In each podcast, Thomas Fox and Timur Khasanov-Batirov take two typical concepts or probably misconceptions from in-house compliance reality. They check out if these concepts work at emerging jurisdictions. In this Episode, Tom and Tim will focus on organizational challenges, which сcompliance practitioner faces in the process of implementing corporate compliance program. To make the podcast handy and more appealing we attach respective illustration from Timur’s Compliance Man comics series.
In each podcast, we take two typical concepts or probably misconceptions (conventional wisdom in Texan parlance) from in-house compliance perspective. We check out if these concepts work in emerging markets and jurisdictions. For each podcast, we divide the roles. One of us advocates the particular concept identifying pros. The second will provide arguments finding cons and trying to convince audience that that we face a pure myth. As a result, we hopefully will be able to come up with some practical solutions for in-house compliance practitioners can use in their company going forward.
Corporate Concept #1. On practice compliance program is something, which is needed solely to compliance folks. Nobody else in corporation really cares. Tim, do you have arguments based on your in-house experience, evidencing that such assumption exists and has supporters among corporates?
Tim: While I do not personally think that this statement is right, nevertheless I believe there is several pros, which demonstrate that such assumption takes place on practice:
By analogy with other departments which deal with assigned areas of responsibility as Sales or Finance Compliance department in views of ordinary personnel is responsible for Compliance. That simple. Consequently, per this corporate theory Compliance department should oversee Compliance whatever it means;
You might face the theory that management and compliance are not sitting in the same boat. This could be clearly seen in budgeting process for instance. Compliance folks are viewed by top management as just subordinates like others. Compliance department asks for money as others. It is not a big deal to reject these requests in the same way they reject request from any other unit;
Business leaders are not aware that per regulatory expectations (i.e. Evaluation of the Corporate Compliance Programs by DOJ) it should be them not solely compliance team who should be modeling proper behavior to personnel. Consequently, they guess that Compliance teams is the only player to name when you refer to corporate integrity or regulatory expectations.
Tom: OK, let’s see how we as compliance practitioners can fight this conventional wisdom. Here are cons:
The trick is that people do not see the difference between compliance as in-house function and organization’s obligation to act properly. As in-house department compliance team can facilitate the process, implement measures aimed raising integrity level, set controls, advise, teach and etc. However, compliance team not in position in 100% cases to prevent someone from wrongdoing if she intentionally wants to break the rules.
To read the full story please visit FCPA Compliance Report’s website at: http://fcpacompliancereport.com/2017/10/compliance-man-goes-global-episode-3/