Trust and Compliance

Yesterday’s Carnival of Trust post got me thinking about the relationship of compliance and trust.

“Compliance lays out policies and checks to make sure you are complying with those policies. Trust, but verify, and mostly verify.”

I equate trust more with the ethics side of business: Doing what you should (or should not) do, based on principle. Compliance is focused more on things you can’t (or have to) do. Compliance is mandatory.

Trust is focused on personal interactions. Compliance is focused on corporate interactions. Ultimately, a company is made up of a network of personal interactions.  You can’t mandate trust. You can’t require trust. You have to earn trust.

Being trustworthy means more than merely complying with the rules. Rules generally set some minimum standard of conduct. Breaking the rules – being non-compliant – will usually label you as being un-trustworthy. On the other-hand, there are enough bad rules and overly strict corporate policies that sometimes being non-compliant with your internal rules will make you more trustworthy externally.

In the end, the goal of compliance and the goal of trust-building should be the same: better personal and corporate behavior. They just get there by traveling different roads.

The American business culture is increasingly moving to a rules-based regulatory environment. Hence, the growth of compliance. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It’s good if it will stop bad behavior. Of course, it’s always hard to figure out if you’re stopping bad behavior. If you are catching more bad actors it could be because you are getting better at identifying the bad behavior. or it could be because there is more bad behavior. If there is a decrease in catching bad actors, maybe you are just doing a worse job of catching the bad actors and not stopping the bad behavior.

It’s bad if compliance is acting as a substitute for trust-worthy, or ethical, behavior. It’s hard to envision the vast majority of rules as being anything more than minimum standards of behavior.

As a compliance professional, I need to make to sure that I focus on how compliance can promote the business goals and promote trustworthiness within the organization. Compliance professionals need to work towards making themselves trustworthy individuals.


If you can find it, that is. by Jessica Hagy in Indexed, used by permission

—————————-
Twenty Dollar Image is from Wikimedia Commons. Enlargement of the 20-dollar bill. Enlargements conform with American copyright law if they show only small parts of the bill.

Carnival of Trust

The Carnival of Trust is the brainchild of Charles Green of Trust Matters. It’s intended to highlight the best posts about trust in the business and professional workspace over the previous month. He apparently ran out of worthy people to host his carnival and, in what must have been a moment of weakness, asked me to host the Carnival of Trust for July.

Compliance and trust are an odd fit. After all, compliance can be seen as the opposite of trust. Compliance lays out policies and checks to make sure you are complying with those policies. Trust, but verify, and mostly verify.

I love carnivals. So before Mr. Green could change his mind I agreed to host the carnival. Still unsure about how compliance and trust worked together, I’m even more unsure how carnivals and trust go together. So I decided I would write about some of my favorite things at a carnival:

The Happy Clown

Clowns are a highlight of the carnival, with their faces painted in a bright red smile. The classic clown uses “clown white” to cover his entire face, hiding his underlying features. Then the clown adds a perpetual grin. Is there a problem with having a perpetual grin?

Steven DeMaio writes When Being Positive Is Positively Meaningless. Being super-positive can create so much “white noise that when clear, authentic positive feedback is given, it gets muted and loses its punch.” Being positive all the time can lower trust.

The Sad Clown

On the other side of the midway is the sad clown. Everyone can’t be happy all the time. As the character clown, the sad clown is likely the one who will end up getting a pie thrown at his face.

Scott Greenfield of Simple Justice takes on the Happysphere? You can’t get there from here. If you’re going to write a blog or expect to hear the truth from your peers, you need to expect to get some pie thrown in your face. Scott is happy to throw a pie at those sad clowns who cross the line in the legal blogosphere.

(Expecting a pie myself, I’m sure Charlie is starting wonder why he let me host this.)

The Clown Car

It seems that all of our financial institutions piled into a clown car and engaged in the same foolish activities with home mortgages. It’s fun to see clowns pile out of the impossibly small car. It’s less fun when you realize it’s taxpayer money helping the clown banks get out of their predicament.

Peter Birks writes about Trust and Naivety when it comes to looking at the health of our financial institutions. He writes about how Europe has decided to follow the U.S. lead in running financial institutions through stress tests. Running the tests was fairly successful in the U.S. for improving the public’s confidence in the banks. Birks points out why it’s not as successful in Europe. Different societies have different levels of trust in their government and their institutions.

Ball Toss

It’s pretty easy to throw a ball. It should be easy to win at the ball toss. The game’s barker has little to judge. If the ball goes in, you win. Baseball umpires have a harder job.

Charles Green talks about Baseball, Billy Budd and Business, using the blown call by baseball umpire Jim Joyce as the backdrop for his article. He presents three lessons to be learned:

Lesson 1. From umpire Joyce: face facts. Deal with reality. And the minute you see the facts are against you, call it. Call it on yourself. Take full responsibility.

Lesson 2. From pitcher Galarraga: accept life gracefully. Do all that you can; when you win, be gracious; and when you lose, that’s when you really demonstrate class.

Lesson 3: From Commissioner Selig. Celebrate the humanity of sports, business, life. The humanity of the sport really does transcend winning and losing.

Lion Tamer

The lure of the lion tamer is man against beast; realizing that you are not at the top of the food chain. The hungry lions are looking to eat the lion tamer when he steps into their cage. Health care costs are threatening to devour the American economy. Congress stepped into this cage of hungry lions when it passed the huge new health care law this spring.

Gregory Warner brings us an interesting story on Marketplace about a link between the way private oncologists get paid and how much chemotherapy they prescribe. No surprise. Doctors, like the rest of us, are influenced by how they get paid.

Fortune Teller

What awaits us after we leave the carnival’s midway? The lure of fortune tellers is the hope that their mystical powers will help us see the future and better deal with it.

One of a leader’s job skills is planning for the future and leading their people to best deal with it. Mike Myatt points out the importance of truth & leadership. “Telling the truth is not always easy, and may subject you to substantial opposition and controversy over the short run, but it will do nothing but help build your reputation, success and sustainability over the long haul.”

Elephant Ride

Elephants impress us with their massive size. Mr. Bailey’s biggest triumph as a circus entrepreneur was gaining possession of the first baby elephant born in captivity. This allowed his circus to compete with Barnum’s traveling circus.

Outside the carnival people are often unwilling to talk about the elephant in the room. If you want to be successful, you need to address the obvious problems. Jan Schultink shares a great insight (and image) in VC Pitch: Talk about the elephant in the room.

Demolition Derby

One of the loudest parts of the carnival is the demolition derby. I love seeing old cars smash into each other again and again until there is one fiercely-damaged car left still moving in the arena.

Tom Cox points out that Nice Teams Finish Last. Being nice will lead to workarounds and uncrossed bridges. On the other hand, you don’t want to be fierce, where you attack preemptively and build walls. He proposes a middle path where you are bold. That may not lead to victory in the demolition derby, but it may be a better way to lead a team.

Bumper Cars

The bumper cars offer people of all driving skills the ability to rampage through a pack of cars, with the inevitable collisions resulting in nothing more than a sudden jolt.

Over at Trust is Everything, Karen Mishra shares some trust lessons she learned as part of her teenage daughter getting ready to drive in Drivers’ Ed: A Whole New Meaning of Trust. I hope her daughter’s learning process is more like the bumper cars than the demolition derby.

Bearded Lady

Carnivals are full of odd people. For most carnivals, that includes the attendees, not just the sideshow performers. The bearded lady has been a staple of the side show for over a century. Although there were many famous bearded ladies, there were also many fakes.

When do Exaggerations and Misstatements Cross the Line? asks Knowledge@Wharton. “Embellishment is part of human nature, experts say, and almost everyone is guilty of it at one time or another. Left unchecked, however, exaggerations that seemed innocuous at first could result in serious, potentially career-ending consequences.”

Big Prizes

The lure of many games at the carnival is that big prize hanging on the wall behind the barker. Everyone wants the big prize. You’re bound to feel some envy when you see a winner carrying that huge stuffed animal around the midway. That envy may drive you to play again, hoping for a shot at the prize.

Jon Ingham looks at the problem of Promotion (and salary envy) in Social Advantage. The workplace is a social environment and workers will “behave dysfunctionally if they believe they’ve been treated unfairly in just a relatively minor way.”

Cotter Pins

Pay close attention to the cotter pins. Carnival rides fold down into truck-sized boxes for transportation to the next venue. Those cotter pins keep the ride re-assembled and keep you from flying off  into the crowd. A cotter pin is the glue that keeps the ride together.

Jack Vinson points to a story with the theory that trust is the glue that holds people together. “Trust is the most important currency in business. By opening up to what is true and creating a vision for the highest good, leaders can build a culture of trust and enhance the bottom line.”

Ring Toss

The ring toss game at the carnival is notoriously difficult. Failure is the usual result. If it were easy, they wouldn’t be giving prizes for winning.

John Scalzi in Whatever discusses the failure mode of clever. He points out that to be really clever you need to know when not to be clever. Before you write that clever bit, realize that the perception of the recipient will affect it. “Just because you intended to be clever doesn’t mean you will be perceived as clever.”

(I should have read that advice before I put this post together.)

You can read more about the Carnival of Trust and find links to past Carnivals of Trust at Charles H. Green’s Trust Matters. You can also use that site to submit an article for consideration in the next carnival.
——————————————————————
Image credits:

School Official Disciplined for Misuse of LexisNexis

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined Mark Rivera, the former Lawrence School Department Urban Affairs Liaison and Special Assistant to the School Superintendent, for misuse of his access rights to LexisNexis.

The Lawrence School Department purchased access to the LexisNexis database so Rivera could obtain contact information for parents no longer living in the district, and contact parents and students regarding attendance issues. However, Rivera misused his School Department access to conduct “hundreds of searches of non-public information on individuals, including state and local elected officials, professional athletes and Hollywood celebrities….”

Massachusetts General Law chapter 268a §23(b)(2) prohibits a public official from using their official position to “to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.”

Rivera used his official position to gain access to the database for private purposes.

Running database checks on Lawrence police Chief John Romero, David Ortiz, Johnny Damon, Michael Chiklis and Hugh Laurie cost Rivera $5,000.

This is not the only trouble for Rivera. He was also indicted on seven counts of larceny and was forced to resign in April. His boss, suspended Lawrence Superintendent Wilfredo Laboy, was recently indicted for fraud, embezzlement and possession of alcohol on school premises.

The Lawrence Public Schools system is among the poorest districts in Massachusetts. Almost 83 percent of its student body is classified as economically disadvantage.

Sources:

Ethics and Baseball Tickets

Baseball season is here. That means businesses will be opening their boxes and seats for entertaining clients and potential clients. Of course those tickets are gifts.

How do you treat them under your company’s gifts policy or a government’s ethics policy? One typical requirement is that you pay for the tickets. Face value is the general rule.

How about if those tickets were 2004 Red Sox World Series tickets? After all, Red Sox World Series tickets used to be very rare. (Since the new ownership, they are just uncommon.) Should you pay face value or the secondary market price?

The mayor of Pittsfield Massachusetts is countering an ethics complaint for those rare tickets. He bought the tickets for $380 from someone who had business before the city. That was $190 per ticket, the face value, for Game 2 of the World Series was played on October 24, 2004, at Fenway Park between the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals. It so happened that the person with the tickets and the business before the city was former Red Sox general manager Dan Duquette.

The Enforcement Division of the State Ethics Commission alleges that there was enormous demand for 2004 World Series tickets. They were not available to the general public at face value, and were selling on secondary market at between $600 to $2,000 per ticket.

Section 3(a) of the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law makes it illegal for a government official who

“directly or indirectly, asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives or agrees to receive anything of substantial value: (i) for himself for or because of any official act or act within his official responsibility performed or to be performed by him; or (ii) to influence, or attempt to influence, him in an official act taken”

Generally, anything worth more than $50 has “substantial value.”

One problem is that it is illegal in Massachusetts to sell tickets for more than $2 about the face value plus the costs of obtaining the ticket.  So if Duquette sold the ticket to the mayor for the secondary market price, he would have broken the law. Granted the ticket scalping laws in Massachusetts are mess.

Nonetheless, the State Ethics Commission had already issued an ethics advisory that special access to purchase tickets is a special benefit and could be an “unwarranted privilege or exemption of substantial value.”The opinion cites Ryder Cup, Super Bowl and World Series tickets as examples. (Coincidentally, that advisory opinion was issued in the spring of 2004. Clearly hope springs eternal each spring in Boston.)

The big problem is that according to the press release, Duquette admitted that he sold the tickets to the mayor because he wanted influence the mayor’s official government act. Intent usually wins, so if his admission is true then he broke the law.

The mayor is in a tougher position because the value of the tickets may be tough to ascertain. The price for the tickets will vary leading up to the game and different sellers may have different prices.

Sources:

Child Climbing Mount Everest

Jordan Romero is thirteen years old. And he is departing on April 5 for his trip to climb Mount Everest.

That would be an extraordinary feat. But is it ethical to allow such a young person to put himself in such a dangerous situation?

(In case you are wondering, the current record for the youngest person to climb Mount Everest is held by Ming Kipa Sherpa, a 15-year-old Sherpa girl.)

How young is too young to take on such a dangerous task? I don’t think many people would be concerned about a 21 year old trying the climb. Maybe a few more would be concerned about an 18 year old and probably many more would be concerned for 16 year old.

One issue ethical issue is the death rate on Everest. By the end of 2009, Everest had claimed 216 lives. You can probably add in hundreds of lost toes and some lost fingers if you are inclined to include permanent maiming as part of the consequences.

On the other hand, young Mr. Romero has already reach the summit of 19,340-foot Kilimanjaro (Africa), 7,310-foot Mount Kosciusko (Australia), and 18,510-foot Mount Elbrus (Europe), 22,834-foot Aconcagua (South America) and 20,320-foot Denali (North America). If Jordan can climb Everest and Antarctica’s Vinson Massif, he will become the youngest person to have climbed the Seven Summits, the highest points on each continent. He has some experience and skill.

I would guess that if he succeeds he will be lauded. If he commits the ultimate failure and dies on Mount Everest then there will be an enormous outcry.

He is not climbing alone. His father, Paul, and Paul’s partner, Karen, are part of his climbing team. Both of them are adventure racers.

Age has been a problem before. They needed to get a court order to allow them to climb Mount Aconagua. Apparently Argentina has a strict age requirement of 14.

You have to wonder what the motivation is? Is it the young Mr. Romero’s passion to climb? Or is his father pushing him too far?

From a business ethics perspective, you might lay fault with the team’s guide for Mount Everest. A guide would want to make sure that the client has sufficient high altitude climbing knowledge and experience to succeed on the mountain. A good guide would be a gatekeeper, keeping unqualified people off the mountain. Of course there is an ethical issue since they don’t get paid when they say no.

Unfortunately, Romero’s team is climbing alone. In order to save money, they are not using a professional guide.

For me, the failure to use a guide is completely unacceptable. That shows that ambition is outweighing common-sense. Romero is clearly going to be in the most dangerous situations he as ever encountered. Mount Everest is substantially higher and more dangerous than the other peaks. A responsible parent would insist on proper safety precautions. Having an experienced guide should be one of those safety precautions.

It sounds like they are going to attempt the climb, so I wish them good luck and good health. I just wish they wouldn’t go.

Sources:

Keeping Your Colleagues Honest

Mary C. Gentile put together a great piece on how to challenge unethical behavior at work in the March issue of the Harvard Business Review: Keeping Your Colleagues Honest.

She starts with four rationalizations for staying silent when encountering an ethical problem:

  • It’s standard practice.
  • It’s not a big deal.
  • It’s not my responsibility.
  • I want to be loyal.

The meat of the article is about helping a manager to speak up when confronted with an ethical problem.

  • Treat the conflict as a business matter.
  • Recognize that this is part of your job.
  • Be Yourself.
  • Challenge the rationalizations.
  • Turn newbie status into an asset.
  • Expose faulty either/or thinking.
  • Make long-term risks more concrete.
  • Present an alternative.

I particularly liked her use of the rationalization argument.

“If people make the point that an issue is not your responsibility, you are in a strong position to press ahead—in using this rationalization, they have already conceded that the behavior is wrong, or at least questionable. They are not arguing with your assessment; they’re looking for a way to avoid the conversation.”

She also pulls out the New York Times technique on rationalization: “If it is expected , are we comfortable being public about it?” I usually amplify this to ask “Would you be comfortable with this being told in a story on the front page of the New York Times?”

The full article is behind the paywall at HBR.org.

Mary C. Gentile is a senior research scholar at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Her book Giving Voice to Values is forthcoming from Yale University Press in September 2010.

Global Ethics Summit 2010

Today I will be in New York attending the Global Ethics Summit 2010, hosted by Dow Jones and Ethisphere.

Assuming I can get an internet connection and power, I will be live-blogging from the summit. If not live, I will try to get my notes published later tonight on the train ride home.

Here is the agenda:

Compliance 2010 – What’s Next?

  • David G. Barry, Managing Editor, Financial Information Services, Dow Jones & Company
  • Genie Gavenchak, Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer & Deputy General Coun, News Corporation
  • Peter Jaffe, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, AES
  • Haydee Olinger, Corporate Vice President & Global Compliance Officer, McDonald’s
  • Grace Renbarger, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Dell Computer

Working Toward a Healthier Organization: Pfizer’s Compliance Program

  • Douglas M. Lankler, Senior Vice President & Chief Compliance Officer, Pfizer
  • Timothy P. Erblich, Executive Vice President, Ethisphere Institute, Ethisphere

Tone at the Top: The Board’s Role

  • Thomas O’Neil, Advisor, WellCare Health Plans
  • C. Turney Stevens, Dean, College of Business, Lipscomb University
  • TK Kerstetter, President & CEO, Corporate Board Member

Doing More with Less: Compliance During Tough Economic Times

  • Ronnie Kann, Managing Director, CELC, Corporate Executive Board
  • Keith Abrams, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Bayer NA
  • Dean Krehmeyer, Executive Director, Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics
  • Jeremy Wilson, Senior Manager, Ethics Office, Cisco Systems
  • Alexandra Wrage, President, Trace International

Global Insights into the Anti-Corruption Landscape

  • Rupert de Ruig, Managing Director, Risk and Compliance, Dow Jones & Company

Training a Diverse Workforce: Best Practices

  • Erica Salmon Byrne, Assistant General Counsel & Managing Director, Compliance Advisory Services, Corpedia
  • Loren Becher, Manager, Compliance Training and Communications, American Express
  • Stella Raymaker, Director, Ethics & Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance, Waste Management
  • Howard Sklar, Anti-Corruption Counsel, Hewlett-Packard
  • Nan Stout, VP, Business Ethics, Staples

Don’t Be Evil: Imagination at Work with Google and GE’s Compliance Programs

  • Brackett Denniston, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, General Electric
  • Andy Hinton, Chief Compliance Officer & Associate General Counsel, Google
  • Stephen Martin, General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Corpedia

Transparency –What, How Much and When?

  • Alex Brigham, Executive Director, Ethisphere Institute, Ethisphere
  • David Andrews, Board Member, Union Bank of California
  • Nancy Zucker Boswell, President & CEO, Transparency International USA
  • Wendy Hallgren, VP, Corporate Compliance, Fluor
  • David Howard, Partner, Dechert

When the Government Comes Knocking: Trends and Tips for Dealing with Regulators and Enforcement Officials

  • Ty Cobb, Partner, Hogan & Hartson
  • Paul S. Atkins, Co-founder & Managing Director, Patomak Partners
  • Eric Feldman, Senior Advisor to the Director for Procurement Integrity, National Reconnaissance Office
  • Brian Martin, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, KLA-Tencor
  • Hank Bond Walther, Assistant Chief, U.S. Department of Justice

Does Compliance Matter?

  • Joan Meyer, Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP
  • Jeffrey Benjamin, Vice President & General Counsel, Novartis
  • Charles Elson, Director, HealthSouth
  • Patricia Nazemetz, Chief Ethics Officer, Xerox
  • Gregory S. Nixon, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary & Chief Compliance O, DynCorp International

Ethics of Congressional Stock Ownership

The Washington Post published a story using Congressman John Dinghell as an example of the ethics issues involved when you have an investor lawmaker: Dingells and GM illustrate limits of congressional conflict-of-interest rules. Kimberly Kindy and Robert E. O’Harrow Jr. use Congressman Dinghell because of his financial connection with General Motors. This connection was one both of capital and income. His wife was an executive at General Motors and they held a significant amount of GM stock. (She no longer works for GM and old GM stock… well you know what that is worth.)

I did not find the Dinghell example to be compelling. Congressman Dinghell represents metropolitan Detroit. His constituents are just as interested in the future of the automotive business as he is. It seems to me that his personal interests are aligned with those of his district. He and his wife were up front about their ownership of GM and their connection with the company.

That is not to say that legislators’ ownership of stock is not a problem. Uncertainty created about lawmakers’ motivation undermines confidence in Congress and the political process. It is often impossible to know whether the lawmaker is acting in the interest of citizens or their own portfolios.

Insider Trading

On top of that, the lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not prevented from trading on stock with inside information. Congressional portfolios have regularly outperformed those of average Americans over the years. There

Availability of Records

Over at the Sunlight Foundation they decided to drill down further at look at the availability of Congressional ethics filings. Daniel Schuman found that many ethics filings are required to be publicly reported, but are not available online and that many ethics filings are not publicly reported. A cynic would say that Congress does not want this information to be widely available.

References:

Ethics of Oreos in the Minibar

Is it ethical to replenish the items in your hotel’s minibar to avoid being charged for consumption?

Randy Cohen tackled this issue in last week’s The Ethicist. David Lat, publisher of the legal tabloid Above the Law, posed the question after eating a box of Oreos from his minibar and then later replacing them.

Mr. Cohen slapped him down and said that since you enjoyed the service, you must pay the price.

On the other hand, is the service so that you do not have to go out and get your own Oreos or is the service merely the supply of Oreos in the room? Is the advertised price for the convenience of not having to replace items you consume?

“At the moment you ate the Oreos from the hotel, you took advantage of the convenience of having them there on demand. You could have checked in then went somewhere else to look for food, but you didn’t. That convenience comes at a cost. The fact that you later replaced the product yourself doesn’t mean that you didn’t experience the convenience of having it there when you wanted it.”

Since Above the Law‘s audience is lawyers, there were many comments comparing Lat’s “borrowing” of the Oreos to the borrowing of funds from a client account. Those comparisons fail. A lawyer does not have a right to use client funds. Lat had a right to eat the Oreos.

It’s just a question of the price you pay for consumption. Is replacing the goods an appropriate cost to the consumer and acceptable to the hotel? The consumer would have to venture out into an unfamiliar city hoping to find Oreos in the exact same packaging as those he ate. Their is a significant cost to the consumer in spending that time. After all, part of the reason you pay the premium price for the items in the minibar is to avoid spending that time and being able to enjoy the Oreos without leaving your room.

Lat pointed out that the minibar did not have a sensor that automatically bills you when an item is removed. He also pointed out that the new Oreos had an expiration date much further out than those he consumed.

What are your thoughts?

References:

Global Ethics Summit

Global Ethics Summit

Dow Jones and Ethisphere Institute are teaming up to present the 2010 Global Ethics Summit on February 23-24, 2010 at the Grand Hyatt New York City.

I just confirmed that I will be attending, thanks to an offer from the event’s organizers.

“In an effort to help companies deal with anti-corruption compliance and other significant issues, Dow Jones and Ethisphere Institute are teaming up to present the 2010 Global Ethics Summit.  The event will offer participants the opportunity to gain critical and timely insight into the challenging facets of conducting business successfully and ethically.  The event will bring together government and regulatory officials, FCPA attorneys and consultants, NGOs and nonprofit directors, corporate compliance officers and other top executives.  Attendees will get insight on the rulings and legislative changes that are shaping corporate compliance.  They’ll also receive an in-depth and multi-faceted learning experience that encourages the sharing of best practices for navigating an increasingly complex and daunting global corporate legal landscape.”

They have a good-looking agenda:

  • Compliance 2010 – What’s Next?
  • Doing More with Less: Compliance During Tough Economic Times
  • Global Insights into the Anti-Corruption Landscape
  • Training a Diverse Workforce: Best Practices
  • Transparency –What, How Much and When?
  • When the Government Comes Knocking: Trends and Tips for Dealing with Regulators and Enforcement Officials
  • Telling the CEO No
  • Picking Your Partners
  • Emerging Markets – Opportunities, Challenges and Obligations

and a good line-up of speakers:

  • Brackett Denniston, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, General Electric
  • Andy Hinton, Chief Compliance Officer & Associate General Counsel, Google
  • Georg Kell, Executive Director, United Nations Global Compact
  • Genie Gavenchak, Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer & Deputy General Counsel, News Corp.
  • Grace Renbarger, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Dell Computer
  • Nan Stout, VP, Business Ethics, Staples
  • … and many others

If you are interested in attending I can offer you a 15% discount on regular conference fees, available by registering online (http://www.globalethicssummit.com/register) with the code “GES10P”.

I also need to disclose that they gave me a pass to attend as a media sponsor of the event. You can see Compliance Building listed as a media sponsor. In exchange, I’m writing a few blog posts leading up to the summit and will be live-blogging from it.

Global Ethics Summitt main banner