Black Swan: Politics

Burning Down the House

Populist anger propels non-traditional candidates whose policies could unravel the fabric of American commerce.
By: | August 3, 2016 • 13 min read

When politics as a whole gets stale, it’s refreshing when leaders with novel ideas come in and shake things up, rejuvenating the country’s imagination. Take it too far, though, and all that shaking can trigger a firestorm, threatening to turn the foundation to rubble.

The 2016 election cycle, at times more social media circus sideshow than electoral process, has the potential to substantially undermine business. Early on, it was easy to dismiss candidates’ “crazy” platforms and comments as hot air or just grabs for media attention. Over time, though, even the most radical of those ideas — whether from the left or the right — began to gain actual traction, leaving political and business leaders with knots in their stomachs.


For the past year, candidates have been beating the drum for dramatic changes to America’s approach to free trade, immigration, wages, taxes, education, foreign policy and globalization. The public, rather than rejecting or ignoring the rhetoric, has latched on. No matter how unworkable, impractical or seemingly ludicrous an idea a candidate has thrown out there, supporters are taking up the torch and running with it.

When the rhetoric is viewed through the sober lens of economic policy, many business leaders are worried that the proposals inflaming populist anger would unravel much of the economic foundation built since the end of WWII.

Concerns have deepened further since the UK’s “Brexit” surprise, a populist vote of no confidence against unchecked globalization and immigration — some of the same issues fueling the American populist movement against the establishment and political elites.

In the blink of an eye, British voters unraveled a structure in place for more than 40 years. Could it happen here? Without a doubt.

An Unquiet Nation

Much has been written about how candidates who would have been a blip on the radar in other election years managed to take center stage this time around. But there’s no real mystery to it.

The nation is angry. Rosy looking unemployment statistics hide the real picture of an increasing number of Americans underemployed, or getting by on contract work that provides no job stability or benefits.

For everyone else, wage stagnation is the not-so-new normal. The middle class is shrinking as the income equality gap widens by the week. Meanwhile, the Panama Papers are only the latest reminder that the world’s wealthiest have even more than they’re letting on.

“Anger among a great deal of the populace is not good news for anyone, business or otherwise,” GOP analyst Reed Galen said.

Kevin Kelley, CEO, Ironshore

Kevin Kelley, CEO, Ironshore

“You take a look at the angst and the anger here in the United States, and that’s being played out through the election process,” said Kevin Kelley, CEO of Ironshore. “[It stems] from this notion that there’s just not enough jobs, not enough opportunity and we need change.”

The U.S. turmoil is not happening in isolation, said Hank Greenberg, chairman and CEO of Starr Cos. “We are not in a world by ourselves. You have to look at the whole global economy, and things are not particularly brilliant in Europe. You have several central banks where you have negative interest rates, and you have negative interest rates in Japan. You have a global economy that is not particularly buoyant.”

In addition to anemic job creation in the U.S., “you have the market at 24-25 times earnings. We have huge debt, national debt — maybe as high as we have ever had, maybe even larger,” said Greenberg, who served on the President’s Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations during the first Bush administration.

“And you have an election coming up which through the primaries was more divisive than anything I have ever seen,” he said.

“It’s a backdrop,” said Kelley, “for a whole series of potential things that we’re facing, and by ‘we’ I mean those of us who take risk and those of us who manage risk.”

“You need people with stable minds who understand the responsibility they have in maintaining a world order.” — Hank Greenberg, chairman and CEO, Starr Cos.

Voters have lost faith in institutions they thought they could trust, from the government to corporations to banks and the media. And they have lost faith in the ability of career politicians to fix what ails the country. So when anti-establishment candidates stepped up to the mic and said, in essence, “Let’s blow up the status quo!”, voters said, “Bring it on.”

Looking at the economic situation tangled up with a social environment rife with protest, terrorism and violence, business leaders are hoping that once the election hoopla is over, the new commander-in-chief will be a calming influence.

“So you have a world where you have to weave your way through, and I think it would be a time to be a little more conservative than you would be otherwise,” said Greenberg.

Hank Greenberg, chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr & Co.

Hank Greenberg, chairman and CEO, Starr Cos.

“You need people with stable minds who understand the responsibility they have in maintaining a world order. … Having stability is very important — one of the most important things that each country has to manage in their own way.”

For businesses, a degree of uncertainty in election years is par for the course, particularly when there is no incumbent. But the question has typically boiled down to which party gets the White House, Republicans or Democrats? From there, making an educated guess about what the next four years would hold was a fairly academic exercise. Right now though, there are too many unknowns to make assumptions, and it’s making business leaders noticeably uncomfortable.

“Uncertainty is worse than just about anything,” said Galen. “If you know something bad is definitely going to happen … you’re not going to like it, it’s going to be terrible, but at least you can plan for contingencies around it.” But a volatile candidate “offers you no real chance to do that. You just have to hope and pray that whatever he does or does not do is not the death knell for your industry or your business.”

According to a Duke University/“CFO Magazine” survey in June, nearly half of U.S. firms reported pulling back on employment or investment as political uncertainty clouded their overall business outlook. And eight out of 10 CFOs said the U.S. economy faces moderate to large political risk due to election uncertainty.


“Companies take a big pause in the face of severe risk, delaying or scaling down business spending plans until the risk dissipates,” John Graham, the director of the survey, wrote in the report. Executives surveyed anticipated capital spending growth of 1.1 percent over the next year, down from 5.8 percent growth anticipated this time last year.

“For those of us who run global businesses, if we end up with an erratic president and/or loose cannon, we may be less willing to invest in the U.S. until we see how things are going to play out,” said Mark Watson, CEO of Argo Group International.

The Stroke of a Pen

Doomsday predictions make for catchy headlines, but it’s safe to assume that on the morning after the 2017 inauguration, we won’t be waking up to some dystopian New World Order, no matter who gets sworn in.

The markets aren’t likely to collapse either. According to “Fortune” magazine, the evidence of the past 70 years shows that presidential elections barely affect the economy at all.

But don’t exhale just yet.

The U.S. Constitution may spread the power across the branches, but sources point out that the power of executive orders — and the potential for abuse of them — should give business leaders pause.

Consider that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was enacted via executive order, as was the establishment of the Works Progress Administration — the lynchpin of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Of particular relevance to some of the more extreme rhetoric to come out of current campaign sound bites, Roosevelt also used an executive order to send 120,000 people of Japanese descent to internment camps — the majority of them American citizens.

“Hopefully there’s enough separation of powers so that a zealous president, Republican or Democrat, can be held in check by a vigilant legislative branch.” —Mark Watson, CEO, Argo Group International

In more recent history, President Obama issued a 2014 executive order to raise the minimum wage for all federal contractors and subcontractors from $7.25 to $10.10. It’s possible that the next president could do the same to quickly push through the popular call for a $15 minimum wage, putting upward pressure on states to keep pace.

Several presidents have been accused of overstepping the authority of the executive branch. The U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed an appeals court decision in United States v. Texas that challenged President Obama’s 2014 executive order that limits the deportation of certain illegal immigrants. Twenty-six states and the House of Representatives filed suit, arguing that the president effectively rewrote the immigration laws, and also imposed an unlawful financial burden on the states.

Mark Watson, CEO, Argo Group International

Mark Watson, CEO, Argo Group International

“Hopefully there’s enough separation of powers so that a zealous president, Republican or Democrat, can be held in check by a vigilant legislative branch,” said Watson.

Political appointees offer the presidency added opportunities for influence. The next president’s choice as a successor to Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen is on the minds of many, said Jon Lieber, United States director at global political risk research and consulting firm Eurasia Group.

“Political independence of the Fed is one of the cornerstones of our modern macroeconomic policymaking today. … If [the next president] appoints someone that isn’t as protective of the independence of the Fed, that has a material impact on the dollar; that has a material impact on interest rates; it has a material impact on the stock market; and it will have ripple effects that extend throughout the entire economy.”

Experts also caution that if the way the election campaigns have been run is any indication, the next president may not stop at executive orders or any other standard approach to getting things done. The contenders have shown a notable lack of interest in doing what’s expected of them, said author Meg Murer Tortorello, former senior vice president with the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

“They are not looking to follow the establishment thinking that ‘This is the playbook; these are the rules to follow.’ ”

Deepening the uncertainty about how any of the candidates will act once elected, there is the fact that the high level of volatility in the presidential campaign could impact other elections in unexpected ways.

“People should be looking at what’s happening down the ticket. They need to think about the disruption down the line,” said Tortorello. “It is not a quiet country right now. As the voices continue to be loud and grow louder, I don’t think Congress is going to be able to get away with business as usual if they want to keep their seats. That will be a different pressure than we’ve seen in the past.”


“The polarization of the candidates that exists in this election cycle means that it is also possible for Congress to turn over in a variety of different ways,” added Dr. Eric Eisenstein, director of the business analytics program, department of statistics, at Temple University’s Fox School of Business.

“Those things also ruin your estimates about how stable things are or how likely things are to be implemented. I think it is particularly [unclear] right now what will happen with Congress. … I feel like I’m on solid ground in saying that this is a more up in the air, more uncertain jump ball than usual.”

Getting Into the Weeds

“Until after the election, or until the policies become clearer, there is a case — if it’s not too costly — to put off investments, especially fixed and irreversible investments, and maybe not do so much hiring [or firing] but to just kind of stay where you are and put off some decision-making to the future,” said Scott Ross Baker, assistant professor of finance at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

But delay, in this case, may be an insufficient risk management plan.

“If people are sitting on the sidelines watching how the elections are going to play out this fall, thinking they’re going to have a year before the presidency and Congress can really get going, I think that is a big risk,” said Tortorello.

Company leaders cannot rely solely on checks and balances, said experts, or assume that political gridlock will be enough to prevent dramatic upheavals.

“If you are charged with that task of looking down the road … and asking what is the environment going to look like for us from a governmental or from a regulatory perspective, the idea that you’re somehow not worried at all about it seems foolhardy,” said Galen.

Jon Lieber, United States director, Eurasia Group.

Jon Lieber, United States director, Eurasia Group.

“Over the course of the last 60 or so years, the executive branch has taken on and been given enormous independent authority by the legislative branch.”

“It’s more important than ever to follow these kinds of political developments,” added Lieber. “Unfortunately, companies have to spend more time getting into the weeds of what’s happening with the federal government [and] what’s happening in the regulatory space as it affects their industry.

“Part of that’s just a matter of paying attention … and understanding where the pressure points are. It’s important in a way that I think it wasn’t 20 or 30 years ago for corporations.”

Now is the time to be thinking about how to manage the potential risks, experts said.

“Companies that are being more proactive and trying to mitigate some of those risks now, those are the ones that are going to be more successful within the next year, two years,” said Tortorello.

Executives can begin to assign probabilities to the things their company leaders are worried about, said Ironshore’s Kelley.

For example, he said, “What happens if economic growth comes in even lower than we think? What’s the probability of that? Because that would have impacts on risk and how you mitigate risk. What happens if Fed policy gets misinterpreted and interest rates move up more quickly than the market thinks? That would have an impact on business.”

Mike O’Connor, CEO, Aon Risk Solutions

Mike O’Connor, CEO, Aon Risk Solutions

The issues outlined on the candidates’ websites can function as a jumping-off point, said Tortorello. “Overlay that with a lens of what could happen with gridlock, which are going to be easier wins, which are going to help drive economic growth.

You can, in a sense, create a grid for your company to think about which could really impact you and which has a higher probability of moving more quickly or more slowly.”

“Having the organization reflect on the potential impacts, the magnitude of the potential impacts, and how they would react is a completely logical approach,” said Mike O’Connor, CEO of Aon Risk Solutions.

“The best way to be prepared is to be proactive,” he said, which means having a mind-set of resiliency and “looking out the windshield rather than the rear-view mirror in terms of understanding what might impact their businesses.”

An Opportunity to Step Up

Executives are hopeful that all of the current turmoil will eventually result in change for the better.

The economy obviously needs more growth, said Kelley, “and one good way to help stimulate that is through infrastructure spending. I think regardless of who the next president is, there’ll be a lot of focus on that and there’ll be a lot of benefit to the economy if that is done right.

Meg Murer Tortorello, author, former SVP at Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

Meg Murer Tortorello, author, former SVP at Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

“We could end up creating more jobs and ultimately improving productivity. If we improve our roads, our airports, the byproduct is not just jobs today, but improved productivity for tomorrow. I think that is not foolish optimism.”

Tortorello hopes business leaders will take that kind of thinking a step further and work to be a part of what drives that change by sharing their ideas with candidates, with the White House, and with congressional leaders.

“[Executives can] take a look at the laws that are hampering innovation, the laws that are hampering job growth and job creation — what are the laws that are holding their communities back from building and prospering?

“There’s an opportunity for the business sector to think about what would help their companies, what would help their market sector, what would help their community and their country, and put those ideas forward.”

Tortorello added that the exercise of developing those ideas can be of great benefit to companies as they think about the outcome of the elections and their organizations’ risks and goals.

“When you’re sitting down with your senior management team and talking about what’s holding us back or what would help us jump forward, it helps you think outside of the box. It helps you think more like a disruptor.”


That can help companies think through ways to be more agile once the elections happen, she said, while also helping them understand the role they can play in helping the overall economy, creating jobs and helping the country prosper.

“Executives need to be thinking through the disruption,” said Tortorello. “Regardless of who wins, there are opportunities for the business sector to step up and help — help calm some of the unrest of our nation as well as create innovative opportunities and mitigate their own risks.

“The business sector, I hope, won’t sit on the sidelines. We can be a part of the conversation to really help the country.” &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected] Additional reporting by Dan Reynolds.

More from Risk & Insurance

More from Risk & Insurance

Employment Practices


Sexual harassment is a growing concern for corporate America. Risk managers can pave the way to top-down culture change.
By: | March 5, 2018 • 12 min read

The #MeToo and #TimesUp movements opened up Pandora’s Box, launching countless public scandals and accusations. The stories that continue to emerge paint an unflattering picture of corporate America and the culture of sexual harassment that has permeated it for decades.


“The clock has run out on sexual assault, harassment and inequality in the workplace. It’s time to do something about it,” reads the official tagline of Time’s Up, one of the most vocal groups demanding change.

The GoFundMe campaign that supports the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund raised more than $16.7 million in less than a month, making it the most successful GoFundMe initiative on record.

Funds will be used to help victims of sexual harassment and assault bring legal action against harassers, as well as provide public relations consultation to manage any media attention such suits might attract.

The problem was never really a secret.

In surveys conducted since 1980 by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 40 percent of women and 15 percent of men consistently reported being sexually harassed at work.

In a sweeping meta-analysis of 25 years’ worth of research data, published in “Personnel Psychology,” an average of 25 percent of women reported experiencing sexual harassment at work. When respondents were given clear definitions of harassing behavior, that figure shot up to 60 percent.

The current climate is just now pushing awareness to the forefront. It was reported last November that law firms in the nation’s capital are seeing a spike in inquiries about sexual harassment cases.

Laura Coppola, regional head of commercial management liability in North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty

In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website is seeing visits to its harassment web page double.

There’s no question the costs to businesses can be staggering. Twenty-First Century Fox reportedly incurred $50 million in costs tied to the settlement of sexual harassment and discrimination allegations in its Fox News division, as well as a $90 million settlement of shareholder claims arising from sexual harassment scandals.

In June, the company disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had $224 million in costs during the fiscal year related to “management and employee transitions and restructuring” at business units, including the group that houses Fox News.

If time is indeed up, it won’t just impact Hollywood, Silicon Valley or Capitol Hill. It will impact every workplace, in every industry.

“It affects everybody,” said Marie-France Gelot, senior vice president and insurance & claims counsel for Lockton’s Northeast Claims Advisory Group.

“I think anybody in corporate America — at some point — has seen it or been aware of it or been around it.”

“This particular phenomenon is certainly at a much wider scope than we’ve seen in the last decade or so,” said Laura Coppola, regional head of commercial management liability in North America, Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty.

“This is going to touch many industries, many segments, and many people.”

Employers are beginning to wonder if their workplace could be next.

“I think if you’d been asking [insureds] a year ago, ‘Are you interested in hearing about sexual harassment prevention?’ I think the answer would have been, ‘No, we’re good, we’ve got it,’ ” said Bob Graham, vice president, HUB International Limited.

“But I think now everyone’s saying ‘Sure, yes, we’d like to hear something.’ ”

Leading the Conversation

As American workplaces come under increasing scrutiny, the time is ripe for a large-scale pivot in the way employers manage risks related to sexual harassment.

The co-chairs of the EEOC’s select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace expressed it aptly in 2016:

“With legal liability long ago established, with reputational harm from harassment well known, with an entire cottage industry of workplace compliance and training adopted and encouraged for 30 years, why does so much harassment persist and take place in so many of our workplaces? And, most important of all, what can be done to prevent it? After 30 years — is there something we’ve been missing?”

Experts in the management liability field unanimously told Risk & Insurance® these issues should be elevated to the board level and the C-suite.

“Just as cyber liability shifted rapidly from an IT discussion to a board level discussion, so too will the harassment and discrimination discussion go beyond HR and be elevated to the highest levels,” said Coppola. It will become a corporate-wide, enterprise-wide conversation.

“It’s going to take some time to get to that board level, but it’s going to have to happen,” said Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services.

“Risk management and HR cannot go down parallel paths, not understanding one another. Not anymore. There’s too much at stake.” — Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services

Risk managers, said Kelly Thoerig, U.S. employment practices liability coverage leader, Marsh, are well suited to lead this conversation, which means actively partnering with human resources, the legal department, the general counsel’s office and outside counsel.


“Just like the quarterback depends on the offensive line, on receivers, on the running backs, it’s not a one-man show,” said King. “This can’t be the risk manager operating in a vacuum; they have to be liaising with multiple parts of the organization.”

Added King, “Risk management and HR cannot go down parallel paths, not understanding one another. Not anymore. There’s too much at stake.”

Connecting with outside counsel can also be of great benefit to risk managers, said Coppola.

“[They can] provide a very independent objective view of what they see in the overall market and how their knowledge of the individual client’s best practices can be improved and enhanced to ensure that they are protecting employees and the organization.”

Brokers and carriers also may be able to offer insights and services. Unfortunately, that piece is often lost because risk management and HR are siloed.

“The [knowledge of the] services that come with the insurance policy end up with the policy — in a drawer in the risk manager’s office,” said Tom Hams, employment practice liability insurance leader, Aon.

“HR doesn’t know that they exist. Even if they’re just online blogs or something like that, they could be more meaningful to the HR department than they are to risk management.

“So it’s important to make sure that companies are aware they’ve got those tools and — more importantly — to share them internally.”

Expediting Cultural Change

The X factor that underpins every aspect of these efforts is culture, experts agreed.

“It’s not so much ‘does the company have best-in-class policies and procedures in place;’ I think many of them do. I think that a significant change needed is doing a full overhaul of corporate culture, and that’s no small feat,” said Gelot.

Paul King, national practice leader, management and professional services, USI Insurance Services

True culture change can only come from the top level. But that isn’t likely to happen unless everyone at the top understands what the scope of the exposure could be if it’s not addressed appropriately on the front end. And for that, money talks, said Thoerig, who will be presenting on the topic at RIMS 2018 in San Antonio.

“Nothing is more instructive than real tangible claims examples and settlement amounts. Arm yourself with … recent, relevant claims examples specific to the industry and the jurisdictions the company operates in.”

In addition, said King, HR and legal should be regularly feeding claims information to risk managers to share at quarterly meetings of the board and give specific updates around these issues.

Armed with that level of intelligence, top brass can set the goals that will drive all anti-harassment efforts, said experts, putting an emphasis on identifying and correcting behavior that could potentially expose a company to liability.

Better Training and Reporting 

The best anti-harassment programs are multilayered, said Hams, with each facet carefully tailored to suit the employee population, the industry and the organization’s goals. A clearly defined policy is essential, stating that harassment will not be tolerated and neither will retaliation against those who report it.

The policy should be clear that employees are expected to report harassment or unacceptable behavior. Hams said he’s seen companies go so far as to state employees who don’t speak up are in violation of the policy.

“At least it should give them pause to stop and think about what they might have seen before they click the button or sign the document,” he said.

Companies should consider how uncomfortable employees may be about speaking up. An open-door policy is a start.

But there should also be multiple reporting points throughout the organization, said Hams, and an anonymous hotline for those reluctant to bring the matter up with anyone in their chain of command, and a multilingual hotline as well.

An effective training plan will have multiple moving parts and should touch every level of the organization from the executive suite to managers and supervisors to the rank and file. Comprehensive training is especially critical for the managers and supervisors who might receive or investigate complaints.

Many large employers already have training programs that can be considered best-in-class. Small to midsized employers, however, may still be using the cookie-cutter compliance-centric training that has dominated the field for decades.

The goal of this training is to hit all the bases related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ticking off a list of acts or speech that would be considered illegal and affirming the company will not tolerate illegal behavior.

Overwhelmingly though, this type of training misses the mark. Studies have shown that this one-size-fits-all training is ineffective, especially when it’s a rote check-the-box exercise. Employees get the message their employer doesn’t take the subject too seriously.

Worse, it can even aggravate tensions, creating more discriminatory behavior from men who avoid working with women just to eliminate the chance of being accused of anything.

One study even found that men were more likely to place blame on the victim of sexual abuse after they’d received that type of anti-harassment training.

Even at best, compliance-centric training will still fail, because it only addresses behaviors that violate the law. But there is a broad array of behavior that — while not quite illegal — shouldn’t be tolerated.

When this kind of activity is allowed to flourish unchecked, the environment becomes increasingly toxic for those on the receiving end. It also tells employees that the company will tolerate harassment as long as it’s not overly egregious. In that case, it’s just a matter of time before the company is faced with a serious claim.

“Nothing is more instructive than real tangible claims examples and settlement amounts. Arm yourself with … recent, relevant claims examples specific to the industry and the jurisdictions the company operates in.” — Kelly Thoerig, U.S. employment practices liability coverage leader, Marsh

In its 2016 report, the EEOC’s harassment task force recommended changing tactics, exploring alternative training models such as respect-based civility training — what some call professionalism training.


The theory is “if you train them to act in a professional manner, these things tend not to happen at all,” said Hams.

The EEOC also suggested bystander intervention training, which is designed to empower employees to intervene when they witness harassing behavior.

Experts agreed whatever training programs or modules a company chooses, it’s important the training material reflect the workforce and be continuous and regularly refreshed.

A certification scheme also should be put in place to ensure the training is hitting the mark. While the law does not yet require companies to prove the effectiveness of their programs, some suggest it’s only a matter of time before the courts catch up to the problem.

What’s more, said Coppola, it’s simply the right thing to do for companies that want to confirm they’ve created a culture where all employees can expect to be treated professionally.

Zero Tolerance

Gelot and others believe a zero-tolerance policy should be a key component of an effective anti-harassment program.

“There are many companies that have Harvey Weinsteins and Matt Lauers and Kevin Spaceys working in their midst and those people are tolerated. Employees know about them — it’s not a secret.”

Bob Graham, vice president, HUB International Limited

Particularly when the harasser is a high-level executive, companies may wrestle with the decision to look the other way or lose a key rainmaker. In a zero-tolerance environment — one that starts at the top — the decision would be clear.

“What we saw with Matt Lauer and Charlie Rose — they were terminated immediately as the accusations came out. That’s zero tolerance. That’s sending a message to all of the employees within the company that this is completely unacceptable, we won’t tolerate it, and [it] clearly sends a message to the public at large.”

Employers should promote a workplace culture where all forms of harassment and discrimination are unacceptable and reportable, said Gelot. That’s the only way to take the fear and the stigma out of reporting.

That said, the EEOC offers a word of caution on zero-tolerance policies applied militantly without regard for common sense. Employers should hash out the specifics of which acts merit immediate termination versus a warning.

Overzealous application of the zero-tolerance doctrine can backfire if an employee fears her coworker’s children will go hungry if she reports his lewd or sexist jokes.

Creating a Dialogue

As with managing any other exposure that touches everyone, robust sharing of ideas and best practices has the power to improve the risk profile of entire industry sectors.

Facebook raised eyebrows in December, making public its sexual harassment policy in full.

“I hope in sharing it we will start a discussion, both to help smaller companies thinking about this for the first time, and to improve our own practices by learning from other companies,” wrote Lori Goler, Facebook’s global VP of people, about the company’s bold move.


That level of disclosure is making some risk professionals uncomfortable. But others acknowledge the wisdom of it.

“Any time you can share best practices that’s probably a great idea, because no one has all the answers … or at least not all the right answers,” said Graham.

“There’s a reason they did that, and I think it’s for all the right, positive reasons. They want to drive the momentum that is going to reduce or even eliminate what we have seen in corporate America over the last 50-plus years. They want to lead by example, they want to be the model and rightly so,” added Coppola.

“I think we are at a perfect time in our economic environment that allows the evolution of equality in our workplace.”

Part of that should involve making the workplace more egalitarian, said Gelot, and figuring out “how to make female employees not feel ostracized by a ‘boys’ club’ atmosphere, and actively championing the ascension of women into senior rolls.”

“We can’t focus on the past,” said Coppola. “But we can work very hard collectively as a community, and within the insurance industry specifically, to move forward.” &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]