Skip to content

Le CA est garant de l’intégrité de l’entreprise

12 août 2015

Aujourd’hui, j’ai retenu un article publié par Richard Leblanc* dans le Magazine for Canadian Listed Companies (Listed) qui traite d’un sujet de grande actualité dans toutes les sphères de la vie organisationnelle : La valeur de l’intégrité.

Comme le dit si bien l’auteur, les entreprises sont portées à qualifier certains employés de pommes pourries lorsqu’elles découvrent des manquements à l’éthique. Il est vrai que certains individus sont responsables de plusieurs problèmes reliés au manque d’intégrité et d’honnêteté mais les comportements des employés sont largement dépendants de la culture de l’entreprise, des pratiques en cours, des contrôles internes …

Richard Leblanc croit que les défaillances, en ce qui a trait à l’intégrité des personnes, sont souvent du ressort du conseil d’administration lequel n’exerce pas un fort leadership éthique et n’affiche pas des valeurs claires à ce propos.

Cette affirmation implique que tous les membres d’un conseil d’administration doivent faire preuve d’une éthique exemplaire : « Tone at the Top ». Les membres sont en mesure d’évaluer cette valeur au sein de leur conseil et au sein de l’organisation.

C’est la responsabilité du conseil de veiller à ce que de solides valeurs d’intégrité soient transmises à l’échelle de toute l’organisation, que la direction et les employés connaissent bien les codes de conduites et que l’on s’assure d’un suivi adéquat à cet égard.

Les administrateurs doivent poser les bonnes questions afin de s’assurer de la transmission efficace du code de conduite de l’entreprise.

This lax control environment, where self-interest is pursued and where pressure is applied, is the heart of ethical failure.

Je vous invite à lire ce court article. Bonne lecture. Vos commentaires sont appréciés.

Integrity? The buck stops at the board

La valeur de l’intégrité transmise par le CA

 

There is not an excuse I have not heard for ethical failure. But when I investigate a company after allegations of fraud, corruption or workplace wrongdoing, I almost always find a complacent, captured or entrenched board that did not take corrective action. In a few cases, boards actually encouraged the wrongdoing.

The first myth is that the board is a “good” board. There is no relationship between the profile of directors and whether the board is “good.” Often times, there is an inverse relationship, as trophy or legacy directors typically lack industry and risk expertise, are not really independent, are coasting and not prepared to put in the work, or they themselves may not possess integrity.

How important is integrity? Extremely. Three factors make for a good director or manager: competence, commitment and integrity, with integrity ranking first. Otherwise, you have the first two working against you.

Integrity needs to be defined, recruited for, and enforced. “Does your colleague possess integrity?” “Yes” is an answer to this perfunctory question. Full marks. But when I define integrity to include avoiding conflicts of interest, consistency between what is said and done, ethical conduct and trustworthiness—and guarantee anonymity—I get a spread of performance scores. Those who do not possess integrity in the eyes of their colleagues are poison and should be extracted from any board or a senior management team. It is a recruitment failure to elect or hire them in the first place.

When fraud, toxic workplaces, bullying, harassment and pressure do occur, the bad news needs to rise. Boards need to ensure that protected, anonymous reporting channels exist and are used—including for a director or executive to speak up in confidence, and for an in- dependent consequential investigation to occur. If a whistleblowing program has any manager as the point of contact, it is not effective.

Frequently, I find ethical design and implementation failure are the culprits, with codes of conduct, conflict of interest policies, whistleblowing procedures, culture and workplace audits, and education and communication being perfunctory at best, overridden by management at worst, and not taken seriously by employees or key suppliers, with minimal assurance and oversight by the board.

After ethical failure happens, executives argue that it is a lone rogue employee or an isolated incident. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an employee who reflects the true and actual culture, internal control environment and practices of the organization, and who is attracted to and flourishes within them. There is no such thing as a rogue employee. It is a board that approved the conditions that management proposed within which employees operate.

This lax control environment, where self-interest is pursued and where pressure is applied, is the heart of ethical failure.

Nowhere is there a more shocking lack of internal controls over employee and agent behaviour than in some corrupt jurisdictions where Western firms do business. Not only is the potential for fraud rampant, but the costs of compliance wind up being borne by companies that do not bribe and have proper controls. They are penalized for doing things right, and forced to compete on an unequal playing field.

This is why Western governments are seeking to put their countries and companies in the most competitive position possible. They are enforcing anti-corruption laws using long arms of justice to prosecute bribery. They are also debarring companies from government contracts who commit ethical breaches. This debarment is a powerful motivator to spur investment to internalize the costs of internal controls over integrity.

Western industry will mistakenly argue that integrity laws will disadvantage them or cost their industry jobs, but the reality is the opposite. Tough integrity laws will prevent substandard competitors from offering bribes, will reduce recipients’ incentive to receive bribes, and will strengthen Western companies that compete on the basis of price, quality and service.

__________________________________

*Richard Leblanc is an associate professor, governance, law & ethics, at York University’s Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies and a member of the Ontario Bar. E-mail: rleblanc@yorku.ca.

Laisser un commentaire

Qu'en pensez-vous ?

Entrer les renseignements ci-dessous ou cliquer sur une icône pour ouvrir une session :

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment ce contenu :