Do “many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption.”?
This is a direct quote from the State Department’s recently released “National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.” (See here).
There is no citation for this assertion and query what “measure of protection” even means?
The full context of the assertion is the following paragraph in the National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct.
“Regulation of business activity to strengthen RBC [Responsible Business Conduct] can be traced back to 1930, when President Herbert Hoover signed legislation, now codified as 19 U.S.C. 1307, that prohibited the importation into the United States of any product that was mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by convict labor, forced labor, and/or indentured labor under penal sanctions, including forced or indentured child labor. In doing so, the United States established a clear stance against forced labor and laid the groundwork for future efforts to combat forced labor. Almost a half century later, in 1977, with bipartisan support in Congress, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) to prohibit bribery of foreign officials by certain business enterprises and individuals and to establish certain mandatory accounting and bookkeeping practices. This landmark legislation promoted sound business practices and fostered a level playing field in international commerce. Many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption. For over four decades, the FCPA has served as a global model in the fight to combat official corruption and promote commercial activity under the rule of law.”
If “many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption,” then why has FCPA enforcement trended upward in the FCPA’s nearly five decades? Why are there so many FCPA repeat offenders? (See here).
If “many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption,” then why in a recent survey did “nearly half of all respondents [in Latin America] view corruption as a significant obstacle to doing business – and less than a third say the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or other anti-corruption laws significantly mitigate corruption risk?” (See here).
If “many business leader now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption,” then why – according to a survey of business leaders – has their confidence in the effectiveness of anti-bribery and compliance programs decreased? (See here).
If “many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption,” then why does “bribery and corruption remain a big challenge” with “one-third of all [survey] respondents say[ing] they had either been asked to pay a bribe or had lost an opportunity to a competitor who they believed had paid a bribe.” (See here).
If “many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption,” then why are business leaders answering surveys in the following way:
- 94% of respondents say their industry is exposed to corruption risk, and almost 40% of those say they view the risk as significant.
- 51% of respondents believe their company has lost business as a result of a situation involving illicit payments to a government official.
- 73% of respondents said “It’s just not possible to avoid corrupt business practices in certain areas.” (See here).
If “many business leaders now appreciate that the FCPA offers them a measure of protection against foreign corruption,” then why in recent years did the SEC Chairman candidly state that the U.S. “must face the fact that, in many areas of the world, our [FCPA] work may not be having the desired effect.” (See here).
All questions to ponder.
