Indra Sistemas, S.A.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has published a statement from the Chair of the Board supporting the ethics and anti-corruption agenda of the company. However, as the statement was not issued within the last two years the company is unable to score on this question.

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

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company publishes a statement of principles representing high standards of ethical business conduct, including integrity and transparency. The Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct explains in-depth why integrity and transparency are important to the company and how employees should implement them in practice. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of at least one more of the values sought by this question.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company signed the UN Global Compact in 2004.

Based on public information, there is readily available evidence that the company has appointed the Audit and Compliance Committee with overall corporate responsibility for its ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The Committee's tasks include reviewing the internal control and risk management systems, and supervising compliance with the Code of Ethics. As part of this it evaluates employee reports made to the Direct Channel.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has appointed the Chief Compliance Officer with responsibility for implementing the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The Chief Compliance Officer heads the company’s Compliance Unit. However, the Chief Compliance Office is not identified by name. Non-company information dating from 2011 suggests that the Chief Compliance Officer is Soledad Ramírez Fernández, but whether this is still the case remains unclear.The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is some evidence of regular Board level monitoring and review of the performance of the company's ethics and anti-corruption agenda. However, it is unclear in what format the review takes place and who has overall responsibility for programme review. The Audit and Compliance Committee and Tracking/Oversight Committee both review compliance with the Code of Ethics, with the latter producing an annual report. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of who has responsibility for a major review of its entire ethics and anti-corruption agenda.

Based on public information, there is limited evidence of a formal, written plan in place on which the review of the ethics and anti-corruption agenda by the Board or senior management is based. The Audit and Compliance Committee discusses and analyses the compliance programme, receiving information from the Compliance Unit on reports to the Direct Channel and mitigation responses. There is evidence of improvement plans with the update of the Code of Ethics in 2009, the creation of the Compliance Unit in 2011 and launching specific modules for the Compliance Programme in 2012 and 2013. To score higher the company would need to provide further evidence of the formal, clear, written plan on which the Audit and Compliance Committee bases the review of the ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a formal process to review and where appropriate updates its policies and practices in response to actual or alleged instances of corruption. The Oversight/Tracking Committee analyses questions regarding the content and application of the Code of Ethics, and incidents reported relating to non-compliance. The company states that in 2013 two non-compliance cases were analysed and resolved.

Based on public information, there is evidence of a formal anti-corruption risk assessment procedure implemented enterprise-wide. The risk management system clearly identifies the corruption risks associated with different geographies. There is evidence of mitigation plans such as a compliance programme with policies and procedures and training courses for employees. The company also has an internal audit department that reviews the company’s processes and units to determine whether the controls for mitigating risks are sufficient. The company therefore scores 2.

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.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company conducts due diligence that minimises corruption risk when selecting or reappointing its 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 the company makes clear to contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers its stance on bribery and corruption. The Supplier Code of Ethics states that bribery is prohibited, that suppliers must uphold the Global Compact Principles and requires a legal representative of the supplier to sign and accept the Code. However, there is no evidence of contractual rights to apply sanctions in the event of a breach of its contract. The company therefore scores a 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 minimuses 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. This includes any forms of active or passive bribery, facilitation payments and improper gifts and hospitality.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company’s anti-corruption policy is explicitly one of zero tolerance.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s ethics and anti-corruption policies are easily accessible to Board members, employees and third parties. The company states that the Code of Ethics is communicated and disseminated to all company professionals, and it is permanently available on the company’s website in English and Spanish. The Supplier Code of Ethics is also available on the company’s website in English and Spanish.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is written in clear, comprehensible language.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct applies to all employees. However, there is no explicit evidence that the Code also applies to Board members. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy on potential conflicts of interest. It contains a definition and suggests that employees should always try to avoid them. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of examples of potential conflicts of interest, to assist employees in applying the policy. TI notes that Board members have a separate conflicts of interest policy in the Regulations for the Board of Directors and its Committees.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy for the giving and receipt of gifts to ensure that such transactions are bona fide and not a subterfuge for bribery. However, the policy is unclear as it only states that employees must refuse gifts that are considered unusual or inappropriate. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that the company sets upper limits for gift exchange and/or has a requirement for senior management authorisation if a value threshold is exceeded.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy for the giving and receipt of hospitality to ensure that such transactions are bona fide and not a subterfuge for bribery. However, the policy is unclear as it only states that employees must refuse attentions and indulgences that are considered unusual or inappropriate. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that the company sets upper limits for hospitality exchange and/or has a requirement for senior management authorisation if a value threshold is exceeded.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a policy that explicitly prohibits facilitation payments. The company states that it is committed to fighting bribery, facilitating payments and any form of active or passive corruption. However, this question is seeking an explicit prohibition of facilitation payments. The company therefore scores 0.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company prohibits political contributions.

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. The company’s policy is limited as it only states that relations with governments are based on commercial or administrative purposes and that the company always complies with relevant laws. The company therefore scores 0. To score on this question the company would need to provide evidence of policy guidelines, for example employees requiring authorisation from individuals with legal expertise before engaging in lobbying activities, and display that it publically discloses the issues on which it lobbies.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company prohibits or regulates charitable contributions, in order to prevent undue influence or other corrupt intent. However, in the 2013 Annual Report the company lists non-profit foundations, associations and organisations it has collaborated with, and TI notes that the company publicly declares contributions made to non-profit entities. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher on this question the company would need to provide evidence of internal controls for charitable contributions, such as due diligence on potential recipients and counter signatures.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company provides written guidance to help Board members and employees understand and implement the firm’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. In particular TI is seeking written guidance that contains examples to illustrate particular situations.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a training programme on its compliance programme and Code of Ethics, which includes an anti-corruption policy. Training is based on biannual activities, including face-to-face and distance learning. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of an explicit anti-corruption training module.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s training programme on its compliance programme, which includes the anti-corruption policy, is provided in the principal countries where it operates. The 2013 Annual Report states that training actions were provided to employees in Spain and in Latin American subsidiaries. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that the company’s training programme on its compliance programme is provided in all countries where the company operates.

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

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 has an explicit commitment to apply disciplinary procedures to employees found to have violated the Code of Ethics. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that this explicit commitment also applies to Board members who have violated the Code of Ethics.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company allows employees to report instances of suspected corrupt activity to the Tracking Committee using the Direct Channel, via phone or email. The Direct Channel guarantees confidentiality but not anonymity. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of an independent source for employees to report to, which also facilitates anonymous reporting.

Based on public information, there is evidence that across geogrpahies, all employees have access to the Direct Channel. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher on this question the company would need to provide evidence that all employees have access to more than one reporting channel.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has formal and comprehrensive mechanisms to assure itself that whistleblowing by employees is not deterred and that whistleblowers are treated supportively. The Tracking/Oversight Committee analyses reports of non-compliance with the Code of Ethics and how they have been resolved, in addition to evaluating the Direct Channel. In its annual reports the company discloses the number of communications it has received. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of other mechanisms to assure itself that whistleblowing by employees is not deterred, such as issuing independent employee surveys or conducting follow up interviews with whistleblowers.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has well-publicised resources available to all employees where help and advice can be sought on corruption-related issues. Employees are able to contact the Tracking Committee using the Direct Channel, in regard to questions on how to interpret and apply the Code of Ethics.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a commitment to non-retaliation for bona-fide reporting of corruption.