How a company to a potential crisis responds allegations of an ethical lapse on the part of a senior executive involved has the potential to shape its corporate image long initial about the event has been. As Toyota and the subway corporation presently discover, despite all the best corporate governance efforts, including professionally designed corporate compliance programs and codes of conduct, not a group of the damage is immune that maintained by the alleged ethical lapse or misconduct on the part of can be an executive or company spokesperson. Mitigation efforts can be especially difficult when the senior executive alleged unethical or illegal behavior unrelated to the Corporation operations.
A comprehensive understanding of the underlying facts is crucial for the company's process decision. In addition to a proactive and mitigating protocol concentrates which provides the company with the ability to detect a good faith in response to the wrongdoing.
Too often C-suite executives believe that because of their organization robust and comprehensive compliance programs, their organizations protected from such ethical crises their managers are involved. As a result, assigned a low priority to the senior executive level integrity mitigation protocols are usually.
Scientific studies have shown that have failed on average upwards of 60% of the CEOs and boards of directors to successfully mitigate integrity protocols include in their overall corporate strategic planning. There are the possible consequences for the organization when these events mitigated not proactive, it is important that an organization an effective risk mitigation program has, so that management can be prepared as best can be. This is especially true in today's 24/7 news cycle and sound bite journalism. In the current environment, in the immediate access to the messages is so readily available, make a society can not play catch-up.
. In the event that the conduct allegedly doing nothing unethical and potentially illegal senior executive of the organization has operations that the potential fallout and reporting requirements can not readily apparent to the organization This is especially important to Corporation, the publicly traded and heavily regulated, where the alleged misconduct require in this case, certain reporting obligations on the part of the organization.
to Failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements, has the potential of the organization civil and increasing criminal liability risk. The FCPA, SOX and other laws and regulations impose all levels of disclosure requirements varies.
In cases where the company learns that a senior executive of the subject of a government civil or criminal investigations, the company should take measures to monitor the company collaborations with investigators and, if possible, manage. The goal here is the organization of good faith to show response to the misconduct and more importantly, try to cultivate the study of the organization and focus. In all discussions with researchers or prosecutor, the company should try the side connection to underline the organization under investigation.
While dealing with the crisis, the organization must be careful to avoid ant inconsistencies between the regulatory and law statements and the message to send to the various constituencies about the employee's alleged misconduct.
One of the best courses of action for organizing themselves to try to distance themselves from the personal misconduct of officers. Should the company choose to suspend the senior executive, the corporation should also inform relevant ingredients that the company's operations will not be destabilized or disturbed by the absence of the executive. It should be kept in mind that when dealing with the media, the corporation should be appropriate in response to the interest of the cause.
The correct identification and evaluation of the crisis is essential for the company's ability to initiate an appropriate response. A company of a crisis need to see, to give them the options available. The crisis of the company response plan must be flexible enough to allow for adaptation to changing circumstances and environments. It is important to keep in mind that crisis mitigation is not a process to a project. Accept the fact that a certain percentage of what you plan now two weeks to change from now and will worsen over time. Especially if you try your crisis response procedures drafting to avoid the "War and Peace" syndrome, and to avoid confusion, the crisis management with business continuity planning.
Equally important, and beyond the possible liability risks, said the company can be found over significant reputational damage. In such a situation, the corporation must assess whether an internal investigation is warranted. A properly conducted internal investigation will provide the company with the resources available, to determine the facts underlying. The internal investigation is also certain deficiencies in the methods of the corporation or involve the possible involvement of others within the organization. The internal investigation has the potential, the organization of civil and criminal liability or exposure.
During a crisis isolate keep in mind that the world is watching. Consequently, it is to know your audience task. During the crisis, which is all your corporate circles, shareholders, creditors, consumers, business partners, employees and especially regulators and industry analysts to monitor your response to the crisis. As a result, the organization shall prepare and respond in a manner that promotes trust and transparency.
No comments:
Post a Comment