General Deterrence and Corporate Environmental Behavior*

This research addresses the assumption that “general deterrence” is an important key to enhanced compliance with regulatory laws. Through a survey of 233 firms in several industries in the United States, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) When severe legal penalties are imposed against a violator of environmental laws, do other companies in the same industry actually learn about such “signal cases”? (2) Does knowing about “signal cases” change firms’ compliance‐related behavior? It was found that only 42 percent of respondents could identify the “signal case,” but 89 percent could identify some enforcement actions against other firms, and 63 percent of firms reported having taken some compliance‐related actions in response to learning about such cases. Overall, it is concluded that because most firms are in compliance already (for a variety of other reasons), this form of “explicit general deterrence” knowledge usually serves not to enhance the perceived threat of legal punishment, but as reassurance that compliance is not foolish and as a reminder to check on the reliability of existing compliance routines.     

Social License and Environmental Protection: Why Businesses Go Beyond Compliance

This article examines the concept of the corporate "social license," which governs the extent to which a corporation is constrained to meet societal expectations and avoid activities that societies (or influential elements within them) deem unacceptable, whether or not those expectations are embodied in law. It examines the social license empirically, as it relates to one social problem–environmental protection–and as it relates to one particular industry: pulp and paper manufacturing. It shows try the social license is important, the circumstances in which it may encourage companies to go "beyond compliance" with regulation, how its terms are monitored and enforced, and how it interacts with what we term the regulatory and economic licenses. Overall, this research demonstrates that corporate environmental behavior cannot be explained purely in terms of instrumental threats and moral obligations to comply with the law, and that the increasing incidence of "beyond compliance" corporate behavior can be better explained in terms of the interplay between social pressures and economic constraints.     

Corporate Compliance and Human Rights

Human rights violations by corporations are a major challenge, even if serious companies try to prevent them with their internal compliance program. Traditionally CSR and compliance were synonyms for soft law and self-regulation. Compliance, however, is increasingly establishing itself as a fundamental requirement to prevent corporate liability. Obviously, there are additional requirements for responsibility (like jurisdiction and the offence as a step towards the corporate goal). Overall, what has evolved in areas like corruption, money laundering and tax crime is gradually extending to the protection of human rights.     

Regulator-Required Corporate Compliance Program Audits

This paper critically examines the ability of compliance program audits to provide adequate assurance of compliance system performance. The empirical evidence comes from the use of compliance program audits in monitoring compliance with enforceable undertakings agreed upon between companies (that have allegedly breached the law) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The evidence suggests that the primary value of compliance program audits in this context is as a management review that induces better compliance. Nevertheless, it may be the formal regulatory expectation of verification (and the belief that it is possible) that gives the compliance review its power to encourage management to listen and respond to auditors' recommendations for improvement.
The danger is that the review aspect of the audit will be captured by management concerns. This is evident in a tendency for the audit methodology to focus on management systems at the expense of forensic investigation of harm done (or likely to be done) to consumers and investors, and in a failure to seek out public opinion and input. This style of audit undermines the basic regulatory objective of democratic accountability for corporate responsibility. I conclude by using the literature on critical social audits to show that there is, nonetheless, significant potential for compliance program audits to open corporate management to democracy, and to make some suggestions as to how this might be possible.     

Honesty in Environmental Compliance Games

This note investigates the consequences of honesty in a compliance game involving polluting firms and an environmental agency. Two enforcement schemes with or without self-reporting of behavior are considered. First, we show that non intervention may become optimal when the proportion of honest polluters is large enough but still inferior to one. Secondly, the increase in the number of honest polluters has striking ambiguous effects on pollution and social welfare. Indeed, we give examples in which an increase in the proportion of honest polluters leads to an increase in the number of non compliant polluters or a decrease in social welfare.     

企业有效合规整改的基本思路

有效合规整改的基本目标,是涉案企业建立一套有效预防犯罪的管理机制,达到企业依法依规经营的效果。为实现这一目标,企业合规整改应与日常性合规体系搭建具有本质的区别,将合规整改的针对性和体系化进行有机的结合。对于一个涉嫌犯罪的企业而言,一旦被纳入合规监督考察的对象,一般应引入四项基本的合规整改要素:一是在认罪认罚的前提下停止犯罪行为,积极配合刑事追诉行动,采取补救挽损措施,处理责任人;二是查找犯罪原因,发现造成犯罪发生的制度漏洞、管理隐患和治理结构的缺陷;三是针对上述漏洞、隐患和缺陷,进行有针对性的制度纠错和管理修复,切断犯罪发生的因果链条,避免同一犯罪的再次发生;四是建立一种整体的、全面的和长远的预防犯罪机制,引入有针对性的专项合规管理体系。     

企业刑事合规的程序应对

在刑事合规的制度设计中,程序法承载了治理犯罪、保护权利、提升经济效率等多项重要职能。当前,全球范围内企业合规的刑事程序运行呈现出如下发展态势:立案管辖范围扩张,侦(调)查措施更加灵活多样,检察官主导实现多样化的诉讼激励,刑事合规的司法审查逐步加强,律师充分参与刑事合规得到保障。我国刑事合规的理论研究逐步兴起,实践中企业合规试点单位进行了相应的刑事程序改革与探索。随着刑事合规的全面深入发展,我国刑事诉讼程序应从立案、侦查、起诉、审判、辩护等多个环节进行系统、科学改造,以满足企业合规对刑事程序的实质需求。     

Regulation and In-Company Environmental Management in the Netherlands*

This paper addresses the relationship between preventive systems of social control and regulation of the behavior of public bodies and private organizations. Illustrated with material on new developments in self-regulation concerning environmental management in companies in the Netherlands, the author argues that a combination of stimulated (or “regulated”) self-regulation and stringent enforcement policies is feasible and should lead to company compliance with environmental regulation. The article discusses the assertion that to reduce the social distance between government and individual citizen, between regulator and regulated, a mixture of policy instruments is needed, ergo: by involving societal groups of interested people in policy formation and self-regulation, enhancing the creation of normative systems (involvement “by association”) on the one hand and the availability of adequate law enforcement procedures on the other, corporations, through responsive government regulation, could promote an adequate and successful preventive system of social control.     

企业合规本土化中的“双不起诉”

放过企业、严惩个人是欧美国家企业合规不起诉的理念,但在我国企业合规改革试点的典型案例中,既放过企业又放过个人的双不起诉现象出现了,这引发了对企业合规不起诉公正性和正当性的质疑。双不起诉出现的主要原因在于,我国未严格区分企业刑事责任和个人刑事责任,未厘清企业合规不起诉制度与认罪认罚从宽制度的关系。随着企业合规改革试点的持续推进,有必要对双不起诉引发的质疑作出回应,区分企业和个人的刑事责任,对小微企业的合规不起诉给予足够的本土关怀,厘清企业合规不起诉制度与认罪认罚从宽制度的关系,推动我国企业合规本土化深入发展。     

企业犯罪预防中合规计划制度的借鉴

基于对传统企业犯罪预防模式的反思,国外出现了通过合规管理进行企业犯罪预防的立法实践。具体讲,主要是赋予企业合规以量刑意义,促进企业自我管理的推行。通过对我国企业犯罪惩治的效果考察发现,虽然刑事法网日渐严密,刑罚结构总体较为严厉,但并未收到良好的企业犯罪预防效果。而合规计划在企业犯罪预防中的有效性以及《萨班斯法案》404条款对企业内控的要求,为我们提供了很好的借鉴模本。具体到如何借鉴,首先可以通过量刑激励推动企业合规;其次,借鉴合规计划中蕴含的企业犯罪惩治的刑罚理念,进一步严密刑事法网,严厉个别犯罪的刑罚,尤其是对财务欺诈、虚假评估等犯罪的惩处,以推动企业自觉实施自我管理。     

企业合规出罪的三种模式

对于发生在企业内部的犯罪行为,根据其究竟是由企业集体决策实施,还是由关联人员实施后企业承担连带性刑事责任,可以将其区分为系统性企业犯罪和非系统性企业犯罪.从比较法的角度来看,企业实施合规管理体系可以从三个方面发挥免除刑事责任的效果:一是免除企业的主观罪过;二是履行法定的管理义务;三是接受合规考察,消除潜在的制度隐患.对于系统性企业犯罪案件,前两种合规出罪模式都是无法适用的,检察机关最多可以将那些情节轻微的案件,纳入合规考察的对象,并根据其实施有效合规计划的效果,作出免除刑事责任的决定.而对于非系统性企业犯罪案件,上述三种合规出罪模式都有适用的空间.其中,企业已经建立合规管理体系的,可以成为切割企业责任与关联人员责任的依据,也可以成为证明不存在主观罪过或失职行为的证据.而对于那些已经构成犯罪的企业而言,通过接受合规考察,重建合规管理体系,消除既有商业模式和经营方式中的"犯罪因素",可以说服检察机关作出合规不起诉的决定.     

企业合规计划有效性与举报人保护制度之构建——澳大利亚路径及其对中国的启示

传统的法人犯罪惩治机制建立在单一的刑罚威慑框架之下,其以膨胀刑法条文、严峻刑罚为主要手段,未能有效遏制日益突出的法人犯罪问题。基于对单一国家规制模式的反思,国外出现了以赋予合规计划诉讼及量刑意义为具体手段、旨在提升法人组织自主犯罪预防效率的各类立法与司法实践。企业法人组织是否依据其自身文化、所处行业及销售规模等“个性”因素,设计并执行一套用以鼓励成员个体对企业犯罪事实积极予以披露的举报人保护制度是鉴别具体合规计划是否有效的重要判断标准之一。通过对“合规计划”这一概念中的规范与社会性要素加以描述与强调,由澳大利亚证券交易所企业治理委员会制定的《企业治理原则与最佳操作指引》提升了合规计划妥善保护与激励举报人的整体能力,为我国法人犯罪治理的司法实践提供了全新思路。     

合规视野下的企业刑事责任问题

在企业的刑事归责问题上,西方国家传统上遵循的是以企业员工的行为和主观过错推论企业行为和主观过错的原则。如今,这一归责方式正在受到普遍的质疑和挑战,一种建立在“组织责任”基础上的理论正在兴起,并为企业合规引入企业归责原则确立了理论上的依据。我国刑法所确立的单位犯罪制度,面临着单位犯罪与自然人犯罪“入罪标准不统一”“同罪不同罚”,单位所承担的刑事责任与行政责任难以保持均衡,以及认定单位主观意志较为困难等方面的问题。唯有建立“企业独立意志理论”,将单位视为一种独立的生命有机体,承认其具有实施独立行为和具有独立主观意志的能力,才能走出上述困境,并将企业合规融入单位归责原则之中。     

企业合规制度中认罪问题研究

在企业合规制度中,涉罪企业认罪既是启动合规考察的前提条件,亦能体现检察机关提前采取“准刑罚”措施的正当性。围绕中小微企业这一类主要适用对象,企业认罪的实践困境包含直接责任人员未参与罪名合意、认罪真实性与自愿性难以保障、检察机关接触企业认罪较晚等。究其原因,主要为“认事”与罪名合意之人发生分离、合规不起诉的优待及于直接责任人员、公诉裁量权较大且外在监督不足等。同时,从试点情况看,企业认罪的具体表现形式为第三方组织审查和建议采取何种合规计划、合规考察合格后检察机关是否不起诉等提供了参考和依据。面对诸多实践困境,应从赋予两类代表人员相关性权利、对直接责任人员慎用不起诉、逐步完善企业合规规则、强化公诉裁量权的外部“风控”因素四方面加以改进。     

论企业合规检察主导的中国路径

通过对企业合规检察面向的谱系梳理可以发现,无论是对合规总体宏观的理论论证、试点决策、规范制定,还是就合规具体试点的推进方式、进度调控和领域调整,检察主导已成为中国企业合规的鲜明特色.企业合规检察主导的内生动力和深层根源涉及三个方面:主体认知自觉,即新形势下对检察工作省思后的创新探索和职能延伸;法理依据证成,基于对合规"...     

How to Win Hearts and Minds: Corporate Compliance Policies for Sexual Harassment

Australian law provides incentives and encouragement for companies to develop their own sexual harassment policies. This paper reports on interviews with equal opportunity officers in Australia's financial services industry responsible for best practice sexual harassment policies. Their experiences evoke three scholarly critiques of corporate compliance as a regulatory strategy: (1) that corporate compliance programs are a means by which employees' lives are regimented and controlled by corporate governmentality, (2) or, even worse, that private management priorities subvert the principles of public‐regarding law while appearing to implement them, and (3) that even where law has some effect, regulatory strategies aimed at producing self‐regulatory compliance will provide insufficient deterrence to effect real change. The data however also show that the best of these best practice officers have themselves created complex strategies to resolve tensions between law and management, corporate goals, and normative pressures. In doing so, they have had to combine their personal, professional, and corporate commitments to "win hearts and minds" to antiharassment values by co‐opting management resources to compliance goals through strategic appeals to both "business case" arguments and the specter of public sanctions. This project of cooption depends on their own position and "clout" within the corporation.     

Progressive Taxation,Fairness, and Compliance*

This paper examines the preferences for income tax progressivity, other tax fairness issues, and tax compliance of a national sample of nearly six hundred heads of U.S. households. The results reveal that mean public preferences for fair tax burdens are close to actual effective tax rates; however, the similarity between average preferred and actual effective tax rates masks an underlying schism between three groups: (I) those who believe tax rates should be higher for upper income persons (steep progressives), (2) those who prefer mildly progressive tax rates (mild progressives), and (3) those who believe tax rates should be flat (“flatraters). The analysis includes demographic and fairness profiles associated with tax rate preferences. Attitudes about the overall fairness of the income tax, exchange equity with the federal government, government spending, tax complexity, and tax compliance behavior are examined. In general, respondents' stated preferences for vertical equity approximate the current distribution of the income tax burden, yet there is a relatively high consensus that the income tax is unfair, especially with regard to the ability of wealthy taxpayers to exploit loopholes to avoid paying their fair share, and that respondents regard their own tax burdens as unfair. These results suggest that providing information to the public about the relative amount of income taxes paid by upper income individuals and the effects of recent limitations on “loopholes” could improve public attitudes about the fairness of the income tax and tax compliance.