Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how revelations of corporate misconduct are associated with trade credit. Specifically, it investigates how this association varies in different regions, in different types of industries and in response to companies’ subsequent charitable donations.

The authors empirically tested various hypotheses using a sample of 2,725 Chinese A-share listed companies from 2009 to 2014 based on signaling theory. Fixed effect models underpinned the methods used.

The authors found that corporate misconduct has a significant negative impact on an irresponsible company’s trade credit received and granted, and the negative impact is heterogeneous for different regions and industries. There is no evidence that charitable donations mitigate the effect on the trade credit of irresponsible companies following revelations of corporate misconduct.

The results suggest that listed companies in China should obey national and local laws and regulations if they wish to avoid the risk of significant trade credit loss. If a company’s violation of these laws and regulations is disclosed, making charitable donations is not an effective strategy for safeguarding trade credit.

This study enriches understanding on the consequences of corporate misconduct and extends the literature on trade credit. It fills a research gap by identifying the impact of corporate misconduct on trade credit.

This paper aims to identify a typology of corporate misconduct affecting trust; to test the relative ability of individual misconducts to reduce trust and; to explain differences in how individuals respond to corporate crises.

The main research design uses conjoint analysis. Respondents (n = 404) rated eight combinations of six types of misconduct, identified from prior work on trust as likely to reduce trust. Initial levels of trust were established by varying both country of origin and product type.

The importance ranking for the six types was consistent across most conditions, with “bending the law” and “not telling the truth” as the most salient and “acting unfairly” and “acting irresponsibly” as the least salient in damaging trust. The characteristics of the respondent influenced the effect size.

As loss of trust represents loss of reputation, understanding how and when the framing of misconduct damages trust is important in managing reputation risk. The impact of any report of misconduct can be moderated if attributed by a company, the media or the individual, to a type that is less damaging to trust.

This study adds to our understanding as to why individuals respond differently to corporate misconduct, and contributes to prior work on reputation damage. The typology of corporate misconduct developed and tested here offers a different framework for researchers and practitioners with which to explore loss of trust and to develop existing crisis communication theory.

Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) are the tool of choice for federal prosecutors when adjudicating corporate misconduct. A DPA is a negotiation that permits the allegedly guilty party from undergoing a criminal trial if they avoid committing further wrongdoing for a specified period. This paper aims to examine whether DPAs are a beneficial mechanism for the criminal justice system to use while adjudicating corporate misconduct. By conducting in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with 24 practitioners in the legal field and white-collar crime experts, this study identifies the shortcomings and advantages of DPAs and highlights what policy enactments might enhance their application. The study contributes to the existing literature by expanding the narratives used by judicial officials, legal practitioners and white-collar crime scholars on the role of DPAs.

The current study is an in-depth qualitative analysis that explores judicial actors’ and white-collar crime scholars’ opinions on the adoption of DPAs to adjudicate corporate misconduct. The literature on DPAs is currently derived primarily from law and literature reviews published by legal scholars. Clandestine negotiations are not accessible to the public and are frequently kept in sealed files unless a breach of contract occurs, resulting in the case proceeding to trial. Hence, a qualitative analysis is the best approach to evaluate the effectiveness of DPAs. Further, little evidence is available that focuses on the opinions of professionals who have participated in these agreements. The interviews were conducted over Zoom and lasted an average of 43 min, with the longest interview spanning 1 h and 45 min and the shortest interview being 14 minutes. A non-probability sampling method – specifically, snowball sampling – was used to generate a total sample of 24 legal professionals and white-collar crime scholars. Initial participants were found by contacting law offices specializing in white-collar crime litigation and using current networks to attain access to a broader range of participants. Then, 19 participants provided referrals throughout the study. The final sample consisted of nine government officials, eight legal practitioners and seven white-collar crime academics experts. One of the government official interviews was excluded from the final research project due to a lack of expertise in the field of white-collar crime. The interview questions were designed to promote in-depth conversation and insight into personal opinions on the adoption of DPAs. Several inquiries highlighted whether DPAs are an appropriate response to corporate misconduct and whether they reduced recidivism through their intended deterrent effect. Furthermore, several descriptive questions sought to understand which criminal justice actors support the adoption of DPAs in white-collar crime cases and why. Coding of the data was first conducted individually by each author. The researchers then compared thematic findings that reflected consensus.

An immediate theme identifiable in the research is the intrinsic value that DPAs offer in adjudicating corporate wrongdoing. As indicated by a participant, corporate misconduct is not “black or white,” stressing the importance of prosecutors having a middle ground between criminal prosecution and the dismissal of charges. A judicial official indicated that “DPAs are another essential arrow in a prosecutor’s quiver – and something a defense attorney can bargain for” (Respondent 5). Seven government officials and legal practitioners noted that you are unable to send a corporation to jail, and you do not simply want to put them out of business; thus, a DPA is the only tool in which the government can mandate structural change in a company without dismantling the entire entity. Only three academics concurred with the government officials and legal practitioners that DPAs are beneficial and offer prosecutors a vital middle ground. One academic, for example, stated that “DPAs have given U.S Attorney offices that ability to be involved for a considerable amount of time in a company's business, while simultaneously promoting change within the entity” (Respondent 14). Additionally, DPAs ensure that corporations are held criminally liable without triggering an endless cycle of collateral consequences for innocent third parties. One legal practitioner, for example, stated: “Just look at the Enron case; they charged Arthur Andersen with obstruction of justice and dismantled the entire entity they made it where the business was never going to come back. A small subset of individuals, in this case, should have been held responsible but instead, hundreds and if not thousands of people were harmed. With this in mind, DPAs are extremely important, in that it limits collateral consequences because DPAs take a more holistic view that criminal prosecution does not consider” (Respondent 21). Another respondent highlighted that “DPAs are the only tool available that can be employed to change an entire organization structurally” (Respondent 20). Ultimately, the findings suggest that there is a consensus among respondents that DPAs are an appropriate response to corporate misconduct, particularly when the agreement stipulates that a company must hire an external compliance monitor and update their current compliance system. Overall, participants emphasized that these stipulations promote a sense of corporate accountability, provide for the dismissal of guilty employees and mandate structural change. The majority of the respondents (n = 20) insisted that DPAs are advantageous, yet a subset of participants were skeptical of their use in white-collar crime prosecutions. One legal practitioner, for example, noted that “DPAs are political creatures that are awarded as political favors to the largest of corporations that our economy relies upon” (Respondent 17). Another government official confirmed this statement, indicating that “DPAs are a mere slap on the wrist for large corporations – they simply see it as doing business” (Respondent 6). Four academic participants emphasized that DPAs are typically negotiated with multi-level corporations and are not extended to the small businesses that suffer the dire consequences of criminal prosecution. One academic, for instance, stressed that “the question becomes is it fairly applied and being implemented properly. Larger companies are more likely to receive and benefit from a DPA, thus, raising the question of fairness” (Respondent 12). Another academic who was previously a government official stated: “DPAs risk abuse – there have been several instances where prosecutors have forced companies to donate money to favored charities and overstepped their powers. Sometimes DPAs also come with monitors. For example, banks typically have to pay for the auditor, and it becomes extremely intrusive, and it it not clear that they are efficient.”

Several limitations exist in this research. First, it is not a comprehensive study that is representative of the larger population, which limits generalizability. Given the contention of research on DPAs, this qualitative research contributes to the literature, and its findings are likely transferable to multiple settings in which DPAs are used. Second, DPAs are processed and drafted differently across jurisdictions; thus, comparing DPAs across state levels and among departments in the federal government would be equivalent to comparing apples to oranges. This comparison is yet another limitation to the study because criminal justice practitioners operate in both the state and federal jurisdictions. Another challenge in the current study and something that likely will be a problem for future researchers is the difficulty of gaining access to experts in an exclusive field of criminal justice, such as federal prosecutors, Department of Justice officials, federal judges and elite corporate defense attorneys. Ultimately, several obstacles arose during the study, particularly when recruiting participants to gain a large enough sample size to conduct meaningful analysis. This resulted in smaller sample size but rich, in-depth data that achieved saturation among participants.

Several policy implications are identifiable. First, it appears that DPAs are a mainstay of white-collar crime prosecution. No participants advocate for their complete removal from the prosecution process. Participants highlight that DPAs occupy an essential middle-ground between dismissal and criminal charges. Without this mechanism, prosecution would be impeded, and holding corporate criminal actors liable would increasingly become formidable. Although it appears that the system cannot function without DPAs, several respondents emphasize that we must begin to hold individuals accountable alongside corporations. Another policy implication that a minority of participants mentioned within the study involves ensuring that our compliance monitoring system operates appropriately. A majority of participants note that the overarching stipulation that promotes structural change within an organization is adopting a functioning compliance monitoring system, thus, emphasizing the importance of this process operating smoothly and ethically. The selection of an independent compliance monitor may be problematic. For example, a former government compliance monitor notes that not all monitors are experts in the field they are overseeing. A pharmaceutical expert, for example, may be attempting to regulate an automotive organization, which may present unique challenges. An agency of federal professionals dedicated to supervising specific industries such as automotive, pharmaceutical and financial would ensure that organizations are actually implementing the terms of the DPA.

Ultimately, the current research highlights the necessity of empirically studying the benefits and drawbacks of such agreements. Future research on the topic remains onerous due to the scarcity of a centralized database that contains extensive details of DPAs. The present study suggests that the verdict on DPAs is undecided, with more than half of the study's criminal justice professionals advocating for their continued and even increased use. However, about half of the participants, particularly academics, called attention to the agreements’ potential bias. The disagreement among participants is most contentious in the consideration of a DPA centralized database which would immensely aid future research and policy advancements.

Recent news of corporate misconduct at Arthur Andersen, Enron, WorldCom, etc., has focused attention on ethics in business. Government, business, educational institutions, as well as professional organisations have had to rethink ways of addressing this issue. This article presents the findings of a study of attitudes toward business codes of ethics. The attitudes of Master’s‐level US business students at two different points in time, before and after recent reports of corporate misconduct, are compared to see what changes had occurred, to see whether these changes were linked to the disclosures of unethical corporate conduct, and to examine whether taking a course in ethics had an effect on attitudes.

This paper aims to discuss criminogenic elements and processes inherently presented in business organisations that affect the emergence of crime committed in or by business organisations.

This conceptual paper, based on relevant literature regarding a range of crime-coercive and crime-facilitative elements and forces that promote corporate crime, considers business organisations as a cogent unit of analysis to discuss the causation and origin of corporate crime.

Business organisations are, per se, criminogenic, i.e. companies are latently prone to committing crime, but are not necessarily criminal. By seeking to achieve commercial goals, companies can unintentionally create an atmosphere that invites crimes and unethical conduct. Organisational criminality is not primarily influenced by deviance in individual behaviour, but is a product of the organisation’s criminogenic settings and environment. Criminal activity arises from contact with criminogenic systems and employees’ adaption to organisational behaviours that do not meet the highest ethical and moral standards.

This is a theoretical analysis, lacking empirical research.

This study can help anti-fraud and compliance practitioners to develop anti-fraud strategies to prevent corporate crime at its source and further discussion on the causes of corporate misconduct and progresses the debate on the sources of illegal and unethical behaviour displayed in, and by, business organisations.

This paper highlights intrinsic features of business organisations that influence companies and employees to engage in illegal activities, malpractice and unethical behaviour and provides a conceptual framework and insights into the realm of inherent criminogenesis within business organisations and how this is shaped by organisations themselves.

Inspired by the comparison of charity donations among candidates in rural elections, the authors linked the non-profit motives of charity to corporate pollution emissions. And on this basis, the authors aim to provide theoretical and empirical explanations for the relationship between corporate philanthropy and pollution. The authors find that the desire to pursue more pollution emissions stimulates the firm's philanthropy, which is similar to the public welfare donations in rural elections.

Firstly, the authors construct a game-theoretical framework consisting of an entrepreneur and a bureaucrat to study the environmental cost of corporate philanthropy through the impact on pollution emission by the firm. Secondly, the authors used various empirical methods, including hybrid OLS, IV-2SLS, PSM, etc., to empirically test the impact of a firm's philanthropy on corporate pollution emissions. Finally, the authors use the output and abatement input as intermediary variables and apply the intermediary effect model to test the impact mechanism between corporate philanthropy and corporate pollution emissions.

Theoretical model finds that the firm invests more in philanthropy discharges more emissions when the theoretical model is in political equilibrium. Besides, empirical results show that corporate philanthropy will lead to more pollution emissions by reducing abatement input and increasing production. Finally, the heterogeneity test finds that compared with state-owned enterprises, the intention of non-state-owned enterprises' philanthropy for more pollution emission is more obvious. Moreover, the improvement of regional environmental regulation can significantly inhibit the realization of corporate philanthropy's poor motive.

The results have obvious policy implications for China's future policy-making. Firstly, regulatory agencies should pay close attention to the charitable behaviors of firms with serious negative environmental externalities, and prevent them from replacing more pollution emissions with philanthropy. Besides, due to weak environmental supervision in rural areas, rural polluting enterprises will be more inclined to make charitable donations to the village collective to obtain more emission rights. Therefore, the government should strengthen environmental supervision in rural areas to prevent enterprises from wanton pollution.

By constructing a game-theoretical framework consisting of an entrepreneur and a bureaucrat, the authors expound on corporate philanthropy's pollution motivation and decision-making mechanism for the first time in theory. Besides, this paper finds that the desire to pursue more pollution emissions also stimulates the firm's philanthropy. This paper expands the literature on corporate charitable donation motivations.

This paper examines how the inferred motives for corporate philanthropy relate to the types of charitable causes supported.

Published data were obtained for 256 publicly traded and private corporations from a variety of sources.

The results demonstrated that a number of motives were not significantly related to total charitable giving, but were related to how charitable funds were distributed to various charitable causes. Thus, the study provides insights on the strategic use of corporate charity as means of achieving various business objectives and advancing a theoretical understanding of corporate philanthropy strategies.

This study only investigated some of the presumed motives for corporate philanthropy. Even for the motives investigated in this study, no attempt was made to examine all the motivational factors that determine the level of need for a specific motive. Thus, while the present study provides some of the first evidence of a relationship between motivational factors and data on the types of charitable causes supported, there are other motivational factors that could be investigated in future studies.

The results have a number of implications for managers of nonprofit organizations such as marketing/targeting potential donors. Additionally, the results could be useful for managers of for profit firms in terms of comparing corporate strategies with competing firms.

The study provides a framework for investigating the relationship between motivational factors and types of charitable causes supported.

Overall, the purpose of this paper is to define and delineate the meaning of the concept of Organizational Incivility (OI) by examining its features, scope and implications. Furthermore, it depicts a set of research propositions aiming to guide future research.

Toward this end, this paper draws upon the literature of workplace incivility, unethical behavior, organizational dark side behavior and corporate social irresponsibility, which have been examined through distinct theoretical streams and frames them under the lens of OI concept. The ensuing analysis focuses on some well-known business-cases and their tragic consequences. In doing so, it also argues that the OI concept provides a solid theoretically based framework about how uncivil mindset have been specifically shaped at the organizational level.

Overall, it is proposed that OI is a by-product of conscious (bad) decisions in which the organizational leaderships are allured, at some point and for distinct reasons, to embrace moral disengagement and unethical choices. In doing so, the organizations overlook or neglect their commitments to society’s well-being and environmental preservation. As a result, the organizations start to play a dirty game without any sense of respect for those that rely on them (i.e. consumers and citizens).

The implementation of strict ethical codes and governance measures have proved not to be enough to contain the OI practices. In this regard, organizational leaderships should question themselves if their companies are truly aligned with a civilized conduct. In turn, government agencies, federal laws and institutions dedicated to preserve people’s well-being should play a more incisive role by identifying and stifling the organizational dark side.

On the face of it, it is argued that a myriad of demonstrations of organizational dark side that are identified worldwide can be theoretically explored through the lens of OI and therein lies the major contribution of this work. More specifically, it demonstrates that incivility can go, in fact, beyond organization frontiers spilling over the stakeholders in a negative manner and damaging the interactions. Further, it also contributes to theory by suggesting that OI is a process carefully designed by the organizational leaderships to achieve obscure goals and/or darker purposes.

This paper aims to examine the effect of family control on corporate anticorruption disclosures of UK publicly listed firms and whether female board directors moderate the latter relationship.

This paper uses Poisson regression analysis for a sample of 1,546 FTSE 350 firm-year observations. Weighted least squares and propensity score matching are then used to assess the robustness of the findings.

The results show that family ownership and involvement are negatively associated with anticorruption disclosures. The tests of moderation indicate that female directors decrease the negative effect of family control on anticorruption disclosures.

To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, this paper is the first to investigate the impact of family control on anticorruption disclosures while taking into consideration the moderating effect of female directors.

The barrage of corporate scandals has become pervasive such that it collapsed high-profile organizations worldwide. Prior studies show that reporters of corporate scandals encounter a number of challenges which discourages them from disclosing wrongful acts to appropriate authorities to effect action. Thus, this study aims to examine the remediation of the challenges of reporting corporate scandals in governance.

The study used cross-sectional survey design. Primary data was obtained from 400 employees of selected organizations and analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation and regression techniques in Statistical Package of Social Science.

The results confirm that reporters of corporate scandals are confronted with challenges such as victimization, fear, suspension/dismissal, sideline and high power distance. However, these challenges can be remediated through award, code of conduct, free expression, participation/consultation and safeguard regulations to encourage and protect reporters of corporate scandals.

The findings imply that there should be an award scheme for reporters, and this must be made known to all employees. Furthermore, code of conduct for employees should include reporting of scandals together with its associated benefits and sanctions. Also, organizations would have to practice consultative/participatory governance system to minimize the effect of high power distance. Finally, regulations should be enacted and enforced to safeguard reporters of corporate scandals.

This research consolidated the challenges associated with reporting corporate scandals and provides remedies to curtail such challenges so as to encourage employees to report corporate scandals.