Corporate corruption is a serious issue, and governments all over the world are still trying to find ways to cope with these universal deceitful practices. This study examines the influence of social cohesion and technology on the manager’s insight on corporate wrongdoings, like tax evasion, bribery etc. The moderating factors chosen for the study were national level factors like technological advancement of a nation and social integration among its citizens. Durkheim’s perspective on anomie theory was used to investigate the ethically suspect behavior of managers and its influencing factors in any organization. Because the research involves cross-level analysis, the multilevel organization theory was used to frame the conceptualization and to develop the hypotheses. Multilevel theory permits to juxtapose broad societal characteristics with individual-level traits that cause managers to differ from one another in unethical activities.
The data sets, of 17,939 managers from 51 nations were analyzed using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM). The data were obtained from World Value Survey (WVS), Global competitiveness Index (GCI) and Human Development Reports (HDR).
The statistical results proved that managers who are more persuaded toward the use of new technologies are less willing to justify ethically suspect behaviors, while the managers who have strong social cohesion with others are more likely to get involved in the corporate wrong doings. The results of moderating effect were quite surprising, as it shows that when country level factors influence individual’s perception then the corporate wrong doings boost with enhancement in technology and decrease with increase in social cohesion, which is exactly reverse of the situation when individual level factors act alone. The results of moderating effect are in accordance with the vision of Durkheim about the modern society, where high technological advancement and reduced social cohesion was expected to increase anomie. Thus, it can be concluded that manager’s sensitivity to ethically suspect behaviors is stimulated only when both individual and country level factors act together.
This research offers insights that are salient to governments and policy-makers to prevent corporate corruption, and to researchers interested in understanding the drivers of individual characteristics and national factors in corporate wrongdoing.

Corporate corruption is a serious issue, and governments all over the world are still trying to find ways to cope with these universal deceitful practices. This study examines the influence of social cohesion and technology on the manager’s insight on corporate wrongdoings, like tax evasion, bribery etc. The moderating factors chosen for the study were national level factors like technological advancement of a nation and social integration among its citizens. Durkheim’s perspective on anomie theory was used to investigate the ethically suspect behavior of managers and its influencing factors in any organization. Because the research involves cross-level analysis, the multilevel organization theory was used to frame the conceptualization and to develop the hypotheses. Multilevel theory permits to juxtapose broad societal characteristics with individual-level traits that cause managers to differ from one another in unethical activities.
The data sets, of 17,939 managers from 51 nations were analyzed using Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM). The data were obtained from World Value Survey (WVS), Global competitiveness Index (GCI) and Human Development Reports (HDR).
The statistical results proved that managers who are more persuaded toward the use of new technologies are less willing to justify ethically suspect behaviors, while the managers who have strong social cohesion with others are more likely to get involved in the corporate wrong doings. The results of moderating effect were quite surprising, as it shows that when country level factors influence individual’s perception then the corporate wrong doings boost with enhancement in technology and decrease with increase in social cohesion, which is exactly reverse of the situation when individual level factors act alone. The results of moderating effect are in accordance with the vision of Durkheim about the modern society, where high technological advancement and reduced social cohesion was expected to increase anomie. Thus, it can be concluded that manager’s sensitivity to ethically suspect behaviors is stimulated only when both individual and country level factors act together.
This research offers insights that are salient to governments and policy-makers to prevent corporate corruption, and to researchers interested in understanding the drivers of individual characteristics and national factors in corporate wrongdoing.

1. Acket, S., Borsenberger, M., Dickes, P., Sarracino F. (2011). Measuring and validating social cohesion: a bottom-up approach, CEPS/INSTEAD Working Papers No. 2011-08.
2. Aslan S., Aslan S. (2012). The Mediating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Ethical Leader's Effect on Corporate Ethical Values and Behavior Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 58(12) 693-702.
3. Beck, W., van der Maesen, L. (2003). Some considerations with regard to Yitzhak Berman’s paper about ‘indicators for social cohesion’. Working paper DG12.34. Amsterdam, European Foundation on Social Quality.
4. Beck, W., van der Maesen. L., Walker, A. (1997). ‘Social quality: from issue to concept’. The Social Quality of Europe. The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 263-297.
5. Buchholz, R. Rosenthal, S. (2002). Technology and Business: Rethinking and moral dilemma, Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 45–50.
6. Chen, C. W. (2014). Are workers more likely to be deviant than managers- a cross-national analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2):221-233.
7. Chen, C.W., Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P. (2015). Are Manager-controlled Firms More Likely to Bribe than Shareholder-controlled Firms: A Cross-cultural Analysis Management and Organization Review, 11:2, 343–365.
8. Clinard, M. B. (1983). Corporate ethics and crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9. Collins, D. (2000). The quest to improve the human condition: The first 1500 articles published in Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(1), 1-73.
10. Costa, P., Jr. Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.
11. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2006). Who cares about corruption? Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 807– 822.
12. Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., and Hoegl, M. (2004). Cross-national differences in managers’ willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors: A test of institutional anomie theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 411–421.
13. Davis, A. L., Rothstein, H. R. (2006). The effects of the perceived behavioral integrity of managers on employee attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 407–419.
14. Dickes, P., Valentova, M. (2013). Construction, Validation and Application of the Measurement of Social Cohesion in 47 European Countries and Regions Social Indicators Research. 113(3), p.p. 827–846.
15. Dickes, P., Valentova, M., Borsenberger, M. (2008). Social Cohesion: measurement based on the data from European value study, Statistica Applicata, (20), 2.
16. Donaldson, T., Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
17. Dragolov G.,. Ignácz, Z.S., Lorenz, J., Delhey, J., Boehnke, K., Unzicker, K. (2016). Level and Trend of Social Cohesion, Social Cohesion in the Western World, Part of the series Springer Briefs in Well-Being and Quality of Life Research, 35-45.
18. Enderle. G. (2016). How Can Business Ethics Strengthen the Social Cohesion of a Society? J Bus Ethics, DOI 10.1007/s10551-016-3196-5.
19. Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (Harper and Row).
20. Heilbroner, R. L. (1967). Do Machines Make History, Technology and Culture 8, 335–45
21. Heuser, B. L. (2005). The Ethics of Social Cohesion, Peabody Journal of Education, 80(4), 8-15.
22. Hilbert, R. A. (1989). Durkheim and Merton on anomie: An unexplored contrast and its derivatives. Social Problems. 36: 242–250.
23. Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.
24. Huang, J.-J., Huang. M.-Y., Syu. F.K. (2010). Liberated Anomie in Generation Next: Hyperindividualism, Extreme Consumerism, and Social Isolationism. Fooyin J Health Sci; 2 (2):41−47.
25. Human development report (2013). http://hdr.undp.org/en/2013-report.
26. Husted, B.W., Allen, D.B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-cultural business ethics: The impact of individualism and collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 293-305.
27. Ibrahim, N., Angelidis, J., Tomic, I. M. (2009). Managers’ attitudes toward codes of ethics: Are there gender differences? Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 343–353.
28. Johnson, D. (2001). Computer Ethics (Prentice-Hall, Inc., NJ).
29. Kish-Gephart J. J., Harrison D. A., Treviño L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 95(1):1-31.
30. Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., Parboteeah, K. P. (2007). Deciding to bribe: A cross-level analysis of firm and home country influence on bribery activity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6):1401-1422.
31. Martin, R. D (2000). Anomie, Spirituality, and Crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16(1):75-98.
32. Martin, R. D. (2007). Through the Ethics Looking Glass: Another View of the World of Auditors and Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 70 (1), 5–14.
33. McCloskey, H., Schaar, J. H. (1965). Psychological Dimensions of Anomy. American Sociological Review 30 (1):14-40.
34. Mistry, J. J. (2012). An Empirical Analysis of the Relationship between e-government and Corruption, The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, Vol. 12, 145 – 176.
35. Moody, J., White, D. R, (2003). Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups, American Sociological Review 68(1): 103-127.
36. Noonan, J. T. (1984). Bribes, New York: Macmillan (p. 702).
37. Organizations and Social Cohesions (2005), Vol. 80, No. 4, p. 8-15.
38. Osborne, J. W. (2000). Advantages of hierarchical linear modeling. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(1), 1-3.
39. Painter-Morland M., & Ten Bos, R. (Eds.) (2011). Business ethics and continental philosophy. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
40. Peng, Y., Lin, S. (2009). National culture, economic development, population growth and environmental performance: The mediating role of education. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 203- 219.
41. Peterson, M. F., Arregle, J., Martin X. (2012). Multilevel models in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(5):451-457.
42. Phillips, D., Berman, Y. (2001). Social quality: definitional, conceptual and operational issues, Social Quality: A Vision for Europe, The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. (125-145).
43. Posner, B., Schmidt, W. (1992). Values and the American manager: An update updated. California Management Review. 25(3), 80–94.
44. Ralston D.A., Egri, C.P., de la Garza-Carranza, M.T. Ramburuth, P. (2009). Ethical preferences for influencing superiors: A 41-society study. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1022-1045.
45. Saini, A., Krush, M., Johnson, J. L. (2008). Anomie and the Marketing Function: The Role of Control Mechanisms, Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 845–862.
46. Sastry T. (2011). Exploring the role of business in society IIMB Management Review. 23(4), 246–256.
47. Shim D. C., Eom T. H. (2009). Anti-corruption effects of information communication technology (ICT) and social capital. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(1): 99-116.
48. Shleifer A., Vishny R. W. (1993). Corruption. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108: 599–617.
49. Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252 – 284.
50. Spicer, A., Dunfee, T. W. Bailey, W. J. (2004). Does National Context Matter in Ethical Decision Making? An Empirical Test of Integrated Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 610 – 620.
51. Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the federal government’s social cohesion research network. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie. 28(1), 5–17.
52. Stevens, J. S. (2007). Hierarchical linear models. Retrieved April 1, 2010, from http://www.uoregon.edu/~stevensj /HLM/data/.
53. Taras, V., Steel, P., Kirkman, B.L. (2010b). Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 1330-1338.
54. The Role of Control Mechanisms Journal of Business Ethics 83 (2008), pp. 845–862
55. Thorolfur, T., Bernburg J. G. (2004). Durkheim’s Theory of Social Order and Deviance: A Multi-level Test. European Sociological Review 20(4):271-85.
56. Treviño, L. K., Gary, R. W., David, G. G, Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What Hurts. California Management Review 41(2): 131–51.
57. Van der Maesen, L. (2002). Comments on a study by Wolfgang Back: Social cohesion and European policies.
58. Villareal, A., Silva, B. F. A. (2006). Social Cohesion, Criminal Victimization and Perceived Risk of Crime in Brazilian Neighborhoods. Social Forces 84, 1725-1753.
59. Vold, G. B. (1998). In T. J. Bernard, & J. B. Snipes (Eds.), Theoretical criminology (4th ed./by George B. Vold, Thomas J. Bernard & Jeffrey B. Snipes. Eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
61. Wickberg, S. (2012). Overview of corruption and anti-corruption in Lebanon. Transparency International U4 Expert Answer No. 350.
62. Winner, L. (1986). The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL). p. 20.
63. Zinnbauer, D. (2012). Ambient Accountability' - Fighting Corruption When and Where it Happens.