The second South African Citizen’s Bribery Survey, conducted by The Ethics Institute and sponsored by Massmart, asked among other things whether respondents had ever said no to paying a bribe.  The results show that half of respondents have never been asked for a bribe, while 60% of those who have been asked have declined to pay at some point – mostly for moral or religious reasons.  

Other key findings include:
•    1 in 5 people know someone who paid a bribe in the last year;
•    Over half of bribes are for road related matters (i.e. traffic fines + drivers’ licences). Reducing these could have an impact on road deaths;
•    The poor find it more difficult to get through everyday life without paying bribes than the wealthy, and are significantly more targeted to pay bribes for employment; and
•    Bribery for employment and contracts occur almost equally in the private and public sectors.

These figures paint a picture of citizens that are familiar with the phenomenon of bribery, but the fact that so many people decline to pay bribes also show that there is hope.  
“As organisations across the country observe International Anti-corruption Day on 9 December, it is worth celebrating the ordinary heroes who choose to take a personal stand against corruption,” says Professor Deon Rossouw, CEO of The Ethics Institute. “The research findings show that South Africans do have a moral compass, and those who pay bribes are still in the minority.” 

According to survey respondents the top five reasons for resorting to bribery are to avoid traffic offences (36%); to secure a job (18%); to obtain a driver’s licence (15%); to receive unauthorised discounts from businesses (7%); and to get a tender 4%.

Professor Rossouw says “It is clear that there are those who pay bribes to exploit the system for their own benefit, but there are also vulnerable people who are exploited by unscrupulous individuals.  We found that South Africans with lower income find it significantly more difficult to get through everyday life without paying a bribe, particularly with respect to bribes to secure jobs. There is a certain injustice in the fact that those who have the least resources are most vulnerable to being targeted.”

Massmart Anti-Corruption Compliance Executive, Johann Stander says “At Massmart we are committed to doing business the right way and have invested significantly in promoting a culture of integrity within our organisation. We also believe that we should play a broader anti-corruption role in our society because bribery increases the cost of living for all of us and undermines the rule of law and the values of our democracy. It is not good for social cohesion nor is it good for business, hence our sponsorship of the South African Citizens’ Bribery Survey.”

The survey findings were based on interviews with more than 4553 South Africans from urban centres in Gauteng, Limpopo Kwazulu-Natal, Free State and the Western Cape. The objective of the survey is to gain insight into the everyday experience of ordinary South Africans in relation to their perceptions of bribery, the extent of bribery in the country as well as the socio-economic factors that influence it. Some of the questions asked included; “how frequently are people asked for bribes? What are these bribes for? How much do people pay for bribes? How willing are they to do something about bribery? What were the reasons for paying or refusing to pay a bribe?’’

About the South African Citizens’ Bribery Survey 2016
Conducted by The Ethics Institute and sponsored by Massmart, this is the first survey to examine bribery as perceived and experienced by ordinary South African citizens. It is the second year the survey is being conducted.  The survey was conducted in a wide range of Massmart stores in Kwazulu-Natal, Gauteng, Free State, Western Cape and Limpopo. The 4553 South Africans who participated in the survey come from various income levels.

​ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Cathlen Fourie, 082 222 9198, [email protected], www.atthatpoint.co.za  
 
For more information on The Ethics Institute please visit:
Website: www.tei.org
Twitter: @EthicsInst
LinkedIn: The Ethics Institute
Facebook: Ethics Institute of South Africa

Social and Ethics Committees (SECs) are provided for in Section 72 (4-10) of the Companies Act, 2008 (Act No. 71 of 2008). But the uptake of these committees in companies is proving to be a challenge when, in fact, it should be seen as an opportunity for companies to build relationships with the communities and consumers they deal with daily. As some companies have discovered, having an SEC becomes more than a “check-box” exercise, and meaningful application has resulted in benefits in terms of strategy, risk management and turnover. SECs should be used to develop a more responsible culture of doing business in a sustainable manner.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of having an SEC is that the issue of sustainability has become a regular agenda item at board meetings. Most SECs have settled into a rhythm of meeting prior to scheduled board meetings and their reports are tabled at subsequent board meetings. As a result, sustainability has become a regular subject for top-level discussion and scrutiny. As sustainability becomes part of the business-as-usual agenda, it becomes incorporated into companies’ operational DNA. Hence, the long-term impact of normalising social and ethical issues in businesses cannot be underestimated.

Another related achievement is that because these issues are being thought about and reported on regularly, sustainability and integrated reports are becoming more credible and useful. Whereas previously, many of these reports were compiled in a hurry and did not necessarily reflect the truth, management now has to report regularly on these issues. So the content for these reports is generated by means of institutional processes and thus better reflects the truth. 

However, it should be noted that there remain a number of challenges.

First, inexact and incomplete legislation and regulations continue to create confusion. Legally, the position is that SECs only have a social mandate. Leading companies have used King III as their guide and have incorporated ethics, but this is purely on a voluntary basis. This omission is something that legislators need to rectify soon. A structural challenge is the fact that the mandate of SECs can overlap with those of other board committees such as audit, HR and remuneration. This needs to be addressed to prevent “turf wars” from developing.
​
A more difficult challenge is that most companies are still grappling with how to produce the right content and quality for SEC reports. Committee members tend to be nonexecutive, so do not have the inside knowledge to be able to assess the reporting, whereas managers are often uncertain about what needs to be reported on. A contributing factor is surely the lack of performance indicators for social and ethics issues, which makes it difficult for all parties to move beyond compliance and towards assessing the real impact of social and ethics performance. This expectation gap causes frustration.

Based on The Ethics Institute’s interaction with hundreds of companies at various training sessions, our overwhelming conclusion is that the key factor of success is an SEC whose agenda is closely aligned with company strategy. This breathes energy into the committee’s operations because members can see the strategic importance of what they are doing, and the board and executive management can see that the company is deriving real value from the work done by the SEC. For example, as we have seen, a mine’s long-term sustainability is dependent on its relationship with the surrounding community and its employees, exactly the area for which the SEC takes responsibility.

To paraphrase, don’t ask what you can do for your SEC, but what it can do for you. If the committee is seen to be delivering value, it will continue to improve and create a genuine virtuous cycle.

This article first appeared in The Regulatory Debates Edition 3
​
ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Cathlen Fourie, 082 222 9198, [email protected], www.atthatpoint.co.za  
 
For more information on The Ethics Institute please visit:
Website: www.tei.org
Twitter: @EthicsInst
LinkedIn: The Ethics Institute
Facebook: Ethics Institute of South Africa

In welcoming the historic ruling by the Constitutional Court in the Nkandla matter, the Ethics Institute of South Africa (EthicsSA) says that the damage caused to the country will only be repaired if leaders admit they erred, and recommit themselves to the foundational values of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court made it very clear in its ruling that South Africa’s constitutional democracy is founded on three core values – accountability, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution, comments Prof Deon Rossouw, CEO of EthicsSA. “As the Chief Justice made very clear in a unanimous judgement by the Court, the President’s failure to uphold these values hinged on his breach of the ethics codes created to give substance to his constitutional obligations, the Executive Members’ Ethics Act and the Executive Ethics Code. The Nkandla scandal is primarily an ethical one, and it will require an ethical solution to resolve it fully.”

The Executive Members’ Ethics Act and the Executive Ethics Code specifically require the executive to use its powers in the best interests of the public, and to avoid conflicts of interest. It explicitly calls on members of the Executive to not abuse their positions for private gain.

In terms of the judgement, the President has been set time limits within which he must comply with the remedies stipulated by the Public Protector. However, argues Professor Rossouw, to prevent the shadow of Nkandla to continue falling across South African public life, it is essential for leaders to publicly recommit to the foundational values of the Constitution, and admit that they erred.

“As we have seen in the cases of Vytjie Mentor and Mcebisi Jonas, bold action of this nature could cause an individual some short-term harm, but the long-term gains for our democracy, for the calibre of our public life and, I would predict, for the individuals concerned would be immense,” Rossouw says. “The credibility of both Parliament and the Executive has been dented by this affair, and this type of courageous ethical leadership will help to restore it. More important still, it will help to underscore the fact that ethics underpin how all of us, including our leaders, act.”

“If the necessary ethical courage is not found, we can expect the saga of Nkandla to drag on, with grave consequences for the country.”

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Cathlen Fourie, 082 222 9198, [email protected], www.atthatpoint.co.za 

For more information on EthicsSA please visit:
Website: www.ethicssa.org 
LinkedIn: Ethics Institute of South Africa
Facebook: Ethics Institute of South Africa

The current social media storm on racism demonstrates yet again how dangerous stereotypes are, and how easily they can become self-fulfilling prophecies. To prevent these inaccurate but powerful stories from setting the national agenda, South Africans must consciously tell a different story - backed up by the facts.
​
“The reaction to recent racist tweets has shown the power of stereotypes to influence the way a whole nation sees itself, spreading negativity that affects not only individuals but the national mood itself. These tweets seem to confirm stereotypes so they spread easily, but they are simply not borne out by the facts,” says Professor Deon Rossouw, CEO of the Ethics Institute of South Africa (EthicsSA). “We need to be much more critical of these stereotypes and pay more attention to the goodwill in our society.”

As an example of a stereotype related to corruption in South Africa, Professor Rossouw cites the findings in the recent survey into bribery conducted by EthicsSA and sponsored by Massmart. The survey found that while 78 percent of South Africans believe that bribery is necessary to get through everyday life, only 20 percent know somebody who has actually paid a bribe. In other words, even though the “received wisdom” is that bribery is both common and necessary, the vast majority of South Africans act differently.
“Despite that finding, it was interesting that most of the headlines reporting on the survey incorrectly focused on the stereotype—‘Most South Africans pay bribes’—while the reality is that most do not,” says Professor Rossouw. “We need to discard inaccurate stereotypes consciously, or we risk feeding them and letting them become true.”

Another example of how stereotyping masks, and can overpower, reality is evident in the racism debate currently underway, he continues. The spate of racist tweets and reactions to them can seem to confirm stereotypes that everybody is racist, thus creating the impression that reconciliation and nation-building have failed and are no longer worth pursuing. In fact, the opposite is true as the SA Reconciliation Barometer 2015 shows. Published late last year by The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, the survey provides factual evidence that the vast majority of South Africans are committed to reconciliation and nation-building: 75.5 percent favour an inclusive South African identity, and 71 percent believe it is important to have a united South African nation.

“This is astonishing given the fact that a majority (61.4 percent) also believe that race relations have stayed the same or worsened since democracy. So yes, the challenges remain daunting and not enough progress is being made, but the reality is that most of us want the South African project to succeed. You would never guess that from the dominant narrative in social (and other) media, though it’s apparent in work places and other places where people mingle,” Professor Rossouw argues. “We must tap into this reality, and use them to create a positive frame for the important national conversations that must take place. If we do not, we risk letting the stereotypes—the dangerous and inaccurate myths—dominate our reality. We must not let that happen.”

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Cathlen Fourie, 082 222 9198, [email protected], www.atthatpoint.co.za 

For more information on EthicsSA please visit:
Website: www.ethicssa.org 
LinkedIn: Ethics Institute of South Africa
Facebook: Ethics Institute of South Africa

A recent survey of ordinary South Africans conducted by the Ethics Institute of South Africa (EthicsSA) and sponsored by Massmart-Walmart gives a fresh view on everyday bribery in the country.    

“What makes this research different is that we posed open questions, thus allowing people to report their actual experiences of bribery without being constrained by our imposed categories,” says Professor Deon Rossouw, CEO of EthicsSA. “Research like this is important because it moves us from the anecdotal to the concrete—and thus puts us in a better position to understand the challenge we face and, of course, to overcome it.” 

The research was conducted in Massmart stores in Gauteng, Durban, Cape Town and Polokwane. The 6 380 respondents were evenly split in terms of gender, with good representation across age and income groups.  Twenty-six percent of respondents earned less than R100 000 a year. 

Some of the key findings include: 
•    26 percent of respondents knew of somebody who had been asked for a bribe in the past year. 
•    75 percent of those who were asked for a bribe ended up paying it. 
•    Most bribes were reportedly asked to avoid traffic offences (36 percent)
•    Bribes for jobs came in next (17 percent), with unskilled and semi-skilled workers being most vulnerable to bribe requests in order to obtain jobs. 
•    Bribes relating to tenders accounted for 7 percent of the responses. 
•    4 percent of bribes related to getting reduced prices or free goods from businesses.
•    The most common bribe amount was R100, with over half of all bribes (55 percent) falling under the R1 000 mark. Unsurprisingly, bribes amounts relating to tenders were the highest on average (R103 288), while the lowest average bribe amount was for traffic offences (R219). 
•    Of the four provinces covered in the survey, one is most likely to be approached for a bribe in Limpopo (48 percent).  Bribes are least likely to be solicited in the Western Cape (19 percent), followed by Gauteng (25 percent) and KwaZulu-Natal (26 percent). 

Professor Rossouw says that the findings show that bribery is equally prevalent in the private sector, despite the widespread view that it is primarily something that affects the public sector. “While we expected that bribery for contracts and jobs would be prevalent in the private sector, we were surprised by the extent to which private sector companies are being targeted for bribes to get discounts or free goods.” 

“While bribery is quite prevalent, we are not yet at the point where ‘everyone does it’” observes Professor Rossouw. “It is interesting to note that while 78 percent of respondents do not believe they can get through everyday life without paying a bribe, the fact is that only 20 percent of people know someone who has paid a bribe in the last year.”    

By far the majority of people believe that bribery will be frowned at by their family members and friends.  At the same time 75% of people who were asked for a bribe paid it.  “This is perhaps most worrying,” concludes Professor Rossouw. “Virtually everybody agrees that not enough is being done to combat bribery in the country, but perhaps we should be talking more about people’s individual responsibility not to participate in bribery.”

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT: Juanita Vorster, 079 523 8374, [email protected], www.atthatpoint.co.za 

For more information on EthicsSA please visit:
Website: www.ethicssa.org 
LinkedIn: Ethics Institute of South Africa
Facebook: Ethics Institute of South Africa