*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 1. In 2001, D. Yoffie and M. Kwak published an article in the Harvard Business Review entitled "Playing by the rules - How Intel avoids antitrust litigation" [1]. In it, the authors explain how Intel has become a model for compliance in the area of competition law. Almost ten years later, Intel's track record and the European Commission's decision of 13 May 2009 raise questions. Shouldn't there be a discrepancy between Intel's position as described and praised in a first-rate review and the reality of this company's situation in its confrontation with the rules of competition law? What hypotheses can be formulated in an attempt to find explanations? Does
|
ARTICLES: COMPLIANCE PROGRAMME - EUROPEAN COMMISSION - HISTORIC FINE - INTEL CASE
The Intel case, ten years later: the compliance’s myth revisited?
The Intel case gives an opportunity to wonder about the usefulness and efficiency of compliance programmes. Whereas Intel has been quoted, in a paper published almost ten years ago in the Harvard Business Review, as a model as regards compliance programmes, the European Commission took action against the company and imposed a historic fine. Even if we need to avoid hasty conclusions, it is however possible to raise two main hypotheses. Did Intel fail to build a compliance culture, despite specific investments and its willingness? Or did Intel develop its compliance programme in a logic of legal risks management, which does not render by a mechanical submission to law but by an assessment of the “gap risk” between the firm’s strategy and the legal norms, and its consequences?
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers
Already Subscribed? Sign-in
Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.
Read one article for free
Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.
