Incentive systems in anti-bribery
Fabian Maximilian Johannes Teichmann
Teichmann International AG, St. Gallen, Switzerland
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
Keywords Whistleblowing, Corruption, Compliance, Bribery
Paper type Research paper
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).
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
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.26 No. 2, 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: