Post by xyz3800 on Feb 28, 2024 2:16:29 GMT -8
The advent of the Clean Company Law (Law 12,846/2013), the impact of foreign legislation with the same intention ( FCPA and the UK Bribery Act , for example) and the perceived effects of police operations to combat corruption in the country (operation " Lava Jato", the most notable of them) generated the perception of the need to implement robust compliance programs in Brazilian companies. It follows, then, that compliance programs are extremely important to avoid the risks arising from violations of such legislation: very heavy fines, restrictions on participation in competitions and tenders, reputational damage and imprisonment for executives and shareholders. In fact, integrity programs, in addition to creating a culture of austerity in companies, playing an educational role, allow the detection of possible misconduct.
In other words, in addition to creating value for the company's culture, they can identify problems and allow them to be voluntarily remedied and punished, also avoiding the loss of economic value for the company. In the quest to create an environment of greater austerity, it has become increasingly common for large companies to impose contractual adherence to their respective compliance programs on all third parties that include their production Exit Mobile Number List chain, especially customers and suppliers. . The proposal is legitimate, especially because it complies with the provisions of article 42, item III, of Decree, which regulates the Clean Company Law and establishes evaluation criteria for the purpose of reducing pecuniary penalties established in the legislation, the so-called integrity program. However, the imposition of third-party adherence to a given company's business integrity program can generate a series of practical problems, which can even reduce its effectiveness.
Therefore, this increasingly common requirement has sparked increasing debate. In addition to the obvious transaction costs associated with both negotiating contracts and verifying the implementation of the integrity program, it is not difficult to imagine practical problems that are also associated with such imposition. In practice, companies (especially service providers) operate in different production chains. If each of the chains in which it operates has to undergo one or more different integrity programs, there will be an undeniable sacrifice resulting from the obligation to monitor compliance with each of these programs. Other than that, there is the risk of having to live with conflicting rules or obligations. Not to mention that imposing integrity programs on third parties may not be efficient, as the standards and procedures that are appropriate for one organization will not always be appropriate for all others with which it interacts.
In other words, in addition to creating value for the company's culture, they can identify problems and allow them to be voluntarily remedied and punished, also avoiding the loss of economic value for the company. In the quest to create an environment of greater austerity, it has become increasingly common for large companies to impose contractual adherence to their respective compliance programs on all third parties that include their production Exit Mobile Number List chain, especially customers and suppliers. . The proposal is legitimate, especially because it complies with the provisions of article 42, item III, of Decree, which regulates the Clean Company Law and establishes evaluation criteria for the purpose of reducing pecuniary penalties established in the legislation, the so-called integrity program. However, the imposition of third-party adherence to a given company's business integrity program can generate a series of practical problems, which can even reduce its effectiveness.
Therefore, this increasingly common requirement has sparked increasing debate. In addition to the obvious transaction costs associated with both negotiating contracts and verifying the implementation of the integrity program, it is not difficult to imagine practical problems that are also associated with such imposition. In practice, companies (especially service providers) operate in different production chains. If each of the chains in which it operates has to undergo one or more different integrity programs, there will be an undeniable sacrifice resulting from the obligation to monitor compliance with each of these programs. Other than that, there is the risk of having to live with conflicting rules or obligations. Not to mention that imposing integrity programs on third parties may not be efficient, as the standards and procedures that are appropriate for one organization will not always be appropriate for all others with which it interacts.