Bribery and corruption: A comparative study between Australian and Malaysian managers

With recent allegations against Sucurency a Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) currency subsidiary involving bribes to secure contracts as well as the conviction of Rio Tinto's Stern Hu in China for bribery and industrial espionage, critical questions relating to ethical business practice continue to be raised for the international business community. In the wake of these recent events and the previous international bribery and corruption scandel involving the Australian Wheat Board where bribery was an organisational norm and QANTAS airways cartel price fixing in the US market some critical questions arise, Are Australian business practices as ethical and transparent as the current high ranking in the Transparency International corruption index tends to suggest? Are these business practices in terms of bribery and corruption any better or worse than those of our regional trading partners? Bribery and corruption can be defined differently depending on the perspective and the issue that is being discussed, for example; economic, political or legal. Kinsea (2008) suggests that an individual or a group is said to be guilty of corruption if they accept money for doing something that they are under a duty to do anyway or that they are under a duty not to do. Bribery can be seen as an illegal or unauthorised transfer of money or an in-kind substitute as an inducement (Rose-Ackerman, 1974). Ashford and Anand (2003) describe a process whereby corrupt behaviour within an organization becomes accepted and furthermore becomes an organisational norm The authors argue that all organizations have the potential for corrupt or unethical practices as opportunities exist both internally and externally which if accepted can result in the normalisation of the practice.