Friday, December 13, 2019
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
    • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Industry News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Industry News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Keep Managers’ C&E Duties Top of Mind to Improve Compliance

by Jeff Kaplan
November 2, 2015
in Compliance, Ethics
Keep Managers’ C&E Duties Top of Mind to Improve Compliance

Codes of conduct almost always have a discussion (typically in the introduction) of the compliance-and-ethics (C&E) duties of all employees and a discussion of the additional duties that managers have under the code.  But not all companies fully leverage this discussion throughout other parts of their C&E programs.

Managers’ C&E duties tend to include leading by example and maintaining a “speak-up” environment.  Somewhat less frequently one also sees mandates to serve as a “champion” of the C&E program, make sure that the employees in their unit understand how the code applies to their respective jobs and be alert to C&E risks.

These sorts of discussions can be useful – but only if they are reinforced elsewhere in the program.  Examples of this sort of reinforcement include:

  • Have Q&As and examples to flesh out these concepts in the code and substantive policies (e.g., in an antitrust policy, give an example of a manager failing to ensure that a subordinate who attends trade association meetings follows company policy with respect to attending such events).
  • Include a discussion of managers’ C&E duties in training – and not just code training, but on “substantive” topics too, such as anti-bribery.
  • Through email campaigns and other types of communications, tie these duties to both risk areas of compliance and program processes (e.g., managers are responsible for making sure that all employees in their respective units take required training).
  • Include managers’ C&E duties in the scope of C&E auditing – such as by asking employees questions about the extent to which their respective managers fulfill those duties.
  • Train investigators to look at issues of supervisory fault when investigating helpline calls and other reports of violations.
  • Build consideration of such fault into disciplinary protocols.
  • Publicize instances of such discipline (consistent with respecting legitimate privacy expectations).
  • Perhaps most importantly, companies should consider tying the “Managers’ C&E Duties” discussion into their performance evaluations – as a way of incentivizing compliance.

The challenge of promoting strong compliance by managers is not new.  Indeed, the 1991 Sentencing Guidelines included a provision that companies should impose “appropriate disciplinary measures…for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or detect criminal conduct.”  Moreover, the recent advent of “behavioral ethics” – as discussed in this post from the Conflict of Interest Blog  – has helped underscore how difficult it can be for companies to establish a regime of managerial accountability.

Leveraging a provision on managers’ C&E duties throughout one’s program is not a quick fix for these legal and psychological challenges. But it can provide a place to start.


Previous Post

Risk Management: Watch Your Stars and Rainmakers

Next Post

Public Company Boards Increase Time & Resources on Cybersecurity, Yet Lack Mitigation Strategies

Jeff Kaplan

Jeffrey M. Kaplan is a partner in the Princeton, New Jersey office of Kaplan & Walker LLP (www.kaplanwalker.com). He has specialized since the early 1990s in the practice of compliance- and ethics-related law, including assisting numerous companies in developing, implementing and reviewing C&E programs and conducting C&E risk assessments. He has also reviewed programs for many official bodies in connection with settlements of enforcement actions. He is the co-author of a C&E legal treatise, author of  several e-books and book chapters and many articles on C&E, a frequent speaker at C&E conferences, editor of the Conflict of Interest Blog and formerly an Adjunct Professor of Business Ethics at NYU’s Stern School of Business.

Related Posts

change is coming text on city background at sunset

Future-Proofing the Compliance Professional

December 13, 2019
new york city skyline at sunset

The Early Days: The Birth of the Independent Monitoring Concept

December 11, 2019
job candidates awaiting inerview

An Unconventional Interview Question: “Do You Have an HR Department?”

December 5, 2019
closeup of magnifying glass on gray background

DiCianni’s Idea: How It All Got Started

December 4, 2019
Next Post
Public Company Boards Increase Time & Resources on Cybersecurity, Yet Lack Mitigation Strategies

Public Company Boards Increase Time & Resources on Cybersecurity, Yet Lack Mitigation Strategies

Free Downloads

OFAC whitepaper cover
Compliance Job Interview Q&A
Reputation Risk Management Research

RSS SEC Litigation News

  • John Special, Defendant, and Michael Murphy, Relief Defendant, John Kenneth Davidson December 12, 2019
    SEC Obtains $3 Million Settlement in Insider Trading Action
  • Palm Beach Atlantic Financial Group, LLC and William A. Smith December 11, 2019
    SEC Charges Florida Resident and His Corporate Entity for Fraudulent Securities Offerings
  • Nanotech Engineering, Inc., Michael James Sweaney (also known as Michael Hatton), David Sweaney, and Jeffery Gange December 11, 2019
    SEC Obtains Asset Freeze to Halt Alleged Offering Fraud

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks Big Data blockchain board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management corporate culture corporate governance culture of ethics cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making Dodd-Frank DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions GDPR GRC HIPAA information security internal audit internet of things (IoT) KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • Audit
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • HR Compliance
  • Leadership and Career
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights