Incentive systems in anti-bribery whistleblowing
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2018-0041 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Pages | 519-525 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Author | Fabian Maximilian Johannes Teichmann |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & Finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial crime |
Incentive systems in anti-bribery
whistleblowing
Fabian Maximilian Johannes Teichmann
Teichmann International AG, St. Gallen, Switzerland
Abstract
Purpose –While existing literature focusseson the causes and negative consequences of corruption, this
paper illustrates the potential use of whistleblowing incentives to combat bribery in multinational
corporations. The purpose of the present study is to highlight that anti-bribery mechanisms, which have
already beensuccessfully applied in the public sector, may alsobe deployed in multinational organisations.
Design/methodology/approach –A two-step qualitative research process was used. Informal
interviews wereconducted with 35 corrupt public officials, followed by formalinterviews with 35 compliance
experts and law enforcement officers. During the interviews, the advantages and disadvantages of
whistleblowing incentives in multinational corporations were discussed. The interviewees’responses were
subjectedto content analysis.
Findings –The principal finding was that rewarding employees with significantmonetary bonuses may
help to increase anti-briberywhistleblowing. However, such bonus payments should be made in only major
cases of briberyto safeguard multinational corporations,company cultures and trust among employees.
Research limitations/implications –The findings convey the perspectives of the 70 interviewees
based in Austria, Germany,Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
Practical implications –The paper offers suggestions to multinational corporations on how to
effectivelycombat corruption and other forms of white-collar crime.
Originality/value –While the empirical findings are based on a European sample, the results may be
applied globally.
Keywords Whistleblowing, Corruption, Compliance, Bribery
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Twenty years ago, bribery was still commonly accepted in many parts of the world (D’Souza,
2012, p. 74). However, corruption leads to inefficient use of resources, unfair redistribution of
income and secessionist responses (Levin and Satarov, 2000, p. 114f.; Argandoña, 2007, p. 482;
Collier, 2002, p. 6). Further potential consequences include unstable sociopolitical situations and
malcontent private citizens (Anderson and Tverdova, 2003, p. 104; Mo, 2001,p.67;Kim, 1999,
p. 249). As bribery requires secrecy, it also makes the enforcement of agreements very difficult
(Mauro, 1997,p.6;Bardhan, 1997,p.1320;Mauro, 1996,p.86;Bray, 2005,p.120).Theresulting
negative impact on the development of countries has led to the widespread outlawing of
bribery (Li et al., 2000, p. 156; Kaufmann et al.,1999,p.3).
Literature review
For this study’s purposes, the definitions of bribery according to the OECD’s Anti-Bribery
Convention and Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index were
amalgamated to definebribery as an act in which a party:
[...] intentionally abuses entrusted power for private gain by offering, promising, or giving any
undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign
Anti-bribery
whistleblowing
incentive
519
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.26 No. 2, 2019
pp. 519-525
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-04-2018-0041
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial