A proposed global theory of corporate political activity (CPA) analyzes the complex resource allocation choices involved in integrating politically relevant cross-border and multilevel strategies for multinational enterprises (MNEs). Cross-border CPA is “horizontal” allocation of scarce corporate resources by MNEs to politically relevant strategies across multiple countries. Globalization reshapes CPA among multiple levels functioning below, at, and above national governments. Subnational communities and international policy regimes, supranational quasigovernmental institutions, and supranational nongovernmental organizations all affect businesses. Multilevel CPA is “vertical” allocation of (...) scarce corporate resources to politically relevant strategies among subnational, national, regional, and global levels. Furthermore, in each country and at each level, business-relevant policies are determined in multiple policy arenas, shaped by widely differing nonmarket institutions, corruption conditions, and stakeholder demands for corporate social responsibility. Multiple policy “arena” allocation adds to the analytical complexity of the CPA strategizing problem. Implications for scholarship and practice are presented. (shrink)

Although corruption is ubiquitous, attitudes toward it differ among countries. Until the 1997 OECD Convention, the U.S. had been one of the only two countries with an explicit extraterritorial anti-bribery law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977. The FCPA employs a two-pronged approach to control the supply side of corruption: (1) anti-bribery provisions; and (2) accounting (books and record and internal controls) provisions. I offer evidence, albeit indirect, to show that the FCPA had limited success. The OECD Convention (...) adopts the same two-pronged approach, but, since it is a multilateral treaty, is likely to be more successful provided that enforcement is vigorous enough. The signatory nations effectively form a cartel to reduce the cost of doing business. As with any cartel, however, each multinational corporation has an incentive to deviate. Thus, the mutual enforcement of the agreement is crucial for its success. However, the two-pronged approach is not sufficient, since internal control does not adequately monitor decisions made at the top level. I argue that the two lessons drawn from the U.S. experience are: (1) law enforcement must be credible; and (2) internal controls alone are not sufficient. Stronger and more effective corporate governance within an appropriate regulatory framework is needed to ensure that multinational corporations conduct their business in an ethical manner. (shrink)