1. Creating Convictions vs. Meeting Expectations
Britta Niemeyer
Do Purpose GmbH

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

3. A license to bribe

4. 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

5. “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

6. 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

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

11. Making a difference

12. 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

13. 80 Man Days vs. DNA

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

15. Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 15
Do Purpose GmbH
Britta Niemeyer
Friedrich-Ebert-Straße 15
61476 Kronberg
do-purpose.de