At first glance, the issue would seem to themed around transparency – and indeed, transparency is the path recommended by many of our authors in response to financial sector misconduct, apparent conflict of interest in the pharmaceutical industry, or a lack of faith in organisational justice or discipline of corporations in the fight against corruption and other forms of bad behaviour. However, the theme might be better defined on “how to win trust”.
Our Governance column, “Banking on Higher Standards” looks at the recently published Lambert Review in the UK, which promotes public disclosure on actions taken by financial institutions in the UK to improve their corporate culture, in the aim of regaining public trust. In a Focal Point article, “Transparency, Compliance, Trust”, we hear how misselling and aggressive marketing techniques by pharmaceutical companies has diminished public trust in the medical profession. The response of industry bodies, such as Farmaindustria in Spain, is to shine more light on educational / promotional campaigns, exposing inappropriate behaviour and increasing the cost of misconduct in terms of reputation, trust and prosecution. Our Compliance Challenge article asks the question “Why Certify?”; identifying the increased need to evidence our good faith actions to fight corruption and bad behaviour. In our second Focal Point article, “Employees facing Corruption”, we consider the individual caught in the midst of all these initiatives, and complete a 3-part series of articles highlighting the main drivers and influences on those best positioned to enact good or bad behaviour by our organisations – the employee. Finally, our Round-Table debate looks at the fears and promises of Whistleblower schemes, where once again the balance of confidentiality and discretion is set against the need for transparency in outcome. Time and again we find our organisations pursuing transparency to evidence serious intent and/or compliance in order to build/regain trust; of our society, our customers, our employees. Trust is difficult to measure and to value – however, there can be few who seriously doubt that without trust, no society or business venture will survive over time.
Hence, when we state our intent to take responsibility for our conduct and to act to improve our own credibility - in other words, self-regulate our behaviour – it is essential that this is not perceived, yet again, to be a superficial exercise instigated in the hope that politicians and regulators will eventually find other concerns to occupy them. The Lambert Review is full of good aspirations and intent, however only time will tell if it truly influences the real behaviour and efforts of its adherents. Already there are limitations of scope imposed in the belief that a UK body should not expand its cultural objectives beyond UK shores – something that challenges any notion of the importance of one, global set of values and corporate culture in ensuring good and predictable governance outcomes in global corporations. Our Effective Practitioner article “Ethics Ambassadors”, provides an interesting counterview, exploring how corporate values and attitudes can be strengthened through the embedment of compliance influences, deep within the business.
Finally, and certainly not least, our On the Horizon Column gives serious food for thought for many who are engaged in the normal, commercial trade and hedging of commodities purchases to further non-financial activities. Rightly, or wrongly, the span and scope of the regulatory web is coming to a commodity near you – and our article “Commodities Regulation – The New Frontier of Business?” is a highly recommended read.
Have a very good summer.