Understanding Bribery and Islamic Business Ethics in Organizations
A Phenomenological Study
Nadiatus Salama and Nobuyuki Chikudate
Department of Management Studies, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Japan
Keywords: bribery, business ethics, Islam, organization, phenomenology.
Abstract: Indonesia, a country with Muslim majorities, is considered as one of the most bribe countries around the
globe. Even bribery is morally wrong from the Islamic business ethics perspectives; it becomes truly
entrenched and hard to be uprooted. The implementation of Islamic business ethics is obligatory because
organizations must strictly operate in compliance with Quran, which has an extreme concern regarding ethical
conduct in every aspect of human life. Even though bribery is more costly than people might think, bribery is
an underexplored topic in Indonesia. The cost is not just fines and regulatory actions but also has negative
effects on employee morale, loss of financial expenses, low commitment, inadequate organizational culture,
job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of people
who actually engage in bribery in Indonesia. Among various qualitative methods, the authors utilize a
phenomenological technique with in-depth interviews in order to obtain wide-ranging insights from people
who involved in bribery cases. The finding of this paper is essential to provide significant advices for
organizations to operate their business “safely” The authors also consider how Islam, a great and developed
tradition of teaching about business ethics, contributes to prevent bribery. Finally, they suggest how Islam
enhances ethical lives and well-beings of workers in Islamic workplaces.
1 INTRODUCTION
Indonesia has a more significant Muslim population
than any other country in the world with 88% of their
population practicing the Muslim faith. Islam, the
religion of most embraced by the Indonesian people,
openly opposes to any condition of the violation of
right ethics, such as bribery and do support the efforts
to eradicate bribery. Nonetheless, people, bribery is
widespread in countries where the largest number of
highly religious. This predominantly Muslim state
ranked worse to 96th in 2017 from 90th in 2016 (TI,
2018). Even though Indonesia has some laws and
regulations that could be used to annihilate bribery,
the country has mostly unsuccessful in overcoming
this issue.
In Indonesia, many business people undertake
bribery even though it is formally illegal.
Gratification, giving hospitality, expensive dinners
and entertainment are quite normal business practices
in Indonesia. Bribe actors involved in bribery claim
that their actions were something different from
criminal conduct like murder, battery, rape, assault,
terrorism, kidnapping, arson, gang violence, and
domestic violence. On the top of that, many bribe
actors think that it is not a big deal and everyone else
is still doing it (Lawler, 2012).
Based on a global study by Ernst and Young
(2013), 60% of Indonesian respondents regarded
earning cash payments to gain new business as an
acceptable practice. Additionally, 40% of Indonesian
respondents believed that providing entertainment to
take over or retain business was also acceptable
conduct. People assume that if other people do it, so
they might do it too. Perceiving that the majority
engages in bribe makes it much easier for someone to
justify their bribe behavior. So, the more frequently
people recognized the bribery behavior to be, the
more potential they were to behave bribery in
business (Köbis, 2015).
Companies not only suffered from bribery but
also played in violating business ethics. Issues of
business ethics have increasingly become more
crucial in organizations business settings. Executing
business ethics is also essential to empower business
sector in practicing ethical, sustainable, and
responsible business.
Salama, N. and Chikudate, N.
Understanding Bribery and Islamic Business Ethics in Organizations - A Phenomenological Study.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Islamic Economics, Business, and Philanthropy (ICIEBP 2017) - Transforming Islamic Economy and Societies, pages 521-526
ISBN: 978-989-758-315-5
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
521

This research emphasizes on the recently
emerging field of behavioral business ethics. Bribery
at the firm level is ‘underexplored’ (Pinto et al.,
2008), including in Indonesia. Existential evidence
has been sketchy on the direct performance impact of
bribery mainly because it is hard to obtain empirical
data on firm-level bribery. On little analysis of firm-
level data, with firm-level evidence also being mostly
gained from surveys (Hellman and Schankerman,
2000; Svensson, 2003; Cull and Xu, 2005; Fisman
and Svensson, 2007; D’Souza and Kaufmann, 2010).
All of these disciplines need effective tools to address
the organizational contexts, behaviors, and processes
that create bribery at the organizational level.
2 BRIBERY ON BUSINESS
Bribery perhaps the most famous types of corrupt
activity. Bribery schemes occur in every phase of an
economic cycle and have become visible of everyday
life, but they are most widespread during recessions
when competition for business raised. Bribery
phenomenon is complex, complicated, and difficult to
apprehend, resulting in the notion that defining
bribery is more or less a mission impossible. In a
nutshell, the definition of bribery is relatively wide
between broad and narrow (Hubert, 2010).
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (2000) described bribery as
the offering, promising or giving of something to
substantially affect a public official in the execution
or decisions of his/her official duties. Many
descriptions argue about giving or taking an
‘advantage’ or ‘inducement’ to perform a function
‘improperly’ that always involves at least a supply
side (the briber) and a demand side (the public
official). After all, bribery can involve many different
parties to the transaction that not always occurred
through cash or monetary payment. Bribes may take
not only the structure of any financial inducement, but
also can be anything of worth to bribe takers, such as
a holiday for purchasing manager disguised as a gift,
hospitality, and business traveling (Hardoon and
Heinrich, 2011). Even only a promise to offer
something in the future for making a business benefit.
Bribery is a financial transaction between power
and illegal private gains (Luo, 2002). They also can
obtain protected markets and monopolies,
import/export licenses and quotas, and connection to
substantial state contracts on capital goods, regular
supplies, major civil engineering projects, and
construction works (Andvig, Fjeldstad, Amundsen,
Sissener, and Søreide, 2000).
Bribery regarded as one of the most challenging
unethical behavior to study. There is usually no scene
of the offense, no fingerprint, and no eye to follow up.
The formal contract is not written. Contact is
established through oral communication so that it
cannot be well documented and used to prosecute a
responsible entity. It is by nature a very secretive law
breaking and can involve just two satisfied factions,
and there is no incentive to reveal the truth. Bribery
rarely exists alone and often becomes a tool to
facilitate organized crime. In all nations’ accounting
laws or standards, bribery expenditures cannot be
recorded as production costs or as operational
expenses (Luo, 2005).
However, bribery is one of the essential tools of
corruption that is used companies to ‘buy’ many
things. Giving or taking a bribe is pure corruption,
and should be recognized as the root of corruption.
Joana and Kompa (2012) asserted that bribery is
illegally accepted payments for services, but firms
must be expected to be unwilling to confess that they
pay bribes. Bribery benefits corrupt officials to
private financial profit and for the briber to either
increase outcomes quicker than others, to induce the
officials to turn a blind eye to illegal behavior or to
buy influence with commercial power (Mutebi,
2008).
Because bribery must be hidden from the public,
transaction costs arising from bribe practices can be
significantly bigger than those occurred for legal
exchanges. However, only a small part of bribes are
detected, showing that bribery is more pervasive than
what is reported (Doh, Rodriguez, Uhlenbruck,
Collins, and Eden, 2003). Allies of a bribe agreement
are secured to each other even after a transaction has
been completed.
Bribe acts, however, trigger dishonesty and
dissipate credibility. Dishonesty and unreliability
thus destroy, rather than stimulate, business networks
(Luo, 2002). Bribery hurts company growth for small
and medium-sized firms, but not for large
corporations (Zhou and Peng, 2012). Organizations
with money have authority over others (Srivastava,
Locke, and Bartol, 2001), and this authority is
exchanged when they pay bribes to predatory
officials.
The companies paying the highest bribes are not
the most efficient ones. Those who are treating
bribery as an investment to expect a high ROI (Return
On Investment) do not introduce sustainable positive
forces of efficiency and competitiveness (Tanzi,
1998). Companies, which need the business the most,
are more often inclined to pay bribes. According to
researchers, both situational and individual factors
ICIEBP 2017 - 1st International Conference on Islamic Economics, Business and Philanthropy
522

contribute to such bribe behavior (Grieger, 2005). It
has been known that from the perspective of social
psychology (Snyder and Cantor, 1998), human
behavior is not only determined by what someone
feels, thinks, and wants, but also by the situation
individual is interacting in. In the job context,
workload, incentive structures, organizational
cultures (Ferrel, Gresham, and Fraedrich, 1989;
Treviño, 1986), or social norms (de Cremer and van
Dijk, 2010) might be the causes of behavior
inconsistencies.
As reported by Powpaka (2002), firms pay bribes
to overcome local pressure (Atkinson, 1957), and to
obtain commercial benefits (Sanyal, 2005). Similarly,
Rose-Ackerman (2002) also reported that paying
bribes is an efficient way to influence local officials.
In both cases, companies obtain power from officials
by paying bribes to strengthen their position in the
local business.
Bribery, like other deviant behavior, may lead
further than a financial burden (Rogojan, 2009). The
cost of bribery is not just fines and regulatory actions
(Serafeim, 2013), but also business relations, worker
morale, and relations with regulators would be worse.
Members of bribe organizations face higher risk when
engaging in bribery than do individuals who do not
belong to such organizations (Collins, Uhlenbruck,
and Rodriguez, 2009). Research indicates that
employees often feel helpless in the face of bribery
(Anand, Ashforth, and Joshi, 2005). Within bribe
organizations, employees might think bribery in a
positive light (Ashforth and Anand, 2003) and
consequences such as gaining a bonus or promotion
if they do bribery. Moreover, employees might
perceive a negative impact if they refuse bribery such
as social exclusion, retaliation, or mobbing (Henik
2008; Rehg, Miceli, Near, and Van Scotter, 2008;
Rothschild and Miethe, 1999).
Worse still, relying on traditional practices may
help managers justify their actions and bolster their
excuses for deviant behavior (Bernard, 2006; Elsbach
and Sutton, 1992). Managers may justify bribe acts
on economic grounds related to performance or
because of assumptions on the significance of
engaging bribery. For them, involved in bribery
usually decreasing uncertainty for firms (Collins et
al., 2009). A firm relying on bribery ordinarily
perceives bribe acts as a substitute for innovative
technological and organizational skills. It may expect
bribery to be a swifter, and more effective, strategic
instrument by which it may accomplish its
organizational goals, rather than focusing on building
and upgrading its dynamic capabilities (Luo, 2002).
After all, it directly contributes to the routinization of
these behaviors within firms (Ashforth and Anand,
2003; Vaughan, 1999).
3 BUSINESS ETHICS IN ISLAM
Business ethics is the study of fair business policies
and practices concerning potentially controversial
problems, such as corporate governance, bribery,
insider trading, discrimination, fiduciary
responsibilities, and corporate social responsibility
(Investopedia, 2017). It becomes a prerequisite for
conducting any business that affected by unique
individual qualities, personality, and demographics
(Robinson and Bennett, 1995).
DesJardins (2010) defined business ethics as
those values, standards, and principles that run in
business. Hence, business ethics is the study of the
ethical dimensions of productive organizations and
commercial activities (Donaldson and Walsh, 2015).
Ethics change over time and place, but bribery is
always considered reprehensible. Many organizations
try to avoid the emergence of unethical decisions and
actions. However, it is clear that these incidents will
occur (De Cremer, Mayer, and Schminkem, 2010).
Meanwhile, according to Islamic teaching, a
business cannot be done in a way in which one
becomes a loser nor greedy (Hussnain, 2011). Islam
has long and developed traditions of teaching about
business ethics. Islamic business ethics are far-
reaching, as it sets the standard for going beyond what
is acceptable in the marketplace. Islam that has a high
and developed tradition of teaching about business
ethics to frowns upon bribery. It is unquestionably a
sinful act. The implementation of business ethics is
obligatory because organizations must strictly
operate in compliance with Quran which Muslims
consider being an apocalypse from God, which has
the concern regarding ethical conduct in every aspect
of human life profoundly.
Empirical research has shown the role in
determining religion's impact on business ethics.
Religion reduces bribery because it supports in
organizing a civil society where citizens are more
likely to monitor elites (Treisman, 2000). Hence,
religious people tend to be more ethical. On the other
hand, Hegarty and Sims (1978, 1979) found no
relationship between an individual's religious
orientation and business ethics. Shadabi (2013) stated
that religion does not influence bribery that against
business ethics. Besides, in various other studies
reported that no difference between religious and
nonreligious persons regarding behavior such as
dishonesty or cheating (Smith, Wheeler, and Diener,
Understanding Bribery and Islamic Business Ethics in Organizations - A Phenomenological Study
523

1975). In other words, it is logical to deduce that
religion has no significant effect on bribery.
4 METHODS
This research will employ a qualitative method to
exploring the view of bribery due to: (1) gaining a
deeper understanding of largely unexplored topic, and
(2) its sensitive, enigmatic, and private issues.
Purposive sampling procedure, face-to-face, and
open-ended interviews with constant probing will be
used to be independently generated, limit researcher’s
bias, and prevent a potential conflict of interest to
collect the data for this study.
All of the informants have experience dealing
with bribery cases and involved in the execution and
have massive experience in handling bribery cases.
Informant in this research consists of 12 people with
compositions is: four bribe givers and six bribe-takers
were selected from pharmaceutical and publishing
company. Furthermore, I interviewed some of anti-
bribery experts in diverse positions that have
experience dealing with bribery cases, such as two
anti-corruption agencies and two
academia/researchers.
A meaning-oriented phenomenological analysis
will be carried out to understand the process of
bribery in organization. Moustakas’ (1994) multi-step
methodology involves epoche or bracketing biases,
developing a list of non-repetitive statements,
grouping important statements into themes, scanning
the data for themes and sub-themes, synthesizing
these themes, and then providing structural
descriptions.
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This research used inductive category coding in
presenting the results of the exploratory study. Some
themes were developed based on data collection on
causes, process, and form of bribery, including
religious faith.
 Causes of bribery
a. Make users keep in mind with the certain
company.
b. Competition in business and making a profit.
“Other companies do bribes, so we do it
too; otherwise we could collapse.”
c. Organizational culture
 Process of bribery
a. Companies do the transformation of its sales
from agent system to door-to-door system. If
they do not perform like that, so they will lose
quickly.
b. There is a MoU to provide rebates of up to
50% given at the beginning even though the
transaction has not been made yet.
"Before the goods were bought, the companies
had given the commission first, so it was like a
bargaining position, for example, if the selling
price was 300 million, then 150 million was
given first. Many companies are playing like
this too; this becomes a vicious circle.”
 The form of bribery
a. A set of golf clubs and even a golf
membership.
"Joining a golf club is not about sports only
but also about business chats inside and it's
time to look for opportunities because there
are a lot of CEO’s and owners of
companies.”
b. Rebates from the price of the goods
c. Ticket trips abroad, umroh, seminars,
symposium, cars, wall clock, jacket,
umbrella, gifts and hospitality, etc.
 Religious faith
Bribes can be done by those who embrace any
religion, including Islam.
Frankly speaking, I'm very happy to get out of a
company that relies on bribes now.
Alhamdulillah. I realized the profit margin made
by this company is too big. I am supposed to help
other people who need help, not take advantage of
circumstances.
Bribery is a wrong act, yet a simple way of
making a profit in business. For decades, some
companies have been sponsoring specific profession
to get facility and benefit from bribery.
Individuals may recognize that bribery exists and
institutionalized but are often powerless to address it
because it has been a culture in organization. In some
instances, the quickest way for organization to
increase its market share is by doing bribery. Working
with bribe individuals or organizations is an
inevitable part of this current free market.
Nevertheless, this is not a justification for people,
especially Islamic people, for doing any unethical
behavior.
Bribery should be considered on moral agenda.
Religion is hoped to prevent bribery. So, eradicating
bribery cannot be curative, but also needs to be
preventive. Religion will not allow the attitude,
“Business is business,” for that asserts that business
exists in an isolated realm, free of any ties imposed
by other aspects of people life. Because religion
provides one of the most important sources of
guidance and motivation for ethical conduct, this
ICIEBP 2017 - 1st International Conference on Islamic Economics, Business and Philanthropy
524

separation is also not conducive to the ethical practice
of business. To separate religious ethics from
business ethics is to impoverish both (Green, 1999).
Religious values have a significant impact in
overcoming the social problem in the public
community that can support the eradication of
bribery.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Some themes were developed based on data
collection on causes, process, and form of bribery,
including religious faith.
In particular, as a distinct issue, bribery in the
private sector is not yet treated by key institutions in
Indonesia. In order to be adopted, there must be
strong leadership and political will. Only with
governments collaborating, religious leaders,
academic institutions providing transparent and
accountable oversight of the company, will it be
possible to introduce policies that mitigate
institutional bribery. Civil society must play its role
in ensuring private companies are transparent and
accountable. Industry must use its knowledge and
considerable resources as part of multi-stakeholder
initiatives that tackle bribery in the sector.
Research that addresses the process of bribery is
warranted. Future research should explore other
processes as well.
REFERENCES
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., Joshi, M. 2005. Business as
usual: The acceptance and perception of corruption in
organizations. The Academy of Management Executive,
18(2), 39-55.
Andvig, J. C., Fjeldstad, O., Amundsen, I., Sissener, T.,
Søreide, T. 2000. Research on Corruption A policy
oriented survey. Oslo: NORAD.
Ashforth, B. E., Anand, V. 2003. The normalization of
corruption in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-52.
Atkinson, J.W. 1957. Motivational determinants of risk-
taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.
Bernard, T. 2006. Shell Shock: Why do good companies do
bad things?, Corporate Governance: An International
Review, 14, 181-193.
Collins, J. D., Uhlenbruck, K., Rodriguez, P. 2009. Why
firms engage in corruption: A top management
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 89-108.
Cull, R., Xu, L. C. 2005. Institutions, ownership, and
finance: The determinants of profit reinvestment among
Chinese firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 77(1),
117-146.
D’Souza, A. E., Kaufmann, D. 2010. Who bribes in public
contracting and why? Worldwide evidence from firms,
SSRN Working Paper.
De Cremer, D., Mayer, D., Schminkem, M. 2010. On
understanding ethical behaviour and decision making:
a behavioral business ethics approach, Business Ethics
Quarterly 20, 1-6.
Desjardins, J. 2010. Will the future be sustainable?
Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 723-725.
Doh, J., Rodriguez, P., Uhlenbruck, K., Collins, J., Eden, L.
2003. Coping with Corruption in Foreign Markets.
Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 114-127.
Donaldson, T., Walsh, J. P. 2015. Toward a Theory of
Business. Research in Organisational Behavior, 35,
181-207.
Elsbach, K. D., Sutton, R. I. 1992. Acquiring organizational
legitimacy through illegitimate actions: a marriage of
institutional and impression management theories,
Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 699-738.
Ernst., Young. 2013. Growing Beyond: a place for integrity
- 12th Global Fraud Survey. EYGM Limited: London.
Retrieved March 3, 2017 from http://www.
ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Global-Fraud-
Survey-a-place-for-integrity-12th-global-fraud-
survey/$file/ey-12th-global-fraud-survey.pdf
Ferrell, C., Fraedrich, J., Ferrell, L. 2008. Business ethics:
Ethical decision making and cases, 7
th
Edition, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Fisman, R., Svensson, J. 2007. Are corruption and taxation
really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. Journal
of Development Economics, 83, 63-75.
Gallup Poll, “Ratings of Honesty and Ethics,” December 3,
2012. Retrieved January 28, 2013 from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159035/congress-retains-
low-honesty- rating.aspx.
Grieger, J. 2005. Corruption in Organizations Some
Outlines for Research. Working Paper No. 203.
University of Wupertal: Wuppertal. Retrieved May 8,
2017, from http://elpub.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/edocs/
dokumente/fbb/wirtschaftswissenschaft/arbeitspapiere/
203/ab0502.pdf
Hardoon, D., Heinrich, F. 2011. Bribe Payers Index 2011.
Berlin: Transparency International.
Hegarty, W. H., Sims, H. P., Jr. 1978. Some determinants
of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63, 451-457.
Hegarty, W. H., Sims, H. P., Jr. 1979. Organizational
philosophy, policies and objectives related to unethical
decision behavior: A laboratory experiment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 64, 331-338
Hellman, J., Schankerman, M. 2000. Intervention,
corruption and capture: The nexus between enterprises
and state. Economics of Transition, 8(2): 325–368.
Henik, E. 2008. Mad as hell or scared stiff? The effects of
value conflict and emotions on potential whistle-
blowers. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 111-119.
Huberts, L. W. J. C. 2010. A multi approach in corruption
research: towards a more comprehensive multi-level
framework to study corruption and its causes. In P. de
Graaf, Gjalt; Maravic, Patrick von; Waagenar (Ed.) In
Understanding Bribery and Islamic Business Ethics in Organizations - A Phenomenological Study
525

The good cause: Theoretical perspectives on
corruption. Leverkusen, Germany: Barbara Budrich
Publishers.
Hussnain, S. A. 2011. What is Islamic marketing. Retrieved
from https://globaljournals.
org/GJMBR_Volume11/10.What-Is-Islamic-
Marketing.pdf.
Investopedia. 2017. Business ethics. Retrieved June 22,
2017 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/
b/business-ethics.asp.
Joana, B., Kompa, S. 2012. Changing corruption behavior
in Thailand, (August). Retrieved May 29, 2017, from
https://joanakompa.files.wordpress.com/
2012/08/changing-corruption-behaviour.pdf.
Köbis, N. C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F., Van Lange,
P. A. M. (2015). Who doesn’t? - The impact of
descriptive norms on corruption. PLoS ONE, 10(6), 1-
14.
Lawler, D. 2012. Frequently Asked Questions in Anti-
Bribery and Corruption. Sussex, UK: A John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., Publication.
Luo, Y. 2005. An organizational perspective of corruption.
Management and Organization Review, 1(1), 119-154.
Luo, Y. 2002. Corruption and organization in Asian
management systems. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 19 (August 2000), 405-422.
Moustakas, C., 1994. Phenomenological Research
Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Mutebi, A. M. 2008. Explaining the Failure of Thailand's
Anti-corruption Regime. Development and Change,
39(1), 147-171.
OECD. 2000. OECD Convention on combating bribery of
foreign public officials in international business
transactions and related instruments (p. 2). Retrieved
January 25, 2017, from www.oecd.org:
http://www.oecd.org/governance/ethics/2406452.pdf
Pinto, J., Leana, C., Pil, F. K. 2008. Corrupt organizations
or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of
organization-level corruption. Academy of
Management Review, 33(3), 685-709.
Powpaka, S. 2002. Factors affecting managers’ decision to
bribe: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business
Ethics, 40(3), 227-246.
Rehg, M. T., Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., Van Scotter, J. R.
2008. Antecedents and outcomes of retaliation against
whistleblowers: Gender differences and power
relationships. Organizational Science, 19(2), 221-240.
Robinson, S. L., Bennett, R. J. 1995. A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling
study, Academy of Management Journal, 38 (2), 555-
572.
Rogojan, P. 2009.
Deviant workplace behavior in
organizations: Antecedents, influences, and remedies.
Vienna: University of Vienna.
Rose-Ackerman, S. 2002. Grand corruption and the ethics
of global business. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26,
1889-1918.
Rothschild, J., Miethe, T. D. 1999. Whistle-blower
disclosures and management retaliation: The battle to
control information about organization corruption.
Work and Occupations, 26(1), 107-128.
Sanyal, R. 2005. Determinants of bribery in international
business: The cultural and economic factors. Journal of
Business Ethics, 59, 139-145.
Serafeim, G., 2013. Firm competitiveness and detection of
bribery. Harvard Business School working paper.
Shadabi, L. 2013. The impact of religion on corruption. The
Journal of Business Inquiry, 12, 102-117.
Smith, R. E., Wheeler, G., Diener, E. 1975. Faith without
works: Jesus people, resistance to temptation, and
altruism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 320-
330.
Snyder, M., Cantor, N. 1998. Understanding personality
and social behavior: A functionalist strategy. In D.
Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (Vol. 1, 635-679). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Bartol, K. M. 2001. Money
and subjective well-being: It’s not the money, it’s the
motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80, 959–971.
Svensson, J. 2003. Who must pay bribes and how much?
Evidence from a cross-section of firms. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 118(1), 207-230.
Tanzi, V., 1998. Corruption around the world - Causes,
consequences, scope, and cures. IMF Staff Papers,
45(5), 559-594.
Transparency International. 2018. Corruption perceptions
index 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from
https://www.transparency.org/news/ feature/
corruption_perceptions_index _2017.
Treisman, D. 2000. The causes of corruption: A cross-
national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3),
399-457.
Treviño, L. K. 1986. Ethical decision making in
organizations: A person-situation interactionist model.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 601-617.
Vaughan, D. 1999. The dark side of organizations: mistake,
misconduct, and disaster, Annual Review of Sociology,
25, 271-305.
Zhou, J. Q., Peng, M. W. 2012. Does bribery help or hurt
firm growth around the world? Asia Pacific Journal of
Management,
29(4), 907-921.
ICIEBP 2017 - 1st International Conference on Islamic Economics, Business and Philanthropy
526