Corruption in the form of bribes is a pervasive issue in society that affects businesses, introduces inefficiencies in an economy, and affects common people due to the diverting of resources from needed public services to enrich undeserving individuals (Herre et al., 2025; Holmes, 2015). This lecture is the result of reflections on the personal experiences of the speaker of attempted corruption when he was in business, and collaboration with a colleague to extract general lessons by framing the findings within ethical theory.
The speaker will delve into the issue of corruption and business ethics with the intention of exploring if there are cases in which paying a bribe by a business leader might be potentially justifiable and ethically acceptable. He will do this by attempting to demonstrate that, in sum, we are left in the following situation. According to consequentialism, we should live our lives in accordance with certain common-sense or deontological principles, while recognizing the truth of the consequentialist principle itself as an account of what makes actions right (Hare, 1981, ch.3). According to deontology, also, we should live our lives in accordance with common-sense principles, one of those principles itself being that, in certain cases, we are required to make the world as good as possible, even if that requires going against certain other principles, which, in this case, have less practical weight[1].
After an introductory presentation, the speaker will put forward two or three real-life cases that he has lived through to generate a structured discussion amongst the participants, with the intention that at the end of it they respond to the question of the title.
The talk was most interesting. I think Professor Griffiths was quietly teasing idealist philosophers who sit in their ivory towers and talk wistfully of the way the world should be, whereas he, an experienced man of business, engages with the real world where bribery and corruption is common and sometimes even culturally required. Why do the Saudi Royal Family, as rich as Croesus, insist on skimming on every
public sector contract? Because it is their sovereign prerogative!
People who benefit from corruption are freeloaders, trading on the supposition that in the final analysis, no one individual or company sees the point of resisting corruption when they calculate that their competitors will have no such scruples:. They pay, pointlessly, for their principles by way of what might be quite heavy adverse material consequences.
I lament that as much as the next man: it seems to me that we are dealing here in another instance of the tragedy of the commons. We can all see the advantage of collective action, but can’t see how we could ever achieve it.
Totally share your sentiments, Ted. Much of what the Prof. had raised really resonate.
I, too, lament how societies have lost their moral compass, blinded by the benefits earned through corrupt practices.
I have seen such practices at play in the corporate world; but thankfully, not as a party to any.
Deontology doesn’t figure in cultures where the only act that matters is how to achieve the end, no matter the means. Sadly, it’s those with principles and ethics who are paying the price!
That said, I guess my answer to the Prof’s Q is that there might be mitigating circumstances that could justify such an ugly act as ‘bribery’: when consequentialism is at play for the greater good.
But then one would ask: for whose good? By whose measure?…
He was unclear whether he regarded bribery as ethical, potentially passing a consequentialist test, or merely an unethical pragmatic response.
Corruption has destroyed institutions throughout much of the developing world. It is maintained through violence and extortion. Trump is not wholly wrong to characterise several Latin American countries as narco states, dominated by powerful militias.
From Griffiths’ perspective, there are severe reputational risks in trying to do business in these countries: the company which, on his account, had never considered bribery as a potential issue was either cynical or naive. I wonder how many public sector contracts are free from corruption anywhere but especially in countries where it is endemic.
Interesting analysis, Ted.
“Must bribery always be unethical?” could elicit either: “Yes!”, or “Could be ‘ethical’ under certain circumstances.”
I believe the Prof. wants us to consider/discuss the latter; although, if we answered “Bribery could be ethical under mitigating circumstances” seems odd, because ‘ethical’ could never be a predicate for ‘bribery’. Perhaps ‘justified’ is more acceptable.
Maybe Professor Griffiths could give some guidance?
You are totally right about corruption being rampant: in many cultures, it’s open, expected, part of survival and climbing up the socioeconomic ladder; while in more sophisticated societies, the practice, though less common, is on the rise.
Even in a country like Australia, corrupt, or questionable practices, and abuse of power by politicians and bureaucrats, are more common now than before.
The question is: are we talking about bribery here, or corruption in general, which could take many forms, and at times, hard to define?
An interesting Q for our time would be:
Has Trumpism corrupted our moral compass?
The title of the presentation invites us to consider whether bribery is always unethical. The term bribery comes under the more general heading of corruption. The terms bribery and corruption were used somewhat interchangeably in the presentation. I think it is important to make clear the distinction. In the definitions provided, only one directly addressed bribery while the others referred to corruption in general. The reference to corruption by Philp (2006) provides a useful graphic of bribery and describes bribery as being initiated by someone seeking benefit from an official at the expense of the “community” through offering the official money (initiating the bribe).
In some of the scenarios provided, as Meade acknowledges, they differ from Philp’s graphic as it is the official initiating the process by requesting a “bribe” from a person/entity to avoid being unfairly disadvantaged. It seems to me that this is not strictly speaking a bribe situation but should be better categorised as extortion, which also comes under the heading of corruption. Paying the requested amount under these circumstances should not be referred to as paying a bribe.
If this distinction is valid then I think a case can be made that bribery is always unethical but paying money that has be extorted could be seen as ethical under certain circumstances. However, in both the strict definition of bribery and extortion, the person initiating the process is being unethical.
Thank you Wayne, that’s most helpful.
Wayne is correct that it is important to clearly define the terms.
It is important to distinguish between ethics and morals. Ethics is about abstract principles: what one ought to do or not do. Morality is about what people do. An action is moral (ethically permissible) if and only if consistent with ethical principles.
PG defines business ethics as “The study of the standard of business behaviour that promotes human welfare. It is a systematic study of values […]”. (slide 9).
I know, from personal experience, that running businesses is challenging and decision-making can be agonising, particularly when values conflict. I have not experienced the cases PG describes, so I cannot truthfully say what I might have done if in PG’s position. I am grateful for PG providing the opportunity to reflect on his personal experiences whilst I am sitting in the safety of my ivory tower.
PG does not define ‘human welfare’ or ‘value’, although he implicitly links ‘human welfare’ with ‘the amount of good in the world’. No definition of ‘good’ is provided. As such, the terms ‘human welfare’, ‘value’ and ‘good’ are empty concepts which we can fill with content of our personal choosing.
What one person takes as a ‘common-sense’ principle might be NOT common-sense for another.
The fact that bribery is commonplace or ‘a moral norm’ does not make it ethically permissible. One person’s wrong deed does not mean that it is right for another to do.
The practice of bribery exists because and only because individuals participate in bribery. Participating in bribery perpetuates the practice and makes it commonplace. The only way to eliminate bribery is by not participating. That is probably easier said than done!!! Thank goodness for my ivory tower!
PG claims that if the PiC does not get the contract, it will have a highly negative impact on individuals (slide 24). Empirical evidence shows that although redundancy tends to have a short-term negative impact, in the long-term it may have a positive impact. Unemployed individuals usually do find work elsewhere and may even get more satisfactory work, perhaps by starting their own business. Furthermore, Business A’s amount of good may be equal to or less than Business B, C. D etc. So, it is not clear that loss of the contract will reduce the amount of good in the world or that gaining the contract will promote human welfare.
According to PG’s definition of consequentialism, “morality of an action is judged only by the consequences arising from that action” (slide 10). His analysis considers only ethical principles which allow consequentialist considerations to have weight (slide 12) and only proximate consequences (slide 20). The resulting definition of morality underpins PG’s claim “that in certain circumstances the amount of good at stake may justify an action of a type that is usually prohibited” (slide 23). PG does not consider other philosophical doctrines which might produce a different conclusion.
The deep and difficult question for Actor C (slide 24) is whether sustaining the business contributes more to human welfare than the good of eradicating bribery.
In response to slide 25
I agree:
• There is still much work to do in defining terms and forms of corruption and unethical business behaviours. (slide 22)
• We need to accept that corruption is common (slide 23).
o The fact that it is common does not mean it is morally permissible.
• Consequences are not the only relevant feature in decision-making (slide 22).
o According to Hume, passion drives human behaviour and reasons may subsequently be given to justify actions (“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”). Kant argues that reason and not passion ought to guide behaviour. I side with Kant, although I confess I sometimes get carried away by passion. (I hope I will be forgiven for being human and, therefore, morally imperfect. By definition, only God is morally perfect).
• The character of the agent may be changed if they follow the recommendations of the study (slide 21).
o If we learn and forgive rather than judge harshly, there is no reason to believe that any change will be for the worse. Empirical evidence suggests that learning has health benefits.
I do not agree:
• the corruption incident has no cost for the community (slide 21).
o that requires further discussion.
To take the research forward, I suggest modifying the research question: are there cases when participating in bribery promotes human welfare? Before that question can be empirically investigated, the definition of ‘human welfare’ needs clarification. A topic for another session!