Table 1:
(Authors) Stakeholder typology according to their reactivity, based on Slager, Gond & Crilly, 2021.
| Low Capacity | High Capacity | |
|---|---|---|
| High Motivation | Incremental responders | Substantive responders |
| High Motivation | Want to act ethically but lack resources or systems.
| Ethics as strategic advantage and cultural value.
|
| Low Motivation | Indifferent responders | Selective responders |
| Low Motivation | View disclosure as burden or cost.
| Ethics as PR instrument.
|
Table 2:
(Authors) Illustrative stakeholders' reactivity on selected traditional G metrics, based on Slager, Gond & Crilly, 2021.
| Incremental | (High motivation – Low analytical capacity) | |
|---|---|---|
| type / group | Metric 1: Corruption cases (3 vs 5) | Metric 2: Training participation (88% vs 91%) |
| Internal stakeholders | View reduction as clear moral and compliance progress, interpret numbers at face value, reinforce basic compliance messaging and “zero tolerance” narratives | Express concern over decline, perceive it as failure to meet expectations, push for mandatory attendance and simple controls rather than redesign of training |
| External stakeholders | Welcome reduction as a signal of improving integrity, rely on headline numbers, may communicate cautious approval but request reassurance | Question decline in participation, may ask for explanations or commitments to restore coverage, rely on company statements rather than independent analysis |
| Incremental stakeholders want improvement but lack the capacity to contextualize trends or causality. | Incremental stakeholders want improvement but lack the capacity to contextualize trends or causality. | Incremental stakeholders want improvement but lack the capacity to contextualize trends or causality. |
| Substantive | (High motivation – High analytical capacity) | |
| type / group | Metric 1: Corruption cases (3 vs 5) | Metric 2: Training participation (88% vs 91%) |
| Internal stakeholders | Analyse trend quality, detection maturity, reporting culture, and benchmarking, assess whether decrease reflects prevention or under-reporting, initiate root-cause reviews | Disaggregate participation by risk group and geography, assess training effectiveness, not only coverage, redesign content, targeting and incentives |
| External stakeholders | Interpret reduction conditionally, compare to peers, sector risk, enforcement context, may request deeper narrative and assurance | Probe whether decline signals training fatigue or risk misalignment, expect corrective action plans and evidence of learning outcomes |
| Substantive stakeholders treat metrics as diagnostic tools, not reputational signals. | Substantive stakeholders treat metrics as diagnostic tools, not reputational signals. | Substantive stakeholders treat metrics as diagnostic tools, not reputational signals. |
| Selective | (Low motivation – High analytical capacity) | |
| type / group | Metric 1: Corruption cases (3 vs 5) | Metric 2: Training participation (88% vs 91%) |
| Internal stakeholders | Acknowledge improvement but deprioritize unless cases threaten operations or reputation, avoid deeper system investments | Accept decline if not legally problematic, may support targeted training only in high-risk units |
| External stakeholders | Use data opportunistically, positive trends reduce pressure, scrutiny increases only if scandals emerge | Monitor participation mainly as compliance threshold, react only if it affects contractual or regulatory exposure |
| Selective stakeholders can interpret metrics but engage only when it aligns with other strategic interests. | Selective stakeholders can interpret metrics but engage only when it aligns with other strategic interests. | Selective stakeholders can interpret metrics but engage only when it aligns with other strategic interests. |
| Indifferent | (Low motivation – Low analytical capacity) | |
| type / group | Metric 1: Corruption cases (3 vs 5) | Metric 2: Training participation (88% vs 91%) |
| Internal stakeholders | Consider corruption inevitable or irrelevant, see numbers as compliance formalism, no behavioural change | View decline as operational issue, little concern or ownership |
| External stakeholders | Barely notice disclosure, lack interest or understanding, rely on surface reputation | No reaction unless issue escalates publicly or legally |
| Indifferent stakeholders neither demand nor enable meaningful improvement. | Indifferent stakeholders neither demand nor enable meaningful improvement. | Indifferent stakeholders neither demand nor enable meaningful improvement. |
Table 3:
(Authors) Illustrative set of ABC metrics reflecting identified sustainability factors.
| ABC trainings metrics | Curr. year | Prev. year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Activity-based | ABC training participation | 88% | 91% |
| Impact-based | % of employees showing compliant behaviors measured through post-training assessments following the ABC training | 76% | 69% |
| Corruption incidents metrics | Curr. year | Prev. year | |
| Activity-based | Corruption cases incidence total | 3 | 5 |
| Impact-based | Corruption cases incidence in already remediated areas | 1 | 0 |
| Root cause analysis completion rate for alerts received | 100% | 100% | |
| Whistle blower communication metrics | Curr. year | Prev. year | |
| Activity-based | Incidence of corruption WB reports | 3 | 3 |
| Impact-based | Substantiation rate of reports | 65% | 73% |
| Time-to-resolution for reported concerns (days) | 32 | 29 | |
| Third parties' due diligence metrics | Curr. year | Prev. year | |
| Activity-based | Percentage of high-risk third parties subject to enhanced due diligence | 95% | 92% |
| Impact-based | Contract terminations due to compliance failure | 0 | 2 |
| Risk assessment metrics | Curr. year | Prev. year | |
| Activity-based | Revenues share covered by corruption risk assessment | 93% | 87% |
| Impact-based | Percentage reduction in residual corruption risk score after mitigation measures | 25% | 20% |
| Continuous improvement metrics | Curr. year | Prev. year | |
| Activity-based | Action steps from risk assessment, audits, investigations closed within given deadline | 80% | 100% |
| Impact-based | Trend (+increase, −decrease) in identified internal control weaknesses vs. previous year | 25% | −33% |