Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

While we watch negotiators in Doha, Qatar continue to struggle to find international agreement on effective climate change minimization measures, it's useful to look at one part of the planet where aggressive actions are underway.  No, not the U.S. federal government, which took time out of preparations for “fiscal cliff” negotiations to pass a law on November 27 empowering the Department of Transportation to prohibit U.S. airlines from participation in the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (Public Law No. 112-200).  This month's prime example of action is California, which just held its first auction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission allowances to inaugurate a statewide cap-and-trade program.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 prohibits U.S. companies from making bribes or other “corrupt payments” to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Concerns that this U.S. attempt to mediate its companies’ overseas activities might prove quixotic—and potentially disadvantaging—to American competitiveness have abated (although not disappeared) since the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) promulgated its “Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.” As of November 2012 the OECD Convention has been ratified by all 34 OECD member countries, and five others as well.

Domestic violence is a widespread problem with serious consequences for the victims, their families and their workplaces as well. In 2005 a national telephone survey by the Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence found that 44% of the employed U.S. adults surveyed reported having personally experienced the effects of domestic violence in their workplace, and 21% identified themselves as victims. The same survey reported that 38% of respondents were “somewhat” to “extremely” concerned for their own safety when they learned that one of their co-workers was being victimized.

The presence of “hazardous” materials in your workplace can trigger a wide variety of environmental health and safety requirements and hazardous waste regulations.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and state worker protection agencies issue standards to protect workers during occupational handling and storage.  The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies issue requirements governing the management of hazardous wastes, and emissions to a variety of environmental media (air, water and land).

Do you know what happened to any paints, coatings and surface preparation materials left over after the last project at your facility?

Is your organization one of the many with policies restricting employees’ use of social and other electronic media? If so, you need to consider last month’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision, finding that Costco’s policy violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision is another recent example of a regulator’s interpretation of ambiguous employer policies in ways that protect employee rights by using the employer’s ambiguity against it – and reinforce that employment law best practices require clarity and narrow drafting.

When an employer becomes concerned that an employee may be incapable of performing his or her job, one response is formal evaluation of that employee’s “fitness for duty (FFD).” Although most cover physical abilities, referrals are also made for psychological FFD evaluations, to determine whether an employee has a psychological impairment that makes him or her unable to perform effectively and safely. These may be triggered when an employee is exhibiting signs of psychological or emotional stress, including those that manifest in hostile or threatening behaviors, or in other behaviors that lead co-workers, or the employer, to be concerned for their safety.

Environmental compliance has been an important issue for large, multi-national companies for many years, and in recent years it has taken on added importance for their suppliers. Case in point: Walmart, Procter & Gamble, IBM – many Fortune 500 companies – are requiring that their vendors audit and quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in their supply chains. Indeed, many of these high-profile organizations have undertaken ambitious plans for reducing their carbon footprint. (A big driver of this activity is stronger environmental regulation and pressure from environmental organizations, customers, investors and the like.) For example, in early 2010 Walmart announced a goal to eliminate 20 million metric tons of GHG emissions from its global supply chain by the end of 2015. Procter & Gamble has the stated objective of generating 100% of its energy from renewable resources – with a target of generating 25% of that by 2020.

Does your organization ever conduct internal investigations to evaluate complaints about working conditions, claims of harassment or other inappropriate behavior, or concerns about individual, or group, law-breaking? If so, investigators probably try to keep the investigation confidential, in order to avoid internal embarrassment while preserving the status quo until the investigation reaches its conclusion.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) administers a broad range of consumer protection statutes, primarily by issuing “guidelines” for organizations to follow when they design products, packages and advertising materials. Generally these guidelines are not directly enforceable, but FTC uses them as the basis for deciding whether a particular activity is lawful. FTC provides organizations that conform to the guidelines with a “safe harbor” against prosecution for violation of one of its statutes, and focuses enforcement on businesses that fail to conform.