The UK Bribery Act 2010: contents and implications

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this paper is to assess the implications of The UK Bribery Act 2010 for businesses and in particular those with cross-border activities. Design/methodology/approach -This study relies on documentary research and using both primary and secondary data drawn from the public domain. Findings -The study suggests why UK businesses and in particular those conducting cross-country transactions should take the implications of this law seriously as the enforcement agency in the UK transforms to a more active mode. It also suggests why, despite some severe criticisms, the UK does not lag behind in the global fight against corruption. Research limitations/implications -This is an exploratory review paper to promote empirical research in a business sensitive theme. Practical implications -Insights from the study should prompt business leaders to give sufficient attention to those areas with high risks of falling within the ambit of the Act. Social implications -The study's findings reinforce the ethical dimensions of cross-border business practices. Originality/value -This study uses the implications of the new UK Act to draw attention to the business community that with the passing of the Act business cannot be as usual; that compliance to the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act would be insufficient; and that despite controversies over implementation delays, the UK does not lag behind in the fight against corruption worldwide.

The Mabey and Johnson bribery scandal: A case of executive hubris

“…The first was the lagging antibribery UK legislation regulating foreign corrupt practices among UK firms. For example, the UK has been accused of being reluctant to adopt any antibribery laws until 2010 (ITV1, ; Yeoh, ). Even at the time of implementation, there were serious attempts by government to “water it down.” Furthermore, Horder () observes section 13 of the UK's Bribery Act (2010) justifies the use of bribery by intelligence services in cases of advancing the economic interests of the UK.…”

“…Finally, the lax regulations and lack of political will to clamp down on the corrupt practices of British firms resulted in inefficient external controls in terms of governance and corporate social responsibility mechanisms employed by M&J to guide their operating practices. Operating within a context where external controls were ineffective (Yeoh, ), hubris among M&J executives grew faster and led to supervisory deficiencies, manipulation of rules and laws governing ownership structures, and the delusion of being responsible to themselves alone (Hollow, ). In terms of its legal status and ownership structure, throughout its history M&J remained a family business.…”

The profile and detection of bribery in Norway and England & Wales: A comparative study

“…The legislation in E&W and Norway have different definitions of bribery. The most recent law, the UK’s Bribery Act 2010, is regarded as one of the toughest in the world (Yeoh, 2011: 50). It defines bribery as an act of offering/giving/promising or requesting/accepting a financial or other advantage (Ministry of Justice, 2011).…”

The Discursive Construction of Corruption Risk

“…It warned in 2008 that the lack of effective legislation and enforcement undermined the credibility of the U.K. legal framework and made doing business with U.K. firms potentially more risky for foreign firms (OECD, 2008;Peel, 2010). The Act was passed in April 2010, but its implementation was initially postponed to allow for another round of consultation amid criticisms that the Act might negatively affect the competitiveness of U.K. businesses, for example, by not being able to provide gifts and entertainment for corporate relations (Rigby & Croft, 2011;Yeoh, 2011; see Table 1 for a timeline of events related to the Act). Similar to the FCPA, the Act has extraterritorial reach and thus applies to U.K. businesses with operations anywhere in the world.…”

“…Here, proportionality entails carrying out risk assessment and management procedures to make anti-corruption more effective, ensuring that compliance practices don't become an expensive burden that hampers the growth of business operations. This construction should be seen in the context of the lobby against the Act at the time of its passage and implementation, which claimed that the Act would damage the competitiveness of U.K. businesses (Yeoh, 2011). The second, closely related key concept in the discourse is that of corruption risk factors.…”