Creating Convictions vs. Meeting Expectations Britta Niemeyer Do Purpose GmbH

"People who bribe are doing it in the interest of the company”

A license to bribe

Panalpina’s longstanding practice of making bribe payments in violation of the FCPA resulted from a variety of factors, including: (1) pressure from Panalpina’s customers to have services performed as quickly as possible, or to receive preferential treatment in obtaining services; (2) an inadequate compliance structure; (3) a corporate culture that tolerated and/or encouraged bribery prior to 2007 as customary and necessary in various markets; (4) the involvement of management in PWT’s Swiss headquarters that tolerated the improper payments prior to 2007; and (5) the involvement of Panalpina management in the U.S. and in other countries that encouraged the improper payments prior to 2007.” * Panalpina U.S. Deferred Prosecution Agreement signed on 4 November 2010

“Our survey found that although there were some improvements in certain countries, fraud and corruption have not declined globally in the last two years. A potential explanation for this mismatch is that there is little or no clarity as to who in the company is primarily responsible for ensuring that employees behave with integrity…” *EY Fraud Survey 2018

Petrobras (Brazil): $1,78 billion in 2018 2. Telia Company AB (Sweden): $ 965 million in 2017 3. MTS (Russia): $ 850 million in 2019 4. Siemens (Germany): $ 800 million in 2008 5. VimpelCom (Holland) $ 795 million in 2016 6. Alstom (France): $ 772 million in 2014 7. Societe Generale S.A. (France): $ 585 million in 2018 8. KBR/Halliburton (USA): $ 579 million in 2009 9. Teva Pharmaceutical (Israel): $ 519 million in 2016 10. Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd. (Singapore): $ 422 million in 2017

prevent detect act Compliance Program Remediation Investigation Assessment Control Reporting Constitutional Documents Training Consultation Documentation Communication Allegation Sanction Independent Audit

Making a difference

Prevent criminal conduct Enable responsible self-conduct Area Compliance driven Integrity driven Focus Prevent criminal conduct Enable responsible self-conduct Approach lawyer driven rule based perceived as “police” management driven principle based perceived as business enabler Monitoring Compliance function is responsible for monitoring compliance effectiveness within other functions Functions are responsible for monitoring compliance within their own function Activities drafting compliance policies communicating and training investigating conducting compliance audits establishing company values developing company policies integrating integrity into decision-making identifying and managing problems assessing implementation status of integrity program Key Driver Compliance Department Law Department Law Firm Management

80 Man Days vs. DNA

When you join a company vs. when you leave a company

Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 15 Do Purpose GmbH Britta Niemeyer Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 15 61476 Kronberg www.do-purpose.de Britta.Niemeyer@ do-purpose.de +49 172 6555633