BA3301 UHD Recent Compliance Problem and Enforcement Action Report

Question Description

MLA in-text citations, 12 pt Times New Roman

Organize your paper into the 3 parts below, using the subheadings and ABC formatting. Your content will answer the questions or directions in each subheading. Do not use Q&A format. Do not restate the question in your paper. Your paper must be formatted exactly as shown or points will be deducted. Your content must address the question asked or points will be deducted.

Part 1: Recent Compliance Problem and Enforcement Action

Using your selected article, answer the following questions. If the article is silent, state that the article did not address this point.

  • Who are the parties involved? That is, who failed to follow the law and/or violated ethical standards, and who is prosecuting this failure?
  • What is the non-compliant behavior? What laws or regulations or ethical standards were not followed?
  • Who was injured by the compliance/ethics failure? How were they injured?

Part 2: The Relationship Between Ethics the Law

Based on the background article posted in the assignment folder, your textbook’s ethics chapter, and website readings, address the following:

A. Describe your view on the relationship between corporate culture (ethical standards) and a company’s efforts to comply with laws and regulations.

B. Can ethics improve compliance, or is ethics something separate from complying with laws?

C. If you had to explain ethics (as corporate culture) and compliance to new employees you manage, how would you do it? Should you spend time trying to create this understanding in your new employees? Will your business benefit, and if yes, how?

Part 3: Compliance and Ethics Work as Professional Careers

  • List 3 jobs in compliance. State the industry the job is in, the official job title, the educational requirement, and the pay. This is the information you found in Step 1.
  • List 3 jobs with ethics in the title. State the industry the job is in, the official job title, the educational requirement, and the pay. This is the information you found in Step 1.
  • Were you aware positions like these existed? Would you consider working in any of the positions you listed? Why or why not? Would you consider becoming a Certified Compliance and Ethics Officer? Why or why not.

Article Selected: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/south-florida-health-care-facility-owner-sentenced-20-years-prison-role-largest-health-care

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Warning: Flawed Codes of Conduct can create ethical complacency By Caterina Bulgarella | Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:28AM http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2019/8/12/warning-flawed-codes-of-conduct-can-create-ethicalcomplacen.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fcpablog%2F sLbh+%28The+FCPA+Blog%29 In a recent post, I shared insights from a code-of-conduct best practice study I recently conducted in collaboration with SAI Global. As noted in that post, “companies …are not neglecting all the design elements needed for the code to successfully influence the organization’s ethical orientation and culture. But… they fail to go all the way…” These missed opportunities are evident not only in relation to laying out the organization’s principles of conduct — which may lack clarity and key levels of accountability — but also with respect to the objective of strengthening the organization’s ethical capacity by increasing ethical ownership, ethical reasoning, and ethical voice. These issues are three of the fundamental six pillars of a culture low on conduct risk. Ethical ownership refers to the responsibilities, goals, and roles that have been created around an organization’s ethics. Ethical reasoning underscores the conditions that help people engage in sound ethical decision-making. Ethical voice encompasses employees’ access to and level of control over organizational processes created to report unethical behavior and speak out. A well-designed Code of Conduct should boost all three pillars. Organizations can shape the context in which employees operate and, by so doing, help people do the right thing. To this end, two objectives deserve attention. First, the code’s design elements that impact conduct risk should be fully identified and isolated. Second, there should be a clear framework on how each element can be used to reduce risk. The analysis of the 174 codes included in this study suggests that most codes of conduct lay the foundations of ethical ownership. For example, 89 percent of the codes that were examined made it clear to employees that they held the obligation to be honest and meet high ethical standards, and 92 percent of codes also assigned a general responsibility to report misconduct. Moreover, 83 percent of codes encouraged employees to ask questions and raise concerns, and/or to seek assistance with questions or ethical dilemmas. Though ethical ownership requires more than awareness of duties and responsibilities, emphasis on a specific set of obligations helps create some basic elements of ownership, which is why the current findings corroborate the idea that most codes today are meeting the rudimentary key requirements. However, our findings also show that the Code of Conduct is not currently equipped to support ethical reasoning as much as it could. For example, only 52 percent of the codes included an ethical decision-making matrix, and none of the codes addressed contextual factors that may affect individual decision-making in the face of ethical dilemmas. With regard to ethical voice, nearly all codes (91 percent) involved in the study outlined the resources made available to employees for reporting violations. Although awareness of such levers is hardly sufficient to create a sense of control and influence over ethical outcomes, it is an important prerequisite. But, all of the insights about the code elements that should support ethical voice were a mixed bag. For example, 88 percent of the codes prohibited retaliation against employees for good-faith reporting of misconduct or cooperating with an investigation. Given that ethical voice depends on people’s ability to speak out, prohibiting retaliation is a precondition for fostering a sense of control over ethical outcomes. However, best practices would demand that, in addition to explicitly prohibiting retaliatory behavior, the code went further and provided abundant examples to ensure full clarity as to what retaliation entails, especially in its subtler form. Importantly, only 71 percent of the codes conveyed a commitment to protecting the confidentiality of the information reported. Only 53 percent included an explanation of disciplinary actions for violations of anti-retaliation or confidentiality policies. Finally, only 60 percent of codes explained the reporting and investigation processes the organization would use to address potential instances of unethical behavior. Overall, these findings suggest that codes of conduct still lack the full procedural clarity and necessary assurances employees need to feel fully in control of ethical outcomes. The decision to report unethical behavior is often preempted by the prospect of an unclear investigative process and the absence of appropriate safeguards against retaliatory behavior and unwanted peer scrutiny. Fear of the incomplete understandings of these issues often supersedes the choice to report that unethical behavior. Findings also showed that code elements that help reduce ethical dilemmas and boost an organization’s ethical capacity (i.e., ownership + reasoning + voice) tend to co-occur. This is important because it enhances the idea that each element’s effectiveness increases if the element is part of a more cohesive architecture rather than a standalone aspect. For example, 65 percent of the codes examined included 75 percent of key attributes, while 20 percent missed at least 50 percent of them. Unsurprisingly, the study found a significant relationship between the code’s maturity score (i.e., how many key attributes the code included) and whether the code made it clear that its principles and policies applied to the C-Suite and/or Board of Directors. Overall, codes of conduct that mentioned applicability to the C-Suite and/or Board of Directors had a higher maturity score than the codes of conduct that didn’t. Notably, of the elements examined, the one that often co-occurred with the mention that the code also applied to executive officers was the obligation to report actual or suspected misconduct. This suggests that when organizations wish to have higher control over unethical outcomes they are more likely to assign clear responsibility to the C-Suite as a deterrent. Though this is a worthy goal, it is also old-fashioned: best practices denote that the Code of Conduct focus on the C-Suite’s responsibility not to maximize control but to ensure that principles of conduct are unequivocally clear and deeply impactful. Interestingly, codes with a decision-making matrix were more likely to emphasize respect as a principle of conduct and promote diversity and inclusion as a key piece of the organization’s culture. This is fundamental as an emphasis on equality strengthens the organization’s ethical principles and, at the same time, reinforces the idea that doing the right thing is not solely about not doing something unethical or unlawful. All in all, the study’s results show that organizations have started using various design elements to increase the code’s impact as a culture driver. This is not a minor shift. If context has a significant impact on ethical behavior, and even good, well-meaning people can make poor ethical decisions, the importance of culture becomes critically self-evident. When business discounts the ripple effects of culture, risk inevitably accelerates. When it underestimates the costs of a bad or weak culture, risk grows exponentially. Today’s ethical failures reveal both unawareness and erroneous calculus. This is why a Code of Conduct that shapes context, not just in terms of ethos, but by curbing bias and moral disengagement can have a meaningful effect on employees’ ethical competence and an organization’s ethical performance. ____ Caterina Bulgarella, Ph.D., pictured above, is the co-founder of Be Thread, a platform of tools for human-centric work environments, an SAI Global influencer, and a member of Ethical Systems’ core team. She’s a culture architect and ethics expert who advises senior leaders on culture change and ethical challenges. She can be contacted here. 012212345 678ÿ ÿÿÿ678ÿ ÿ %& ‘(ÿ*&+,-./0ÿ.10+12&3ÿ./4ÿ5&ÿ6&/’12&7 8947/:(ÿ;10:ÿ<<(ÿ<=>?ÿ/+ÿ?@&6.2ÿ/..&>ÿ/224,((*85ÿ%),ÿ-4&/2,4 &45/8*?/%*&8/.ÿ,.,0,8%(ÿ%)/%ÿ)/;,ÿ(6(%/*8,2ÿ%),ÿ0*(:&826:%ÿ/82ÿ(%4,85%),8ÿ%),ÿ:&03/89@(ÿ,%)*:/.ÿ+&:6(<ÿ A224,((*85ÿ,%)*:(ÿ*(ÿ/ÿ34,4,B6*(*%,ÿ+&4ÿ/ÿ:&03.*/8:,ÿ/82ÿ,%)*:(ÿ34&54/0ÿ%&ÿB6/.*+9ÿ/(ÿ,++,:%*;,ÿ+&4ÿ4,56./%&4(ÿCC4,:,8%ÿ56*2/8:,ÿ+4&0ÿDEFÿ)/(ÿ&8:, /5/*8ÿ:&8+*40,2ÿ%)*(ÿ682,4(%/82*85<ÿ=),ÿ4,56./%&4ÿ*(ÿ,G3,:%*85ÿ&45/8*?/%*&8(ÿ%&ÿ34&/:%*;,.9ÿ0,/(64,ÿ/82ÿ0/8/5,ÿ%),ÿ:6.%64,ÿ&+ÿ:&03.*/8:,ÿ/82 ,%)*:(7ÿ/82ÿ%),ÿ5&&2ÿ8,>(ÿ*(ÿ%)/%ÿ%),ÿ-&29ÿ&+ÿ4,(,/4:)ÿ*8ÿ%),ÿ+*,.2ÿ&++,4(ÿ/ÿ>*2,ÿ4/85,ÿ&+ÿ*8(%460,8%(ÿ%&ÿ2&ÿ%)/%< H)&&(,ÿ%),ÿ&8,ÿ%)/%ÿ+*%(ÿ-,(%ÿ>*%)ÿ9&64ÿ&45/8*?/%*&8<ÿI),%),4ÿ9&6ÿ/4,ÿ4688*85ÿ/ÿ:6.%64,ÿ(64;,9ÿ&4ÿ:&00*%ÿ%&ÿ*8C2,3%)ÿ.,/2,4()*3ÿ*8%,4;*,>(ÿ/82 ,03.&9,,ÿ+&:6(ÿ54&63(7ÿ-,ÿ(64,ÿ%&ÿ0,/(64,ÿ%),ÿJ,9ÿ682,4.9*85ÿ*854,2*,8%(ÿ&+ÿ/8ÿ,%)*:/.ÿ:6.%64,ÿ*8(%,/2ÿ&+ÿ(64+/:*85ÿ:&00&8ÿ3/%%,48(ÿ&+ÿ-,)/;*&4< E8.9ÿ%)/%ÿ>&6.2ÿ9*,.2ÿ6(,+6.ÿ*8(*5)%(< KKKK LMNOÿQRMNMSOTUVOWÿYZZ[\ÿZ][\ÿ^_`ÿabc̀defghÿijklgm\ÿnioÿpkfgÿdniqÿrsÿtgifouÿgvbgfcgq`gÿioÿiÿ̀kpbwciq`gÿkxxc̀gfyÿ_nguoÿdngÿxkeqhgf kxÿz{|}~Uÿ{~€O\ÿiÿjkedcegÿ̀kqoewdiq`tÿdnidÿbfklchgoÿihlc̀gÿkqÿ̀kfbkfidgÿgdnc̀oÿiqhÿ̀kpbwciq`gÿbfk‚fipoÿdkÿ̀kpbiqcgoÿifkeqhÿdngÿƒkfwhyÿ_ng obgi„oÿq‚wcon\ÿYfgq`n\ÿ]diwciq\ÿiqhÿ†eoociqyÿ_ngÿ̀iqÿjgÿ̀kqdi`dghÿRMNMy ‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒÿˆŠŠ‘’ŒŒ“ÿ’””’ˆ•ÿ‘ÿ–—ÿ˜™š‡ÿ›Œÿœ—‰‰”žžŸŸŸ¡‹”’¢Œ‹£ž¤ ¥ÿŸ¢¦Š‰ÿ¡ˆÿ‹£”Œ‰ÿ’ˆ‰Š‹ŒÿŒŠ‹‘¦Š‘ÿŠ‘¡ˆ£’‰Š‘ 1123451012218878!888″7#!8 8!”$8 212 0123456ÿ829ÿ1 9ÿ 13ÿ ÿ99ÿ4 349ÿ !”#$912345%1 9% 13%99%4 349% &ÿ035ÿ’39(9 035ÿ’39(9ÿ)935*39(9+5 34*9 ,ÿ35ÿ-93ÿ. 349ÿ/ 349ÿ0 . 19ÿ. 59ÿ ÿ15 34ÿ’3345ÿ. 13ÿ3ÿ2 (33ÿ4’0* 21156$$555*3693*4 $3$93539(9$ &9399ÿ31ÿ ÿ 13ÿ912345ÿ9ÿ 19ÿ 9ÿ3 11ÿ12ÿ 953ÿÿ1235ÿ35ÿ4913ÿ1 9ÿ529 31ÿ4 95ÿ1ÿ319ÿ 49 95ÿÿ 34395ÿ3ÿÿ4 *ÿ821ÿ35ÿ1ÿ53ÿ 95ÿ9ÿ55 999ÿ1ÿ4 51 41ÿÿ4 349ÿ 3ÿ( 1ÿ5312 1ÿ9123453ÿ1299ÿ35ÿ9ÿ ÿ5ÿ 12959ÿ 34395ÿ1ÿ41ÿ5 6* & 1ÿ521ÿ 95ÿ1235ÿ9ÿ97413ÿÿ521ÿ695ÿ912345ÿ5 ÿ3 118 91ÿ53ÿ95ÿ121ÿ 51ÿ4 395ÿ 4 5ÿÿ129ÿ194234ÿ59415ÿ ÿ4 3493ÿ( 1ÿ129 1 12ÿ353ÿ912345ÿÿ 5ÿ9ÿ129ÿ9ÿ33ÿ 49ÿ(923ÿÿ5 42ÿ *ÿ:21;5ÿ 93 4 395ÿ121ÿ1ÿ1ÿ9 49ÿ4913ÿ 95ÿ ÿ51341ÿ4 349ÿ 5ÿ4ÿ3919 9995ÿÿ99ÿ5139ÿ129ÿ5959ÿ ÿ4 1 9ÿ3ÿÿ 3513*ÿ’1ÿ129ÿ59ÿ1393ÿ1 93<9ÿ129ÿ 9ÿ ÿ9123453ÿ31;5ÿ=51ÿ5ÿ3 11ÿ1ÿ951ÿ129ÿ93ÿ 59ÿ ÿ 4 349ÿ * 829ÿ3 149ÿ ÿÿ4 349ÿ ‘ÿ4 349ÿ ÿ35ÿÿ591ÿ ÿ 34395ÿ121ÿ9ÿ59ÿ1ÿ313ÿ129ÿ9 113ÿ ÿ ( 53955*ÿ8235ÿ ÿ35ÿ 1ÿ3ÿ49ÿ1ÿ991ÿ12 59ÿ55 4319ÿ5312ÿ129ÿ4 ÿ (963ÿ594334ÿ553ÿÿ1299ÿ9ÿ599ÿ59415ÿ 139ÿ3ÿÿ4 349ÿ *ÿ829 3ÿ4 915ÿ ÿÿ4 ÿ4 349ÿ ÿ96 >”??ÿ”AB” ÿCÿ829ÿ933139ÿ351ÿ ÿ129ÿ(951ÿ4 ÿ413495ÿÿ 34395* DÿEE”ÿCÿ829ÿ95319ÿ4 349ÿ4 31199ÿ ÿ333 ÿ3ÿ129 4 * F”#ÿCÿ/ 139ÿ ÿ129ÿ4 349ÿ133ÿÿ9 413ÿ3(9ÿ3ÿ129ÿ4 * DB?ÿCÿ2913ÿ ÿ129ÿ51ÿ395ÿ ÿ4 3413ÿ3ÿ129ÿ4 * GBA?#ÿCÿ&39ÿ 139ÿ ÿ2 5ÿ129ÿ4 ÿ 31 5ÿ315ÿ

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount