Is it at all possible for a construction firm to hold up against fierce competition without paying bribes?
Von Blomberg: Yes, of course. But unfortunately not all companies think so. Some actually believe they can secure their company's long-term survival that way. I think they are deluding themselves very seriously indeed.
Paulsen: We do, though, increasingly see corruption being acknowledged as a problem and branded as unacceptable. Think of the blacklists that are now circulating. We support fair conditions for competition–so that quality counts and not just price.
What can a company do to effectively counter corruption?
Von Blomberg: Four essential points go to make up a minimum anticorruption program: Absolutely zero tolerance–this is a voluntary commitment which management must expect to be measured against. Second, identify the weak points so potential gateways for corruption can be given security mechanisms to guard them. Here we're talking about structures and processes. Establish where the critical, corruption-prone functions, positions and work processes are in the company and in the industry. The third point is the workforce. Specific directives such as a code of conduct help workers spot corruption traps and avoid them. The workforce must know what is expected of them and what the consequences for misconduct are. What is decisive is not what's written on paper or what can be read on the Internet, but what people really believe in. This takes a big investment on the part of the company, because the workforce must really take this code of conduct on board. I'm sure that it's here that most companies make the biggest mistakes. The fourth point, and this is something that is not yet widespread in Germany, is protection for whistleblowers.
In general, a company's management and the investigating authorities depend on information from the heart of where the corruption is taking place – in other words from people who have either seen something or are even involved themselves. Typical scenarios are those in which such people would have to make accusations against the boss or against colleagues. An ombudsman can be appointed so people who raise the alarm know they will stay anonymous. We see this as an important instrument of prevention because it makes the risk of exposure significantly greater. However, it hasn't yet become established.
To sum up, then – these are the four points that form the basis of an anticorruption program: companies' own commitment, an analysis of weak points, a code of conduct and an ombudsman.
Paulsen: All four points are given consideration and put into practice at HOCHTIEF. We implement them in the context of our ethics management system. We have reviewed our Code of Conduct and make sure all employees are familiar with it. It is automatically part of all contracts of employment. We are also introducing training courses in which employees are taught how to cope confidently with situations that may lead to corruption.
In the USA, Turner, too, has recently reviewed its entire ethics management system. Turner has linked up with an outside body through which workers can report instances of corruption. In Germany, this service is provided by in-house attorneys who are subject to the legal profession's oath of confidentiality. Within the Group, we have now attained a high degree of openness as regards fighting corruption.
