2013-07-26-KPMG_China-2013年毕马威诚信调查_48页_3mb

KPMG Integrity Survey 2013 Summary

Introduction

The KPMG Integrity Survey 2013 investigates employee experiences and perceptions of fraud and misconduct in the workplace, based on responses from 3,573 U.S. employees. Conducted by KPMG Forensic, it assesses prevalence, nature, causes, and responses to misconduct, including the influence of ethics programs and regulatory factors. Key findings highlight ongoing challenges and opportunities for organizational improvement.

Key Findings: Prevalence and Nature of Misconduct

• Overall Misconduct: 73% of employees observed misconduct in the past 12 months, similar to rates from 2009 and 2005, indicating persistent issues despite earlier efforts.
• Seriousness: 56% of employees deemed misconduct serious enough to cause a significant loss of public trust if discovered, showing no significant change over time.
• Industry-Specific Trends: Increases in serious misconduct are noted in sectors like Electronics (+26%) and Chemicals & Diversified Industrials (+20%), reflecting evolving risks. Common misconduct types include financial reporting fraud and actions undermining customer or supplier trust.

Key Findings: Root Causes of Misconduct

• Primary Drivers: The majority of root causes cited are external pressures, such as feeling compelled to do "whatever it takes" to meet business targets (64%) and fear of job loss (59%).
• Cultural and Systemic Factors: Beliefs that organizational codes are not taken seriously (60%) and that systems reward results over ethical means (59%) are widespread. These issues persist despite economic constraints and show slight increases in 2013.

Key Findings: Reporting Behavior

• Reporting Channels: 78% of employees would notify a supervisor or manager, with increased reliance on ethics hotlines (53%, up from 44% in 2009), indicating better access to formal reporting mechanisms.
• Reluctance to Report: However, 23% indicated they might look the other way, and 26% planned to report misconduct outside the organization, highlighting concerns about retaliation and a growing tolerance for misconduct under legal protections like the Dodd-Frank Act.

Key Findings: Effectiveness of Ethics and Compliance Programs

• Program Influence: Organizations with formal ethics programs experienced lower rates of misconduct and higher employee confidence in reporting and organizational culture, demonstrating a positive correlation between program implementation and fraud prevention.
• Stakeholder Roles: Programs involve codes of conduct, training, audits, and incentives, all contributing to reduced misconduct and enhanced employee vigilance.

Regulatory and Cultural Context

• Legal Impacts: Compliance is shaped by federal laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which emphasizes internal controls, and the Dodd-Frank Act's whistle-blower bounty program, influencing reporting behaviors.
• Leadership Perception: Top executives are viewed positively by 67% but lack transparency on internal behaviors (only 57% believe they understand risks), while local managers score higher on trust and actionability, reinforcing the need for consistent "tone at the top."

Comparison with Previous Years (2009)

• Stability and Growth: Prevalence of misconduct remained around 73-74%, with minor decreases; serious misconduct rates have not significantly improved.
• Reporting Trends: Increased use of hotlines and whistleblower provisions, but consistent reluctance to report internally, suggesting a need for stronger internal cultures.
• Ethical Awareness: Root causes like pressure to meet targets have become more pronounced, indicating no substantial progress in mitigating underlying risks despite regulatory pressures.

Methodology

• Survey Design: A blind, national survey of U.S. employees in organizations with at least 200 employees, covering industries, job functions, and organizational sizes to ensure representativeness.
• Sample Confidence: 95% confidence level with a margin of error of ±1.64%, validating the findings' statistical reliability for organizational benchmarking.