ENSafrica’s 2016 Anti-Bribery And Corruption Survey Results Overview
28 Sep 2016
ENSafrica’s third annual anti-bribery and corruption (“ABC”) survey has revealed that 39% of respondents have experienced incidents of bribery or corruption in the last 24 months. The key question addressed in the survey was whether or not companies are putting proportionate measures in place to deal with the rising risks of bribery and corruption.
During the survey, information was collated from 132 respondents (which marks a 50% increase from the 2015 survey). The increase is indicative of the increased awareness of, and interest in, ABC (especially in Africa). The vast majority of respondents indicated that they do business in Africa (83%), and 26% of respondents indicated that they do business in the United States (“US”) and in the United Kingdom (“UK”). The respondents came from a broad range of industries, with financial services comprising the biggest sector (25%), followed by manufacturing, retail and wholesale (24%). Respondents also indicated that they worked in the oil, gas and energy; consulting; telecommunications; mining; transport; IT and electronics; and tourism sectors.
At first glance, the results may suggest that companies are committed to combating the risks of bribery and corruption, with 92% of respondents believing that their companies demonstrated a culture of compliance and 90% indicating that their companies had an ABC policy in place. However, these positive findings were contradicted by the absence of certain important ABC measures. Key concerning findings include the following:
- 15% of respondents indicated that their companies did not conduct due diligence on merger and acquisition transactions
- 28% of respondents said that due diligence screening was not done on new employees
- 30% of respondents indicated that their companies did not have an ABC compliance programme in place (although certain respondents indicated that such programmes were in the process of being put in place)
- 34% of respondents indicated that they did not believe sufficient resources and funding were dedicated to the compliance function
- 35% of respondents indicated that no due diligence screening was done on third parties
- 44% of respondents said that there was no dedicated ABC training at their companies
- 47% of respondents said that no ABC risk assessment had yet been done at their companies (although certain respondents indicated that such risk assessments were planned for the future)
- 79% of respondents indicated that their companies did not provide ABC training to third parties, despite the fact that 76% of respondents indicated that the most significant ABC risk faced by their companies was the use of third parties.
The key findings suggest that a regulator may perceive the commitment of certain companies to ABC as being superficial and unable to pass muster if placed under scrutiny. This could in turn expose companies and senior management to significant legal liability.
For some corporates operating in Africa, there may be a prevailing view that compliance with ABC laws is simply too costly and that business cannot be effectively conducted if stringent controls were to be put in place and enforced. However, former US Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty is quoted as saying: “If you think compliance is expensive, try non-compliance.” In line with this statement, regulators have been dishing out staggering fines in recent years (with US and UK regulators leading the charge). Furthermore, the FBI’s arrest of Samuel Mebiame, the son of a former Gabonese Prime Minister, in August 2016 for allegedly paying bribes on behalf of a US company in Zimbabwe, the Congo and Libya, re-affirms the focus of US regulators on bribery in Africa.
Corporates that believe they can escape the jurisdiction of foreign regulators should be cautious as ultimately there is a global wave of change towards zero tolerance to non-compliance. When it comes to corrupt activities, prevention is better than cure and ABC compliance should be non-negotiable for all corporates operating in Africa.
A detailed summary of the 2016 survey’s key findings and the implications thereof is available here.
This article was first published by ENSafrica (www.ENSafrica.com) on 22 September 2016.
No information provided herein may in any way be construed as legal advice from ENSafrica and/or any of its personnel. Professional advice must be sought from ENSafrica before any action is taken based on the information provided herein, and consent must be obtained from ENSafrica before the information provided herein is reproduced in any way. ENSafrica disclaims any responsibility for positions taken without due consultation and/or information reproduced without due consent, and no person shall have any claim of any nature whatsoever arising out of, or in connection with, the information provided herein against ENSafrica and/or any of its personnel. Any values, such as currency (and their indicators), and/or dates provided herein are indicative and for information purposes only, and ENSafrica does not warrant the correctness, completeness or accuracy of the information provided herein in any way.(This article is provided for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. For more information on the topic, please contact the author/s or the relevant provider.)