Oshkosh Corporation

Based on public information, there is insufficient evidence that the company has published a statement from the CEO or Chairman, supporting its ethics and ani-corruption agenda. The company’s Code of Ethics, referred to as ‘The Oshkosh Way’, contains a statement from the CEO in regard to the company’s ethics and values. However, TI is seeking statements from the last two years and the Code of Ethics was published in 2011.

Based on public information, there is insufficient evidence that the company’s CEO or Chairman demonstrate a strong personal external facing commitment to the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. In the Summer 2011 edition of Inside Oshkosh, TI notes that the CEO made a statement on the speak-up culture. However, this statement is outside the question’s two year timeframe.

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 values representing high standards of ethical business conduct, including honesty, integrity and accountability. The company describes why these values are important to the organisation and why they must be followed.

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

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has appointed the Audit Committee, with overall corporate responsibility for its ethics and anti-corruption agenda. TI notes that the Governance Committee has responsibility for managing the Code of Conduct.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has appointed the Vice President, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Bettye J. Hill, with responsibility for implementing the ethics and anti-corruption agenda. The Vice President, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, reports to the Audit Committee.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence of regular Board level monitoring or review, of the performance of the company’s entire ethics and anti-corruption agenda. Evidence suggests that there is a review of the performance of the company’s compliance with laws and regulations, but it is not specified whether this includes a review of the performance of the company’s ethics and anti-corruption agenda. However, the company scores a 1 as the Governance Committee reviews the Code of Conduct at least annually. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of a periodic, heavyweight review, of the entire ethics and anti-corruption agenda.

Based on public information there is no readily available evidence of a formal, clear, written plan, on which the review of the ethics and anti-corruption agenda is based.

Based on public information, there is no readily available 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. The 2013 Annual Report refers to consequences of improper or illegal activities in regard to US government contracts, but does not refer to any subsequent reviews of policies and practices.

Based on public information, there is limited evidence that the company has a formal anti-corruption risk assessment procedure, implemented enterprise-wide. The company states that international operations and sales put the company at risk of violations of the FCPA and other related legislation. However, it is unclear how this procedure is implemented in practice. The Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing risk management, but it is uncertain how this applies to corruption risk. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence of how this procedure is applied to corruption risk, who owns the mitigation plans and when they must be applied.

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. The company states that international operations and sales put the company at risk of violations of the FCPA and other related legislation. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the company has an anti-corruption risk assessment procedure for assessing such proposed business decisions.

Based on public information, there is readily available evidence that the company conducts due diligence, that minimises corruption risk when selecting or reappointing its agents. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that due diligence is refreshed at least every three years and/or when there is a significant change in the business relationship.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has processes for the behaviour, monitoring and control of agents with respect to countering corruption. Agents must scrupulously adhere to the FCPA and company employees must monitor their conduct. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that it has the right to terminate a contract if corrupt activities are found.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company makes clear its stance on bribery and corruption, to contractors, sub-contractors and suppliers, in the Supplier Code of Conduct. Suppliers who are not compliant with the Code will have the opportunity to improve their practices. However, the company has the right to terminate a contract if a supplier refuses or fails to follow the Code.

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, which prohibits the giving and receiving of bribes, kickbacks and inappropriate 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 some evidence that the company’s ethics and anti-corruption policies are easily accessible to Board members, employees and third parties. In particular the Oshkosh Way, the Supplier Code of Conduct, and the Code of Ethics Applicable To Directors and Senior Executives, are available on the company’s website. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that ethics and anti-corruption policies are available in multiple languages.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s ethics and anti-corruption policies are easily understandable and clear, to Board members, employees and third parties. These policies are written in comprehensible language without dense, legal terms.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company’s ethics and anti-corruption policies explicitly apply to all employees and Board members.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy on potential conflicts of interest, which is applicable to both employees and Board members. This includes a definition of a conflict of interest and two examples.

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. Employees are not allowed to accept or give gifts of more than nominal value, which is defined as $50 or more from anyone who has or seeks a business relationship with the company.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a policy for the giving and receipt of hospitality (entertainment), to ensure that such transactions are bona fide and not a subterfuge for bribery. TI understands that employees are not allowed to accept or offer hospitality of more than nominal value, which is defined as $50 or more from anyone who has or seeks a business relationship with the company.

Based on public information, there is no readily available evidence that the company has a policy that explicitly prohibits facilitation payments. The Code of Conduct states that facilitation payments should not be made without the approval of the Legal Department.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company regulates political contributions. TI notes that employees are prohibited from using company funds to support a political party or candidate. However, it is not clear that the company fully refrains from making political contributions or what the process would be to regulate such contributions. The company therefore scores 1.

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 it lobbies. Employees are instructed to seek guidance when personally contacting a lawmaker, about an issue that may involve the company. However, no information is provided on the company’s corporate lobbying activities.

Based on public information there is no readily available evidence that the company has a policy that explicitly prohibits or regulates charitable contributions, in order to prevent undue influence or other corrupt intent. However TI notes that the company publically declares its annual charitable contributions total and lists affiliated charitable organisations. The company therefore scores 1.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company provides written guidance, in the form of examples and scenarios, within the Oshkosh Way. The company also has a separate Code of Ethics Applicable to Directors and Senior Executives.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a training programme on its Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, which includes an anti-corruption policy. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that it has an explicit anti-corruption training module.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company provides training to employees on its Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct, which includes an anti-corruption policy. However, there is no specific evidence that this training is provided in all countries where the company operates or has sites. The company therefore scores 1.

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 insufficient evidence that the company provides tailored ethics and anti-corruption training for employees in sensitive positions. The company states that employees will receive compliance training related to their position. However, it is unclear what positions receive the training and if it is focused on corruption risk.

Based on public information, there is readily available evidence that the company has a clear and formal process by which employees declare conflicts of interest. This involves employees reporting potential conflicts of interest to the General Counsel or the Corporate Compliance Group.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has an explicit commitment, to apply disciplinary procedures to directors and senior employees found to have violated the Code of Ethics. However, the company does not have an explicit commitment to apply disciplinary procedures to all other employees who violate the company’s Code. The company only states that ‘violations of our policies can result in disciplinary action’. The company therefore scores 1. To score higher the company would need to provide evidence that it has an explicit commitment to apply disciplinary procedures to all employees who violate its ethics and anti-corruption policies.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has multiple, well-publicised, secure channels, for employees to report concerns or instances of suspected corrupt activity. These include HR and the Corporate Compliance Group. In particular, employees can report using the Code Connection Hotline, which is externally operated and facilitates anonymous reporting.

Based on public information, there is evidence that across all geographies, all employees have access to more than one reporting channel. For example, employees can report to HR, the Corporate Compliance Group or the Code Connection Hotline.

Based on public information, there is insufficient evidence that the company has formal and comprehensive mechanisms to assure itself that whistleblowing by employees is not deterred, and that whistleblowers are treated supportively.

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. This includes a HR, the Corporate Compliance Group and the Code Connection Hotline.

Based on public information, there is evidence that the company has a commitment to non-retaliation for bona-fide reporting of corruption. The company states that it ‘may’ discipline individuals that retaliate against anyone who reports in good faith.