Sunday, December 8, 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 Risk

When It’s So Broke, You Can’t Fix It: The Decision Not to Do Business in Highly Corrupt Countries

by Wendy Wysong
June 17, 2014
in Risk
When It’s So Broke, You Can’t Fix It: The Decision Not to Do Business in Highly Corrupt Countries

with contributing author Montse Ferrer

The collapse of the eight-story garment factory in the Rana Plaza complex close to Dhaka, Bangladesh on April 24, 2013 made headlines around the world when it resulted in the death of more than 1,120 workers. A few months later, Nike Inc. announced its decision to sever ties with its key garment suppliers in Bangladesh. Walt Disney Co. also decided to exit the country. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, this decision, “in effect, conceded that problems outsourcing production to the country couldn’t be easily fixed.”1

Iftekhar Zaman, executive director of Transparency International (TI) Bangladesh, described the challenge in Bangladesh as “a global garment supply chain bedeviled by endemic corruption.”2 But this problem is not unique to Bangladesh or the garment industry. There are countries and entire industries where corruption is so rampant and corporate compliance such an impossibility that companies decide to exit the country or not enter it at all. So the question becomes, when does a company like Nike reach the point of knowing that “it’s so broke it can’t be fixed?”

Rana Plaza

According to TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index, Bangladesh scores only 27 points on a scale of 0 to 100 and is ranked 136 out of a total of 177 countries. “To get a factory up and running [in Bangladesh],” explained TI’s Zaman, “factory owners can pay as much as US$25,000 in bribes for 14 different categories of permits from 17 public agencies across 11 ministries. When there are greater risks, such as not having an emergency exit, the amount of the bribe often gets bigger, but the factory stays open.” According to Mr. Zaman, Rana Plaza was constructed on illegally occupied land in collusion with the politically powerful and runs in defiance of regulations and building codes with the help of corrupt officials.

In 2013, Dhaka only had 22 safety inspectors for 17,000 factories and workshops. To this day, Rana Plaza’s owner has not yet been convicted. TI has made recommendations for legislative and regulatory improvements to combat corruption, such as replacing the current factory oversight system with a one-stop-shop garment ministry with sufficient resources and staff and tougher enforcement and  penalties for negligent factory owners.

TI has also recommended that global clothing brands work with the government and suppliers to deliver higher safety standards and combat corruption. Although Nike and Walt Disney decided to exit the Bangladeshi garment industry following the Rana Plaza incident, retailers including Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Hennes & Mauritz AB and 170 other similar companies stayed.

When Do You Decide to Go?

In determining whether to enter or exit a market plagued with corruption, companies should assess whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate current corrupt practices using the following  key factors.

Business Footprint

One factor to consider is the size of the company’s market share. How much real leverage does it have to position itself vis-à-vis its competitors, third-party service providers, customers and the government in reducing the use of corrupt practices? In justifying Nike’s decision to exit Bangladesh, Hannah Jones, Nike’s head of sustainable business, explained that “Bangladesh isn’t [Nike’s] fight. It can better use its resources in countries where it has a bigger footprint.”3 Nike and Walt Disney, for example, while huge international players, had limited economic impact in Bangladesh.

The garment industry in Bangladesh contributed approximately 80 percent of Bangladesh’s total export earnings between 2009 and 2010.4 Given the economy’s reliance on the industry, if either of these companies had had a larger market position or if they, and a number of other competitors, had adopted a joint position against corruption, they may have had an impact. Without market clout, the government has little reason to listen.

Political Will

A second factor as to whether it is possible to operate without corruption in a highly corrupt country is  the government’s will to combat corruption. Even in countries with a high degree of historic corruption, if lawmakers have created the legal framework to combat corruption and implemented an effective system to enforce the laws, a company can be supported to operate non-corruptly. A look at the laws on the books and the role that the government, the judiciary and the police play in enforcing (or choosing not to enforce) these laws, will tell a company whether to enter the market. In China, for example, many have argued that there is now a true will to change corrupt practices that has started to result in tangible and widespread enforcement action. Without an ally in the government, national or local, reducing corruption will be an uphill, and perhaps impossible, battle for companies.

Competitors

The majority of companies that stayed in Bangladesh after the Rana Plaza incident came together and signed five-year agreements pledging to help fund improvements and draw up safety standards, including the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. Companies must assess how willing their competitors are to get on board with reducing corruption. Bangladesh is an example: after Rana Plaza, the international media demanded immediate reform, leading the majority of multinational companies outsourcing garment production to Bangladesh to come together in an unprecedented way. But this will not always be the case, and it may not be feasible to fight a one-man battle.

Profit Assessment

In determining whether a company can operate without relying on corruption, companies need to consider whether alternatives to the corrupt practices exist. This may mean, for instance, selecting service providers, intermediaries, business partners or suppliers that do not rely on bribes to government officials or bringing in-house certain activities of a supply chain to obtain more control. This will necessarily require a profit assessment, and it may be that the alternatives are too costly.

Too High a Price to Pay?

If the decision is made to stay and try to operate non-corruptly, there is still a risk of costly enforcement action as enforcement agents may not be sufficiently impressed by the company’s efforts to combat corruption when a country or industry is endemically corrupt. Wal-Mart, for example, entered into a venture agreement with Indian retail giant Bharti to build and operate cash-and-carry superstores in India. Following an internal bribery investigation that led to the suspension of “consultants,” including middlemen in government offices, Wal-Mart dissolved its partnership with Bharti, spending more than US$334 million to do so.

Not every company can operate in every country and effectively manage corruption risks. Companies should understand their limitations and those of the countries and industries in which they seek to operate.  Because sometimes, it is just too broke to be fixed.


1 Shelly Banjo, Inside Nike’s Struggle to Balance Cost and Worker Safety in Bangladesh, The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579493502231397942.

2 Iftekhar Zaman, Guest post: corruption rampant a year after Bangladesh factory collapse, Financial Times, April 24, 2014, http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/04/24/guest-post-corruption-rampant-a-year-after-bangladesh-factory-fire/

3 Banjo, supra note 1.

4 Data provided by the Board of Investment, Bangladesh, Prime Minister’s Office, last visited May 18, 2014, http://www.boi.gov.bd/index.php/potential-sector/garments-and-textitles


Previous Post

EisnerAmper Launches Compliance Consultancy

Next Post

5 Steps to Fighting Fraud with Professional Skepticism

Wendy Wysong

Wendy L. Wysong, a litigation partner with Clifford Chance, maintains offices in Hong Kong and Washington D.C.  She offers clients advice and representation on compliance and enforcement under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Arms Export Control Act, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, Export Administration Regulations, and OFAC Economic Sanctions.  She was appointed by the State Department as the ITAR Special Compliance Official for Xe Services (formerly Blackwater) in 2010.

Ms. Wysong combines her experience as a former federal prosecutor with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for 16 years with her regulatory background as the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement at the Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.  She managed its enforcement program and was involved in the development and implementation of foreign policy through export controls across the administration, including the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury, and Homeland Security, as well as the intelligence community.]

Ms. Wysong received her law degree in 1984 from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was a member of the University of Virginia Law Review.

Contact information:

Wendy L. Wysong
Clifford Chance
28th Floor Jardine House
One Connaught Place
Hong Kong
+852 2826 3460
+852 9280 3612 (cell)

And

2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
+1 202 912 5030
+1 202 290 7634
[email protected]

Related Posts

"bias" on green post-it note on pink background

The Curious Case of Bias in Risk Assessments

December 3, 2019
double exposure of android bust over binary code

The 3 Final Pillars of the Cognitive Risk Framework

November 22, 2019
hazy image of businesspeople facing front, concept of future team

Preparing for Generation Z – The Future of the Front Line in Risk Management

November 19, 2019
robot hand holding metal padlock and key

Enterprise Risk 2020: Are We Ready for Security 4.0?

November 15, 2019
Next Post
5 Steps to Fighting Fraud with Professional Skepticism

5 Steps to Fighting Fraud with Professional Skepticism

Free Downloads

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

RSS SEC Litigation News

  • Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Neil R. Cole and Seth Horowitz December 5, 2019
    SEC Charges Iconix Brand Group and Former Top Executives with Accounting Fraud
  • Lester Burroughs December 5, 2019
    SEC Charges Connecticut Man with Defrauding Retail Investors
  • SBB Research Group LLC, et al. December 4, 2019
    SEC Charges Hedge Fund Adviser and Top Executives with 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