PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2010 | nr 1 | 153--165
Tytuł artykułu

Prevention and identification of organizational corruption

Autorzy
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
EN
Given the limitation of economic-based perspective and organizational behavior perspective on explaining and remedying corruption, we attempt to develop a prevention and identification approach for organizational corruption from an institutional-stakeholder perspective. Corporations are more likely to act ethically if they have strong state regulation, collective industrial self-regulation, NGO's and other independent organization that monitor them, and a normative institutional environment. Some implications remain. First, corruption is a dynamic process, it is difficult to stop the corrupt activities that have become embedded within daily routines, thus most scholars suggest that corruption "is best handed through prevention (Ashforth & Anand, 2003:39). Secondly, newcomers in unethical organizations are subjected to specific socialization processes that lead them to accept the prevalent activities as normal. Moreover, Fligstein (1990) found that corporate executives' approaches to managing their firms depend in part in the sorts of training they received in business schools. Therefore, for both corporate executive's and newcomers, it is important that business schools should incorporate courses on business ethics into their curriculum (Vogel, 1992). (fragment of text)
Rocznik
Numer
Strony
153--165
Opis fizyczny
Twórcy
autor
  • Ching Yun University in Jung-Li, Taiwan
Bibliografia
  • Aguilera R.V., & Jackson G. 2003. The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimentions and determinants. "Academy of Management Review", 28: 447-465.
  • Anand V., Ashforth B.E., & Joshi, M. 2004. Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. "Academy of Management Executive", 18 (2): 39-53.
  • Ashforth B.E., Gioia D.A. R obinson S.L. & Trevino L.K. 2008. Introduction to special topic forum: Re-viewing organizational corruption. "Academy of Management Review", 33 (3): 670-684.
  • Ashforth B.E. & Anand V. 2003. The normalization of corruptions. Research of corruption in organizations. "Research in Organizational Behavior", 25: 1-52.
  • Black H.C. 1979. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St, Paul, MN: West publishing Co.
  • Campbell J.L. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. "Academy of Management Review", 32 (3): 946-967.
  • Crenson M.A. 1971. The un-politics of air pollution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Cummings J.L., and Doh J.P. 2000. Identifying who matters: mapping key players in multiple environments, "California Management Review", 42 (2): 83-104.
  • Dimaggio P.J. and Powell, W.W. 1991. Introduction. In: Powell, W.W. and Dimaggio P.J. (eds.), New Institutionalism and Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Doh J.P., & Guay T.R. 2006. Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. "Journal of Management Studies", 43 (1): 47-73.
  • Doh J.P., Rodrigues P, Uhlenbruck K., Collins J. & Eden L. 2003. Coping with corruption in foreign markets. "Academy of Management Executive", 17 (3): 114-129.
  • Driver C., & Thompson G. 2002. Corporate governance and democracy: The stakeholder debate revisited. "Journal of Management and Governance", 6: 111-130. Economist. 2004.
  • European corporate governance: Turning sour. January 3:8-9.
  • Fligstein N. 1990. The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Freeman R E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
  • Frooman J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. "Academy of Management Review", 24. 191-205.
  • Ivancevich J.M., Duening T.N., Gilbert J.A., & Konopaske R. 2003. Deterring white-collar crime. "Academy of Management Executive", 17 (2): 114-127.
  • Jones T.M. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. "Academy of Management Review", 20 (2): 404-437.
  • Keim G. 2003. Nongovernmental organizations and business-government relations: The importance of institutions. In: Doh J.P. and Teegen H. (eds), Globalization and NGOs: Transforming Business, Governments, and Society. Westport, CT: Praegrer.
  • Klitgaard R E. 1988. Controlling corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Martin R.L., 2003. The virtue matrix: Calculating the return on corporate responsibility. In: Harvard Business Review on corporate social responsibility: 83-104. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
  • Misangyi V.F., Weaver G.R., & Elms H. 2008. Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. "Academy of Management Review", 33 (3): 750-770.
  • Mitchell R.K., Agle B.R. and Wood D.J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. "Academy of Management Review", 22, 853-856.
  • North D.C. 1991. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • North D.C. 1994. Economic performance through time. "The American Economic Review". 84, 359-68.
  • Ohmae K. 1995. The end of the nation state. N.Y.: Free press.
  • Ohmae K. 1990. The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy. N.Y.: Harper
  • Porter M.E. & Kramer M.R. 2003. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. In: Harvard Business Review on corporate social responsibility: 27-64. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Shleifer A. & Vishny R.W. 1993. Corruption. "Quarterly Journal of Economics", 108: 599- 617.
  • Sternberg E. 1997. The defects of stakeholder theory. "Corporate Governance: An International Review", 5 (1): 3-10.
  • Stiglittz J.E. 2003. The roaring nineties: A new history of the world's most prosperous decade. N.Y.: Norton.
  • Tolbert P.S. and Zucker L.G. 1996. The institutionalization of institutional theory. In: Clegg, S.R., Hardy C. and Norde, W.R. (Eds). A Handbook of Organizational Studies. London: Sage.
  • Trevino L.K., & Weaver G. 2003. Managing ethics in business organization: Social scientific perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Wells J.T. 2004. Corporate Fraud Handbook: Prevention and Detection. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Weaver G.R. & Trevino L.K., 1999. Compliance and values oriented ethics programs: Influences on employees' attitudes and behavior. "Business Ethics Quarterly", 9: 315-337.
  • Williamson O.E. and Bercoviz J. 1996. The modern corporation as an efficiency instruments: the comparative contracting perspective. In: Kaysen C. (Ed.), The American Corporation Today. London: Oxford University Press.
  • Vogel D. 1992. The globalization of business ethics: Why America remains distinctive. "California Management Review", 35 (1): 30-49.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171265711

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.