There is evidence that the company publishes a statement in its Code of Ethics and Conduct which outlines its commitment to ethics and business integrity. The Code includes an introductory joint message by both the Chairman of the Board and the President and CEO of the company. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because the statement does not explicitly mention anti-bribery and corruption. The company makes some other published commitments to anti-bribery and corruption, however there is no direct evidence that these statements are endorsed by the company\u2019s leadership. <\/p>\n"},{"question":55,"commitment_area":7,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publishes an anti-corruption policy, which makes specific reference to the prohibition of bribery, payments to public officials, commercial bribery, and facilitation payments. This policy clearly applies to all employees, including employees and board members as described in (a) and (b) in the question.<\/p>\n"},{"question":56,"commitment_area":7,"score":"2","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the Board of Directors and the Audit, Risk and Ethics Committee oversee the company's Anti-Bribery and Corruption programme, which is part of a broader Ethics and Compliance Programme. The company indicates that this includes reviewing reports from management on the programme\u2019s performance, and there is evidence that the committee has the authority to require that any necessary changes or updates to the programme are made. <\/p>\n"},{"question":57,"commitment_area":7,"score":"2","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that a designated senior executive \u2013 the Chief Compliance Officer \u2013 has ultimate responsibility for implementing and managing the company's anti-bribery and corruption programme. The company indicates that this person has a direct reporting line to the board and board committee that provides oversight of the anti-bribery and corruption programme. There is evidence of reporting and feedback activities between this person and the board as part of the company\u2019s reporting structure.<\/p>\n"},{"question":58,"commitment_area":8,"score":"2","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has a formal bribery and corruption risk assessment procedure that informs the design of its anti-corruption and bribery programme. The company indicates that risk assessments are reviewed annually by the Board of Executive Officers, and this body reports to the Audit, Risk and Ethics Committee. There is evidence that the results of such reviews are used to develop tailored mitigation plans and to update specific parts of the company's anti-bribery and corruption programme.<\/p>\n"},{"question":59,"commitment_area":8,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company\u2019s anti-bribery and corruption programme is subject to regular review. However, the company receives a score \u20180\u2019 because it is not clear how frequently these audits or reviews are conducted, nor is there evidence to indicate that the findings are used to update the company\u2019s anti-bribery and corruption programme.<\/p>\n"},{"question":60,"commitment_area":8,"score":"1","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publicly commits to investigating incidents, and there is evidence that the company documents information on each investigation. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that it publishes information on the whole investigation process from receipt to final outcome, nor is it clear that the company takes steps to ensure the independence of its investigations. There is also no evidence that a central body reviews the status of investigations on at least an annual basis. Although there is evidence of an option for whistleblowers to monitor the progress of an investigation, there is no evidence that the company makes a clear commitment to providing whistleblowers with updates on the outcome of investigations. <\/p>\n"},{"question":61,"commitment_area":8,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that the company assures itself of the quality of its internal investigations. <\/p>\n"},{"question":62,"commitment_area":8,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no clear evidence that the company commits to report material findings from internal investigations to the board or to the relevant authorities, if necessary. There is some indication that reviewing reports falls under the remit of the Audit, Risk and Ethics Committee, however it is not clear that this may include handling and escalating material findings or criminal conduct to the board or authorities. <\/p>\n"},{"question":63,"commitment_area":8,"score":"1","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publishes some data on the reports made to its Helpline in 2017. The company also publishes a statement that in 2017 and 2018 there were no confirmed cases of corruption. The company\u2019s data is disaggregated to give the number of investigations launched and the number of disciplinary actions as a result of investigation findings. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is evidence that this data only relates to one specific reporting channel, so it is not clear that it covers all incident investigations. There is also no evidence that the information is published on an annual basis. <\/p>\n"},{"question":64,"commitment_area":9,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company provides a training module on the basic principles of its anti-bribery and corruption policy to all employees. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because it not clear how frequently the company conducts or provides this training. There is also no clear evidence that training is provided to all employees across all divisions, all countries of operation and in all appropriate languages.<\/p>\n"},{"question":65,"commitment_area":9,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company provides tailored anti-corruption training to employees in high risk positions, senior management staff and board members. However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because it is not clear how frequently these employees are required to refresh their training. <\/p>\n"},{"question":66,"commitment_area":9,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is some evidence that the company monitors and records its educational materials, attendance at training sessions and certifications of compliance, and that it conducts staff surveys in relation to employee engagement with Ethics and Compliance. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because it is not clear how frequently it conducts such reviews. There is also no clear evidence that the results are used to update specific parts of the company's anti-bribery and corruption communications and training programme.<\/p>\n"},{"question":67,"commitment_area":9,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no publicly available evidence that the company\u2019s incentive schemes incorporate ethical or anti-bribery and corruption principles.<\/p>\n"},{"question":68,"commitment_area":9,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that the company commits to support and protect employees who refuse to act unethically. <\/p>\n"},{"question":69,"commitment_area":9,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has a policy of non-retaliation against both whistleblowers and employees who report bribery and corruption incidents. There is evidence to indicate that this policy applies to all employees across the organisation, including those engaged by the group as third parties. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that the company assures itself of its employees\u2019 confidence in this commitment through surveys, usage data or other means.<\/p>\n"},{"question":70,"commitment_area":9,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company has multiple channels to report instances of suspected corrupt activity and seek advice on the company's anti-bribery and corruption programme. There is evidence that these channels are sufficiently varied to allow the employee to raise concerns across the management chain and to an external channel managed by an independent third party. There is evidence that these channels allow for confidential and, wherever possible, anonymous reporting. <\/p>\n
The company indicates that channels are available and accessible to all stakeholders, including all employees in all jurisdictions where the company operates and those employed by the group as third parties, as well as in all relevant languages.<\/p>\n"},{"question":71,"commitment_area":10,"score":"2","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has policies that address and define conflicts of interest, including actual, potential and perceived conflicts. There is evidence that the policies explicitly cover all of the categories of possible conflicts listed in the guidance \u2013 employee relationships, government relationships, financial interests and other employment \u2013 and apply to all employees and board members, including those of subsidiaries and other controlled entities. <\/p>\n"},{"question":72,"commitment_area":10,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has procedures to identify, declare and manage actual, potential and perceived conflicts of interest. There is evidence that managers and board members are required to complete declarations of conflicts of interest, which are reviewed by a designated body. The company states that disciplinary measures apply for breaches of its policies. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that all employees are required to make conflicts of interest declarations, nor that declarations are held in a dedicated central register. In addition, there is no evidence that the company\u2019s conflict of interest policy provides examples of criteria for recusals.<\/p>\n"},{"question":73,"commitment_area":10,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is some evidence that the company has controls to assess and regulate the employment of current or former public officials to its board of directors. However, the company receives a score of \u20180\u2019 because the company\u2019s policy only appears to apply to appointments to the board. There is no evidence that the company has a broader policy regulating the employment of current or former public officials.<\/p>\n"},{"question":74,"commitment_area":10,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no evidence that the company publicly reports details of the contracted services of serving politicians. <\/p>\n"},{"question":75,"commitment_area":11,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has a policy which prohibits corporate political contributions, whether by the company itself or by any other entity or individual acting on its behalf. However, there is evidence that the company is associated with a Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States, so the company therefore receives a score of \u20180\u2019 as per the scoring criteria. <\/p>\n"},{"question":76,"commitment_area":11,"score":"0","comments":"
The company publishes a statement that it does not make corporate political contributions. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20180\u2019 because there is evidence that it is associated with a Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States and there is no evidence that it publishes any information in relation to the PAC\u2019s disbursements on its website or that it provides a direct link to its official disclosures. <\/p>\n"},{"question":77,"commitment_area":11,"score":"1","comments":"
There is evidence that the company has a policy for both charitable donations and sponsorships, whether made directly or indirectly through its corporate foundations, to ensure that such contributions are not used as vehicles for bribery and corruption. There is some evidence that the company\u2019s internal procedures include measures to ensure this, for example, by requiring due diligence on recipients. The company publishes some information about the donations made through its foundations. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that it publishes full information about its charitable donations or sponsorships for the most recently reported financial year, such as details of the recipient, amount, country of recipient and which corporate entity made the payment.<\/p>\n"},{"question":78,"commitment_area":11,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that the company has a policy or procedure covering lobbying activities. <\/p>\n"},{"question":79,"commitment_area":11,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no publicly available evidence that the company publishes its lobbying aims, topics or activities. <\/p>\n"},{"question":80,"commitment_area":11,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no publicly available evidence that the company publishes information on its lobbying expenditure. <\/p>\n"},{"question":81,"commitment_area":11,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is some evidence that the company has a policy on gifts and hospitality. There is evidence that the company\u2019s policy addresses the risks associated with gifts and hospitality given to and\/or received from public officials. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that this policy specifies financial or proportional limits or different approval procedures for different types of promotional expenses. Although there is some evidence that gifts are recorded, there is also no clear evidence that gifts and hospitality above a certain threshold are recorded in a dedicated central register that is accessible to those responsible for oversight of the process.<\/p>\n"},{"question":82,"commitment_area":12,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that the company requires the involvement of its procurement department in the establishment and oversight of its supplier base. <\/p>\n"},{"question":83,"commitment_area":12,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is some evidence that the company has formal procedures to conduct risk-based due diligence on suppliers, which includes checks on ownership. There is some evidence to suggest that the company might be willing to review and\/or terminate supplier relationships in circumstances where a red flag highlighted in the due diligence cannot be mitigated. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that it repeats the due diligence process every two years or whenever there is a change in the business relationship. There is also no clear evidence to suggest that the highest risk suppliers are subject to enhanced due diligence. <\/p>\n"},{"question":84,"commitment_area":12,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company expects its suppliers to abide by its Code of Ethics and Conduct, and that it may include anti-corruption covenants in its written agreements with suppliers. There is also evidence that the company has a system to communicate its anti-corruption policies and expectations to suppliers. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no clear evidence that it takes active steps to ensure that all its suppliers have adequate anti-bribery and corruption policies in place or that they respect the Embraer Code of Ethics and Conduct.<\/p>\n"},{"question":85,"commitment_area":12,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no publicly available evidence that the company takes steps to ensure that the substance of its anti-bribery and corruption programme and standards are required throughout the supply chain.<\/p>\n"},{"question":86,"commitment_area":12,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no clear evidence that the company publishes high-level data on its ethical or anti-corruption incidents and investigations involving its suppliers. The company publishes a statement that there were no corruption incidents in 2017 and 2018; however, there is no clear evidence that this includes cases involving suppliers. <\/p>\n"},{"question":87,"commitment_area":13,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company has a policy to control the use of agents, which addresses the corruption risks associated with the use of agents and provides details of specific controls to mitigate these risks. As part of this policy, the company commits to establishing and verifying that the use of an agent is, in each case, necessary to perform a legitimate business function. There is evidence that this policy applies to all divisions within the organisation which might employ agents, including subsidiaries and joint ventures.<\/p>\n"},{"question":89,"commitment_area":13,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has formal procedures to conduct risk-based anti-bribery and corruption due diligence prior to engaging with agents and intermediaries. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because it is not clear whether agents and highest risk intermediaries are subject to enhanced due diligence. There is also no evidence that due diligence is repeated every two years or when there is a significant change in the business relationship.<\/p>\n"},{"question":90,"commitment_area":13,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has formal procedures in place to establish the beneficial ownership of agents prior to engaging them. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20180\u2019 because there is no evidence that it commits to not engaging or terminating its engagement with agents or intermediaries in cases where beneficial ownership cannot be established. In addition, although the company states that it may engage external vendors to independently verify beneficial ownership information, it is not clear whether it does so for all high risk agents. There is also no clear evidence that the company reviews ownership information at least every two years or when there is a significant change in the business relationship. <\/p>\n"},{"question":91,"commitment_area":13,"score":"2","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company\u2019s anti-bribery and corruption policy applies to all agents and intermediaries acting for or on behalf of the company. There is evidence that the company includes anti-bribery and corruption clauses in their contracts, which include audit and termination rights.<\/p>\n"},{"question":92,"commitment_area":13,"score":"0","comments":"
There is evidence that the company recognises incentive structures for agents as a factor in bribery and corruption risk. The company lists several red flags for third party intermediaries which relate to incentive schemes. However, the company receives a score of \u20180\u2019 because, based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that it has in place specific controls to mitigate these risks.<\/p>\n"},{"question":98,"commitment_area":13,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no evidence that the company publishes details of the agents contracted to act with and on behalf of the company. <\/p>\n"},{"question":99,"commitment_area":13,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no clear evidence that the company publishes high-level data on its ethical or anti-corruption incidents and investigations involving its agents or intermediaries. The company publishes a statement that there were no corruption incidents in 2017 and 2018, however there is no evidence that this includes cases involving agents. <\/p>\n"},{"question":100,"commitment_area":13,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has formal procedures to conduct risk-based anti-bribery and corruption due diligence on joint venture partners, which are included in the definition of a third-party intermediary. There is evidence that this process includes checks on the ownership of the partner.<\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that joint ventures operating in high risk markets or with high risk partners, such as state-owned enterprises, are subject to enhanced due diligence. There is also no evidence to suggest that due diligence is repeated at least every two years or when there is a significant change in the business relationship. <\/p>\n"},{"question":101,"commitment_area":13,"score":"2","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company requires joint venture partners to adopt its own anti-corruption policy. There is also evidence that the company requires anti-bribery and corruption clauses in its contracts with joint venture partners, and that these include audit and termination rights. <\/p>\n"},{"question":102,"commitment_area":13,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no publicly available evidence that the company commits to take an active role in preventing bribery and corruption in all of its joint ventures.<\/p>\n"},{"question":103,"commitment_area":14,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no publicly available evidence that the company addresses the corruption risks associated with offset contracting, nor is there evidence that the company has a dedicated body, department or team responsible for monitoring of its offset activities. <\/p>\n"},{"question":104,"commitment_area":14,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is no evidence that the company conducts risk-based anti-bribery and corruption due diligence on all aspects of its offset obligations.<\/p>\n"},{"question":105,"commitment_area":14,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no evidence that the company publishes any details of the offset agents, brokers or consultancy firms currently contracted to act with and on behalf of its offset programme. <\/p>\n"},{"question":106,"commitment_area":14,"score":"0","comments":"
There is no evidence that the company publishes any details of its offset obligations or contracts. <\/p>\n"},{"question":107,"commitment_area":15,"score":"0","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is no clear evidence that risk assessment procedures are used to inform the company\u2019s operations in markets at high risk of corruption.<\/p>\n"},{"question":108,"commitment_area":15,"score":"1","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publishes a list of its subsidiaries, holdings and joint venture partnerships, including information on the percentage ownership and the country of incorporation. There is evidence that this evidence is published and updated on an annual basis, as part of the company\u2019s Financial Statements. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because there is no evidence that the list includes the countries of operation for each entity.<\/p>\n"},{"question":109,"commitment_area":15,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company is publicly listed on several global markets, including the New York Stock Exchange. Based on the scoring criteria, the company is therefore not required to provide further details of its beneficial ownership and automatically receives a score of \u20182\u2019.<\/p>\n
In addition, the company indicates that the Brazilian government holds one \u201cgolden share\u201d, which provides it with veto rights in certain circumstances. This is understood to represent a meaningful minority of shareholder value. <\/p>\n"},{"question":110,"commitment_area":15,"score":"0","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publishes some information about its defence sales by customer. The company indicates that, for its most recently reported financial year, the Brazilian government accounted for 48.1% of its sales. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20180\u2019 because there is no evidence that it publishes information about its customers for at least 50% of its defence sales, nor that it indicates whether this data represents defence or non-defence sales, or both. <\/p>\n"},{"question":111,"commitment_area":16,"score":"2","comments":"
The company publishes clear information about its shareholder voting rights to indicate the percentage allocated to each shareholder. The company indicates that the Brazilian government holds a meaningful minority of voting rights though one golden share. <\/p>\n"},{"question":112,"commitment_area":16,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publishes information on its commercial objectives for both its commercial and defence businesses. There is evidence that these objectives are published and updated on an annual basis, as part of the company\u2019s annual Financial Statements. <\/p>\n"},{"question":113,"commitment_area":16,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company publishes information about the nomination process, appointment and composition of its board and provides details of its board members. The company discloses details of its nomination process, including the criteria for nomination, which company representatives are involved in the nomination, and who makes the final appointment decision. For each board member, the company discloses whether that person has any connection to the company or the state or is an independent director.<\/p>\n"},{"question":114,"commitment_area":16,"score":"2","comments":"
There is evidence that the company's board-level audit committee is composed of a majority of independent directors; in other words, non-company, non-executive and non-state affiliated. The company discloses the name and status of each member. <\/p>\n"},{"question":115,"commitment_area":16,"score":"1","comments":"
Based on publicly available information, there is evidence that the company has a system in place for asset transactions with related parties. The company indicates that responsibility for these transactions is held at board level, and that all transactions are documented and subject to scrutiny by the Audit, Risk and Ethics Committee. The values of these transactions are made public in the company\u2019s financial reports. <\/p>\n
However, the company receives a score of \u20181\u2019 because it is not clear whether this policy applies to all asset transactions or if it is applicable only in transactions with related parties.<\/p>\n"}],"main_products_and_services":false},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ti-defence.org\/dci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/companies\/510","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ti-defence.org\/dci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/companies"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ti-defence.org\/dci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/companies"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ti-defence.org\/dci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ti-defence.org\/dci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/countries?post=510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}