Cobham PLC

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has published a statement from the Chief Executive Officer in the Code of Business Conduct. In the foreword, the Chief Executive Officer specifically supports the company’s strong stance against corruption.

Based on public information, aside from the Chief Executive Officer’s statement in the foreword to the Code of Business Conduct, TI has found no readily available evidence of a strong personal, external facing commitment to the ethics and anti-corruption agenda of the company by the Chief Executive Officer or Chair of the Board, either within the company website, or in searches outside of it.

Based on public information, TI has found no readily available evidence of a strong, internal-facing commitment by the Chief Executive Officer. The website indicates that the Chief Executive Officer introduces training on the Code of Business Conduct for all staff but the link provided takes you to the Code and does not provide further information on or evidence of the training. The company therefore scores 0.

Based on public information, the company does not address the business values sought in the question. TI notes that the Annual Report states that the company’s approach is designed to engender trust with its key stakeholders. It emphasises acting responsibly and sustainably, and pursuing the highest ethical standards in all aspects of its business. However, there is no explicit statement of values or an explanation of what such values mean for the organisation. The company therefore scores 0.

Based on public information, the company is a member of the UK Aerospace, Defence and Security (ADS), which is a member of AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. The company has also signed up to the ASD Common Industry Standards. TI notes that the company website also indicates that the company engages with the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) in the United States. However, the company is not listed as a member on the AIA website.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the Business Ethics and Compliance Committee, chaired by the Vice President of Legal and Compliance, reviews and approves the annual Ethics and Compliance Programme and responds to investigations. The Committee is a sub-committee of the Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Committee, which is chaired by the Chief Executive Officer.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the Business Ethics and Compliance Committee, chaired by the Vice President of Legal and Compliance, is responsible for company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. However, there is no evidence that the Vice President of Legal and Compliance is named on the website. The Committee is a sub-committee of the Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Committee, which is chaired by the Chief Executive Officer. Business Ethics and Compliance Officers embedded in each Business Unit and overseen by Sector Ethics Officers, are responsible for implementing the programme. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the Executive reviews monthly reports on Ethics and Compliance, the Board receives similar reports annually and the Audit Committee reviews reports bi-annually. According to the Annual Report, the Executive-level Audit Committee receives reports on independent investigations into suspected violations of the Code of Business Conduct. These reports provide details of cases, their outcome, and any corrective actions taken. The reports also include details on anonymous reporting rates and the duration of the investigations.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a formal, clear written plan on which the review of the ethics / anti-corruption agenda is based, or evidence of improvement plans being implemented.

Based on public information, there is evidence of a formal investigation process through which findings are reported to the Business Ethics and Compliance Committee, reports are considered by the Divisional Ethics Officer, and actions are recommended to the Committee. It is stated that timelines are set for key milestones and that the Chief Executive Officer reviews progress every quarter. According to the Annual Report, the Audit Committee receives reports on suspected violations of the Code of Business Conduct. These reports provide details of cases, their outcome, and any corrective actions taken. However, it is not clear whether the corrective actions include appropriate updates to policies and practices, rather than just disciplinary measures. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that periodic risk assessment is conducted in areas of ethics and compliance. The process outlined on the Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability website identifies specific areas of oversight and responsibility. Non-compliance with governmental regulations is identified as a principle risk in the Annual Report. The Report refers to ethics and integrity and mentions that policies and procedures, including procedures relating to anti-bribery and anti-corruption, gifts and hospitality, whistleblowing and investigation of ethics and compliance concerns, are regularly reviewed and audited as part of the organisation’s risk assessment procedure. However, TI has found no evidence of mechanisms for oversight or timelines. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence of a relatively comprehensive risk assessment procedure. The Annual Report outlines the risk management process and identifies eight principle risks. However, TI could find no readily available evidence of a formal anti-corruption risk assessment procedure for assessing proposed business decisions.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company conducts due diligence when selecting its agents. The Code of Business Conduct states that all representatives, including agents, advisors, consultants, dealers and distributors, should be chosen and monitored carefully. The Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability website indicates that due diligence will be carried out on ‘intermediaries who perform services for or on behalf of the Group’. However, TI has found no readily available evidence to indicate that the company refreshes due diligence at least every three years or when there is a significant change in the business relationship. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that agents are expected to comply with applicable laws and regulations, Cobham policies and the Code of Business Conduct. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy applies to all persons acting on behalf of, or performing services for, Cobham anywhere in the world. Such individuals must ensure that the policy is observed. However, TI has found no readily available evidence of contractual rights and processes for the monitoring, control and audit of agents. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that controls are in place to mitigate issues that may arise in regard to the supply chain. The company’s Annual Report refers to the “Responsible Supply Chain Management Policy” which sets out expectations for suppliers to have ethical risk management systems. The Supply Chain Management Policy, available on the company website, refers to bribery and corruption and states that suppliers should have policies in place that reflect the Cobham Code of Business Conduct. The Policy indicates that key suppliers will be assessed against these expectations but TI has found no readily available information pertaining to the consequences of non-compliance or how suppliers will be assessed. The company therefore scores 1.

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 evidence that the company has an anti-corruption policy that prohibits corruption in its various forms. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy prohibits bribery for all employees and all persons acting on behalf of, or performing services for, the company anywhere in the world. The Policy dictates compliance with all anti-bribery and corruption laws in all jurisdictions in which the company operates.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a zero tolerance approach to anti-corruption. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy states that all employees and persons acting on behalf of, or performing services for, the company must never engage in any form of bribery. The Code of Business Conduct explicitly refers to the company’s policy of zero tolerance towards bribery and corruption in all its forms. The company Annual Report also refers to a policy of zero tolerance towards bribery and corruption.

Based on public information there is evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy is easily accessible. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy and the Code of Business Conduct are available online. The Code of Business Conduct is available in seven languages and a hard copy is circulated to all employees.

Based on public information there is evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy is easily understandable and clear. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy and the Code of Business Conduct are written in accessible and comprehensible language.

Based on public information there is evidence that the Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy and the Code of Business Conduct apply to all company officers, directors and employees.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy on potential conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are included in the Code of Business Conduct, which applies to all officers, directors and employees of Cobham and its subsidiaries. Furthermore, examples of potential conflicts of interest are provided.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy for the giving and receipt of gifts. Policies relating to the giving and receipt of gifts are outlined in the Code of Business Conduct. The Code refers readers to the Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy, which outlines these processes in greater detail. Acceptable values, categories of gifts/entertainment and approval processes are outlined in detail.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy for the giving and receipt of hospitality (entertainment). Policies relating to the giving and receipt of hospitality are outlined in the Code of Business Conduct. The Code refers readers to the Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy, which outlines these processes in greater detail. Acceptable values, categories of entertainment/hospitality and approval processes are outlined in detail.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy explicitly prohibits facilitation payments for all employees. The policy provides a clear definition of facilitation payments and indicates that employees must not allow others to make facilitation payments on behalf of Cobham. However, the company provides no supplementary information on how the policy is to be implemented in practice. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company prohibits political contributions. According to the Code of Business Conduct, the contribution of Cobham funds, assets or facilities for the benefit of political parties or candidates anywhere in the world is prohibited. The website states that the organisation does not make corporate contributions to political parties but that, in the United States, employees can make contributions through the Political Action Committee (PAC), which makes bipartisan contributions to politicians. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy states that, if political contributions are lawful, contributions may be appropriate but require approval from the Chief Financial Officer. For significant contributions, it recommends that confirmation is sought from the Executive Committee.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company affirms to be transparent in all its dealings with governments and that it complies with related laws such as the United States Lobbying Disclosure Act. However, no further information is provided on how the company manages or monitors this activity. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company regulates charitable contributions. The Code of Business Conduct states that written approval from the Executive Directors’ Committee is required for charitable gifts and donations using Cobham funds. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy refers to a Philanthropy Policy for further details on the approvals required but this does not appear to be publicly available. In addition, there is no evidence that the recipients of donations are publicly disclosed. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company provides written guidance to help Board members and employees understand and implement the firm’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The Code of Business Conduct outlines the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda for employees and Board members. Each section is followed by a summary of responsibilities for both employees and Supervisors/Managers. There is evidence that the Code is supported by a quarterly ethics and compliance newsletter, which highlights key policies and areas of interest. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy provides more detailed guidance on the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda and Appendix 1 provides further details on relevant statutes.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a training programme that explicitly covers anti-corruption. Training relating to business ethics, specifically the Code of Business Conduct, anti-bribery, anti-corruption and antitrust, is available for all employees. The Annual Report confirms that, in 2013, all employees had completed mandatory training on the Code of Business Conduct. TI notes that the materials do not appear to be publicly available online.

Based on public information, there is evidence that training relating to business ethics, including anti-corruption, is provided to all employees, the company does not explicitly state that training is provided in all countries where the company operates or has sites. However, the Annual Report confirms that, in 2013, all employees had completed mandatory training on the Code of Business Conduct. The company website states that training is primarily web-based but some classroom training is provided for certain business functions and regions in key risk areas.

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

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company provides tailored ethics and anti-corruption training for employees in sensitive positions. The company website states that standard business ethics training is supplemented by additional online training modules and classroom training for certain business functions and regions in key risk areas. However, it is not clear that all high risk positions are offered this additional training. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence of a formal process relating to conflicts of interest. The Code of Business Conduct, which applies to all employees, states that potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed immediately to the employee’s Supervisor/Manager. When considering future activities which may create a conflict of interest, advanced written approval must also be sought from the Supervisor/Manager. Examples of potential conflicts of interest are provided.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company is explicit in its commitment to apply disciplinary procedures to employees, Directors and Board members found to have engaged in corrupt activities. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy and Code of Business Conduct state that disciplinary procedures will be applied to individuals who fail to comply with the Code of Business Conduct. TI notes that the Policy and the Code apply to employees, officers, directors and all persons acting on behalf of Cobham Plc and its subsidiaries.

Based on public information, there is evidence that employees are encouraged to raise ethical concerns and violations of the Code of Business Conduct through internal channels - through a Supervisor/Manager, HR or the local Business Ethics and Compliance Officer or Divisional Ethics Officer - or through the Ethics Helpline. The Ethics Helpline is an independently hosted resource that allows individuals to anonymously report concerns online or via telephone. The helpline is signposted from a number of resources, including the Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy, the Code of Business Conduct, and the company website.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the whistleblowing channels are available to all employees in all geographies. Specifically, there are a number of channels available to all employees. The Ethics Helpline is available to employees across the globe 24 hours a day and allows individuals to report concerns online or via telephone. The Ethics Helpline is available in different languages. The Code of Business Conduct suggests that individuals can report concerns to his/her supervisor, another supervisor, HR, the local Business Ethics and Compliance Officer, or Divisional Ethics Officer.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has formal mechanisms to assure itself that whistleblowing by employees is not deterred. The company states that it has a range of reporting practices, that reports will be investigated and that reports will be treated confidentially as far as possible. Furthermore, the company provides figures relating to the concerns raised through the Helpline in 2013, including that 17% of concerns raised that year were substantiated. However, there is no readily available evidence of practices aimed at treating whistleblowers supportively and following up with them after serious incidents have been reported. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that company employees have access to online resources, hard copy brochures and training on corruption-related issues. These resources state that employees can discuss concerns with their Supervisor/Manager, Human resources, their local Business Ethics and Compliance Officer or Divisional Ethics Officer or the independent Ethics Helpline. Business Ethics and Compliance Officers are embedded in each Business Unit.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a strict zero tolerance policy towards retaliation for raising ethical concerns in good faith. TI notes that it is clear that retaliation is considered a serious violation and will result in disciplinary action.