Is Less More? Field Evidence on the Impact of Anti-Bribery Policies on Employee Knowledge and Corrupt Behavior

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Nils Köbis, Sharon Oded, Anne Leonore de Bruijn, Shuyu Huang, Benjamin van Rooij
{"title":"Is Less More? Field Evidence on the Impact of Anti-Bribery Policies on Employee Knowledge and Corrupt Behavior","authors":"Nils Köbis, Sharon Oded, Anne Leonore de Bruijn, Shuyu Huang, Benjamin van Rooij","doi":"10.1111/rego.70023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Companies increasingly adopt internal norms to enhance compliance with legal rules. However, the rapid growth in volume and complexity of such internal rules may obstruct employee knowledge and understanding of such internal rules, and therefore also their compliance. The present study seeks to understand whether shorter and more accessible formats of internal company norms will yield better knowledge and understanding of such norms. The study consists of an extensive online field experiment randomly assigning 1235 employees of an international technology company to four treatments. In the <i>long policy</i> condition, employees received a 19-page traditional policy written in standard legalese language. The <i>short policy</i> condition entailed a shortened two-page version of this classic policy, and in the <i>infographic</i> condition, employees received an illustrated overview of the essential rules on a single page. A fourth group received no policy and served as a <i>control</i> condition. After reading the policy, employees completed several measures assessing their rule knowledge, perceived social norms, and played an incentivized bribery game. We find that (a) none of the types of policies presented improves rule knowledge or reduces corrupt behavior compared to the control treatment, and (b) no differences exist between the policies in influencing rules knowledge or reducing corrupt behavior. Instead, we find robust evidence indicating that people form their beliefs about corporate norms and decide how to behave in situations presenting high-corruption risk based on what they consider to be the norm. The paper discusses its implications for existing literature on codes of conduct and internal norms, on ethics training, as well as on legal knowledge development.","PeriodicalId":21026,"journal":{"name":"Regulation & Governance","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Companies increasingly adopt internal norms to enhance compliance with legal rules. However, the rapid growth in volume and complexity of such internal rules may obstruct employee knowledge and understanding of such internal rules, and therefore also their compliance. The present study seeks to understand whether shorter and more accessible formats of internal company norms will yield better knowledge and understanding of such norms. The study consists of an extensive online field experiment randomly assigning 1235 employees of an international technology company to four treatments. In the long policy condition, employees received a 19-page traditional policy written in standard legalese language. The short policy condition entailed a shortened two-page version of this classic policy, and in the infographic condition, employees received an illustrated overview of the essential rules on a single page. A fourth group received no policy and served as a control condition. After reading the policy, employees completed several measures assessing their rule knowledge, perceived social norms, and played an incentivized bribery game. We find that (a) none of the types of policies presented improves rule knowledge or reduces corrupt behavior compared to the control treatment, and (b) no differences exist between the policies in influencing rules knowledge or reducing corrupt behavior. Instead, we find robust evidence indicating that people form their beliefs about corporate norms and decide how to behave in situations presenting high-corruption risk based on what they consider to be the norm. The paper discusses its implications for existing literature on codes of conduct and internal norms, on ethics training, as well as on legal knowledge development.
少就是多?反贿赂政策对员工知识和腐败行为影响的实证研究
公司越来越多地采用内部规范来加强对法律规则的遵守。然而,这些内部规则的数量和复杂性的快速增长可能会阻碍员工对这些内部规则的认识和理解,从而阻碍他们遵守这些规则。本研究旨在了解更短和更容易理解的公司内部规范格式是否会产生更好的知识和理解这些规范。该研究包括一个广泛的在线现场实验,随机分配1235名国际科技公司的员工进行四种治疗。在长期保单的情况下,员工收到的是一份19页的传统保单,用标准的法律术语写成。在简短的政策条件下,这个经典的政策需要一个简短的两页版本,而在信息图条件下,员工在一页纸上收到了一个关于基本规则的图解概述。第四组没有政策,作为对照条件。在阅读完政策后,员工完成了几项测试,评估他们的规则知识,感知社会规范,并玩了一个激励贿赂游戏。我们发现(a)与控制处理相比,所提供的任何类型的政策都没有提高规则知识或减少腐败行为,并且(b)政策之间在影响规则知识或减少腐败行为方面不存在差异。相反,我们发现有力的证据表明,人们形成了对公司规范的信念,并根据他们认为的规范来决定在存在高腐败风险的情况下如何行事。本文讨论了其对行为准则和内部规范,道德培训以及法律知识发展的现有文献的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Regulation & Governance serves as the leading platform for the study of regulation and governance by political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, historians, criminologists, psychologists, anthropologists, economists and others. Research on regulation and governance, once fragmented across various disciplines and subject areas, has emerged at the cutting edge of paradigmatic change in the social sciences. Through the peer-reviewed journal Regulation & Governance, we seek to advance discussions between various disciplines about regulation and governance, promote the development of new theoretical and empirical understanding, and serve the growing needs of practitioners for a useful academic reference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信