A critical analysis of corporate
corruption
by
Alessandro D'Alessio
Corporate corruption
is a specific type of crime that concerns the business sector and involves firms
or firms’ employees who, in their business relations with public officials and
looking for advantages for themselves (or any third party), behave in a way that
“promotes the violation of law or abuse of power on the part of government
official”[1].
There are
different degrees of vulnerability, the skill to resist pressures, and exposure,
the amount of pressures determined by exogenous factors, of firms. Indeed,
companies are generally more vulnerable when they have less political or
financial resources and more exposed to public corruption when there is a great
pervasiveness of the phenomenon at a national level. So, according to the
residual control theory[2],
the more vulnerable and exposed companies are, the more likely they are to
bribe government officials. Researches show that generally corruption is
influenced by culture, poverty as well as by local and multilateral policies
and other factors but the reason why firms, on their side, engage in corrupt
acts, among themselves or with government officials, is often because unethical
behaviour is seen as acceptable and normal, becoming an unwritten rule of
competition[3].
So both the
dimension of public sector corruption and the environment a firm is in
influence firms’ exposure to corruption and can be considered as fundamental
predictors.
There are three
more features that can be used as predictors of firms’ vulnerability and extent
of bribes paid to government officials: state ownership, government regulation
and foreign ownership.
When the
company is a state owned enterprise, the government is the one having full
residual rights of control[4].
The head manager leading the state owned firm is part of the government
apparatus sharing similar objectives with it; so his goal is not to maximise
profits but to fit the apparatus purposes. According to Herrera and Rodriguez
the frequency of bribes declines when firms can achieve an appropriate
treatment without paying bribes[5].
In this case government officials usually ask for jobs to be provided for
family members and, in addition to this, state-owned firms often employ retired
government officials.
In the end
private sector companies are more prone to corruption than the state-owned ones
also because the former generally have a larger money flow.
As to the
second aspect, the government regulation, it’s important to observe that the
bargaining power of officials is another important characteristic that defines
their relationship with firms because when such power is prevalent they demand
bribes from firms even though they weigh costs (size of the penalty and the
probability of being caught) and benefits that are generally private. On the
other side companies’ consent to pay bribes, as well as their size, is
influenced by their perception of the benefits furnished by government
officials.
Sometimes,
however, the bribe bargain may not be viable for firms because of officials’
failures in delivering commitments, requests for new bribes or because of
governments’ implementation of policies that punish bribe payers too, like the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which could consist in unsustainable
costs for companies. This situation upholds the creation of a market of bribes composed
of suppliers, firms, demanders and government officials. Both firms’ vulnerability
and exposure to corruption have a huge influence on the size of the bribe paid,
even though their degree can deeply differ from country to country[6].
When enterprises have greater bargaining power they are less vulnerable to
corruption and government officials usually demand fewer bribes.
In general
terms, the reduction of this kind of corruption can be achieved by developing
clear laws and procedures. For example, an automatic fiscal exemption may avoid
a huge amount of corruption compared to a more complex (and, in abstract,
targeted) procedure that provides incentives to firms on the base of more
judgemental conditions. Clear rules should also prevent conflict of interests, that
can influence individuals’ judgements in the accomplishment of their
responsibilities, as well as establishing codes of conduct that regulate gifts
and hospitality[7]. The
adoption of a proactive behaviour through guides for anti-corruption risk
assessments along with transparency and open data in public procurements, on
their side, can help reducing the corruption of firms as well as the
establishment of rotation criteria for the personnel involved in particular
risky sectors.
A high
percentage of foreign ownership causes the bargaining power of the firms to
rise because they are less embedded in the environment, they have alternative
investment opportunities and, having different cultural backgrounds, they don’t
know who and how much to bribe. The Bribe Payers Index (BPI) provided by Transparency
International (TI) confirms this tendency showing also that local firms are
more likely to bribe than multinational ones[8].
The
dimension is an important characteristic of corruption. “Petty” corruption is a
small scale, bureaucratic form of corruption that takes place when public
officials meet the public and since the payers are entitled to what they demand,
there is no real injustice towards them, even though moral and legal issues may
rise. Small payments compose the so-called facilitating payments, also known as
speed money or democratic corruption, and they are used particularly to
expedite the working of the bureaucratic machine or to circumvent specific rules.
Such form of corruption can cause detrimental effects on the functioning of the
bureaucracy and, in the long-term, they add costs to citizens and companies[9].
On the other
side “grand” corruption takes place at the highest levels of the public sphere
where the formulation of policies and rules occurs[10].
This form of corruption is justified through a series of considerations: first
of all paying bribes causes benefits to the firm, for example it can assure the
award of contracts or it can put firms in a position where they can modify
terms of contracts as well as the regulatory environment; “grand” corruption
occurs when the risks of a legal punishment or reputational damage are
considered to be low enough to justify the illegal action and, more generally,
companies justify their conduct in the name of the creation of economic value.
The costs of
this type of corruption are incredibly high since it can reduce competitiveness
through the introduction of inefficiencies, lower the efficiency of production
and threaten the functioning of nations. Legal fees, penalties and public
relations efforts redirect important resources from the core business and lead
to an inefficient use of company funds and personnel. Investors may avoid doing
business with companies that are known for corruption, thus leading to an
inefficient allocation of resources. Consumers, on their side, pay the costs of
corruption when purchasing goods and services. Moreover, resources are spent to
finance government agencies, police departments as well as internal
investigators and corruption fuels the black market and criminal activities as
well. In brief, market competition is seriously affected by corruption because those
firms that are more prone to it tend to be favoured. Empirical studies
demonstrate that corruption occurs more where there are higher levels of public
investment (as a share of GDP)[11]
and corrupt officials, on their side, are more likely to support “white
elephant” projects rather than promoting economic development. A possible solution
could be the privatisation, consisting in eliminating particular assets from
state control even though the process itself contains many opportunities for bribery[12].
S.
Rose-Ackerman points out that even if corporations have legal personalities (and
so according to some commentators this means they have no moral obligations) they
still have ethical responsibilities. Some corporations’ most common excuse is
that a corrupt act is a necessary, or even compulsory, action taken under
certain circumstances; actually such actions are related only to the
profitability of firms, showing no concern for moral issues.
In order to
be fully effective, anti-corruption efforts need to be strongly linked with the
maximisation of profit and top managers have to believe in the idea that controlling
corruption is in the interest of their firm. This is partially achievable
through corporate guidelines and policies against corruption as well as the
assurance of high standards of personal morality for individual managers[13].
Another
important issue is the moral awareness of entrepreneurs. Some researches[14]
[15]
show that there’s a lot of heterogeneity in their sensitivity to ethical issues
and that there is a relationship between social cognitive dynamics and ethical
cognition. Some dilemmas can arise for entrepreneurs from external pressures,
like scarcity of resources, or problems involving their personal values and
ethical standards[16].
The
so-called “ethical blindness” is also frequent and it can be defined as a
“decision maker’s temporary inability to see the ethical dimension of a
decision at stake”[17].
The key aspects of this phenomenon are that it’s unconscious, temporary,
context bound and that the decision maker deviates from his own principles.
“Ethical blindness” can be caused by authority pressure, strong routines,
targets and objectives as well as criteria for career.
Moreover
enterprises have to consider that personnel with strong norms of personal
morality are less likely to be corrupt but it’s often not enough when related
to the logic of the market. Indeed there can be conflicts between profit and
people’s values, that’s why more policies have to be implemented by firms and
governments in this sense.
It’s
fundamental for enterprises to enforce also some forms of organisational trust
in order to have more confident, secure and motivated employees that would be,
on the contrary, just cynical and inefficient[18].
On its side,
the capitalistic system has been accused of being strongly linked with
corruption and unethical behaviour. Noam Chomsky, philosopher and father of
modern linguistics[19],
asserted that capitalism is corrupted by definition and fits with the
denomination “crony capitalism”, a system where the economic and political
power are used to collaborate with one another, leading to distorted mechanisms
of state interventionism[20].
Although this point of view may appear to be cynical, Adam Smith (1776), referring
to England, observed that during the transition from feudal economy to
mercantilism the complex net of relationships between economic and political actors
was still perfectly preserved[21],
showing that some forms of collaboration have always existed as well as
corruption itself, also because, however, it’s important to underline that there
are no real evidences about other alternative corrupt-free systems.
Analysing
the current economic system can be helpful in order to understand those aspects
that lead to corrupt activities and which areas of the world are more
vulnerable.
Our era is
characterised by global capitalism, a system developed in the 1970s after the
end of the Bretton Woods system[22]
and the 1973 oil crisis. The main characteristics of this period are mostly: a
reduction of economic interventionism and an increasing internationalisation of
the economy, called “globalisation”.
On the one
hand the globalisation process allowed countries like India and China (but also
Brazil and South Africa) to launch poverty reduction measures, even though this
didn’t translate in a reduction of inequality. On the other hand such process
doesn’t seem to produce positive effects on the African continent where, in the
last few years, even an impoverishment has been recorded in some areas. This is
due to a series of factors like the destruction of local farming (replaced by
new ones, imposed by colonisers) as well as the lack of technologies,
machineries and entrepreneurial attitude[23].
This is where corporate corruption makes its entrance since it is strongly
linked with vulnerability and poverty, typical features of many developing
countries, especially the African ones.
Some recent cases,
regarding multinational companies exploiting and bribing weak governments, can
be useful to understand such situations: for example the TSKJ consortium, a
group of four enterprises including Snamprogetti Netherlands BV controlled by
Eni S.p.A. (an Italian multinational oil and gas company), paid a bribe of $180
million to Nigerian officials and politicians (from 1994 to 2004) to build gas
plant's liquefaction and purification facilities in the south region of the
country. The former president of Nigeria Obasanjo was bribed for $23 million
while the bloody dictator Sani Abacha put in his pocket $45 million[24].
This case puts in evidence how tackling international corruption can be tricky because
it often involves high profile politicians or dictators of non-democratic
countries. In a situation where the absence of local control powers is widespread,
the role of the international community becomes fundamental. In the case
described above, for example, the illegal activities were disclosed and Eni
accepted to pay $240 million to the United States Department of Justice and $125
million to settle a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission case[25].
Sometimes multinational
companies are also responsible for heavy environmental damages and violation of
human rights related to the health of people living nearby their structures,
experiencing oil emissions, discharge of waste as well as the phenomenon known
as “gas flaring”[26]. In
the absence of local and international measures, sometimes there is only the
weak voice of single protesters who are on the front line against corruption in
third world countries. An important case regarded Ken Saro Wiwa, Nigerian
writer, television producer and activist, who was executed in 1995 while at the
peak of his non-violent protest against the environmental degradation caused by
oil companies like Shell in the Niger Delta. A couple of months after his death
the Managing Director of Shell Nigeria admitted that a “black hole of corruption”
existed in Shell’s Nigerian operations[27].
Indeed the company was then accused of taking part in human rights abuses by
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and it accepted
to pay $15,5 million to the families of the victims[28].
Corporate
corruption can lead to serious consequences (including death) also because the maximisation
of profit turns out to be a goal to reach with no consideration of laws and
rights especially in places where governments are more prone to corruption and
the rule of law is not really effective.
Another
indicative case, describing how international corruption works, concerns
Siemens, the Europe’s largest multinational engineering and electronics
conglomerate company. The corporation was accused of corruption and false
accounting in 2006. According to U.S. Assistant Attorney General that announced
Siemens pleaded guilty to corruption, from the 1990s to the 2000s, the company “engaged
in a systematic and widespread effort to make and to hide hundreds of millions
of dollars in bribe payments across the globe... Bribery was nothing less than
standard operating procedure for Siemens”[29].
Linda Thomsen, Director of Enforcement for the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, affirmed that Siemens' model of bribery was “unprecedented in scale
and geography” and that “the scope of the bribery scheme is astonishing, and
the tone set at the top at Siemens was a corporate culture in which bribery was
tolerated and even rewarded at the highest levels of the company.” She also
added that “when any company circumvents the rules of fair play and honest
competition by making improper payments to win business, it will face a strong
and united front from law enforcement around the globe.”[30]
[31]
Many
companies, overwhelmed by scandals, decided to react through important anti-corruption
changes and internal policies in order to limit the risk of further fees and
legal expenses as well as to regain their reputation[32]
[33].
As to the
first aspect it is worth noticing that, at least in certain countries, once
disclosed, corruption may be a bad affair. In the case of Siemens mentioned
above, in the end the company agreed to pay $1,6 billion in fines to U.S. and
German authorities, $450 million of which to the United States Department of
Justice and $350 million to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The
United States, however, claimed partial jurisdiction only in 2001 when Siemens
became listed on the New York Stock Exchange and thus it was subject to
American financial laws and regulations. Moreover the company had to pay
additional fines since prosecutors in Munich made a deal which would cost to
Siemens another $540 million[34].
Immediate
actions are usually taken within the company itself through independent investigations,
monitoring of cases, centralisation of payments and bank accounts and tone at the
top[35].
As for example in the case of Siemens, a year after the scandal the
implementation phase began through the creation of a comprehensive compliance
programme based on prevention, detection and response; Siemens managed to
implement also effective global compliance organisation and processes as well
as anti-corruption training for managers. The efforts to solve the case
continued in 2010 through compliance tools and simplification of processes, compliance
incentive system, NGOs cooperation, collective market approach, settlement with
DOJ/SEC[36]
and appointment of a Monitor as well as extended scope of compliance and the
creation of a culture of integrity.
The Siemens
case and the other ones I mentioned were disclosed thanks to the United States
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). This law was established in 1977 and
punishes U.S. companies and persons forbidden to pay foreign officials to
“assist in obtaining or retaining business”. Since 1998 the law applies also to
“foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in
furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the
United States”[37].
The origins
of the FCPA can be traced to the Watergate hearings and its primary goal is to
reduce or eliminate illicit bribes made by US companies to foreign officials.
In 2009 investigations under the FCPA resulted in corporations in the UK,
Germany, France and United States paying over $1 billion in settlements or
fines. However from enactment to 1998 only 25 cases were investigated resulting
in $35,2 million total fines while since January 2007 more than 64 cases has
been examined[38].
Accounting provisions require accurate books and records including documented
decision processes, accurate description of gifts and hospitality, accurate
description of intermediaries and their services. They also need to have an
adequate system of internal accounting controls, transparent financial
transactions, segregation of duties and proper approval limits.
There are
several other anti-corruption measures taken by states to tackle corruption in
the business sector and more than a hundred countries already have laws that prohibit
local government officials from accepting bribes.
Among these
there is the UK Bribery Act (UKBA) that is effective from July 2011 and created
four prime offences: two general offences consisting of “offering, promising or
giving an advantage” and “requesting, agreeing to receive, or accepting of an
advantage”; two more specific offences which are “bribery of a foreign public
official” and “a commercial organisation failing to prevent a bribe being paid
– which can be defended by showing adequate procedures were in place to prevent
bribery”[39]. The
penalties for individuals provided by the UKBA are up to 10 years imprisonment
and/or unlimited fine while companies risk to face unlimited fine and/or perpetual
debarment for competing for public contracts[40].
The UKBA
punishes facilitation payments too, going even further than the American act since
this latter doesn’t always cover them; the Bribery Act expect also companies to
have more strict anti-bribery programmes that, on the contrary, may be
compliant with the FCPA[41].
On its side,
the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) Anti-Bribery
Convention[42] came
into force in 1997 and establishes “standards to criminalise bribery of foreign
public officials in international business transactions”[43].
This convention was the first anti-corruption measure taken at the
international level and it was specifically focused on the “supply side” of the
illegal transactions.
On the other
side the United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) wants State
Parties to provide instruments capable of preventing public sector corruption
as well as adequate legal provisions to criminalise it[44].
The UNCAC presents many similarities with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention but
also some differences especially because the former includes provisions about
criminalisation and prevention of private sector bribery (promise and
solicitation of bribes as well).
However such
conventions only require State Parties to implement these policies but have no
real authority to impose them[45].
So it’s up to every single nation to create effective instruments in order to
tackle corruption.
Other
actions taken against corruption in business are the Criminal Law Convention on
Corruption, a treaty elaborated by the Council of Europe[46];
the International Anti-Bribery and Competition Law, provisions implemented by
Germany[47];
the Sarbanes-Oxley-Act, a United States federal law that establishes new
standards for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting
firms[48].
International
and private organisations as well as many NGOs create anti-corruption
initiatives on their own.
For example
the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), the official
representative of the OECD business community, is an independent organisation
founded in 1962. Members of the committee are the most important business
organisations in the OECD member countries and the BIAC Task Force on
Anti-Bribery and Corruption has produced an “Anti-Bribery Resource Guide” that
includes a list of anti-corruption instruments which specifies legally binding
obligations on firms and states[49].
In order to
bring together companies with UN-agencies, the United Nations created an
initiative called “The Global Compact” adopting a specific extra principle in
2004 underlining that businesses have to work against corruption in all its
forms[50].
The
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tackles corruption through “Rules of
Conduct and Recommendations to Combat Extortion and Bribery” that can be used
as company policies. One of the core institutes of the National Endowment for
Democracy, the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) has a
programme that covers many different areas such as anti-corruption, advocacy
and business association but also democratic governance, access to information,
women and youth[51].
Among other
important initiatives there is the one implemented by Transparency
International (TI) called “Business Principles for Countering Bribery”
providing guidance for enterprises in developing anti-bribery programmes[52];
the “World Bank Listing of Ineligible Firms” provides a list of firms that
cannot have access to World Bank-financed contracts because of violations of
the Procurement Guidelines or the Consultants Guidelines[53];
the “European Union Directive on Public Procurement” (Article 45) states that
firms guilty of corruption cannot participate in public tendering[54];
the “Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative” (StAR), a partnership between the World
Bank Group and the United Nations Offices on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), focuses
on international efforts to avoid safe havens for corrupt funds[55].
In
conclusion, facts show that corporate corruption reveals a series of
deficiencies of a wide and controversial globalisation process and this
explains why an international approach is a necessary and fundamental step. The
most vulnerable nations, but not exclusively, are often victims of distorted
mechanisms within capitalism, that can be found in the geopolitical practice of
the “neo-colonialism”, which not only includes a strong economic influence but
also socio-political forms of control. This phenomenon is more frequent in West
African countries like Senegal, Guinea-Bissau and Nigeria causing negative
effects on economic growth and on the every day life of populations. Corporate
corruption affects also the developed world, sometimes involving organised
crime interests too[56].
The results
of the “Dow Jones’ Anti-Corruption Survey 2014” show that Western Europe
companies lead over the others in terms of incidence of anti-corruption
programmes; the survey specifies also that, in most cases, those firms that
have not implemented such programmes justify themselves affirming that there
are other policies that already cover anti-corruption issues[57].
Moreover,
according to the International Chamber of Commerce, the number of companies
that consider integrity as a fundamental feature in business is increasing,
approaching corporate responsibility and corruption prevention as part of their
global policies[58].
Even though
scandals continue to occur, in the last few years many national and
international actors have taken action against corporate corruption enabling
the creation of a general feeling but also understanding that it’s something
extremely detrimental to companies and citizens. The actual results of
international and local anti-corruption policies are not always clear and
univocal but in some cases, like the UKBA one created only a few years ago, it
may take some time before evaluating whether they are really effective and
useful.
Bibliography
Argandona
A., (2005), “Corruption and Companies: The Use of Facilitating Payments”,
Journal of Business Ethics (2005) 60: 251–264, @Springer 2005 DOI
10.1007/s10551-005-0133-4.
Association
of Corporate Counsel
http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/ukbafcpa.cfm#FPB,
18/6/14.
BIAC-The
Voice of OECD Business
http://www.biac.org/aboutus.htm,
14/7/14.
Bixby,
Michael B.. (2010). "The Lion Awakens: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act -
1977 to 2010". San Diego International Law Journal, 12(1), 89-146.
Bryant, P.,
(2009), “Self-Regulation and Moral Awareness among Entrepreneurs", Journal
of Business Venturing 24, 505–518 (this issue).
Business
anti-corruption portal
http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/about/about-corruption/united-nations-convention-against-corruption.aspx,
18/6/14.
Collins D.
J., Uhlenbruck K., Rodriguez P., (2009), “Why Firms Engage in Corruption: A Top
Management Perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87:89–108 DOI
10.1007/s10551-008-9872-3
Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Summaries/Html/173.htm,
19/6/14.
Department
of Justice
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/December/08-opa-1112.html,
19/6/14
Dow Jones
Anti-Corruption Survey Results 2014
http://images.dowjones.com/company/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2014/04/Anti-Corruption-Survey-Results-2014.pdf,
23/6/14.
European
Union Directive on Public Procurement (Article 45)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.094.01.0065.01.ENG,
11/7/14.
Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act/Anti-bribery provisions
http://acfcs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FCPA-DoJ-Laypersons-Guide.pdf,
16/6/14.
Foss, K.,
& Foss, N., (1999), “Understanding ownership: Residual rights of control
and appropriable control rights”, Working paper. DRUID Working Paper No. 99-4.
Garred J.,
“Overcoming corruption in multi-national companies; the case of Siemens”,
University of Sussex 16th October 2013.
Grossman,
S., & Hart, H. (1986), “The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of
lateral and vertical integration” Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), p.
778–781.
Herrera, A.,
& Rodriguez, P., (2003), Bribery and the nature of corruption. Working
paper. Darden School of Business, University of Virginia.
Il Fatto
Quotidiano
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2010/07/08/corruzione-in-nigeria-eni-paga-365-milioni-per-non-essere-condannata/37941/,
16/6/14.
International
Chamber of Commerce
http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-codes-and-rules/areas-of-work/corporate-responsibility-and-anti-corruption/,
23/6/14.
International
Chamber of Commerce, (2011), “ICC Rules on Combating Corruption 2011 edition”, prepared
by the ICC Commission on Corporate Responsibility and Anti-Corruption.
Investopedia.com
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp,
14/7/14.
Kimmel, PhD,
CPA, Paul D.; Weygandt, PhD, CPA, Jerry J.; Kieso, PhD, CPA, Donald E., (2011),
“Financial Accounting, 6th Edition. Wiley”. ISBN 978-0-470-53477-9.
Legislation.gov.uk
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/contents,
17/6/14.
Margalit F.,
(December 5, 1998), "A Changed Noam Chomsky Simplifies". New York
Times. Retrieved August 2, 2008. "... Noam Chomsky, father of modern
linguistics and the field's most influential practitioner."
M. E.
Haquea, R. Knellerb, (2007), “Public Investment and Growth: The Role of
Corruption, a Centre for Growth and Business Cycles Research, and Economic
Studies, The University of Manchester, Leverhulme Centre for Globalization and
Economic Policy and School of Economics, The University of Nottingham.
Modernization
of the German Anti-Corruption Criminal Law by International Legal Provisions
http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol07No09/PDF_Vol_07_No_09_785-792_Developments_Wolf.pdf,
19/6/14.
National
Association of Attorneys General
http://www.naag.org/corporate-corruption.php,
2/7/14
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials in International Business Transactions
Palazzo, G.,
Krings, F. & Hoffrage, U., (2012), “Ethical blindness”. Journal of Business
Ethics, 109: 323–338.
Payne, D.,
Joyner, B., (2006), “Successful U.S. entrepreneurs: identifying ethical
decision-making and social responsibility behaviours”, Journal of Business
Ethics 65 (3), 203–217.
Remember
Saro-Wiwa.com
http://remembersarowiwa.com/background/after-the-death-of-ken-saro-wiwa/,
24/6/14.
Reynolds,
S., (2006), “Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: investigating the
role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues”, Journal of
Applied Psychology 91 (1), 233–243.
Settles D.
J., (1996), “The Impact of Colonialism on African Economic Development”,
University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects.
Siemens
Compliance System Track Record and Challenges
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/corruption/files/John-Garred-Siemens-Compliance-System.pdf,
19/6/14
Spiegel
Online International
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/sicilian-mafia-infiltrates-german-construction-business-a-963194.html,
23/6/14.
S.
Rose-Ackerman, (2002), “Grand corruption and the ethics of global business”,
Journal of Banking and Finance 26, 6-7.
Stolen Asset
Recovery Initiative
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/Star-rep-full.pdf,
11/7/14.
Strangio D., (2011), “Da colonie a Paesi in via di Sviluppo.
L’evoluzione dei sistemi economici dalla colonizzazione alla globalizzazione”,
Mondadori Università, Sapienza Università di Roma.
The New York
Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/business/global/09shell.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&,
24/6/14.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/business/worldbusiness/16siemens.html,
15/6/14.
Transparency
International, 2011 Bribe Payers Index Report,
http://files.transparency.org/content/download/98/395/2011_BPI_EN.pdf, 24/6/14.
Transparency
International “Business Principles for Countering Bribery”
http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/tools/business_principles_for_countering_bribery,
11/7/14.
UNGlobalCompact.org
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/index.html,
14/7/14.
United Nations Convention against Corruption
UpStream The
International Oil & Gas Newspaper
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article1196586.ece,
16/6/14.
U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-263.htm,
15/6/14
Walker J.,
(2008), “Black Faces in Limousines: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky”, 14
November.
World Bank
Listing of Ineligible Firms & Individuals
http://web.worldbank.org/external/default/main?theSitePK=84266&contentMDK=64069844&menuPK=116730&pagePK=64148989&piPK=64148984,
11/7/14.
[2] Grossman, S.,
& Hart, H. (1986), “The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of
lateral and vertical integration” Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 691–719.
[3] Collins D. J.,
Uhlenbruck K., Rodriguez P., (2009), “Why Firms Engage in Corruption: A Top
Management Perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 87:89–108 DOI
10.1007/s10551-008-9872-3.
[4] “The rights to
determine the uses of assets under circumstances that are not covered by
contractual terms”, Foss, K., & Foss, N., (1999), “Understanding ownership:
Residual rights of control and appropriable control rights”, Working paper.
DRUID Working Paper No. 99-4.
[5] Herrera, A., &
Rodriguez, P., (2003), Bribery and the nature of corruption. Working paper.
Darden School of Business, University of Virginia.
[6] Grossman, S.,
& Hart, H. (1986), “The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of
lateral and vertical integration” Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), p.
778–781.
[7] International
Chamber of Commerce, (2011), “ICC Rules on Combating Corruption 2011 edition”,
prepared by the ICC Commission on Corporate Responsibility and Anti-Corruption.
[8] Transparency
International, 2011 Bribe Payers Index Report, http://files.transparency.org/content/download/98/395/2011_BPI_EN.pdf, 24/6/14.
[9] Argandona A.,
(2005), “Corruption and Companies: The Use of Facilitating Payments”, Journal
of Business Ethics (2005) 60: 251–264, @Springer 2005 DOI
10.1007/s10551-005-0133-4.
[10] S. Rose-Ackerman,
(2002), “Grand corruption and the ethics of global business”, Journal of
Banking and Finance 26, 1-2.
[11] M. E. Haquea, R. Knellerb,
(2007), “Public Investment and Growth: The Role of Corruption, a Centre for
Growth and Business Cycles Research, and Economic Studies, The University of
Manchester, Leverhulme Centre for Globalization and Economic Policy and School
of Economics, The University of Nottingham.
[12] S. Rose-Ackerman,
(2002), “Grand corruption and the ethics of global business”, Journal of
Banking and Finance 26.
[13] S. Rose-Ackerman,
(2002), “Grand corruption and the ethics of global business”, Journal of
Banking and Finance 26, 6-7.
[14] Reynolds, S.,
(2006), “Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: investigating the role of
individual differences in the recognition of moral issues”, Journal of Applied
Psychology 91 (1), 233–243.
[15] Bryant, P.,
(2009), “Self-Regulation and Moral Awareness among Entrepreneurs", Journal
of Business Venturing 24, 505–518 (this issue).
[16] Payne, D., Joyner,
B., (2006), “Successful U.S. entrepreneurs: identifying ethical decision-making
and social responsibility behaviours”, Journal of Business Ethics 65 (3),
203–217.
[17] Palazzo, G.,
Krings, F. & Hoffrage, U., (2012), “Ethical blindness”. Journal of Business
Ethics, 109: 323–338.
[18] Garred J., (2013),
“Overcoming corruption in multinational companies; the case of Siemens”,
University of Sussex 16th October 2013.
[19] F. Margalit
(December 5, 1998). "A Changed Noam Chomsky Simplifies". New York
Times. Retrieved August 2, 2008. "... Noam Chomsky, father of modern
linguistics and the field's most influential practitioner."
[20] Walker J., (2008),
“Black Faces in Limousines: A Conversation with Noam Chomsky”, 14 November.
[21] Strangio D.,
(2011), “Da colonie a Paesi in via di Sviluppo. L’evoluzione dei sistemi economici
dalla colonizzazione alla globalizzazione”, Mondadori Università, Sapienza
Università di Roma.
[22] “A landmark system
for monetary and exchange rate management established in 1944. The Bretton
Woods Agreement was developed at the United Nations Monetary and Financial
Conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1 to July 22,
1944.”, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brettonwoodsagreement.asp, 14/7/14.
[23] Settles D. J.,
(1996), “The Impact of Colonialism on African Economic Development”, University
of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects.
[26] Gas flaring is a
gas combustion device used by companies to reduce extraction costs and it’s
generally considered to be unacceptable (in Europe 99% of gas is reused or put
back in the subsoil). According to Amnesty International some young children
living in the Delta State in Nigeria have never experienced the darkness of the
night since these gases burn 24 hours a day.
[31] Transactions where
Siemens paid bribes were: metro trains and signalling devices in China, mobile
telephones in Bangladesh, refineries in Mexico, national ID cards in Argentina
(http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-263.htm, 15/6/14) and
traffic control systems in Russia; a total of $1,4 billion were used to bribe
government officials in return for business. In 2007 Peter Löscher, President
and CEO of Siemens AG, stated that the leaders of the organisation “must be
able to combine two twin elements to say I’m going for highest performance with
highest ethics” (Garred J., “Overcoming corruption in multi-national companies;
the case of Siemens”, University of Sussex 16th October 2013, p. 23.)
[32] For example the
2009-2011 Toyota vehicle recalls.
[33] Garred J.,
“Overcoming corruption in multi-national companies; the case of Siemens”,
University of Sussex 16th October 2013, p. 22.
[35] Term that
originated in the field of accounting and is used to describe an organisation's
general ethical climate.
[36] DOJ= Department of
Justice / SEC= Securities and Exchange Commission.
[38] Bixby, Michael B..
(2010). "The Lion Awakens: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - 1977 to
2010". San Diego International Law Journal, 12(1), 89-146.
[40] Garred J.,
“Overcoming corruption in multi-national companies; the case of Siemens”,
University of Sussex 16th October 2013, p.9.
[42] Officially
“Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International
Business Transactions”.
[48] Kimmel, PhD, CPA,
Paul D.; Weygandt, PhD, CPA, Jerry J.; Kieso, PhD, CPA, Donald E., (2011),
“Financial Accounting, 6th Edition. Wiley”. ISBN 978-0-470-53477-9.
Essay on Corruption
RispondiElimina