Lack of Bribery Act Awareness by One-Third of UK Small Businesses Poses Risk for Partners

Jul 20, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

The SMEs that participated in the survey were all businesses that currently export, or plan to export goods and/or services in the next five years. The survey assessed the following five topics:

  • SME awareness of the Bribery Act
  • the use of guidance and advice on bribery prevention procedures, such as the MOJ guidance issued in connection with the 2011 implementation of the now five-year-old law to assist businesses in determining which prevention procedures would be suitable for a company based on guiding principles of compliance best practices
  • the extent to which SMEs had implemented antibribery procedures and the accompanying costs
  • how the Bribery Act impacts exports and operational behavior overseas
  • any specific concerns or problems that the SMEs had experienced as a result of the Bribery Act or the MOJ guidance.

Specifically, the survey focused on Section 7 of the Bribery Act, which imposes corporate criminal liability on organizations for an offense committed by a person associated with them in order to obtain or retain business or an advantage in the conduct of business, unless the organization can show that it has adequate bribery prevention procedures in place.

The survey found that only 66 percent of the surveyed SMEs had either heard of the Bribery Act or were aware that it provided for corporate criminal liability for failure to prevent bribery. Notably, SMEs exporting to regions such as the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and South and Central America had a greater awareness of the Bribery Act and its significance than those exporting to countries that are generally perceived to have a lower risk profile, such as Europe, North America and Australia. However, 74 percent of the aware SMEs were not cognizant of the MOJ guidance regarding the Bribery Act. A third of the SMEs who were aware of the Bribery Act stated that the company used some form of guidance other than, or in addition to, the MOJ guidance, ranging from lawyers to business consultants to trade or professional bodies.

Only a third of the SMEs had weighed the risk of being asked for bribes and were more likely to have done so if they exported to China. Around 42 percent of the SMEs said that they had developed and implemented bribery prevention procedures. Among the SMEs that did have procedures in place, these procedures were most typically financial and commercial controls, such as bookkeeping, auditing and approval of expenditures. However, despite these numbers, the majority of the aware SMEs felt that the Bribery Act had no impact on their ability or plans to export.

The results of the SME survey can be read as demonstrating that the Bribery Act is having a preventive effect among the business segment most likely to encounter foreign bribery risks. In general, the survey results showed that businesses that were exporting, or planned to export, to geographic areas with a perceived higher risk profile had a greater awareness of the Bribery Act.

The results also suggest that there is room for education and compliance program enhancements among SMEs. There is increased risk for SMEs that lack awareness of the Bribery Act and its enforcement scope, because a business that is not aware is unlikely to take measures to detect and mitigate bribery risks. A lack of awareness by a full third of U.K. SMEs engaged in international commerce also brings risk for companies or individuals doing business with them, given the reach of the Bribery Act and other international anticorruption laws like the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), to instances of bribery engaged in by the company or associated persons, like employees (under the Bribery Act) and third-party business partners (under the FCPA).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.