Compliance & Ethics Professional - Society of Corporate ...

Table 1: Differences between traditional assessments and ethics assessments.Assessment Characteristic Traditional (Regulatory) Assessment Ethics AssessmentObjectives Compliance with required standards Compliance status as well as insights into values/principles‐based culture and norms.Assessor qualifications Qualified assessor with content expertise(e.g., laws, rules, regulations)Qualified assessor with content expertise and supplemental“process” expertise (e.g. OD*, OE*, Change Management)Assessment approachAssessment observationsFollow-up requirementsChecklist of items that correspond toregulatory requirementsNon-compliance observations (i.e.,deficiencies)Ensure corrective actions are taken toaddress identified deficienciesChecklist of items as well as open-ended questions thatinvestigate context and how that context was created/maintainedNoncompliance issues as well as OD/OE observations of“ethics” process effectiveness, employee perceptions, andrelated concernsEnsure corrective actions are taken to address identifieddeficiencies, as well as collaboration to ensure that the clientknows how to address the noncompliance observations (e.g.,assistance in drafting RFPs* if external assistance is beingsought, because bad RFPs lead to bad projects)*OD=Organizational Development; OE=Organizational Effectiveness; RFP=Request for ProposalIt should also be noted that not all “ethics assessments” are created equal. There is a continuumof sorts between a minimal ethics assessment and a truly comprehensive ethics assessment. Thefollowing table illustrates what some of those differences might look like. It is not a question of themore comprehensive one being inherently “better.” Rather, the operating question is, “What level ofdetail best fit the needs of the organization?” with “fit” being very much a “systems” concept.Table 2: Differences between types of ethics assessmentsLess comprehensive ethics assessmentThe goal is typically to gain insight into the ethical status quo andgauge potential support for or resistance to any contemplatedchange.The questions being addressed are typically defined, at least inpart, by the leadership of the organization, and can be used tosimply paint a picture of the current state, provide baseline datauseful in creating a new ethics initiative, or assess progress of anexisting initiative.The methodologies would characteristically include key personinterviews, focus groups, some form of employee/stakeholdersurvey, and a review of organizational documents.The criteria are adapted to the goals of the organization (e.g.,compliance with external standards and perhaps a narrow focuson one element of an organization’s current ethical culture).The output is a written report of findings, conclusions, andrecommendations supplemented with an executive briefing.The recommendations, with rare exceptions, are non-binding.More comprehensive ethics assessmentThe goal is to provide a defensible evaluation of the organization’scurrent effectiveness in meeting certain previously agreed-to ethicsand compliance standards, as well as the presence of certainobservable structural elements, their perceived effectiveness, andtheir impact on the organizations continuing development.The questions being answered are both standardized(e.g., presence and impact of the various components of an“effective” program as defined within the FSGO), supplementedwith organization-specific questions regarding ethics systemseffectiveness and utility.The methodologies are the same as in an assessment (key personinterviews, focus groups, some form of employee/stakeholdersurvey, and a review of organizational documents). Both the depthand breadth of the components are greater.The criteria against which the organization is measured far exceedcompliance issues. One example is inclusion of questions related tostandardized instruments (e.g., ERC’s NBES*) that explore attitudesregarding elements of the ethical culture.The output is a written report of findings, conclusions, andrecommendations supplemented with an executive briefing.The recommendations, with rare exceptions, are at leastsomewhat binding. Rejection of a finding would be for cause, notjust managerial prerogative. Organizations would need a defensiblejustification for ignoring the findings and/or recommendations.*ERC’s NBES = Ethics Resource Center’s National Business Ethics SurveyCompliance & Ethics Professional March/April 2012+1 952 933 4977 or 888 277 4977 | www.corporatecompliance.org 49