by Ted Polakowski
26. February 2010
Most companies today have a public statement regarding compliance, either in their EHS Policy or in their Code of Conduct that makes it very clear that compliance is important. I have always been fascinated by how the culture of a company can shape how compliance is handled.
I think that there are two main schools of thought. The first believes that compliance is a necessary evil. Compliance must be achieved so that they don’t get caught. The company concurrently sends the signal that compliance achievement should be minimized to strictly adhere to the law or regulation. This is accomplished by questioning every decision from a perspective of "what do we have to do" and "how much is this going to cost us."
The second school of thought believes that compliance is in itself beneficial and that it can be used as a competitive advantage. Compliance is viewed as preventing bad things from happening and therefore reducing costs.
So my question to you:
Have you ever lived in the “compliance is a necessary evil” camp and tried to operate as if you were in the “compliance as a benefit” school or vice-versa. How successful were you?
Now one final thought and this comes from my legal advisors. In your postings please leave corporate identities and any names out of your posts. It would be great to hear of your experiences, successes, and failures and to learn from them generally
Please let’s keep it on an analytical level and then we will be able to have some meaningful discussions.
So now it’s your turn. Hope to hear from you soon.
