Now that my mandate, initiated six years ago, as a member of the Ethics Committee of the Paris 2024 Organising Committee (“the Committee”), is coming to an end, it is time to share some views about a unique and incredible experience.
The Articles of Association of the Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games (“Paris 2024”), adopted on December 21, 2017, provided in Article 29 for the creation of an independent Ethics Committee, responsible for developing and supervising the ethical policy of Paris 2024 as managing conflicts of interest.
The Ethics Committee was set up and elected its Chairman on July 13, 2018. I was lucky enough to be one of the six members acting pro bono.
Since then, the Committee met for more than 50 formal sessions. In addition, there have been preparatory meetings, and meetings to finalize opinions and recommendations.
The Committee has adopted a broad conception of its mission, as shown by the range of subjects covered in its annual activity reports, all publicly available. It also monitors the effective application of its recommendations and opinions. It is not an investigative body and assumes no managerial responsibilities.
So, what are the institutional and substantive lessons to be drawn?
Institutionally, it is clear to me that any world sporting event such as the Olympic Games, the World Cup, and others, should set up an independent Ethics Committee but that such committee should present very specific features:
First, this Committee should be given the dual role to set up the policies and monitor their implementation, this therefore requires that it be set up well in advance.
Second, such a Committee should be independent, broad in terms of its mandate (including the possibility to “self refer” issues), transparent in terms of policy and general advice, effective in terms of individual and tailor made advice, respected, and respectable.
Third, the size of the Committee should be manageable but should also ensure a diversity of profiles and views.
Fourth, for the Committee to be effective some continuity in its membership is essential.
Substantively what have I learned?
On substance, challenge number one is conflict of interest: be it real, apparent, or potential. In a small community like the sport community, you cannot and shall not avoid any type of conflict of interest, but you should manage and mitigate any conflict to the fullest possible extent. We have provided both general policy and dealt with specific situations with this in mind.
Challenge number two is the incredible complexity linked to the organization of a major sporting event, particularly the Olympic Games. A number of issues, like the participation of athletes from Russia and Belarus, were not in Paris 2024 hands, but still questions were raised.
Challenge number three is the incredible level of scrutiny around these events. Geopolitical considerations and ESG concerns may have an impact in terms of ethical risks. As an Ethic Committee we could not ignore them but within the limits discussed below.
Challenge number four is to maintain the limits of the Ethics Committee role. As indicated above, the Ethics Committee is not an investigative body and assumes no managerial responsibilities. Some discussions were borderline but we collectively managed to remain in our remit.
Challenge number five is how to balance the need for resources in terms of sponsorship and other forms of financial and technical assistance with the need to have open and transparent procedures for issues such allocations of tickets, handling of the torch, location of events, etc…
For those who want to know more, several informational materials, including the code of ethics, are available in English, though, much to my regret, more is available in the French version (https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/committee/our-responsibilities/ethics-committee).
As we are now talking about the Paris 2024 legacy the experience of the Ethics Committee should be part of it and I hope L.A 2028 may take some inspiration.
International Lawyer, Former Director for Legal Affairs, OECD
Sometimes I feel like combatting debarment misinformation is a part-time job. Anytime misconduct involving a government contractor becomes public, criticism from the media, watchdog groups, and Congress often negatively influences a public that is largely uninformed about the debarment process, creating public pressure to rid the government of “bad” contractors.
Many of these calls for “more debarment” not only lack a basic understanding of U.S. debarment laws, they fail to acknowledge the extreme negative consequences of overly rigid or punitive debarment systems. I have spent the past 15 years publishing countless articles and essays in an attempt to counter the loud and, frankly, ignorant voices spreading misinformation about this critical risk management tool. Given recent attention to this issue, I have provided a brief explainer of U.S. debarment law and policy below.
.1. Is discretionary debarment in the United States used to punish “bad” contractors?
No. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.4 provides the framework for discretionary suspension and debarment in the U.S. procurement system and is grounded in the concept of “protection” rather than “punishment.” As noted in FAR 9.402: “The serious nature of debarment and suspension requires that these sanctions be imposed only in the public interest for the Government’s protection and not for the purposes of punishment.”
The punishment/protection distinction is one of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of the U.S. debarment regime – often leading to confusion and misunderstanding about how or why certain exclusion decisions are made when a contractor’s misconduct is discovered. The confusion likely stems from the mistaken belief that debarment is an extension of the government’s criminal justice system, designed to punish bad actors. Although this is certainly the case in some countries, in the United States, debarment is a “business decision,” designed to protect taxpayer dollars, not punish misconduct.
Even if there is cause to consider a contractor’s debarment, agency suspension & debarment officials (SDOs) must also assess whether exclusion is still necessary to protect the government’s interest by considering “mitigating factors” such as cooperation, disciplinary action against responsible employees, and compliance enhancements.
Because the United States attempts to balance its interest in promoting competition with its need to maintain the integrity of the system, it reserves debarment only for those contractors who continue to pose a threat to the government’s interests. The United States views the exclusion of contractors that, despite past misconduct, are otherwise responsible due to their significant mitigation efforts, as undermining its goal of competition by unnecessarily excluding contractors that are responsible enough to continue receiving taxpayer dollars.
2. But Contractor X did something bad. And fines and penalties don’t do enough to punish wrongdoers. Shouldn’t we use debarment as a form of punishment to more effectively deter misconduct?
No. Debarment is not an effective “sanction.” Systems that wield debarment as a form of punishment disincentivize disclosures and cooperation, deter compliance enhancements, and undermine government procurement competition. Don’t believe me? Just look at Canada.
3. Are some contractors too big to debar?
No. Although large contractors are less likely to be debarred than their small to mid-sized counterparts, the reason is not because of a “too big to debar” problem. As I explained in my article, A House of Cards Falls: Why Too Big to Debar is All Slogan and Little Substance:
[W]hen misconduct occurs in huge multinational corporations, the improper activity often involves a specific division or subset of employees, rather than the entire company. Thus, in responding to the misconduct, large companies are better positioned to sever the diseased sector, remediate, implement robust compliance programs, and move forward. In other words, these companies are often far better equipped to demonstrate their present responsibility. Small companies, however, often lack the resources to respond to and remediate harm and install new and sophisticated compliance programs. More importantly, because misconduct often permeates the entire firm, small companies are often unable to terminate the employees responsible for the misconduct, making full remediation impossible.
In addition, most of the largest U.S. contractors have the most sophisticated and well-resourced ethics and compliance programs in the world. With organizations such as DII and IFBEC continuing to support these efforts, many large contractors have become leaders in the ethics and compliance space. Consequently, when large contractors have compliance failures, they have the resources to remediate the problem, enhance their pre-existing compliance programs, and demonstrate that they are still responsible enough to receive government contracts.
4. But contractor misconduct makes me mad. Punishing them by taking away their government contracts would make me feel a lot better.
First, as a general rule, it’s not a great idea to allow “feelings” to drive the development of administrative policies. To the individuals calling for “more debarment,” I ask: Do you like paying more for things than you should? Do you prefer to buy lower quality goods and services? Do you want your taxpayer dollars to be wasted? No? Then STOP advocating for policies that undermine competition. I am not suggesting that we continue working with companies that are irredeemable or pose ongoing threats to the government. But if a company can demonstrate that they have fully addressed misconduct, engaged in remediation, enhanced their compliance programs, and no longer pose a threat to taxpayer dollars, they shouldn’t be debarred.
Second, this is a friendly reminder that bad stuff happens. No entity is immune from employee misconduct and compliance failures. The best any company can do is prevent as much misconduct as possible, detect misconduct that has already occurred, and mitigate the wrongdoing. Promoting policies that incentivize compliance investments rather than those driven by a visceral desire for retribution is the best way to protect government procurement systems.
Associate Dean, Government Procurement Law at The George Washington University Law School
Both translation and localization are important considerations when administering eLearning content to a global audience. While translation and localization are related, there are subtle differences between these concepts of which to be cognizant, and that, if utilized properly, can improve the user experience when taking a training course.
A translation is simply converting text or content from one language to another language. Localization takes a translation and makes it more specific to an audience, by accounting for items such as cultural differences, legal regulations, precision for local linguistic considerations, formats (date/time), slang, and imagery. Translation can work in conjunction with localization, but localization makes a product more authentic and appealing to participants, which can also encourage further engagement with compliance trainings.
Translations are typically effective in text that might not carry many nuances for interpretation of the content – for example, this could apply to areas such as technical or medical materials. Localization is more essential when appealing to specific global audiences and is beneficial in areas such as digital content, software, and marketing collateral.
Technological advancements in machine translation and localization software platforms, some with AI capabilities, have made it easier and faster to tailor compliance training content for different global audiences. This is certainly a convenience, yet there continue to be gaps in accuracy of the translation, along with some misinterpretations in the material.
While translations can be accommodated by machine translation systems, localization exactness is still best handled by humans. For example, the phrase “slipped through the cracks,” went through machine translation, including localization, for a recent TRACE project. The output into another language was a literal translation of the phrase. During a review of the output, a native linguist shared that there is a better, more culturally appropriate phrase for “slipped through the cracks.” An inaccuracy such as this could be seen as a minor oversight, but if similarly missed localizations are repeated throughout a training course, it can show a lack of attention to detail and potentially raise questions about the professionalism, quality, and reliability of the content.
All TRACE courses are translated into 6 core languages, which are those most utilized by our multinational audience—French, Portuguese, German, Japanese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. Each translation begins with an AI machine tool and is then rigorously reviewed and re-reviewed by two native linguists for accuracy.
In short, the best way to ensure compliance training courses are “global-friendly” is to:
· Begin with a machine translation tool to allow AI and machine learning to translate the course quickly and efficiently (there are many free translations software applications online, such as Google Translate)
· Have text and any voice over features in a course localized by linguists who are native speakers for each region in which the courses will be administered
· Watch out for colloquialisms and phrases that may require a change when localized
· Use local offices and departments within different regions to assist with translations reviews to save costs and ensure accuracy in jargon and terminology specific to your organization
· Whenever possible, keep a “translations memory” of terms that your company uses often to ensure accuracy each time these terms are used
Be sure to audit your tools regularly and always ask questions of native speakers to ensure your translations and localizations in compliance trainings create the most “global-friendly” approach.
Manager, Compliance Training Benefits, TRACE
This post is part of our “Ask an Expert” series where we take questions submitted by readers and ask an expert in the compliance field to provide insight. If you have a question you would like answered, please submit here. |