Book contents
- Measuring Compliance
- Measuring Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
- Part 1 The Compliance Industry, the State, and Measurement Needs
- Part 2 Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 3 Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- Index
- References
1 - Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- Measuring Compliance
- Measuring Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Measuring Compliance: The Challenges in Assessing and Understanding the Interaction between Law and Organizational Misconduct
- Part 1 The Compliance Industry, the State, and Measurement Needs
- Part 2 Quantitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 3 Qualitative Approaches to Measuring Corporate Compliance
- Part 4 Mixed Methods and Building on Existing Compliance Research
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract: A major question in corporate compliance research and practice is how to establish the effectiveness of compliance programs and policies on promoting desirable outcomes. To assess such effectiveness requires proper measurement. This chapter, which is the introduction to an edited volume on corporate compliance measurement, discusses the trade-offs involved in using different quantitative and qualitative approaches to measure corporate compliance and its predictors. It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of different research strategies in terms of their validity in capturing behavioral responses, their ability to establish causality, their precision in showing complexity, their generalizability, and their feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The chapter concludes that a mixed methods approach is the best way to reduce the trade-offs in measurement; using such an approach best accommodates the five quality standards of proper measurement.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Measuring ComplianceAssessing Corporate Crime and Misconduct Prevention, pp. 1 - 22Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Afif, Zeina. 2017. “Nudge units” – where they came from and what they can do [Blog Post]. Last Modified October 25. https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/nudge-units-where-they-came-and-what-they-can-do.Google Scholar
Biderman, Albert D. and Reiss, Albert J. Jr. 1967. On exploring the “dark figure” of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulwer, William, Earle, Henry Lytton, and Dalling, Baron. 1836. The Monarchy of the Middle Classes: France, Social, Literary, Political: 2nd Series: London: Richard Bentley.Google Scholar
Chen, Hui and Soltes, Eugene. 2018. Why compliance programs fail and how to fix them. Harvard Business Review, 96(2), 115–25.Google Scholar
Coglianese, Cary and Nash, Jennifer. 2021 (forthcoming). Compliance management systems: Do they make a difference? In van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Clive and Moynihan, Jenny. 1996. Understanding Crime Data: Haunted by the Dark Figure, Vol. 120. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Peter, Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal, Leyland, Alastair, and Popham, Frank. 2017. Natural experiments: An overview of methods, approaches, and contributions to public health intervention research. Annual Review of Public Health, 38, 39–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croall, Hazel. 2007. Victims of white collar and corporate crime. In Davis, Pamela, Francis, Peter, and Greer, Chris, eds., Victims, Crime and Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rond, Mark and Miller, Alan N.. 2005. Publish or perish: Bane or boon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 321–9.Google Scholar
Deutskens, Elisabeth, de Jong, Ad, de Ruyter, Ko, and Wetzels, Martin. 2006. Comparing the generalizability of online and mail surveys in cross-national service quality research. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 119–36.Google Scholar
Doran, George T. 1981. There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35–6.Google Scholar
Eastlack, Steven. 2017, March 20. How scarce funding shapes young scientists [Blog Post]. https://ecrcommunity.plos.org/2017/03/20/how-scarce-funding-shapes-young-scientists/.Google Scholar
Eck, John. 2003. Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. Crime Prevention Studies, 15, 79–114.Google Scholar
Eckerd, Stephanie, DuHadway, Scott, Bendoly, Elliot, Carter, Craig R., and Kaufmann, Lutz. 2021. On making experimental design choices: Discussions on the use and challenges of demand effects, incentives, deception, samples, and vignettes. Journal of Operations Management, 67(2), 261–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Gary A. and Elsbach, Kimberly D.. 2000. Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative lab data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeddert, Laurel A., Schneider, Alexandra L., Miller, Christin N. et al. 2020. Recruitment of women veterans into suicide prevention research: Improving response rates with enhanced recruitment materials and multiple survey modalities. Research in Nursing & Health, 43(5), 538–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, Paul, Stewart, Kate, Treasure, Elizabeth, and Chadwick, Barbara. 2008. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204(6), 291–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gino, Francesca, Ayal, Shahar, and Ariely, Dan. 2009. Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, Jennifer C. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry, Vol. 9. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Katz, Jack. 2001. From how to why: On luminous description and causal inference in ethnography (Part I). Ethnography, 2(4), 443–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. 2003. Cosmetic compliance and the failure of negotiated governance, Wash. ULQ, 81, 487.Google Scholar
Landon-Murray, Michael and Caceres-Rodriguez., Rick 2020. Building research partnerships to bridge gaps between the study of organizations and the practice of intelligence. The International Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs, 1, 13–33.Google Scholar
Laufer, William S. 1999. Corporate liability, risk shifting, and the paradox of compliance. Vanderbilt Law Review 52, 1341.Google Scholar
McHorney, Colleen A., Kosinski, Mark, and Ware, John E. Jr. 1994. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Medical Care, 32(6), 551–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKendall, Marie, DeMarr, Beverly, and Jones-Rikkers., Catherine 2002. Ethical compliance programs and corporate illegality: Testing the assumptions of the corporate sentencing guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(4), 367–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2009a. The challenge of empirical research on business compliance in regulatory capitalism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Christine and Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann. 2009b. Corporate compliance systems: Could they make any difference? Administration & Society, 41(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, Frank. 1993. Corporate rationality as corporate crime. Studies in Political Economy, 40(1), 135–62.Google Scholar
Rawat, Seema. and Meena, Sanjay. 2014. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87.Google ScholarPubMed
Rorie, Melissa, Alper, Mariel, Schell-Busey, Natalie, and Simpson, Sally S.. 2018. Using meta-analysis under conditions of definitional ambiguity: The case of corporate crime. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 38–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Heijden, Jeroen. 2019. Behavioural Insights and Regulatory Practice: A Review of the International Academic Literature. State of the Art in Regulatory Governance Research Paper – 2019.01. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington/Government Regulatory Practice Initiative.Google Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin and Fine, Adam. 2018 Toxic corporate culture: Assessing organizational processes of deviancy. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 23–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel. 2021. Compliance as the interaction between rules and behavior. In van Rooij, Benjamin and Sokol, D. Daniel, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Compliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, Gary R., Treviño, Linda Klebe, and Cochran, Philip L.. 1999. Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990s: An empirical study of the Fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(3), 283–94.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 1
- Cited by