...The Cradle Will Fall...
When Regulation’s Thumb Is on the Scale Forcing Societal Change
I recently wrote a blog post about the evolution of societal norms being the catalyst for regulatory change, which in turn drove compliance, and I stand by that. However, that exploration is not complete without discussion on the inverse – when regulatory change is the lever for societal change. Globally, history has shown good and bad outcomes when the few, through laws and regulations, define the moral and ethical framework in which the many live. good and bad outcomes when the few, through laws and regulations, define the moral and ethical framework in which the many live.
Frankly, examples of both outcomes quickly come to mind. Few would argue decades after Nelson Mandela drove change by the abolishment of apartheid rule in South Africa through centralized government that those reforms were not for the common good. Likewise, few would argue that the decades after dictators emerge and laws change to no longer favor equality are for the common good. From case to case, the very definition of compliance changes.
When you reflect on compliance and the nature of GRC, compliance means complying with established laws and regulations. There is an underlying assumption, at least historically, that those laws and regulations are just and warranted. Think about the weird laws that exist currently or did exist until recently. For example, in New Mexico, it was illegal to vote if you were an idiot until 2016. Imagine being the poll worker trying to comply with that law! Or in Gainesville, Georgia, where it is illegal to eat fried chicken with a fork. In 2009, a woman was actually arrested and convicted, but later pardoned. In Mobile, Alabama, it's illegal to "keep, store, use, manufacture, sell, offer for sale, give away or handle any 'spray string,' 'snap pops,' or other matter or substances similar thereto."
Some other weird laws came close to passing – can you imagine complying with the proposed Indiana law that changed the value of Pi to 3.2 because “there are just too many numbers in it to remember.” Fortunately, it stalled in the 11th hour after an uprising of math teachers.
There’s lots of important laws that drove from the top down, often at the expense of the political career of the individuals encouraging the bill. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he knew it was the end of his career as well as the end of democratic control of the still segregated south. Yet the fruit from that act lives on and is the basis for many of the compliance issues we face every day, including issues of discrimination and harassment. Few would argue against the merits, yet we also see the very negative impact of top-down clarifications. For example, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act cleared the path for free and fair elections, but subsequent top-down decisions impacted them negatively.
At the end of the day, we don’t make the laws. Or the rules. Or the regulations. But we do provide the platform our clients use to give employees a way to raise a voice when one of their policies is violated. We’ll keep doing our best to keep up with a compliance landscape that shifts seemingly with the whims of those who do make the rules.
The ETHIX360 blog brings you weekly updates on all things human resources and compliance.
MEET THE AUTHOR
J Rollins is the co-founder and CEO of ETHIX360. J is a well known leader and innovator who has served on senior leadership teams ranging in responsibility from Chief Revenue Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, SVP of Product Strategy and Chief Operating Officer.
ABOUT ETHIX360
At ETHIX360, our goal is simple: to provide an affordable, flexible, and comprehensive answer to employee communication, policy management, corporate training and case management on issues related to corporate ethics, code of conduct, fraud, bribery, and workplace violence.
