Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 907–923 | Cite as

Corruption: Engineers are Victims, Perpetrators or Both?

  • M. PecujlijaEmail author
  • I. Cosic
  • L. Nesic-Grubic
  • S. Drobnjak
Original Paper


This study was conducted in Serbian companies on licensed engineers and in its first part included a total of 336 licensed engineers who voluntarily completed the questionnaires about their ethical orientation and attitudes toward corruption and in the second part 214 engineers who participated in the first survey, who voluntarily evaluated their company’s business operations characteristics. This study has clearly shown that there is a direct significant influence of the engineer’s ethical orientations and attitudes toward corruption on their evaluation of the characteristics of their respective companies regarding business operations. This research also clearly shows that only engineers with a strong deontological orientation, low ethical subjectivity, and strong readiness to fight corruption, low corruption acceptance and high awareness of corruption can successfully fight corruption, improve the business operations of their companies and make beneficial changes to society. Otherwise, they should be considered as corruption perpetrators, not just as its victims.


Corruption Ethics Job satisfaction Business operations 



The authors thank the editor and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper.


  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, E., & Jap, S. D. (2005). The dark side of close relationships. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 75–82.Google Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Basuroy, S. (2003). How effortful decisions get enacted: The motivating role of decision processes. Desires, and Anticipated Emotions, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(4), 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basart, J. M., & Serra, M. (2013). Engineering ethics beyond engineers’ ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumer, E. P. (2007). Untangling research puzzles in merton’s multilevel anomie theory. Theoretical Criminology, 11(1), 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandstatter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 946–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchan, H. F. (2005). Ethical decision making in the public accounting profession: An extension of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrillo, J.D. (1999). Corruption in hierarchies. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 59.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, J. D., Uhlenbruck, K., & Rodriguez, P. (2009). Why firms engage in corruption: A top management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and social cognition. Foundations of social behavior, Vol. 2, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 287–312.Google Scholar
  14. Heckhausen, H. (1987). Intentionsgeleitetes Handeln und seine Fehler. In H. Heckhausen, P. M. Gollwitzer, & F. E. Weinert (Eds.), Jenseits des Rubikon: Der Wille in den Humanwissenschaften (pp. 143–175). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kock, N. (2010). Using WarpPLS in E-collaboration studies: An overview of five main analysis steps. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 6(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambsdorff, J. G. (2002). Making corrupt deals: Contracting in the shadow of the law. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 48(3), 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 influences on bribery activity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1401–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  19. Pecujlija, M., Cosic, I., & Ivanisevic, V. (2011). A professor`s moral thinking at the abstract level vs the professor`s moral thinking in the real life situations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desires and intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rabl, T., & Kuhlmann, M. (2011). Understanding corruption in organizations—Development and empirical assessment of an action model. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spier, R., & Bird, S. (2014). Science and engineering ethics enters its third decade. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. (1974). Criminology. New York: Lippincott Company.Google Scholar
  26. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Pecujlija
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. Cosic
    • 1
  • L. Nesic-Grubic
    • 1
  • S. Drobnjak
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technical SciencesNovi SadSerbia
  2. 2.MoISBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations