Decline and fall of the freebie
The surreal dilemmas sound like they could be drawn from a magazine advice column for paranoid lawyers: can I provide sacrificial goats for my customers in the Middle East? What if the client asks us to procure internal organs for his sick relative? Is it OK for me to donate cash at a Korean funeral?
These are not the made-up challenges of some legal agony aunt, but the real-life scenarios under discussion by senior executives responsible for setting policies for corporate hospitality and gifts in an increasingly strict US regulatory environment.
The conclusion of the executives, who recently gathered in New York for a summit on the problem, was that the fine grey line that separates acceptable generosity from the darker world of bribery and corruption has narrowed substantially.
What lies behind their nervousness is the growing impact of Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance legislation on the already strict rules of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Combine this with increasingly active enforcement agencies and the rapid globalisation of US business and there is a recipe for multinational angst on a grand scale.
Where minor local transgressions might once have been swept under the carpet, they are now likely to emerge as so-called “material weaknesses” in internal control reports requiring sign-off from a chief executive and finance director worried about their own liability. What might be common practice in Seoul or Yemen may not look so wholesome in front of the Securities and Exchange Commission or a Manhattan jury.
Questions over how much can be spent on a bottle of wine at dinner or whether a client can charge his spouse's pedicure to the hotel bill during a conference are therefore now routine dilemmas for corporate lawyers called upon to police this minefield.
“ Nothing in law school prepares you for the goats,” says Alexandra Wrage, president of Trace International, a business ethics group based in Washington DC. “I never thought I would find myself feeling sorry for companies, but this is a pretty big stretch.”
To some, the issue may look like another example of the new Puritanism sweeping corporate America. Chief executives, such as Harry Stonecipher at Boeing, are getting fired for something as simple as an office romance. Wal-Mart, the world's biggest supermarket chain, recently threw the book at its former head of security for alleged expense account wrongdoings.
Even Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, has been swept up in a scandal over who paid for foreign trips.
To others, this is just the sort of pressure needed to clean up big business. The junkets and freebies that used to make the corporate world go round are finally being recognised for what they are.
Either way, the problem that US companies complain of is not so much that the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are shifting, but that they are not shifting in the same way for many of their overseas competitors.
“ The lack of a level playing field is an enormous competitive advantage for non-US companies,” says Ms Wrage. “US companies feel like they are in the cross-hairs, which is a good thing for anti-bribery enforcement, but it is coming at a pretty high cost. At some point, it has a chilling effect.”
To those tempted to see this as American smugness, she points, in contrast, to sharply lower prosecution rates across much of Europe for similar international bribery cases. The problem is particularly acute in industries or regions of the world where a degree of modest generosity has always been seen as a polite way of building long-term relationships. Companies placed in this type of situation can take surprisingly different approaches. Valli Baldassano, vice-president of global compliance for Schering Plough, the US pharmaceuticals group, believes the answer is to educate employees about why its guidelines are in place and then let them exercise some common sense. “In order to do modern business, you have to acknowledge that sometimes it is OK to take a little risk,” she says.
This may sound like brave talk from a company that recently settled a case with the SEC involving claims that charitable donations had been used to influence a medical customer in Poland in an improper way.
Nevertheless, the company believes it is possible to maintain clear distinctions in an industry where generosity with doctors can be endemic.
“ The anti-bribery policy is simple: don't bribe people,” says Ms Baldassano. “We will accept or give modest gifts designed to create goodwill, not designed to influence someone in the performance of their job.”
Some rules are clear-cut. Schering Plough makes a rule not to pay for spouses to attend medical conferences, for example. Other policies can be difficult. Rule one is no cash yet there are countries in Asia where token payments in envelopes are still expected at social situations such as funerals or Chinese New Year.
In contrast, Northrop Grumman, the US defence manufacturer, takes a more rule-bound approach perhaps in keeping with the military background of many of its employees.
“ We make people fill out requests for everything. It helps promote a day-to-day culture of compliance,” says Jeffrey Cottle, senior staff counsel. He points out that the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act can be more tolerant than local laws, making it vital always to err on the side of caution. This even stretches to using the street value of gifts such as Superbowl tickets rather than their face value.
“ When tickets are being scalped for $750, that is real value,” says Mr Cottle.
Trace International, which advises its member companies on differing international standards, recently conducted a survey of corporate lawyers that found a wide range of in-house policies. Thirteen per cent of companies had no policy for gifts and hospitality, 17 per cent left it to the discretion of local managers and 34 per cent simply required prior approval for any “reasonable” expenditure. Only 33 per cent demanded approval if the monetary value was above a pre-determined threshold, while three per cent applied a blanket ban on anything above their threshold.
This is likely to change quickly as companies realise the impact of the changing regulatory climate. Provisions to protect whistle-blowers and ensure full disclosure are also likely to increase the number of cases that come to the surface. “Reporting requirements under Sarbanes-Oxley tend to take the ‘voluntary' out of ‘voluntary disclosure',” says Ms Wrage.
The trend in fines is also going up. Last July, two divisions of ABB's oil, gas and petrochemicals business pleaded guilty to charges of bribing Nigerian government officials including with cash and pedicures and agreed with the Department of Justice to pay fines of $10.5m. Separately, ABB, the Swiss-Swedish engineering group, resolved civil charges brought by the SEC and agreed to pay an additional $5.9m fine.
Although praised throughout for their co-operation with investigators, it is estimated the various companies involved also ended up with a bill for some 43,000 lawyer hours at fees of up to $400 an hour.
Even in less egregious cases, few companies are still prepared to tolerate undisclosed gifts. “The people who used to push through the expense as a payment for computer services strangely it always seemed to get disguised as computer services for some reason are no longer willing to sign off,” says Ms Wrage. “No one wants to go out on a limb.”Tomorrow: Sarbanes-Oxely the unintended consequences 企业如何送礼才能不犯法
那些离奇的两难问题，听上去就像是出自专为患有偏执狂的律师们而设的杂志专栏：我能为中东客户提供祭祀用的山羊吗？如果客户要求我们为他生病的亲属购买身体器官又该怎么办？我可以在韩国人的葬礼上捐赠现金吗？
事实上这并非法律答疑专栏作者凭空捏造的难题，而是反映了现实生活中的情形。随着美国监管环境日趋严格，负责为企业接待及礼品事宜制定政策的高级经理人正就这些情形进行讨论。
这些经理人最近聚集在纽约，针对上述问题召开了一次峰会，所得出的结论是，在可接受的慷慨大方与充满贿赂腐败的阴暗世界之间，那个微妙的灰色地带已大大收窄了。
令他们感到紧张的是，萨班斯 - 奥克斯利 (Sarbanes-Oxley) 公司治理法对美国《反海外腐败法》 (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) 本已严格的规定影响越来越大。这一点连同日益活跃的执法机构，以及美国商界的迅速全球化趋势，都成为跨国公司普遍焦虑的根由。
从前一些微小的当地违规行为可以掩盖起来，但在如今的内部控制报告中，则有可能呈现为所谓的“严重缺陷”，需要首席执行官的签名，而财务总监也担心他们需要负上的责任。在美国证交会 (SEC) 或曼哈顿的某个陪审团面前，那些在汉城或也门可能司空见惯的做法看上去也许不是那么符合道德规范了。
因此，有关晚餐上的一瓶葡萄酒可以花多少钱、或者某个来参加会议的客户能否将其配偶的足部护理费用打进酒店账单，对于被要求监督这一危险领域的企业律师来说，这些都已成为他们日常面临的两难问题。
“读法学院时并没有教你如何处理馈赠山羊的事，”总部位于华盛顿的一家商业道德团体 Trace International 总裁亚历山德拉?弗拉格 (Alexandra Wrage) 说，“我曾以为，我永远也不会为一些公司感到惋惜，但现在看来这真是很为难。”
对一些人来说，这个问题似乎是另一个例证，表明新清教主义正在席卷美国企业界。如今，仅仅因为办公室里的风流小事，首席执行官就会被炒鱿鱼，例如波音 (Boeing) 的首席执行官哈里?斯通塞弗 (Harry Stonecipher) 。全球最大的超市连锁店沃尔玛 (Wal-Mart) 最近也惩罚了其前安全主管，因为后者涉嫌在支出账目上有违规行为。
就连众议院共和党多数派领袖汤姆?迪莱 (Tom DeLay) 也因被调查谁为其支付海外旅行费用而陷入丑闻。
在其他人看来，这只是整顿大企业所要施加的压力。过去，免费旅游和赠品常被用来推动企业界的运转；如今只是让人们最终认识到这种做法的真实面目罢了。
不管怎样，美国公司所抱怨的问题，并不在于界定可接受行为的准则在改变，而是对许多海外竞争者而言，这种准则的改变程度并不一样。
“由于缺乏一个公平竞争的环境，这对于美国以外的公司而言是个重大的竞争优势。”弗拉格女士说，“美国公司感觉自己成了关注焦点，这对反贿赂执法是件好事，但代价却相当高昂。而到了一定程度，就会令人觉得心寒。”
不过她对那些倾向于将此视为美国式自鸣得意的人指出，在欧洲大多数地区，对同类国际贿赂案的起诉率要低得多。这个问题在世界上某些行业或地区尤为尖锐，因为在这些行业或地区，适度慷慨一直被视为建立长期关系的礼貌方式。公司一旦处在这种情形下，所采取方式的差异也会大得惊人。美国制药集团先灵葆雅 (Schering Plough) 的全球合规事务副总裁瓦利?巴尔达萨诺 (Valli Baldassano) 认为，解决办法是教育员工，让他们知道公司为何要设定指导方针，然后让他们运用一些常识行事。“在现代商业活动中，你得承认，有时候是要冒点风险的，”她说。
先灵葆雅说出这样的话显得有点勇敢，因为该公司最近刚与美国证交会在一起案件上达成和解，此案指该公司涉嫌以不正当方式利用慈善捐款影响波兰的一家医疗客户。
但该公司相信，在这个盛行对医生们慷慨大方的行业中，维持明确的信誉是有可能的。
“反贿赂政策很简单：就是不要贿赂别人，”巴尔达萨诺女士说，“我们会接受或赠送一些小礼物，这些礼物旨在表达善意，而不是为了影响某人的工作。”
有些规定非常明确。比如，先灵葆雅规定，对参加医学会议的人员来说，一同前往的配偶所用的花销不能让公司支付。但其它一些政策可能难以遵从。一条规定就是不能送现金，但在亚洲一些国家，在婚礼或中国农历新年等社交场合，送红包仍是期望之中的做法。
相反，美国国防产品制造商诺思罗普?格鲁曼公司 (Northrop Grumman) 则采取一种更受规则约束的做法，这也许与公司内许多员工的军人背景相一致。
“我们规定，员工需要任何东西都要填表申请。这有助于促进一种日常的合规文化，”公司高级人事法律顾问杰弗里?科特尔 (Jeffrey Cottle) 说。他指出，由于美国《反海外腐败法》可能比地方法律更宽容些，因此始终做到宁枉勿纵至关重要。这甚至可以推及如下做法：用黑市价而不是面值来估值“超级碗” (Superbowl) 门票等礼物。
“如果门票的倒卖价为 750 美元，那就是实际价值，”科特尔先生说。
Trace International 就不同的国际标准向其会员公司提供建议，该组织最近进行了一项对企业律师的调查，结果发现大量各式各样的企业内部政策。 13% 的企业没有授受礼物和款待方面的政策； 17% 的企业将相关事务交给地方经理决定； 34% 的企业规定，任何“合理”的支出只需预先获得批准；只有 33% 的企业规定，如果礼物及款待的金钱价值高于预定标准，就需要获得批准；而另有 3% 的企业则全面禁止任何高于标准价值的礼物及款待。
这种情形可能很快就会改变，因为企业意识到不断变化的监管气候带来的冲击。由于一些保护内部举报人和确保信息完全披露的规定，浮出水面的案例数量也有可能增加。“《萨班斯 - 奥克斯利法案》设立的呈报规定往往会取消‘自愿披露'中的‘自愿'做法，”弗拉格女士说。
罚款的趋势也在上升。去年 7 月， ABB 旗下石油、天然气和石化业务的两个分部承认了一些罪名，并与美国司法部达成协议，支付 1050 万美元罚款。这两个部门被指控向尼日利亚政府官员行贿，包括向他们提供现金和足部护理服务。此外， ABB 还解决了美国证交会向它发出的民事指控，并同意再支付 590 万美元罚款。 ABB 是一家瑞士及瑞典工程集团。
虽然涉案企业因与调查机构的合作而受到称赞，但据估计，这些企业最终也花了约 4.3 万个小时的律师服务费，这些费用每小时可高达 400 美元。
即使是在不算太糟糕的情况下，也很少有公司仍愿意容忍未披露的礼物。“过去一些人常批准把这类费用作为电脑服务支出（奇怪的是，出于某种原因，这笔费用似乎总是被伪装成电脑服务支出），但现在，这些人不愿签字认可这么做了，”弗拉格女士说，“没人想冒险。”
