Tag Archive: reputation risk

Directors Assess Long-Term Election Implications

Published by

This is the second post in a series addressing the short- and long-term impacts of the 2016 presidential election. Read the first post here.

Directors gathered to discuss the impact of the recent presidential election on November 16, 2016 with audit and risk professionals from accounting firm EisnerAmper. While immediate-term changes were pressing on the minds of directors, they also discussed strategies to address societal and business challenges that coalesced around the following topics.

Can Corporations Bring Back Modern Manufacturing Jobs?

Directors were skeptical that the type of manufacturing jobs that have fueled American economic growth since the end of the second World War would ever return—and asserted that changes in trade agreements may directly impact the ability to create jobs.

peter-bible

Peter Bible

EisnerAmper Chief Risk Officer Peter Bible outlined how the developing administration of President-elect Donald Trump could affect the ability of American companies to export their goods. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “is basically on hold now” said Bible. “He wants tariffs on China and Mexico, wants to renegotiate NAFTA, and reconsider the U.S.’s involvement in international trade agreement.” Bible also pointed out that the president can act unilaterally on trade agreements, thus negating congressional checks on trade decisions.

Jill Wittels, chair at eMagin Corp., voiced concern about the pace at which companies could replace factories to offset the impact of tariffs and build more jobs for Americans. “Imposing currency restrictions and tariffs on goods coming in from China, South America, or other parts of Asia would be highly disruptive,” Wittels said. “You don’t instantly create replacement factories in the U.S. at a comparable cost.”

robert-klatell

Robert Klatell

Robert Klatell, chair of TTM Technologies, concurred. “Realistically speaking, there is not that much flexibility. We cannot create in the United States the scale of manufacturing that exists in China,” Klatell said. “We don’t have the people or the capital to do it. We’ve rarely had a government willing to support manufacturing the same way that China has in the past 10 to 15 years.”

William Leidsdorf, director at Icahn Enterprises, offered a different viewpoint. “I think you have to look at how Congress may change or water down the president’s decisions,” Leidsdorf said. Trump “is a businessman. He’s a pretty good negotiator. He’s going to go in [to the presidency] and say he’ll do a lot of things and then negotiate.”

Educating the Workforce

Re-educating the American workforce has been a ubiquitous topic at roundtables co-hosted by NACD throughout 2016. This event was no exception.

sharon-manewitz

Sharon Manewitz

A vigorous discussion about the modern workforce was ignited when Carol Robbins, principal of financial services strategic advisory group CER Consulting, cited the invention of a garment-sewing robot as a groundbreaking technology likely to replace countless garment manufacturing workers around the world. Sharon Manewitz, principal and executive director at Manewitz Weiker Associates, a firm that consults with struggling companies, responded: “But who will make the robots? Will they be made here? We need corporate America to help educational institutions change the nature of education in America” to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy.

The ability of the workforce to be retrained for modern jobs, and how automation will continue to disappear unskilled and lower-skilled positions, was discussed at length. Klatell, however, looked to the future. “Some people won’t make the transition, so we should be focusing on their children,” Klatell argued. “Hopefully, we can get their kids through school with a more meaningful education to make them more employable.”

Laurie Shahon, president of Wilton Capital Group, placed a board lens on some companies’ struggle to fill open positions in certain fields. “Human capital is an issue boards have to deal with,” Shahon said. “We see jobs available in financial services and other industries, but they can’t be filled because there aren’t sufficient qualified people to fill them. The board can and should present alternate cases in its strategy planning to address these changes.”

Deregulation Fallout

If Trump makes good on his campaign promises, deregulation is expected under the new administration and the forthcoming Republican majority congress. How long, though, can directors anticipate deregulated policies to last? Bible pointed out that the current administration might attempt to press through lingering Dodd-Frank provisions. However, he warned that deregulation could cause disruption. “These things are deeply rooted, with a lot of capital behind them,” Bible said. “You can’t just say ‘poof—gone.’ It’s impossible.” Practices that companies have implemented as a result of post-financial crisis legislation [such as the Dodd-Frank Act of 2012] are likely not to disappear as governance best practices because companies invested time, energy, and money to comply with them.

Meanwhile, directors in the room considered what impact deregulation might have on enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other international business policies by the Department of Justice. Andrea Bonime-Blanc, founder of GEC Risk Advisory, reminded attendees that enforcement of the FCPA, the False Claims Act, and other laws has been on the rise lately. “People are asking, ‘What’s going to happen with FCPA enforcement?’” Bonime-Blanc asked. “Companies can’t just say ‘oh, let’s stop worrying about bribery.’”

Bible responded: “I believe that the FCPA will continue to be enforced as a worldwide standard, and that the new administration’s focus is going to be on executive compensation and on market regulation. I don’t think there will be an increase or a decrease in enforcement.” If anything, Bible indicated that directors should be concerned about the risk of tax repatriation from companies that have moved their headquarters offshore. “Is everyone familiar with how the overseas tax issue works?” Bible asked. “There is $2.6 trillion in money offshore, and $500 billion of that is held by tech companies. There are drives to get that money back into the U.S. economy that can be done without addressing the entire tax structure.”

Don’t Give Up on Culture of Inclusion

The social unrest incited or revealed by the vitriolic presidential election was discussed in the context of the culture of inclusion and tolerance that their companies have invested in building for decades. Aside of the moral imperative felt by many attendees, the disruption of hard-won corporate culture by internal or external actors could present a reputation risk to the company.

Wittels noted that a popular American shoe company had been endorsed by an incendiary website littered with forms of hate speech after a senior manager at the shoe company stated that it felt the country was moving in the right direction under the incoming president. While the company released statements strongly stating its commitment to principles of inclusion, “there are comments about boycott,” Wittels said. “This is a real reputational risk, and a risk with consumers, that could instantly in this communication age go viral and affect the bottom line.”

Klatell returned to the question of the board’s responsibility to ensure that the CEO, his direct reports, and management across the organization are responsible for maintaining a culture of respect, dignity, and inclusion. In the face of employees who may be looking to throw principles of inclusion out of the door, Klatell said: “I’d hope that most companies would stand up and say ‘No, this is what we stand for, and this is how we behave.’”

To see the full list of participants, please click here

The Keys to Guarding Reputation

Published by
Jim DeLoach

Jim DeLoach

Reputation is a precious but fragile enterprise asset. What takes decades to build can be lost in a matter of days once the spotlight shines on unethical or illegal practices that place an organization’s stakeholders or the public at risk. Environmental catastrophes, financial restatements, fraudulent reporting to regulators, massive product recalls, efforts to mislead investors, and other highly publicized events erode brands and impair reputation. We define reputation risk as the current and prospective impact on earnings and enterprise value arising from negative stakeholder opinion.

We see 10 key functions of the board’s oversight of reputation risk management, and classify them in five critical areas below.

Strategic Alignment

  1. Effective board oversight – Reputation risk management starts at the top. Strong board oversight on matters of strategy, policy, execution, and transparent reporting is vital to effective corporate governance, a powerful contributor to sustaining reputation, and is the ultimate checkpoint on CEO performance. The board’s active risk oversight effort is important because effective, early identification, and management of risks can reveal major threats to the company’s reputation and ensure that the threats are reduced to an acceptable level.
  2. Integration of risk into strategy-setting and business planning – The board must ensure that risk is not an afterthought in the strategy-setting and business planning processes. Integrating awareness of risks with core management processes makes risk a relevant factor at the decision-making table, facilitates a big picture view to undertaking risk, and intersects risk management with performance In an effort to make the strategy more robust, directors should understand the critical assumptions underlying the strategy; ask tough, constructive questions to challenge assumptions; and consider plausible scenarios that could render one or more assumptions invalid.
  3. Effective communications and image- and brand-building – Building brand recognition unique to a business is vital and, when all else is working well, augments reputation. A good story is easier to tell than one with flaws, but every savvy board knows that some companies are better at telling their stories than others. Therefore, directors need to understand management’s image- and brand-building game plan and how significant changes to that plan could present a significant risk to the company’s reputation.

Cultural Alignment:

  1. Strong corporate values, supported by appropriate performance incentives – The notion that, if tone at the top is good, the organization’s culture must be good, doesn’t always hold. Lower-level employees often pay more attention to the messaging and behavior of their supervisory middle managers than to communications from the organization’s leaders. Boards need to ensure that executive management implements a strong tone at the top, effective escalation processes, and periodic assessments of the tone in the middle and at the bottom. Directors need to ensure that management is paying attention to warning signs posted by independent risk management functions and in audit reports: failure to give these warning signs adequate attention on a timely basis reflects on the tone set by executive management. For example, the executive leadership of Barings ignored warnings from internal audit of the consequences of the lack of segregation of duties in its Singapore operations because those operations were making the bank a lot of money. Ultimately, the hidden trading losses took down the institution.
  2. Positive culture regarding compliance with laws, regulations and internal policies – Few incidents undermine reputation more than serious, highly publicized compliance violations. Directors should ascertain that effective internal controls – including monitoring processes and robust training of employees – over compliance matters are implemented and executive management: “walks the talk” with respect to compliance; periodically conducts a comprehensive risk assessment; refreshes the compliance program for changes arising from new regulatory developments; and understands the players and third-party agents in countries in which the organization does business and monitors their dealings closely.

Quality Commitment:

  1. Priority focus on positive interactions with stakeholders – The board should ensure that there is a passionate focus on improving stakeholder experiences. These are the accumulation of day-to-day interactions that customers, employees, suppliers, regulators, shareholders, lenders, and other stakeholders have with a company as a result of its business operations, branding, and marketing. These interactions constitute moments of truth that, if internalized and acted upon, provide a powerful driving force for improving and sustaining reputation.
  2. Quality public reporting – The markets take quality public reporting at face value. Once a company loses the public’s confidence in its reporting, it’s tough to earn it back. These points suggest that a strong audit committee is an imperative.

Operational Focus:

  1. Strong control environment – A critical component of internal control, the control environment lays the foundation for achieving operational, compliance and reporting objectives. In addition to the board’s oversight and the organization’s commitment to integrity and ethical values, as mentioned above, the control environment consists of: the organizational structure and assignment of authority and responsibility; the processes for attracting, developing and retaining appropriate talent; and the rigor around setting the appropriate performance measures, incentives and rewards that drive accountability for desired results. Embarrassing control breakdowns can tarnish reputation; therefore, boards should demand a strong control environment.
  2. Company performance relative to competitors – Market recognition of success is a huge validation of a company and its management team. Recognition of differentiating strategies, distinctive products and brands, proprietary systems, and innovative processes are intrinsic sources of value that can translate into superior quality, time, cost, and innovation performance relative to the company’s competitors. However, significant performance gaps can diminish reputation if not addressed in a timely manner. These factors should weigh heavily on a board’s evaluation of company performance over time.

Organizational Resiliency:

  1. World-class response to a high-profile crisis – Sooner or later, every company is tested. No company is immune to a crisis. As a crisis event is a severe manifestation of risk, crisis management preparation is a natural follow-on to risk assessment, particularly for high-impact risks with high velocity, high persistence, and low response readiness. The board should ensure that the risk assessment process is designed to identify areas where preparedness and a response team are needed. Fires cannot be fought by committee.

While a one-size-fits-all approach does not exist, the 10 keys listed above offer boards a framework for focusing on whether executive management is focused on the appropriate fundamentals for enhancing and preserving the enterprise’s reputation.


Jim DeLoach is managing director with Protiviti, a global consulting firm.