Tag Archives: compliance management

Forthcoming Book on Sustainability/CSR Expected to be Controversial

Lawrence Heim, Managing Director of Elm Sustainability Partners, is finishing his book Killing Sustainability, expected to be published in February 2018.  Killing Sustainability is a painfully candid look at sustainability/CSR failures & obstacles and getting past them.

“The book is intentionally different.  It is written in an informal, concise and blunt style to make it an easy, quick read,” Heim said.  “Plenty has already been written about organizations with robust and successful programs.  The intended audience is sustainability/CSR professionals and executives in small/medium sized companies who need to completely change conversations internally and with customers.”

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the book is the critical evaluation of sustainability/CSR professionals and their approaches to convincing others of their value.  “Painful introspection is necessary for sustainability/CSR practitioners at this moment in time. We need to understand our own shortcomings, how many executives truly perceive us and why that impacts their decisions.”

Killing Sustainability analyzes the starting point of executive mindsets and current research in behavioral economics and science to influence change.

The title reflects the ultimate end game – when “sustainability” is so fully integrated into a company’s operations and strategy that it can be killed off as a stand-alone concept.

For more information and updates or to join in the conversation, visit www.killingsustainability.com.

Predicting the Failure – or Success – of Sustainability Leadership

Ed. Note: Elm Sustainability Partners is exceedingly grateful to Commander Kerry F. Gentry, USN (Ret.) who has granted Elm the use of his leadership assessment framework, data and tools developed over more than forty years as a Commander in the US Navy Submarine service and numerous positions within Computer Sciences Corporation.

***

“Let’s make sure our sustainability program and initiatives fail.”

It is doubtful any company thinks like that. Some companies use sustainability as a fundamental business tool and competitive advantage. Internal organizations are created to support the strategy and people are promoted from within or hired from outside to be Directors/Vice Presidents.

But are those individuals leaders or simply managers? Are they suited to moving all the necessary parts of the organization? Or are they predisposed to mediocrity and be ineffectual? No company intends for their sustainability initiatives to disappoint but by not ensuring the needs of the position match the individual, failure is all too often an option.

Two recent business cataclysms – Wells Fargo and Equifax – perfectly illustrate mismatches between leadership needs and their respective CEO’s capabilities. Both resulted in the CEOs losing their jobs, being grilled at Senate hearings, major loss of customers and of course meaningful drops in stock price and investor confidence.

Even more bad news: these CEOs’ inadequacies were predictable. This article presents Elm’s method for assessing leadership capabilities that can help prevent self-destruction of corporate sustainability success due to inadequately matching the correct person to the unique attributes of sustainability.

Leadership is …?

Leadership is often seen as an intangible characteristic few people innately possess. In the corporate world, managers routinely rise through higher levels of management and increased responsibility, yet few become true leaders. There are examples too numerous to count of managers initiated into internal leadership development or mentoring programs, only to stagnate. Enterprises, law firms and management consultants reward situational success (to be explained later) with promotions up to a point, until an individual’s star fades while another individual rises who demonstrates true leadership, or disappoints.

But these failures are often less the fault of the individual than their assignment to a position inappropriate to their personal aptitude. They are the result of how a company assesses and selects individuals for leadership positions.

Leadership itself should be clarified and defined. Most requirements of leadership are universal, but each situation is unique due to the environment in which the individual must perform. There are four primary components:

  • Setting or accepting objectives and goals
  • Aligning objectives and goals of individuals with those of the leader/organization.
  • Influencing those individuals to achieve those objectives of their own volition.
  • Managing risks to those objectives and goals

Situational success is frequently misinterpreted as leadership. A manager’s success is based on the entire team/organizational ecosystem in which the manager is embedded. Changing the team structure/dynamics, or placing that manager in a different setting frequently produces dramatically different results. In other words, managers perceived as leaders may only be successful in a specific situation; if their situation changes, their ability to succeed may falter. In 1969, Laurence J. Peter published The Peter Principle – a theory that promotions are based on a candidate’s performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Or as commonly summarized – “an employee will be promoted to their level of incompetence.” This is situational success.

Why is situational success not equivalent to leadership? Because each leadership need/position is its own unique situation, with its own unique team/organizational ecosystem.   In assessing leadership, the company must clearly define what is important to be successful in the new role, not how well an individual has performed in their current one.

Leadership is generally confused with management, but they are not the same. Management is characterized by defined processes and learned skills. Because these are conflated, managers are promoted primarily for their management abilities (a technical skill) to the exclusion of other – more important and less teachable – attributes. And, as noted by Laurence J. Peter five decades ago, managerial assessments focus on past performance, not needs of the new position. Managers rise beyond their abilities; leaders rise to their abilities.

The Leadership Wheel

The Leadership Wheel was developed by Commander Gentry as director of the US Navy’s Atlantic Fleet FBM Submarine Training Center. As shown below, it illustrates the relationship between leadership factors. Every position/opportunity requires its own distinctive mix and weighting of leadership characteristics, so there is no “standard.” However, an inventory of frequently identified factors was developed by Commander Gentry and is being adapted by Elm.

At the hub of the wheel are core personality attributes that are necessary for an individual to be a leader in a specific position. These are hard-wired into our brains by the time we are a few years of age. They are essentially not changeable through training, incentives or punishment. Certain abilities and personality attributes – good and bad – exist at different levels within different individuals.

The spokes represent habituated behaviors that characterize an individual’s interaction with others, and are those necessary to the position. Behaviors can be learned to varying extents, depending in large part on an individual’s core personality attributes. Generally, modifying behaviors is effective only when training and intervention is sustained over a long period of time.

The rim represents technical skills necessary for the position and is perhaps the most frustrating paradox in leadership decisions. Individuals tend to be selected for leadership positions based mainly on their technical capabilities. Yet of the three leadership elements, technical skills are the most teachable and easiest to attain/modify. Underlying personality attributes and behaviors are less teachable and therefore tend to be more important in leaders.

 Using information from reports about the recent disasters by Wells Fargo and Equifax CEOs, we can build the following example table with some interesting contrasts – but with similar calamitous results. 

Leadership Element Wells Fargo CEO Equifax CEO
Hub
Morality No Uncertain
Empathy No No
Courage No No
Spoke
Confidence Yes No
Decisiveness Yes No
Rim
Communication No No
Disclosure Knowledge Uncertain No

 

The individual traits are obviously notable, but the dynamics between them are also highly relevant. In the case of Wells Fargo, early assessment of the CEO’s deficient moral compass with high decisiveness would have foreshadowed a propensity to make independent decisions that place the CEO’s own interests ahead of the company’s. And had Equifax identified an apparent lack of courage, decisiveness and confidence as attributes of their CEO, they may have prevented catastrophic hesitation in timely public disclosure of their massive data breach, along with his singling out of one employee as the scapegoat. Recall that hub traits are not teachable and spoke behaviors are minimally learnable; therefore, training and education on those topics would be ineffective at altering the actions of those two individuals.

Characterizing Sustainability for the Company

Having defined principles of leadership, the same must be done for sustainability. Sadly, corporate sustainability still is a victim of ambiguity and inconsistency. It is couched in terms of environmental impact, social issues, human rights, employee satisfaction, safety, chemical content of products, supplier behaviors, corporate transparency, talent retention, climate change, governmental lobbying, governance, community involvement and/or philanthropy. The 2017 United National Sustainable Development Goals encompass 17 different topics.

The breadth of sustainability’s potential scope frustrates corporate efforts to describe the concept internally, let alone outside of the organization. There are also diverse views on where a sustainability function should be placed within an organization – does it fit it the EHS department, Investor Relations, Quality, Finance/Reporting or HR?

Setting criteria for performance, success and leadership is problematic without basic scope/definition of a sustainability function and understanding where it fits organizationally. Successful sustainability leaders have necessary defined characteristics in an appropriate mix to influence others in achieving the company’s sustainability objectives. Obviously, without clarity on what sustainability means and where it fits in the corporate structure, a company will be unable to attain effective leadership, and the individual and program are unlikely to last long or prosper.

Connecting the Dots

The common thread between leadership and sustainability is the need for clarity. Clearly defining sustainability helps establish appropriate leadership characteristics, relative importance of skills and expectations of performance. That is used to establish clear criteria with which the company can appropriately assess individuals and create performance goals.

  • What are the core personality attributes necessary to achieving the objectives that are aligned with the scope/definition of sustainability? Critically, the organization must understand that personality attributes are fundamental to an individual’s personality and difficult to modify. Therefore the individual’s inherent character must be well-suited to the particular position to begin with.
  • What behaviors related to interacting with others are required? Does an individual need to change or adapt to the new position/ecosystem and to what extent can the individual do so?
  • What technical skills are necessary and what is their relative importance? What knowledge does the individual currently possess, are there gaps compared to the requirements of the new position and how important are they?

Spinning the Wheel

Elm is adapting the Leadership Wheel by identifying position requirements and developing dynamic interactive versions in Excel to quantitatively assess individuals against those requirements. In order to create requirements for a successful sustainability leader, an inventory of hub, spoke and wheel competencies is developed using internally identified criteria in conjunction with Commander Gentry’s inventory of frequently identified factors. Once the position-specific inventory is ranked and completed, candidates complete a self-assessment, with the same assessment performed by subordinates, peers, managers, mentors, internal sponsors and others. In some instances, third parties such as customers may also provide valuable input. The assessment process can consist of written questionnaires, tests, interviews and role playing exercises. The results are entered into Excel individually and charted/graphed, allowing the data to be analyzed in different ways and manipulated to reflect changes in position requirements, actual assessment results or what-if scenarios.

Applying the Leadership Wheel in practice for both the enterprise and the individual helps avoid placing individuals in highly stressed positions for which they are ill-suited rather using them where they are most valuable and comfortable – benefitting the company and the individual.

Obvious comparisons arise to what HR departments and recruiters do, but leadership assessments are different in several critical ways.

Leadership Assessment Performance Reviews
Leverages specific data from hundreds of previous structured assessments, with consistent themes Inconsistent data over time due to constantly changing corporate performance management systems, review methods and criteria
Specifically focuses on the individual’s attributes and capabilities by eliminating ecosystem influences on situation success Do not differentiate between the “masking effects” of the ecosystem and the individual’s past performance.   Many times performance is specifically assessed in terms of team – rather than individual – performance
Structured and quantified process of assessing an individual’s attributes and suitability prospectively Use a position requirement statement to compare individuals against each other on past performance. Annual performance reviews are frequently seen as a perfunctory administrative task that is not used after completion

Give us a call to learn more about ensuring the success of your sustainability program by selecting the appropriate leader.

Why RSN’s Conflict Minerals Report Scores Went Down

Responsible Sourcing Network (RSN) published their Mining the Disclosures 2017 report.  Although RSN states that the same KPIs from last year were used, there are some important changes.

First, 206 companies were assessed rather than 202 the prior year.  That is quite minor, but we point it out anyway.

Of far more importance is the change in RSN’s scoring approach.  The score for essentially every company went down, some significantly.  A few scores did increase.  RSN noted:

In the 2017 rating, 85% of the sample group is in the three lowest categories (Adequate, Minimal, and Weak), while in 2016, it was only 64% of the sample group… dramatic score changes occur regarding the capacity of companies to identify and manage their risks

What happened to drive scores down, when many companies used the same format and content as the previous year that provided higher scores?  The answer is somewhat buried in the report – indeed it is the final paragraph of the report (excluding the End Notes and advertisements).  So to help folks, here it is:

After four years of reporting, RSN is increasing its expectations of the quality of companies’ disclosures. Therefore for 2017, the document/ location expectation, where information for each indicator is to be found, is being strictly enforced. Similarly, some indicators like the response verification, the in-scope determination, and others, are being weighted with higher expectations. Last, RSN is being meticulous with KPI score determinations to stay aligned with the proactive and improvement-based due diligence process. This rigorous approach likely contributed to the general decrease in the majority of companies’ and industries’ 2017 scores.

In other words, although the indicators stayed the same year-over-year, the weightings did not.  As RSN’s expectations for improvements increase, scores for companies focused on compliance decrease.

On one hand, there is some logic in the idea of increasing performance over time.  However, it makes year-over-year apples-to-apples comparisons impossible, especially since RSN’s scoring methodology has changed each year of the report.  And it doesn’t take into account that many companies view SEC filings only as regulatory compliance documents and limit narrative to the compliance “script.”  As we have said for years, the CMR is not really the place to tell your story – save that for your website of CSR report.

Results from the Auditor QuickQuiz

Our auditor quiz is now closed after a month. The questions were based on existing international non-financial auditing standards, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) fraud identification/examination techniques and US Government Auditing Standards for non-financial audits. There were fewer respondents than we had hoped so we can’t extrapolate beyond our dataset. Even so, some notable trends did emerge.

Of those who responded, 47% were EHS auditors and 27% were CSR auditors. We had hoped more CSR auditors would have participated. Other information about the respondents’ backgrounds:

  • 60% had no certification or “other”
  • 50% have 10 years or less auditing experience
  • 50% have 50 or fewer audits
  • 13% have participated in more than 500 audits during their career
  • 63% spend at least 75% of their time conducting audits

There were only 2 “passing” scores – i.e., greater than 70%. The average score was 49% – far lower than was expected.

Knowledge of standard terminology seems to be lacking, further reflected in poor scores for questions that embedded the terminology within them. For instance, only 30% correctly defined “audit criteria” as meaning the audit protocol. This likely led to 53% of respondents incorrectly answering that QA/QC reviews should include assessing the correctness of the “audit criteria used by the auditor.” QA/QC reviews of auditor working papers should look at how an auditor applied the audit criteria, not the inherent accuracy of the criteria (or audit protocol) used by the auditor. Indeed, only 10% correctly identified that none of the answer options are appropriate for QA/QC reviews.

Only 3% considered interviews better than document reviews when asked directly what type of evidence is strongest. Yet when the question was placed in a practical setting, 73% indicated they would rely on interviews over documentation. Only 26% correctly identified the evidence hierarchy (from strongest to weakest).

On a more positive note, 83% answered that they would decline to develop a document that they audited, meaning 17% did not view this as a conflict of interest. Frankly, we were disappointed that there was not a perfect score in identifying this to be an independence issue.

In answering the question listing possible common evidence problems, just over half (53%) correctly indicated that all of the answer options are common evidence problems.

Finally, 2/3 incorrectly answered that initial determinations of significance/materiality should be made after assessing evidence. It is possible that respondents did not read the question carefully and pick up the word initial.

Certainly more responses would have provided a better representation, but we think there are some valuable take aways from our limited data.  Among them – the gap between EHS/CSR auditor knowledge and existing (and theoretically similar) non-financial audit standards may be larger than previously thought.  As the importance – and liabilities – of sustainability/CSR audits grow, increased auditor training and competence seems warranted.

Last Week for Auditor QuickQuiz

Our auditor QuickQuiz will close at the end of the day September 1.  We hope to see more folks will take a few minutes to answer the questions.  It is painless.

Some of the trends we are seeing are:

  • 67% of the respondents have more than 10 years experience, with 75% or more of that experience doing EHS/CSR audits.
  • Only 15% of the respondents had a passing score.
  • There is a gap in knowledge and application of fundamental audit terminology.
  • There is inconsistency in understanding the strength of evidence types, with an over-reliance on interviews over documentation.

Things are likely to improve when we get more responses.

Fraud in Sustainability/CSR

Fraud is increasingly a topic in our conversations. We have had direct experience with EHS fraud in the past. The most recent occurrence was helping a client unravel an embezzlement scheme using waste disposal as the fraud mechanism. It played out a bit like a made-for-TV movie – not the kind of thing I ever expected to see personally, nor in the 21st century.

New pressures and risks are developing around sustainability/CSR reporting. Although still largely voluntary (certain aspects are mandated in the US, UK and Australia for instance), its business importance has grown dramatically in the past 5 years.

Customers demand more transparency and reporting in their supply chains, and many make procurement decisions based on this information. Many institutional and activist investors carefully review sustainability/CSR disclosures and make decisions using that information. It is now common for shareholder resolutions to be filed related to the disclosures, or lack thereof. Major media outlets have sustainability/CSR desks specifically focused on these matters and who pore over the filings and report on them.

We are finding that there is very little consideration given to fraud assessment or monitoring in this context – so is it even meaningful? We think so, and well known fraud and compliance expert Hui Chen agrees. Let’s apply the Fraud Triangle to supplier CSR performance.

  • Motivation. There is much on the line for businesses and their suppliers in terms of CSR results. As pointed out above, sustainability/CSR disclosures and performance may directly impact revenues, reputation and investor activity. No one wants to be on the wrong end of that. Motivation? Check.
  • Rationalization. It isn’t much of a stretch to see how an individual can rationalize using alternative facts due to the business pressures. In some cases, suppliers in developing countries may rationalize their actions further due to their own cultural setting. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that the US is immune itself.
  • Opportunity. There is ample opportunity for motivated suppliers to commit fraud. In some instances, CSR auditors are used to review suppliers. But those hiring audit firms many times severely limit the auditors by imposing minimal scope/effort driven primarily by cost. Suppliers know their customers’ auditors are not enabled to conduct a thorough review, and with pre-scheduled site visits, they have plenty of notice to dress the place up for the auditors.

This is only one example of how fraud can enter into the sustainability/CSR picture. If this isn’t included in your company risk assessments, or considered in the context of CSR/sustainability reporting, it should be.

Hui Chen: Applying DOJ’s Compliance Questions to Supplier/Social Responsibility Auditing

By: Hui Chen, former Compliance Counsel Expert, Fraud Section, Department of Justice

Ed. Note:  Hui Chen gained national attention when she made a “noisy withdrawal” from the Department of Justice this past June.  Afterwards, she graciously agreed to write the following for us.  We applaud her deep commitment to integrity and greatly appreciate her making time to pen this article.

In February 2017, the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) released a document entitled “Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs” (“Evaluation Questions”) which makes public the types of questions the Fraud Sections asks in its evaluation of corporate compliance programs in the context of its criminal investigations. The Evaluation Questions immediately gained the attention and interest of anti-fraud compliance professionals as well as global regulators and law enforcement interested in corporate accountability. The Fraud Section, which prosecutes cases involving foreign corruption, financial,  securities  and healthcare fraud, has brought corporate prosecutions with historic fines and penalties and exerts enormous influence in the those areas of compliance. What is often missed in the narrative, however, is the Fraud Section’s leading role in two of the largest environmental criminal prosecutions in history: the Deepwater Horizon and the VW emission scandal. As the Fraud Section’s Compliance Counsel Expert, I had the privilege of being involved in these cases, and they were very much on my mind as I drafted the Evaluation Questions.

Although the Evaluation Questions are set in the context of criminal investigations, one of the intents of the document is to also provide a framework for companies and compliance professionals to design, implement, and test their compliance programs for effectiveness. That framework is every bit as applicable to EHS and sustainability programs as it is for anti-fraud compliance programs.

At its core, the Evaluation Questions center around the following tenets of effectiveness: credibility, measurements, accountability, and continuous improvement. Let’s briefly explore these principles and see how they apply in the context of supplier/social responsibility auditing.

Credibility

The Evaluation Questions probe the credibility of companies’ boards, senior leadership, and compliance and control functions. It specifically names “audit” as one of the “relevant control functions”. It asks whether “compliance and control personnel ha[ve] the appropriate experience and qualifications for their roles and responsibilities.” How companies define that appropriateness tells a lot about the company. For example, companies that define appropriate experience largely in terms of certifications tend to be less sophisticated: they rely on commercial certification bodies to exercise the judgment and evaluation on their behalf. These types of personnel often do not perform impressively when specific questions involving real experience and expertise are posed to them: i.e. “Explain your sample selection methodology”, “How would you handle specific situations”, “What specific red flags do you look for when you are auditing for X”, etc. In this regard, I find Elm’s Auditor QuickQuiz an intriguing and useful concept and tool. My instinct tells me that this quiz may reveal more about auditors’ competency and judgment than most certifications do.

It is important to note that the notion of credibility, as explored by the Evaluation Questions, goes far beyond experience and qualifications. Corporate and professional credibility comes also in the form of visible commitment, demonstrated conduct, soundness of processes, levels of autonomy, strength of empowerment, and responses to risks, all of which are explored throughout the Evaluation Questions.

Applying these questions to supplier/social responsibility auditing, it means companies need to seriously consider factors more than subject matter expertise and cost of the auditors. Companies need to define auditor competency in terms of independence, judgment, field experience, statistical and analytical sophistication, and interpersonal and intercultural skills. Companies should also examine their auditors’ approach closely, asking specific questions about approach, methodology, and plans to identify and prepare for the types of issues that are likely to arise during the audit process.

Measurements

The Evaluation Questions are rooted in various prior guidance issued by the DOJ and other regulatory agencies and international organizations. The document, however, does bring a very significant new element: the demand for evidence of effectiveness in the form of measurements and data.   Evidence of results is, after all, a foundation to credibility. Not only do the Evaluation Questions ask about “information or metrics” the company collects and uses to help detect misconduct, but also “how has the company measured the effectiveness” of activities such as training and policy implementation. There are many “how” questions such as “How has the company assessed whether…policies and procedures have been effectively implemented?” or “How has the company evaluated the usefulness of …policies and procedures.” Companies that are able to answer these how questions in measurable metrics and data are regarded with far more credibility than those who answer with unsubstantiated adjectives.

Measurement and data are concepts that are expected to be second nature for auditors. What is important for companies is to make sure they work with their supplier/social responsibility auditors to define what to  measure and how. Whether you are auditing for manufacturing quality, environmental compliance, or safety, it is important that you sit down with your auditors to define what satisfaction looks like, and identify ways to measure it.

Accountability

Compliance programs cannot succeed with accountability. This is why the Evaluation Questions are focused on the accountability of both individual players and the company’s systems and processes. Accountability is about clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and visible consequences for words and actions. In line with this emphasis, the Evaluation Questions elevate the inquiry from the traditional “tone from the top” to “conduct at the top”  and ask about “concrete” and “specific” actions. There are questions about whether supervisors are held accountable for failures in oversight and how the companies train relationship managers on their responsibilities in managing third party risks. More importantly, there are questions about the accountability of the company: what happens when “compliance raise[s] concerns or objections”? “Were there prior opportunities to detect the misconduct in question, such as audit reports identifying relevant control failures…” In other words, when issues and risks are identified, how has the company been accountable in addressing and remediating them?

As both an in-house compliance officer and as the DOJ Compliance Counsel Expert, I have seen numerous instances where companies have failed to address audit-identified issues adequately. In the eyes of prosecutors, regulators, and other stakeholders such as investors, this failure speaks volumes about the company’s commitment to accountability and raises serious questions about the company’s operational competency. It reminds me of the TV commercial where the bank security guard tells customers, in the midst of a robbery, that his job is only to notify people when there is a robbery, not to do anything about it. That is why the Evaluation Questions include questions on how audit findings and remediation progress are reported to the management and the board, and how the management and board follow up on such reports. Finding the problem is not the goal: fixing it is.

Continuous Improvement   

Even the best compliance program would become an obsolete compliance program should it not continuously update itself. Everything from business and operational realities to company culture to regulatory and legal requirements changes constantly, and only a persistently self-critical program regularly seeking improvements can remain top of its game. The Evaluation Questions recognize the necessity for continuous improvement, not only in its questions in Section 9 on audit, testing, and updates, but also in how its focus on root cause analysis and risk assessments. Every instances of breach, whether it resulted in actual harm or not, is an opportunity for learning and improvement.

This same principle applies in the supplier/social responsibility auditing process. It is important for companies to ask how their auditors are keeping up with ongoing trends, regulations, audit practices/standards and realities, as well as themselves how they are learning from the audit findings in not just short-term remediation, but long-term improvements in how they manage suppliers.

———————-

Hui Chen may be contacted at www.HuiChenEthics.com

New Advanced Auditor Training Program for HSE/CSR Auditors

Elm Sustainability Partners and Elm Consulting Group International have launched a new training module for senior-level and experienced health, safety, environmental and social auditors seeking to improve their auditing skills and get updates on timely topics related to non-financial auditing and technology.

It is also relevant to those buying HSE/CSR audit services who are looking to improve the quality of audits they receive.  After this course, buyers can identify specific areas of audit practice improvements to request of their providers.  Alternatively, these buyers may wish to require their external HSE/CSR auditor to complete this training themselves.

A partial list of what is covered includes detailed review and practicum concerning:

  • auditor independence standards and managing impairment threats
  • audit criteria requirements
  • audit and evidence limitations
  • evidence hierarchy, weighting and corroboration
  • fraud, forgery and tampering – including new concerns brought about by technology
  • interviewing skills including fraud examination and FBI techniques
  • discussions of US Department of Justice Criminal Division Evaluation of Compliance Program criteria (2017), the June 1, 2017 US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) auditor reporting standard on Critical Audit Matters and EU Non-financial reporting rule
  • audit QA/QC considerations

Each participant will take a pre-test to establish a knowledge baseline and identify specific areas for improvements.  Exercises are administered throughout and a post-test will conclude the session demonstrating the advanced competencies gained.  HSE/CSR regulatory and other technical topics will not be covered as this is not a regulatory update session.

Elm Principals are BEAC Certified Professional Environmental/Health/Safety Auditors (CPEA), have served on the Board of Directors of The Auditing Roundtable (recently merged into the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)) and BEAC, and have trained thousands of internal and external HSE auditors over the past three decades.

Contact us to learn how you and your team can take advantage of this unique program.

New Social Auditor Certification in the Works

We have been vocal in our concerns and criticisms concerning social/CSR auditing.  And we have ourselves been criticized for that. Fair enough.

The Association for Professional Social Compliance Auditors (APSCA) has released for public comment its draft Code of Conduct and Auditor Competency Standards – available here.

We support APSCA and its work towards improving the entire “ecosystem” of CSR auditing.  Anyone with a dog in this hunt should click on the link above and submit comments.  APSCA is keen to obtain input from as wide a range of stakeholders as possible to help become as credible as possible.  Given the breath of subject matter that is being demanded of CSR auditors by buyers of their services, there is a great deal of overlap in APSCA’s draft into environmental health, safety, transportation and other technical areas.

UPDATED ALERT: Piwowar Issues New Statement on Conflict Minerals Rule in Response to Closure of NAM v. SEC Lawsuit, Stein Pushes Back

SEC Acting Chairman Michael Piwowar and the SEC Division of Corporation Finance Staff both issued statements today (April 7, 2017) on the conflict minerals rule in light of the final Court action in NAM v. SEC.

The statements from both Staff and Acting Chairman Piwowar clarify that the Commission does not intend to recommend enforcement against any issuer that does not file a CMR or conduct due diligence of its smelters/refiners.  The statements do not amend the language of the rule itself to eliminate the CMR and due diligence requirement – they only clarify that no enforcement action will be taken if an issuer triggers the CMR/due diligence mandate, but files only the basic Form SD.

Reuters reported that the only other currently-sitting Commissioner, Kara Stein, took issue with Piwowar’s unilateral action :

The move sparked backlash from SEC Democratic Commissioner Kara Stein, who accused Piwowar of acting beyond his authority to gut the meat of a rule mandated by Congress, adopted by the SEC and reviewed by the courts.

“It is unprecedented for one commissioner, acting alone and without official notice and comment, to engage in de facto rulemaking,” she said.  “It represents a troubling attack not only on the Commission process, but also on the restraints of government power.”

We will continue to monitor new developments and keep you informed.  In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.