Join our webinar on December 12 as Certa and Andrew McBride (founder and CEO, Integrity Bridge) reflect on the practical significance of this recent update to the U.S. DOJ Guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Guidelines: “How and how often does the company measure the success and effectiveness of its compliance program?” This session will offer practical guidance on developing, improving and maintaining an ethics & compliance program that can be measured and tested, with a focus on third party risk management. Register now!
How to Test the Effectiveness of Your Ethics & Compliance Program
www.linkedin.com
How do you know a compliance org is using the right data both internal and external and is the analytics providing the right insights and enabling the team with designing the right controls?
Thank you everyone for joining us today. For the supplemental presentation and the full webinar, please visit https://www.certa.ai/resources/how-to-test-the-effectiveness-of-your-ethics-compliance-program.
Lot of technology companies are using the AI buzzword to inflate their stock price even when they have no AI in their products / services. Will the SEC start cracking on these companies and ask for proof of AI usage in their products / services?
thank you! nice seeing you andrew!
Excited to learn from you today, Andrew!
Global Integrity & Compliance/Polyglot/Cross-Cultural Agility/Data/Law & Policy/Training/ Behavioral Sciences
6dIn the testing of the effectiveness of the program, the DOJ has emphasized the importance of measuring the health of the "speak-up" culture by examining factors such as geographic distribution of reports, the number of anonymous submissions, and the level of employees making reports. However, an often overlooked factor is the types of issues being reported. In your opinion, would it still be sufficient to conclude that the speak-up culture is healthy if reporting appears fairly homogeneous across sites and employee levels, but the majority of reports pertain to issues like abusive behavior, rather than more serious misconduct such as fraud or corruption? Would such a pattern still indicate a robust reporting culture, or does it point to a potential misalignment between the program's focus and the types of concerns employees are actually raising?