO, you should perform a root cause analysis. Was something approved or not approved before the untoward event happened? Was any harm was done? Why or why not? Why did that system fail? Was it because the person who is doing the approval was too busy? Was it because people didn’t understand? It is in answering these and other questions which have been developed through a root cause analysis that you can bring real value and real solutions to your compliance programs.

The key is that after you have identified the causes of problems, consider the solutions that can be implemented by developing a logical approach, using data that already exists in the organization. Identify current and future needs for organizational improvement. Your solution should be a repeatable, step-by-step processes, in which one process can confirm the results of another. Focusing on the corrective measures of root causes is more effective than simply treating the symptoms of a problem or event and you will have a much more robust solution in place. This is because the solution(s) are more effective when accomplished through a systematic process with conclusions backed up by evidence.

When you step back and consider what the DOJ was trying to accomplish with its 2023 ECCP, it becomes clear what the DOJ expects from the compliance professional. Consider the structure of your compliance program and how it inter-relates to your company’s risk profile. When you have a compliance failure, use the root cause analysis to think about how each of the structural elements of your compliance program could impact how you manage and deal with that risk.

Categories
Blog

Strategic Considerations for Implementing AI in Compliance

What are some of the strategic considerations for implementing AI in compliance? What are the key factors that impact these strategic considerations for implementing AI in compliance, exploring the tradeoffs, challenges, and importance of considering the impact on decision-making.

The first consideration is understanding the impact of AI on the company. AI can affect a company in various ways, from internal operations to the products or services it sells. It is crucial for compliance professionals, CEOs, and compliance functions to take a high-level perspective and identify all the ways AI can impact their organization.

The second consideration is maintaining an inventory of all tools used. This can be challenging, especially when a company uses a mix of homegrown and commercially available tools. However, understanding the tools being used in different parts of the company is essential for fully comprehending the privacy and regulatory risks involved.

The third consideration is understanding the tools for cost efficiency and risk avoidance. Companies need to evaluate the value and usage of AI tools regularly. This evaluation helps in balancing the necessary provision of tools with rigorous data security and risk minimization practices. It also ensures cost efficiencies by avoiding redundant tools and optimizing their usage.

The fourth consideration is involving all business sectors in AI discussions. AI implementation should not be siloed within compliance or any specific department. It requires collaboration and participation from various stakeholders, including the board, operations, and compliance teams. Bringing everyone together in an AI working group or team allows for a holistic and strategic approach to AI implementation.

The fifth consideration is utilizing AI for better data usage in compliance. AI enables compliance professionals to analyze trends and patterns in data effectively. This goes beyond simple automation and moves towards predictive analytics. By leveraging AI, compliance programs can enhance their effectiveness and stay ahead of potential risks.

While implementing AI in compliance brings numerous benefits, there are tradeoffs and challenges to consider. One tradeoff is the need to balance exploration and innovation with rules and regulations. Companies should encourage employees to explore and experiment with AI tools but within a safe environment and with clear guidelines. This ensures that AI is used to benefit the company without causing harm.

Another challenge is the selection of AI tools. With the rapid pace of AI development, companies must carefully evaluate and choose the right tools. The wrong choice can lead to wasted resources and missed opportunities. It is crucial to consider factors such as reliability, controls, and the ability to retrieve data if needed.

The impact of AI implementation on compliance cannot be underestimated. Compliance professionals need to stay updated with the latest AI developments and trends. This requires continuous learning and keeping abreast of industry news and insights. Subscribing to relevant sources, such as AI-focused publications or news platforms, can help compliance professionals stay informed.

Implementing AI in compliance requires strategic considerations and decision-making. Understanding the impact of AI, maintaining an inventory of tools, considering cost efficiency and risk avoidance, involving all business sectors, and utilizing AI for better data usage are key factors to consider. Balancing exploration and rules, as well as selecting the right AI tools, are challenges that need to be addressed. By carefully navigating these considerations and challenges, companies can leverage AI to enhance their compliance programs and stay ahead in an ever-evolving regulatory landscape.

Categories
31 Days to More Effective Compliance Programs

31 Days to a More Effective Compliance Program – Day 28 – Data-Driven Compliance – From Cutting Edge to Table Stakes

Compliance programs play a crucial role in ensuring that companies adhere to legal and ethical standards. In today’s digital age, where data is abundant and easily accessible, the importance of data-driven compliance programs cannot be overstated. This message was driven home very forcefully in a speech in November by Nicole Argentieri, acting assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division. She stated, “I’d like to now turn to our use of data. In the Criminal Division, we too are going above and beyond in our effort to combat white collar crime. We are not just waiting for companies to self-report, or witnesses to come forward, or for anomalies to reveal themselves on a one-off basis. Let me be the first to tell you that we have proactively used data to generate FCPA cases, and we’ve only just gotten started.”

Data-driven compliance programs have moved from cutting edge and are now seen as best practices. Soon, they will simply be table stakes for companies to effectively manage compliance risks. By actively monitoring and analyzing data, companies can identify potential compliance issues, mitigate risks, and maintain their reputation and integrity. Collaboration between different departments and a formal risk assessment are key factors in establishing a robust compliance program. As technology continues to advance, the role of data analytics and AI in compliance monitoring is expected to become even more significant. It is crucial for compliance professionals to stay informed, continuously learn, and adapt to the evolving landscape of data-driven compliance.

Three key takeaways:

1. Nicole Argentieri, acting assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division, said,  “Let me be the first to tell you that we have proactively used data to generate FCPA cases, and we’ve only just gotten started.”

2. . Compliance professionals must actively analyze the data for trends, anomalies, and potential compliance risks.

3. Data-driven compliance programs have moved from cutting edge and are now seen as best practices. Soon, they will simply be table stakes for companies to effectively manage compliance risks.

For more information on Ethico and a free White Paper on top compliance issues in 2024, click here.

Categories
Blog

Data-Driven Compliance – From Cutting Edge to Table Stakes

Compliance programs play a crucial role in ensuring that companies adhere to legal and ethical standards. In today’s digital age, where data is abundant and easily accessible, the importance of data-driven compliance programs cannot be overstated. This message was driven home very forcefully in a speech in November by Nicole Argentieri, acting assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division. She stated “I’d like to now turn to our use of data. In the Criminal Division, we too are going above and beyond in our effort to combat white collar crime. We are not just waiting for companies to self-report, or witnesses to come forward, or for anomalies to reveal themselves on a one-off basis. Let me be the first to tell you that we have proactively used data to generate FCPA cases, and we’ve only just gotten started.”

Anselmo Guevara, Director, Compliance Monitoring and Analytics at VMware, has emphasized the need for companies to have a compliance program that provides visibility into their data at their fingertips. It is no longer sufficient to simply collect data and have someone review and reconcile it. Compliance professionals must actively analyze the data for trends, anomalies, and potential compliance risks. This proactive approach allows companies to identify and address compliance issues before they escalate.

But as with all new initiatives in compliance, one must emphasize the importance of starting a compliance journey with a formal risk assessment. Guevara suggested collaborating with various departments within the organization, such as accounts payable, receivables, internal audit, and business operations, to understand the risks associated with different processes. This collaborative effort helps identify compliance controls that need to be in place and ensures that the data required for analysis is available.

While low hanging fruit may seem like an attractive starting point, Guevara cautioned against solely focusing on easy wins. He advised against presenting a weak business case to secure budget approval for compliance projects. Instead, he recommended conducting a comprehensive compliance risk assessment to prioritize areas that require immediate attention. This approach ensures that compliance efforts are aligned with your organization’s overall risk management strategy.

Data analytics plays a crucial role in enhancing compliance efforts. By leveraging data analytics tools and techniques, compliance professionals can identify patterns, detect anomalies, and uncover potential compliance risks. However, Guevara highlighted the importance of validating suspicious transactions before raising concerns. It is essential to conduct due diligence and thoroughly investigate any potential issues to maintain financial integrity and credibility.

Data-driven compliance programs have moved from cutting edge and are now seen as best practices. Soon they will simply be table stakes for companies to effectively manage compliance risks. By actively monitoring and analyzing data, companies can identify potential compliance issues, mitigate risks, and maintain their reputation and integrity. Collaboration between different departments and a formal risk assessment are key factors in establishing a robust compliance program. As technology continues to advance, the role of data analytics and AI in compliance monitoring is expected to become even more significant. It is crucial for compliance professionals to stay informed, continuously learn, and adapt to the evolving landscape of data-driven compliance.

Categories
Blog

The Compliance Function in an Organization

The role of the compliance professional and the compliance function in a corporation has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. When it came to the corporate compliance function, 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, under the Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, simply noted the government would “consider whether the company devoted adequate staffing and resources to the compliance program given the size, structure, and risk profile of the business.”

This Hallmark was significantly expanded in both the original FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy and 2023 ECCP. In the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the DOJ listed the following as factors relating to a corporate compliance function, that it would consider as indicia of an effective compliance and ethics program: 1) the resources the company has dedicated to compliance; 2) the quality and experience of the personnel involved in compliance, such that they can understand and identify the transactions and activities that pose a potential risk; 3) the authority and independence of the compliance function and the availability of compliance expertise to the board; 4) the compensation and promotion of the personnel involved in compliance, in view of their role, responsibilities, performance, and other appropriate factors; and 5) the reporting structure of any compliance personnel employed or contracted by the company.

Clearly the DOJ is articulating that in an operationalized compliance program, it expects true compliance professionals, who understand the way compliance interacts with and supports the business. Companies must compensate and promote compliance professionals within their organization.

Funding and resources. You will now have to justify your corporate compliance spend. This means at a minimum you will have to meet some general industry standard. If a corporation tries to low-ball both the pay to compliance professionals, as well as the dollar and head count made available to a compliance function, it will not be viewed positively. Also noted in the Evaluation, a company must be prepared to defend any request for compliance resources which are turned down. Budget requests and allocations are always difficult times in any corporation. There is never enough money to go around and most senior management thinks it is their job to slash all budget requests as a simple matter of course. Now such blanket management will be penalized.

If a compliance function is so hampered by resource restrictions it cannot carry out the basic functions needed for a compliance program to operate, it will not find favor under either the Evaluation or the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. If there are compliance projects needed to address basic compliance risks which are not funded because management failed to heed a CCOs or compliance functions budget request, this could be evidence of conscious indifference by senior management.

Role of compliance and empowerment. More than simply throwing money at the compliance function (as if that would ever happen) the DOJ is now inquiring into how the compliance function and its recommendations are treated. If there is business unit over-ride of compliance decisions, there must be an auditable decision trail. This, of course, is anathema to corporate executives who do not want to put themselves at risk.

But more than simply preventing management over-ride, a corporate compliance function has to be empowered by the Board and CEO to intervene in business decisions that implicate the company’s ethics and compliance issues, compliance with business code of ethics, agent/distributor and supplier codes of conduct, training, communication and internal investigations. If a company considers a business decision or practice that implicates the company’s ethical principles, the compliance function must have the internal authority to weigh in and ensure that ethical principles and compliance issues are factored into the business decision.

In the 2023 ECCP, under Section III, Does Your Compliance Program Work in Practice, is the following new language “Independence and Empowerment – Is compensation for employees who are responsible for investigating and adjudicating misconduct structured in a way that ensures the compliance team is empowered to enforce the policies and ethical values of the company? Who determines the compensation, including bonuses, as well as discipline and promotion of compliance personnel or others within the organization that have a role in the disciplinary process generally?”

This is a significant new addition to the ECCP. It forces a company to adequately compensation those employees who investigate and pass judgment on misconduct. But it is more than simply adequate compensation as it also requires a company not to retaliate via low salaries or limited raises or other compensation for doing their jobs as compliance officers. In other words, if the CEO is being investigated by compliance; that same CEO should not be setting or reviewing the salary of the CCO or those doing the investigation. This mandates that the DOJ will review the entire corporate organization on these issues.

Outsourcing of compliance. This area of compliance practice has arisen largely since the articulation of the Hallmarks in the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition. While this might make sense from a cost perspective, it can be largely problematic if it is not managed properly. Rarely do outsiders have the same access as corporate employees, particularly in a function as important as compliance. Additionally, there will never be the trust level with outsiders there is with someone who wears the same color shirt as the employees. Here a company must not only have a rationale in place, which will largely be cost savings; a company must also have a mechanism in place to assess, on an ongoing basis, any outsourced compliance function. This will be beyond the reach of probably 99% of the companies engaged in such outsourcing.

The 2023 ECCP had further detailed questions to pose:

Structure—Where within the company is the compliance function housed (e.g., within the legal department, under a business function, or as an independent function reporting to the CEO and/or board)? To whom does the compliance function report? Is the compliance function run by a designated chief compliance officer, or another executive within the company, and does that person have other roles within the company? Are compliance personnel dedicated to compliance responsibilities, or do they have other, non-compliance responsibilities within the company? Why has the company chosen the compliance structure it has in place? What are the reasons for the structural choices the company has made?

Seniority and Stature—How does the compliance function compare with other strategic functions in the company in terms of stature, compensation levels, rank/title, reporting line, resources, and access to key decision-makers? What has been the turnover rate for compliance and relevant control function personnel? What role has compliance played in the company’s strategic and operational decisions? How has the company responded to specific instances where compliance raised concerns? Have there been transactions or deals that were stopped, modified, or further scrutinized as a result of compliance concerns?

Experience and Qualifications—Do compliance and control personnel have the appropriate experience and qualifications for their roles and responsibilities? Has the level of experience and qualifications in these roles changed over time? How does the company invest in further training and development of the compliance and other control personnel? Who reviews the performance of the compliance function and what is the review process?

Funding and Resources—Has there been sufficient staffing for compliance personnel to effectively audit, document, analyze, and act on the results of the compliance efforts? Has the company allocated sufficient funds for the same? Have there been times when requests for resources by compliance and control functions have been denied, and if so, on what grounds?

Data Resources and Access—Do compliance and control personnel have sufficient direct or indirect access to relevant sources of data to allow for timely and effective monitoring and/or testing of policies, controls, and transactions? Do any impediments exist that limit access to relevant sources of data and, if so, what is the company doing to address the impediments?

Autonomy—Do the compliance and relevant control functions have direct reporting lines to anyone on the board of directors and/or audit committee? How often do they meet with directors? Are members of the senior management present for these meetings? How does the company ensure the independence of the compliance and control personnel?

The 2023 ECCP and 2023 Update to the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy both demonstrate the continued evolution in the thinking of the DOJ around the corporate compliance function. Their articulated inquiries can only strengthen a corporate compliance function specifically; and the compliance profession more generally. The more the DOJ talks about the independence of the compliance function, coupled with resources being made available and authority concomitant with the corporate compliance function, the more corporations will see it is directly in their interest to provide the resources, authority and gravitas to compliance position in their organizations.

Categories
Blog

CCO Authority and Independence

The role of the CCO has steadily grown in stature and prestige over the years. In the 2020 FCPA Resource Guide, 2nd edition, under the Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program, it focused on whether the CCO held senior management status and had a direct reporting line to the Board, stating:

In appraising a compliance program, DOJ and SEC also consider whether a company has assigned responsibility for the oversight and implementation of a company’s compliance program to one or more specific senior executives within an organization. Those individuals must have appropriate authority within the organization, adequate autonomy from management, and sufficient resources to ensure that the company’s compliance program is implemented effectively. Adequate autonomy generally includes direct access to an organization’s governing authority, such as the board of directors and committees of the board of directors.

This Hallmark was significantly expanded in both the 2023 ECCP and the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. And in so doing, the DOJ has increased the prestige, authority and role of both the CCO and corporate compliance function. The 2023 ECCP has five general areas of inquiry around the CCO and corporate compliance function. (1) How does the CCO salary and stature within the organization compare to other senior executives within the company. (2) What are the experience and stature of the CCO with an organization? Does the CCO have appropriate training for the role? (3) How much autonomy does the CCO have to report to the Board of Directors? How often do the CCO meet with directors? Are members of the senior management present for these meetings with the Board of Directors or of the Audit Committee? (4) What is your structure? Is the compliance function run by a designated chief compliance officer, or another executive within the company, and does that person have other roles within the company? (5) Is data in your organization so siloed that the CCO does not have access to it? If so, what are you doing about it?

In the 2023 Update to the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, the DOJ these factors out as follows: 1) The quality and experience of the CCO, such that they can understand and identify the transactions and activities that pose a potential risk; 2) The authority and independence of the CCO; 3) The compensation and promotion of the CCO, in view of their role, responsibilities, performance, and other appropriate factors; and 4) The reporting structure of any CCO employed or contracted by the company.

All of these factors are enhanced by the CCO Certification requirement, as announced by Kenneth Polite back in 2022. A CCO must certify the effectiveness of a compliance program after a DPA or NPA has been concluded. This requirement will only become more important moving into 2023 and beyond. In addition to CCO  Certification, the Delaware Court of Chancery’s  decision in the case of McDonald’s Corporation and its former Executive Vice President and Global Chief People Officer of McDonald’s Corporation, David Fairhurst in the case In re McDonald’s Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, where for the first time, a Delaware court formally recognized the oversight duties of officers of Delaware corporations.

The court noted that the CCO has a broad scope within an organization. The court stated, “Although the CEO and Chief Compliance Officer likely will have company-wide oversight portfolios, other officers generally have a more constrained area of authority.” The responsibilities of the CCO are wide and sometimes varied. Here the court stated, ““[s]pecific individual(s) within the organization shall be delegated day-to-day operational responsibility for the compliance and ethics program. Individual(s) with operational responsibility shall report periodically to high-level personnel and, as appropriate, to the governing authority, or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority, on the effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program.” But the Delaware court also provided CCOs with some additional ammunition in their quest for true influence in a corporation by stating that “to carry out such operational responsibility, such individual(s) shall be given adequate resources, appropriate authority, and direct access to the governing authority or an appropriate subgroup of the governing authority.”

Clearly the DOJ is articulating that it expects true compliance professionals, who understand the way compliance interacts with and supports the business to be in the CCO chair. The days of a law school trained CCO who cannot read a spreadsheet are consigned to the dustbin of non-compliant history. But more than simply compliance professionalism, companies must compensate and promote compliance professionals within their organization. Simply burying someone in the compliance function of a law department because they cannot cut it will no longer suffice.

The DOJ has not taken a formal position on whether a General Counsel (GC) can also be the CCO. However, the language of the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy and 2023 ECCP seem to signal the death knell for the dual GC/CCO role. They also signal the larger issue that the CCO should have a separate reporting line to the Board, apart from through the GC. While the DOJ’s stated position that it does not concern itself with whether the CCO reports to the GC or reports independently, it is more concerned about whether the CCO has the voice to go to the CEO or Board of Directors directly not via the GC. Even if the answer were yes, the DOJ would want to know if the CCO has ever exercised that right. Yet the 2023 ECCP comes as close to any time previously in articulating a DOJ policy that the CCO be independent of the GC’s office. Therefore, if your CCO still reports up through the GC, you must have demonstrable evidence of both CCO independence and actual line of sight authority to the Board.

Here are some questions you should consider in evaluating this prong. First and foremost, is the CCO a part of the senior management or the C-Suite? Is the CCO part of regular meetings of this group? Who can terminate the CCO—is it the CEO, the Board Compliance Committee or does CCO termination require approval of the entire Board? Most importantly, could a person under investigation or even scrutiny by the CCO fire the CCO? If the answer is yes, the CCO clearly does not have requisite independence.

Additional questions to consider: Who can over-rule a decision by a CCO within the organization? And who is making the decisions around salary and compensation for the CCO? Is it the CEO, the GC, the Board Compliance Committee or some other person or group? Finally, what happens if a CCO initiates an investigation against someone he reports to or sets his salary?

Once again for the compliance professional, the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy and 2023 ECCP make the importance of a best practices compliance program even more critical. The DOJ is focusing more on the role, expertise and how the compliance function is treated within an organization. Pay your CCO considerably less than your GC? You may now better be able to justify that discrepancy. If you have a legal department budget of $3 million and a compliance department budget of $500,000; you are starting behind the eight-ball.