Bharat Earth Movers Ltd

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company publishes a statement from the Chief Executive Officer or the Chair of the Board supporting the ethics and anti-corruption agenda of the company. TI notes the comments made in the Annual Report and the Vigilance Awareness Week publication regarding transparency and corporate governance, but these make no direct reference to ethics or anti-corruption.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company’s Chief Executive Officer or Chair of the Board demonstrate a strong personal, external facing commitment to the ethics and anti-corruption agenda of the company.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the Chief Executive Officer demonstrates a strong personal, internal-facing commitment to the ethics and anti-corruption agenda of the company.

Based on public information, there is some evidence that the company publishes a statement of values including trust, accountability, integrity and transparency. This only takes the form of a short sentence in the company’s annual reports and a small sentence on the company’s website. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that it explains in detail why these values matter to the organisation and how they are put into practice.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company belongs to national or international initiatives that promote anti-corruption or business ethics with a significant focus on anti-corruption.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has appointed a Board committee or individual Board member with overall corporate responsibility for its ethics and anti-corruption agenda. TI notes that a Vigilance Department exists, however evidence does not suggest it is equivalent to a Board level committee.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has given Chief Vigilance Officer, Kavitha Kestur, responsibility for implementing the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence of regular Board level monitoring and review of the performance of the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The Annual Inspection Plan is stated in the Annual Report, but it is unclear if this relates to anti-corruption. TI notes that as per the Central Vigilance Commission's website the duties of the Chief Vigilance Officer include reviewing the company's ethics and anti-corruption agenda. However, TI found no reference to this on the company website. TI also notes that the Audit Committee complies with the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission, but has found no further evidence of a regular review of the vigilance policy.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence of a formal, clear, written plan in place on which the review of the ethics and anti-corruption agenda by the Board or senior management is based, and evidence of improvement plans being implemented when issues are identified.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a formal process for review and where appropriate updates its policies and practices in response to actual or alleged instances of corruption. Following a complaint, risks in the system are identified and corrective measures recommended, and as a result in the past several system-wide improvements have been implemented.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a formal anti-corruption risk assessment procedure implemented enterprise-wide.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a formal anti-corruption risk assessment procedure for assessing proposed business decisions, with clear requirements on the circumstances under which such a procedure should be applied.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company conducts due diligence that minimises corruption risk when selecting or reappointing agents.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has contractual rights and processes for the behaviour, monitoring, control and audit of agents with respect to countering corruption.

Based on public information, there is evidence that contractors must commit themselves to taking all necessary measures to prevent corruption. If a contractor commits a violaton of the Integrity Pact, before or after commencement of the contract, the company is able to disqualify them from the tender process or face sanctions under ‘Guidelines on Banning of business dealings’.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company explicitly addresses the corruption risks associated with offset contracting.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company conducts due diligence that minimises corruption risk when selecting its offset partners and offset brokers.

Based on public information, there is some evidence that the company has a policy that prohibits corruption. However, it is not a clear statement and is not explicit on all the forms that such corruption might take. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a zero tolerance anti-corruption policy.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s ethics and anti-corruption policies are easily accessible to Board members and senior management. However, there is no evidence that such policies are easily accessible for other employees or third parties. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy is easily understandable and clear to Board members, employees and third parties.

Based on public information, there is evidence of a Code of Conduct for Directors and Senior Managers. However, there is no evidence of a policy targeted at all employees. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a minimal policy on potential conflicts of interest for directors and senior management. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of a policy on potential conflicts of interest that applies to both employees and Board members, which clearly defines a conflict of interest and provides examples.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence of a company policy for the giving and receipt of gifts to ensure that such transactions are bona fide and not a subterfuge for bribery.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence of a company policy for the giving and receipt of hospitality to ensure that such transactions are bona fide and not a subterfuge for bribery.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a policy that explicitly prohibits facilitation payments.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company prohibits political contributions, or regulates such contributions in order to prevent undue influence or other corrupt intent.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a clear policy on engagement in lobbying activities, in order to prevent undue influence or other corrupt intent, or discloses the issues on which the company lobbies.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company prohibits charitable contributions, or regulates such contributions in order to prevent undue influence or other corrupt intent.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company provides some written guidance to help Board members and employees understand and implement the firm’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to show that it provides additional guidance that is suitably illustrated.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a training programme that explicitly covers anti-corruption.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that anti-corruption training is provided in all countries where the company operates or has company sites.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company provides targeted anti-corruption training to members of the Board.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company provides tailored ethics and anti-corruption training for employees in sensitive positions.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a clear and formal process by which employees declare conflicts of interest.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company will apply disciplinary procedures to Directors and Board members, found to have violated the Code of Conduct for Directors and Senior Management. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to indicate that disciplinary procedures also apply to all employees.

Based on public information, there is evidence that employees can report concerns or instances of suspected corrupt activity using multiple, well-publicised channels. Employees can send reports to the Chief Vigilance Officer, with the contact details available on the company website, or use Drop Boxes located at various locations around the company. As a Public Sector Enterprise, employees can also report concerns to the Central Vigilance Commission. However, it is not clear that any of the available channels guarantee anonymity when required. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that whistleblowing channels are available to all employees, in all geographies. Employees may write to the Chief Vigilance Officer, specific vigiance branches or to the Central Vigilance Commission.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has formal and comprehensive mechanisms to assure itself that whistleblowing by employees is not deterred, or that whistleblowers are treated supportively.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has well-publicised resources available to all employees where help and advice can be sought on corruption-related issues. It is unclear if employees can contact the Chief Vigilance Office for help and advice on corruption-related issues, rather than solely reporting corruption concerns.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a commitment to non-retaliation for bona fide reporting of corruption. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company must clearly state that disciplinary measures are applied to all employees who breach this policy.