http://www.bulletproofblog.com The blog on crisis communications Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:06:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/19/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-paul-equale-on-the-impact-of-financial-regulatory-reform/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/19/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-paul-equale-on-the-impact-of-financial-regulatory-reform/#comments Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:27:10 +0000 Michael Robinson http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=3403 continuing series of Bulletproof Blog™ video interviews with thought leaders across multiple disciplines and industry sectors, I recently sat down with Paul Equale, President of Equale and Associates, to discuss the most significant impacts of impending financial regulatory reform.

With the most expansive changes to the financial regulatory structure in a generation in the offing, Mr. Equale outlined key details about the bill, outlined how discussions at the international level – and especially at the upcoming G20 summit – will further affect the regulatory landscape, and what big banks and Wall Street can do to regain that most precious of commodities, trust.

As a top public affairs strategist, a veteran of multiple high-profile battles on Capitol Hill, and a frequent contributor to CNBC, Mr. Equale shared these insights and many more with Bulletproof™.

Click the video above to view Mr. Equale’s interview in its entirety.

Michael W. Robinson is a Senior Vice President and Chair of the Corporate Practice at Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm. He is also a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/19/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-paul-equale-on-the-impact-of-financial-regulatory-reform/feed/ 1 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/13/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-pricewaterhousecoopers%e2%80%99-shane-sims-on-data-security/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/13/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-pricewaterhousecoopers%e2%80%99-shane-sims-on-data-security/#comments Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:28:06 +0000 Jason Maloni http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=3369 continuing series of Bulletproof Blog™ video interviews with thought leaders across multiple disciplines and industry sectors, I recently sat down with Shane Sims, a Director in PricewaterhouseCoopers’ U.S. Forensic Services practice, to discuss data security in the Digital Age.

Mr. Sims outlined the specific risks presented to companies and countries by the five primary threat groups when it comes to data loss and theft: foreign intelligence services; terrorist organizations; transnational criminal enterprises; global competitors; and insiders. With so many potential threats, companies must establish a data breach response plan that enables fast action and effective outreach to all concerned stakeholders.

As a former Supervisory Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who has more than 24 years experience in forensic investigations, cybercrime, national security, and crisis management, Mr. Sims shared these insights and many more with Bulletproof™.

Click the video above to view Mr. Sims’ interview in its entirety.

Jason Maloni is a Senior Vice President at Levick Strategic Communications and manager of the Levick team that received a 2009 Golden SABRE award for its work on one of the largest data breaches on record. He is also a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/13/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-pricewaterhousecoopers%e2%80%99-shane-sims-on-data-security/feed/ 0 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/08/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-pricewaterhousecoopers%e2%80%99-edward-gibson-on-data-security/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/08/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-pricewaterhousecoopers%e2%80%99-edward-gibson-on-data-security/#comments Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:58:04 +0000 Jason Maloni http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=3192 continuing series of Bulletproof Blog™ video interviews with thought leaders across multiple disciplines and industry sectors, I recently sat down with Edward Gibson, a Director in PricewaterhouseCoopers’ U.S. Forensic Technology Solutions practice, to discuss data security in the Digital Age.

At a time when companies are working to mitigate the cyber-security risks arising from criminals, competitors, and other external sources, Mr. Gibson spoke about what is perhaps the most overlooked threat today – a company’s own employees. With the rapid increase of internal breaches, employee policies and controls that can limit intentional or accidental data breaches are an absolute necessity for any company seeking to protect sensitive information.

As a former special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who most recently served as the Chief Cyber Security Officer for Microsoft LTD in the United Kingdom, Mr. Gibson shared these insights and many more with Bulletproof™.

Click the video above to view Mr. Gibson’s interview in its entirety.

Jason Maloni is a Senior Vice President at Levick Strategic Communications and manager of the Levick team that received a 2009 Golden SABRE award for its work on one of the largest data breaches on record. He is also a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog.]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/07/08/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-pricewaterhousecoopers%e2%80%99-edward-gibson-on-data-security/feed/ 0 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/06/28/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-richard-hubner-on-proposed-changes-to-the-consumer-product-safety-improvement-act/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/06/28/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-richard-hubner-on-proposed-changes-to-the-consumer-product-safety-improvement-act/#comments Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:13:16 +0000 Larry Smith http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=3152 Each week, Bulletproof Blog™ features exclusive interviews with thought leaders on issues of critical importance to companies and countries. This week, with Congress mulling changes to the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), we spoke with Richard Hubner, co-founder and President of The Sapphire Group, to discuss proposed changes to the law and the impact of what Mr. Hubner calls “policy-based science.”

Mr. Hubner is a public health specialist with extensive expertise in the fields of strategic risk management, safety evaluation, and regulatory affairs. As an expert in product liability issues who has counseled a wide variety of clients in private industry, non-profit organizations, trade associations, regulatory agencies, and law firms, he shared his insights on the relationship between product safety and public policy with Bulletproof™:

What is the impetus behind current proposals to amend the CPSIA? The new law only just went into effect. Why does it need to be modified?

Richard Hubner: The CPSIA was in large part a reaction to recalls of children's toys and jewelry that contained excessive lead levels. In several cases, these items had been mouthed or ingested and lead poisoning resulted. But in writing the law, Congress applied the tighter content limits and third-party testing requirement to all "children's products," a category that includes products marketed to individuals as old as twelve.
 
Consequently, manufacturers of products such as ATVs, youth furniture, golf clubs, and other items rarely mouthed by infants and toddlers now face significant compliance and testing burdens. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has exempted a number of products from the lead provisions upon a showing that lead components were inaccessible to children. But those who have pursued such exemptions call the process cumbersome and expensive.
 
The problems also go beyond the lead provisions. The bill imposes a third-party testing regimen on all products marketed to young people. Testing is required for an array of CPSC safety standards – everything from the spacing requirements to avoid head and neck entrapment in bunk beds to the performance standards for bicycle helmets. This first-time requirement applied to dozens of products and began overwhelming laboratory capacity shortly after CPSIA was enacted. Recognizing this, the agency stayed the testing requirement, but that moratorium expires in February 2011.

What changes are under consideration? Which do you think are likely to be made?  Will that be a good thing, or will the changes just make a bad situation worse?

Richard Hubner: Section II of the draft corrections bill establishes criteria to guide CPSC's exemption of products from the lead specifications. To exempt a product, the agency would need to find that (1) removing lead from the item is not practicable or technologically feasible; (2) that the item is unlikely to be mouthed or ingested, even when misused, and; (3) that the exemption would have "no measurable adverse effect" on public health.

These provisions should improve matters by letting producers, regulators, and testing labs focus on real-world lead hazards rather than components that are highly unlikely to result in exposure.

Why is the CPSIA an example of what you have called "policy-based science," rather than "science-based policy? How serious is this problem in our current regulatory structure?

Richard Hubner: Following the 2007 "summer of recalls," Congress was under pressure to act quickly and emphatically. The public was understandably outraged that CPSC's budget, powers, and expertise had not kept up with the mounting volume of commerce in consumer products –as well as the fact that supply chains for those products increasingly stretch back into parts of the world with unreliable safety standards and enforcement. The latter point tapped into longstanding resentment by some Americans about the outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing to China and other developing countries. Taken together, the protectionist and product safety themes portended a serious political storm. By appearing to act decisively, the House and Senate protected many of its incumbents from a backlash at the polls. But predictably, the bill turned out to be better political theatre than responsible, risk-based regulation. Some of the same lawmakers who demanded zero tolerance with chemical exposures in the CPSIA are now bemoaning the burden that the law has placed on local businesses in their districts.

There is a general pattern of legislative neglect of risk-based concerns, followed by overreaction once those concerns start to receive media attention. To consider it another way, would millions of travelers be forced to remove their shoes by TSA if Richard Reid had tried to ignite his t-shirt rather than his shoes?

What's wrong with elected officials driving regulatory policy?  Isn't that what they are elected to do?

Richard Hubner: A fundamental problem is that Members of Congress and their staffs don't have the expertise or patience to deal with technical, scientific, and engineering complexities of the legislation they propose. Congress tends to pass a bill, send out a press release, and forget about the issue for a generation or two. That's what happened with the Consumer Product Safety Act, which prior to the CPSIA hadn't been comprehensively reworked since 1991.

Experience – both positive and negative – has shown that regulation works best when Congress establishes a coherent legal framework and funding scheme for the regulatory agencies, and then puts them to work developing detailed, risk-based performance standards. One thing Congress should do is demand results and ensure that the agencies deliver them. Oversight was once a prime function of the legislature. Committee chairmen wielded power and held public hearings to prod agency officials along. That role has mostly gone dormant. And a string of short comings – hurricane response and oil cleanup among them – reflect that.

What should consumer products companies be doing now to prepare for upcoming changes in the CPSIA?

Richard Hubner: Consult with your product managers, developers, testing laboratories, and other experts about your stewardship responsibilities. The Sapphire Group is hard at work helping manufacturers and importers meet their obligations under the CPSIA and other  regulations. Our goal is to identify safer materials and designs, formulate sampling and stewardship plans, and manage compliance documentation.

What's next with regard to product safety regulation? Are there issues emerging on the horizon that all consumer product companies need to be aware of?

Richard Hubner: All signs are pointing to a major overhaul of the nation's chemical regulation framework. The three decade old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has long been dismissed by environmental advocates as ineffective. Draft legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate, and a series of public hearings is ongoing. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is more aggressively deploying its existing TSCA authority through a series of action plans targeting persistent and bio-accumulative chemicals.  

Industry also supports the preemptive effect a more extensive national law would have on state efforts to regulate those same classes of chemicals. State legislatures have become more active in chemical policy in recent years, restricting or banning several PBDE flame retardants, as well as bisphenol A. Such actions can amount to a de facto national ban, given the difficulty of ensuring that a chemical in national commerce is not sold in a particular state. A uniform national framework for chemical regulation is therefore seen as preferable to a patchwork of state provisions.

A tight calendar this election-year will probably push final action on TSCA into 2011. The same committees share responsibility for climate legislation, and they will be unable to devote full attention to chemical legislation until that effort is completed or, more likely, abandoned. At that point, TSCA would top the wish list of many environmental organizations, and committee hearings, and perhaps markups, could proceed before Congress adjourns in early October.

Click here to receive the Bulletproof Interview in your inbox each week.

Larry Smith is Senior Vice President of Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/06/28/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-richard-hubner-on-proposed-changes-to-the-consumer-product-safety-improvement-act/feed/ 3 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/06/21/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-susan-cote-freeman-on-the-role-of-communications-in-combating-corruption/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/06/21/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-susan-cote-freeman-on-the-role-of-communications-in-combating-corruption/#comments Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:59:14 +0000 Larry Smith http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=3073 Each week, Bulletproof Blog™ features exclusive interviews with thought leaders on issues of critical importance to companies and countries. This week, with public and private sector corruption issues making headlines and raising regulators’ ire like never before, we interview Susan Côté-Freeman of Transparency International.

Ms. Côté-Freeman is an expert in anti-corruption control mechanisms with a strong grasp of the best practices currently being utilized by companies and countries. As the manager of Transparency International’s Business Principles for Countering Bribery Initiative, who works with business to help combat unethical practices, she shared her insights with Bulletproof™:

What roles do internal and external communications play in an effective anti-corruption program?

Susan Côté-Freeman: That’s a great question because many companies still struggle with how communications can best support an effective anti-corruption program. Internally, you want your employees, contractors, subsidiaries, and other business partners to understand that there are anti-corruption controls in place and precisely what they entail. Providing training is also a key aspect of the effort because it outlines and formalizes the bounds of acceptable behavior.

Externally, companies must make their commitment to honest and ethical business practices known for several reasons. Investors and other stakeholders want to know that the company is taking action to protect itself in an aggressive regulatory environment. Potential clients need to know they can trust the entities they do business with. And having a strong anti-corruption program in place provides a strong fallback position that both regulators and the general public will appreciate if a violation does occur.

Last year, we at Transparency International published a study of 500 major companies around the world – and many in high-risk industries, such as oil and gas – to gain some insight into what information they publicly report on their policies and management systems to counter corruption. We found that the majority of companies were not communicating systematically on bribery and corruption. So, we’ve partnered with the UN Global Compact to develop guidance that companies can use to enhance anti-bribery reporting and make it more meaningful for stakeholders.

What are the most common mistakes companies make when seeking to establish and implement anti-corruption compliance programs? How can those mistakes best be avoided?

Susan Côté-Freeman: We haven’t done specific research in this area, so my answer is by no means scientific. But that being said, a big challenge companies often face is a misalignment between the spirit of the anti-corruption program and a company’s primary business objectives. The company policy may be “zero-tolerance” toward bribery and corruption, but at the same time, the sales force is rewarded based on the hard numbers and is often put in the difficult position of having to choose between the company’s commitment to ethical business practices and winning new business.

In this regard, the importance of a corporate culture that truly values and rewards honesty and integrity cannot be understated. Employees need to know that they won’t be punished for refusing to engage in corrupt behavior and that they have internal channels by which to report possible malfeasance. Simply put, they need to know that they can turn away from a deal if they have even the slightest inkling that it may be tainted.

What’s next on the anti-corruption landscape? Are there issues emerging on the horizon that all companies need to be aware of?

Susan Côté-Freeman: There’s no question that the anti-corruption enforcement environment is changing rapidly. In recent years, we’ve seen unprecedented regulatory activity in the U.S., in particular, and in Germany as well – and I think that, hopefully, we’re going to see that mirrored in other nations around the world. We’ve reached a point where global companies, no matter where they operate, need to take the issue seriously or face the prospect of ever-increasing government and marketplace penalties.

Click here to receive the Bulletproof Interview in your inbox each week.

Larry Smith is Senior Vice President of Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/06/21/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-susan-cote-freeman-on-the-role-of-communications-in-combating-corruption/feed/ 1 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/05/31/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-david-kennedy-on-harvard%e2%80%99s-institute-for-global-law-and-policy/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/05/31/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-david-kennedy-on-harvard%e2%80%99s-institute-for-global-law-and-policy/#comments Mon, 31 May 2010 13:00:48 +0000 Larry Smith http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=2850 continuing series of Bulletproof Blog™ video interviews with thought leaders across multiple disciplines and industry sectors, I recently sat down with David Kennedy, the Faculty Director of the Institute for Global Law and Policy at Harvard University, to discuss the diverse challenges facing the international community.

In an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, it is essential to understand how local policy objectives involving both public and private sectors fit into the global economic environment. The Institute for Global Law and Policy brings together leading scholars from Harvard and around the world to better comprehend these complex dynamics, and to explore solutions to problems in areas ranging from humanitarian assistance to economic regulation.

An expert in international law and economic policy who has studied and taught at Harvard for nearly 30 years, Mr. Kennedy shared his insights with Bulletproof™.

Click the video above to view Mr. Kennedy’s interview in its entirety.

On June 2, 2010, The Institute for Global Law and Policy at the Harvard Law School will convene more than 100 leading scholars from 60 countries for an intensive ten-day workshop to develop innovative and alternative approaches to issues of global regulation, economic policy, and social justice in the aftermath of the economic crisis. The workshop will bring young scholars and faculty from all regions of the world together for serious research collaboration and debate. Click here for more information.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/05/31/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-david-kennedy-on-harvard%e2%80%99s-institute-for-global-law-and-policy/feed/ 1 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/05/17/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-david-sterling-and-jane-griffith-on-food-safety/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/05/17/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-david-sterling-and-jane-griffith-on-food-safety/#comments Mon, 17 May 2010 12:09:13 +0000 Larry Smith http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=2797 Each week, Bulletproof Blog™ features exclusive interviews with thought leaders on issues of critical importance to companies and countries. This week, with recent recalls of deli meats, lettuce, and ground beef keeping food safety issues top of mind for the U.S. consumer, we interview David Sterling and Jane Griffith, two of the nation’s foremost experts on food and beverage supply chains and their impact on the integrity of the food we eat.

David Sterling, a partner with Sterling Solutions, has more than 25 years experience in finance and supply chain management from both a consulting and industry perspective. Jane Griffith, the Director of Quality Assurance and Food Safety for Wawa, Inc., leads a team that is responsible for food safety and product quality throughout the supply chain – from vendor selection, certification and management to execution of foodservice programs at the store level.

Mr. Sterling and Ms. Griffith shared their insights with Bulletproof™:

Last year, an American Society for Quality study found that more Americans are worried about food safety than the War on Terror. What’s driving this level of anxiety? How can food and beverage companies best calm the fear?

David Sterling and Jane Griffith: One of the primary reasons for increased consumer concern over food safety is the recent uptick in recalls in the U.S.  These recalls have impacted many different product categories and illustrate the scope of the food network. Most important, they have demonstrated how one ingredient can compromise the safety of many products and food processors. In addition, the increase in consumer awareness on food safety issues stems from the number of product lots affected during each recall, which raises consumers’ worries that their families may have eaten contaminated food, believing it was wholesome. Finally, the media attention to this subject, both on the national news and in the movie theatres (with the release of Food, Inc., Fast Food Nation, and Supersize Me), has dramatically impacted consumer perceptions of the food industry.

While the War on Terror is a major concern to all of us, many Americans are not directly impacted by it. Meanwhile, food directly impacts every American each day. As public awareness of food safety issues has increased, the potential that it can personally impact anyone of us at almost any time is a reality that consumers understand. In addition, at one time or another, almost all consumers have experienced purchasing food that, at a minimum, had compromised quality issues due to poor handling. The enormous scale and reach of the food chain in the U.S., coupled with the fact that most consumers possess at least at some level of understanding regarding food safety risks, creates a setting in which consumer concern can grow.

Ensuring safe food is a complex, intense, holistic process that touches all aspects of production – from raw ingredient growing practices and harvesting to processing, packaging and shipping. The food ingredient can be compromised at any stage along the food chain and this can lead to a recall. At the same time, most consumers are unaware of the processes that industry has implemented to ensure safe food via continuous oversight and monitoring of the food system from farm to fork.

In what specific ways are food and beverage companies changing their practices to reflect the public’s concern over food safety? How would you recommend that the industry publicize those measures?

David Sterling and Jane Griffith: The food industry, and especially retailers and Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs), are facing a loss of consumer trust by providing education on their practices to ensure food quality and safety. These may be posters in the establishment committing the retailer to providing safe food or a news story in a local paper. This is a very sensitive issue and some companies are reluctant to claim that they are providing safe food 100 percent of the time because they understand that nothing is certain and they don’t want to mislead consumers and further erode their trust.

The food industry and trade organizations are partnering with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) to improve recall response and attention to food safety issues. Our foremost goal is reducing the time between discovery of a safety issue and communication of that issue to the public. Most important, we want to ensure that the product or ingredient being recalled is truly the source of an outbreak. We saw numerous examples of a poor recalls with the tomato, lettuce, and jalapeño pepper recalls of 2007. During those recalls, the FDA was not able to determine the true source of the outbreak and recalled several different commodities throughout a period of weeks. That caused an unnecessary economic impact to the food producers, suppliers, and the food industry as a whole. It also created consumer distrust because they lost confidence in government and industry and felt that we didn’t want to tell the consumer where the true problem really was.
               
Other initiatives underway within the food industry include an increased emphasis on the cold chain, or the distribution and logistics associated with getting perishable products on the shelves.  Improvements in technology are enabling companies to monitor product temperatures throughout the cold chain. In addition, advances in nanotechnology will allow food pathogens to be detected as the product moves through the cold chain. Finally, improved cold chain processes that will work with advancing technology are currently being developed. At the same time, training, education, and operational improvements are areas of focus to improve distribution processes not impacted by improved technology.

What issues are emerging on the horizon that all food and beverage companies need to know about?

David Sterling and Jane Griffith: One of next emerging issues associated with food safety is the traceability of a product from the source to the retailer. This level of detail will help to provide comfort to customers concerned about the origin of a product. It will also help with narrowing down recalls so that only impacted products are removed from sale and not the entire commodity or lot code.

Another emerging issue is the increased emphasis on food distributors and logistics providers.  Standards have long been targeted for harvesters, suppliers, and, more recently, retailers. The development of standards for food logistics providers is on the horizon. By ensuring that these food chain participants are held to appropriate standards, best practices will be in place for almost all of the participants within the food chain.

Click here to receive the Bulletproof Interview in your inbox each week.

Larry Smith is Senior Vice President of Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/05/17/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-david-sterling-and-jane-griffith-on-food-safety/feed/ 0 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/26/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-jonathan-armstrong-on-the-uk-bribery-act/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/26/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-jonathan-armstrong-on-the-uk-bribery-act/#comments Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:32:10 +0000 Larry Smith http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=2540 Each week, Bulletproof Blog™ features exclusive interviews with thought leaders on issues of critical importance to companies and countries. This week, with the enactment of the UK Bribery Act 2010 just days ago, we interview Jonathan Armstrong, a Partner in UK office of Duane Morris LLP, about what is being called the “toughest enforcement standard in the world” when it comes to matters of corruption.

Mr. Armstrong counsels multinational companies across Europe on matters of risk and compliance. He has handled legal matters in more than 40 countries involving corporate governance, reputation, internal investigations, branding, and global privacy policies. An expert on the UK Bribery Act 2010 and its impact on the international anti-corruption landscape, Mr. Armstrong shared his insights with Bulletproof™:

What are the most significant ways in which the UK Bribery Act 2010 differs from the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)?

Jonathan Armstrong: The Bribery Act 2010 differs in a number of important respects from the FCPA.  First, it differs in scope. The UK legislation applies to bribes paid to public and private officials and it has a range of new and unique offenses, such as failing to prevent bribery. The UK legislation bans facilitation payments – in contrast to the FCPA, which allows small ‘grease’ payments. Like the FCPA, however, it does seek to have an extra-territorial effect.

The second major difference is in terms of penalties. The UK legislation imposes a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail and/or unlimited fines for individuals, companies, and partnerships, while the maximum prison term under the FCPA is five years.

Who is under the Act’s jurisdiction? Is its enactment a precursor to similar legislation in other foreign countries? Can we expect the increased focus on corruption in the US and the UK to be mirrored around the world?

Jonathan Armstrong: The new UK legislation applies to UK corporate entities – even if they are foreign owned – individuals who ordinarily reside in the UK, and non-UK nationals and entities if an act or omission forming part of the offense takes place within the UK.

I think we are already seeing increased focus on bribery and corruption in other countries, even absent specific new legislation. Already this year we have had significant corruption investigations by authorities in China, France, and Germany, in addition to those in the U.S. and the UK.  There is growing public pressure on governments around the world to police the activities of corporations doing business in their countries. Investigations in the last 12 months or so have featured more than 40 countries.

How does the Act alter the international anti-corruption landscape? What is next on the anti-corruption front? Are there issues emerging on the horizon that corporate compliance officers need to be aware of?

Jonathan Armstrong: Perhaps the most significant way in which the Act alters the international anti-corruption landscape is with the new offense of failure to prevent bribery. This is a strict liability offense, although companies and individuals may be able to fall back on an “adequate procedures” defense. More detail on “adequate procedures” will be published when the UK Parliament is recalled.

One of the trends that we are seeing is more innovative prosecutions – and the Shot-Show investigation in January – where a number of people were arrested in connection with a sting operation at a tradeshow – shows us the lengths to which the authorities will go to enforce anti-corruption laws. Personal criminal liability is definitely a focus on both sides of the Atlantic as well.  The increased levels of fines and settlements are also truly staggering. In 2007, for example, U.S. authorities raised $87 million in settlements and fines. In the first two months of 2010, that figure was $1.2 billion. Against this heightened climate of compliance and increasing legislative power, every corporation needs to put in place proper procedures and training regimes.

Click here to receive the Bulletproof Interview in your inbox each week.

Larry Smith is Senior Vice President of Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/26/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-jonathan-armstrong-on-the-uk-bribery-act/feed/ 0 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/07/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-fred-krebs-on-aligning-value-with-cost-in-the-legal-services-industry/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/07/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-fred-krebs-on-aligning-value-with-cost-in-the-legal-services-industry/#comments Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:21:38 +0000 Larry Smith http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=2415 Each week, Bulletproof Blog™ features exclusive interviews with thought leaders on issues of critical importance to companies and countries. This week, with the recent economic downturn having affixed the public spotlight on law firm billing practices, we interview Fred Krebs, President of the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), and discuss how legal services providers can better align their business models with client needs.

During our chat, Mr. Krebs, who served both as an in-house and private practice attorney before joining the ACC in 1991, specifically addressed the ACC Value Challenge and the various tools and resources it provides to law firms seeking to build more efficient billing models. An expert in the latest developments impacting corporate legal outsourcing, Mr. Krebs shared his thoughts with Bulletproof™:

Tell us about the ACC Value Challenge. Who is involved? How did it come about? What objective does is seek to achieve?

Fred Krebs: Several years ago, we established the ACC Value Challenge to address the disconnect between the value and cost of legal services and the recent economic downturn has really highlighted the importance of the effort. Simply put, we bring law firms and corporate law departments together to identify the most effective ways to enhance the sustainability of their current business practices and we provide them with resources that help facilitate this process.

What are some of the specific tools that the ACC Value Challenge provides to firms and corporate law departments seeking to better align value with cost?

Fred Krebs: One of the most valuable resources we’ve created is an economic model that enables law firms to plug in various values for the number of associates they have, their attrition rates, and their billing rates to see how modifications to each can provide better client value while still generating a high profit-per-partner return.

We want law firms to be profitable but we also want rates at a sustainable level. Law firms have the same right to make money as the rest of us. At the same time, they must recognize that they cannot continuously increase their charges. In an era where cost is taking on added significance for a number of corporate clients, firms have to be more effective and efficient in what they do.

Can law firms communicate directly with the ACC to help facilitate the process of becoming more efficient and effective?

Fred Krebs: Absolutely. The ACC Value Challenge provides a wealth of resources for firms seeking our help in better serving their corporate clientele. The Value Index – a system by which our members evaluate firms on a series of criteria and indicate, based on their findings, whether they will use this firm again – is just one of many examples. It’s akin to a satisfaction survey, and we make the information available to any law firm that reaches out to us.

Recently, there’s been much discussion about alternative billing in the legal services industry. Do you see major changes on the horizon with respect to how law firms bill their corporate clients?

Fred Krebs: We are in the midst of fundamental change and one of the elements of that change is a move away from the billable hour. Now, I don’t think that the billable hour will disappear, but I do think that the days of it being the default billing mechanism are numbered. As such, we will see a greater number of firms and law departments making use of alternative fee arrangements.

At the ACC, we believe that that the changes taking place in the legal marketplace are positive. There is a newfound focus on value. Value doesn’t mean cheap; it means getting the most for your dollar. The important point for law firms to note is that value is defined in the eye of the client, not the firm. That’s why firms should be focused on why they need to change and how best to make change happen.

Click here to receive the Bulletproof Interview in your inbox each week.

Larry Smith is Senior Vice President of Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm, and a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/07/what%e2%80%99s-next-the-bulletproof-interview-%e2%80%93-fred-krebs-on-aligning-value-with-cost-in-the-legal-services-industry/feed/ 1 http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/05/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-julie-susman-on-effective-federal-government-marketing/ http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/05/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-julie-susman-on-effective-federal-government-marketing/#comments Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:38:49 +0000 Michael Robinson http://www.bulletproofblog.com/?p=2402 continuing series of Bulletproof Blog™ video interviews with thought leaders across multiple disciplines and industry sectors, I recently sat down with Julie Susman, President and CEO of the Jefferson Consulting Group, to discuss how government contractors can best navigate the rapidly changing federal procurement landscape, among other topics.

A senior business executive and savvy Washington insider, Ms. Susman understands how to market services that streamline government missions and operations. Calling on more than three decades of experience in government affairs and federal contracting issues, Ms. Susman shared her insights on working with the Federal government to create results for a wide range of clients – even in the so-called “toxic environment” that currently exists on Capitol Hill.

Click the video above to view Ms. Susman’s interview in its entirety.

Michael W. Robinson is a Senior Vice President and Chair of the Corporate Practice at Levick Strategic Communications, the nation's top crisis communications firm. He is also a contributing author to Bulletproof Blog. Connect with Levick on Twitter: @Levick.

]]> http://www.bulletproofblog.com/2010/04/05/bulletproof-interview-special-%e2%80%93-julie-susman-on-effective-federal-government-marketing/feed/ 0