Embraer SA

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s compliance microsite contains a statement from the President and CEO supporting the company’s ethics agenda. Further, it is evident from an analysis of the company’s Code of Ethics and Conduct and its Global Anti-Corruption Policy that anti-corruption is a component of its commitment to ethics. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher, TI would need to see evidence of several similar statements or one statement supporting the company’s strong stance against corruption specifically.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s CEO has issued multiple strong statements supporting the company’s anti-corruption stance (including at the World Economic Forum) and that he is also Co-Chair of the Safeguarding Aviation and Travel Value Chains Against Corruption project.

Based on public information, there is limited evidence that the CEO demonstrates a strong internal-facing commitment to the ethics and anti-corruption agenda of the company. TI notes that there are statements in the Compliance Program and the Annual report, but no evidence of the personal internal facing commitment through speaking at training events or other employee gatherings.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company publishes its statement of values and principles in its compliance microsite. These include transparency, honesty trust, and integrity. These values and principles are elaborated upon in its comprehensive Code of Ethics and Conduct, which includes sections on its Principles, Business Values and Company Conduct. The Anti-Corruption Policy also outlines a set of standards to which employees are expected to adhere.

Based on public information, TI has ascertained that the company is a member of the World Economic Forum Partnering Against Corruption, as well as the UN Global Compact. The CEO is also Co-Chair of the Safeguarding Aviation and Travel Value Chains Against Corruption project.

Based on public information, there is some readily available evidence that the Ethics and Compliance organisation is supervised by the Board of Directors and its Risk and Audit Committee. However, there is no evidence of clear terms of reference on what this responsibility entails. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that suggests the Chief Compliance Officer is in charge of the company anti-corruption policy. However, there is no readily available evidence outlining who this individual is and what their responsibilities are. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is some evidence that there is ongoing monitoring of the anti-corruption policy. However, it is not clear how often this monitoring and review takes place and what the exact scope of the review is. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence to demonstrate that the review of the ethics and anti-corruption agenda is undertaken according to a formal, clear, written plan. Likewise, there is no readily available evidence of improvement plans being implemented when issues are identified.

Based on public information, there is no readily available information to demonstrate that there is a formal process for review of the company’s policies in response to actual or alleged instances of corruption. TI notes that the Chief Compliance Officer periodically assesses the programme’s effectiveness but it is unclear whether this is done in case of violations or alleged cases of corruption.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a formal anti-corruption risk assessment procedure implemented enterprise-wide. TI notes that the Global Anti-Corruption Policy highlights ‘red flags’ and outlines a non-exhaustive list of examples of such red flags. However, this seems to be part of a due diligence procedure and not of an enterprise wide risk assessment process.

Based on public information, there is evidence that potential ‘red flags’ should be considered by company decision-makers when assessing proposed business decisions (such as entering a new market). However, there is a lack of clarity surrounding how this guidance should be applied and precisely to which business decisions it applies. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s Global Anti-Corruption Policy (section 5.1.7) outlines the mandatory due diligence procedures for engaging third-party intermediaries and other business partners. However, there is no publicly available information to demonstrate that the company refreshes the due diligence at least every three years and/or when there is a significant change in the business relationship. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is some evidence that the company has contractual obligations in place and suppliers are expected to comply with a written agreement (which may be in the form of a purchase order) ‘which will include appropriate anti-corruption covenants’. It is therefore evident that agents are expected to comply by the same anti-corruption standards as Embraer employees and failure to do so may be sanctioned with termination of the contract. However, there is no indication that the company has monitoring or auditing oversight of its agents. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company communicates its anti-corruption policy to its business partners with clear sanctions in place if policies are breached.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the compay 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. TI notes that Section 5.1.7 of the Global Anti-Corruption Policy outlines mandatory due diligence for engaging third party intermediaries and other business partners. This includes ‘associated persons, agents, suppliers, consultants, contractors, and other business partners with whom [the company] conducts business’. However, there is no specific mention of offset brokers or offset partners.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has an extensive anti-corruption policy which prohibits both the giving and receiving of bribes and is explicit on the various forms that corruption can take.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a strongly-worded anti-corruption policy, which demonstrates the company’s stance and intolerance to all forms of corruption.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy is easily accessible on the compliance microsite and is available in both Portuguese and English.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy is written in accessible, comprehensive language.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy specifically applies to all employees, ‘directors, officers, managers, and employees’.

Based on public information, there is some evidence that the Anti-Corruption Policy and the Code of Ethics and Conduct refer to conflicts of interest. However, the wording of the policy remains fairly vague and examples given are limited. Further, it is not clear whether the policy applies to Board members, as well as other employees. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy on gifts with clear upper limits to guarantee that such transactions are not a subterfuge for bribery.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy on giving and receipt of hospitality with clear upper limits to ensure against corruption.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company clearly prohibits facilitation payments, which are also clearly defined in the policy. However, the company provides no guidance or 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 Anti-Corruption Policy explicitly prohibits political contributions in any form on behalf of the company ‘for the purpose of obtaining or retaining any “Improper Advantage”’. Other contributions are only made following approval and employees are required to inform the Compliance Department of any contributions made. However, it is not clear that such contributions are publicly disclosed. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence to suggest that the company has a policy on engagement in lobbying activities.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company regulates charitable contributions in order to prevent undue influence. The applications of these guidelines are clear, and staff are asked to report and record all charitable donations. However, it is not clear if such contributions are publicly declared. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s Global Anti-Corruption Policy and Code of Ethics and Conduct provide written guidance to help Board members and employees to understand the firm’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. However, although the guidance is comprehensive in places, there is a lack of scenarios and illustrations to demonstrate how it should be interpreted by employees. The action that an employee should take upon either encountering a risk of corruption or uncovering an example of it is unclear, beyond being asked to ‘direct any questions… to the Compliance Department’. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company conducts training that explicitly covers anti-corruption and compliance.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s compliance microsite states that an aim of the Compliance and Ethics training is to ‘provide training in all countries where the company operates and has sites, subsidiaries, affiliates and business partners’. TI notes there is evidence in the Annual report that only a certain percentage of the employees are trained annually and it is unclear whether exceptions apply.

Based on public information, there is evidence to confirm that the company conducts targeted anti-corruption training to members of the Board. Further, there is evidence that in 2013 100% of the managers had been trained. However, it is not clear how often they are retrained. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company clearly recognises the sensitivity of certain positions, stating that anti-corruption training is provided ‘to all employees involving the board of directors, top management and areas particularly dedicated to assure compliance such as procurement, sales, finance legal, government relations business development, internal audit and controls’. However, there is no readily available evidence to suggest that the anti-corruption training is tailored for these staff members, but rather that staff in these positions are the ‘minimum’ audience of the training. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has outlined the disclosure procedure for declaring conflicts of interest. TI notes that the score is restricted to a 1 here because conflicts are not reported to an independent department.

Based on public information, there is evidence of the company’s commitment to apply disciplinary action to employees and Board members found to be engaged in corrupt activities.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company provides multiple and well-publicised channels for reporting concerns or suspected corrupt activity. Section 11 of the Anti-Corruption Policy and Section 3 of the Code of Ethics and Conduct contain the specific regulations that confirm this. Employees may make a report to the company’s Compliance Department, to the confidential Helpline, or by visiting the online Ethics Portal.

Based on public information, there is evidence that across all geographies, employees have access to more than one reporting channel. This includes the Compliance Department and the Helpline.

Based on public information, there is evidence that employees are not deterred from whistleblowing; however, there is no readily available evidence that whistleblowers are supported. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has multiple well-publicised resources where help and advice on corruption-related issues can be sought.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company commits to non-retaliation for reporting of corruption in good faith. However, there is no publicly available evidence that disciplinary measures are applied to employees who breach this policy. The company therefore scores 1.