I therefore dedicated the April issue of the Journal of Business Compliance to those who suffer the consequences of bad decisions; we have the content to do so. In our column, The Lectern, we consider the nature of decision taking and the importance of consciousness – perhaps mindfulness – of the consequences of our actions, and of the circumstances - including social pressures and expectations - in which we take them. Other contributors take this theme into the world of the Boardroom with a look at “Sustainable Capitalism”. If we accept that we, as business leaders, have to take a broader perspective of the interest of our stakeholders, and work towards the longer term success of our companies – with greater mindfulness of not only what we achieve, but how we attain our achievements – then how do we define and communicate our objectives in a responsible manner; one that inspires investors as opposed to one that confuses them?
The questions we must ask ourselves are complex, and in our Compliance Basics column we come to understand that we can only achieve our broader, sustainable objectives by working in tandem, and in partnership with our key stakeholders - in particular our regulators. We need to find new and constructive ways to identify common interest and develop joint strategic action in order to win through, and do what is right for the common good. When the UK FCA appoints a law firm to investigate what is not a breach of the law, but poor judgement in the handling of potentially price sensitive information as they experienced in the insurance sector recently; do even the regulators understand the nature of the role of compliance?
There is hope/evidence of such collaboration, as exemplified in our review of the EU Anti-Corruption Report that signals a most laudable initiative to influence EU member states to tighten the screws on corrupt behaviour, not only in the private, but notably also in the public sector – an area hitherto marked by inaction. As the EU further plans the rollout of the 4th AML Directive, our article on the ways and means in which cybercrime can drag the innocent and the unsuspecting (individuals or corporates) into the web of criminal subterfuge is a worrying reminder of the need to stay informed on their methods, irrespective of what capacity and activity you pursue. Indeed, corporate responsibility is expanding dramatically and in a very tangible manner in all industrial sectors, as firms are held accountable for the actions of third parties – be this as part of outsourcing arrangements, or by association with the actions of distributors and other agents seemingly promoting the interests of your firm. The forthcoming release of the ISO guideline on compliance management makes compliance within non-regulated firms a topic not to be ignored. An analysis of ISO 19600 and an invitation to respond to ISO before the end of the consultation window appears in our Over The Horizon column and is a must read – not a subject for wilful blindness!
Finally, our contributor in Speakers Corner takes any C-suite that refutes accountability by identifying wrongdoing as the acts of “rogues”, to task. “You harvest what you sow”, and good or bad, in large part, it must be a mere reflection of the efforts made to cultivate a culture where staff are aware of the consequences of their actions, and act accordingly.
All of which brings us back to GM. Mary Barra, the recently appointed CEO, appears to be willing to embrace responsibility and accountability, and promises transparency and a determination to do the right thing. She does so with our blessing - but can she overcome the conditioning of the past influences of GM culture to really change the culture? We hope so.