On February 19, Bloomberg reported that Alcatel-Lucent “agreed to pay $137.4 million and change internal procedures to avoid U.S. prosecution for alleged bribes paid in Costa Rica, Taiwan and Kenya, according to a company regulatory filing.”

This settlement is part of a “serious crackdown” on violators of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), says Jan Fetter-Degges, Manager of RiskMetrics Group’s Global Sanctions Service. “Over the past year, the Justice Department has levied unprecedented fines on firms accused of foreign bribery and accounting fraud.”

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, investors and lawmakers are mobilizing to obtain more disclosure on corporate political spending.

Frequent enough tourist destination cities, like Boston, and you’ll get to know shell games. Players will try to guess which of three shells covers a pea or a stone. Try to take a picture, and you suddenly learn it’s a team con. It’s not just the operator’s flashing hands that tease the mark’s wits.

Reading the four opinions written by the majority in the January 21 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission¹ brought to mind this team sport. Comment has focused mainly on the majority opinion – and the Court’s decision – written by Justice Kennedy. Three concurring opinions – one each by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas – have attracted less attention than they should.

Most discussion of the impact of proposed clean energy legislation has focused on consumer-facing energy firms, such as major oil companies and electric utilities. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which has already passed the House, will affect wholesale energy companies, as well. As oil and gas remain integral to the US economy, how this sector’s firms respond to these provisions will have broad implications for consumers and investors.

A generally favorable Reuters story on Mary Schapiro's progress as SEC chair ends on what is, to me, a very sad note:

[Redoubtable Columbia Law Professor John] Coffee said changing the SEC's culture was a little like changing the culture of the Roman Catholic Church. "A new pope can come in, but the curia is still there and the cardinals still have their set traditions."

RiskMetrics Group today announced its sixth annual Global ESG 100. The Global ESG 100 companies are selected from a pool of 2,000 firms in more than 50 countries for their effective management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities.

This year's list welcomed 35 companies, 20 of which have never been listed, including Sharp Corporation, which has strengthened its environmental performance and ramped up solar cell production. Other newcomers included Safeway Inc., Discovery Communications Inc., Abertis Infraestructuras, Danske Bank A/S, and Osaka Gas Company.

Most comments on the January 21 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1) have focused on the effects of direct contributions by corporations to candidates. Are such contributions invitations to corruption, or exercises of protected speech by persons associated in corporations?

But for those concerned about corporate governance or corporate accountability in any of its forms, Citizens United has a context and implications that go well beyond elections and freedom of speech. These challenge fundamentally the notion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and socially responsible investing (SRI).

In this post and some that will follow, I want to explore how Citizens United affects what proponents of CSR and SRI have advocated.