subscribe: Daily Newsletter

 

Bribery and corruption is alive and well

0 comments

Companies know that bribery and corruption is rampant and want to combat it – but many of them fail to put the right measure in place to do so.
ENSafrica’s third annual anti-bribery and corruption (ABC) survey reveals that 39% of respondents have experienced incidents of bribery or corruption in the last 24 months. The key question addressed in the survey was whether or not companies are putting proportionate measures in place to deal with the rising risks of bribery and corruption.
During the survey, information was collated from 132 respondents, a 50% increase from the 2015 survey, which indicates an increased awareness of, and interest in, ABC (especially in Africa).
The majority of respondents indicated that they do business in Africa (83%), and 26% of respondents indicated that they do business in the US and the UK. The respondents came from a broad range of industries, with financial services comprising the biggest sector (25%), followed by manufacturing, retail and wholesale (24%). Respondents also indicated that they worked in the oil, gas and energy; consulting; telecommunications; mining; transport; IT and electronics; and tourism sectors.
At first glance, the results suggest that companies are committed to combating the risks of bribery and corruption, with 92% of respondents believing that their companies demonstrated a culture of compliance and 90% indicating that their companies had an ABC policy in place.
However, these positive findings were contradicted by the absence of certain important ABC measures. Key concerning findings include the following:
* 15% of respondents indicated that their companies did not conduct due diligence on merger and acquisition transactions;
* 28% of respondents said that due diligence screening was not done on new employees;
* 30% of respondents indicated that their companies did not have an ABC compliance programme in place (although certain respondents indicated that such programmes were in the process of being put in place);
* 34% of respondents indicated that they did not believe sufficient resources and funding were dedicated to the compliance function;
* 35% of respondents indicated that no due diligence screening was done on third parties;
* 44% of respondents said that there was no dedicated ABC training at their companies;
* 47% of respondents said that no ABC risk assessment had yet been done at their companies (although certain respondents indicated that such risk assessments were planned for the future);
* 79% of respondents indicated that their companies did not provide ABC training to third parties, despite the fact that 76% of respondents indicated that the most significant ABC risk faced by their companies was the use of third parties.
The key findings suggest that a regulator may perceive the commitment of certain companies to ABC as being superficial and unable to pass muster if placed under scrutiny. This could in turn expose companies and senior management to significant legal liability.