Across a global community with varying definitions of corruption and bribery, the responsibility of modern multinational corporations to monitor and mitigate corporate risks is increasingly defined by legal precedence and
international standard-setting. Within this context, the ISO defines bribery as: ‘offering, promising, giving, accepting, or soliciting of an undue advantage of any value, directly or indirectly, and irrespective of location(s), in violation of applicable law, as an inducement or reward for a person acting or refraining from acting in relation to the performance of that person’s duties’.
Although marginally defined by the central provisions of the UK Bribery Act, corruption is legally indicated by a varying spectrum of legislation undertaken to address a range of
specific activities including organised crime, terrorism, money laundering, and fraud.
Accordingly, the breadth of risk surrounding corruption and bribery introduces important constructs of accountability including rigorous record keeping under the Companies Act 20067 and an expectation of regular and adequate procedures designed to ‘establish guidance and protocol for avoiding liability… on the basis of procedural competency’.
Due to the globalised nature of modern enterprise, the concept of ‘adequate procedures’ is vulnerable to interpretation depending upon national or industrial jurisdiction, complicating the application of a generic Anti-Corruption procedure. In spite of recognising this systemic limitation, many enforcement agencies and government authorities have failed to provide guidance regarding the definition of ‘adequate procedures’ as it shapes both Anti-Corruption guidelines and legal defence. This study was undertaken to critically assess the applicability of several recent legislative guidelines to the proactive mitigation of corruption and bribery in corporate administration. Drawing upon two recent cases of multinational, multi-party bribery, this investigation reveals the consequences of systemic inadequacy, confirming a paradigm shift in corporate oversight and network risk management.
This study explores the basis for rigorous and persistent risk assessment and monitoring by comparing the causes and legal justification for the prosecution of Airbus and Rolls-Royce, two global leaders in aircraft engineering. On the basis of these findings, it is recommended that modern corporations adopt and implement formal Corruption Mitigation And Management Systems (CMMS) which adhere to international law, structure internal policies and practices, and restrict the likelihood of corporate exposure and risk.
Download the FULL CASE STUDY for FREE, HERE!
