Future conflicts of interest
First, a plug: at the upcoming annual conference of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association , I’ll be speaking on a panel on “A view from the edge: exploring the future of ethics and compliance.” It is a topic I addressed at the very first ECOA conference – held in 1992, when the organization had a grand total of 19 members and the entire C&E field was so new. I hope to see you at this year’s event, which will be held next month in Dallas.
Second, the COI story of the week – is also about the future. It concerns the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) accepting contributions from foreign governments, notwithstanding the prospect that Hillary Clinton will run for President. When she was Secretary of State, the organization did not take such donations, but they lifted the ban when she resigned from that post.
Of course, since she isn’t president, technically this isn’t an actual conflict. Rather, it is a potential COI.
What’s the difference? As discussed in this earlier post: Potential conflicts refer, as a general matter, to situations that do not necessarily constitute or appear to constitute a COI but where there is a reasonable possibility of an actual or apparent COI coming into play.
As with the risk analysis of any COI, with potential COIs one should consider the dimensions of likelihood and impact.
On likelihood, there are actually two questions relevant to this inquiry. First, how likely is the COI-triggering event to happen? Here, that event – Hillary becoming President – seems reasonably likely to occur. (The analysis might be different if we were dealing with a “Bernie Sanders Global Initiative,” or organization associated with another long-shot seeker of the office.)
Second, if the triggering event does occur, can effective mitigation measures then be implemented? That might be difficult in this instance because, if she did win the Presidency, presumably returning the donations to the foreign governments, though not impossible, would be pretty unpalatable – particularly if the money was already spent on the many critically important causes the CGI supports.
Finally, the potential impact of a COI seems high here as well. That is, the donations from foreign governments could undermine the trust that the American people have in the President, and perhaps cause suspicion in other countries too.
So I agree that CGI should ban foreign government contributions. But I also applaud the organization for its effective work on climate change (and in other areas), as the actual conflicting interest we have with future generations on that issue may be the greatest COI of all time.
(Some additional reading:
Two conflicts of the apocalypse.
Is the road to risk paved with good intentions?
COI policies for non-profits.)