Podcasts about national law center

Although governance may not be a flashy topic in the world of upstart entrepreneurs, overlooking it can cause billions of dollars of loss for otherwise savvy investors. In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers discusses why good governance matters with Bruce Karpati, partner and global chief compliance officer at the private investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR). Listen in as the two explore how governance plays a crucial role in the way KKR selects its portfolio companies and manages them.  For a full transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.    Guest: Bruce Karpati Bruce Karpati joined KKR in 2014 and serves as the firm's global chief compliance officer and counsel. Prior to joining KKR, he was the chief compliance officer of Prudential Investments, the mutual fund and distribution business of Prudential Financial. Mr. Karpati was previously the national chief of the SEC's asset management unit which he co-founded. In this role, he supervised a staff of 75 attorneys, industry experts, and other professionals. Mr. Karpati joined the SEC as a staff attorney in 2000, was promoted to branch chief in 2002, assistant regional director in 2005, and co-chief of the SEC's Asset Management unit in 2010. In 2007, he founded the SEC's hedge fund working group, a cross-office initiative to combat securities fraud in the hedge fund industry. Mr. Karpati also serves as an adjunct professor at Fordham University Law School. He began his career in private practice at Dechert LLP. Mr. Karpati earned his JD cum laude from the University at Buffalo Law School, and his bachelor's degree cum laude in International Relations from Tufts University.  Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008.

A lot of press coverage tends to conflate environmental, social, and governance initiatives exclusively with environmental stewardship and climate change. While the “E” of ESG is certainly important, organizations that overlook the “S” and “G” could open themselves up to other crises such as human rights violations and data breaches. In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers discusses best practices for integrating governance and social impact considerations into ESG strategy with Sony Group's Global Ethics & Compliance Strategy Leader, Kathleen Franklin.  For a full transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.    Guest: Kathleen Franklin Kathleen Franklin is the Global Ethics & Compliance Strategy Leader for the Sony Group Companies, where she is responsible for promoting a culture of ethics and devising enterprise-wide solutions for critical risk areas. She also acts as the chief compliance officer for Sony Corporation of America and its operating subsidiaries. Prior to joining Sony, Kathleen was a partner and co-chair of the Corporate Governance Group for Boies, Schiller and Flexner, LLP.    Kathleen is also a member of the board of directors of Bank OZK (NASDAQ:OZK) where she serves on the Risk Committee. Bank OZK is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, conducts banking operations through 240 offices in Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina, New York and California, and has approximately 27 billion in assets.     Kathleen graduated magna cum laude from Siena College, Loudonville, New York, where she received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. She graduated magna cum laude from Albany Law School of Union University and earned an LL.M in Taxation from New York University School of Law.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008.

ChatGPT and other generative AI tools have caused a sensation in the marketplace. Some are heralding AI as the best innovation to come along since the internet, while others are fearful of its unforeseen, large-scale impact. For the E&C practitioner, what are the major risks and mitigation strategies that need to be in place? On this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers explores the current and evolving risk landscape surrounding ChatGPT and generative AI with Jonathan Armstrong, a partner at the legal compliance firm Cordery.  For a full transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.   Guest: Jonathan Armstrong Jonathan Armstrong is an experienced lawyer based in London with a concentration on compliance and technology. His practice includes advising multinational companies and their counsel on risk and compliance across Europe. Cordery gives legal and compliance advice to household name corporations on prevention, training, and cure—including internal investigations and dealing with regulatory authorities. Jonathan has handled legal matters in more than 60 countries involving cybersecurity and ransomware, investigations of various shapes and sizes, bribery and corruption, corporate governance, ethics code implementation, reputation, supply chain, ESG, and global privacy policies. Jonathan has been particularly active in advising multi-national corporations on their response to the UK Bribery Act 2010 and its inter-relationship with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).   Jonathan qualified as a lawyer in the UK in 1991 and has focused on technology and risk and governance matters for more than 20 years. He is regarded as a leading expert in compliance matters. Jonathan has been selected as one of the Thomson Reuters stand-out lawyers for 2023 —an honor bestowed on him every year since the survey began. In April 2017, Thomson Reuters listed Jonathan as the 6th most influential figure in risk, compliance and fintech in the UK. In 2016 Jonathan was ranked as the 14th most influential figure in data security worldwide by Onalytica.  In 2019 Jonathan was the recipient of a Security Serious Unsung Heroes Award for his work in Information Security. Jonathan is listed as a Super Lawyer and has been listed in Legal Experts from 2002 to date.    In July 2023 Jonathan was appointed to the New York State Bar Association Presidential Task Force on Artificial Intelligence. Jonathan sits on the Task Force with leading practitioners, regulators, judges and academics to develop frameworks for the use and control of AI in the legal system.  Guest: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008.

Keeping the focus on the human element of ethics and compliance can help E&C programs move from “cop” to “coach.” But what does that look like in practice? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers talks about the importance of humanizing ethics and compliance with Adam Balfour, the author of Ethics & Compliance for Humans. Listen in as the two discuss best practices that Adam has used over the course of his E&C career, managing regional and global ethics and compliance programs as well as leading areas of global risk management and privacy.  For a full transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.   Guest: Adam Balfour Adam Balfour is on a mission to help make ethics and compliance more relatable and relevant for his fellow human beings. He likes to design ethics and compliance programs that employees can actually relate to, engage with and find useful. Originally from Scotland, Adam worked for a number of years as an attorney for two international law firms in New York before moving to Nashville, Tennessee to work for Bridgestone. He is an active member in the ethics and compliance community, a co-editor of the "Compliance and Ethics: Ideas & Answers" newsletter together with Joe Murphy, Jeff Kaplan, and Rebecca Walker, and CCEP certified. His first book, Ethics & Compliance for Humans, was published by CCI Press and is available now.      Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.

The US Department of Justice Criminal Division has been increasingly vocal about what makes organizations' ethics and compliance programs effective. This input on program effectiveness takes the form of guidance to prosecutors about what questions to ask when companies negotiate to resolve DOJ investigations into corporate wrongdoing on favorable terms. What does this guidance on program effectiveness mean in practice for E&C professionals? In the season 10 premiere of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers speaks with John Michelich, who retired last November after 35 years as a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division. Listen in as they explore how the DOJ evaluates E&C programs, as well as best practices for companies settling misconduct investigations.  For a full transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com   Guest: John Michelich John Michelich is a retired career prosecutor, who has served at the state, federal, and international levels for 45 years. A native of Illinois, John received his undergraduate education at Illinois Wesleyan University and then attended Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa. For 10 years, John served as Assistant State's Attorney and First Assistant State's Attorney in Springfield, Illinois, where he prosecuted all types of state criminal felony violations including armed robbery, aggravated sexual assault and capital murder.    In 1988, John moved to Washington, DC where he began his 35-year career as a prosecutor with the US Department of Justice, Criminal Division. As a federal prosecutor, John has handled a wide variety of cases including child pornography and obscenity, narcotics distribution and all types of white-collar criminal cases. John served for 30 years as a prosecutor with the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division where he handled numerous cases including health care fraud, bank fraud, telemarketing fraud, commodities and securities fraud and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Because Washington DOJ lawyers are traveling prosecutors, John has handled grand jury proceedings or jury trials in more than two dozen federal districts nationwide from Guam and Hawaii to Puerto Rico, and California to New York. Over his long career, John has tried dozens of jury trials to verdict.   In 1998, the Justice Department sent John on loan to the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, also known as the War Crimes Tribunal, in the Hague, Netherlands, where he handled investigations and Tribunal proceedings involving crimes against humanity and serious breaches of the Geneva Convention that occurred during the Yugoslavian civil war.    For over 40 years, John has been an active instructor of Trial Advocacy and has appeared regularly on the faculty of the NITA Trial Practice course offered at Georgetown University Law Center. In addition, John has served as an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown, teaching Trial Practice courses to third-year law students. In his retirement, John is available as a legal consultant to trial lawyers to advise them in preparation for jury trials and to consult with corporate counsel concerning internal investigations and to advise them on how to approach the government when there are allegations of wrongdoing, especially foreign bribery.  John is licensed to practice in the states of Illinois and Iowa, and several federal courts, and is a licensed Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales.      Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.  

Ethics and compliance practitioners are often thinking about ways to engage their employees and motivate them to live their values, rather than doing the minimum required by the rules. But how can you make engagement real on a global scale when you're dealing with a truly global workforce? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers discusses how E&C professionals can make their international programs resonate through localization with John Toy, the chief of ethics and sustainability at GlobalFoundries. Listen in as the two talk about John's approach to this problem, which can be summed up in two words: enterprise engagement.  For a transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com. Download LRN's 2023 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report for more best practices.   Guest: John Toy John Toy is the chief ethics and sustainability officer at GlobalFoundries (GF), a global leader in feature-rich semiconductor manufacturing. In this role, John leads the company's ethics and compliance program, which he designed and implemented, in addition to GF's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) functions.  Previously, John held various positions in human resource (HR) leadership for the company, including global talent acquisition and global learning and organizational development leader.    Prior to GF, John was employed by medical device maker Boston Scientific Corporation. His professional experience includes leading all aspects of HR at an ~800 employee operations facility; leading a global initiative to transform HR service delivery to include creation of service support centers in Hungary and Canada; and the creation and leadership of an internal HR Service Excellence function. John also led training and development for Global Operations, where he established the function and an integrated network of training representatives from each of the company's manufacturing facilities in the US, Costa Rica, Ireland, and the Netherlands.  Before his corporate roles, John was previously engaged in private legal practice with a focus on labor and employment matters. John has appeared before state and federal courts and several administrative bodies, including the NY Division of Human Rights and the National Labor Relations Board. He is a graduate of Albany Law School of Union University, and of the State University of New York at Binghamton, where he studied Industrial and Labor Relations.    Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.

Does learning actually occur as a result of ethics and compliance training, or are employees just paying lip service when they take courses? How can you tell the difference? Today, the E&C community is focused on program impact and effectiveness rather than checking boxes—in part because regulators have made it clear that E&C programs must show impact from their activities. On the season 9 finale of the Principled Podcast, Susan Divers discusses how compliance teams can ensure they're getting the right insights to improve their programs with Kristi Kevern, the senior managing director at Dell Technologies. Listen in as Kristi shares how her team collects and analyzes data to better manage and enhance Dell's E&C program—particularly in the training area.  For a transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.   Guest: Kristi Kevern Kristi Kevern is an innovative thought leader with 20+ years of experience in internal controls design, implementation, management, and assurance. At Dell Technologies, Kristi drives enterprise-wide risk management and governance activities, conceptualizes and implements global programs aimed at mitigating FCPA, AML, SOX, ESG and other key risks, turns findings into fixes with post-investigation remediation, and experiments with AI/ML for further prevention and insights using data. Prior to Dell, Kristi served as a founding member of the Coca-Cola Company's Ethics Office, where she investigated allegations of fraud and served as ethics advisor to the credit union. As a former Big 4 manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Kristi led assurance and attestation engagements for Fortune 500+ clients. Kristi is a recipient of TRACE International's Innovation Award, and she has led Dell Technologies to an Ethisphere World's Most Ethical Company designation 10 times. She is membership chair of the Conference Board's Global Business Conduct Council and a frequent speaker at conferences and universities. Kristi graduated with honors from Auburn University and is a Certified Public Accountant residing in Austin, Texas. Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.

Do hotlines really work? According to the 2019 Global Business Survey conducted by the Ethics and Compliance Initiative, only 6% of E&C complaints went to hotlines, compared to 51% to direct supervisors and the remainder to higher management or human resources. So why are so many E&C programs—not to mention boards of directors—relying principally on hotline data to assess company culture and compliance? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, Susan Divers talks about reimagining hotlines with Scott Sullivan, the chief integrity and compliance officer at Newmont Corporation. Listen in as Scott shares how his team reinvented Newmont's hotline channel and reporting process to separate the wheat from the chaff and gain meaningful information.  For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com. Guest: Scott Sullivan Scott Sullivan is the Chief Integrity & Compliance Officer of Newmont Corporation, the world's leading gold company. Newmont has approximately 15,000 employees and 15,000 contractors and has 12 operating mines and 2 non-operated JVs in 9 countries. Mr. Sullivan oversees, develops, implements, and manages Newmont's integrity and compliance program including ethics, anti-bribery, corporate investigations, and global trade compliance. Previously, Mr. Sullivan was the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of a global manufacturer of fluid motion and control products with approximately 17,000 employees operating in 55 countries. Mr. Sullivan has written and contributed numerous articles on compliance programs, anti-bribery/FCPA, export controls, economic sanctions, and other ethics and compliance topics to a variety of publications. Mr. Sullivan is also a frequent local, national, and international speaker, moderator, and conference organizer on compliance, anti-bribery/FCPA, export controls, and economic sanctions.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.

When it comes to driving ethical behavior in organizations, many ethics and compliance programs are beginning to focus more on leveraging company values than relying primarily on rules. But what does taking a values-based approach look like in practice, especially if you're a multinational organization? How do talk about it with a wide range of employee populations? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, Susan Divers is joined by Gabriela Del Castillo, the chief ethics and compliance officer at Arca Continental, to discuss the importance of creating a respectful workplace and the role that E&C plays in developing ethical culture.  For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.   Guest: Gabriela Del Castillo Gabriela Del Castillo is the global chief ethics and compliance officer of Arca Continental, the second-largest Coca-Cola bottler in Latin America—and one of the largest in the world. She leads the construction of the company's corporate sustainability through the management of ethical and compliance risks. In addition, she designs mitigation strategies—including policies, controls, and procedures—as well as communication and training initiatives for Arca's ethics and compliance program. Gabriela also serves as the secretary of the Audit and Corporate Practices Committee for the organization's board of directors.  Prior to joining Arca, Gabriela was the regulatory affairs corporate manager at the food and beverage services company Empresas Polar. In this role, she helped the organization adopt risk management and compliance processes to anticipate risks and opportunities in the regulatory and legal fields. She also designed strategies to minimize costs or capture savings, based on a deep understanding of the company's operations and stakeholders. Before that, Gabriela worked as a legal analyst for Siderúrgica del Orinoco, C.A. SIDOR, a Venezuelan steel corporation.  Gabriela earned a master's degree in international legal studies from Georgetown University and graduated magna cum laude from Universidad Central de Venezuela. She also received a marketing and innovation diploma from Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración IESA in 2017.    Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.

How does the largest global security and defense company, with 116,000 employees worldwide, ensure the highest standards for its ethics and compliance program? This is particularly challenging amid an environment of increased regulation, geopolitical conflict, and economic uncertainty. In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers explores this question with Jim Byrne, Lockheed Martin's vice president for ethics and business conduct. Listen in as the two discuss how Lockheed Martin uses “force multipliers” to empower employees to create an inclusive culture, own their ethical workplace, and act when something is amiss.  For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.   Guest: Jim Byrne The Honorable James M. Byrne currently serves as Vice President, Ethics & Business Conduct, for Lockheed Martin Corporation. He is responsible for the strategic direction and operational excellence of Lockheed Martin's award-winning domestic and international ethics program and execution of the Corporation's compliance training across the enterprise. Jim is also on the Corporate Vice Presidents Contributions Committee of Lockheed Martin, established and authorized to review and approve large charitable contributions. Prior to rejoining Lockheed Martin, he served as the Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) where he led modernization initiatives and served as the chief operating officer of the federal government's second-largest Cabinet department, with some 385,000 employees in VA medical centers, clinics, benefits offices, national cemeteries, and other facilities throughout the country. Previously, Mr. Byrne served as VA's General Counsel, leading VA's nationwide team of nearly 800 attorneys, paralegals, and staff who support VA's mission and priorities by providing sound legal expertise, representation, and, as needed, critical problem-solving skills and risk-management advice to the Secretary and other senior VA leaders.  Before arriving at VA, Mr. Byrne served as Associate General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer at Lockheed Martin Corporation. He also served for several years on the board of directors for Pacific Architects and Engineers (PAE) when it was a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. Prior to joining Lockheed Martin, Mr. Byrne served in the career Federal Senior Executive Service as Deputy Special Counsel with the Office of the United States Special Counsel, and as both the General Counsel and Assistant Inspector General for Investigations with the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Soon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Mr. Byrne was recalled to active duty for 18 months with the U.S. Marine Corps in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Lieutenant Colonel James Byrne was assigned as the Officer-in- charge of the Marine Liaison Office at the then-National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Colonel Byrne led teams of Marines, stationed in DC-metro-area military hospitals and Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, who were responsible for supporting injured and deceased Marines, Sailors, and their families.  Mr. Byrne has over 25 years of experience in the public sector, including service as a forward deployed Marine Corps Infantry Officer and a U.S. Department of Justice international narcotics prosecutor. Mr. Byrne's professional honors include several DOJ awards and The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator's Award for Exceptional Service. He is also a recipient of the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism and several military decorations, including the Meritorious Service Medal.  Mr. Byrne also currently serves as a Proxy Holder – Outside Board Director for Rancher Government Solutions, a company that delivers secure and certified open source and cloud-native software for the United States Government adopting DevSecOps across the IT landscape. His past professional engagements include director and advisory board positions on several startup companies, and service on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Committee and the International Association of Privacy Professionals Board of Directors (Chairman). Jim is very active in his church and community and prioritizes mentoring veterans. He currently volunteers on the American Association of Suicidology Board of Directors, the Navy - Marine Corps Relief Society Advisory Board, Veterans Moving Forward Board of Directors, Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance Board of Directors, Victor Bravo Board of Directors and the Give an Hour Executive Board.   Mr. Byrne is a Secretary of the Navy Distinguished Midshipman Graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, where he received an engineering degree and, ultimately, held the top leadership position of Brigade Commander. Mr. Byrne later earned his Juris Doctorate from Stetson University College of Law in St. Petersburg, Florida, where was awarded a public service fellowship. He started his legal career as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Malcolm J. Howard, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.

There are clear challenges for the road ahead in 2023—economic headwinds, geopolitical conflict, supply chain disruption, stakeholder activism, increased scrutiny by government regulators. How exactly are E&C programs navigating these risks, and how are they evolving in response? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Emily Miner talks about how values can sustain ethical performance—the essential element of effective E&C programs—and absorb the shocks of unanticipated business realities with her colleague, Susan Divers. Listen in as the two draw insights from the 2023 edition of LRN's annual Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report, which is available now to download.   Get the 2023 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report.    Guest: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.   Host: Emily Miner Emily Miner is a director in LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory practice. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.   For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

Corporate boards are feeling more pressure than ever from a variety of stakeholders—government prosecutors and regulators, institutional investors, corporate activists, consumers, and others seeking responsible change in an ever-changing global economy. As the concept of both corporate and individual accountability continues to expand, how can boards adapt their approach to governance and oversight to meet these increasingly complex expectations? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers is joined by Michael Volkov, the CEO of the Volkov Law Group and author of the recent white paper “Directors Dancing on the Head of a Pin: Corporate Boards Face Escalating Risks and Enforcement Challenges.” Listen in as they discuss the global challenges corporate boards are facing in 2023, and the steps they can take to meet regulatory pressures.    Guest: Michael Volkov Michael Volkov specializes in ethics and compliance, white collar defense, government investigations, and internal investigations. Michael devotes a significant portion of his practice to anti-corruption, sanctions, trade, antitrust, and AML compliance and defense. He regularly assists clients on FCPA, UK Bribery Act, AML, OFAC, Export-Import, Securities Fraud, and other issues.  Michael has extensive trial experience and has developed a problem-solving approach to serve client needs. He has extensive contacts in the federal government and on Capitol Hill. Given his broad government experience, he represents clients in federal and state court, before the Justice Department and other federal agencies, and on Capitol Hill.   Prior to launching his own law firm, Mr. Volkov was a partner at LeClairRyan (2012-2013); Mayer Brown (2010-2012), Dickinson Wright (2008-2010); Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice (2008); Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, House Judiciary Committee (2005-2008); and Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee (2003-2005); Assistant US Attorney, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (1989-2005); and a Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice (1985-1989).  Mr. Volkov resides in Washington, D.C., San Diego, California, and Marsala, Italy, with his wife and six children. He and his wife enjoy traveling, the arts, and philanthropic activities. Mr. Volkov is an avid tennis player.    Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.   For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

How can organizations find ways to engage employees and ensure that compliance training content resonates with them, particularly in fast-paced work environments? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers talks with Craig Huckelbridge and Lyndsey Conrad from Autodesk, a California-based tech company that is well known for its AutoCad design software as well as regular wins at the Academy Awards for the visual effects it enables for major Hollywood movies. Listen in as Craig and Lyndsey describe how they leverage gamification and gameshow techniques to get their employees' engines revved up for competition, learning, and collaboration.    Guest: Craig Huckelbridge Craig Huckelbridge is the Sr. Director of Legal Compliance & Litigation for Autodesk, Inc. Craig's team is responsible for all aspects of Autodesk's compliance and ethics program—including compliance with anti-corruption, conflicts of interest, gifts and entertainment, fair competition, and trade compliance laws and policies. His team also manages commercial and IP litigation matters for Autodesk. Prior to joining Autodesk, Craig was a member of Jones Day's Antitrust & Competition Law practice group, where he represented companies in merger reviews, government investigations, and antitrust litigation and counseling. Craig began his legal career at Cooley LLP, where his practice focused primarily on antitrust and unfair competition litigation. Craig received a B.A. in economics and political science from Northwestern University and earned his J.D. from the Duke University School of Law.   Guest: Lyndsey Conrad Lyndsey Conrad is the Director of Legal Compliance for Autodesk, Inc. and a member of Craig's team.  She manages Autodesk's Code of Business Conduct and related trainings, as well as its global anti-corruption, third-party risk, and conflict of interest programs. Before joining Autodesk, Lyndsey was a Partner at Husch Blackwell LLP, where her practice focused on government regulatory litigation, internal investigations, compliance, and white-collar crime. Her dedication to compliance came when she became a member of Husch Blackwell's pro bono Human Trafficking Legal Clinic, where she represented victims of commercial sex trafficking and forced labor trafficking in cases referred to the firm by law enforcement, prosecutors, and partnering nonprofit agencies. Lyndsey got her legal start as a Law Clerk to the then-Chief of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. She earned a B.S. in Biology from UCLA and her J.D. from UC College of the Law, San Francisco.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.   For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

What is the most effective way to help employees make ethical and compliant decisions regardless of the different situations they face? Should they consult a lengthy list of rules and try to find one that fits the situation? Or can they be trusted to apply critical principles that embed company values? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers talks with Dana McMahon, the vice president and chief compliance officer of Stryker, about how her team works to empower and help its employees live the medical device company's mission and values. Their secret? Simplicity.    Guest: Dana McMahon Dana McMahon leads global compliance, privacy, and enterprise risk at Stryker. Prior to her current role, Dana served as Chief Legal Counsel and led a global legal and compliance team advising on regulatory and quality, manufacturing and supply, technology and cybersecurity, commercial and government contracting, and privacy. Dana has 20 years of experience in the life sciences industry. She joined Stryker in 2017 from Novo Nordisk, where she served as Assistant General Counsel. During her 14-year career at Novo Nordisk, Dana held several positions of escalating responsibility within the legal team, overseeing support to the commercial, regulatory, clinical, medical affairs, compliance, and government affairs organizations. Dana has worked extensively on matters related to product development and commercialization, market access and compliance. Previously, Dana worked in private practice at O'Melveny in New York City. Dana received her law degree from New York University School of Law and her bachelor's degree from Hamilton College.     Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.   For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

Building an effective ethics and compliance program from scratch, or after a restructuring or merger, is not an easy task. How do you structure the program and empower people throughout to do the right thing? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers talks with Luz María Zea Cabrera, the chief compliance officer at Frontera Energy, about how to build an E&C program from the ground up. Listen in as Luz María shares her approach to creating an ethical and sustainable culture and getting buy-in from the wider organization.    Guest: Luz María Zea Cabrera Luz María Zea Cabrera is a lawyer and Commercial Law specialist from the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana of Colombia, LLM from Georgetown University.  She is married and has two children.  Luz María has extensive and diverse experience in ethics, compliance, and management. For more than 20 years, she has led legal teams in Colombia, the Andean region, and Europe in multinational companies. For more than 10 years, she has structured and executed business integrity programs with local, regional, and global scope.    As a compliance officer in oil and gas companies, she has led the design and implementation of the Corporate Integrity System, a risk prevention system for money laundering, financing of terrorism, financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, corruption, and privacy protection.   For Luz María, the most important thing about an entity's compliance program is that it is understood and owned by everybody in the organization, that it is lived by all as a reflection of the corporation's culture and as an exercise of their own personal values, and that individuals proudly act as Integrity Influencers at all times and before all stakeholders.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.   For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

Ethics and compliance practitioners are often thinking about ways to engage their employees and motivate them to live their values, rather than doing the minimum required by the rules. But how can you make engagement real on a global scale when you're dealing with a truly global workforce? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers discusses how E&C professionals can make their international programs resonate through localization with John Toy, the chief of ethics and sustainability at GlobalFoundries. Listen in as the two talk about John's approach to this problem, which can be summed up in two words: enterprise engagement.    Guest: John Toy John Toy is the chief ethics and sustainability officer at GlobalFoundries (GF), a global leader in feature-rich semiconductor manufacturing. In this role, John leads the company's ethics and compliance program, which he designed and implemented, in addition to GF's environmental, social, and governance (ESG) functions.  Previously, John held various positions in human resource (HR) leadership for the company, including global talent acquisition and global learning and organizational development leader.    Prior to GF, John was employed by medical device maker Boston Scientific Corporation. His professional experience includes leading all aspects of HR at an ~800 employee operations facility; leading a global initiative to transform HR service delivery to include creation of service support centers in Hungary and Canada; and the creation and leadership of an internal HR Service Excellence function. John also led training and development for Global Operations, where he established the function and an integrated network of training representatives from each of the company's manufacturing facilities in the US, Costa Rica, Ireland, and the Netherlands.  Before his corporate roles, John was previously engaged in private legal practice with a focus on labor and employment matters. John has appeared before state and federal courts and several administrative bodies, including the NY Division of Human Rights and the National Labor Relations Board. He is a graduate of Albany Law School of Union University, and of the State University of New York at Binghamton, where he studied Industrial and Labor Relations.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

There are clear challenges for the road ahead in 2023—economic headwinds, geopolitical conflict, supply chain disruption, stakeholder activism, increased scrutiny by government regulators. How exactly are E&C programs navigating these risks, and how are they evolving in response? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Emily Miner talks about how values can sustain ethical performance—the essential element of effective E&C programs—and absorb the shocks of unanticipated business realities with her colleague, Susan Divers. Listen in as the two draw insights from the 2023 edition of LRN's annual Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report, which is available now to download.   Get the 2023 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report.    Guest: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.   Host: Emily Miner Emily Miner is a director in LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory practice. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.   For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers continues her conversation from Episode 11 with Tom Fox, the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network, on the changing geopolitical landscape and its impact on E&C. Listen in as the two discuss how anti-corruption is a key component of ESG, the consequences of compliance in cybersecurity, and the growing interconnectedness of risks. You can listen to Episode 11 here.  To learn more, download a copy of Tom Fox's white paper Never the Same: Five Key Areas in Which Business Will Never Be the Same After the Russian Invasion.    Guest: Tom Fox Tom Fox is literally the guy who wrote the book on compliance with the international compliance best-seller The Compliance Handbook, 3rd edition, which was released by LexisNexis in May 2022. Tom has authored 23 other books on business leadership, compliance and ethics, and corporate governance, including the international best-sellers Lessons Learned on Compliance and Ethics and Best Practices Under the FCPA and Bribery Act, as well as his award-winning series "Fox on Compliance." Tom leads the social media discussion on compliance with his award-winning blog, and is the Voice of Compliance, having founded the award-winning Compliance Podcast Network and hosting or producing multiple award-winning podcasts. He is an executive leader at the C-Suite Network, the world's most trusted network of C-Suite leaders. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. 

Over the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in E&C programs when it comes to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do these recent reports, policies, and guidance mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices Susan Divers is joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings. Listen in as the two discuss the recent guidance from the US Department of Justice as well as DOJ policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture.  To learn more, download the 2022 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report.   Guest: Jon Drimmer Jonathan C. Drimmer is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice and is based in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. He resolves complex cross-border problems with the benefit of having sat in every chair at the table: senior legal officer for a global 500 company, federal prosecutor, and seasoned advocate. He is a recognized international expert on anti­corruption and business and human rights, and is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on issues related to both topics. Before joining Paul Hastings, he was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Barrick Gold, one of the world's largest mining companies, with operations on five continents. The compliance program he built at Barrick has served as an industry standard, and elements of it have largely been duplicated by numerous other companies inside and outside of the extractive sector. Mr. Drimmer has directed hundreds of investigations around the world related to anti-corruption, human rights, AML and export controls, tax controversies, environmental incidents, public disclosures, fatalities and health and safety injuries, sexual harassment and discrimination, and other areas. He has represented companies and individuals in numerous government enforcement proceedings in the U.S. and overseas, in relation to FCPA and bribery claims, human rights issues, and a wide array of other matters. He has participated in dozens of major disputes in the U.S., Canada, and abroad, including transnational torts, anti-corruption claims, environmental cases, international arbitrations, tax disputes, construction claims, and land controversies. He previously served in the Justice Department as Deputy Director of the Criminal Division's Office of Special Investigations, where he led cross-border investigations, first-chaired numerous prosecutions, and argued federal appeals. He was a partner at an Am Law 100 law firm in Washington, D.C., a former Bristow Fellow in the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General, and a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Drimmer served on the board of directors of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative from 2012-2014, and again from 2015-2017. He served on the board of TRACE International from 2012 until 2018, and currently sits on the board of the TRACE Foundation. He has also taught international law courses at Georgetown University Law Center for nearly 20 years.   Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  For a transcript of this podcast, please visit the episode page at LRN.com.

In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers continues her conversation from Episode 11 with Tom Fox, the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network, on the changing geopolitical landscape and its impact on E&C. Listen in as the two discuss how anti-corruption is a key component of ESG, the consequences of compliance in cybersecurity, and the growing interconnectedness of risks. You can listen to Episode 11 here.  To learn more, download a copy of Tom Fox's white paper Never the Same: Five Key Areas in Which Business Will Never Be the Same After the Russian Invasion.    Featured guest: Tom Fox Tom Fox is literally the guy who wrote the book on compliance with the international compliance best-seller The Compliance Handbook, 3rd edition, which was released by LexisNexis in May 2022. Tom has authored 23 other books on business leadership, compliance and ethics, and corporate governance, including the international best-sellers Lessons Learned on Compliance and Ethics and Best Practices Under the FCPA and Bribery Act, as well as his award-winning series "Fox on Compliance." Tom leads the social media discussion on compliance with his award-winning blog, and is the Voice of Compliance, having founded the award-winning Compliance Podcast Network and hosting or producing multiple award-winning podcasts. He is an executive leader at the C-Suite Network, the world's most trusted network of C-Suite leaders. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.   Featured host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: Hello and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices at LRN. Today, I'm continuing my conversation from episode 11 with Tom Fox on the changing geopolitical landscape and its impact on ethics and compliance. If you haven't listened to that episode yet, we highly encourage you to do so. Tom is the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network and the author of the award-Winning FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog, as well as the Complete Compliance Handbook, which is in its third edition. Tom, welcome back to Principled Podcast. Tom Fox: Thank you, Susan. Susan Divers: Tom, in our last episode, we talked about the impact of the war in the Ukraine on compliance and ethics. And specifically on the challenges that's imposed or brought to the fore for companies and specifically for their compliance teams who hopefully have a real seat at the table in terms of dealing with those challenges and mitigating those risks. But one of the topics that underlies what we were talking about is that of conducting your business in a fair, transparent, and sustainable manner. And I'm really struck by some of the things you were saying about the need to be transparent and the need to walk the walk and talk the talk. Because if you fail to do so, we live in an age of radical transparency and easy access to social media, and moreover, it's the right thing to do. So with that as the background, anti-corruption has long been a focus for regulators. I mean, it's probably defined yours and my careers in a lot of regards. But only recently have some people started talking about it, and you're one and I'm one, as a major component of ESG. Could you explain for our listeners how that works and the role of anti-corruption in ESG? Tom Fox: Sure. So ESG, in my mind, Susan, the power of ESG is that it has brought together disparate strands that have existed in every corporation for some lengthy period of time. But brought them together in a way that someone is looking at them holistically. So, I'll pick on E because that perhaps is the easiest. As a compliance officer, I never looked at environmental issues in our company. That was somebody else's responsibility. Susan Divers: Me either. Right. Tom Fox: Didn't mean there wasn't environmental compliance, but it meant that I wasn't looking at that from the compliance perspective. Now, whether it's the Chief Sustainability Officer, whether it's the Board of Directors, whether there's a Board ESG Committee, somebody's connecting compliance to environmental. And so that in and of itself is, to me, the most powerful reason to have a robust ESG program. But anti-corruption in ESG, in my opinion, Susan, I've always seen it directly in the G. Susan Divers: Me too. Tom Fox: Number one, it's a good governance issue. Number two, it is a Board of Director's issue. Number three, it's illegal and regulatory issue. But now Susan, I'm beginning to see it and have tried to articulate, that I see it in the S component as well as sustainability. Part of it is around one of the topics we touched on our last podcast of radical transparency, that if you do business ethically and in compliance, and if there's a question raised about a supplier, a customer, a distributor, a someone you've done business with in today's era of modern social media, that you can respond to that in a way that won't hurt your business from the public perception perspective. Leaving completely aside the regulatory perspective. So, I see ABC or anti-corruption compliance now, Susan, as directly within the S of ESG as well. And I also see it in the E. So to me, it sort of bleeds across all aspects of ESG and is a key component of a best practices ESG program. Susan Divers: Yeah, and I'm glad you articulated it so clearly for people, because I think there's a tendency perhaps, to silo ethics and compliance and sustainability. And they really are part and parcel of the same thing. And I'm going to quote from your recent white paper in support of that. "As a fundamental threat to the rule of law, corruption hollows out institutions, corrodes public trust, and fuels popular cynicism towards effective accountable governance." And that's, I think, a quote from the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption. Can you talk for us and link together how anti-corruption, anti-money laundering, and sanctions all are part and parcel of the same thing and relate to ESG? I think that'd be helpful for our listeners? Tom Fox: So Susan, the statement you read interests me for a couple of reasons. That came out of the U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption, and it was aimed at national governments, so national governance. And I think it's absolutely correct that corruption, money laundering, all fuel cynicisms towards effective, accountable national governance. But Susan, as you were reading that, it struck me, that is equally true about corporate governance, or the G in ESG. Because violations of the rule of law, corruption, money laundering, they all corroded trust in our corporations, and indeed fuel cynicism towards effective accountable corporate governance. The United Nations estimates that $3 trillion is lost to the global economy annually because of bribery and corruption. The United States Department of Treasury estimates that $2 trillion is lost annually because of money laundry. That's $5 trillion taken out of the global economy that could be used for a wide variety of other ways, reasons to help countries and people that's not available to them. So having an effective anti-corruption and anti-money laundering strategy as well as trade sanctions, I think, are directly a part of ESG. They're certainly all in the G. We've talked about how they relate to sustainability. But money laundering and trade sanctions are as invidious, in my mind, as corruption is. After 9/11, we saw a spike in the first real spike in FCPA cases starting sort of circa '04. And it was said that corruption led to crime, which led to terrorism. And there was really a belief that corruption had a direct line to the terrorism that impacted the United States directly on 9/11. And now we see how corruption leads to erosion of trust in governance. But governance is not just corporate governance, it's democratic governance and democratic institutions. And certainly the Russian invasion of Ukraine put another exclamation mark on that. Whatever Russia is, it's not a democracy. And it is, if you want to see evidence of the invidiousness of corruption, you only need to look at a Russian army, their failures in Ukraine, how they've treated the people of Ukraine all wrapped up in an anti-democratic form. And that all speaks to the G. And when you read that line or that quote from my white paper, it struck me, that really works on multiple levels of governance. Susan Divers: Well, and you raise a good point too, that it's in the corporate governance area because if you... I've said this so many times, but it's worth repeating. If you have a code of conduct and you have training and you have policies, and you have an E&C team, that doesn't mean you have an ethical company, particularly if your leadership is engaging in sexual harassment or they're dealing with people who are banned because they're under sanction or they're violating anti-money laundering controls because it's a big account and they want the commission. That just means that your program is basically window dressing. So for corporations and for E&C professionals, it seems to me that making sure that you're doing business in an ethical, compliant way is part of and parcel of being sustainable. And part of demonstrating that trust that is essential, if you're going to do business effectively, as we've talked about. We talked last time a little bit about how the Biden administration has basically shifted the view of anti-corruption enforcement. And I think that bears reemphasizing, 'cause I thought that was such an interesting point that you raised about that in the last podcast. Do you mind repeating that? Tom Fox: Sure. So in December, 2021, the Biden administration release our U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption. Once again, this did not come about because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it occurred during the run up to it. And it's one of the things that I think the Russian invasion have put an exclamation point on as to why business will never be the same in certain areas. You and I have been in the anti-corruption field for a long time. As of December, 2021, our fight is now a national security fight. And they elevated anti-corruption and the fight against corruption to a national security issue. When something becomes a national security issue of the United States, that means resources are made available for that fight. The strategy released by the Biden administration was the internal U.S. Government Strategy. It didn't impact our former employers or us today directly. But what it did was say, "The U.S. is going to enhance the global fight against corruption. They're going to work with foreign partners, foreign prosecutors, foreign departments of justice or ministries of justice to bring to justice people who engage in bribery and corruption, people engage in money laundering in a way they haven't done before." Interestingly, there was a section on journalists and the fourth state and a specific acknowledgement that exposes, business exposes by journalists all the way from blood money of the story of Theranos to the Paradise Papers, to the Panama Papers, to the Paradise Papers, all exposed bribery and corruption, all exposed money laundering, all exposed sham corporations, all exposed fraud. And for the first time, we have the U.S. Government saying, "We're going to work to try to encourage good journalism to help expose these, because we can't do all of this on our own." And newspapers have a vital role to play, and reporters have a vital role to play. So, we have the fourth estate now being openly discussed by the United States. We have government agencies that had never concerned themselves with anti-corruption, now being tasked with anti corruption. And I would point you to NATO. NATO's been around most of our lives. No, well, I guess all of our lives. Susan Divers: Yeah. Tom Fox: It's a key component of what I see as U.S. Security interests. But I've never heard NATO and anti-corruption in the same breath before. Well, now NATO is charged with enforcing anti-corruption statutes for its suppliers. It's suppliers are not all U.S. companies. NATO's a 23 member, I think, organization. So any country can have suppliers to NATO. Well, now they have to comply with U.S. anti-corruption laws probably in the form of the FCPA. So, we have a greater scope, a greater reach, we have greater resources in the form of prosecutors or investigators. But the U.S. is acknowledging and saying, "This is part of our overall fight." And in part one of our episodes, Susan and I talked about the Department of Treasury saying that U.S. corporations are a part of the fight against money laundering. Well, I think the Department of Justice has come pretty close to saying that U.S. corporations are a part of the fight against bribery and corruption. And because it's a national security issue, we want you to come to us. We will incentivize you to come in and self-disclose, once again, even if it's within your organization. I think that this means more funds, a wider remit for government agencies that have not had this remit before. And when you start talking about the press as a key part or a key whistleblower within the context of overall whistle blowing programs, I think that's an acknowledgement that is long overdue. Susan Divers: I totally agree with you. And I think it also sort of ups the ante, because when you couple that with DOJ's recent re-emphasis and added emphasis on personal responsibility and liability for misconduct, it's in a sense saying, "If you go out and you bribe or you violate anti-money laundering or you do business with people on the sanctioned list, or you help oligarchs move their yachts, you're not just committing an economic crime. You're doing something that violates the U.S. National Security interests." And I think that's something for boards and executives to really think about, especially in light of the recent absolutely horrible Lafarge cement case where they were bribing ISIS in order to keep their Syrian cement factory open. It's an interesting dynamic. Let's leave that and let's talk about cybersecurity, because that's another major risk area for companies. And it directly plays into the area of sanctions in AML as well as others. What are you seeing in that space as a result of the war in the Ukraine and the risks that's created? Tom Fox: So once again, Susan, cybersecurity, cyber attacks, cyber hacks have been with us for some period of time. I think Target was probably the first one that got the attention of most of us in the compliance community. But certainly within the cyber community, this was well known. But what the Russian invasion of Ukraine has done is, here I have to cite to Brandon Daniels, CEO of Exiger who said, "We are now under permanent non-kinetic warfare.", meaning we are permanently under attack by our enemies in the cyberspace. Every company is subject to attack. It can be a state actor or it could be rogue groups. It could be criminal groups. So, that's sort of point one. We are all under attack now and we have to harden our defenses. But point number two is that what you sort of raise at the end, Susan, you're attacked, you're hacked. You want to get the key so you can unlock your documents. You make a payment. Who are you making that payment to? They're probably not going to say, "My name is Thomas Robert Fox. My bank account at Chase is..." They're going to give you a false name and some sort of drop account that you don't know, or you may not know who the end user is. Well, in 18 months or 24 months, when you get a little knock at the door from the Department of Treasury, which says, "You've just paid ISIS." Or, "You've just paid Russia. We'd like to ask you some questions under oath." The point being that if you don't know who you're paying, you may be paying someone who's on the sanctions list. You may be paying rogue agents or agents rather from Cuba, from North Korea. You may be paying agents from China. And so, cybersecurity is tied to money laundering and trade sanctions because of the potential payments. As a business, you're in an extraordinarily difficult position because you may have not had hardened defenses. And you may be at risk for losing your data or having it put out on the dark web. And that's not going to be an easy choice. But if you make a payment and it's to someone on the sanction list, the U.S. government has made clear, you will be punished for violations of those U.S. laws. And this fall, it's not effective yet, effective March, 2023, Lloyd's of London has announced that they will not honor cyber insurance obligations where the attack was made by a state actor. And typically what companies will do after they're hacked and they have to announce publicly is, they will say, "Well, we were a hacked by the Russian government and there's nothing we can do for it because it was a top military hacking unit in Russia. And whatever defenses we had in place, we couldn't defend us." Well, if you say that trying to cover your backside, you've just lost your insurance coverage. And if you make payments, you're not going to be able to get indemnity and that money back. So, you have to be very careful about what you publicly say now, if you want to have full cyber insurance. It's, here I'm less certain about the answer, Susan. I just know that the questions have become much more important, much more difficult. But you've got to have these conversations in your corporation. You've got to practice hack drill. It's like you and I did fire drills or bomb drills in elementary school. You've got to have a drill, you've got to have a plan in place. You've got to be ready, if you're hacked. You've got to have experts who you can call, trusted advisors, whether they be legal, whether it be technical, whether they be compliance, whether they be cyber, to come in and help you get through such an attack. But we're under... make no illusions that this Russian invasion has unleashed corporate attacks in a way we have never seen before. It's here to stay. And you as a U.S. corporation and U.S. compliance practitioner are going to have to deal with it. Susan Divers: Well, and what you're saying too is a perfect illustration of the interconnectedness, which I don't think we thought in those terms too much in the past. We had FCPA compliance and we had sanctions compliance and trade compliance and AML. We didn't really, at least, I didn't, to confess, sort of think about it as all connected. But if you're basically being held to ransom and it's a Russian or an ISIS hacker, then not only could you violate the sanctions laws, but you could violate anti-bribery laws too, inadvertently. To use a great expression, it's sort of a dog's breakfast in some ways, what compliance officers are faced with. So, what's your advice, because it's a new risk environment and the risks are really big? They're national security risks, they're not just good governance and good business risks. What should compliance officers do? Let's end on a practical note of, how do you actually deal with the situation going forward? Tom Fox: No, I wonder if I should open my door, bring my three dogs back in, and say, "Hey guys, what do you do when I put a dog's breakfast down in front of you?" And they look up at me and say, "Well, we eat it, Tom." It's here to stay. And that means you have to deal with it. It all goes back to risk. What are your risks? Assess your risks. Yes, I understand you have a robust cyber defense protocol. You have a program, you have tested that program, you've run drills on that program. Now, have you done that same with your prime supplier? Have you done that with your Tom Fox vendor who has access to the vendor invoice system so that I can input my invoice into your system for work I do? Have you checked down to that level to make sure that my defenses are hardened, someone using my system can't get in? You have to go through the same exercise you do from a corruption compliance, any money laundering compliance, trade control, and trade sanction compliance. Assess your risk. How do you assess your risk? Where are you doing business? Who are you doing business with? How are you doing business? In all of those manners, are there any gaps in your defenses in those three areas? If you assess those risks and then if you find gaps, weaknesses, material deficiencies, whatever you choose to call them, remediate those. It is a process you have to go through. You can't do it... I'm going to look at our cyber defenses in our third party supply chain this afternoon. You can't do that. It is a process and you're going to have to put work into it. But that's where you get the real results. Because once again, as we found, I think in the supply chain discussion we had, Susan, once you look at those sub-suppliers, who you're doing business with, where they're doing business, and how you're doing business, you may find inefficiencies from the business operations perspective. And you can correct or improve those business efficiencies and make your company more efficient, and hopefully at the end of the day, more profitable, when you began as a program to assess risk based upon a DOJ pronouncement or a DOT pronouncement. But it all starts with recognizing what your risks are. And only you can assess your risks. Susan Divers: And I like too, the way you've mapped it out, because it really, again, comes full circle back to sustainability, that the way you do business is just as important as what business you do. And if you truly keep on top of your risks and really reinvigorate the risk function, that should be, as you've pointed out, a dialogue with the board and with the top management. It shouldn't be a dialogue that compliance and audit and legal are having because it involves the strategic direction of the company. And it also involves the way the company is governed. So with that takeaway, I think this is a conversation we could be having for at least another hour, if not more. But we're out of time. And so Tom, thank you so much for joining us. And your thoughts are so valuable, because I think it's easy in the ethics and compliance field to get fixated on, "How am my rolling out the training? What's my curriculum, how many hotline calls have I gotten?" And it's much more about, how do we actually live in this world? And how do we in fact, conduct business in a way that's ethical, compliant, and sustainable? So you've really taken us to that perspective. And I'm very grateful to you for doing that. Tom Fox: Susan, thank you, and I look forward to continuing this conversation. Susan Divers: Thank you, Tom. My name is Susan Divers and I want to thank you all for tuning into the Principled Podcast at LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcast, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.    

As the world emerges from a pandemic mindset, we find ourselves confronting new geopolitical realities with Putin's war in the Ukraine as well as increasingly fraught relations between the US and China. How is this geopolitical landscape changing the compliance landscape? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers is joined by Tom Fox, the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network and aptly accredited “Voice of Compliance.” Listen in as the two discuss the impact of geopolitics on ethics and compliance, and what issues should be top-of-mind for E&C leaders in the near future. To learn more, download a copy of Tom Fox's white paper Never the Same: Five Key Areas in Which Business Will Never Be the Same After the Russian Invasion.   Featured guest: Tom Fox Tom Fox is literally the guy who wrote the book on compliance with the international compliance best-seller The Compliance Handbook, 3rd edition, which was released by LexisNexis in May 2022. Tom has authored 23 other books on business leadership, compliance and ethics, and corporate governance, including the international best-sellers Lessons Learned on Compliance and Ethics and Best Practices Under the FCPA and Bribery Act, as well as his award-winning series "Fox on Compliance." Tom leads the social media discussion on compliance with his award-winning blog, and is the Voice of Compliance, having founded the award-winning Compliance Podcast Network and hosting or producing multiple award-winning podcasts. He is an executive leader at the C-Suite Network, the world's most trusted network of C-Suite leaders. He can be reached at tfox@tfoxlaw.com.   Featured host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  Principled Podcast Transcript   Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: General Pete Schoomaker made a remark some years ago that's always stayed with me. He said, "People like to think that life is an opera that unfolds over several acts, but it's really a rodeo. You never know what's coming out of the shoot." So much of the ethics and compliance sphere clearly demonstrates the truth of the general's remarks, especially recently. LRN's last two program effectiveness reports focused specifically on the impact of the pandemic on ENC programs. Now we have the war with Russia in the Ukraine and increasingly fraught relationships with China. How is the geopolitical landscape changing the compliance landscape? Hello and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. Today, I'm joined by Tom Fox, the founder of the Compliance Podcast Network and aptly accredited Voice of Compliance. In addition to his 30 plus years of legal experience, Tom is the author of the award-winning FCPA Compliance and Ethics blog, and The Complete Compliance Handbook now in its third edition, which is by far the best source for best practices in one place about ENC programs. We're going to be talking about the impact of geopolitics on ethics and compliance and what issues should be top of mind for ENC leaders in the near future. Tom, welcome. Tom Fox: Susan, thanks. I have wanted to be on this podcast for a long time. I particularly enjoyed your reference about rodeos because in the great state of Texas, that's a college sport, rodeoing, so lots of rodeos and it's certainly an apt metaphor for what we're going to talk about today. Susan Divers: Well, great, Tom and I really appreciate the opportunity to have any conversation with you, but particularly on the podcast. So Tom, first, generally, how do you see the ongoing war in the Ukraine as disrupting trade and the rules, both formal and informal, that have governed the world for the last 20 years and is the World Economic Forum vision of trade now dead? Tom Fox: Susan, in addition to the rodeo metaphor you gave us, the most prescient comment I heard during the COVID-19 pandemic is that we've moved from disaster recovery to business interruption to, excuse me, to business resiliency, to business as usual. Literally now, we can have a weather event, we can have an economic event, we can have a geopolitical event, we can have any event and the requirement of a company is how do you respond? How do you respond tomorrow? Have you planned for this? I think the type of thing that we saw with the Russian invasion, as tragic as that was, it's one more, it's just an event and we're going to talk about that in some detail. But every company has legal, ethical and business obligations around that event. I was also particularly struck by your reference to the World Economic Forum, and when I read that, it put a frown on my face. And it put a frown on my face because the World Economic Forum, in my mind, has been one of the biggest leaders for the global economy. Since at least 1990 when I started paying attention to a global economic framework because I was in the energy industry and began to think about these issues on a global basis, the World Economic Forum and their symposiums, their position papers and really their raison d'etre was to talk about a global economy. Although I certainly thought we would have regional conflicts, as we have always had, I never thought we would, I guess my hope was that the global economy would help drive us towards a more integrated global community and that we wouldn't be put near a brink again of a global conflict. I don't pretend to say that's where we're going in Ukraine, but when you start talking about tactical nuclear weapons, that's a conversation we haven't had in this country since the '60s with seriousness. The World Economic Forum, the world they envision, the world you and I grew up in professionally, I think that world is gone. We're moving to something else. I use the Russian invasion of Ukraine really as an ending point or an exclamation mark on trends that we have seen percolating probably 10, 5, 3 years that accelerated extraordinarily greatly in the COVID-19 pandemic up to the war in Ukraine and the disruption that that has caused really impacts businesses, and this is going to be something, I think, we're going to have to deal with literally on an ongoing basis forward. Lots, really, to unpack there, but I do have to acknowledge you for pointing out it was really the World Economic Forum that has led, I thought, the charge for a global economy and globalization and unfortunately, I think that world is now dead. Susan Divers: I hear you and I feel the same way about the Forum. LRN participated in it quite actively until fairly recently, and the Forum really did an excellent job of helping global leaders cooperate, frame some of the rules and the practices. Maybe when the current situation resolves itself one way or another, there'll be an opportunity to do that again. But getting a little bit more granular at this point. You've written about the impact of the Ukrainian war on the supply chain and certainly for business that's one area where the rubber really hits the road. Can you explain that a bit to our listeners? Tom Fox: Sure. The Ukraine War, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as I said, put a exclamation point on this. One of the key disruptions from COVID-19 was indeed supply chain. Here, I think for the first time, Susan, we started to look at geography as a risk. Geopolitical risk has been known for quite some time, but with the COVID-19, we have the swaths of the world that were unavailable to us because of the pandemic. As the pandemic raged through China and moved to India and moved to Africa, large parts of the global supply chain were literally shut down completely and they couldn't get back up, couldn't get running again. We saw, from COVID-19, a geographic risk that we have perhaps not considered as much before. This is different than an island that may worry about climate risk or flooding or fires in California or something like that. We had real geographic risk. The Ukraine War really put an exclamation mark on geopolitical risk. What is the risk? What was the risk in 2019 of Russia invading Ukraine? Certainly there were discussions at the highest level of our government. Frankly, I don't think you and I, wasn't on our radar. Maybe if you read foreign policy, it was on your radar, but for the business practitioner, from the compliance professional, I don't think we were thinking about a Russian invasion and what that might do to either our supply chain or business partners or customers. Well now, if the Ukrainian grain cannot be put in the global food supply chain, that's a huge disruption. The question that I thought about is what would be the effect of the disruption of the global food chain on one of our former employers, Aecom, Halliburton, businesses that you and I have both been involved with, but we don't think of as having perhaps a food risk. Nevertheless, if grain is not available, what do those types of risks mean for employees in allegedly or apparently unrelated companies? Companies have to start thinking about these kinds of things in ways that we haven't done before. I did a podcast earlier this week where someone said, "Look, the issue now is China and Taiwan." And he was absolutely right. That could be a military issue, could be a geopolitical issue. 82% of US semiconductors are made in Taiwan. That's a huge issue. Let's go back to our former employers who are now heavily invested in tech and actually use semiconductors as part of their manufacturing process. They're going to be impacted, let alone the US semiconductor industry and the US computer industry. That is something now that we have to consider. Are there any other geopolitical conflicts that could erupt, which might negatively impact our supply chains? And when I mean negatively, I mean you can't get your supplies out of those countries, whether it's a raw mineral, whether it's a extractive mineral, whatever it may be. Those types of issues now are more front and center than they ever have been. From the business perspective, Susan, supply chains, since at least the late '70s or early '80s, the primary goal was efficiency. That was generally translated to just-in-time. It was seen because of the experience in the '60s where particularly in the auto industry, you had lengthy supply chains and actually large number of parts piling up in warehouses that was deemed to be inefficient. They wanted it just before they needed it. That led to just-in-time. That led to one or two suppliers. We found that sole suppliers or sole plus one suppliers has a risk. That risk is, if they're in a geographic area that's wiped out by COVID, if they're in a geopolitical area that is no longer available to us, then we, as a company, have a problem with our supply chain. Certainly there are many industries that have been offshored outside of the United States. From our industry and service, or rather service industry folks like us, to manufacturing, to everything in between. That is now trying to be reshored on American soil. Can we do it? Yes. Can we do it tomorrow? Probably not. Can we do it in time for Christmas? Probably not. We're going to have to retrain, we're going to have to retool. We may have to allow greater immigration to get people in to do those jobs and it brings up an entire series of questions. It brings up economic questions. How much more is it going to cost to reshore? How much more does it cost and pay an American wage as opposed to a Philippine, Bangladeshi or other wage? Or you name the country outside the United States where the wages are disparate. All of those issues are now in play in a way that certainly they were percolating around and percolating along in the second half of the last decade. COVID-19 accelerated those conversations, particularly around just-in-time and sole source suppliers. But now, I don't know how much of the globe Russia consists of. I think at one point, it was 12%. That's not available to us as a supply chain partner now and Russian partners are not available to us as supply chain partners. Now, what happens if China is not available to us as a supply chain partner or Taiwan because of an armed conflict with China. How is that going to play? Or can we even get semiconductor chips out of Taiwan if they're in an armed conflict with China? All of these issues are now front and center and I think every company has to be looking at their supply chain, who's in their supply chain. Then obviously, this ties into things that were not deemed to be connected to all of these issues before, such as conflict minerals. Conflict minerals required you as a company to determine or any of the minerals you're buying, the four Ts, I think, coming out of countries primarily in Africa under conflict. This was the first time companies had really taken a deep dive, not to their direct suppliers, but to their sub-suppliers and they found out we don't exactly know who all of our sub-suppliers are. Obviously the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act has huge impact on supply chains and hopefully, we can talk about that at some length in a little bit, but all of these issues on supply chain, it's elevated the discussion of the corporate supply chain, I hope, to where it properly belongs, in the board of directors level. But for the people that we deal with, the CCOs and compliance professionals, I think it should be a part of an equal conversation because what are the risks? I was going to say implications, but what are the risks of moving your supply chain, reshoring it? It's a change so the risks change. It may not be an FCPA risk because you may be in the United States, but almost every state in the US has an anti-corruption law and a state anti-corruption law. I had to look at it one time, 37 states do. That's not that you can't bribe our state government officials, every state says that, but 37 with regular commercial private or private anti-bribery laws. When was the last time you, as a compliance professional, had to assess that issue, that risk? Lots of new risks and you, as a compliance professional, need to be a part of those discussions so you can begin preparing your corporation for those eventualities. Susan Divers: Well, that's a perfect example, or I should say it's an example on steroids of how you have to respond to the risks that face you today and hopefully, tomorrow, try to look around corners. I remember, I think it was in the 2020 guidance that DOJ put out. They said that you can't let your program be a snapshot in time or go on cruise control. That's one of the biggest traps I see people fall into. You ask them what their risks are and it's kind of like what the risks were last year. With this environment and with what you just outlined in terms of supply chain, there's going to be a lot for compliance teams to do. How should people be addressing that right now? I know we'll talk later about sanctions and anti-money laundering being the new FCPA as Deputy Attorney General Monaco said recently, but what's your advice today in terms of how to think about those risks? Tom Fox: Susan, you hit it exactly on the head. Assess your risks when your business changed. You reference the 2020 update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs. That's where the first time the Department of Justice formally said, it's not an annual risk assessment. It's not a biennial, all-encompassing $100,000 risk assessment. It's an assessment when your business changed. The beauty of the timing of that statement, it was June, 2020, everyone's risk had changed because we were working from home. It didn't mean your risk increased or decreased, they changed. How do you assess working from home or how did you assess working from home from a compliance perspective? Once you made that assessment and then you found there were actually new risks, then you had to put a risk mitigation strategy in place, then you monitored that strategy to determine its effectiveness and then you used that information to upgrade your compliance program. The formula is in place for all of these things, but it starts with exactly what you said, Susan, assess your risks if your business has changed and everyone's business has changed literally, particularly in the supply chain. You've got to know who your suppliers are. From the business perspective, who can supply us is paramount. Pricing is going to be paramount. But from the compliance perspective, where are they getting those? If you're a clothing manufacturer, how many of your suppliers are coming out of Bangladesh and how many of those suppliers are violating any sort of fair trade or human rights laws? Even what's the safety, as we know from the Plaza collapse a few years back in Bangladesh. You have to know who's in your supply chain to a level and degree that you didn't previously think about unless you were in conflict minerals. But the beauty of that is that if you make that assessment down into your sub-suppliers from your supply chain, you as a business will be stronger. You will see, number one, if there are inefficiencies in our supply chain, but two, if there's a disruption, you'll be able to mitigate that if a disruption occurs because you can move to another supplier because you know where the parts are coming in from and hopefully, you'll be able to have prior knowledge or planning around that. But think of a weather event. In 2021, I was living in Houston. It hit seven degrees. That was the first time we'd had single-digit weather in Texas since 1890. Well, we can't prepare for that, yeah! This is a town that had gone through two 500-year floods and 1,000-year flood over the past 18 months. We had a wildfire north of Houston. We'd never had a wildfire in Houston, Texas in my lifetime. All of that's to say is that things have changed. I don't pretend to say I know which way it's going, I just know that you have to be there. You have to have assessed those risks and have a plan in place if you can't utilize all the way down in your supply chain, but that gives you the opportunity to be more business efficient and if a catastrophe does occur, you're more quickly able to respond. Starts with a risk assessment, put a risk management strategy in place, monitor that strategy, and then improve your compliance program as information becomes available to you. Susan Divers:I totally agree with that, Tom and I want to relate it back a little bit to a point you raised earlier too, which is this gives you an opportunity to make sure that you're dealing with ethical sub-suppliers and that your whole supply chain meets spec. I think I've seen in the past, in my long years as an ethics and compliance lawyer, and before that as more of a specialist on FCPA that a lot of times, people don't know who their sub-suppliers are and the first they find out is when there's fraud or potential bribery issue or diversion or a theft of intellectual property. It does give you an opportunity to get a more solid grip on your suppliers and make sure that they are the right people that you're dealing with. Let's turn from that, which is I think a very good segue to the issue of economic sanctions. There's really been a quantum leap in that area, even it was starting before Russia, I think, with the sanctions on Huawei and the heating up of tension in the US-China relationship, but now it's on a completely different level and that really, I think, has to be top of list for companies when they review their ENC programs. Can you talk about that and give us some guidance? Tom Fox: Sure. Once again, Susan, let me use the Russian invasion as the exclamation mark because under the Trump administration, we saw an exponential increase in the use of trade and economic sanctions. I had several friends in that space and every once in a while, I'd email them, "Well, we had three changes today. What do you expect this afternoon?" The point being that the prior administration saw those as legitimate and important tools for US national security. That has only increased now on steroids because of the Russian invasion. What the Trump administration's use of those tools did was it elevated the discussion of the trade compliance director in a corporation to the board of director level. It may have elevated them within the compliance function or generally within the C-suite because people now had to call trade compliance and say, "Anything new today?" Well, the sanctions that have come out after the Russian invasion have been all encompassing. Now, I looked before this podcast, I think we're on our seventh round of sanctions and more to come. That's seven rounds from the United States. That doesn't even count the UK and Western Europe who have equally sanctioned Russia. Many US multinational companies are also subject to UK or EU trade sanction directives. You need to be cognizant of those. But the current trade sanctions that have been levied, and when I say there's still more to come, we haven't gotten to the nuclear option, which is secondary sanctions. If we get to secondary sanctions, that's an entire level of trade and economic sanctions literally that we have not seen since World War II. Discussion though, around trade sanctions, and once again, I've talked to several of our colleagues who have that as their specific compliance remit and their specialization is they now feel elevated within the corporation. They feel that the issues they've been dealing with, their professional careers are now being discussed literally at the board of directors level because of these huge potential fines and penalties, the huge visibility. As important as these legal restrictions are, Susan, it's actually the reputational damage. Just think about the companies that either drag their feet about leaving Russia or were slow or less than somebody's idea of we need to be out of there. They were excoriated in the press for doing business in Russia after this invasion. Those conversations have largely on by the wayside because I think most US companies are out of Russia now, but the reputational damage for the violation of trade sanctions or even some sort of norm or standard now costs more than perhaps even the finer penalty would've cost. It's really a huge change for our colleagues. It's an important change because now, those issues are being evaluated together with supply chain at the board level in a way they have not been previously evaluated. You may now need to look, you need to call your trade director of trade compliance about issues in your supply chain. You need to call your director of trade compliance about where are we doing business? How are we doing business? Who are we doing business with? Who's our customer base? Are we selling with commission sales agents, company employees or distributors? If we're using distributors, are they reselling our products into Iran? Are they reselling our products into a country that's exporting to Russia? All of those issues now, I think, are being discussed at the highest level of a company. But for me, Susan, the real beauty of this discussion is finally, I think, the silos are coming down within a corporation and you're seeing a much more holistic approach to many of these issues that we'd not seen previously. Once again, if I could go back to the DOJ's June, 2020 update to the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs as presaging all of this, they said in that document compliance must have access to all data silos within a company because compliance needs to know what everyone's doing so compliance can do its job. Well, that turned out to be true, but it turned out to be true much broader. I think the DOJ was onto something when they said that, and I think now, companies are realizing you have to have this holistic approach. Trade sanctions and export control sanctions are here to stay. The other insight from the Trump administration use of them and the Biden administration use of them is they're administration agnostic. They're not going to go away and if 2024, we have a Republican administration, they are probably going to continue those and they're not going away. If there's a Democratic administration, they're not going away. They're probably going to continue those. Sanctions, trade sanctions, export control sanctions are here to stay. They're probably going to get more robust. And until Russia pulls out of Ukraine, I think companies have to take these very, very seriously, both for a potential legal finer penalty, but even more important is in the commerce or the business place of public opinion. Susan Divers: I totally agree with everything you've said and you've made a very articulate vision of what a major challenge is for compliance teams. The only thing I would add is, it's interesting to me, that this can affect small and medium-sized companies that don't think in these terms and may not even really be very sophisticated. When I was looking a couple of months ago, I came across a case involving a false eyelash manufacturer who was importing what turned out to be false eyelashes that sourced in North Korea. I mean, it was a Chinese supplier, but the sub-supplier was North Korean and they got in trouble. As you know, it doesn't really matter if you don't know. That's no defense and they paid a fine for that. It was a good reminder that trade sanctions can affect everyone and that you really, hopefully, have to have that on your radar. Let's take an interesting topic off of this, which is have the enhanced sanctions started to really impact whistleblowers? I mean, we know that FCPA enforcement has certainly inspired a lot of whistleblowers, as well as SOX and other areas such as that. But what about trade sanctions and what about AML and what we're seeing? Tom Fox: That's been, I don't want to say it was an unintended consequence, but one of the most interesting outcomes or aspects of the Russian invasion. For the first probably 30 days, the most ubiquitous picture of the Russian invasion was a yacht steaming away because it was a Russian oligarch's yacht and they were trying to steam to a port where the US couldn't come in and forfeit them because of trade sanctions and sanctions put on the Russian oligarchs. But here's what happened. On January 1st of 2021, US Congress overrode President Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act. In that bill, there was something called the AML law of 2020. The AML law of 2020 was the first update to our anti-money laundering laws and trade sanctions laws since the Patriot Act passed in the wake of 911. As part of that change, a bounty program for whistleblowers was put in place similar to the SEC bounty program put in place in Dodd-Frank. That Department of Treasury money laundering or anti-money laundering bounty program applies to those Russian yachts because if a yacht is seized and sold, the person who reported it can be eligible for up to 30% of the proceeds of that sale. This created an entire cottage industry of marine yacht hunters who knew and they are working with law firms to actively, and when they find one in a port that the US can get jurisdiction over, these law firms notify the DOJ and then the DOJ does whatever they need to do to try to get seizure of that yacht in a foreign country. That was viewed as hugely popular and the American public is cheering them on in a way whistleblowers have never been cheered on in our lifetimes. I remember I interviewed a woman whose law firm specializes in whistleblowing and I said sort of in an offhand manner, "Are you telling me that whistleblowing is sexy?" Her response is, "You mean, it hasn't always been that way?" No, it hadn't. But now, it was seen as directly in the interest of the United States, particularly our national security for these whistleblowers to come forward. As important as whistleblowing is to the SEC, I don't think it had ever been considered a national security issue. That ties to what the Department of Treasury has announced publicly that they expect US corporations to be in on the fight of trade and economic sanctions and money laundering by self-reporting. I had had a little trouble tying self-reporting of your own violation to the fight against national security. But what the Treasury Department argued was, come to us, tell us if you find people within your organization violating trade sanctions or economic sanctions and we'll give you credit for that, that may be a declination up to it, including a declination. The DOT has truly tried to incentivize companies to be a part of this fight and that is now the same for whistleblowing. Whistleblowers are now seen. There's one other document called US Strategy on Combating Corruption, which came out in December, 2021. In that document, the Biden administration pointed to whistleblowers as a component of the fight against bribery and corruption, which that document elevated to national security status. Now, we have whistleblowers who before the Russian invasion, certainly were a part of the legal landscape and part of the compliance landscape, but now they're being told, you are a part of our national security interest and you are a part of our national security fight and if you bring us this information in the form of blowing the whistle, you will be rewarded. The US public is saying, you go. You go find those yachts. You go find those people who are doing business with those that are not in the national security interest of the United States and we'll support that. That's, in my mind, just a huge psychological change. Susan, I know you have written and said more about whistleblowing and how to treat whistleblowers than about anybody and I know this is something that you've been talking about for a long, long time, but I really see this as a true shift in the way whistleblowers are thought of in the United States. Susan Divers: Well, I'm glad you brought that point out because I think that's true. Tying it furthermore to the impact of corruption on national security, I think is an idea whose time has come and we're going to do a whole other podcast on that as part of this series so I won't get into it a lot. But the concept of corruption as a victimless crime has been around as long as I've been practicing, which is a long time. It's not a victimless crime. I don't need to convince you. But it basically corrodes good governance, it corrodes social structures, it makes it harder for the poor. I mean, if I can go bribe my way, get a MRI ahead of everybody else in some less developed country, I'm jeopardizing the other people who can't afford that in that country and I'm also corroding ethics and good governance, but it hasn't been seen that way in the past, either by the government really or in the corporate community, and so we'll get into that more in the next podcast. But that's fascinating to tie the whistleblowing into that and it has the additional benefit of being true, if you will. I have to say, I love the image of the yacht hunters. It's one of the first things I read when I open The Wall Street Journal in the morning to see if there's some oligarch's yacht that's being towed away or whatever, but it's definitely an idea whose time has come. Tom Fox: For those of you who think our ever new ideas, I think if you look back in history, that was called piracy and or rading by English- Susan Divers: Letters of marque. Tom Fox: Yes, exactly. Letters of marque. It's an old concept, but it's equally valid today. Susan Divers: Well, let's close off this session because we're going to do another podcast and talk more about anti-corruption and sustainability. But one of the things I was curious about is how does all of this tie in to the level of transparency that we're seeing in international trade, in commerce? Our chairman of the board, Dov Seidman, whom I know you know of and know has written a lot in the past about radical transparency and how does that tie in to what we've been talking about? Tom Fox: Susan, let me go back to 2015 and the Volkswagen emission testing scandal. I read a speech by the head of the German Manufacturer's Council, so the German trade group for manufacturers. In that speech he said, "The answer is compliance and transparency." One, be in compliance, but two, be transparent about it. That is how we, as a German industry, will get through this. Volkswagen has done what they've done. We can't stop that or do anything about that, but we, the rest of German manufacturing, can be in compliance and can be transparent about that compliance. That really struck me at the time and it stuck with me since then. The transparency, the radical transparency that Dov talks about is even more important in 2022 because of things like the Business Roundtable Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation. How many stakeholders are there now? Previously, there have been only shareholders, but now you have multiple stakeholders. It can be your employees, it can be your third parties. It can be those localities where you do business and that's where that radical transparency is so critical because they may not own shares and they may not be able to vote, but they can vote with their pocketbook. The radical transparency allows you to demonstrate to stakeholders who are going to vote with their pocketbook that we do business ethically and we are in compliance, and that you can and should do business with us because our values are what your values are. That's, to me, the power of radical transparency and it's the ability to demonstrate to those who are not regulators. Because remember, if you're fined for a regulatory violation, that's seen as a below the line sunk cost. Just the cost of doing business. Tell me how much my fine is and I can reserve for it, whatever it is. What I cannot reserve for is if 5, 10, 25 or 50% of my customer base chooses not to buy my products because I've been found to have violated sanctions or I've been found to have used Uyghur labor in product site sourced out of China, or you name the issue. That's not a bottom line cost. That's a top of the line cost. That's a cost you can never get back because you can't reserve for non-sales. It's a cost you can't anticipate, you can't reserve for, you can't mitigate the risk because once you don't have sales, you don't have sales. To me, that concept of transparency, that concept of doing business ethically, in compliance and that concept of radical transparency all really protects you and allows you as a corporation to say, "This is what we stand for. This is why we're proud to sell a product to you and hopefully, you're proud to buy a product from us." Susan Divers: Well, you're right and that really tees up the heart of sustainability. Sustainability isn't one giant checklist after another. It's what are we really doing and how are we doing it? What you're also saying too is, and it ties with things Dov said in the past, that we live in an age of radical transparency where anyone can go on Twitter, I guess, if they pay the $8 now or post on Facebook or Instagram or wherever and expose concerns. And with the incredible increase in sanctions and money laundering controls, it's just a further reason, if anyone needed one, why you have to get your house in order and you have to make sure that you are dealing with those risks effectively and of course, walk the walk as well as talk the talk. We are running out of time, unfortunately, but I'm excited to mention again that we're going to continue this conversation in an upcoming podcast. It's been such a pleasure having you today, and I know we could keep talking for another couple of hours, but we'll have further opportunities in the future. Tom Fox: I always have way too much fun when you and I sit and chit chat, whether it's over a lunch, a coffee, or a podcast, so thank you, Susan. Susan Divers: Oh, I feel the same way, Tom. My name is Susan Divers and I want to thank you all for tuning into the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro:  We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance and global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

In September, the Department of Justice Fraud Section announced a new policy direction on corporate misconduct, clearly stating that personal accountability for employees, executives, and directors was their number one priority. The revised DOJ policy clearly states that an organization's compensation and benefits program must be aligned to its values and ethical culture. So, what does this mean for compliance? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers discusses how to implement a meaningful performance management system that meets DOJ objectives with Stephanie Ragan, a Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional (recently of SOFEC) and now solo practitioner after 14 years as a compliance specialist and manager in the oil and gas industry.    Featured guest: Stephanie Ragan As an experienced, well-rounded compliance and ethics specialist, Stephanie has recently struck out on her own by launching Ragan Export Compliance, a consulting company focused on providing services and guidance for regulatory compliance. A subject matter expert in trade compliance for the past 10 years, she holds both a Masters of Science in Regulatory Trade Compliance and a degree in International Trade Management. Her credentials include special certifications as a Certified United States Export Compliance Officer (CUSECO), a Certified Compliance & Ethics Professional (CCEP) and an FCPA Expert (FCPA Blog).With a passion for developing efficient, integrated and automated compliance systems and programs, Stephanie's philosophy is that the intentional integration of compliance and ethics elements within an organization is at the core of every successful business model; and through making compliance accessible and approachable to all stakeholders, the value of a company's culture is significantly increased.   Featured host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.    Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: Last September, the Department of Justice Fraud Section announced a new policy direction on corporate misconduct. And they clearly stated that personal accountability for employees, executives, and directors was the department's number one priority. And as part of that, the revised policy that DAG, Lisa Monaco put out that day makes clear that an organization's compensation and benefits program must be aligned to its values and ethical culture. That means that positive behavior, for example, turning down a tainted business opportunity should be an essential factor in evaluating performance. And that there should be financial penalties, real financial penalties for misconduct. So what does that mean for compliance professionals? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's DAG, Lisa Monaco. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. Today I'm joined by Stephanie Ragan, a certified compliance and ethics professional, and most recently of Sofec, an oil and gas provider that's global in its operations. Stephanie has just left Sofec and is now consulting on her own after 14 years of a compliance specialist and a manager in the oil and gas industry. We're going to be talking about implementing a meaningful performance management system that meets DOJ objectives and how you go about that. Stephanie, thanks for joining me on Principled Podcast. Stephanie Ragan: Thanks for having me, Susan. Susan Divers: It's my pleasure. Interestingly, one of the questions we ask in LRN's annual program effectiveness survey is about organizations using ethical behavior as a significant factor in compensation, bonuses, hiring and promotion. And last year 69% of the over, I think it was about 1200 ENC programs that we surveyed, indicated that they required that an employee's ethical behavior be evaluated as part of their annual performance review. And we found that top rated programs were much more likely with 88% including such criteria. But Stephanie, as you know, with all things compliance, the devil is in the details. So I'd really like to hear about how you implemented your program that does just that at Sofec. And I'm sure our listeners would love to profit from your experience and your wisdom on this subject. So let's start at the beginning, how did you start this initiative or how did it start and how did you get support for it? Stephanie Ragan: Well, sure. So coming from a company like Sofec, we just celebrated our 50th year and we have a lot of mature programs and some that are still coming along. And our compliance program was one of our newer initiatives. We started it in about 2011. And it was interesting to see that when we formalized that department and all of our programs, policies, everything that helped sustain it, there was a need to measure it against other overhead type departments like HR, HSE and quality. So looking toward those types of departments for direction to see how we could measure effectiveness of programs and tie that back to our professional performance goal setting efforts that we do on an annual basis was a challenge for us. And we decided that as the new kid on the block, we could look at what worked for everybody and what didn't. And we decided that it would be necessary to look at what weight we needed to hold within the organization for each of our compliance initiatives. So for a starting point for our listeners, I would suggest that you look at the way your organizations measure performance. And if there is already an existing HSSEQ component or HR component, that you should also be including a compliance and ethics representation. And that should be a key area of focus for your personnel to align with your company culture and your company code and business operations. Susan Divers: That makes a great deal of sense. And I want to pick up on one thing you said in particular, which is that the ENC program needs to have equal status and weight with other similar programs, whether it's HR or audit or security or health and safety. And that's actually in the 2020 guidance from the Department of Justice as well. Because one of the questions prosecutors will ask or are told to ask companies accused of misconduct is, "Does your ENC program have equal status and resources?" So the approach you took fits very nicely with that. Let's talk about how you actually went about it. How did you enlist support? How long did it take? And what did you do in the end to get it up and running? Stephanie Ragan: Well, you know it takes a village to have any kind of success. And our compliance and ethics global team really took on this call to bring compliance and ethics to the forefront, it having an equal say in the performance measurements that we do in the company. And we were able to within the last few years, convince our management that along with performance measurement, which was a key area of concern, we needed to have regular meetings, at least an annual meeting, to be able to confer as a team globally and to discuss ideas, work on program development and get training initiatives ironed out. Kind of plan out our year as a whole so that globally we could have a cohesive plan that aligned everyone, didn't leave anyone behind from a planning standpoint for all of our entities, and made sure all personnel were covered by local compliance and ethics designees that could administrate and cover those programs as we rolled them out. So this was very well taken on. And again, we leaned back into HR and HSE were having these types of annual meetings and conferences internally in the company. So we wanted to say, again, we need to make sure compliance and ethics is represented. It was well received and management was very supportive. So in 2019, we had our first global gathering. And at that point, we all discussed how we measured and where we had gaps in measuring those compliance and ethics performance areas. And we figured that the global initiative of tying it into your bonus, your compensation that's measured annually by HR, that we needed to partner with them as well. So we were able to utilize the great guidelines that were out by the Department of Justice that came out in 2018, 2020. And then similarly, we had more guidelines come out again this September. These types of guidelines were helpful in getting the highest levels of buy-in. So using that as leverage, we were able to place value on measuring those individual participation to show evidence of a effective compliance program. And we were able to also work with legal. And I think that that's something that anyone who's struggling with finding a way to tie their individual performance metrics for users to compliance and ethics, that having your legal team work with you, if that's not already part of your compliance and ethics team and working with HR to jointly explain to senior management why the Department of Justice guidelines are so helpful and necessary to pay attention to. No one wants to have those types of individual penalties pointed back toward them. And letting them know what the enforcement and penalty details could entail, it can be a little scary and overwhelming for them, but it lets them know the weight of importance. So moving on, our CNE team wanted to then, after we had our senior buy-in, determine specific ways to quantify a compliance and ethics participation that was acceptable. So we developed a way to be able to measure and do a cumulative total for each employee throughout the year. And with the help and guidance of our compliance council, our general compliance council, which oversees all of our compliance and ethics initiatives from a senior level, and our chief compliance officer who's over our entire group, performance matrix was developed. So we determined what KPIs and metrics were most valuable to our company and also how participating in training and completing mandatory training assigned on time or early would be a key indicator that our personnel were engaged in in meeting their CNE goals. Now that was our initial concern that the training and focusing on training, on time training completion wouldn't be enough, but that's a great baseline. So if you are not measuring that, start there. And we also decided though that's a minimum expectation, that other avenues of participation engagement could then be easily added. This was a chance also for our CNE team to promote all of the tools and the outreach that we had been developing to engage individuals in our annual Compliance Week program, our local newsletters, which we could insert quizzes and different activities for them to complete, optional live and virtual training sessions, surveys, quizzes, and use of compliance videos and slides in their operational meetings and team meetings. And then it gave us an opportunity also for people that really went above and beyond to be recognized and have that tied back into their performance goals as a metric to, so our compliance champions who always went above and beyond, or personnel who brought forward potential compliance and ethics issues that were helping make formative changes to our program could also be recognized. That sounds like a lot to keep track of and could be really overwhelming for our listeners that have a new compliance program, limited resources, budget constraints, but there are a lot of great tools and support out there like LRN that is a great content provider and provides support with measuring that on time participation and a lot of other value that you can add into your program. Let's face it, at a minimum, any functioning compliance program is at least checking the box with mandatory compliance and ethics training like anti-corruption or your company code training, general CNE program awareness. So if you start with training as your first building block to measurement, it'll be less of a shock and easily accepted because your population and your personnel are already participating in those training initiatives. Susan Divers: That's a great story. And the way that you worked with other people in the company to identify where you were going to start with the criteria I think is very powerful for people who are grappling with this subject. And I know it's not just companies that are new or small, it's an area that I think a lot of people are still trying to chart their way. And also using the Department of Justice guidance strategically to help management understand why this is a risk that really needs to be managed. I think there is emphasis when you look at the guidance, it's important to realize that it's out there in part to help people like you and your team actually implement it by putting it under an official seal, if you will. So well done. Hey, tell us now, how is it working and are there any tweaks that you would make at this stage? Stephanie Ragan: Well, the great news is we've certainly seen improvement. So we've seen results of greater participation across the board in all of our areas. So whether it's people participating in Compliance Week because they know it ties back to their performance or they attend training that they would've otherwise blown off or not considered taking because it wasn't mandatory. And that is really energizing us to continue to grow the program and continue to find ways to reach people. And we've seen a lot of participation because of this initiative of tying it to performance goals in areas and regions where maybe culturally it wasn't important before to participate in compliance and ethics initiatives. But now they understand because they have something that's tangible material that ties back to their actual individual performance and they want to succeed in that area. So in general, it's helped us create different types of communications. We've been able to go and create management reports to provide managers live specific data on how each of their team members are performing throughout the year. Some managers reach out for that quarterly or semi-annually, but everyone reaches out for it toward the end of the year when they're wrapping up their performance evaluations. And it's great to have that kind of tool. So I do recommend that you work on creating something as simple as an Excel spreadsheet that can start capturing data to keep good records regarding the performance of your personnel. And also, if ever you are audited by a government authority, it's a great tool to provide your training records and say, "We're not just checking the box, we are going above and beyond by tracking every engagement with compliance and ethics." So also following that, we're able to use those participation records to quantify a score for each person. Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a numeric score. Some companies may want to do it that way. We aligned with what our HR teams were already using, which is kind of a scale one to five, either unsatisfactory and then failed to meet expectations. You either met expectations, exceeded expectations, or you did outstanding work. So because that was already in use in our system, it was a language everybody understood and we created what fell into each category for our measurements on the compliance and ethics side. And again, we don't have to reinvent the wheel, you can use what you have and work smarter, not harder. But tracking the progress is really important. So if you can assign something that you can put a value against, then you can develop statistics over time and track trends within the organization. We did have a lot of discussion across the board about how much weight should be given to compliance and ethics performance compared to HSE or HR. So again, we fought to have equal footing because we preach in our company code of, we have a culture of compliance, we have our compliance code that gives guidelines on how to operate in every aspect and provides best business practices for everyone. So there was no reason to sell ourselves short or give ourselves a discount and say, "We don't want to be considered equally." Even though some companies may need to tweak that based on what their own business practices are, it should have some alignment with your culture and your code. And that way people understand it and can buy into it on an individual basis and an organizational basis. So looking forward in 2023, and this is largely in response to the new DOJ guidelines that you mentioned earlier, which came out September 15th, that does focus a lot on enforcement. So again, we have that leverage to push and say, "This is important. You don't want to be in trouble because this is how it can affect you as an individual." And that does garner a lot of attention and response from senior management, which is great. We don't want to scare anyone, but we want to make sure they understand the weight of their actions or inactions. But our tweaks moving forward would include tiered measurements, and that aligns with the Department of Justice newest guidelines so that you have different measurements and expectations for managers and supervisors and executives. And I think you should really look at that as three different categories, general personnel, people who have an influence over them, managers and supervisors, and then the people at the top. So your executives are going to be viewed differently if enforcement actions are ever taken. So you might as well prepare and have your program mirror that type of focus internally. We also have a lot of questions that come up then from managers that say, "What are my roles? What do I need to do to earn my points or to get a good rating?" And we always encourage them to infuse and integrate compliance and ethics into their team talks, their safety minutes that they have at a beginning of a meeting, replace some of those with compliance moments. And we make those tools available easily so that they can download it from our [inaudible 00:19:23] and they have full access to short videos, to content that we can pull from different training providers or that we've developed internally. That just makes it easier if they have one stop shopping, they can go to your compliance site. And if you don't have that type of setup, don't worry. Companies can always make it available by emailing that out to managers and just having kind of the library available to them. And as you develop and tweak your offerings, let people know. It's good to self-advertise within the organization so that send an email out to all of your managers and say, "Hey, we have a new video available if you want to share it with your teams." And let those managers come back to you and let you know how they used them and what the feedback is, because that's just going to help build the program and continue your process improvement. As the DOJ recommendations indicate, effective compliance program always points to individual emphasis for that compliance and ethics participation and compensation. And I think we can agree that those personnel who embrace and make an effort to incorporate compliance and ethics into their work are more likely to report potential issues, be less likely to become bad actors by breaking rules intentionally or unintentionally. And generally, they're going to support the best practices and the compliance and ethics program in the organization. Susan Divers: Well, we would certainly agree with that. And our research at LRN shows overwhelmingly over the years that I've been here, which are now six, that a culture of compliance that involves employees at as many levels as possible and helps them by giving them materials, you mentioned making it easy for managers to talk about ENC, that that is the best defense to misconduct and it's not how many times you reinvent in your code of conduct. But I do want to mention one other thing that you talked about early on, which is data points and having something that shows exactly where a particular individual is in their ENC journey, whether it's training or touchpoints. We've actually just redone major parts of our platform and we're very excited about it because there's a part that we're rolling out this month called Reveal, which is advanced data metrics from the training experience. And it shows what courses, what subjects people struggle with the most, how much time employees spend on a given subject and a lot of other very relevant data. It's very powerful and it allows you to benchmark against yourself and against other companies in your area. That's something everybody is very focused on. And using that in conjunction with your performance review system can really drive change. And then I'd also mention managing that data is important. We also are including a tool that we've had for some time called Disclosures where we're asking people to tell us when they attest to the code of conduct or when they roll out. You can use it to track how many times they roll out an ethical moment or other times when they talk about ethics and compliance. So the idea is to make it as easy as possible for the compliance team to track that. But we're starting to run out of time, so I want to talk quickly about what are the pitfalls. Because obviously this is a terrific program that has gained traction and is broadening and improving as you go along. But what are the pitfalls to avoid? And then I want to talk about your new company and your new initiative too. Stephanie Ragan: Well, first of all, the biggest pitfall that you can have is to not do anything or to be stymied and overwhelmed. So don't overthink or over design any initial measuring system. Remember that look to the offerings and tools that are made available to your personnel already. So start with finding the easiest way to measure what you're already doing. And you can always scale up as part of your continuous process improvement efforts. And then again, as you saw for development of our program, we could not have done this if we had worked in a silo. You have to engage and partner with HR and other stakeholders in the organization to find a way to infuse that measurement of your ethics and compliance participation. And be sure to include that there is a way to acknowledge excellent contributors. Because that drives people and excites them to participate more. So it can be an incentive for good behavior and make it specific to a task or event that's not evergreen. You can change this around and continue to improve it as years go on and set goals for your compliance and ethics team to be able to continue to develop every year something different to bring more users on board. Susan Divers: That makes a great deal of sense. And again, congratulations. That's a major accomplishment. And it sounds like the program was very well designed for your business and your particular culture and your risks. So let's turn to the future now with your own business, Ragan Export Compliance. What kinds of clients will you be aiding in the development of their ENC programs? I know you have deep experience in the oil and gas industry and are a certified FCPA expert and have the export control function as well. What are you going be focusing on and what risks do you see developing for exporters in particular as they seek to adhere to the DOJ guidance? Stephanie Ragan: Well, thank you for asking about that, Susan. At Ragan Export Compliance, I'll be providing trade compliance support and guidance focused on export or import compliance plans. And large focus now is technology. So we'll be helping develop technology control plans. And also because I do have a background coming from the last five years of doing the certified compliance and ethics professional from SCCE, I also can help develop the corporate compliance program enhancements for any industry, which can include developing training programs, conducting training, auditing, risk manages, strategies, due diligence and screening ,vendor management systems. And if a system needs overhaul, that's something that people sometimes forget. They develop a compliance program and then put it on the shelf, but it really does need continuous review, especially in the light of recent and constant regulatory changes and updates. To get back to your question about what risks do I see developing from an export angle, I do see two areas where exporters can pay additional attention, especially considering the current international policies and issues that are going on in the world. The enhanced due diligence is needed now as part of your program to identify military end users or MEUs. And this is primarily in China, Russia, Venezuela, and Burma. But it's a good habit to get into looking at that and incorporating, identifying military end users and uses as part of your, know your customer and screening system for your full supply chain. And then the second area where there can be some additional attention paid would be that your program includes a really strong level of control for not just your physical shipments, but technology. That's a blindside for a lot of exporters, importers, and just USPPIs in general because they don't realize how wide the definition for technology is when you look at the regulations. So for example, the EAR definition of technology for Department of Commerce for controlled technology is any specific information that relates to development, use or production of controlled items, those technologies would also be controlled. So pretty much any information that relates to those items, because the development use or production is so broad. And the ownness of that comes back to the exporter. Whenever regulations are vague, it puts more pressure on the exporter to understand and have systems in place to be able to address potential violations. And then because of regulatory changes, a lot of stagnant compliance programs can be a real risk for companies because they may not realize it's something that they have always been able to export. For example, certain valves or stainless steel items, things that were pretty innocuous for a large part, didn't need licenses up until recently when regulations changed. And now they fall into this large basket categories like 2B999 ECCN numbers, which I know might sound scary and very technical to people listening that don't have a real firm grasp on the ECCN, but there's a lot of guidance out there, and that's what we hope to provide and be able to help navigate at Ragan Export Compliance. So finally, just in general, I would say that my advice to our listeners today is just to continually evaluate your compliance program and make sure that your CNE engagement measurement that we've discussed today become truly effective ways to ensure that your organization is on the path to executing best practices and avoiding any regulatory infractions. If you follow the guidelines and reach out for help when needed, you won't go wrong. Susan Divers: Well, thanks Stephanie. I certainly agree with everything you've said and want to emphasize your point about don't fall into the trap of stagnant compliance. A lot of times I think it's easy to rely on backward looking metrics and saying, "Well, last year we trained 340 people, and this year we hope to do more." It's important to really keep evaluating what are the new risks that we're facing, and are the procedures that we have in place adequate for those new risks? And certainly that's consistent with the guidance too. So unfortunately, we've run out of time, but I want to thank you very much for spending these minutes with us and giving us the benefit of your insights. I hope you'll come back and speak to us again soon. Maybe we can do a session on export control. And we wish you all the best in your new venture. Stephanie Ragan: Thank you, Susan. Susan Divers: My name is Susan Divers and I want to thank you all for tuning in to the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning, ethical cultures, rooted and sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

What you'll learn in this podcast episode Guidance from the US Department of Justice, particularly the recent 2020 memorandum, stresses that a company's compliance program must reflect and evolve with its risks—and should not be a snapshot or on cruise control. But in assessing those risks, it's helpful to see what other companies in the same area or circumstances have done to meet them. Collective action and coordination can be very useful in dealing with common risks. So, when is benchmarking and a collective approach to risk helpful? And when can it backfire? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Advisory Services Emily Miner continues the conversation from Episode 6 about benchmarking with her colleague Susan Divers. Listen in as the two discuss the benefits and limitations of benchmarking, and how organizations can ensure they benchmark their E&C programs effectively.    Featured guest: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  Featured Host: Emily Miner Emily Miner is a director of LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory services. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.   Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Emily Miner: Guidance from the US Department of Justice, particularly the recent 2020 memorandum, stresses that a company's compliance program must reflect and evolve with its risks and should not be a snapshot or on cruise control. But in assessing those risks, it's helpful to see what other companies in the same area or circumstances have done to meet them. Collective action and coordination can be very useful in dealing with common risks. So when is benchmarking and a collective approach to risk helpful, and when can it backfire? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled podcast. I'm your host, Emily Miner, director of Advisory Services at LRN. Today I'm continuing my conversation from episode six about benchmarking with my colleague Susan Divers, our director of Thought Leadership and Best practices. We're going to be talking about the benefits and the limitations of benchmarking and how organizations can ensure they benchmark their E&C programs effectively. Susan brings more than 30 years experience in both the legal and E&C spaces to this topic area with subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Susan, thanks for coming on the Principled podcast. Susan Divers: Oh, Emily, it's always nice to talk with you. Emily Miner: So Susan, before we get started, let's kind of define benchmarking and summarize the conversation that I had in our last podcast with our colleague Derek. So benchmarking means comparing what you do as an organization in this case to a usually large number of comparable organizations or individuals. And most often, this is done in a quantitative way, although there are also opportunities to benchmark qualitatively. And at LRN, we've been using benchmarks for a number of years now through our research reports. We've conducted major panel research on the role of ethical culture in an organization and in organization's risk of misconduct. So looking at how that varies across countries, across industries. We conduct every year research into ethics and compliance program effectiveness research that you lead and that you and I collaborate on. And we've been doing that for, oh gosh, coming up on, I don't know, maybe eight years now. That's been given us a insightful look into Ethics & Compliance Program best practices, and how they've evolved over time. We've also conducted research on codes of conduct, analyzing nearly 150 publicly listed codes of conduct from the top listed companies around the world and looking at similarities and differences and best practices in that space. But we have a brand new product at LRN that we're launching later this month that I know we're all really excited about called Catalyst Reveal, which is a platform that will, as it's name suggests, reveal insights to our clients about their ethics and compliance program, things like course level data training, data, employee sentiment, ethical culture. It will also give our clients the ability to see how their results along these metrics compare with other organizations in the LRN client universe. So looking at by industry, by company size, and a few other comparable filters. So with that exciting launch as our backdrop, I wanted to talk to you as an expert and a thought leader in this space about benchmarking compliance programs, when to do it, when not to do it, et cetera. So let me turn it over to you, Susan, and let's start with the benefits. What are the benefits of benchmarking in ethics and compliance program? Susan Divers: Sure, Emily, I'd be happy to talk about that. In thinking about this topic, there are really three really good functions that benchmarking is appropriate for. And then there are some where it's not so appropriate and we can talk about all of that. But starting with what it's very appropriate for, the first is if you're setting up a program, you need to figure out kind of what are the basics that you need to do at the outset. And it can be very helpful particularly if it's a new program, and it usually is if it's setting it up to be able to say your management, "We have to have a code. We have to have policies. We have to have audit. And we have to have training" and those are kind of the four basic pillars and being able to make that case. That's very basic, but it can be very helpful in terms of people who are struggling to get started in what we all know is a really complicated area. So that's kind of the first setting where benchmarking I think can be very helpful. And then the second is you've got your program and you're up and going. Now, no two companies are alike, no two industries are alike, and I can get into that a little bit later, but it's helpful to know if you're mainstream or not. Like for example, our Ethical Pulse Culture check lets you sort of get an idea from a short questionnaire embedded in our platform in Reveal whether your culture is really out of whack or pretty much along the same lines as mainstream. And again, that's really helpful because it can show you an area where you're maybe excelling and it's good to take credit for that and scale it, or it can show you an area where you're deficient and it's good to know about that too. And then the last is, and this is where for example Ethisphere has done a lot of really good work, best practices. People are constantly innovating. I'm always amazed at how ethics and compliance programs are changing and getting better. And we can talk about that a little bit, and Reveal's going to be very helpful there. But benchmarking can give you ideas that can be very valuable for enhancing your program. So those are sort of the three big areas where I think benchmarking can be extremely helpful. Emily Miner: Yeah, thanks Susan. And on that last point that you shared, that's really resonating because if nothing else, benchmarking or surveying what other companies are doing out there with respect to ethics and compliance and different facets of that, it gives you as an ethics and compliance professional just an idea of what's possible. Maybe there's a new approach to communicating with your employees that you haven't thought of that might work for your organization. I'm at the SCCE's Compliance & Ethics Institute right now, and there was a session yesterday about one particular organization's sort of their evolution of their compliance program following some significant trust that was lost in the organization to senior leader misconduct. One of the things that they talked about was having employees around the globe put on skits that they turned into videos that dealt with ethics moments and how the actors, which were the employees of the organizations, would kind of get famous around the world for their skits. It was a very lighthearted way of communicating very serious topics that resonated for this particular organization. But a lot of people in the room were asking questions, "Oh, well, how could I put together a skit like that? Did you write the script or did the employees come up with it and this and that?" Just that it's a way of sharing ideas and fostering innovation across the industry that can be really exciting and powerful. Susan Divers:    Yeah, that's a great example, but maybe it's time to talk a little bit about the limits of benchmarking too because that's a good illustration of the point that benchmarking's good for the three things we just talked about. Setting up, making sure that you're in the mainstream and not at either end, or maybe you want to be excelling and then getting ideas and best practices. What it's not good for is saying, "Hey, we met the criteria." And the reason is there isn't a criteria. In fact, there was a quote two days ago or so from the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices, and she said, I quote, "It's like running a different company every two years." So the point I'm trying to make here is that your program has to be based on your risks, and those risks can change dramatically, I mean, certainly in the semiconductor area, and that's what she was talking about. The risks have changed, they basically changed radically with all the changes with China and the export sanctions and the war in the Ukraine. So it's not enough to say, "Hey, I'm doing what everybody else is doing in that area." And secondly, the other big problem is comparing apples to apples. I picked three consumer companies to sort of illustrate this. One is Walmart, which obviously is a big consumer company. Another is PepsiCo, another is Mondelez. And if you look at all three, they all have really different risk profiles. They may be in the same area generally, but Walmart's much bigger than the other two. Walmart had a major scandal a number of years ago where they wound up paying, I think it was 137 million in 2019 because in order to get permits for their stores in Latin America, particularly Mexico, their lawyers were actually paying bribes. When you think about it, that should have been something that they were sensitive to on their risk profile and both training and auditing the local lawyers. Also, there was some lawyers on their teams internally. That was a risk and they failed to mitigate it. PepsiCo is bottling, and so do Mondelez has plants, but it's not quite the same level of regulatory intensity as setting up a store, hiring people, environmental health. So I use that example because I'm trying to pick an industry and say, "Well, if you compared yourself to one, you might miss some of the particular risks that you have." One of the also things to bear in mind, and you alluded to it when we started, is that DOJ has never recommended benchmarking in all of the guidance. In fact, they've said things that kind of contradict benchmarking if you were using it to say, "Hey, we met the norm." They've said, "You don't want to be on cruise control," and that's because things change. And they've also said, "You don't want to just take a snapshot of your program at a given time." And that's kind of what the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices was saying too. And that's because any time you're looking backwards rather than forwards, you could miss the iceberg that's looming up ahead and going to sink the Titanic. So at any rate, I think benchmarking can be very useful, but you have to use it for the right purposes and you have to bear in mind the limitations. Emily Miner: Right. Absolutely. It's never the be all end all. It's one data point that we should be collecting and looking at in some situations and not others. And in those situations, it's one of many that we should be considering when we're thinking about program effectiveness. Susan Divers: Yeah, it's an element. Yep, absolutely. Emily Miner: So let's kind of tease this out a little bit more. Where do you see benchmarking being helpful? I know that you gave those three scenarios, but maybe if you could pick out a concrete example to share against any of those three scenarios to illustrate how it can be helpful or when it can backfire. Susan Divers: Sure. Well, let's pick another consumer company, Anheuser-Busch. This is a great example because it illustrates how benchmarking can be used very effectively to drive a best practice. Anheuser-Busch had a very prominent CECO who has very recently left to go to the Department of Justice in the last couple of months. When he was there, he set up an internal data analytics program that was able to pull data from their own systems, payments, SAP of course, onboarding and pick out red flags without, if you will, human intervention. In other words, he was able to take a number of data streams from various parts of the company and meld them together. And because he was very good CECO, he was able to figure out what some of the risk signs were or the red flags. What it did is it enabled Anheuser to manage its third parties, which if you think about it, beer distribute, beer companies have a lot of third parties. And then they could focus in on those companies, those third parties where there were red flags. They didn't have to audit everybody to the same degree of intensity. And that approach of internal data analytics was a best practice that was gathering steam, sorry. But once Matt really took it to the next level and showed how it could be done, then it really became mainstream in the E&C area. And Matt's now at DOJ. So if you're going to go in and have tense talks with regulators, being able to talk about what you're doing in benchmarking is important. And it takes us back to Reveal where Reveal is a really powerful tool that we've developed that will enable you to see red flags or predictive factors. And again, remember looking backwards doesn't really help you because it doesn't tell you if there's a big iceberg about to sink the Titanic. But looking forward and saying, gosh, the data that's coming in from Asia on attempts to pass courses or on our Ethical Pulse Culture check or other features is worrying. It's nothing specific that we know about at this point, but it indicates that, I'm just picking on Asia randomly, it indicates that we need to spend some time in Asia figuring out what's going on. So that's really an excellent use of benchmarking and that's a good story as to how understanding what best practices are emerging and adapting them then for you, because nobody could simply take Matt's system of third party analytics and plug it into their company and come up with the same results. It has to be tailored and it has to be specific. But that's a really good example of what DOJ is talking about in this area where they say you have to tailor it to your risks. So does that make sense? Emily Miner: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great example with Anheuser-Busch and the system that they set up. I want to kind of talk about specific types of data that we collect in ethics and compliance or can collect, because I feel like the kind of two most common ones that organizations want to benchmark are training completion rates, that's a metric that is easy to collect and is often one that is shared, and hotline. "Oh, my hotline reports. How does this compare?" And the hotline providers will publish annual benchmarking reports on hotline. So we've got course completions, we've got hotline data, but we also collect other data points, or there are other places where we could to think about program effectiveness. I'd love to hear from you, as you think about the universe of ethics and compliance data, where do you think kind of benchmarking holds water and where does it not? Susan Divers: That's a great question, Emily, and I'm glad you asked it. Let's start with the hotline because that's a really good example in a lot of ways of two of the pitfalls. One of the major pitfalls that we touched on is are you comparing apples to apples or apples to potatoes? A company, let's take Starbucks for example, they have 300,000, relatively young, many of them first job employees. And are they going to call the hotline if they see something or worried about something? The odds are probably no even though they've got a big kind of young and engaged workforce because they're inexperienced. Most of their employees, I was talking to their CECO last week, and most of their employees really haven't worked extensively in the workplace. So Starbucks might have really low hotline numbers. Another company that's largely unionized, on the other hand, because unionized workers generally know about the hotline and they know about formal complaint processes, they'll have high hotline usage compared to other companies. Let's just pick a slightly ridiculous example, but a big manufacturer of clothing like the Gap or something. You'll have unionized workers in the plants, but Booz Allen is a consulting company. Are you going to compare hotlines between Booz Allen and the Gap? That really is an apples to potatoes comparison. So I think hotline benchmarking, and I know most of my colleagues in the E&C area would agree is very, very difficult because you'd have to really know what the workforces are to try to get an idea. And then secondly, it can be driven by other factors such as when I was at AECOM, we deployed a lot of people in the Middle East and the conditions were harsh. So our hotline complaints would go up when people were under stress, but another company might not have that circumstance. Emily Miner: Yeah, that's such a great point about when you're using benchmarking and you're considering using benchmarking, you have to be really thoughtful about what that benchmark pool is made up of. The union example is such a great one because even within the same industry, you compared the Gap to Booz Allen, but even within the manufacturing industry, for example, not all manufacturing company has a unionized workforce. So you can think, "Oh, well it's manufacturing, so it's comparable," but it might not be depending on the workforce dynamics. That level of insight isn't always available when we're benchmark data sources. Susan Divers: We forgot one thing that both of us know, which is I think the last stat I saw was more than 90% of meaningful issues are not raised through the hotline, they're raised in conversations with managers. So I've never been a fan of hotline benchmarking. Emily Miner: Yes, absolutely. Susan Divers: But to turn to training completions, that's an interesting one too. Again, it really depends. If you're using an old fashioned training provider whose library consists of 45 minute or even longer lectures, sort of Soviet style on the evils of sexual harassment, first, it's probably not very effective. And secondly, a lot of people won't complete a 45 minute course just because it's long. If the training is repetitive and hectoring, they'll drop out. Whereas the kinds of courses that we have and that we emphasize are very engaging, they tend to be shorter, they tend to be more microburst learning. So again, what are you comparing? Do you have a lot of employees on the shop floor? Well, it's hard for them. They can't really just take a break, sit down at their laptop and open up a course on antitrust. So again, I think training completions can be tricky. It doesn't mean it isn't interesting to see that data, but figuring out, again, whether you're making an apples to apples or an apples to potato comparison, I think is really important. And then secondly, remember, it's retrospective looking. It's not telling you anything about what's coming around the corner. Emily Miner: Mm-hmm. One thing that we've focused on in this discussion is comparing ourselves to other organizations. I mean, that was how I even defined benchmarking at the outset, but there's also internal benchmarking, comparing your own performance year over year or whatever the period of time is. When you were just talking about training completion, it made me think about that internal comparison, less so with training completion because I think it tends to be high, a lot of companies mandate it so there can be penalties for not completing training. So if it's high for that reason alone whether or not it's good or relevant to employees or they liked it or whatever. But thinking about metrics like pass/fail rates or number of attempts or test outs or some of those more nuanced training related data points and comparing against yourself year over year and seeing what has changed and what might be the result of that. I mean, maybe you noticed in year one that it was taking the majority of your employees or a significant minority of your employees more attempts than you wanted to answer certain questions correctly related to a certain risk topic. And so then as a result, you rolled out some focused communication and maybe you targeted specific groups of people where you noticed were particularly struggling for additional manager led conversations or whatever. And then in year two, does that pass rate or attempt rate improve? That's a helpful metric because you're comparing apples to apples, you're comparing yourself and you're able to connect it back directly to specific interventions that you may have need to make improvements in that area. So I just wanted to point out that benchmarking can be done internally as well. It's not always an external exercise even though that does tend to be how we talk about it. Susan Divers: Well, and you're exactly right, and that's where it gets really valuable because first you can make sure that you're comparing apples to apples. For example, if you've just done a merger and suddenly your population of employees has doubled, well obviously then you know that you've got a much different comparison year over year, but you can break that down and you can make those comparisons by manipulating the data. Secondly, your Ethical Culture pulse survey is a really good tool year over year adjusted for employee population size. And if we've got new people coming in the company, a merger for example. And it can be proactive. It can, again, spot trends as you were just saying that indicate that you may need to spend more time with people. But the beauty of internal benchmarking, particularly the way Reveal has set that up for our clients and made it easy is that you can get genuine insights looking at what happened last year, what happened this year and you know some of the reasons why there may have been a change. Whereas if you're comparing yourself to, I don't know, Ernst & Young, you don't. You don't have visibility in terms of their numbers. So internal benchmarking, I think you're right to stress that. And it's a very, very valuable tool. Emily Miner: I've done, as you know, a lot of work with organizations evaluating and assessing their ethical culture. The trend that I've noticed with those clients that we've done this type of work year over year over year is that the benchmark, the external benchmark just grows. It's important kind of in year one and maybe year two, but after that it ceases to be relevant and the companies don't really care what it is anymore because it's also they're not shooting for the benchmark. The benchmark is often the average and they want to be above average. And so it's more about competing with yourselves and how did we improve against our own performance last year? And so that's just been interesting to observe. I think as companies get more robust in their use of data and their tools and how it informs their strategy in some areas like ethical culture for example, that external comparison just becomes less relevant over time. Susan Divers: That's a really good point too. And that gets back to the Department of Justice saying, "Don't put your program on cruise control." And I do remember, I think it was 15 years ago when benchmarking was much more trendy and before people really thought through the limitations, someone was bragging that they had benchmarked their program against Boeing. Boeing then subsequently had major meltdowns left, right, and center most specifically and tragically the 737 MAX where people died. And so running around saying, "Hey, my program benchmarks well against Boeing" may not have been really a compliment to the program in the end. But it also misses the point which you're making, which is you have to look at your program and what's gaining traction with your people and where the proactive red flags are emerging because that's what enables you not to be Boeing, not to pick on Boeing, but it's a good example. Emily Miner: So Susan, let's wrap up by offering some recommendations to organizations that are thinking about program effectiveness, how they measure that. They want to have those benchmarks. Maybe they fall into those three scenarios that you outlined at the beginning. What recommendations or best practices would you offer to those organizations, to your peers? Susan Divers: Well, the first one is be really smart about it and avoid comparing apples to potatoes. And to do that, you have to really think it through. What are we comparing to whom and how similar are they? I really, again, think that's most useful for kind of like, "Are we in the mainstream? Or is there something maybe we forgot?" If it turns out that everybody in your industry has suddenly amended their training curriculum to train about trade controls in the wake of the Ukraine war and you haven't, well, that's a helpful benchmark. But I think the main ones that are valuable are what we were talking about with best practices and data analytics and the creative use of data analytics that are tailored to that particular company is a great example of that. And then the second one as you pointed out which I think is equally valuable and really essential too, is internal benchmarking up to a point where you're able to see what direction things are going in. And again, it's more in the nature of red flags rather than a way of saying, "Hey, we met the requirement, we're good." It's, "How are people doing this year compared to last? What does that tell me about where I need to focus my resources?" Emily Miner: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, Susan, thank you so much. And thank you for joining me on this episode. We are out of time for today. So to everyone out there listening, thank you for listening to the Principled Podcast by LRN. It was a pleasure to talk with you, Susan. Susan Divers: Oh, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, Emily. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen and don't forget to leave us a review.        

What you'll learn in this podcast episode Over the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in E&C programs when it comes to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do these recent reports, policies, and guidance mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices Susan Divers is joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings. Listen in as the two discuss the recent guidance from the US Department of Justice as well as DOJ policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture.      Featured guest: Jon Drimmer Jonathan C. Drimmer is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice and is based in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. He resolves complex cross-border problems with the benefit of having sat in every chair at the table: senior legal officer for a global 500 company, federal prosecutor, and seasoned advocate. He is a recognized international expert on anti­corruption and business and human rights, and is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on issues related to both topics. Before joining Paul Hastings, he was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Barrick Gold, one of the world's largest mining companies, with operations on five continents. The compliance program he built at Barrick has served as an industry standard, and elements of it have largely been duplicated by numerous other companies inside and outside of the extractive sector. Mr. Drimmer has directed hundreds of investigations around the world related to anti-corruption, human rights, AML and export controls, tax controversies, environmental incidents, public disclosures, fatalities and health and safety injuries, sexual harassment and discrimination, and other areas. He has represented companies and individuals in numerous government enforcement proceedings in the U.S. and overseas, in relation to FCPA and bribery claims, human rights issues, and a wide array of other matters. He has participated in dozens of major disputes in the U.S., Canada, and abroad, including transnational torts, anti-corruption claims, environmental cases, international arbitrations, tax disputes, construction claims, and land controversies. He previously served in the Justice Department as Deputy Director of the Criminal Division's Office of Special Investigations, where he led cross-border investigations, first-chaired numerous prosecutions, and argued federal appeals. He was a partner at an Am Law 100 law firm in Washington, D.C., a former Bristow Fellow in the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General, and a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Drimmer served on the board of directors of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative from 2012-2014, and again from 2015-2017. He served on the board of TRACE International from 2012 until 2018, and currently sits on the board of the TRACE Foundation. He has also taught international law courses at Georgetown University Law Center for nearly 20 years.   Featured Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.    Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers:  Good afternoon. From time to time, but particularly in the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in ethics and compliance programs when companies present them as a defense to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do the recent flurry of reports, policies and guidance mean for compliance professionals? How should they be applied to improve E and C programs? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. And today, I'm joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the international law firm of Paul Hastings. We're going to talk about the recent DOJ guidance and policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture, and hopefully help everyone understand what it is and how they should apply it to their programs. Jon is a real expert, as well as a friend in this space. He has the unusual distinction of serving in three of the principal seats that affect ethics and compliance, once as a federal prosecutor at DOJ, another time as a chief ethics and compliance officer and deputy general council for a large mining company, and now as an ethics and compliance advocate with a leading law firm. Jon, thanks so much for joining me at Principled Podcast. Jon Drimmer: Thanks, Susan. It's great to be with you. Susan Divers: Super. Well, let's jump right in. Last week, we saw a new policy come out of the Department of Justice that both Lisa Monaco and also Ken Polite have talked about with great emphasis. We've also seen the report come out of the sentencing commission about their 30 years of accomplishments. And we've also seen some major guidance in the last two years. Can you put it in perspective for us and talk about how it fits together, and how they interplay. And then we can jump in and start figuring out what they mean. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. No, happy to do it. So let me take each one in sequence. So what we saw come down from the deputy attorney general was a new policy memo. And in essence, what that means is policies are, they are the rules that apply to federal prosecutors and prosecuting entities around the country. They are the standards that are going to be applied. Guidance, which is something that we see come out in a number of different ways through formal guidance as well as through statements and speeches and other informal approaches, this is basically how those rules are interpreted, how prosecutors should be thinking about the application of those policies as they're applied to any given circumstance. And then finally, reports, and you mentioned the sentencing commission's 30 year look back, those are more general. And they do tend to come out for transparency purpose, they're often retrospective, like the sentencing commission report. But they generally talk about how these rules have been applied. So policies are the rules, the guidance effectively aids in their interpretation, and the reports generally are a bit of a look back as to how they have been applied to date. Susan Divers: That's really helpful. It really helps me put all of those in perspective. Talk a little bit more than about the policies and the guidance. Are they mandatory? Are they voluntary? Jon Drimmer: Well, for prosecutors, they're mandatory. So when you look at the policies, this is effectively how prosecutors are to approach any given situation. It is a directive to them in terms of how it is they should go about doing their jobs. And I'll tell you it's critical. It's critical for chief compliance officers to understand those types of initiatives, those types of emphases. It's critical to prosecutors as well, as they get that direction in terms of what they should be focusing on. So really, it's a very important part of the process and helping to shape how investigations are run and scoped from the government's end, and what can be expected on the company side as well for chief compliance officers. Susan Divers: But it's not technically a rule, if I'm correct. But it sounds like you strongly recommend that ethics and compliance professionals pay great attention to it. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. No, that's fair. It's not a regulation. It isn't something that goes through a formal regulatory process. It's not the equivalent of a law. It's a direction. It's a directive that's basically given. And so it doesn't have the force of law, but it is a very important set of instruments to understand the relevant DOJ policies, the justice manual. So yeah, that's a fair assessment. I do strongly recommend understanding it in detail, but it isn't technically a law or regulation. Susan Divers: And if I understand correctly, and I've been in this situation myself too as a chief ethics compliance officer, if there's a misconduct inquiry or investigation, and 95% of those are resolved without prosecution or probably more, basically, you'll be asked to come in and meet with the Department of Justice prosecutors, possibly the SEC too, and part of that is talking about your ethics and compliance program. Can you put that in context and explain why they want you to do that, and how you should do it? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, absolutely. So what they're really looking for is a discussion of A, what the compliance program was at the time of the incident in question, and where it is today at the time of charging. It's really both time periods are really quite important to them. And they want to understand how with a compliance program the issue or event might have occurred. But they also want to understand what changes have been made to improve its effectiveness since that time period. And often, given the way that investigations go and timelines, there may be a good bit of time between the original incident and the time a formal compliance program presentation is ultimately made. And in making that presentation, the guidance, the policies, these are incredibly important in shaping the factors that you're ultimately going to present on. But the real tip is not just presenting on the formal approach, the formal program, the policies, procedures. But how do you know they are working in practice? And that has been a huge emphasis from the government in the last couple of years, and one that ethics and compliance professionals should take heed of. It's not just a matter of rolling out the program, but with the rollout, including those steps to validate its effectiveness in mitigating the relevant risks it's designed to address. Susan Divers: I want to get into that in more depth in just a second. But before we leave sort of setting the scene for why this is so important. So if you go in and you meet with the Department of Justice and its prosecutors, and you do a good job, a credible job, of presenting your ethics and compliance program, and it's clear that it's a strong program, and you've got hopefully evidence of effectiveness, what's the consequence of that? Jon Drimmer: Well, at the end of the day, I mean, the most significant issue is monitors. And if you've been involved in an issue that violates a federal law, federal criminal law, and the question is: Are you sufficiently capable of addressing your compliance issues going forward without day to day regular oversight from a monitor? That is a critical inquiry, and so number one, an effective compliance program and design and implementation is really important for a monitor. It's also important in charging decisions. It can be important in terms of disgorgement and fines and penalties as well. It's taken into account in the federal sentencing guidelines. So in the end, an effective compliance program really is a critically important part of a resolution process for a DOJ investigation. Susan Divers: So that's basically why ethics and compliance programs, if I understand correctly, came into being. It's really to mitigate the impact of misconduct investigations, and hopefully allow the company to go forward with it's E and C program. We won't talk about monitors today. That can be another podcast. But that's something that you want to avoid, generally. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. You generally want to avoid that, yeah. I mean, look, there's another element we probably won't get into today as well, that you and I have talked about extensively, and that is how programs ultimately help shape the values and culture of a company, so aside entirely from proactively mitigating relevant risks, affirmatively driving a culture that does increase productivity, increase retention, increase morale, that's a critical component of a compliance, an ethics and compliance program as well. It does dovetail a bit with culture of compliance, which is something that is important to demonstrate when you're in front of the government. It's something the government is increasingly emphasizing. There's a positive aspect that isn't just preventing potential problems from happening that are associated with ethics and compliance programs, as you've written about quite persuasively. Susan Divers: Well, you too. And I'm glad you reminded everybody of that because that is a critical reason for having an effective ethics and compliance programs. So let's leave the sort of rewards and penalties side and start talking about: What are the prosecutors and the Department of Justice leadership really saying in this plethora of policies, guidance that's come out in the last couple of years? What are the key messages? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I would say in reading through the recent speeches, the policies, coupled with the guidance, I think we can take away several messages. And two of them are, number one, there is this enormous focus on program effectiveness, and I can't say that enough. And as I read the memo from the deputy attorney general colloquially calling the Monaco memo, I see as a major sub theme, and as a former chief compliance officer, this absolute drive towards the effectiveness of programs. And just to take a step back for a minute, in some ways, this is how the sentencing commission's report actually becomes relevant in this discussion, and the 30 year look back report was issued roughly at the same time as the DAG memo. And if you look at the report, a few interesting statistics jump out. And these again, this is focusing on companies that actually went through a court sentencing, so it isn't settlements, which is typically how corporate resolutions are resolved. But 2021 was the first year that more than half of the companies sentenced under the guidelines had a compliance and ethics program. And the previous high was 2018, when it was about 28%. But in 30 years, since 1992, only 11 companies have had a reduction by a court because their compliance program was effective. That's .5% of all of the companies sentenced, and most of those are actually small companies. So most of the time, for those companies that are going through the process, they aren't getting credit for having an effective program. And with the Monaco Memo, if you actually look at a lot of what policies are ultimately looking to drive, it does center around effectiveness, driving performance, driving commitment through a focus on individuals. And so it talks about producing information in a timely way, focusing on individuals because that is what incentivizes effective performance. For chief compliance officers, it might mean if you're going to do an investigation, a thorough investigation, you do have to include that within your scope, the focus on individual culpability to a degree that you might not have before. The same is true with ephemeral messaging, which is a big emphasis in the recent memo. Ephemeral messaging has been part of their calculus for several years now. But here, they do want to focus on whether the company policies regarding ephemeral messaging are effective. Is the company capturing messaging that's occurring on company related devices? Are we allowing personal devices? If so, are they limited to certain apps that are capturing company business related discussions? Is there training? Is there auditing? Are there other steps on ephemeral messaging? So they really want to see not just: Are there policies? But are they effective? And those are just two examples. But if you do dig into what's behind a lot of these policy announcements in the memo, it really is looking to drive effective programs. Susan Divers: Well, I want to dig in a little bit. And just to clarify by ephemeral messaging, you mean that if we have senior execs using What's App to communicate, rather than company systems that are subject to discovery, then we might have a problem. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. It can be company, it can be teams messaging, it can be What's App on company issued devices or personal devices. It's any of the messaging systems that are used to communicate that ultimately may not ordinarily be retained by the company in the way that email is. Susan Divers: So that's an area that the policy makes clear, compliance officers ought to really take a hard look at and may need to make some changes, or at least provide some clarity. I want to get information effectiveness more in a minute too. But just to deal with the other very specific granular recommendation that I saw in the Monaco Memo, it was that you really have to have an incentive system that's aligned to ethics and compliance. And by that, it's both positive and negative. In other words, you have to reward ethical behavior as part of your system of incentives, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions. And you have to penalize misbehavior, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions, but also claw backs. Can you talk about that a little bit? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. It really was fairly prescriptive, as you say, in terms of, in ways that I think should make chief compliance officers happy. That's the stuff that we always advocate for with human resources and with executives. Hey, we want ethics. We want ethics and compliance included in hiring decisions and promotions and bonus frameworks and performance commitments. And that's really what helps integrate ethics and compliance into business operations and prioritize it along with operational considerations, so that should be welcome news for chief compliance officers. The claw back aspect, which is the stick, that's the carrot, this is the stick, it's interesting. They really emphasize it's not good enough just to have claw back provisions that are theoretically applicable, that are present in policies and are never applied. They want to see them applied in cases where there is appropriate individual culpability. And that may mean applied in different ways. They're clearer that there is no uniform approach to a claw back provision, but it isn't good enough just to have it as a policy. You need to talk about it. You need to train on it. And you need to actually implement it in appropriate situations, which is part of the focus on the individual responsibility and again, driving effectiveness. Susan Divers: That's a very good segue into effectiveness. I do want to emphasize what you said, which is this is something that ethics and compliance professionals need to pay attention to. And it should be a welcome development to have that kind of accountability and importance placed on ethics and compliance considerations. But it's: What do you do about it, as you said, if you've got claw back? I think the SEC says that about 50% of publicly traded companies have claw back, but you have to use it. Otherwise, you're probably worse off if you have it as a tool and then you don't use it if you've got senior level misconduct. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, I think that's right. But better to have it than not have it, and if you've got it, you've actually got to apply it, is kind of what they're signaling. But look, this is hard. I mean, it is really hard when you are doing investigations of your own people. As a chief compliance officer, this was the least favorite part of my job is doing investigations into people I work with, people I knew, people who in other aspects of my job, I had to trust. I had to trust them in terms of implementing or overseeing certain aspects of the program. And when you have to do an investigation into them, it feels lousy. It screams out for why independence is important. And those particular instances is just a matter of investigative integrity, but it's a lousy part of the job. And applying a claw back provision to senior executives who you have worked with, who you have traveled with, whatever it is, it's a lousy part of the job, but they are saying it is an important part and a part that has to be applied in practice. Susan Divers: Yeah. I agree with you. That is really the worst part of being a chief ethics and compliance officer, for sure. Let's dive deeper into effectiveness. As I've gotten to know you and worked with you on thought leadership, I've always been extremely impressed with you focus when you're a chief ethics and compliance officer on effectiveness. And I remember some of the things you did, even including short pulse surveys in your investigations to get feedback from employees, so that's just one example. But can you talk about what do we really mean by effectiveness in terms of ethics and compliance programs? What should we be measuring? What should we be looking at? And where should the focus be? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I mean, really what effectiveness means is: Are the goals of any particular element of your program being achieved? Are you meeting the goals that you have set out for that particular element of the program? So for instance, your goal might be to roll out a new training, and to roll it out to 90% of everybody on a mapped basis. That isn't going to get into effectiveness. Effectiveness is: How well do they retain the critical aspects of the content that is being conveyed? And that can be done through surveys, that can be done through tests, et cetera. But when we're talking about effectiveness here, again, it isn't just about roll out, it isn't just about robustness and good faith commitment to implementing a program. But is it working in practice? How do you know it? How do you test it? How do you validate it? Often, that's done through KPIs and through metrics. I personally like surveys, sentiment survey, I've always liked surveys as a way of getting information. And beyond that, it brings employees into the program when they are talking to you, providing information about their own experiences. I think that's a very effective way to do it. I think 360s in terms of reviews that include ethics compliance is another important part, so you do again get perspectives of employees on individual performance, particularly for supervisors, from an ethics and compliance standpoint. I think you need to look at audit results. I think you need to look at investigations. I think you need to look at a number of different factors that all indicate on a lag indicating basis, what is working and what isn't working. But I think that should be a relentless focus, personally. And I think for every element of your program, you should be looking at multiple ways to try to assess. Is what I'm doing actually working to the degree that I want it to, and in the way that I want it to? And if not, you have to make an adjustment. That's what effectiveness is about. Susan Divers: That's a really good definition. I think one of the traps people can fall into easily is to focus on activities rather than impact. And I like your phrasing of it as a relentless focus on effectiveness. I mean, one of the things we're just doing is rolling out a short, I think it's 10 question ethical culture pulse survey that comes up at the end of a code of conduct course. And it asks questions about respect and trust and organizational justice, which as you know are key elements of an ethical culture. So always trying to get at perceptions and concerns and to the degree that you can measure how that's playing out, I think is really essential to effectiveness. I want to talk about in a minute how non US companies are affected by all this, and also the most common mistakes you've seen people make in your long and in depth, varied career. But before we get there, I was just looking at some of the DOJ material, and I see that Matt Galvin has joined the team. And now I think there's at least three or four former chief ethics and compliance officers. And Matt came for Anheuser, and he has a particular focus on data analytics. What are you seeing in terms of using data analytics for effectiveness? And what do you recommend in that area? Jon Drimmer: I think that's a great hire. I think it'll be great for Matt, and I think that's a great hire for the government, really bringing in somebody who ran a compliance program and who has had a very substantial focus on data analytics. And at AB InBev, the Brew Right program that he put together is one that's usually been held up as an industry leader. I mean, I do think data analytics is critically important. One of the challenges with data analytics that you have to always get around is making sure that your data is good, that things are being recorded and described in like manners that allows for apples to apples comparison. And you have to understand what to do with that information. And so it's not enough to run the analytics, but when you get the analytics back, you have to have a program in place, resources in place, to act on it. And so thinking through holistically what the data is, where it's coming from, how you're going to act on it, depending on what you get is all a really important part of the equation to think about ahead of time before you just start collecting and running. Look, it's critically important. It's been something that's been emphasized for years as a key way of identifying effectiveness, as well as potential risks that you might not otherwise see, and trends, and patterns. So it really is a very important part of a program with the caveat that you've got to make sure that your data is really good and that you know what you're going to do with it on the back end. But that's a great hire, and I'm sure it's really going to advance compliance thinking in the government around the use of data. Susan Divers: I think that's a good way to characterize the importance of data metrics and particularly stressing that it's not enough to have them and get the insights, you have to act on them. It's similar to risk analysis and risk assessment. It's great that you're running a yearly risk assessment, but are you factoring those results into your training or your policies? So that's part of that focus on effectiveness. Talk to me a little bit, Jon, if you would, about we've been talking about the Department of Justice. It does seem to me that what DOJ does in areas like this has a lot of impact on international companies. It's not limited to the US. And you're in a great position to discuss that a bit, if you would. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Of course. No, absolutely. Look, and to be clear, when the government emphasizes things like data and benchmarking and metrics and KPIs, I can't applaud them enough for bringing in someone like Matt, who has seen it on the ground, has put into place a great program to really help educate. And that's going to be true for US and non US companies. The government focuses on violations of the law, where there is jurisdiction, where there's something that will touch the US, or you have US companies or US issuers. But if you're a foreign company and you're doing business in the United States, or you're listed on a US exchange, the US laws very well may apply to you. The FCPA certainly very well may apply to you. And some of the biggest settlements, again just sticking with the FCPA, have been with non US companies in the last two years. And I don't want to limit this to the FCPA because the memo from Lisa Monaco, it's not limited to the FCPA, but it will extend to throughout the criminal division. And so whether it's antitrust, or healthcare fraud, or other areas that the criminal division might oversee, this is going to apply to companies regardless of whether they're US or non US, depending on the jurisdictional components, so it's a very important part for all companies doing business in the United States, not just US companies. Susan Divers: And I think sometimes people forget how broad that actually is. People sort of think, "Okay, there's US companies, there's French companies, there's Indian companies," but if you're doing business here, or you're using the banking system, then you are basically within the ambit of US jurisdiction if you commit bribery violations, or antitrust, or sanctions violations, or whatever they happen to be. So it really is a very broad net. And I think for that reason, I think the guidance has driven the evolution of ethics and compliance programs globally, not just in the US. Is that your sense too? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah. No question about it. I think if you look around the world, whether it's the UK, or France, or throughout Latin America, for those governments that have formally put out either guidances, or they've integrated into their laws what compliance programs ought to look like, I mean, it really looks a lot like what the Department of Justice and the SEC have put out, which of course is premised on a sentencing guidelines foundation. But really, it is driving global compliance processes and programs around the world, even for those companies that don't touch the US, even in their home jurisdictions. It's driving very similar approaches and ways of thinking about compliance. Susan Divers: Yes. And I think if anybody needs proof of that, they should read the Glencore CPA settlement, which I was just looking at, which is a huge fine for anti bribery for basically a non US company. But we're starting to run out of time. I could do this all day, as you know. But let's wrap up with: Given your unique perspective, having sat in all of the key positions, what are the most common mistakes you see people make in ethics and compliance programs? And if you can relate some of those to the guidance, that would be great. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Look, I mean,  I think first and foremost, it isn't really understanding and looking to integrate into programs what drives an ethical culture. And we talked before about the absolute importance of organizational justice as one of the key drivers in thinking about how that should get integrated into your program. And another is managerial modeling. And truthfully, what people seem to often forget is that most employees look at their supervisors, and maybe their supervisors' supervisors as the company. They look at them as management. And so focusing on, quote, unquote, tone from the top, and the most senior leaders of a company, to the exclusion of direct supervisors, middle managers, I think is often a mistake. And so driving behaviors expected of managers is critically important. I think people also ignore the absolute singular importance of confidence in internal reporting mechanisms and hotlines, which is often a proxy for whether your culture of compliance is strong, and whether organizational justice exists, whether managerial modeling is occurring. But I think beyond that, we've talked about the focus on effectiveness. And I think too often, you do see compliance programs that really are driving towards activities and robustness and metrics and numbers that don't take into account. Is it really working in practice? And I do think that has to be, especially in light of the guidance, which talks about culture, it talks about effectiveness, it focuses on effectiveness, I think that's got to be a critical emphasis for any program. And I think a lot of programs aren't sufficiently mature in that particular aspect, which may be why this guidance or this policy is coming out now. Susan Divers: So it sounds like if you were advising let's say a startup, or a relatively small company that's program is just getting underway, you would advise them to focus very much on the value side on getting organizational justice right, on getting speak up culture going and creating that atmosphere of trust, and also on making sure that managers know what the ethical and compliance considerations that affect them are, and what that means in practice. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. And look, that relates directly to the guidance as we look at rewards, in terms of pay, of performance commitments, presumably of bonuses, of promotions. So setting those expectations for management, along with organizational justice and speak up, I think are really vital components. And so if you are just starting out, the sooner you look to embed that within the company, the more effective it's going to be hopefully as the company grows. Susan Divers: Wow, this has been such a terrific, insightful conversation. And I really feel like I've benefited a lot personally just from hearing the way you've wove together the policy, the guidance. And just for one point of clarification before we sign off, I've been looking at the guidance since I think 2013. I've seen an evolution, actually. It's gotten stronger and it's gotten smarter in focusing on the right things like culture. I don't see it really weakening or changing, even during the Trump administration, interestingly. Is that your perception as well? Is that your expectation for the future? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Look, they are clearly sharpening the guidance. They are sharpening their policies in a way that is actually quite healthy. And I completely applaud the degree of transparency that we've seen in terms of talking about how these are applied, in terms of talking about how these are to be interpreted. So I applaud the transparency and I completely agree. It is getting much sharper, particularly around those aspects that really impact compliance professionals, like culture, like incentivization, like trying to establish commitments, like integrating compliance into employment processes. So I think it is getting smarter. And again, I think the transparency is really helpful, and particularly for chief ethics and compliance officers. Susan Divers: Great. And I agree. I mean, it's actually making people's jobs easier if they take the key messages in the guidance and are able to use the guidance to drive change in their organizations. So Jon, thanks so much for joining me on this episode. Just to wrap up, I'm Susan Frank Divers, and I want to thank everyone for listening to Principled Podcast by LRN. Jon Drimmer: Thank you. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

Welcome to an episode with best-selling author, lawyer, and art historian, Amy Herman. Get Amy's book here: https://amzn.to/3R4z14s In this episode, Amy spoke about how art can renew our sense of vision and approach to problem solving. This method proves that everyone sees and interprets things differently, which shows that we need to become better communicators to solve our problems. She stressed that effective communication has a renewed significance now because we are communicating with our stakeholders in a virtual environment. For leaders of organizations, the most difficult thing for them to do is rethink their communication skills and make them as effective as they were before, which involves agility. Amy also spoke about confirmation bias – wherein people only hear what they want to hear – and how to realize that we are trapped in this way of looking at information. Building on the conversation, Amy spoke about well-known artists who reflect characteristics that a great leader can impersonate. Amy E. Herman is the founder and president of The Art of Perception, Inc., a New York-based organization that conducts professional development courses to leaders around the world, including at the FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, and the Peace Corps. Herman was also the Director of Educational Development at Thirteen/WNET, the educational public television station serving New York and New Jersey, and the Head of Education at The Frick Collection for over ten years, where she oversaw all of the Collection's educational collaborations and community initiatives.  An art historian and attorney, Herman holds a BA in International Affairs from Lafayette College, a JD from the National Law Center at George Washington University, and an MA in Art History from Hunter College. She is a member of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bar Associations. Herman channeled her dual degrees in art and law to create the successful Art of Perception program, and now trains thousands of professionals from Secret Service agents to church fundraisers. Herman is a world-renowned speaker who frequently presents at national and international conventions. She has been featured on the CBS Evening News, the BBC, and in countless print publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The London Times, New York Daily News, Smithsonian Magazine, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Get Amy's book here: Fixed.: How to Perfect the Fine Art of Problem Solving. Amy Herman: https://amzn.to/3R4z14s Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

What you'll learn in this podcast episode It's generally accepted that effective E&C programs are based on values as well as rules. But applying those values to real-life situations can be difficult. This has been particularly true during the pandemic, as organizations make hard decisions in many instances and chief ethics and compliance officers play a key role in guiding those efforts. How can values help CECOs sustain ethical performance—and even excel—in the face of such change and adversity? In this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers talks with Scott Sullivan, Chief Integrity & Compliance Officer at Newmont Corporation, and Joe Henry, who just retired as US Compliance Officer at Braskem. Listen in as they discuss the difficult choices they faced in providing moral leadership in their organizations—how those choices were made, by whom, and what the examples say about the role of the CECO.   Principled Podcast Show Notes [1:58] - Scott's role as the CECO at Newmont Corporation, the challenges faced and how he applies his values. [4:50] - Ethics and compliance at the heart of Newmont's decision making during the pandemic. [6:10] - Joe's role at Braskin and the challenges he faced. [11:20] - The role of Joe's values in influencing colleagues to change the decisions they made. [13:35] - The lessons learned from these tough experiences in the company. [16:12] - How both company's ethical cultures emerged after the pandemic.  [19:50] - Other circumstances which strengthened the respective ethics and compliance cultures. [27:25] - The most important areas of focus for an ethics leader in resolving difficult questions. Featured Guest: Joe Henry Joe Henry was the US Compliance Officer for Braskem, a multi-national Chemicals and Plastics company headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  He led the Ethics, Compliance and Risk Management efforts for Braskem's US operations including commercial, manufacturing, logistics, management and Innovation and Technology (R&D) functions.  Prior to joining Braskem in January 2017, Joe was a Compliance Director at GSK, a global pharmaceutical company, and worked in various ethics and compliance roles since 2003.  Investigations oversight, Compliance Operations, Methodology development, process assessment and improvement, policy and procedure management and managing government oversight programs were some of the responsibilities he successfully fulfilled while at GSK.  Prior to his GSK Compliance roles, Joe worked at SmithKline Beecham as an Information Technology Project Director and with IBM Sales, Technical Support and Product Development.  Joe earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University and an MBA from Saint Joseph's University.  He also earned his certification as a Leading Professional in Ethics and Compliance from the Ethics and Compliance Initiative (ECI).  Joe and his wife reside in Lewes, Delaware and he retiredg at the end of March 2022 to pursue personal interests, travel and enjoy more time with his 3 grown children and two grandchildren.  Joe continues to provide advisory and investigation services on an as-needed basis to Braskem's US Compliance department.   Featured Guest: Scott E. Sullivan Scott E. Sullivan is the Chief Integrity & Compliance Officer of Newmont Corporation, the world's leading gold company. Newmont has approximately 15,000 employees and 15,000 contractors and has 12 operating mines and 2 non-operated JVs in 9 countries. Mr. Sullivan oversees, develops, implements and manages Newmont's integrity and compliance program including ethics, anti-bribery, corporate investigations, and global trade compliance. Previously, Mr. Sullivan was the Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer of a global manufacturer of fluid motion and control products with approximately 17,000 employees operating in 55 countries. Mr. Sullivan has written and contributed numerous articles on compliance programs, anti-bribery/FCPA, export controls, economic sanctions and other ethics and compliance topics to a variety of publications. Mr. Sullivan is also a frequent local, national and international speaker, moderator and conference organizer on compliance, anti-bribery/FCPA, export controls and economic sanctions.   Featured Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.     Principled Podcast Transcription Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers: Hello, it's generally accepted nowadays that ethics and compliance programs that are effective are based on values as well as rules, but applying those values to real life situations can be difficult. This was particularly true during the pandemic when organizations had to make hard decisions in many instances in unprecedented circumstances, and ethics and compliance officers frequently played a key role in guiding those efforts. How can values actually help ethics and compliance officers sustain ethical performance and even excel in the face of change and adversity?   Well, hello and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN's advisory group. Today, I'm joined by two thoughtful ethics and compliance professionals, Scott Sullivan, the chief ethics and integrity officer at Newmont Corporation, and Joe Henry, who just retired as the US compliance officer at Braskem. We're going to be talking about the difficult choices they face in providing moral leadership in their organizations, how those choices were made, by whom and what the examples say about the role of the chief ethics and compliance officer. Scott, I'm going to start with you. Can you talk about your role as the CECO at Newmont and some of the hard choices you've faced and how you applied your values? Scott Sullivan: Sure. And thank you, Susan. It's exciting to be part of this podcast and it's a subject I'm very passionate about. So while Joe will be tackling some specific examples, I thought it might be more beneficial to start with a bit on process and approach. So when your values are tested in trying times, this is when the rubber meets the road. So the least common denominator approach, or what is accepted, what is condoned, often becomes your culture. It's not the pronouncements and the platitudes, but rather what you do on the ground or in crunch time. So during COVID, which by the way is not yet over or gone, we faced numerous challenges like everyone else, our values of safety, responsibility and integrity were at the forefront of what we did and said every day. As our strategy rolled out, we had to consider the full spectrum of stakeholders from vulnerable indigenous communities in which we operate to suppliers who were dependent on us to our employees.    In some cases in the early days of COVID, we even went into what's known as care and maintenance mode, which is basically shutting down except for essential services to protect the health and wellbeing of a variety of our stakeholders. We also deployed over 20 million in a COVID fund to assist communities around our minds with COVID type issues and challenges. We were active partners in the COVID struggles. We protected our employees with PPE, with vaccines, with health checks, et cetera, all this being said there were numerous and oftentimes competing opinions on what to do, being strong proponents of our values, and always circling back to them as a gut check when we made decisions, some of them which might have turned out to be controversial, was an excellent moral compass. It made us focus on not just what the short term, but what the long term was and what the consequences could be, both the good and the bad. It was our collective corporate decision that we had to make.          As a compliance team. Part of our job was trying to read the tea leaves and anticipating what was coming. Fortunately at Newmont, we have a fantastic executive leadership team who gave us the space to support them and the organization this endeavor. We invited in diverse perspectives, we had spirited debates and we pressure tested key decisions that mattered most. I'm proud of the approach that we took as an organization whereby no means perfect, but I think it has served us quite well. Susan Divers: Scott, before I turn to Joe, one of the things that strikes me about what you just said is it sounds like ethics and compliance was really at the heart of decision making in these difficult areas that you mentioned. Am I reading that right? And if so, how did you achieve that? Scott Sullivan: Yeah, I think, health and safety for sure was I think the heartbeat, if you will. Perhaps we were the supporting role, but really as COVID evolved over times, the issues got more complicated as they went. So you had initial true health and safety issues, in some cases life and death that you had to do, but then you had a whole series of decisions around employment, around vaccinations, around care and maintenance. And what do you do with communities, where the donations go? How do you ensure that you're not supporting corruption when you're doing the good deed of making donations? So I think as COVID evolved and as the challenges around COVID evolved, we became more integral and more integrated to those decisions over time. Susan Divers: Well, and that's really a good example of how it's meant to work. Yeah, the ethics and compliance department isn't defective if it's often a corner, but it is effective if it's right at the heart of difficult choices, and that's a perfect segue to Joe. Joe, do you mind outlining your role at Braskem and then talking about some of the actual challenges you faced in your role in those? Joe Henry: Certainly. Thank you, Susan. Thank you for the invitation to join you all today. Let me start off by saying that Braskem leadership team is a caring and forward looking group and primarily based in the US headquarters in Philadelphia. And that information will be important in a minute or two. Early in the pandemic two of our sites operated for 28 days via a live-in where our workers stayed on site, quarantined from family and other outsiders to operate our plants in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. These plants produce polypropylene, which is a key material for personal protection equipment, such as surgical gowns, face, shields, gloves, and masks. So our workers were willing to do that. And our Braskem leaders provided all the essentials for this live-in. And our team members were paid for every hour on site. So Braskem tries to do the right thing. And during that time, all other team members were directed to work remotely during the pandemic. Eventually after our operations were deemed essential to US business interest, all of our plants reopened with strict masking and quarantine requirements, including restrictions in travel. One of our first policy decisions developed in Philadelphia was to require workers to quarantine for 14 days after travel if they had traveled from their home county. Works for Philadelphia were pretty close around in the urban area. The policy, and it worked for salary team members who could work from home, but not for hourly workers who worked on site and who would not be paid for the time they must quarantine. So at our Texas sites, this policy was problematic in that it would not be unusual for a worker employee to travel to the next county to care or check in on a family member. Therefore, compliance was asked to intervene. And as a result of that, our intervention, we extended the travel range and only had the policy applied to travel outside usual circumstances. The other one is more around vaccines. So one other example as vaccines became available, again, I remember they were under emergency authorization. There became a drive by Braskem management to encourage team members to be vaccinated and to push required team members to be vaccinated or else be terminated. The impetus for this requirement was that several people at manufacturing sites were complaining about being vaccinated and still having to wear a mask because others were not vaccinated. We discussed the proposed requirement at the leadership team meeting, which US compliance is a part. And then there was actually a discussion in our industrial team where we're not a part and they mandated this vaccination or termination requirement by a majority vote, not a consensus vote. I received a call from one of the dissenters. He was concerned that many of his employees would resign or be terminated because they did not trust the vaccine yet. His plant would be greatly affected. I brought this to the attention to the US leadership team that the vaccines were not yet fully approved and that no matter how administratively burdensome the CDC's recommendation was vaccination or regular testing. So I informed the group, I thought our requirement was overly restrictive. It infringed upon employees' rights, and I would not approve any of these terminations, in the US, the US compliance officer approves all terminations. So I had some leverage there. So what happened is we implemented weekly testing for team members who were not vaccinated. And that seemed to resolve the situation. By the way, it was helpful that I was fully vaccinated and boosted and it was clear, my personal beliefs were not a factor. Susan Divers: Wow. That's a very striking example, Joe, there's a couple of things I'd like to pursue a bit. One is, it's clear that people brought you into these decisions that they turned to you as a resource, it sounds like certainly in the case of be vaccinated or terminated before the vaccines were fully approved, but also it sounds like you were asked to intervene on the travel restriction. Is that correct? Joe Henry: Yes. Susan Divers: And was that at a senior, if I can ask, or other level? Joe Henry: I would say the vaccination or termination decision was a senior management at one of our industrial sites had the concern. And then the travel policy was probably, as I recall from one of the HR leaders at the site saying, Hey, we have some employees that are in unique situation here, or maybe not so unique, but different than what we would have from an urban center versus someone working in a more rural area. Susan Divers: Well, that's another good example of how a compliance and ethics and compliance program should work. It should be a resource and be welcomed into decision making, particularly on very difficult and tricky issues like the two that you just described. Can you talk about the role of your values in convincing your colleagues and your leadership to change or moderate the decisions that they made? Joe Henry: Absolutely. That was probably the driving force is our code of conduct, we don't dictate to people how they must behave, especially outside of work. It's fortunate that US compliance and compliance department of Braskem is independent and we're objective. And we're very visible. So people know us and people are willing to approach us. Again, that's why I started off the leadership team, it had the best of intentions. They heard from one group that says, Hey, we're tired of wearing masks. We want to be productive. And they reacted to that without understanding the potential consequences and the potential issues they may have with our own code of conduct. And that we couldn't mandate someone put something that was not yet fully approved. And that actually went further than what the government was telling us we needed to do. Which isn't uncommon. Our policies and procedures are frequently tighter than what the law requires. But in this case, we had to recognize that people have freedom of association and freedom of choice about theirselves. Once we brought all the potential consequences and perspectives of all affected team members, I think we reached the right decision. Susan Divers: So was that a difficult process, would you say, was it time consuming, or once you played that role of honest broker, was it something that people widely accepted? Joe Henry: Yes. Yes. I would say, we did use a lot of influence in... Basically had the show them what the consequences are, why their actions might not be entirely appropriate. So it wasn't a matter of authority. It was a discussion and it was a lengthy discussion, but I think everyone was fairly open minded and recognized that it was going take some more work and maybe we were going to have to spend some more money, especially getting a company to do the testing for us on a weekly basis. But I think they quickly arrived that it was the right decision. Susan Divers: Well, that's a great example. And thank you for sharing that. I'm going to go back to Scott for a minute and then to you Joe and ask. So obviously these were pretty intense situations that you dealt with. What lessons did you learn from that experience given your role in the company? If you could discuss that a bit, that would, I think be very helpful. Scott Sullivan: Sure. Yeah. Building on my prior comments a bit, I would say there were a few learnings and perhaps a few aha moments that we recognize along the curve. I think one was, you need to think both long term and short term. So whether it's your employees or your stakeholders, you might have a decision today that is different than the consequences tomorrow. So really making sure you're not just stuck in the moment, but you're thinking about the long term of the consequences or actions that come out of your decisions today. Playing off one of Joe's comments about culture and values, modifying a Warren Buffet quote a little bit, "Values take a long time to build, but they can be destroyed in a heartbeat." And people watch, I think that's the one that organizations often forget when they're looking at their culture, it's that whatever you allow or condone becomes your actual culture. So I think it's really important to practice what you preach and stay true to those values or before you know it, or right under your nose, you lose them. And that's true, perhaps even more so in the darkest days. So, how you're treating your employees and what people did with respect to terminations, or extending compensation during COVID, all eyes were on that. And I think that has longterm consequences for employees is they think, well, how did my employer treat me during those dark days? Did they exit us from the organization? Did they treat us poorly? Was the mighty dollar, the only thing that mattered? And again, for us, we have a social license to operate in the locations we do. So you have to think about that holistically, the full ESG perspective and look at all your stakeholders. And I think a little bit about what we've been talking about as well is anticipating the pushback, where are those pressure points, or focal points that are likely to come up and figuring out, like we always say, you can't take a program off the shelf, but customizing or figuring out what works best for you? And then hopefully that leads to you and many more in your organization becoming both values, beacons and champions to help the organization propel forward. Susan Divers: So in other words, it really can become a tremendous positive as long as you stay true to your values. And you're actually strengthening your culture, not destroying it to go back to the Warren Buffet quote. And Joe, based on your experience, do you think that your ethical culture at Braskem emerged stronger as a result of the types of difficult choices that people made in those circumstances? And are there any other lessons learned from that, that you would want to highlight? Joe Henry: So I believe our culture has gotten stronger. The ethics and compliance group and officers know they need to stay ever vigilant to ensure that passions do not overtake the organization's foundational values. We live in an impatient society that is quick to react and does not always consider all perspectives and unintended consequences. So this experience gives us an opportunity to talk to the leadership team and say, Hey, let's take a breath here. Let's look at this. I think when you're more thoughtful about these decisions, I think the decision will be better, probably strengthen your culture versus weaken it, or undermine it. But I do know that my successor's still facing these challenges. Susan Divers: Yeah. Although you're building ethical muscle at the same time, I want to highlight what you said about stop, pause, think, or you said it a little differently, but our chairman of our board, Doug Sideman, has written extensively about the benefits of pausing. And we do live in a impatient world and one that moves at light speed, particularly with social media. And I think Scott, you would agree with this too, that stopping and getting everybody to slow down and look at all the potential ramifications and equities. Joe's example of employees in Pennsylvania versus employees in Texas, I think is a very telling one. And that, that is really, I think what's needed to deal with particularly moral leadership issues. Scott, does that make sense? And also if you could talk about whether your ethical culture came out stronger as a result of the pandemic, that would be helpful. Scott Sullivan: Yeah. I think you often see in some areas the short term view or this, in the impatient world, as I like the way Joe characterize it, you see the pitch forks and the torches coming out in any particular topic. And so part of our job is to say, let's pause, let's think this through, the unintended consequences, the longterm consequences, I think for sure our ethical culture has emerged stronger. It really gave us ample opportunities to do the right thing and to put theory into practice. So one of the things coming out of the tragedy of COVID is it really gave us an opportunity to show our values and do the right thing in those dark days. And I think that also that consistency of messaging and values, it's not one offer. There's one big case. I think that really builds trust with stakeholders and gives you an opportunity to show that you're a different kind of company. So even in the dark days with bad or troubling news, you're going to be transparent and that we stand true to our values and hold ourself accountable to those values. So that consistency of operational model, I think extends well beyond ethics into business and health and safety. When faced with a challenge, we're going to think about it, be very thoughtful in what we do and ultimately do the right thing for the entirety of the stakeholder community. Susan Divers: Yeah, that sounds like very sound holistic decision making. Joe let's let's switch gears a little bit. We've talked about the pandemic and the challenges and how both of you feel that your ethical culture got stronger as a result, and you both played pivotal roles in the ethics and compliance programs, played pivotal roles in helping your organizations navigate. Can you give some other examples outside of the pandemic of having to do that? Joe Henry: So I mentioned one of our values is the freedom of association. As a result of the summer of 2020, George Floyd death and all, we had some outsiders, some activists and DE&I consultants recommend some potential path forward for the company. One of those, including tracking managers' social media profiles, and other forms of public expression and see whether they should continue to be leaders in the company or not. For instance, should we sanction a manager for attending a pro-life rally, or another manager for posting their support for the police on their Facebook page? That type of monitoring is not aligned with our code of conduct. We declined that recommendation. Again, the passion was there. Hey, we got to weed these people out. Well, no, we have to make sure that when they're working for Braskem, they're aligned to Braskem's values and that they're not diminishing our name in the public.   And then most recently we've discussed how and when should compliance be involved in handling microaggressions. And we've agreed that microaggressions are supposed, should be handled between the two people in the first instance, maybe in a second or third occurrence, that it's handled, the person's called out publicly. And if it's repeated, then it's no longer a microaggression, it's an aggression. And then it comes to human resources or compliance. But those are some of the choices where, again, we relied on our code of conduct and relied on our proven policies and procedures regarding our ethics line to preserve the culture and continue to move the company forward and evolve the company. Susan Divers: Well, and that's another excellent example of pausing and looking at all the ramifications and carefully analyzing whether it is consistent with your code or not. Scott, do you have similar examples outside of the pandemic experience? Scott Sullivan: Yeah. So we've been on a journey of what I would probably call radical transparency in the ethics and compliance space, so where we're willing to show the good, the bad and the ugly to advance the health of our culture. It is a journey, so we're not perfect by any chance, but we're now more transparently and willing to share internal stories and struggles with our employees. I used to laugh all the time that most companies will say something happened to somebody, sometime, someplace with some result. And that leaves everybody, what the heck is that? What happened? And what are the expectations I know? So we've decided that we want to clarify expectations for employees. We want to at least establish the baseline for ethical behavior. And we want to ensure really that fraudsters or predators are held to account in the organization wherever and whenever we can. And also there's an evolving view about when something happens in our organization, what do we do to ensure that those individuals or groups of individuals are not just set free and allowed to go into the general community and repeat those damage?     How many times have we all learned in the compliance profession, individual moves from company A to B, to C to D. And when you do the investigation, there's a long track record that history being repeated at different organizations. So we have done cradle to grave exposes, including one with a public press release, where we actually lifted the hood and told the full story. So most times it's fairly detailed internally and the reception has been excellent. It's advanced our culture ball pretty dramatically. As I mentioned, that being said, it's really, we're still on the journey, but we feel that practicing what we preach and not allowing performance to excuse misconduct or cornerstones of our culture. So even when the outcome is internally painful and extremely disappointing, we've been trying to promote this. So it's not just you do it once, because you can't fake it. And if you do it once, you see big scandals in organizations and periodically it's a big splash in the paper. And we've had similar things where you've had a case that we did our first radical transparency case. And I think the organization, the employees were saying, okay, is this a new way that we're going to operate, or is this the company's hand was forced and they felt they had to do it, so they did it? And so I think that whole concept of you can't fake, it's got to be genuine, it's got to be demonstrable and it's got to be sustainable, is really important. And as an aside, I think most companies can get compliance correct, or they get it right. That's to say that it's the right side of the brain, it's the math science side. It's one plus one, plus one equals three. But when you get to integrity, you get to ethics and culture, that's the equivalent to me, the left side of the brain, it's the English history. It's a little bit more soft. It's touchy, feely. It's hard to measure, but I think it's far more impactful. And that is often where I see organizations fall down, because it's so hard to do. And it's so hard to say, what is it? And it feels like it's subjective, or judgemental, or it's just real hard to do. So I think companies that focus on getting the integrity or the culture piece right, are so far ahead of the curve and getting everything else right. And that's not just in the ethics and compliance space, because I think that could be a proxy for good governance. It could be something that is a springboard for doing other things in an extraordinary way or well above peer organizations. Susan Divers: That's so interesting that you framed it in those terms. Something we talk about a lot and we're not alone in that in this area is that you can't just look at your ethics compliance program as a checklist and say, I'm good to go because I've got policies, code, training, audit, it has to be living and breathing. And that's where the touchy feely comes in. And the research, interestingly, it shows that if you have organizational justice where you're holding people to the same standard, and I hear you both talking about that in what you've described today, then you have the lifeblood and a strong foundation for your ethics and compliance program and activities. But if you don't, if there's two standards of justice, or what I'm hearing today too, is if there's a rush to judgment where some people get trampled in that rush, then you don't really have a strong foundation for your program. Joe, would you agree with that as well? Joe Henry: Yes, I absolutely do. Yeah, it has to be thoughtful, fair. We haven't gone to the extent from a transparency as Scott Newman have us to naming particular people, but we do anonymize those situations and publish them or even present them as lessons learned. Susan Divers: Yeah. That's very powerful. Well, we're starting to run out of time, but two questions before we terminate, which is what are the most important areas of focus by an ethics leader in resolving difficult questions? You've both given great examples of how central ethics and compliance was to tough decisions. But if you're a relatively new ethics leader, what are some of the key things to really bear in mind when those tough issues come up? Scott, you want to lead us off on that? Scott Sullivan: Sure. So I think as we've both mentioned, and same with Susan, the tone at the top is really important. So getting your executive leadership on board, otherwise the likelihood of success drops pretty dramatically. And I think as we've also both said, relationships matter. So build them wherever and whenever you can. And I think it's always that rainy day fund, you build credit in the bank, you build street credit. So for the bad news bear moment you have to come in, I think that's really important. So they understand who you are. You're not just a cry wolf person, you're thoughtful, you're methodical. You do all the things the way the organization would expect. And I think, for all of us, unfortunately, and you can see the business partnering go too far. So I think not withstanding that you always have to remember that there will be times undoubtedly as a compliance officer, where you have to put your neck on the line and hopefully your organization does not have a kill the messenger culture, that's not a fun organization to be a part of. And I think value based decisions are toughest in downturn markets and during crises. So we've come out of a pandemic and now we're going into what seems to be a downturn market. So I think the key message there is really prepare in advance and look at your rainy day credits and figure out where you're going to have to put your stake in the ground and move forward. Susan Divers: So build up your relationships and your credit and your goodwill. Joe, something to add. Joe Henry: I do that. I wholeheartedly agree. I think that what Scott mentioned is the most important area, but another area of focus is the company's values, which usually describes in the organization's code of conduct and implemented through your policies and procedures. And I remind the executives and our team members, employees, the code of conduct and policies are approved by the board of directors after thorough and thoughtful review by the executives, by the stakeholders and by compliance. So they're not done instantaneously and there's a lot of thought, there's a lot of reason why we have them and they shouldn't just be dismissed quickly because the particular circumstance. These documents provide the desired ethical direction of the company and have been very useful in resolving difficult decisions in the past, especially with well-meaning, but passionate team members. Go back to the foundation and consider it maybe, maybe, maybe we do need to make a change to the code of conduct or a change to our values, but at least reference it and have that discussion before taking any severe action that may have unintended consequences. Susan Divers: That's a very good point. One of my colleagues describes the code of conduct as your culture written down, and using it as a focal point and a way to ensure that major decisions and discussions include values, I think helps make it a living and breathing document. Well, this has been such an insightful conversation. I wish we could continue it talking about tough choices, I think is really helpful for people at whatever stage they are in their ethics and compliance journey and profession. So I want to thank our listeners. My name is Susan Frank Divers, and we'll see you the next time on Principled Podcast. Thanks Scott. Thanks Joe. Joe Henry: Thank you. Scott Sullivan: Thank you all. Outro:   We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principle performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures, rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at LRN.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 240, an episode with best-selling author, lawyer, and art historian, Amy Herman. In this episode, Amy spoke about how art can renew our sense of vision and approach to problem solving. This method proves that everyone sees and interprets things differently, which shows that we need to become better communicators to solve our problems. She stressed that effective communication has a renewed significance now because we are communicating with our stakeholders in a virtual environment. For leaders of organizations, the most difficult thing for them to do is rethink their communication skills and make them as effective as they were before, which involves agility. Amy also spoke about confirmation bias – wherein people only hear what they want to hear – and how to realize that we are trapped in this way of looking at information. Building on the conversation, Amy spoke about well-known artists who reflect characteristics that a great leader can impersonate. Amy E. Herman is the founder and president of The Art of Perception, Inc., a New York-based organization that conducts professional development courses to leaders around the world, including at the FBI, CIA, Scotland Yard, and the Peace Corps. Herman was also the Director of Educational Development at Thirteen/WNET, the educational public television station serving New York and New Jersey, and the Head of Education at The Frick Collection for over ten years, where she oversaw all of the Collection's educational collaborations and community initiatives.  An art historian and attorney, Herman holds a BA in International Affairs from Lafayette College, a JD from the National Law Center at George Washington University, and an MA in Art History from Hunter College. She is a member of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bar Associations. Herman channeled her dual degrees in art and law to create the successful Art of Perception program, and now trains thousands of professionals from Secret Service agents to church fundraisers. Herman is a world-renowned speaker who frequently presents at national and international conventions. She has been featured on the CBS Evening News, the BBC, and in countless print publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The London Times, New York Daily News, Smithsonian Magazine, and The Philadelphia Inquirer. Get Amy's book here: Fixed.: How to Perfect the Fine Art of Problem Solving. Amy Herman Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

Abstract: The most crucial factor LRN has identified in our years of research is that a values-based approach to governance is essential to ethics and compliance. It builds and sustains ethical culture, which is the essential element of effective E&C programs. But what does that look like today, as our world continues to be disrupted by the COVID-19 crisis and the aftermath of racial and political unrest? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, host Susan Divers, Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices with LRN's Advisory group, talks about how values can sustain ethical performance—and even excel—in the face of change and adversity with Forrest Deegan, Vice President of Ethics and Compliance for Victoria's Secret. Listen in as the two draw insights from the 2022 edition of LRN's annual Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report—available now to download.   What You'll Learn on This Episode: [2:17] - Reflections on the findings of LRN's 2022 Ethics and Compliance Report. [7:20] - The impact of core values vs. rules. [9:02] - The surprising data and how access to data can drive improvements in collaboration. [12:00] - The curse of compliance. [13:22] - The two driving factors in demystifying your values and how boards discuss value. [17:15] - What is causing ethics and compliance to lag behind in innovations compared to other departments? [22:30] - The innovations of customized, remote-accessible training.   Additional Resources: Get the 2022 Ethics & Compliance Program Effectiveness Report. Subscribe to E&C Pulse, the LRN newsletter offering weekly insights on ethics, compliance, corporate culture, and reputation. Visit us for more information at lrn.com.   Featured guest: As of July 2021, Forrest is the VP of Ethics and Compliance for Victoria's Secret & Co., responsible for overseeing the global ethics and compliance program. Forrest spent the prior six years as the first Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Abercrombie & Fitch Co., where he built A&F's corporate compliance and third-party risk management programs. Forrest serves on the Editorial Advisory Board for Compliance Week and has served on the Leadership Team for the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) Compliance Council. Forrest regularly speaks at national compliance conferences and international events, including those sponsored by RILA, Compliance Week and the Association of Corporate Counsel. Forrest was selected by Compliance Week as a “Top Mind" for 2018. Forrest previously served as the Director and Senior Director of Compliance at A&F, where his responsibilities included a wide range of compliance program assessment, training and enhancement projects as well as international business development via joint venture and franchise. Prior to moving in-house, Forrest worked for nine years at Arnold & Porter in Washington D.C., representing multinational pharmaceutical, financial and consumer products companies in advocacy and consulting capacities. Forrest clerked for Judge Kazen on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, after receiving his J.D. with honors from Duke Law School and his B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin.   Featured Host:  Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative. Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.   Transcript:  Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership, and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change-makers. Susan Frank Divers: At LRN, the most crucial factor we've identified in our years of research and work with thousands of organizations worldwide, is that a values-based approach to governance is crucial. Being values-based builds and sustains ethical culture, which is the essential element of an effective ethics and compliance program. But what does this look like in a world that continues to be disrupted by the COVID crisis and the aftermath of racial and political unrest? Susan Frank Divers: Hello, and welcome to the first episode of season seven of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Frank Divers, Director of Thought, Leadership and Best Practices within LRN's Advisory Group. Today, I'm joined by Forrest Deegan, Vice President of Ethics and Compliance for Victoria's Secret, and lecturer in law at the University of Chicago Law School. We're going to be talking about how values can sustain ethical performance and even allow organizations to excel in the face of change and adversity, during On Insights, from our 2022 edition of LRN's annual Ethics and Compliance Program Effectiveness report. And on Forrest's experience in the retail industry in particular. Susan Frank Divers: Before coming to Victoria's Secret, Forrest has spent two decades in ethics and compliance, including Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for Abercrombie and Fitch. So Forrest, thanks very much for coming on the Principled Podcast, and let's jump right in. Forrest Deegan: Thank you, Susan. It's a pleasure to connect with you again. Susan Frank Divers: The same. We've had some interesting discussions preparing for this podcast about the 2022 Ethics and Compliance Program Effectiveness report. What surprised you, and what resonated the most, particularly with your experience in the retail industry throughout the ongoing crisis? Forrest Deegan: I'll start with what resonated the most. Preliminary matter, really enjoyed reading through the insights that were collected here. Reading through it I start with the resonation because there are a number of charts that go through the concerns that folks identified in the early days of the pandemic about the challenges of transitioning to a hybrid or remote model with respect to their controls, with respect to their ability to audit, and to support the programs. This comes across in both some of the stats around the activities they thought would be of concern and then what they actually worked on. And then looking at how training actually was supported, where obviously, people weren't able to travel. People weren't able to use all of their old tricks in this new time. And so starting off seeing the fears and the concerns that folks were raising in 2020, and that list itself was pretty fulsome and reminded me what it was like in the retail space with all of the uncertainty that came in the spring of 2020. Forrest Deegan: With the closure of the majority of all stores, at least temporarily in the US. I remember the day we were kicked out of our home office, I'm sure everybody has a similar recollection to mid-March, walking out with your computer in your bag and not knowing when you'd be back. This brought back some of that uncertainty. That resonated with me, but what also resonated with me was the introduction around values and how that programs that leaned in to their values did well. And this idea that kind of everybody took on new and different obligations with the pandemic, with a time of crisis. A time of crisis can be a time of unification. I certainly saw that to be the case. I remember that leaders at my company were voluntary take pay cuts, to make sure that folks and the staff could stay on so that we could avoid layoffs. There was an insistence on treating folks equitably within, right? So really living your values in those moments of crisis. This report speaks to both those fears and some of the solutions that came out of it. Susan Frank Divers: That's such an impactful example, because there's no rule that said that executives had to give up pay or benefits to keep other people employed. And we saw a lot of that last year in our report, and what's very heartening from LRN's point of view is, we've been saying for years, that values work better than rules as the basis for a program. And last year's report and this year's report, really proved that, I think in a lot of ways, and I look at stats like on page seven, that 82% of the programs we surveyed this year, that their ethical culture is stronger as a result of their experience during the pandemic. And you just opened it to that too, that people come together in a crisis, but relying on values was clearly the way to get through it. Forrest Deegan: The second part of your question was around things that might have surprised me in here. And honestly, the stat you just pulled about the 82% feeling ethical culture was stronger. That wouldn't surprise me a bit because it was 2021, not a 2020 stat. In fact the number went up, it seems like from the prior year's version of the report where it was 79%, the prior year, this year was 82%, that their ethical culture was stronger as a result of experiences coping with the crisis. So that was something that surprised me, that sentiment not only continued, but seemed to increase a bit because we've all heard about it and all have felt the fatigue in the past year as the uncertainty has continued as we've continued to have to be flexible in our approach. Yes. Susan Frank Divers: Forrest what you said was very impactful because one of the key findings, obviously in the report, that's actually on page seven is that 82% of our nearly 1200 respondents worldwide reported that their ethical culture became stronger during the pandemic rather than weaker. And at LRN we've said for years, that values make an impact much more than rules and that's living proof that that's true. So I'd like your thoughts on that. Forrest Deegan: With respect to the second part of your prior question on what surprised me with respect to the study, I would have to say that that very stat, that 82% of the respondents last time felt that ethical culture was strong longer as a result of the experiences. That rose, that sentiment was an increase, improvement, from the prior year. That surprised me a bit because we've heard so much about and felt so much of the fatigue as the uncertainty has continued as the need to adjust our approach and our responses has just continued onward. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the prior version of this report had shown 79% felt that the crisis was a bringing folks to their ethics and compliance program in a stronger way to see that go from 79 to 82, a small improvement, but you're already really high to begin with. I was pleasantly surprised to see that in here. And honestly it does make sense with respect to that ongoing uncertainty that you do need to lean upon those core values to continue to navigate. You really have to love the question, not the answer when it comes to a challenge of this size and that is constantly evolving. Susan Frank Divers: That's putting it so well, that you have to love the question, not the answer. And we were frankly surprised last year, and then pleasantly surprised this year that this year's results confirmed what we saw last year. And I was just looking at the chart on 33 that talks about E&C resources and standing. And you had mentioned that people were understandably anxious at the outset as to how the programs would do and whether they would have resources or whether there would be widespread misconduct or circumventing of processes. And that didn't happen. And then E&C programs have come out strong and well resourced. Forrest Deegan: Just those stats on 33, surprised me a lot of different ways. The first chart talking about: do ethics compliance functions feel they have the sufficient resources and authority. Some of your respondents are at the 95% level, 92% level, even for your medium impact programs. And even the lowest impact were at 67%. Those are really high scores. Those are really high scores. And I think that's right. I think that is a reason for optimism right now with respect to our ability to respond as companies, right? If there is that availability of resources, but also the buy-in with leadership. Forrest Deegan: And there's another stat there that I also was surprised by how strong the respond were around access to data, right? The highest impact programs were 89% of them felt that they had appropriate access to data sources in the org, whether it was HR audit it InfoSec in order to do their work. I think data component there is so critical and reflects buy-in from not just leadership, your tone at the top portion, but also from your cross-functional partners, right. Access to the data can really help drive improvements, yes, in the day to day operation of the program, but all also in your ability to support and inform cross-functionally. And so I think those things are married together, right? The access to information. It's a great example of something where it's not just resources, right? It's not just dollars and cents. It's also that buy-in as reflected through real collaboration and through real partnership. Susan Frank Divers: I agree with you. And also it's affirmation that programs have gone from being something the legal department does, or maybe the legal and ethics and compliance department does to something that the whole company does. And that's a really positive development. Forrest Deegan: I think, right. I've been in house for a decade now, I was in private practice for a decade before that dealing with a corporate compliance space and really seeing an evolution in terms of scope and approach during that time. And so things were ... we already had increasing expectations and an accelerating space when it came to this field, both due to our internal stakeholders, our boards, obviously regulators like DOJ, but also customers and NGOs. They keep ratcheting up the expectations and corporate compliance has proven to be a responsive and reliable partner. And so this is when you get into what I call the curse of competence, right? If you execute effectively, you're going to be asked to do more. I do think this is been a real opportunity and awakening to the valuation of controls and monitoring and our ability, as professionals, to not just focus on the have tos, right, those rules that we talked about at the top, but also the want tos, right, that corporate purpose, the values associated with it. I believe corporate compliance offers the opportunity to marry the want to and the have to, and frankly, that's the only way it works really well is if people understand how those rules, how those requirements tie back to why they want to be at the company, what they're hoping to accomplish with respect to company values. Susan Frank Divers: Forrest, That was very insightful what you just said. And I want to talk a bit more about the connection between values and making programs more accessible and employee focused. That's another theme in the report and we see progress and we see best practices emerging, but I would argue that they need to emerge much more strongly and quickly, but take us back a little bit to board's values and talk about how values, when you demystify them, involve really bringing people into the program with the want tos, as well as the must haves. Forrest Deegan: For me, the stats around accessibility, they make a ton of sense in terms of your high performing programs are going to be focused on making the documents available, making them searchable, simplifying where possible, translating into the languages that you're employees leverage, right? To me, those actions are, are really table stakes with respect to an effective program and the thoughtfulness and the idea of keeping the end user in mind, that sentiment, which, which drives accessibility, I think, is communicated to your employees, right? When they see that when they have the access to it, where the information is in a logical place, where it's stored where the other corporate documents or the other FAQs guidance they look for from the company for an IT issue or for a T and E report. If the guidance documents around your compliance program are as accessible, if not more accessible I think that alone sends a message. I do think that the percentages around those that are for focusing on accessibility they were still right around the 50% mark. I think those numbers need to go up. I also think that to really drive home your value system and to demystify a program and what it means to act with integrity, not only do you have to make the documents accessible, you've also got to work on making them actionable, right? You need guidance that is relevant and actionable. You can have a clear rule that is simple to understand, but if it is unclear how to operationalize that, or how it deals how it is imported into the day to day running of the business, then it's just words on a page. Maybe they can get to the page easier now, but they still can't use it effectively. So I think that those two concepts, accessibility and utility are really what drive an ability to demystify what your program is about. Susan Frank Divers: If I hear you correctly too, you are also saying that it reflects respect for employees. Forrest Deegan: Yes. I think that's so important. I'm just passionate about that idea that you can send messages, right? How you present your information can tell a lot about what the company values and making it accessible, including in your language, from your corporate purpose, your value statements, how your CEO talks on a day to day basis. If those hooks are appropriately cascaded through your ethics and compliance messaging, it's clear to everyone in the organization that these are priorities, consistent with how we talk about hitting our numbers for the year, or consistent with talking about our expansion for the year, if we're using the same language and if it rolls up in the same way, that's how you ensure it is embedded. Susan Frank Divers: Yeah. I completely agree with you. It's tempting to want to spend more time in this area, cause we're both passionate about it. I will just close it out by saying that only 25% of the organizations this year reported that they're using mobile apps. And when you think back on the pandemic and how people were fighting for bandwidth and may have had children at home using bandwidth and computers, we've seen some stirring examples of companies like Dell, really putting big components of their program on mobile apps. And I hope we see more of that. But just to look forward now, as we draw to the end, we saw a lot of innovation and pivoting, and yet we also saw some areas that lag behind where people haven't, perhaps, revised their training curriculum as quickly as you might expect or made some of these other innovations like mobile apps. First, why do you think that it is? And secondly, what do you see happening in the next couple of years in terms of best practices for programs? Forrest Deegan: To use mobile devices and investing in making your program documents, your governance materials accessible and your training included there in, I was surprised at that 25% number. But as I thought about that particular number and kind of what's next, it made sense because I'm reminded of my own mindset in 2020 and the idea that we didn't know how long this is going to last. And so I'm confident when it comes to some of training activities, some of the new technology investments, the answers that you've got for the most recent running of the survey, I think they reflect everybody's hope, and their investment in that, that first year, year and a half the pandemic that we can ride this out, right. We don't, don't have to start over again with the entirety of our program here. And I think that folks, by now, will have come to the realization that, look, we're not going to get back to a place where everybody is in the office on the same system during the same hours of the day. How does our program have to in this, whether it's remote or hybrid, certainly transitional time, how do we meet our people where they are and where they're likely going to be for the time being? So I do think your answers will change going forward when it comes to investments in mobile, when it comes to investments in audit processes and controls that take into account the lack of that ability to look over the shoulder, the lack of the ability to rely on tribal knowledge. I think that's going to be the future for all of us. The other thing that looking at kind of where the investments were and they'll go next, what really spoke to me was the idea there was value in having a system in place, right? I think back again to 2020 and those folks that did not have systems in place that relied upon those in-person trainings or audits or what have you, they did have to start from scratch when it came to, how do I do this job, or demonstrate this control in a remote way. Whereas if you had an up and running third party risk management system, you would have to make changes, you'd have to make tweaks to your risks and what they counted for based upon financial instability, operational constraints, but you were working from something. You were able to make adjustments and not start over. And so I think that contrast also, I think, will serve programs well, because the utility of these systems, I think has been revalued by companies because they see how capable they were of pivoting in ways that some of the more informal methods just were not. Susan Frank Divers: To take an example of what I think you're saying. It's interesting to me that a lot of top programs still relied on a tremendous amount of in-person training. Yes, in-person, training's more effective in a lot of ways. It makes those connections, but they may have neglected a bit, their online training and I'm reminded of one, CECO who described it as sheep dip training. As you point out we are where we are and we're not going back two years ago. And so I think the level of innovation we're going to see in areas like training, making it shorter, more video, mobile friendly, more tailored to employees roles in the company. It sounds like that will happen because people have come to realize that they have to rely on their system, that the systems have to be good. Forrest Deegan: I'm glad you brought up the idea of training and the different types that are available in an online way. A stat that isn't in here is, is the idea of shorter training, right? And I think that as we need to put more arrows in the quiver of online training of remote accessible training, that innovation is going to continue and that not only will training get shorter and more customized, but the location of it, the availability of the rule or the lesson, right where the potential action could be. You've got to approve the invoice, the guidance for that should be baked into the system. Same thing with, if you have to approve the use of a new vendor, right? The expectations of the company, they need to be right there. They need to be tied directly to the process itself. I think, again, that works towards the idea of embedding the rules and the system into your actual day to day activity. Susan Frank Divers: Very well put, more of a just in time approach and again, that emphasis on accessibility for people. Well, I could have this conversation all day and there are so many areas in the current Program Effectiveness Report that we haven't had a chance to talk about, but I know you have other things to do. And I really appreciate you spending the time with us today Forrest. Forrest Deegan: It's my pleasure. I appreciate the opportunity to do a deep dive into the report. I love a quote from page six about the idea of having a cut of core values translated into understood behaviors can be more potent and powerful than a thousand rules. I love that cascade down because I think that is the approach that works. And when you couple that approach, which requires consistent communication, when you couple that with the ability to measure response, the ability to track change behavior, that's how you win with respect to these clear communication and standards that are transparent and that people are held accountable to. Susan Frank Divers: Thank you, Forrest. Talking with you about the program effectiveness report is truly a pleasure. Before we leave the podcast and I close it out. Was there anything else that you wanted to talk about or any other insight that you wanted to share? Forrest Deegan: It's always dangerous to ask me that question, but if you don't mind, there was one other kind of collection of stats that really me just because I think that they inform one another. I think it was on page 11, there's a number of stats around what top rank programs are doing. One was almost three times anticipate greater engagement by the boards of directors and almost two times expect more regular engagement by leadership, right? So there's an expectation that the board and leadership are engaged with the program and on that same spit page, it talks about having policies that are simplified and streamlined and having training that is interactive and web based. And to me one leads to the other. If you have a program that is simpler to understand and has been streamlined and has been built in a way to make it interactive, it is going to be easier to support leadership engagement and the board of director buy-in, if you are giving leaders simpler rules that resonate and reflect the reality of the business, you're going to obtain that buy-in in a natural manner. Forrest Deegan: And if you're able to talk about the program and if they're able to talk about that program and have that engagement, then that drives that next level with the board of directors. And so I think you pat have to develop a virtuous cycle here of building a program that's based in the reality of your business that resonates with the values of the company and what the company's priorities are, which will allow your business leaders in talking about those business priorities, to use the same language, to pull the same levers when it comes to their engagement with your ethics and compliance program, it really has to be considered part of that whole in order to work. Susan Frank Divers: Oh, I love how you've articulated that virtuous circle between the values focus, the simplified employee-facing messages and mechanisms, and then leadership becoming more natural. Forrest Deegan: That really is the heart of demystifying your program, right? You've got to make it based in your reality. And you've got to use the language of leadership in order to get there. And if you're doing that, you will have your buy-in at the top and in the middle and it can drive all the way down. Susan Frank Divers: Well, that's a great note to end on. Forrest, thank you so much for spending time with us today and thank you to our listeners for joining us for another insightful conversation. My name is Susan Frank Divers, and we'll see you next time on the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on apple podcasts, Stitcher, Google podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.

Amy Herman reveals the surprising framework agencies like the FBI, NATO, and Interpol have used to solve their most intricate problems. — YOU'LL LEARN — 1) What to do when you don't know what to do 2) Three simple steps for smarter problem solving 3) The top two do's and don'ts of problem solving Subscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep736 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT AMY — Amy Herman is the founder and president of The Art of Perception, Inc., a New York–based organization that conducts professional development courses for leaders around the world, from Secret Service agents to prison wardens. Herman was the head of education at the Frick Collection for over ten years. An art historian and an attorney, Herman holds a BA in international affairs from Lafayette College, a JD from the National Law Center at George Washington University, and an MA in art history from Hunter College. A world-renowned speaker, Herman has been featured on the CBS Evening News, the BBC, and in countless print publications including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Telegraph, the New York Daily News, Smithsonian Magazine, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. • Amy's book: Fixed.: How to Perfect the Fine Art of Problem Solving • Amy's website: ArtfulPerception.com • Amy's website: ArtfulBooks.com • Amy's Instagram: @amyhermanaop • Amy's Twitter: @AmyHermanAOP — RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Study: “The Effects of Including a Patient's Photograph to the Radiographic Examination” by Yehonatan Nizan Turner and Irith Hadas-Halpern • Art: “The Raft of the Medusa” by Theodore Gericault • Book: The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics by Daniel James Brown • Previous episode: 707: Amy Edmondson on How to Build Thriving Teams with Psychological Safety • Previous episode: 696: How to Separate Truth from Bullsh*t for Smarter Decisions with John V. Petrocelli See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Abstract: In this episode of the Principled Podcast, we share a past conversation between Senior Ethics & Compliance Advisor, Emily Miner and her colleague Susan Divers, Senior Ethics & Compliance Advisor. The two talk about how values have the power to guide behavior, shape culture, and strengthen businesses—empowering them to outperform. But what exactly does it mean to take a “values-based approach” to ethics and compliance? Listen in and learn how companies can leverage core values to build effective ethics and compliance practices that drive better business outcomes.   Featured guest: Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008.  She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.   Featured Host:  Emily Miner is a Senior Advisor in LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory practice. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.

Ron Tipton has spent most of the past 40 years as an advocate for public land preservation, national park protection and for the Appalachian Trail. A graduate of the George Washington U. National Law Center, from 1978 to 2013 he was part of the advocacy and/or management team of four conservation organizations: The Wilderness Society, National Audubon Society, World Wildlife Fund, and National Parks Conservation Association. (NPCA)  From 2013 to the end of 2017 Ron served as the President & CEO of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and greatly expanded its fundraising, increasing its annual budget from $6.4 million to nearly $10 million. Ron led a staff & board process that focused on continuing to provide a high quality hiking experience for increasing numbers of hikers on the Appalachian Trail; protecting the landscape surrounding the 2,190  mile Trail. Ron retired from ATC at the end of 2017 and joined its Partnership Board in 2020.ForTo hear more of these interviews with wildlife advocates, go to our website: js-wilderness.comSupport the show (https://www.patreon.com/user?u=25149153)

Abstract: Values have the power to guide behavior, shape culture, and strengthen businesses—empowering them to outperform. But what exactly does it mean to take a “values-based approach” to ethics and compliance? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, Emily Miner, Senior Ethics & Compliance Advisor, speaks with fellow LRN colleague Susan Divers, Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices, about the difference between rules and values in the context of E&C. Listen in as the two discuss how companies can leverage core values to build effective ethics and compliance practices that drive better business outcomes.   Featured guest: Susan Divers is a senior advisor with LRN Corporation. In that capacity, Ms. Divers brings her 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance area to LRN partners and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance and substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Mrs. Divers' background includes more than thirty years' experience practicing law in these areas. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008.  She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics. Mrs. Divers' most recent publication is “Balancing Best Practices and Reality in Compliance,” published by Compliance Week in February 2015. In her spare time, she mentors veteran and university students and enjoys outdoor activities.   Featured Host:  Emily Miner is a Senior Advisor in LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory practice. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.   Transcript:  Intro:   Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace changemakers. Emily Miner:   Rules are good, but values are better. Values have the power to guide behavior, shape culture and strengthen businesses, empowering them to outperform. But, what exactly does it mean to take a values-based approach to ethics and compliance? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Emily Miner, senior ethics and compliance advisor. Today, I'm joined by my colleague Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices. We're going to be talking about how companies can leverage core values to build effective ethics and compliance practices that drive better business outcomes. Susan brings more than 30 years experience in both the legal and ENC spaces to this topic area. With subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions and other key areas of compliance. Susan, thanks for joining me on the Principled Podcast. Susan Divers:  It's my pleasure, Emily. It's always so nice to talk to you. Emily Miner:   Yeah. So Susan, your background has given you a unique perspective on this topic of rules versus values. You're a former chief ethics and compliance officer, a member of the DC bar and you're a qualified solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales. Having sat on both the legal and ethics and compliance sides of the table, can you break down the idea of rules are good, values are better for our listeners? What does that really mean? What are values and why are they "better?" Susan Divers:  Well, that's a great place to start, Emily. There are a couple of really key points to make in this area. The first is that it's not an either or choice. It's not like you have values but you don't have rules, and you should never have rules without values. One way to think about it is that rules provide the structure for an organization in its compliance area, but values provide the motivation and are what actually lead people to do the right thing, even if it's not required. Values are positive and aspirational. If, in our dealings with each other, we think about treating each other with respect, then there's not a rule for every occasion where we interact but there is a value, which is respect. Even if I disagree with you or you disagree with me, we're going to accord each other that basic respect. It's a really fundamental difference. Another way to think about it that I like as an analogy is that rules are the skeleton, if you will, but values are the blood and the heart in our own natural systems. So, why are values better? Values ask people to live their values, in a sense, and make them real. They ask people to consider much more than whether they're breaking a rule or going to break a law, because that's a pretty minimal standard. When you do that, you're encouraging people to do the minimum, but we can talk about that a little bit later. Does that make sense? Emily Miner:   Yeah, it does. Maybe to put it another way too, what I'm hearing from you, rules are what you can and can't do, whereas values might be what you should and shouldn't do, so to your point about there not being a rule for every occasion. Although, I do appreciate your skeleton analogy, as we're coming into the Halloween season, so apropos. Susan Divers:  Great. Emily Miner:  Following up on that, can you share some real world examples where you've seen this, as you put it, it's not an either or, it's a both and, but where you've seen the rules are good, values are better premise play out? Susan Divers:  Sure. Well, I'm going to start with actually a family example and then give one or two corporation, organization examples. When I talk about this in front of compliance conferences and all, I usually ask people in the audience to raise their hand if they've ever raised teenagers and a large number of people do. To just take that example, if you say to teenagers, "You can't do this. You can't have people over if we're not home. You can't have an unauthorized party. You can't do this, you can't do that," it tends to sound like blah, blah, blah. And then, they think about ways to get around that, in my experience. But if you say to them, "This is our family and we're all in this together. We all depend on each other's behavior to make it work. If you do things behind our back that could trigger bad consequences for all of us, that affects the family as a whole. And, it also means we can't trust you. We're asking you not to do these risky things." That's a much more motivating and respectful way to approach it. In companies and organizations, approaching people with respect and saying, "The rules are there as guidance, but we don't want you to meet the minimum. We want you to think of the organization as a whole, and to think of our brand and what we're trying to do, our mission and our purpose, and tailor your behavior to that. Not to arguing about whether it's not okay to spend $1000 a person on an elaborate dinner but it is okay to spend $1000 on an elaborate golf outing." It's really a very profound difference in focus. Emily Miner:   Yeah. That idea of leading with your values and that being a demonstration of respect and an extension of trust to employees, I think is really powerful. As you know, a lot of my work at LRN centers around understanding organizational culture and what motivates employee behavior. When I have conversations, focus groups and interviews with people in our client-partner walls, that's such a big theme, always. This idea of feeling respected and feeling trusted, "Treat me like an adult," so going back to your example of the teenagers. Just being real and talking about it openly, there's no smoke and mirrors behind it. Yeah. Thanks for sharing that. Good tips as well, for when my children become teenagers. Susan Divers:  Yeah, fasten your seatbelt. Emily Miner:   Yeah. We're talking about ethics and compliance. The global regulators are obviously key stakeholders in the design and implementation of an ethics and compliance program. Regulators being the ones that set out the policy requirements, IE the rules for organizations. But, we're seeing now that regulators around the world are also talking about the "culture of compliance," to quote the Department of Justice, and they're talking about the role of values. Which is really a shift from the language that was used, even just a few years ago. When did you notice that shift? And, what do you think catalyzed it? Susan Divers:  It definitely started happening as early as 2012. I think it was Mary Jo White, when she was the Chairwoman of the SEC, gave a speech and she said, "You have to focus on your culture." That was shocking at the time, because up to that point ... There's some very interesting things written in this area. There's a BSR white paper from 2017, for example, that talks about how, up until around then, compliance and ethics had been criminalized in the sense that there was a criminal justice approach. "This is the rule, you can't break it. If you do, you can go to jail and get fired." Okay, but that doesn't encourage me to do the right thing, if there's no rule. Or, to err on the side of doing the right thing, even if it's legitimately gray. And as I mentioned before, it encourages gaming the system, arguing, "Well, I didn't actually breach that rule. My behavior may have been bad, it may have been terrible even, but it didn't actually breach a rule so you can't do anything to me." So regulators finally caught up with that idea, because even though Sarbanes-Oxley, which was put in place after the Enron scandal largely, and other very detailed laws ... I think Sarbanes-Oxley, I saw somewhere, weighs 30 pounds if you put it all in one place, in terms of printed pages. Emily Miner:  Wow. Susan Divers:  Yeah, it's kind of scary. Sarbanes-Oxley didn't really change behavior. We then had the financial crisis and regulators started realizing that the answer to better behavior, preventing misconduct and generally being more effective might not be just layering on more rules and more rules. Ethics and compliance officers realized that the more effective approach might not be always getting up and screaming about penalties and all the bad things that could happen. But again, taking a much more positive approach and saying, again, "We're all in this together. We're going to trust you to do the right thing, even if it costs you and the company an opportunity. We're not going to rely strictly on your having to look up pages and pages of complex policies to try to figure out what you're actually supposed to do. We're going to encourage you to seek guidance, and we're going to have a welcoming attitude towards questions. We're not going to say, 'What did you do, why are you asking that?'" As a former senior executive at AECOM once put it, it's a shift from being a cop to a coach. Emily Miner:   I love that, a cop to a coach. One of the other trends or shifts in the regulator space has been around accessibility. I'm coming back to that, in listening to what you were just saying, because values, when shared and understood across an organization, allow for a more simplified, accessible approach to how we govern our behavior. To your point, not having to look up pages and pages, and parse out whether this crosses that line versus this other line. But really, just more fundamentally, is this aligned with who we are, what we believe in, what we stand for, so it's a powerful tool from an accessibility and simplification standpoint, too. Susan Divers:  Yeah. It's your North Star. It's a lot easier to look up and see the North Star than it is to read a policy on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Emily Miner:  You mentioned AECOM. You were in-house for a long time, as a chief ethics and compliance officer, starting up two ethics and compliance programs including at AECOM. Were you always oriented towards this idea of rules and values? Or, were there certain experiences in your professional career, or your personal life with your teenage sons, that impressed upon you the value, the benefit of a values-based approach? Susan Divers:  Well, I was really lucky when I started at AECOM because I had amazing colleagues. It was a perfect storm of goodness. The head of corporate communications, who later went on to win every imaginable award including having his picture up in Times Square because he won the Arthur Page Award. And then, the head of internal audit who came on, the three of us really worked together. We quickly got it, that making good ethics part of our brand and our mission was very feasible at AECOM. Our mission was to enhance the world's natural built and social environments in which we operate, and that was back in the early 2000s before people were even thinking about ESG. The company really lived up to that. They did a lot of very creative and very far-seeing work on a pro bono basis of what does a sustainable look like. We said, rather than, again, make this the cop shop, let's make it part and parcel of what we do. We did, in terms of communication and in terms of the way we ran the program. And then as a result, we won, unexpectedly, World's Most Ethical Company on our first year of trying. I think we got it five years thereafter. That became part of our brand. We had a little toolkit that you could put into a bid, an RFP response, that said, "This is what we've won and this is what our program looks like," and we really walked the walk as well as talked the talk. That really resonated at AECOM, people liked that. And we had a great ethics and compliance web page, if I do say so myself. It was interactive, it was engaging, it was kind of fun. We'd have quizzes, we'd do profiles of people who did the right thing, even if was difficult. That kind of momentum tends to breed more momentum in that direction. Occasionally, I found myself talking people out of abandoning a bid or something. I'd say, "Well, there's a way to mitigate that risk effectively." That was a nice place to be. It really was a good illustration of how values can be the life, and the blood and the heart of an organization's program. Emily Miner:   Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. I think, just when you were talking about the ethics and compliance web page and the interactivity, and quizzes and stories, those are all such powerful engagement techniques. You're right, it's catalytic, where there's a spark and then it leads more rippled effect, if you will. People want to be highlighted for doing the right thing. How great to say, "My company is globally recognized as one of the most ethical companies. I've got to make sure that I help us live up to that standard." Thank you for those specific examples. Getting into specific examples, we encourage our client partners to take a values-based approach to ethics and compliance. What are some of the other ways that that looks like in practice? Susan Divers:  As you know, every year we publish a Program Effectiveness Report, which is really our flagship piece of research every year. Last year, we highlighted stories of companies really using values to keep it together during the pandemic crisis that unfolded last year. The stories are very inspiring. I'd urge everyone listening to go download our most recent Program Effectiveness Report 2021 off our website. But, one in particular really struck me and that was Braskem. Wherein they needed to keep plants operating in order to keep the electrical grid in the United States healthy and fully operating. There's no law or rule in the world that would allow you to compel employees in those circumstances to self-isolate at a plant for 30 days at a time. But, what they did is ask employees if they would do that and people volunteered. They went and slept, ate at the plants, for 30 days at a time. Of course, the company paid them extra and ensured that they had facilities, and lodging and food. But, they're very proud of that experience and it was something that brought the company together. And again, just as we were talking about AECOM, people were proud of the fact that they had an ethical company. At Braskem, the same thing happened. There wasn't a rule that says, "You must do this," because then people would have resisted it, most likely. But, it was a value that this is what we do, this is consistent with our mission and this is consistent with doing the right thing by the social environments in which we operate in our communities. It's really a great example. I could go on and on, there are many other examples, too. But generally, during the pandemic people really rose to the occasion. Used values such as making programs much more people centered. In the past, it's part of the legacy of a very legalistic approach, programs have been way too legalistic. There's not been that much regard for the impact on people, or as you were talking about, simplicity. So for example, Dell moved big chunk of its program onto our Catalyst app and is even moving more onto Catalyst app because employees had limited bandwidth. They needed to be able to take training, if they were standing in a grocery line with a mask on, rather than be chained to a desktop. Again, it's the most powerful way to really motivate people and to change behavior for the better. Emily Miner:   Yeah. The Braskem example, it's so inspiring. I know that there are so many other examples out there, of organizations and people that really rose to the occasion and demonstrated the best of humanity as the COVID crisis was first unfolding, and still today. You also talked about our flagship research. I think we can probably put a link to the report in this podcast page so that people can access it. But, as director of thought leadership for advisory, you lead this research and have for many years. What does the data tell us about the prevalence of values, or values orientation, or values-based approach in ethics and compliance, or the impact of such an orientation? Susan Divers:  Good question and that's something we look at every year as you know, Emily. What it shows is that the most effective programs, there's a very strong correlation between having an effective ethics and compliance program and being values-based, it just works better. If you look at our report, and we ask questions about organizational justice, which is just a key plank of having an effective ethics and compliance program, having a values-based approach is just much more effective than relying simply on rules. It's also, as we've talked about, much more consistent with the epiphany that regulators had, I guess almost 10 years ago, where they realized that the regulation heavy approach had its limitations. We see this all the time in our research, that a values-based approach simply works better. Emily Miner:   Yeah. I think one of the data points that was really compelling for me in our research that we did this year was how the percentage of organizations who said that they relied on their values to help them navigate the COVID crisis. I don't know that I was necessarily expecting it to be such an overwhelming percentage. It was incredibly gratifying to see that. I think it's one of those situations where we could have all gone in one direction or another, and it's really encouraging that so many organizations, COVID has been a catalyst for them to really connect more deeply with their values. I know that you've already talked about how it seems as if this is shaping how ethics and compliance programs are evolving, beyond just the crisis response. But really, what is a new normal moving forward, such as the example of Dell bringing so much of their program onto a mobile app. That way, it's accessible to employees any time, anywhere. Susan Divers:  Yeah. And interestingly, I just looked at our report last year, and 79% of all of our respondents, who were about 600 respondents worldwide, said that their ethical culture got stronger as a result of their response to the pandemic. I don't think we're respecting that really, but it's very encouraging and very heartening because people came together and helped each other through the crisis. Our data shows that boards rose to the occasion, senior leaders rose to the occasion and largely, managers rose to the occasion. And again, it was an effort to pull together and help each other. It's really an inspiring story. Emily Miner:   Yeah, absolutely. So Susan, for our listeners who might be just starting to build out an ethics and compliance function in their organizations, what key steps would you recommend they take to ensure their program leads with core values? What's square one? Susan Divers:  Well, square one is to realize that you can do it, that it's not an either or choice. I think the first thing is to avoid what I would call blind benchmarking, where a lot of times, I think people when they start out, they want a compliance program in a box, so that means a checklist. The regulators are pretty adamant that that's the wrong approach because every company has different needs and different risks. You can be small and high risk, you can be large and be relatively low risk. You can have data privacy risks but other companies don't. You can have corruption risks but other companies don't. So what you need to do first start with your risks. And then say, "Okay, what are the values-based approaches we can take to mitigate those risks?" And then, you still have your infrastructure but you gear your training towards encouraging people to act with integrity in every circumstance that they encounter. We recommend, in our policy simplification work, that you make that very explicit, very simple. You can say, "We act with integrity everywhere, every time, in every circumstance." Instead of parsing through to see if you can offer a grease payment to jump the queue at customs, you rely on that principle. And that actually is easier for new programs, in some ways. Because if you get that right, you've got a really good basis to build on. And then, you incorporate those values in the infrastructure that you build out, whether it's communications, whether it's training, and even audit and assurance can be infused with values as well as policies. So you're starting from the right place, you're not building up some elaborate scaffolding. I saw one of the airlines bragging about a five page rule book, but they're also the airline that's had major scandals with people following procedures blindly and dragging people off of airplanes. So get it right from the very beginning and first, you'll be more effective. And then secondly, you'll save yourself a lot of grief down the line. Emily Miner:   Yeah, absolutely. It's a gift, in some sense. Maybe this is a tougher question. For those organizations that have more mature ethics and compliance programs, that might already have that scaffolding in place, what steps should they think? Or, what would you recommend they take to keep their program on the right track and centering their values? Susan Divers:  Well, to go back to the old maxim, "What gets measured, gets done," and really looking at your ethical culture. You just can't leave it on autopilot. You can't leave your risk analysis on autopilot, either. Your ethical culture and your risks are very inter-related. So spend time, of course, you work in that area and I do too, to some degree, of looking at ethical culture and saying, "What are the levels of trust and respect in the various business units or areas of the world? Are there hot spots? Are there places where there are lagging indicators that we can delve deeper into and really understand what some of the dynamics are?" Places where organizational justice isn't strong or retaliation is high. You have to spend time on it. It's like watering the roots of the plant. And then, you have to be willing to really talk about values. Again, a lot of companies, they get it right in the code of conduct. And, they put the code of conduct out there but they don't really talk about values. I know you did some work a couple of years ago in this area, with a values jam for the UN Global Compact, which was able to be done online. People appreciate that. People across the company like it when they're asked meaningful questions about values and whether the company's living up to that. I think that's absolutely fundamental to keeping it going, and keeping it real and keeping it alive. Emily Miner:   Yeah. It creates more ownership too, when people are involved in the process and their perspective is invited, or their invited to share their perspective. So that it's not this top down talking point mandate, but really is something that is discussed and explored at all levels of the organization. Susan Divers:  I couldn't agree more. Emily Miner:   Well, Susan, it is always such a pleasure to talk to you about these topics. Thank you for joining me on this episode. Susan Divers:  It was my pleasure, Emily. I feel the same way, it's always nice for us to get a chance to talk about important issues. Emily Miner:   To all of you listening, thank you. My name is Emily Miner and we will see you next time on the Principled Podcast by LRN. Outro:  We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And, if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen. And, don't forget to leave us a review.  

What's the deal with plastic pollution and how can we further prevent our oceans from becoming plastic soup? We now know the impact of our dependence on plastic has impacts to both marine life and human health and will be unravelling some of the mysteries, questions and innovative solutions of addressing plastic in the ocean in a three part mini-series. In Part 1 of our plastic ocean miniseries, we will focus on just one aspect of plastic pollution: SUPs. Not Stand Up Paddleboards… we mean Single-Use Plastics! The act of using a product once and throwing it away is occurring so rapidly around the world that some even say we are experiencing a ‘Plastic Pandemic'. So, what are we going to do about it? Hang tight as we are about to hear the story of how the Town of Lunenberg shifted away from plastics and how YOU can too! In this episode, we are joined by two women – Jennifer and Ariel – who prove that changing our individual habits and status-quo in business DO make a difference. In this episode, we heard from: Jennifer Constable with Plastic Free Lunenberg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/plasticfreelunenburg/ Boomerang Bags: https://boomerangbags.org/ Ariel Smith with Coastal Action Ocean Friendly Nova Scotia: https://www.coastalaction.org/ocean-friendly-nova-scotia.html Other Regional groups and initiatives tackling plastic: Atlantic Healthy Oceans Initiative (AHOI) – Zero- Plastic Waste Gros Morne Initiative https://www.ahoi.ca/ Ecology Action Center: https://ecologyaction.ca/plastic Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) - Zero Plastic Waste Initiative: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/programs/zero-plastic-waste-initiative.html Viewing and reading resources Nova Scotia's single-use-plastic-bag ban (https://novascotia.ca/single-use-plastic-bag-ban/) Land and Sea- Ocean Devotion Episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWZ6Gpe--0E ) China refuses Plastics from the West (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/china-recyclables-ban.html ) National Law Center to National Strategy to Combat Marine Plastic Pollution (https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/tbucksuzuki/pages/149/attachments/original/1576508962/Blueprint_for_Federal_Action_-_National_Marine_Plastics_Strategy.pdf?1576508962) Federal Discussion Paper ( A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products: discussion paper - Canada.ca) We love to hear your feedback. Connect with the hosts: Sondra Eger (www.twitter.com/@soneger) Jackie Bauman (ruralresilience.ca/researchers/mun…/jackie-bauman/) If you have a story to share with us or questions about how we make the podcast, send us an email at stories@coastalroutes.org. Coastal Routes Radio is led by: Philip Loring www.twitter.com/@ConserveChange Hannah Harrison www.twitter.com/@fishpeopleplace Follow the Coastal Routes Project www.twitter.com/@Coastal_Routes Listen to Volume 1 of Coastal Routes Radio soundcloud.com/conservechange/sets/social-fishtancing

There is a mythical stigma associated with homelessness that says people who are homeless are lazy. They're often treated as “others”, and characterized as a “problem” to be solved or hidden. Lets take stock of our assumptions about homelessness and consider how we can truly love our neighbors. This is Episode 10 of the What Would It Take Podcast. Join me as I ask, What Would It Take for Everyone to Have a home? Links to sources for this episode: Article from Strong Towns, Resilient, Long-term Approach to Addressing Homelessness - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/12/2/addressing-homelessness Article from Fox 11 Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles accused of moving the homeless in order to prepare for the Oscars - https://www.foxla.com/news/city-of-la-accused-of-moving-the-homeless-in-order-to-prepare-for-the-oscars Article from Los Angeles Times, L.A. near settlement to create shelters and clear homeless people off the streets - https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-04-12/la-nears-deal-build-shelters-clear-homeless-encampments Information from the National Alliance to End Homelessness - Chronically Homeless - https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/who-experiences-homelessness/chronically-homeless/#:~:text=People%20who%20are%20chronically%20homeless,Updated%20March%202021. Information from the National Alliance to End Homelessness -What Causes Homelessness - https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/ Information from homeless hub - Causes of Homelessness - https://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/causes-homelessness Proven Solutions from the coalition for the homeless - https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/proven-solutions/ PDF resource from the National Law Center on homelessness and Poverty - No Safe Place, The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities - https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/NoSafePlace.pdf Alternative resources than calling the police, from Don't Call The Police - Resources by City - https://dontcallthepolice.com/ Youtube video from Invisible People which share's Lavern's story - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toJQmP0D040

Listen to our podcast Mujahid Talks with Imam Malik Mujahid in conversation with Maria Foscarinis and Keith McHenry #HomelessinAmerica #Homelessness #NHLC Guests: Maria Foscarinis - Founder & Executive Director, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty Keith McHenry - Artist, activist, author and co-founded Food Not Bombs Host: Imam Abdul Malik Mujahid - President of Sound Vision and Justice for All. Like, Share, and Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/MuslimNetworkTV/ Muslim Network is the only channel through which America can discover its Muslim neighbors. Muslim Network airs on Galaxy 19 Satellite covering USA, Canada and Mexico. It also streams on Amazon FireTV, Apple TV, and Roku. © Sound Vision Foundation Views expressed are those of hosts and guests, not those of Sound Vision Foundation. Watch Us 24/7 on Link Below MuslimNetwork.TV https://www.facebook.com/MuslimNetworkTV https://twitter.com/muslimnetworktv https://www.instagram.com/muslimnetworktv/

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., a native of Charleston, South Carolina, is a graduate of historic Howard University located in Washington, District of Columbia. At Howard University, Mr. Jenkins obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in history. * He received his Juris Doctor from the National Law Center at the George Washington University. As a collegiate Mr. Jenkins served as a Capital Hill Aide to the Honorable Arthur P. Ravenel of the United States House of Representatives. * Upon graduation, he served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Ulysses B. Hammond, Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts. As Law Clerk to the Executive Officer, Mr. Jenkins served as an intra-governmental liaison between the District of Columbia Courts and the District of Columbia City Council, and the United States Congress. * In addition, Mr. Jenkins duties included assisting the Executive Officer in the day-to-day administrative operations of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. * Mr. Jenkins actively handles a variety of criminal defense matters representing juvenile and adult clients. He has spent his entire career as an attorney principally defending citizens charged with offenses in federal and state courts. He has successfully defended individuals accused of drug-related offenses, sexual assaults, tax violations, as well as capital murder. * In 1998 Mr. Jenkins’ professionalism and accomplishments as a trial advocate were recognized with his election to the George Mason American Inns of Court as a Barrister. Since 2017 he has been listed among the top criminal defense attorneys in the Washington, DC area by the Washingtonian Magazine. * He is a member of the Virginia State Bar and has been admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States District Court for the Districts of Colorado, Eastern District of Virginia, and District of Columbia. * Mr. Jenkins has appeared as a legal commentator on local and national television shows such as MSNBC Live. He has been featured on the reality series American Greed. Mr. Jenkins has been quoted in the both the Washington Post and Washington Times. He also routinely lectures as a Virginia Continuing Legal Education speaker on federal criminal defense issues. * * You can find Robert here: * Website: https://www.bynumandjenkinslawoffice.com * Twitter: https://twitter.com/AttyJenkins * Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/attorneyjenkins/ * * If you like the streaming platform that I am using called StreamYard use the link below to sign up with and receive a $10 credit for signing up. I will get a credit as well and that of course will help the show. * StreamYard Affiliate Link: https://streamyard.com?pal=5045291231739904 * * Live-Stream Links: * https://www.facebook.com/nowheretogo.butupnow.9/videos/766243004294148 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLfX6owBKk&t=9s * * Here is where you can find Sean Dustin: * Linktree: * https://linktr.ee/Nowheretogobutup * To support the show through Patreon: * https://www.patreon.com/user?u=19859993 * You can also tip me through PayPal: * www.paypal.com * recipient: nowheretogobutupnow@gmail.com * The Cash App: * https://cash.app/ * Recipient: $nwtgbupod * Show Notes Writer: Sean Dustin * *

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., a native of Charleston, South Carolina, is a graduate of historic Howard University located in Washington, District of Columbia. At Howard University, Mr. Jenkins obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in history. * He received his Juris Doctor from the National Law Center at the George Washington University. As a collegiate Mr. Jenkins served as a Capital Hill Aide to the Honorable Arthur P. Ravenel of the United States House of Representatives. * Upon graduation, he served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Ulysses B. Hammond, Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts. As Law Clerk to the Executive Officer, Mr. Jenkins served as an intra-governmental liaison between the District of Columbia Courts and the District of Columbia City Council, and the United States Congress. * In addition, Mr. Jenkins duties included assisting the Executive Officer in the day-to-day administrative operations of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. * Mr. Jenkins actively handles a variety of criminal defense matters representing juvenile and adult clients. He has spent his entire career as an attorney principally defending citizens charged with offenses in federal and state courts. He has successfully defended individuals accused of drug-related offenses, sexual assaults, tax violations, as well as capital murder. * In 1998 Mr. Jenkins' professionalism and accomplishments as a trial advocate were recognized with his election to the George Mason American Inns of Court as a Barrister. Since 2017 he has been listed among the top criminal defense attorneys in the Washington, DC area by the Washingtonian Magazine. *

COVID 19 has exposed the very real fact that working women depend on outside support in order to do their jobs-support that has virtually disappeared during the pandemic. The loss of childcare, school and other services has forced so very many of us to leave the workforce or at the very least, stretch ourselves WAY too thin.  Join us as we explore how to harness the power of women to make the systemic changes necessary to support all working women, during COVID and beyond. SHOW NOTESIn this episode of Crina and Kirsten Get Work, our dynamic duo discuss what Covid has magnified about women and work.  In short, Covid has taken its toll in so many ways - including women and their work. In Part I of Women’s Work and Covid the focus was that “COVID-19 is hard on women because the U.S. economy is hard on women, and this virus excels at taking existing tensions and ratcheting them up.” Why has COVID-19 been especially harmful for working women?    This is because women hold more low-wage and face to face jobs and these types of jobs were especially hit with layoffs.  Losses in child care and school hours as a result of the pandemic have and will likely lead to a significant decline in women’s total wages and an increase in women leaving the workforce. And this whole “dealio” threatens the progress women have made in the last years. COVID has created the perfect storm and exposed what already existed: we “let” women be successful, but only if they can simultaneously care for the children, the elderly, the husbands, the community, etc.  If you can add a shift in your day from 8pm to 3 am to get your work done, plan the team potluck or whatever, you are golden.  We all know this is unsustainable and based on the big fat lie that certain work such as caring for children, families and households is primarily the purview of women.  The paradigm is false. There are systemic issues that create and exacerbate the work women have been shouldering, all exacerbated by COVID.  Those systemic issues include insufficient childcare, no care when children are ill, a lack of support for the elderly, lack of predictable schedules, and, oh yes, minimum wage jobs held by single women with children who could not hope to sustain their life and the life of their children on minimum wage.   None of these issues are women’s issues, they are family issues and we need to start thinking about them as such. The solution is to change things on a federal level.  If we change things with individual employers, individual cities or states, we risk advancing some and leaving others behind.  We need a solution for everyone.  The Women’s National Law Center is an excellent place to explore solutions on the federal level.  Listeners should consider taking action to support these federal solutions on issues such as:.ChildcareImproving the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit Would Help Working Families with the High Cost of Child Care | NWLCRegulating SchedulesNational Women's Law Center Take Action: Tell Congress to Support Fair Work Schedules (nwlc.org) - Seattle has this restriction on the ability to change schedules without noticeAnd don’t forget paid time off,and raising the minimum wage. And don’t forget, the best thing we can do is to support, raise up and sponsor other women - as individuals and collectively.

Andrew Jewel is the Senior Director, Strategic Pricing & Business Solutions at Seyfarth Shaw. Andrew works closely with Firm Department Chairs, the Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer, and key members of the Finance team and leads the pricing and business side of Seyfarth’s Alternative Fee Arrangement (AFA) program.Prior to entering the legal solutions industry, Andrew practiced law for nearly five years as a commercial litigation and antitrust associate at two AmLaw firms. He earned a JD, with honors, from The National Law Center at the George Washington University, where he was a member of the Journal of International Law & Economics, and a B.A. from Haverford College in Haverford, PA. KEY TAKEAWAYS Data & Risk Sharing Deliver Successful AFAs. Access to historical matter data and appropriate risk-sharing between law firms and clients are the building blocks for strong partnerships between law firms and their clients. Beyond Revenue. It’s more important to understand and measure the cost of delivery and profitability drivers of the work your firm is doing.Proactivity Matters Clients want firms that are efficient, know their business and deliver value without having to be reminded.

The session in which we chat with Brandy Ryan,JD, staff attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty in Washington, DC. Brandy is a strong advocate for people experiencing homelessness and her work focuses right now on homelessness and education.  Nobody should have to live without a home to live in. There's just no place like a home.  Check out the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty nlchp.org.  According to the website: "Given close quarters, compromised immune systems, and an aging population, people experiencing homelessness are exceptionally vulnerable to communicable diseases, not excluding the current outbreak of coronavirus, COVID-19" You can read more about the impact of coronavirus on homelessness at nlchp.org.

Stephen Pimpare is a nationally recognized expert on poverty and U.S. social policy. Hedebunks the idea that COVID is the great equalizer, and explains why immediate cash transfers are critical to mitigate the effects of the pandemic on the poor. Joe Huston is Managing Director of GiveDirectly, the first and largest non-profit organization that gives cash directly to people in poverty. He shares how they are reaching the needy and providing thousands with critical funds right now. Maria Foscarinis is the Founder and Director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. We talk about successful strategies to house the homeless and give them cash, as well as special funding to address homelessness in the CARES Act. Robin Steinberg is the founder and CEO of The Bail Project. Her organization is doing the immense work to release as many Americans held on bail as possible at this time, what states are doing to help, and how decarceration is now quickly gaining traction around the country. Find out more: Stephen Pimpare is a nationally recognized expert on poverty, homelessness, and U.S. Social policy. He is also a Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire and teaches courses on American Politics and Public Policy. His most recent book is Ghettos, Tramps, and Welfare Queens: Down & Out on the Silver Screen, a history of poverty and homelessness in the movies. Follow him on Twitter @stephenpimpare. Joe Huston is the Managing Director of GiveDirectly, the first and largest non-profit organization that gives cash directly to people in poverty and that works to reshape the way we think about international donations. Follow GiveDirectly @GiveDirectly and Joe @JHust Maria Foscarinisis the founder and executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, and has advocated for solutions to homelessness at the national level since 1985. Follow her on Twitter @MariaFoscarinis. Robin Steinberg is the founder and CEO of The Bail Project, an unprecedented national effort to combat mass incarceration by transforming the pretrial system in the U.S. Follow The Bail Project on Twitter @bailproject.

Nearly 1.6 million Americans will likely spend the holidays in a homeless shelter or some form of transitional housing. A study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty found laws criminalizing homeless people have multiplied in the last decade. Other studies find charges and prosecutions of the homeless does nothing to address its root causes.

This episode features Liz Pocock, CEO of StartUp Tucson (https://www.startuptucson.com/). Liz talks with Emre and Matt about her background as a Research Attorney with the National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade and the path that led her to Startup Tucson. She goes to describe a number of SUT initiatives that are designed to contribute to the development and enhancement of the entrepreneurial landscape of Southern Arizona, as well as ways in which students can become more involves in the entrepreneurial community that surrounds the UArizona.Website: https://aed.cals.arizona.edu/goinnovatecontact us: goinnovate@email.arizona.eduInstagram: @go_innovate_Twitter: @go_innovate_Support the show (https://aed.cals.arizona.edu/goinnovate)

Homelessness- Today I will relate to the homelessness in America and the homelessness in Atlanta, Georgia. Homelessness in America! In reading a report from the National Law Center of Homelessness and Poverty. Domestic violence is the foremost cause of homelessness among women. Other genesis of homelessness for men and women of the United States are shortage of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, and low wages. As stated by the National Law Center of Homelessness and Poverty statistics are alarming: 564,708 people in the U.S. are homeless. A recent report, indicated that over half a million people were living on the streets, in cars, in homeless shelters, or in subsidized transitional housing during a one-night National survey as of January 2018. There are three categories of homelessness. 1. Chronic Homelessness are those who are homeless for a long excessive periods of time. Mostly, older or injured people. This is the least common type of homelessness. 2. Transitional homelessness are people who stay in a shelter for a short period of time. 3. Episodic homelessness are those who frequently go in and out of homelessness, usually the young, and due to abuse, unemployment, and experience with their mental illnesses or medical problems. From reading the Coalition for the Homelessness. The legitimate results are stabilizing people through shelter, moving them into persistent housing and administering assistant programs. Federal housing assistance programs are one of the most well-to-do housing-based solutions to minimize the homeless problem. There are 2 Federal housing assistant programs, that are, public housing and federal housing vouchers, known as Housing Choice Vouchers or Section 8 vouchers. Housing Vouchers enables low-income households to rent and calibrate their families income. From reading the Global Government Forum- the US government will lose much money over this summer. The government is 22 trillion dollars in national debt, sending shock-waves throughout global financial markets. My question is what must we do as of the fact that money putting the U.S. in debt is money financed to the military, welfare, and HUD. What are we to do if we lose so much finance due to funding and federal assistance programs? Or what is the government must do if we lose too much funding and finances? In Atlanta homelessness is decreasing due to homeless shelters and federal assistant Housing Programs according to an article in Atlanta Journal Constitution. Mayor Keisha Lance bottoms is creating a 1 billion dollar public-private affordable housing fund for lower-income residents. This will impact a decrease of the homelessness in Atlanta. Also. I heard from fellows about the Homelessness of Atlanta that people are sleeping underneath Bridges and residing at the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

What does it mean to be excluded from the American Dream? Two stories, set 100 years apart, explore this question from the perspective of immigrants who think they’ve made it in America, only to find out that their dream comes at a cost. "No Place Like Home" At the height of America’s Exclusion era, an Indian immigrant’s quest for prosperity ends in a tragic realization that being a “good immigrant” isn’t enough to escape the realities of racism. "Non-White Picket Fences" A fight over a homeless shelter in one of America’s most Asian cities reveals the choices that Americans face in seeking suburban paradise. Share your story and keep the conversation going! Do you have a story about feeling excluded from the “American Dream”? Where or when in your life have you felt most like you belonged? Email your story to community@selfevidentshow.com or share with us on social media @SelfEvidentShow, with the hashtag #WeAreSelfEvident. Resources and Recommended Reading: Suicide Prevention Lifeline, 1-800-273-8255 The Lifeline provides 24/7, free and confidential support for people in distress and prevention and crisis resources for you or your loved ones. History of Angel Island Immigration Station, by the Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation History of “Race, Nationality, and Reality” (including more about the Supreme Court decisions that declared only white people could be U.S. citizens) at National Archives Primary Sources chronicling the life of Vaishno Das Bagai, preserved by the South Asian American Digital Archive The Making of Asian America: A History by Erika Lee, published by Simon & Schuster “Escape From Los Angeles: White Flight From Los Angeles and Its Schools, 1960-1980” by Jack Schneider, for the Journal of Urban History “The Court Case That Forced OC to Stop Ignoring Its Homeless” by Jill Replogle, for LAist Public Record of Irvine City Council Emergency Town Hall Meeting to discuss the proposal to place an emergency homeless shelter in the Orange County Great Park Public Record of Orange County Board of Supervisors Meeting to discuss the proposal to place emergency homeless shelters in Huntington Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Niguel The OC Needle Exchange Program research directory lists many sources of information regarding the public health outcomes of syringe exchanges “In Fighting Homeless Camp, Irvine’s Asians Win, but at a Cost” by Anh Do, for the Los Angeles Times “Asian Americans in Irvine Draw Outrage for Protesting Homeless Shelters” by Carl Samson, for NextShark “Supervisors Defend Their Turf and Criticize Spitzer’s Homeless Warnings” by Nick Gerda, for Voice of OC “Homelessness in Orange County: The Costs to Our Community,” a research report by UC Irvine faculty, sponsored by OC United Way and Jamboree Housing Executive Summary of research on our national homelessness crisis done by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty "Student Housing Issues at UC Irvine," a recently released research report by Izzak Mirales at UC Irvine, based in part on data collected by the ASUCI Housing Security Commission. "Irvine Student Housing Cost and Crowding Under Scrutiny in Report Presented at UCI" by Lilly Nguyen, for the Los Angeles Times “Not in My Backyard: What the Shouting Down of One Homeless Housing Complex Means for Us All” by Jill Replogle for Southern California Public Radio Shout Outs: Erika Lee and Samip Mallick helped us connect with Rani Bagai. Brandon Morales, Mike Carman and Molly Nichelson helped us report our story about homelessness in Irvine, California. Anne Saini and Jill Replogle graciously consulted with our team on these stories. We received feedback on this episode from Aileen Tieu, Aishwarya Krishnamoorthy, Akira Olivia Kumamoto,  Alex Wong, Alicia Tyree, Anish Patel, Chris Lam, Emily Ewing Hays, Erica Eng, Irene Noguchi, Jen Young, Jennifer Zhan, Jon Yang, Jonathon Desimone, Kelly Chan, Kevin Do, Lynne Guey, Marci Calabretta Cancio-Bello, Marvin Yueh, Mia Warren, Rebecca Jung, Robyn Lee, and Tommy Tang. This episode was made possible by the generous support of Stefan Mancevski and the rest of our 1,004 crowdfund backers. Credits: Produced by James Boo, Cathy Erway, and Associate Producer Kathy Im Additional reporting by Anthony Kim Edited by James Boo and Cheryl Devall Tape syncs by Mona Yeh and Eilis O’Neill Production support and fact checking by Katherine Jinyi Li Editorial support from Davey Kim, Alex Laughlin, Senior Producer Julia Shu, and Executive Producer Ken Ikeda Sound Engineering by Timothy Lou Ly Theme Music by Dorian Love Music by Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound Sound effects by Soundsnap Self Evident is a Studiotobe production. Our show was incubated at the Made in New York Media Center by IFP. Season 1 is presented by the Center for Asian American Media (CAAM), the Ford Foundation, and our listener community. About CAAM: CAAM (Center for Asian American Media) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to presenting stories that convey the richness and diversity of Asian American experiences to the broadest audience possible. CAAM does this by funding, producing, distributing, and exhibiting works in film, television, and digital media. For more information on CAAM, please visit www.caamedia.org. With support from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CAAM provides production funding to independent producers who make engaging Asian American works for public media.

The housing crisis started with a policy decision The leading cause was cutbacks to federal funding for housing for poor people starting with the Reagan administration. In 1978, the federal government was funding about over 300,000 new units of affordable housing each year. In 1983, that number had decreased to under 3,000 each year. Currently, only one in four poor people who qualify for federal housing assistance actually receives it. Working men and women who do not earn enough to pay for housing, such as minimum wage workers, cannot afford housing based on affordability guidelines set by the federal government. Housing is a human right Without housing, nothing else is truly possible. Housing is essential for families, children, adults, the ill, and the disabled. Housing is recognized as a human right by the UN and by international treaties, including some that the United States has signed on to. However, even though Congress has set a goal for decent, affordable housing for every family 50 years ago, it has not made it a right. A large and growing percentage of the homeless are families with children. Studies have shown that childhood homelessness is a risk factor for adult homelessness. The criminalization of homelessness A wide variety of laws criminalize homelessness by making it a crime for the homeless to be in public spaces, such as sleeping in public, begging in public places, sitting down in public, or living in yofour car. Cities have fined the homeless, arrested them, and put them in jail. Studies show that these measures are not cost-effective. It is more expensive for the police to arrest or cite people, put them through the court process, and jail them. Moreover, when the people are released, they are still homeless, but now have an arrest record, which makes it more difficult to find a job or housing. It is more cost effective to provide housing, and it solves the problem. Find out more: Maria Foscarinis is the founder and executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, and has advocated for solutions to homelessness at the national level since 1985. Among other honors, Maria is the recipient of the 2006 Public Interest Achievement Award from the Public Interest Law Foundation at Columbia Law School and the 2016 Katharine and George Alexander Law Prize from Santa Clara University’s School of Law.

As homelessness steadily rises in America, so too does the willingness of state and local governments to use criminal laws against their homeless residents. Earlier this year, a federal appeals court found that laws making it illegal to sleep in public violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when they're used against individuals without access to shelter. Maria Foscarinis, the founder and executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, discusses the decision, criminalization broadly, and other systemic obstacles to addressing the needs of homeless people.

New York City’s homeless youth population could fill Yankee stadium. . . twice.   Aaron Freiwald, Managing Partner of Freiwald Law and host of the weekly podcast, Good Law | Bad Law, is joined by Maria Foscarinis to discuss homelessness and poverty and the growing problem of homeless LGBTQ+ youth in our country.  Maria is devoting her career to using the power of the law to change this.   Maria started her career at the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, a large corporate law firm in NYC where she had the opportunity to do pro bono work representing homeless families. After working with these families and seeing first hand the impact she was having on them, she decided to leave the law firm and establish the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.   Maria shares her personal journey as well as some of the groundbreaking work her organization has handled to improve the lives of homeless individuals and to attack the root causes of homelessness.  An important part of her work, Maria tells us, has been to litgate against communities that criminalize homelessness.   Maria and Aaron also discuss a report published by the National Law Center in collaboration with Cyndi Lauper’s True Colors Fund, called the State Index on Youth Homelessness. This report provides a state-by-state analysis of programs and services and grades each state on their approach to homelessness, with a particular emphasis on how each state is responding to the growing crisis of LGBTQ youth and homelessness.   Join Aaron and Maria Foscarinis for today’s discussion on homelessness and poverty in America. To learn more about the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, visit their website https://www.nlchp.org/   Host: Aaron Freiwald Guest: Maria Foscarinis   Follow Good Law | Bad Law: YouTube: Good Law | Bad Law Instagram: @GoodLawBadLaw Website: https://www.law-podcast.com

This week, Making Contact looks at California's fight over rent control. The stage is set for a political battle between two polar world views. Is housing a human right, or is real estate property an investment commodity where you just need to insure your property and get discounts? And where on that continuum is California's common ground?  A statewide initiative, if approved, would allow local governments to create their own rent control laws. In this episode, we go to one of California where there is no limit as to how high rents may be raised.  Later we'll go to Los Angeles for a look at how that city's police policies are affecting homeless encampments.    Featuring: Mike Van Gorder, Naeiri Khachaekian, and John Bagdzhyan, Glendale Tenants Union; Frank Broccolo, commercial litigator; Glendale renters and landlords; General Dogon, Los Angeles Community Action Network; Tiffany Jones, david Garcia, “Jacob”, homeless encampment residents; Ace Katano, public defender; Alisa Orduña, senior advisor on homelessness, City of Santa Monica; Danielle Dupuy, UCLA researcher; Dominic Choi, LAPD homeless coordinator Commander; Maria Foscarinis, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty; Victor Hinderliter, LAHSA associate director.  Credits: Contributing Producer: Carla Green Host and segment producer: Monica Lopez Staff Producers: Anita Johnson, Monica Lopez, Salima Hamirani Executive Director: Lisa Rudman Audience Engagement Manager: Sabine Blaizin Development Associate: Vera Tykulsker Music Credits: “Fater Lee”, Black Ant  (open) “Subway Instrumental Version”, David Szesztay (credits) For More information: More U.S. households are renting than at any point in 50 years – Pew Research Center http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/19/more-u-s-households-are-renting-than-at-any-point-in-50-years/ Affordable Housing Act https://ballotpedia.org/California_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2018) Glendale Tenants Union http://www.glendaletenants.org/ Tenants United Santa Ana https://www.facebook.com/TuSantaAna/ Uplift Inglewood Coalition https://www.facebook.com/upliftinglewood/?hc_ref=ARSYYkG0CI1mXhYN1MOCzw_Ol0vmnbJ9Ku1HRlRj7Qa9YwQjZpcU4_yuDGEvvblocj8&fref=nf Los Angeles Community Action Network http://cangress.org/ Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority https://www.lahsa.org/ UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/Pages/HousingIndex.aspx The post Your Home, Your Right… or My Business? appeared first on KPFA.

On any given night, 600,000 Americans are sleeping on the streets and struggling under the weight of extreme poverty. In this report from On The Road at the 2018 Equal Justice Conference, host Kimberly Sanchez talks to Samantha Howell and Tristia Bauman about the criminalization of those struggling with poverty. They discuss what lawyers can do to help, from recognizing and respecting homeless people they see to providing pro bono services. They also address some of the most prevalent issues the homeless face, from overly severe punishment of small crimes to over-incarceration. Samantha Howell is the executive director of the New York State Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. Tristia Bauman is a senior attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty where she combines litigation, legal education, and legislative advocacy strategies to prevent and end homelessness.

  That's the name of a new report from the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and it reminds us that the trend is toward more encampments for those without permanent housing.  The primary reason is that we have not built enough affordable housing to keep up with the demand. And, yet, our approach … Continue reading EP 115 Tent City, U.S.A.

During her tenure as president, Hilarie Bass has focused a lot of the American Bar Association’s energies on aiding homeless youth, not just in the U.S., but around the world. In this report from On The Road at the 2018 ABA Midyear Meeting, host Jim Calloway talks to Casey Trupin, Michael Santos, Angela Vigil, Melanie Redman, Darla Bardine, and Stephen Gaetz about the ABA homeless youth initiatives President Bass has inspired and how lawyers can get involved. Together, they also discuss the biggest legal needs of these homeless children, from finding shelter to getting a license without a birth certificate, and how volunteer lawyers can meet these needs. Casey Trupin is a program officer for the Raikes Foundation’s youth homelessness strategy. Michael Santos is an attorney at the National Law Center on Homeless and Poverty whose work focuses on advocating for homeless youth access to education through public education, impact litigation, and policy advocacy. Angela Vigil is a partner and executive director of the Pro Bono Practice at Baker McKenzie. Melanie Redman is the co-founder and president & CEO of A Way Home Canada. Darla Bardine is a public interest attorney serving as executive director of the National Network for Youth (NN4Y). Stephen Gaetz is a professor in the Faculty of Education at York University and is the director of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness and the Homeless Hub.

Release Date: October 20th Category: Family & Relationships/ Abuse/ Child Abuse, Self-help/ Abuse, Psychology, History 184 pages - $24.95 Print ISBN-13: 978-1-63424-159-5 Epub - ISBN-13: 978-1-63424â??172-4 Kindle - ISBN-13: 978-1-63424-173-1 In light of current events that continue to dominate our headlines, this book needs to be in the hands of every American. There needs to be a National database of these criminals, and a list of their offenses. No more sweeping their very real, heinous crimes under the proverbial rug. No more letting them remain in power to continue to offend. Our children need to be protected. Children need to be rescued and saved. This book is a wake-up call about a subject too few people want to discuss. That is, while no one was watching, America has become a child pornography nation. The problem of child sex abuse and its cover-up is real. A generation of American children are being destroyed. If you think this happens to someone elseâ??s children and your children are safe, you are mistaken. Your children might be enduring sexual abuse right now while you remain dangerously ignorant. Americaâ??s appetite for child pornography puts all our children at risk. Your children and mine. Whether you acknowledge it or not. This is a very real epidemic. Recent Amazon reader reviews Book Giveaway on Goodreads ------------------- Author available for limited interviews, please contact Julia Cox 541-285-0696 or selinacox29@icloud.com Praises and support for Lori Handrahan's dedicated work in putting this book together: "The safety of our children is an issue that all Americans must be concerned with. Sex crimes against children in particular, cyberporn and all the rest is beyond atrocious.â?? -Paul Brandus, White House reporter. West Wing Reports "I view Dr. Handrahanâ??s efforts to pull together the data surrounding child pornography and child sexual abuse that was scattered, until this book came out, as a seminal document from which I hope Congressional hearings, corporate action, and greater parental awareness will come. Through the data and information amassed in Epidemic, it is no longer possible to equate child sexual abuse, pornography, and exploitation as the acts of a few raincoat wearing men or sophisticated entertainment, but the most hateful and evil conduct imaginable.â?? -J. Robert Flores, National Law Center for Children and Families, Vice President and Senior Counsel, 1997 - 2001 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department of Justice, Administrator, 2002 - 2009 Coordinating Counsel on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Vice Chairman Congressional Child Online Protection Act Commission , Commissioner, 1998 - 2000 Deputy Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, Senior Trial Counsel, 1989 - 2007 "Finally, someone with the strength and courage to expose the epidemic that is destroying our country. Child sexual abuse, in all its forms, is not and never has been just a familyâ??s dirty little secret. It has been under our collective noses all along and we have ignored the stench. Dr. Lori Handrahanâ??s thorough research deftly illustrates how money, sex, and the exploitation of our children have fueled a fire that is ravaging our nation, our world. Epidemic: Americaâ??s Trade in Child Rape answers questions that no one dares to ask and identifies abusers whom we donâ??t want to admit exist.â?? -Sgt. Stephen J. Pickering, Maine State Police (retired) About the Author: Dr. Lori Handrahan has over twenty years of humanitarian and human rights work in Central Asia, Africa and the Balkans. Her focus is gender-based violence, conflict/post-conflict environments, UN reform, and ending child sex abuse. Dr. Handrahan completed her Ph.D. at London School of Economics. Her work is published widely from academic journals to The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Huffington Post, The Washington Times, Forbes, The National Journal, The Daily Beast, and Fox News. She has been a guest on CNN, Fox News, CTV, and CCTV.