Perceptions of Corporate Compliance Officers of Leadership Approaches Affecting Key Corporate Functions Leading to Corporate Sustainability
In 2009, failed U.S. corporations, including Bear Stearns, AIG, and General Motors (GM), all reflected organizational structures supporting Peter Drucker’s (2001) three basic corporate functions of: (1) Mission or governance and/or ethics (finance, human resources, corporate counsel, etc.); (2) Worker Achievement or operations (purchasing, contracts, manufacturing or services, logistics, etc.; and, (3)Social Responsibility programs (corporate giving, environmental or “green” initiatives, etc.).All three of the failed corporations identified above (Bear Stearns, AIG, and GM) had established corporate compliance programs. To date, none of the recently failed corporations has been found to be non-compliant. How can world class corporations with viable corporate compliance programs become unsustainable and fail and yet have been “compliant” organizations? What strategies of corporate compliance can lead to improved corporate sustainability? What leadership approaches of corporate compliance officers support the effective implementation of strategic corporate compliance initiatives? This study utilizes a questionnaire to survey the perceptions of Corporate Compliance Officers in Southern California from corporations regarding leadership approaches of corporate compliance officers for implementing strategies leading to improved corporate compliance, and in turn, corporate sustainability. Corporate compliance strategies and the degree of integration among three fundamental functions of corporate structure identified by Peter Drucker (2001) as (1) Mission; (2) Worker Achievement; and, (3) Social Responsibility are assessed using a modified Balanced Scorecard model with a Likert Scale framework of questions ranking leadership approaches in relation to the three fundamental functions.
Index Terms - Corporate Compliance, Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, Business Ethics