The second index produced by Transparency International, the Bribe Payers

Index, is based on a survey of 21 countries. The respondents were asked how

likely it was that companies from named countries would pay bribes to win or
retain business. The results are shown in Table 11.2. Again an index number of
10 represents a perceived low level of bribery and 0 a high level.
Two sectors dominated the bribery table when it came to identifying those
sectors in which bribes were most likely to be paid, principally because they
would be demanded or expected. These were public works and construction
(first), followed by arms and defence. Third and fourth were oil and gas, and
banking and finance respectively.
Table 11.1 The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 200
4
Finland 1 9.7 El Salvador 51 4.2
New Zealand 2 9.6 China 71 3.4
Singapore 5 9.3 Egypt 77 3.2
United Kingdom 11 8.6 India 90 2.8
Hong Kong 16 8.0 Russia 90 2.8
USA 17 7.5 Indonesia 133 2.0
Italy 42 4.8 Bangladesh & Haiti 145 1.5
Country Rank CPI score Country Rank CPI score
Source: Transparency International, 2004
BUEV_C11.QXD 5/10/05 3:47 pm Page 425
The final table we will refer to relates to the responses of developing countrie
s
and their experiences of donor countries applying pressure other than
bribery, for example, diplomatic pressure, financial pressure, tied foreign aid,
threat of reduced foreign aid, and tied arms deals. In practically all cases cou
ntries
receiving the aid reported significant increases in these forms of pressure.
All respondents taking part in the survey were asked to identify the three gover
nments
they would principally associate with the type of practices
mentioned above. In all, there were 567 responses to the survey and 22 countries
were identified as employing some or all of these unfair practices. The
percentage figures in Table 11.3 indicate the frequency with which the countries
were mentioned.
To some extent the countries at the top of the table (or, in some respects, the
bottom) are where they might be expected to be because they are the big operator
s
in the construction and armaments sectors, but the percentage differences
are particularly revealing.
More attempts are being made to produce universal ethical codes for internationa
l
business. But there is still much work to be done. Even if the difficulties
of promulgating codes are overcome, the problem of differing degrees of
conformance to the codes remains. The gap between intention and implementation
connects to a final observation on the search for a universal code. It is
that such codes mostly deal with terminal values; that is to say, values about
what the end purposes of human life and activity are. The discussion of corrupti
on
suggests that in business ethics the emphasis is on instrumental values,
which deal with how we should behave with each other. It is in the matter of
instrumental values that most cultural differences in business values lie, as we
shall see in the next section.
Table 11.2 The Transparency International Bribe Payers Index (BPI) 2002
Australia 1 8.5 Spain 11 5.8
Sweden 2 8.4 France 12 5.2
Switzerland 2 8.4 USA 13 5.3
Austria 4 8.2 Japan 13 5.3
Canada 5 8.1 Malaysia 15 4.3

Netherlands 6 7.8 Italy 17 4.1

Belgium 6 7.8 Taiwan 17 3.5
United Kingdom 8 6.9 South Korea 18 3.9
Germany 9 6.3 China 20 3.5
Singapore 9 6.3 Russia 21 3.2
Country Rank BPI score Country Rank BPI score
Source: Transparency International, 2002
426 The international context
BUEV_C11.QXD 5/10/05 3:47 pm Page 426
Relative values?
This section explores the extent to which different societies and cultures have
different values and ethical standards in the fields of business and organisatio
nal
life. Geert Hofstede (1991 and 2001) carried out the seminal empirical work on
national value differences in organisations. He conducted a questionnaire survey
of employees in the national subsidiaries of IBM. Responses were obtained from
72 national subsidiaries in 1968 and 1972. The results from the smaller subsidia
ries
were ignored and so the analysis finally enabled a comparison between
the personal values of employees in 53 countries. He identified four dimensions
along which the values of employees in different countries varied.
Power distance
the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations
expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Individualism
high in countries in which the ties between individuals are
loose and everyone is expected to look out for themselves. It is low in collecti
vist
countries where people are integrated into strong, cohesive groups and
are expected to give loyalty to these groups in return for their protection.
Table 11.3 The Transparency International
table of Countries using other unfair means
to gain or retain business
USA 1 58
France 2 26
United Kingdom 3 19
Japan 4 18
China 5 16
Russia 6 13
Italy 10 5
Canada 15 3
Australia 19 1
Sweden 22 <1
Country Rank %
Source: Transparency International, 2002
11: Global and local values
and international business 427
Connexion point
The terms terminal and instrumental values were coined by Rokeach, whose
work on values is discussed in Chapter 4, pp. 152 4.
BUEV_C11.QXD 5/10/05 3:47 pm Page 427
428 The international context
Masculinity
high in those countries in which gender roles are distinct and in
which men are expected to be assertive, tough and focused on material success
and women are supposed to be more modest, tender and concerned with
the quality of life. In societies in which masculinity is low the gender roles
overlap and both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and
concerned with the quality of life.
Uncertainty avoidance
the extent to which society members feel threatened
by uncertain or unknown situations. Societies in which there is low uncertainty
avoidance are comfortable with ambiguity; those in which there is high
uncertainty avoidance seek to finesse ambiguity away.
Table 11.4 shows the relative positions of the USA, Great Britain and India,

and the highest and lowest scoring countries on each index.