Free Essay: Corporate Corruption in the World of Big Business

Big businesses have centralized power structures that offer monopoly status in the field they operate. The social outcomes of the centralization of financial power in the hands of the people controlling "huge businesses" have been a consistent concern for both market analysts and lawmakers since the end of the nineteenth century (Eicher 14). Researchers make different endeavors to explore the impacts of big corporations on work, customers, and financial specialists, just as upon costs and rivalry.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Sharon Eicher earned her doctorate in development economics in the year 2002. With a Bachelor of Art in Political Science, Eicher offers credible insight into the plight of corruption perpetrated in big businesses of the world today. Her writings blame big companies for a wide assortment of wrongdoings that range from the misuse of the ordinary employees to the debasement of legislators and the instigation of war crimes. Notwithstanding endeavors to take action against criminal behavior, Eicher criticizes violations like extortion, gift, theft, and tax evasion as being uncontrolled in international conglomerates (81).

What steps would leaders take to fix this developing issue? Such is the gist of this essay as people view corruption as being incompatible with big businesses. Fisman & Miriam takes us through the efforts to fight corruption (26). The two authors state that corruption has reached new heights. Worldwide acknowledgment that corruption brings an imbalance to social living leads to the creation of new statutes and global policies to reduce destitution, struggle, psychological warfare, and disappointments of improvement amongst community members (Fisman & Miriam, 186).

Bryant & Rajshekhar bring us to a global perspective of the power of corruption and how it affects the global business environment (439). Governments in India, Brazil, the UK, Canada, China, and some different nations have pursued authorization of the U.S. Remote Corrupt Practices Act. Together, Bryant & Rajshekhar proclaim, these nations have teamed up to fight corruption as the national enemy of defilement laws that emphasize open gifting of authorities by organizations, for the most part, with clearing extraterritorial power (465). The proper corporate reaction, as shown by most of these scholars, is to design hostile incorruptible countermeasures that will inadvertently cab corruption.

Nonetheless, corporate officials need to take care to avoid a situation where loopholes appear in the fight against corruption. Johnston argues that big businesses are prone to widespread bribery due to the nature of their businesses, as well as the vast scope of operation and the global outreach exposed to the management of the company (347). In this sense, Johnston brings about a "culture of consistency," this being an empty vessel that portrays nonappearance of corporate corruption instead of a set of principles and qualities.

The author outlines a global view of corrupt practices that is widespread across almost all board rooms, more so in the top 100 companies as categorized standard metrics in terms of revenue per financial year and market capitalization. Johnston goes further to unravel the opposite the culture of consistency, a "culture of ignominy" (351). Ignominy is similarly challenging to characterize as corporate corruption changes significantly in structure and is, by definition, secret and covered up. No consistency program can check all its potential indications.

While bribery can prosper as a top-down deal from the top management to junior employees, Bryant & Rajshekhar state that it is also very likely that it may be structured and restricted to specific divisions or localities of the organizations ( 468). Nyberg & Christopher second the assertion that corruption can even be driven by the least likely employee to engage in corruption behavior (459). However, Eicher contradicts these assertions claiming that this last form of corporate corruption is far less regular than is generally acclaimed (86).

Most theorists and scholars agree that corporate corruption is inescapable in certain high-risk situations (Johnston 72). The notion inferred herein is that the bigger the operational risk of the business, the more perceptible the organization is to corruption. The nature of corruption in this sense, however, is an ecological issue that happens in developing as well as developed countries (Eicher 93). Understanding an organization's powerlessness to avoid corruption requires a comprehension of its way of life; the way of doing business.

Painter-Morland decries how power struggles play out in the company, what organizational needs are, and how impetuses shape representative conduct (78). The author depicts that even though any individual who has ever worked for a venture comprehends paper articulations to be unimportant when taken outside of the relevant connection to the issue at hand, the consistency story very frequently prohibits the thought of how people act in big business setups. Organizations exist to make a profit, and to develop income and deals, and to fulfill investors' expectations.

Johnston confers to the same school of thought (82). A quarterly schedule drives money related achievement, and spending targets expect development as a matter of course. Numerous corporate leaders feel that a mind-boggling subjective accentuation on profit makes any association powerless against corruption. That weakness is upgraded by the degree that a culture underlines the legitimate exposure to corrupt behaviors and scandals (Fisman & Miriam 188); the ends justify the means. Accordingly, Painter-Morland diminishes corruption risks as requiring a functioning emphasis on qualities and practices of good corporate governance - one that thinks about how to accomplish development goals, not merely whether the company meets the set objectives (82).

The realization of company goals and objectives in this sphere requires the dynamic making of an elective account about the organization's character and its criteria for progress. Battling ignominy requires a long term view of morals, maintainability, and commitment with all partners in the society, and not merely with financial specialists (Nyberg & Christopher 461). Collective efforts to fight corruption connects to the idea of "social permit to work," a term fundamentally utilized in large business environments; however, with more great appropriateness.

Corporate corruption, for the most part, happens because you get a rare sort of people intentionally instigate the corrupt behavior (Bryant & Rajshekhar 445). On the side-lines, however, Bryant & Rajshekhar state that some pioneers do not generally think about halting corruption, and worst still, they would prefer not to think about it (446). Individuals at the top management will, in general, be very great at putting on blindfolds, and this behavior creates an environment where abuse of power is very likely to occur.

Painter-Morland opens up another segment of this debate that clinches on the capacity of corporate leaders to engage in corruption via authority vested in data powers. Data power and control implies that the more knowledgeable the executives are, the more susceptible they are to perpetuate corruption scandals. Data is power, and manipulation of data control is practiced to benefit the administration and not for the benefit of the organization (Fisman & Miriam 192). All the three authors in this segment portend that news of corporate success transcends upwards while failure moves downwards(Painter-Morland 82; Fisman & Miriam 192).

What happens is that when an organization is in terrible loss or wants to cover up some aspects of its performance, Eicher states that the top management directs junior staff to inflate or deflate figures as per the dictates of the prevailing situation at that time (92). At the point of making troublesome choices, the essential dynamic is to maintain a strategic distance from responsibility with the goal that nobody is liable for wrongdoing (Eicher 93). The conscious avoidance, however, is how corporate executives shy away from corruption scandals; by blaming junior staff for the gross misconduct unruffled in their respective corporations.

If the administration of the organization is not centered on proper morals and conformance to internally set best practices, they are as well not pro-active on human resource policies, or financial controls (Johnston 96). The factors that lead to corruption are great pointers of far many irregularities and inefficiencies in various areas of the organizations.

Conclusion

From the preceding, the notion of fighting corruption is still scandalous as corruption itself. What is being witnessed in the world today is a calibration of rotten morals and ideals in the social sphere of life, and this rot transcends to the global business environment. Very numerous pioneers still neglect to pressure the significance of authoritative honesty ceaselessly.

The leaders either underinvest in consistent frameworks or have a negative mental attitude to chance fighting corruption through the deployment of legal counselors and external bookkeepers. However, warnings still go unnoticed due to the complacent and reluctant nature and attitude of the top managers of these big businesses. When the big business managers identify wrongdoings, unobtrusive, and inconsistent management of mistakes is crafted. These pioneers legitimize their conduct by saying that corruption is an industry-wide issue that cannot be fixed by any given institution. The culture of hiding behind the corporate veil to perpetrate shady deals is ingrained deeply in the modern business environment.

Interestingly, different leaders, many working in high-risk nations or scrappy ventures, set exclusive expectations, and try to do what they say others should do. They do not simply introduce robust consistency frameworks; they likewise bolster execution projects and whistle-blowing mechanisms. The leaders should create an environment where it is mentally and socially acceptable to point out when something appears to be off-course and draw in their industry allies to battle corruption together.

The exploration in this debate demonstrates that associations with such high caliber leaders do not necessarily record more expenditure as a result of their trustworthiness, though, in the same breath, it does not guarantee high returns either way. However, although they may not develop as fast as their less-circumspect competitors in the industry, their development is progressively gainful over the long run. Attaining a corruption-free world is far less from reality. However, a significant reduction to the incidents of corruption is very likely, and this is what should be the focus of global corporate leaders in big businesses today.

Works Cited

Bryant, Charles E., and Rajshekhar G. Javalgi. "Global economic integration in developing countries: The role of corruption and human capital investment." Journal of Business Ethics 136.3 (2016): 437-450.

Eicher, Sharon, ed. Corruption in international business: The challenge of cultural and Legal Diversity. CRC Press, 2016. Print.

Fisman, Raymond, and Miriam A. Golden. Corruption: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, 2017. Print

Johnston, Michael. Political corruption: readings in comparative analysis. Routledge, 2017.

Nyberg, Daniel, and Christopher Wright. "Corporate corruption of the environment: Sustainability as a process of compromise." The British journal of sociology 64.3 (2013): 405-424.

Painter-Morland, Mollie. Business ethics as practice: Ethics as the everyday business of Business. Cambridge University Press, 2019. Print.