Released 40 years ago this month, the Al Stewart album Past Present and Future was a departure from his earlier folk based work. In this album, Stewart focused on historical themes. I was particularly drawn to two long songs, “Roads To Moscow” which is Stewart’s tribute to the Russian author and modern day philosopher Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and “Nostradamus” which is about the famous supposed prophet and his prophecies.
I thought about Stewart’s album title while I was listening to Frank Taber, Director, Global Ethics and Compliance for Hospira, Inc. (HSP) speak at the Society of Corporate and Compliance (SCCE), 2013 national Compliance and Ethics Institute on the topic of “Third Party Risk-Based Anti-Bribery Due Diligence”. While most compliance practitioners certainly are aware of the need to perform due diligence, Tabor’s presentation was not only a very good refresher on the topic but he presented the information together that gave me pause to think about due diligence in a new way. Hence when he said past, present and future; I thought about Stewart’s album as a new way to think about due diligence. These ideas became even more interesting when considered in the light of GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) issues in China.
Obviously, your company wants to know who they are doing business with, whether it is a person or entity as a sales chain partner, joint venture partner or other business relationship. This is also true for acquisitions. But more than wanting to know about who you are doing business with, due diligence is an important tool in the overall international efforts to fight bribery and corruption. It also supports your company’s Code of Conduct, protects your reputation and allows early discovery of deal-breakers before it is too late. Due diligence also helps to provide a legal defense to anti-corruption laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or UK Bribery Act. In addition to the background and reputation, you need to know a party’s qualifications to do business with you.
One of the things that GSK apparently did not check on was the qualifications of the lead travel agency it used in China. If it had done so, it may well have discovered that the principals of the lead travel agency did not have any experience in the business. If this had been reviewed by a compliance professional in the corporate office, it should have been red flagged for additional investigation.
What are the types of information that you should obtain in due diligence? Tabor had a good list for you to begin with, which included the following.
Tabor discussed how you should respond to negative information which may be uncovered during the due diligence process. He began though by emphasizing it is important to have a plan in place so that your internal team can address any negative issues that might arise. I was intrigued by his assertion that you can use due diligence as part of a risk management plan going forward. Some of the mitigation options he discussed were to share your Code of Conduct with the third party and draw attention to your internal reporting line for questions and concerns. You should clearly communicate that bribery and corruption is not tolerated. You may need to use the due diligence you have obtained to review and improve existing contracts to reflect this priority. You may suggest that the third party adopt a compliance regime similar to your program or provide training on specific issues.
Tabor also spoke about the need for ongoing due diligence monitoring. I agree that under most of the recent expert commentary on what constitutes a best practices compliance program, under laws from different countries and in a wide variety of industries, the ongoing monitoring of third parties is viewed as critical. This is because any due diligence performed on a third party during the time which may lead up to a contract, would only be scheduled to be performed again during the next qualification period, typically every two to three years. Much can happen during this ensuing time frame. I believe that the “Future” prong of due diligence monitoring is a step that companies need to develop in order to monitor their third parties during the life of the contract rather than simply at the start of the qualification process.
Tabor’s three pronged approach gave me a new way to see due diligence. Once again, Tabor’s presentation emphasized to me the ongoing, organic nature of a compliance program. If you obtain more information you can make adjustments to manage your risk more fully, completely and certainly more timely.
Visit the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog, hosted by Thomas Fox, for more commentary on FCPA compliance, indemnities and other forms of risk management for a worldwide energy practice, tax issues faced by multi-national US companies, insurance coverage issues and protection of trade secrets.
This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of the author. The author is not, by means of this publication, rendering business, legal advice, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such legal advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified legal advisor. The author, his affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person or entity that relies on this publication. The Author gives his permission to link, post, distribute, or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author. The author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© Thomas R. Fox, 2013
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.