![](\"https:\/\/cgpa.com.ua\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/12\/youcontrol1-300x133.png\")
Interview of Oleksandr Okuniev<\/strong> on compliance issues for YOUCONTROL<\/a><\/span> at the title: “A company that uses compliance inspires more confidence.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\nHow does compliance help to get favorable terms in the market? Why should there be anti-corruption compliance even in a small company? What is “$1 compliance”?<\/p>\n
What are the benefits for the company of implementing compliance?<\/p>\n
A company that uses compliance inspires more trust from its stakeholders. Using this trust, it can obtain accessible and cheap financing, an opportunity to work with major foreign partners without intermediaries, and thus receive more affordable goods or services; and more qualified personnel. Such a company is more expensive in the market.<\/p>\n
Do small businesses need anti-corruption compliance?<\/p>\n
Yes, of course, they do. Another thing is that the compliance programs of such companies are different from those of large companies. They have their own specifics. And of greater importance is the “loud voice from the top.” What do I mean? Let’s say the owner of the company sends this message to his employees: “We don’t take bribes, we don’t give them. No one. Including me, of course. If any of you are under any pressure, any suggestions, any instructions to violate this requirement, report directly to me!” This is what is called “the voice from above.”<\/p>\n
Of course, a large company will have many more procedures, such as lines of trust, training, agreements, and rules. In small businesses, you can do without this if the owner and top managers are “on the same wavelength” at the level of values, and the employees trust them.<\/p>\n
What are the risks for a company which doesn’t use anti-corruption compliance?<\/p>\n
First of all, to fall behind global trends. We see this in different areas. In Ukraine, they are still debating whether a company needs a supervisory board. In the world, these boards have been working successfully for 200 years. For people from the developed countries, we look like Papuans in these questions. This is reflected in the fact that our companies are catastrophically undervalued in the market. Over time, the same attitude will be shown to companies that do not have mechanisms to ensure compliance.<\/p>\n
Secondly, it’s a question of developing international trade relations. American and British companies do not risk opening their representative offices in Ukraine and working with Ukrainian companies. Because if their Ukrainian partners are found guilty of corrupt practices, they will have to become the subject of suspicions and investigations at home. There are harsh penalties for companies that failed to prevent the corrupt practices of their business partners.<\/p>\n
For example, in 2013, Alfred S. Topfer International Ukraine Ltd. (a Ukrainian “subsidiary” of the American Archer Daniels Midland Company) pleaded guilty to corrupt practices and agreed to pay fines totaling over $54 million to US authorities. The charge consisted of transferring money to “contractors” to give Ukrainian government officials to receive VAT refunds. The company admitted transferring $22 million to get more than $100 million of VAT refunds from the Ukrainian budget.<\/p>\n
Such cases may not be well known in Ukraine, but they are well known in US business circles. So, suppose a Ukrainian company wants to work without intermediaries in international markets, with lucrative contracts, and attract investment. In that case, it should position itself as a national leader in anti-corruption and compliance. Not just “all is well and according to the law,” but “the best in Ukraine, at the level of world standards”!<\/p>\n