A Bribe is a Bribe

Why do organizations use sanitized language rather than more direct verbiage? A new generation of business leaders and employees is beginning to question the need for corporate speak. Michael Volkov discusses the need for a new approach.

Language communicates more than just words – indeed, the use of language reflects much more than simple communication. Often, a person’s language reveals an attitude, a feeling, a perspective and much more. I am often struck by how language is used by corporations to mask a clear and distinct idea. Corporate speak is a language unto itself; it can reflect a company’s culture and its commitment to honesty, trust and integrity.

Forgive me for questioning the use of corporate language, but when I read phrases such as “improper payments,” “questionable payments” and other equally vague terms used to describe flat-out bribes, I question the need for companies to avoid using accurate language. My overriding question in these circumstances is, why can’t the company use straightforward language?

A bribe is a bribe, and no matter how you characterize the payment, it is still a bribe. Of course, I recognize that in order to violate the FCPA or domestic bribery laws, a payment must be made with “corrupt” intent. In the FCPA context, a payment must be made with intent to influence a foreign official to act contrary to his or her official duties. Assuming that a payment is made with the requisite intent, such a payment constitutes a bribe.

…

http://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/corporate-doublespeak/