Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention has been a major milestone in the fight against corruption. As we reflect on that achievement and look ahead, it is evident that companies are now navigating an increasingly complex regulatory landscape.
Bribery has been prohibited under the laws of most countries for over two decades. Many of those countries have also introduced corporate criminal liability for corruption. However, in the case of environmental and social corporate responsibility, soft laws have prevailed as the guiding instrument until recently.
The pressure on companies to address sustainability-related topics is increasing as, similar to the regulatory developments in the field of bribery, the regulatory landscape is shifting away from soft law to mandatory regulations.
- A complementary approach that acknowledges specificities
The definition of a governance structure, which adequately takes into account sustainability and broader environmental, social and governance (ESG) topics, is an ongoing challenge for most companies. A siloed approach still prevails which typically leads to limited exchanges of information between the anti-corruption compliance functions and the ESG functions.
While there might be potential synergies between the broader sustainability agenda and anti-corruption compliance, they remain two distinct topics. These specificities need to be acknowledged with subject matter expertise when necessary. Building on the Basel Institute ongoing work on synergies between business and human rights and anti-corruption compliance, thematic expertise can ensure that practices improve over time, and internal coordination can be leveraged into broader risk management processes, but also treated discretely when necessary.
- Increased transparency through corporate disclosure
One of the topics addressed by new regulations, such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), relates to disclosure requirements. In the case of the European Union’s CSRD, the directive will require companies to comply with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, which includes corruption and bribery under the governance pillar.
Disclosure of anti-corruption efforts is not a new topic. Increased transparency through voluntary disclosure can be useful to build trust with external stakeholders, mitigate reputational risk and identify best practices. Companies have long explored innovative internal indicators to assess the effectiveness of their efforts, which in turn informed external disclosures. While no single approach exists, several avenues are worth considering.
In that regard, the Basel Institute has facilitated the co-development of a set of indicators that healthcare companies may wish to consider when reporting on the effectiveness of their anti-corruption efforts to external stakeholders. While these indicators were developed with healthcare companies, they are not sector-specific and could also be a useful approach for other industries.
The indicators are included in a guidance note which was developed with Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM). NBIM’s publication of expectations of companies on anti-corruption refers to disclosure relating to the measurement of the effectiveness of anti-corruption programmes. These expectations are based on internationally recognised principles such as the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Five overarching themes have been identified based on their relevance to the prevention of corruption:,
- Culture
- Risk management
- Third parties
- Compliance function
- Oversight
The indicators are a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics, some being goal-oriented, while others are binary (yes or no).
- Measuring corporate culture
The first theme of the Basel Institute/NBIM indicators focuses on culture. An organisation’s culture impacts both behaviours and the effective implementation of anti-corruption programmes.
The focus on disclosures relating to corporate culture has been gaining momentum in recent months. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice latest guidance document, published in September 2024, on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs references culture as one of the factors pertaining to a compliance programme working in practice.
Article: Vanessa Hans, Director Private Sector
Source: INmagazine 38. Sayı
For Other Issues: INmagazine
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of the Ethics and Reputation Society.