What are expectations of compliance at a negligent company like PG&E?
By 
Martin Woods2020-06-29T15:39:00
Financial crime expert Martin Woods wonders about the compliance priorities of a company found to be as reckless as Pacific Gas and Electric.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT
You are not logged in and do not have access to members-only content.
If you are already a registered user or a member, SIGN IN now.
Related articles
-
ArticlePG&E avoids criminal charges in $55M settlement over 2 wildfires
Pacific Gas & Electric avoided criminal charges in agreeing to pay more than $55 million in civil contributions and penalties as part of a settlement in California regarding the utility company’s alleged role in the 2019 Kincade Fire and 2021 Dixie Fire.
-
ArticlePG&E names new CECO amid leadership shuffle
PG&E Corp. is shaking up its management team, including the impending appointment of John Simon as executive vice president, general counsel and chief ethics & compliance officer.
-
ArticleFacing potential takeover, PG&E pins hopes on reorganization
Found to be at fault for yet another wildfire last week, PG&E’s return from bankruptcy is off to a rocky start. A new reorganization plan at the company built around risk management and safety is key to avoiding a takeover by the state of California.
More from Opinion
-
OpinionCreating effective compliance messages for specific employee groups
As 2026 arrives, have you considered the efficacy of your compliance messaging efforts? We have all seen these compliance taglines “Speak Up!,” “See Something, Say Something,” “Ethics Matter!”
-
OpinionTeaching the business to speak risk
Compliance professionals understand the value of risk assessments. We conduct them annually, map risks to controls, and present heat maps to the board. But there is a strategic opportunity that many compliance programs overlook: Teaching the business itself to think in the language of risk.
-
OpinionSOX was built for humans. AI doesn’t fit that model.
For more than two decades, assurance and compliance frameworks have rested on a simple assumption: Material decisions are made by people. Post‑Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) assurance reset worked because it aligned accountability with human behavior. That assumption shapes how internal controls are designed, how accountability is assigned, and how assurance is ...