Do Firms Proactively Take Measures to Prevent Corruption in Their International Operations?

Abstract

In recent years, the fight against foreign bribery has become a critical concern for many European governments. However, empirical research on the way that internationally active firms respond to the increased requirements of their organizational environment regarding corruption prevention is quite rare. Based on the neo‐institutional theory, this paper addresses this issue using a sample of 510 internationally active Swiss firms. The findings indicate that firms do not anticipate the risk of potentially being confronted with corruption when operating in foreign countries where the level of corruption is perceived to be high. On the contrary, it seems that firms tend to follow a reactive approach toward the management of corruption risks in foreign countries and only implement measures against corruption if they have actually been confronted with the issue.

Cultural Secrecy and Anti‐corruption Disclosure in Large Multinational Companies

“…Corruption is often justified as a means to the greater goal of economic value creation, an unpleasant but necessary response to the weakness and venality of governments (Rose-Ackerman 2002), as a way to avoid bureaucratic delays and to motivate bureaucrats to work more efficiently (Mauro 1995), or as an instrument to create an opportunity for ensuring the legitimacy of firms entering foreign markets (Ahlstrom et al 2008). However, there has been an intensified awareness among the general public about the negative consequences of corruption for economic and social development (Hauser and Hogenacker 2014). Corruption is increasingly seen as a serious economic, social, political and moral blight affecting society as a whole and companies in particular (Argandoña 2007).…”

“…). Evidence suggests that corruption is widespread in international business (Hauser and Hogenacker ).…”

“…Despite existing since the earliest business transactions (Aguilera and Vadera 2008;Ashforth and Gibbs 1990), corruption has had a dramatic ascendance in the past several years to the point of becoming one of the most pressing global and ethical problems (Everett et al 2006;Sanyal and Samanta 2004;UNGC 2015) and a major social issue (Ashforth et al 2008). Evidence suggests that corruption is widespread in international business (Hauser and Hogenacker 2014).…”

Between petty corruption and criminal extortion: How entrepreneurs in Bulgaria and Romania operate within a devil’s circle

“…While corruption linked to FDI is often associated with poor governance in the host country, FDI firms can also import and engage in corruption which suits their competitive advantage (Hellman et al, 2002). Furthermore, despite anti-corruption legislation becoming more commonplace, including criminalising the bribery of foreign officials by individuals and companies (Hauser and Hogenacker, 2014), there was little in the perception of change in Bulgaria and Romania. Indeed, the entrepreneurs stated that foreign-owned businesses could afford large-scale inducements (or bribes), which then serves to exclude local entrepreneurs.…”

Reflecting on the role of universities in the fight against corruption

“…In addition to categorization according to different levels at which corruption occurs, a distinction is made between different types of corrupt behavior, including bribery, illegal gratuities, economic extortion and conflicts of interest (Wells, 2017). Bribery occurs when a monetary and/or nonmonetary advantage is granted, agreed or even offered in exchange for improperly influencing a discretionary decision (Pacini et al, 2002;Hauser and Hogenacker, 2014). By contrast, illegal gratuities are monetary and/or nonmonetary advantages for a discretionary decision that has already been made.…”