If your idea has been that thieves are poorly educated persons trying to escape the drudgery of doing menial jobs and earning measly incomes as a result, then rethink your position. Some recent investigations have confirmed that incidents of corruption are highest among the top echelon in the corporate world. In effect, this means that your average thief is not the desperately poor person, but a mega-earning corporate executive officer. In Germany for instance, a study by a Belfield University Professor of Criminology has revealed that highly ranked adult males commit most of the incidents of corruption in that country. Dr Brita Banneberg’s study shows that the most corrupt people in Germany are people who have “no debts to worry about, people who have certain executive powers and powers of decision within their firms.” “The great majority of perpetrators of corruption in Germany are ambitious people who invest a great deal of time in their career, usually have professional expertise and attach great importance to social status, and have a high standard of living.” A stunning aspect of the study, Dr Banneberg revealed, is the proclivity of the criminals not believing that they were acting criminally. “They do not believe to be acting criminally, have pronounced justification and neutralization techniques.” Professor Banneberg’s report comes at the heel of a series of scandals that have rocked the German corporate world costing the third most industrialized nation billions of euros in possible investment and the loss of jobs. The scheme comprises kickbacks (a common Ghanaian political lexicon), creation of phony companies, money-laundering and paid sex. Also included are competition offences, and breach of trust in connection with shareholdings and capital investments. Even though there are many references to Germany, this article’s intention, however, is not to illustrate corruption in that country. It is to exemplify how the German system responds to corruptible practices and how this responsiveness can serve as a basis for good corporate governance in Ghana. In Africa many corruption cases do not receive the needed attention. One wonders whether the status quo is so because people do not care, or just that people do not seem to be bothered; or rather the fact that many of our continent-folks do not know the signposts to look for. How does one surmise that his colleague or boss showing sudden signs of inexplicably high standard of living is probably tinkering with the company’s resources? Or how might one assume that his senior making conspicuous contact with contractors is probably corrupt? Well, the Germans are showing that it is possibly to stop corruption in its track. Now, compared to Ghana, Germany has an exalted position on all global corruption indices. Germany posted 7.8 points to emerge 16th less corrupt out of 179 countries appraised on the 2007 corruption perception index. Ghana, in contrast, is ranked 69 worldwide and has only 3.7 points. Besides, Germany is the third most advanced nation in the world, and the first, in economic terms, in all of Europe. Yet in the midst of abundance, Germans are still extremely sensitive to corruption. One can describe the German’s reaction to corporate misconduct as exquisite. On the contrary, we Africans pay lip service to the issue of fighting corruption, although we suffer the most from its occurrence. This is a pointed dissimilarity to the German situation. Ours is a continent that inhabits the poorest of the poor; where the most insidious forms of poverty are located; and where social services are non-existent or poorly developed, to the extent that majority of the people often perish from diseases that have long been exterminated from other societies. As former UN boss Kofi Annan fittingly noted: “Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice, and discouraging foreign investment and aid.” Annan’s observation underlines the urgency of the problem, hence the need for African people to learn from best practices elsewhere. The exemplar of Deutsche Bahn (DB), the leading rail and logistics company in Germany comes in handy. Distressed by the events in other companies, DB decided to institute stringent measures to reduce vice and sleaze its fold. The company established a ‘Compliance Steering Committee (CSC)’ which receives and with the help of an external Ombudsman (appointed by the company), investigates incidents or suspicions of corruption, and then presses for charges if the allegations can be sustained. The role of the Ombudsman is very critical to the entire process, for he acts as liaison to the whistleblower, and thus has a protective function for the whistleblower to ensure his anonymity. This means that all employees of the company are encouraged to ‘report’ any suspicion of corruption, aware that their anonymity and identity are fully guaranteed. This is definitely one good example of the things African corporate world can copy from their German counterparts to curb corruption. Another way is the suggestion by Regina Puls, a Legal Officer with the CSC at DB, who insists on “a code of conduct for all employees.” The code is to reward workers who have exhibited exemplary conduct and punish those who fail to abide by the rules. Ms Puls argues that for this code to be work, a “consistent imposition of sanctions against infringements” must be vigorously pursued. As it were, personnel in a company are more likely shun corrupt practices if they realize that their bosses who have indulged in similar activities have been shamed and punished. A second thing African corporate institutions can do to reduce corruption is the need for job rotations. According to Ms Puls, there is a direct association between the length of a task and the incidence of corruption. Explaining, she said the number of persons who are involved in corruption cases by receiving money is significantly higher if these persons are doing the same job for more than three years. On the other hand, persons who are doing the task for a shorter period of time are not so often involved. “This shows that the longer one stays and does the same job, the more they are open to accept to be involved as someone who receives money. This is why prevention measures are necessary for people who perform their task for a longer time especially when this task itself indicates the threat of corruption’’, she emphasized. Ms Puls, as well, recommends the inclusion of “an integrity clause in the general purchasing terms and conditions” of companies. This is crucial as it can serve as the first incriminating evidence should people fall foul of the law. Equally important is the need to put a sort of moratorium or ban on awarding contracts to corrupt companies. For me, this is important as it can help in disgracing people who devise schemes to siphon state or corporate income monies for personal gains. It is only such tough actions that African states can curb not just corporate corruption, but corruption in general. What needs to be reiterated though, is that your ‘modern thief’, is not the typical unemployed chap who is caught stealing one Ghana cedi worth of cassava to pillow his famished tummy, for which he receives a lengthy jail term. I am not saying his actions are excusable. He must be punished. Nonetheless, the point am making is that the majority of real ‘thieves’ in our society are people who command resources or have the means of becoming wealthy if they are already not. They are among those who caused us the most trouble, looting huge resources that may possibly be used to procure drugs for the local health centre, or provide books for an underserved library. These are the people who must be tamed through the institution of good anti-corruption corporate measures. These are the people who must rightly receive longer jail terms but are walking free. Is it not a shame then that we allow such things to happen? Credit: Nathaniel Glover-Meni [glovermeni@yahoo.com]