The Geographic Factor

Abstract

Geography has some bearing on the scope, scale, and form of bribery and corruption. The economic or political situation of a country will directly influence its tolerance of corruption. So countries in a state of severe flux (such as Iraq: see below) are likely to exercise weaker control over standards of business ethics than those countries whose politics are stable. Likewise, countries whose public officials are poorly paid may overlook (if not actively encourage) practices frowned upon in developed countries’ institutions. Such countries present a higher risk to the foreign company, but no risk is insuperable, if accurately calculated, and companies will not be deterred. So we see that research conducted for Transparency International (TI) shows that a large number of businesses in the City of London engage in activities or operate in environments that expose them to high risk of corruption and bribery. The report identifies four important areas where all businesses are vulnerable:

• operating in countries where corruption is perceived to be high

• interacting with public officials

• providing services to high-risk sectors

• using agents, subsidiaries, or entering into joint ventures.¹

From both a business and a law enforcement perspective, risk management strategies to address bribery must be sensitive to geography. The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) advises that “heightened risks” in particular countries “create a need for heightened care in ensuring that the company complies with law and observes relevant international instruments.”² Stable developed democracies generally tend to be relatively free of corruption, while conflict-torn and poverty-stricken countries are unsurprisingly at the other end of most indexes. Some regions are also of special concern. Companies can also be more exposed to the threat of corruption when operating in countries where bribery is widely perceived to be a component of business etiquette or inseparable from culture and history.³ One development consultant who wished to remain anonymous repeated the opinion that “You can rent an Afghan but you can’t buy him.”