PRACTICAL TIPS FOR BRIBERY RISK ASSESSMENT: IDENTIFYING AND MITIGATING VULNERABILITIES
Shortly before noon on 14 August 2018, amid a severe thunderstorm, a 210-metre section of the Ponte Morandi – a suspension viaduct in the industrial port city of Genoa – collapsed into the Polcevera river and onto nearby warehouses and rail lines. The collapse killed 43 people and severed a major transport link between Italy and France.
In the immediate aftermath, and with officials jockeying to assign blame for the disaster, it emerged that the bridge’s designer had authored a report nearly 40 years earlier warning about the unforeseen corrosive effects of the city’s maritime atmosphere and nearby factory fumes. The report recommended removing corrosion from the reinforcements and fully sealing exposed patches to maintain the structure’s integrity. Although the engineer’s warning was not ignored, adequate maintenance proved to be an ongoing challenge over the following decades, and in the end, the structure was overwhelmed. As the saying goes, rust never sleeps.
Corruption, like rust, is impartial. It will take hold wherever conditions allow, wearing down the bonds, chemical or ethical, that give a structure its strength. It is dispassionate about collateral damage, indifferent to its victims and relentless in its exploitation of weaknesses. Like large metal structures are inherently vulnerable to rust, commercial organisations are vulnerable to corruption, and they are expected to have internal processes to detect and prevent it. Attempting to prevent corruption without a roadmap, however, may prove to be as futile as putting a fresh coat of paint on a crumbling viaduct. Implementing a tailored, comprehensive plan to detect and prevent corruption should be among a company’s top priorities.
Apr-Jun 2020 Issue
TRACE