Board Member and Officer

2016 – 2017
Ethics Education

1
2016- 2017 Ethics Sessions Objectives

Objectives:
❑ To continue our ethics education strategy for both Officers and Board members through
the discussion of ethical scenarios.

❑ To allow Officers the opportunity to practice ethical decision making skills and critical
capabilities in difficult or grey areas.

❑ To provide a chance to practice on potential risks without having the benefit of experience
in the industry presented in the case.

❑ To permit Board Members the same opportunity to practice decision making skills and
capabilities in difficult or grey areas.

❑ To Highlight the changing and challenging market place.

❑ Every Officer is expected to facilitate a similar session within their organization. This
provides an opportunity to lead by example and to demonstrate our Leadership Principle,
“We develop each other”.

2
2016-2017 Ethics Dialogue Session Case

DLA Piper has developed and produced a fictional drama titled “At What
Cost?” The film depicts a corporation dealing with multiple issues:

• the drive for corporate growth and strategic shift towards new
business ventures;

• the litigation and regulatory environment faced by board members,

general counsels, and senior business executives;

• and the implications of these for the handling of investigations,

reporting and stakeholder interests.

The film was created as an interactive discussion piece that can be used
with multiple audiences, including directors and officers. It is formatted in
three 15 minute segments, designed for facilitated analysis and discussion
with attendees after each segment.

3
2016 – 2017 Ethics Dialogue Session logistics

Officers Board Members

◼ Session is a video case study

◼ Session was a 90 minute video case study
◼ Sessions took place over 9 months
◼ Facilitated discussion:
◼ CEO’s direct report and his/her Officers
◼ By DLA Piper
participated in session as a group
◼ By EBC
◼ CEO’s direct report asked to provide a two hour
commitment in which their leadership teams ◼ Session and debrief held at the July 2017
would be expected to be in attendance Board Meeting
◼ Remote participation was not an option
◼ Small officer groups could combine sessions
◼ Facilitated discussion by EBC
◼ Obtain Officers situations /questions
anonymously for use in future sessions
◼ Every Officer was expected to facilitate a similar
session within their organization.

4
 2016-2017 Ethics Dialogue Session Outcomes
1 2
Officers
At the end of each segment:
▪ Discuss relevant issues raised
▪ What are the implications for
EPTICOM?
▪ What could or should have been
done differently?
▪ How might the issues be handled
going forward?
Incorporate comparisons of
EPTICOM and Allstate:
How are EPTICOM and Allstate similar?
Do we have similar risks?
What are they?
Where are we vulnerable?
If we look in the mirror, is what we see
the same as what we tell others ?
Could what happened at EPTICOM
happen at Allstate? Why? Why not?
3
Debrief with
Board Members Board on Officer
Sessions
At the end of each segment: At the conclusion of all sessions:
▪ Discuss relevant issues raised ▪ Share with the Board the Officer
responses and feedback
▪ What are the implications for
EPTICOM? ▪ How does Officer responses/
feedback compare to Board
▪ What could or should have been done feedback?
differently?
▪ What did we learn?
▪ How might the issues be handled
going forward? ▪ Are there next steps?
Incorporate comparisons of
EPTICOM and Allstate:
How is EPTICOM similar to Allstate?
It is clear what decisions the Board
makes? The CEO? The Business
leaders?
Where are we vulnerable?
In looking at possible business
expansions (i.e. M&A) are there
particular risks that are of concern?
Could what happened at EPTICOM
happen at Allstate? Why? Why not?
5