Unethical behavior in public and private sector procurement

Unethical Behavior in Government and Private Sector Acquisition

Understanding the Concepts

Ethics

Accountability

Transparency

Integrity

Professionalism

Ethics and acquisition ethics

Areas of unethical behaviour by purchasers

Possible causes of unethical behaviour

Unethical behaviour in acquisition

Corruption

Causes of corruption

Conflict of Interest

Human resource management (HRM) Malpractices

Countering HRM malpractices

Measures for the prevention of unethical behaviour

Induction

Code of conduct

Record keeping and oversight

A global-level consensus has been reached regarding the significance of public sector reforms for reinforcing ethical principles like transparency, honesty, professionalism and responsibility and for avoiding and fighting corruption. The effect illegal, unscrupulous practices have on public services is intolerable when it comes to national development, as it leads to people losing faith in civic institutions; this, successively, leads to the rule of law's destruction. When one considers the fact that institutional finances are largely used up by purchase departments, which commonly face temptation from suppliers, and double standards that eventually give rise to an overall dishonest climate abound, one must expect these departments or their members to engage, at times, in unethical practices. Therefore, it seems as though the commercial sphere experiences two kinds of unethical conduct in private as well as public contracting: unscrupulous conduct that serves personal interests and unscrupulous conduct that serves organizational interests. Corrupt individuals in purchasing departments can easily accept or even insist on personal gains (e.g., enrichment) as compensation for order placement, preferential supplier treatment, or purchasing contract acceptance. Personal gains may take the shape of non-tangible and tangible gifts, bribes or kick-backs. One instinctively presumes unethical conduct arises due to the presence of corrupt individuals who lack a value system that helps differentiate wrong from right. Ethicality has largely been governed by company climate, productive resource scarcity, the contribution of top managers, coworkers and bosses, the corporate system's intellectual support, and corporate culture relating to "social" relations. Unethical conduct during acquisition encompasses corruption, misconduct in HR management and conflicts of interest. Such conduct in purchasing department employees may be countered using particular means such as record-keeping, supervision, induction, and formulation of organizational or departmental conduct codes.

1. Introduction

Ever since Trevelyan and Northcote established the groundwork for contemporary civil service during the middle of the 19 thcentury, a recurrent public administration theme remains the interest in instituting basic rules for both private and public sector workers and making sure they abide by their core standards within routine work (Frederickson & Ghere, 2013). Ashour (2004) notes the development of a global consensus regarding the significance of public sector reforms for reinforcing ethical principles like transparency, honesty, professionalism and responsibility and for avoiding and fighting corruption. These steps prove the key to safeguarding public resources, reinforcing governmental role in planning for growth and offering fundamental services, and improving the performance of public sector institutions. In the present day, people are definitely more aware of the necessity of having ethics, answerability, transparency, honesty and competence in place within public life.

As per a research work conducted by the UN Economic & Social Affairs Department (UNDESA, 2001) within a total of ten nations in the African continent, the above realization is reinforced by consensus on the fact that effective public administration and governance form the underpinnings of sustainable growth. The effect illegal, unscrupulous actions have on public services is intolerable when it comes to national development, as it leads to people losing faith in civic institutions; this, successively, leads to the rule of law's destruction. Moreover, in Ayee's (1998) view, the ideas of answerability and ethics have gained increasing import within the arena of public administration, owing to the public sector's constant failings, which may be ascribed to employees' absence of ethics that are successively, potentially, linked to poor administrative systems and values. Currently, the masses in a majority of democracies are in pursuit of governmental answerability responsibility (Kuye and Mafunisa, 2003). In certain instances, this has been instigated by events that involve public servants and political figures.

When one considers the fact that institutional finances are largely used up by purchase departments, which commonly face temptation from suppliers, and double standards that eventually give rise to an overall dishonest climate abound (company marketers might tempt clients' purchasers, however, yielding to these enticements is unacceptable), one must expect these departments or their members to engage, at times, in unethical practices (Ssonko, 2010). One can commonly witness, within any organization, that purchasing department members have low prestige at work, on account of the reasons cited below:

• The top-level management lacks a thorough grasp of purchasers' finance-generating potential;

• It also views purchasing departments, on the whole, as nothing more than a department that works to bring about price decreases;

• Purchasing departments are typically left out when it comes to engaging departments in corporate policies, novel ideas, goals and initiatives, or communicating the above to departments;

• The purchasing department's position of control is an ambiguous one. Organizations usually subordinate them to the roles of the finance, production and marketing departments;

• Senior-level managers also fail to hire qualified, expert individuals within their purchasing departments and to compensate them adequately, and • Organizations, on the whole, consider purchasing department staff as "ordering clerks" or "paper pushers," with their job perceived to suit 'weak', 'inefficient' and 'slothful' individuals.

Purchasing departments' low status within organizations is probably why they end up engaging in unscrupulous corporate practices. Their undermined status, especially among the masses, might, in turn, be because of the rumors running wild in society of purchasers' bribe-taking practices and other forms of unethical conduct. Hence, this, besides the impact sensational press reports have on society, perhaps tarnishes the overall reputation of individuals working in this capacity. Unscrupulous conduct by purchasing department employees is, at times, considered "more unethical" compared to that by other departmental workers, potentially due to the reasoning that their practices involve greater amounts of finances and contribute to the employee's personal enrichment. But unscrupulous commercial practices are witnessed every day in other spheres. Still, the press tends not to pay much attention to these and, consequently, society as well as the commercial sector tends to swiftly forgive and forget (Frederickson &Ghere, 2013). For instance, commercial circles deem hazardous working conditions, lying, crushing coworkers and rivals, causing environmental pollution, and manufacturing substandard quality goods that can lead to death and injuries, as perfectly acceptable so long as such practices elevate their personal or organizational positions.

Within chiefly Christian nations, particularly developing Christian societies, people rarely doubt the correctness of maintaining superior morals and personal ethical standards. Thus, acts such as stealing, deception and falsehoods are considered glaring unethical conducts which are denounced by one and all in society. But such unanimity is not observed when it comes to other, not-so-obvious, doubtful behavioral patterns common to business circles. Even practices that are censured when an individual performs it for personal gain are typically overlooked when the gains associated with it are on the organizational level. People accept such practices without any remarks, a tactic that may be dubbed 'clever business.' The topmost priority is ensuring profit maximization for the firm. Entrepreneurs and their employees are coerced into overlooking their own moral values in order to accomplish corporate aims (Ssonko, 2010). Researchers frequently demonstrate that people, who, in other situations, possess sound ethical and moral standards, fail to abide by them when doing business or at the workplace.

Therefore, it seems as though the commercial sphere experiences two kinds of unethical conduct in private as well as public contracting: unscrupulous conduct that serves personal interests and unscrupulous conduct that serves organizational interests (Ssonko, 2010). The aforementioned argument seems to show that the latter form of wrong conduct is deemed by business persons as less wrong or more tolerable. A growing pool of literature penned on this subject across the world (including South Africa), in the last ten years, apparently provides evidence of the growth of unethical behaviors and a simultaneous recognition of the significance of behaving ethically. According to Ghere and Frederickson (2013), there is a need for organizations to have more stringent ethics and conduct codes in place for ensuring the maintenance of an advanced, cultured way of living. The authors further remark upon the essentiality of this for modern Western society's survival. When ruminating on purchase management's ethical elements, the foremost things that are called to mind are gifts and bribery. However, there is a lot more to ethical conduct during purchases.

1.1. Understanding the Concepts

To put it more accurately, ethics, answerability, professionalism, honesty and transparency are all related concepts. Despite endeavors to come up with discrete definitions of all these terms, on the whole, one will realize that the concepts lack explicit inter-concept boundaries (Ssonko, 2010). Hence, the presence or absence of any one value has negative or positive effects on the remaining values. This spontaneously suggests that balanced private or public sector workers need to embrace and apply every one of these values for superior performance and for garnering justifiable good repute.

1.1.1. Ethics

Ayee (1998) holds that the word 'ethics' lacks an unanimously agreed-upon definition. This subject has its links to human history. It addresses the moral character and behavior of humanity, and wrong or right, bad or good, conduct. Ethics assesses the behavior of individuals against an absolute condition and places positive or negative principles on it. Chapman (1993) has a parallel standpoint in this regard and describes ethics as being the fundamental doctrines of proper action, and laws pertaining to behavior. The conditions may be written (for instance, standing orders, state/national laws or circulars) or simple societal interpretations of the tolerable and intolerable. The definition provided for 'ethics' by the African public service charter (UNDESA, 2001) is: ethics are standards that drive practices and conduct of public sector employees. The Charter's twenty-second article offers an additional description of ethics in a cultural context, explaining it as an effective culture founded on moral principles and standards such as discipline at work, efficacy, objectivity, justice, public-spiritedness, dignity, courtesy when performing one's duties, and equality. Thus, public sector ethics represent a general set of rules which outline the way public sector works, being governmental agents (or members of one of the established professions like law, HR management, accounting, and so forth) ought to employ prudence and acumen when performing official tasks.

1.1.2. Accountability

While making people answerable for their actions is generally considered good, this idea is very generically-employed and conceptual in nature (Hulme and Sanderatne, 1997). One common way to describe this value is: Accountability revolves around processes whereby individuals in positions of power (governmental, political, organizational, etc.) should prove they have exerted influence and performed their tasks appropriately.

According to Meyer and Fox (1995), accountability may be described as the governmental agencies' and their workers' duty towards the people to accomplish preset goals and publicly answer for them. Furthermore, it is a commitment needed on public authorities' part, both jointly and independently, to bear public responsibility, whether for their action or for their lack of it. Here, the weight of answerability resides on the shoulders of all public servants individually to serve the people's best interests, seeking help from their own conscience, and resolve all issues based on involvement and professionalism.

Public sector answerability is more extensive as compared to that of private sector workers (Ole Ingstrup and Crookall, 1998). The latter are all answerable to their individual organizations' executive boards. While public sector employees also have a kind of board to answer to, comprising of the legislature, minister, and cabinet members, they are additionally answerable to fellow employees, clients, citizen customers, and citizen non-customers. This form of accountability may be explained as being more subtle and tacit. Overall, it is answerability for their performance and their duty to offer an acceptable justification for their use of resources, influence, and position on taxpayers' behalf. Incorporated into the above definition are innumerable legal, ethical and moral responsibilities associated with public positions (Sarji, 1993).

To sum up, it is obligatory to perform assigned tasks responsibly and to answer for one's botches or achievements. When addressing the matter of public service "accountability", one needs to take into account the 'bureaucratic responsibility' notion. Internal accountability implies public authorities are, at individual organizational levels, answerable to their superiors whereas external accountability implies taking responsibility for one's actions and achievements before other involved authorities external to the company or department. Hence, accountability is a moral value as ethics deal with laws and standards which regulate individual conduct's moral value (Zaal, 2012). Improvement of ethics proves to be central to accountability improvement and vice versa.

1.1.3. Transparency

Normally, the word "transparency" is used to denote honesty, answerability and information exchange. The word represents a metaphorical addendum to "transparent". With respect to public services, this word implies public officials ought to be highly honest in every act and choice of theirs. They must explain their choices and only hold information back if such a step is in the public's best interest (Chapman, 1993). Thorough management transparency requires every decision to be made and recorded in public. This includes every draft document, arguments supporting and opposing a proposal, final decisions, etc. The African public service charter's 12th article (UNDESA, 2001) requires administrative decisions to be made based on straightforward, clear, and comprehensible procedures, whilst simultaneously guaranteeing answerability. Every administrative entity is required to provide access to requisite facts regarding procedures and laws in their own spheres, besides data needed for evaluating their management, to interested parties. The administration is required to notify involved individuals regarding decisions pertaining to them if they choose to dispute a decision. It is also expected to institute or strengthen information and reception divisions for helping users access desired services and for recording their opinions, grievances or recommendations.

Thus, transparency fosters answerability and offers citizens information on what the government and governmental authorities are up to.

1.1.4. Integrity

Of all values held in great regard by society, this is one among the most salient. Integrity is a value that deals with the apparent consistency of ideals, means, conduct, standards, expectations and result. Or, it is the quality of an individual's character. There are some individuals who view integrity as a quality that encompasses a righteous sense of openness and honesty with respect to the motives behind one's actions. Individuals who endorse and apply this value behave in line with what they support, and also stand for their ideal judgment in a society that attempts to discern what's worth striving towards in life (Ssonko, 2010). Meanwhile, other individuals assert that integrity is personal honesty, which is behaving in accordance to one's principles and ideologies always. This may underscore the intactness or wholeness of an ethical outlook or stand. Some of this intactness might underscore genuineness and dedication as well. With respect to answerability, integrity functions as a scale to measure a person's readiness to adapt value systems and sustain or improve their reliability if an anticipated outcome seems to differ from the actual outcome. According to others, integrity is a good value just as ethical responsibility and answerability are perceived to be vital tools to maintain this consistency.

The definition of integrity put forward by Halfon (1989) is with regard to moral purpose (i.e., an individual's commitment to leading an ethical life and his/her intellectual duty to attempt to comprehend the demands linked to this sort of life). According to the author, individuals possessing integrity adopt a moral outlook which necessitates conceptual clarity, rational consistency, thorough acknowledgement and consideration of relevant ethical factors, and appraisal of pertinent empirical proofs. Such self-imposed limitations are welcome as these individuals are interested in committing to doing the best thing and not just in assuming a moral stance.

Integrity needs the following steps: (i) Distinguishing between wrong and right, (ii) Taking action based on one's discernment, irrespective of the cost to oneself; and (iii) Publicly stating that one's actions are based on one's distinguishing between wrong and right (Ssonko, 2010).

1.1.5. Professionalism

For this paper, professionalism of public service personnel may be described as an overall value which includes every other value driving public services, such as objectivity, fairness, devotion, transparency, assiduousness, promptness, efficacy, and even values which might be unique to a given nation's public services (UNDESA, 2001). Professionalism in this domain encompasses the idea that public servants must cultivate within themselves shared values, besides acquiring fundamental skills training for performing their tasks in a professional manner. This is consistent with the African public service charter's 21st article in which it is stated that: Professionalism is apparent in public servants' workplace conduct and their continuous attempts at improving, strengthening and updating their knowledge, honing requisite skills to perform tasks and improving their efficiency and yield.

The rationale for the above value is: public service workers ought to be objective, unbiased, just, efficient, and ensure the masses' best interests when performing duties. They ought to receive suitable compensation and be sufficiently educated to carry out their tasks.

Sarji (1993) claims that, in a way, professionalism implies exceptional work culture. Benignly, it represents an internalized responsibility to give one's best. It may be considered a noble profession, or a form of performance principle; and for the diligent professional, giving anything less than their best would distress them. Professionalism encompasses a deep-seated pride in performing exceptionally. The author further describes this value as being the observance of a collection of behavioral and normative expectations typically encapsulated within an ethical code.

1.2. Ethics and Acquisition Ethics

One can describe ethics as the fundamental codes of appropriate conduct, particularly in connection with a particular individual, task or occupation (Badenhorst, 1994). For this paper, the above entity is the purchasing department role, and the members of this department. Purchase management and business ethics values and rules constitute a subject on which experts in the field have divergent viewpoints. Different ethical principles are applicable to different cultures, persons, sectors, organizations and contexts. In essence, ethics are a personal thing, and address individual behavior which is, however, governed by peer groups and environmental norms.

Ethics represents behavioral science, within the milieu of careful, purposeful action for goal attainment. Ethics in the purchasing context is founded on principles that form the basis of individuals' routine actions in the corporate sphere. It may be considered an addition to commercial law and norms that businessmen within any given community deem vital to sound business relationship maintenance (Ayayi, 2014). Purchaser unethicality might undermine intra-departmental and inter-departmental relations, besides relations with the firm's suppliers. The innate atmosphere of purchasing departments breeds unethicality. Within the process of purchase, a purchaser-seller interchange occurs wherein both parties strive to achieve the maximum possible advantage for their respective organizations. Thus, they deploy all means at hand to satisfy this goal. Normally, sales representatives care little about ethics and purchasing department members are lured by the temptation of getting their hands on personal benefit from transactions, a practice that is typically approved of and encouraged by the former's employing firm. Managers are known to urge sales reps to behave in such a way while simultaneously deeming the acceptance of such gains by their purchasing personnel as completely intolerable. Such double standards generate dishonesty within organizations and prove to be a temptation to all employees, particularly those placed in the purchasing department.

The purchase process involves the two parties (seller and buyer) pitching their strengths against one another. Whoever emerges stronger will commonly gain more advantage. Acceptance of bribes, gifts, etc. by purchasers signifies their relinquishment of their station of strength and may turn into a vicious, unstoppable circle (Eckerd & Hill, 2012). This is because, if sales reps try to sway purchase department personnel using bribes, gifts, etc. and succeed in doing so, they reveal their own weak position. Therefore, in most cases, unethicality in purchasers is instigated by suppliers. Besides direct bribes, gifts and favors, purchase department employees might engage in wrong conduct in other matters as well (Gino & Pierce, 2009).

1.3. Areas of Unethical Behavior by Purchasers

Corrupt individuals in purchasing departments can easily accept or even insist on personal gains (e.g., enrichment) as compensation for order placement, preferential supplier treatment, or purchasing contract acceptance. Personal gains may take the shape of non-tangible and tangible gifts, bribes or kick-backs. Aside from these commonly understood forms of personal advantage, there are other indirect, overlooked areas in which purchasers might engage in unethical conduct, knowingly or unknowingly (Badenhorst, 1994):

• For instance, purchasers or their kith and kin might have vested interests in any given supplier, and might, on account of conflicts of interest, behave irrationally and give precedence to their personal interest over the company's best interest.

• The purchaser's faithfulness to his/her boss might spur him/her to behave unethically and fail to report any dishonesty shown by the boss.

• An organization's purchasing power might be abused even in the event employees make personal purchases or purchases on behalf of family members, friends or coworkers using the organization's name, for procuring goods at reduced rates. In certain instances, such conduct may not be wrong; for example, certain organizations make such a provision for its members as a kind of employee benefit. Suppliers are also usually ready to offer products personally to purchasing staff at reduced rates to demonstrate goodwill. The important thing here is that: both the supplier and the company in which the purchaser works should know that goods have been purchased for individual utilization.

• Withholding key facts from suppliers can be deemed unethical if such an act disadvantages the latter when competing for transactions. Additionally, it is unethical to seek information from suppliers when one intends not to let such information govern one's purchase decision as such a practice gives rise to false expectations, is deceptive, and is a waste of their time.

• Confidentiality of facts garnered from sales reps or quotations submitted in writing has to be maintained. Informing rival suppliers of information dealing with a particular supplier's rates, fortes and activities is ethically wrong.

Clearly, from the aforementioned examination, unethicality in purchase department members is typically accompanied by indirect or direct individual advantage. But this is a mere symptom; therefore, ascertaining the potential root of unethicality is imperative.

1.3.1. Possible Causes of Unethical Behavior

One takes for granted the idea that unethicality arises due to the presence of dishonest individuals who lack a value system that helps differentiate wrong from right. But researchers prove that even crafty, corrupt businessmen might, in their private and domestic lives, be caring, trustworthy and supportive parents and community members (Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2009). In Kyj and Reilly's (1990) view, the ethical extent of behavior is largely governed by:

• Corporate atmosphere

• The part played by top-level executives, bosses, and coworkers

• Productive resource scarcity

• The corporate system's intellectual support, and • Corporate culture relating to "social" relations

Askew, Keel, and Beisler (2015) maintain that a research aimed at ranking factors influencing ethical conduct (or lack thereof) explicitly revealed that managerial conduct contributed greatly to both ethicality and unethicality. Other key causes underlying unethicality are: the corporate or industrial ethical atmosphere, lack of corporate policy, and coworker behavior. Moreover, the research work revealed that individual financial standing did not prove to be a major incentive to engage in corrupt activities. This is probably because respondents enjoy lucrative compensation packages. In nations wherein purchasing personnel lack adequate compensation and status, individual financial standing ought to contribute significantly to unethical conduct.

1.4. Unethical Behavior in Acquisition

1.4.1. Corruption

Corruption poses the biggest threat to developing economies' political and economic growth. Conflicts of interest, unlawful agreements and bribe-taking not only tax the economy greatly, but also distort public sector developmental policies and undermine personnel confidence. A broad definition for the term "corruption" may be: the misuse of assigned authority to serve personal ends (Centre for International Private Enterprise, (CIPE), 2011). But there are three distinct criteria that need to be fulfilled in order for an action to be deemed "corrupt": (1) Violation of the "arm's length" rule. The entities engaging in any transaction are biased when it comes to collaborating with one another, a practice not consistent with objective treatment; (2) The bias has to be deliberate; and (iii) The violation should be linked to some mutual benefit (Gino et al., 2009; Munzhedzi, 2016). It is not necessary for the mutual benefit to assume a monetary shape. It may even take the form of non-monetary favors or favoritism.

Corruption is counted among the gravest immoral practices which weaken public servants' confidence and trust. They can only regain public confidence if they successfully establish their name in the list of honest individuals. The masses as well as the commercial sector suffer in the following ways from the evils of corruption:

i. Wrong allocations of resources -- Resources which may have had productive uses elsewhere are directed towards committing corrupt acts. Organizations wrongly commit considerable resources and time to rent-seeking, paying bribe, and forging relationships with public authorities, who end up making unfair decisions (in areas such as investment) which aren't in the community's best interest. The burden of these wrong decisions falls on the already burdened taxpayers.

ii. Decreased investment -- Local and overseas businessmen are discouraged by changing costs. Widespread corruption indicates the extreme weakness of property rights and rule of law in the nation. Thus, investors feel pooling their resources in that nation is very risky indeed. This reduces investment in the nation, which successively reduces national development.

iii. Reduced competitiveness, creativity, and efficacy -- Rent- seeking implies preferred organizations don't race on their own on market signs. Also, aspiring entrants encounter lofty obstacles to entry. In the end, consumers are disadvantaged by having to make do with a limited choice of inferior quality goods at expensive rates.

iv. Ineffective administration and static policies -- Policymakers working within corrupt institutions exert their authority for the benefit of rent-seekers rather than the masses. They fail to hold public servants responsible for their deficits in performance and delay services for forcing bribes out of others.

v. Aggravated poverty -- Corruption decreases the poor social classes' income potential, owing to the presence of fewer opportunities in the private sector. Further, it restricts their healthcare, education, and public service access.

1.4.2. Causes of Corruption

There are several reasons for corruption. However, in general, it may be ascribed to ineffective institutional design (CIPE, 2011). Its major causes include:

i. Ambiguous, complicated and oft-altering rules and laws -- The existence of conflicting laws or those needing heavy interpretation greatly increases public authorities' discretionary powers, and this heightens chances of them making selfish, illogical decisions. The unpredictability of laws leads to businessmen being unaware of their duties and rights, resulting in their inability to conform adequately or safeguard themselves from illegal inspections. Thus, corruption becomes a way of circumventing incompetence and random official action.

ii. Non-accountability and non-transparency -- In case of contracts signed secretly, one simply cannot evaluate the conditions underlying decisions, and whether or not they are in accordance with the law and in the masses' best interest. If private and public violators keep their transactions hidden, nobody can hold them accountable.

iii. Inferior remuneration for public servants -- Authorities unable to fulfill what, according to them, are basic necessities using only their salaries, will fall back on corruption for supplementing their income. But a mere pay raise cannot put an end to corruption if one fails to eliminate opportunities to misusing the system.

iv. Insufficient, unreliable, and unjust rule and law enforcement -- Even in case of the presence of laws for battling corruption, abuse is encouraged by careless enforcement. Inadequate punishments, expensive adherence, and an ineffective justice system make laws ineffectual.

1.4.3. Conflict of Interest

Conflicts of interest crop up if people's individual interests contradict their official status. That is, personal interests might cause a person to execute their responsibilities to the detriment of the company. Williams (1985) defines conflicts of interest as scenarios wherein a member of the workforce possesses a personal financial interest that is sufficiently strong to sway him/her in his execution of public tasks and obligations. One key cause for concern with regard to these conflicts is: they decrease citizens' faith in public functionaries' honesty and fairness. This way, such conflicts may prove just as detrimental as real conflicts (Kernagham and Langford, 2014) as the former results in corruption and division of loyalty.

Public servants might, in the course of their career in public service, come across the following "conflict of interest" scenarios:

• Providing counsel on tender bidding and contracting tactics when participating in tendering.

• Having a secret financial interest in contractors and suppliers transacting with their firm.

• Providing secret aid to their organization's rival by providing consultancy service or working part-time there.

• Referring a candidate even when they are themselves a part of the process of recommitment or testing.

• Negotiating with a firm wherein they, their family members, relations, or friends are shareholders/stockholders (Badenhorst, 1994).

1.4.4. Human Resource Management (HRM) Malpractices

Improper HRM policies and practices within public institutions may be active factors contributing to malpractices that are capable of threatening ethicality, transparency and professional conduct. A few organizational HR system deficits, which can encourage malpractices, are listed below (Ashour, 2004):

• Failure to institute and implement fundamental tenets of integrity and ethics in HRM policies and approaches, on the whole, leads to HRM unethicality and dishonesty.

• Failure to delineate and implement limitations on personal and political influences, thereby ensuring transparency, enables these influences to permeate HRM systems.

• The lack of explicit established and implemented HRM professionalism promotion policies makes the entire system susceptible to corruption and misconducts; and • The lack of an ethics code that guides and imposes HRM personnel and unit standards may result in non-accountability.

The aforementioned deficits have clear repercussions. The absence of a focus for integrity within the HRM policy and approach, on the whole, and the resultant undermined professionalism can get reflected in numerous HRM functions like planning, hiring, reward, promotion, payroll corruption resulting in governmental costs and ghost workers, etc. According to Sakr Ashour (2004), under such circumstances, decreased effectiveness, unfairness, decreased performance, and widespread spoils-sharing and corruption in public employees, including HRM personnel, are becoming increasingly common.

1.4.5. Countering HRM Malpractices

Clearly, public servants made in charge of implementing executive branch decisions and safeguarding public resources has a crucial part to play in national governance and growth. It should, as such, institute a structure of measures for cultivating an atmosphere that fosters ethics, transparency, answerability, professional conduct, and integrity (Badenhorst, 1994).

1.5. Measures for the Prevention of Unethical Behavior

The aforementioned discussion suggests the potential of specific measures to counteract unethical conduct in purchasing department members.

1.5.1. Induction

Key principles and ethics of public service will be unable to appreciably impact public servants' behavior if they aren't effectively communicated. Induction of new recruits represents the most common technique of carrying out such communication. However, unfortunately, such initiatives are improperly carried out. The findings of a 2001 UNDESA research on a total of ten nations in Africa prove, firstly, that initial induction fails to properly inform public employees of key principles and ethics. Additionally, there is a lack of ethics guidance that focuses on averting corruption and even unconscious ethics violations. The survey by UNDESA (2001) claims that the most commonly cited values that need to become a part of public institutions' culture include: uprightness and objectivity. The remaining values that are of import include: precision, valor, access, peace, growth orientation, decorum, economy, efficacy, discipline, honor, financial security, sound HRM, leadership, conformity, promptness, meritocracy, appropriateness, receptiveness, and a sense of realism.

1.5.2. Code of Conduct

A documented code of ethics/conduct represents the foremost and most efficient means to adopt when attempting to combat unscrupulous conduct. Conduct codes need to explicitly outline corporate policy, besides guidelines to perform everyday tasks. For instance, they need to incorporate information on policies of accepting meals, gifts, and pleasure outings, how to deal with sales reps, how to manage tenders and quotations, how to act in the course of negotiations, how to maintain information confidentiality, what facts to divulge, what supplier policy to maintain when managers or purchase department personnel have a personal interest, the ethicality of utilizing one's time at work and organizational equipment to do personal work, whether or not it is acceptable to utilize corporate purchasing power for buying goods to serve personal ends, and corporate policy concerning direct purchases by executives or other departments' employees (Crane &Matten, 2016). Moreover, the conduct code must be clear on the penalties that will be levied in the event of code violations.

Personnel employed within other departments in the organization shall not be permitted to carry out purchases. This is because these individuals are ill-informed as compared to purchase department staff and not capable of effectively resisting any temptations thrown in their path by unscrupulous sales agents. If an organization gives other departments' members permission to carry out purchase tasks, it would damage control over the organizational purchasing process. Every single member of the workforce, especially executives and purchase department personnel, ought to be well aware of the organizational conduct code. There is also a need to continuously evaluate and revise the code and ensure all employees (including top level management) abide by it (Bromley & Meyer, 2014). Also, a copy of the code needs to be presented to all suppliers, and they need to be provided with an incentive to report on any staff member who violates it. Suppliers need to be aware of how the organization will deal with those who engage in unethical conduct after receiving their reports.

Just, transparent HRM practices and policies form the groundwork to developing an ethically and professionally sound public service organization. By maintaining robust performance management, merit-based criteria for selection and promotion, and transparent selection, besides setting an excellent example, HR managers contribute significantly to cultivating an ethical climate (Bromley & Meyer, 2014; Badenhorst, 1994). Lastly, the establishment and implementation of clearly elucidated, impartial HR policies regarding proper remuneration, disciplinary processes, training opportunities, etc. will foster a corporate culture of pride and professionalism.

1.5.3. Record Keeping and Oversight

Effective control procedures and record-keeping systems make it hard for purchasers as well as other organizational members to perpetrate frauds and get involved in unethical conduct. Continuous auditing of prices, invoices, price-rise, order forms, requisitions and receiving notes deters organizational members from engaging in such undesirable behavior (Badenhorst, 1994).

Managers: Materials and purchasing management need to set a golden example for their subordinates in every aspect. Conduct codes need to be practiced more stringently in case of people holding managerial posts and there should be a procedure in place to ensure reporting of unethical conduct on the part of managers.

General Climate: Companies' general climate and the materials and purchasing department climate, in specific, should foster openness, honesty, professionalism, and reliability. Such an atmosphere is, in fact, needed at every level and in every department within the company. No room should be allowed for any double standards (Bromley & Meyer, 2014). Further, what's applicable to purchasers has to be applicable to marketers as well. Hence, the latter should not be allowed to use gifts as a means to sway client purchasers. Also, the firm must forbid its purchasers from accepting gifts.

Acknowledgment and Remuneration: Professional conduct is only to be expected when purchasers are given professional compensation. They ought to be recognized for all key tasks they conduct, and for how efficiently they conduct them. Reasonable compensation, pride and recognition will help prevent them from falling prey to supplier temptations.

Numerous governments have instituted multiple independent supervision bodies like the Auditors General, PAC (Public Accounts Committees) of Parliament, Ombudsmen, and Inspectors General to facilitate the monitoring of public service workers' ethicality at work. But there is a need for institutional capacities for carrying out their obligations (Munzhedzi, 2016) as frequently, these institutions complain of challenges like insufficient funding and staffing.

2. References

Ashour, A. S. (2004). Transparency and Accountability in the Public Sector in the Arab Region.UNDESA RAB/01/006.

Askew, O. A., Beisler, J. M., & Keel, J. (2015). Current Trends of Unethical Behavior Within Organizations. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (Online), 19(3), 107.

Ayayi, A. J. (2014). Government contracting in underdeveloped countries: An ethical dilemma-case of Togo (West Africa) (Doctoral dissertation, Baker College (Michigan)).

Ayee, J. (1998, December). Ethics in the Public Service. In A paper delivered at the Second Pan -- African Conference of the Ministers of Civil Service, Rabat, Morocco.

Badenhorst, J. A. (1994). Unethical Behaviour in Procurement: A Perspective on Causes and Solutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(9), 739-745.

Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2014). "They Are All Organizations" The Cultural Roots of Blurring Between the Nonprofit, Business, and Government Sectors. Administration & Society, 0095399714548268.

Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), (2011). Combating Corruption: A private Sector approach. Retrieved from http://www.cipe.org on 24 Apr. 17.

Chapman, R.A. (ed) (1993). Ethics in Public Service.Edinburgh University Press.

Crane, A., &Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.

Eckerd, S., & Hill, J. A. (2012). The buyer-supplier social contract: information sharing as a deterrent to unethical behaviors. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(2), 238-255.

Fox, W. & Meyer, I.H. (1995). Public administration dictionary. Cape Town: Creda.

Frederickson, H. G., &Ghere, R. K. (2013). Ethics in public management.ME Sharpe.

Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142-155.

Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological science, 20(3), 393-398.

Halfon, M. (1989). Integrity: A philosophical Enquiry. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Hulme, D., & Sanderatne, N. (1997). The toothless and the muzzled: Public accountability, public expenditure management and governance in Sri Lanka. Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester.

Ingroup, O., & Crookall, P. (1998). Three Pillars of Public Management: Secrets of Sustained Success. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.

Kernaghan, K., & Langford, J. (2014). The responsible public servant. BookBaby.

Kuye, J. O., & Mafunisa, M. J. (2003). Responsibility, accountability and ethics: The case for public service leadership. Journal of Public Administration, 38(4), 421-437.

Munzhedzi, P. H. (2016). South African public sector procurement and corruption: inseparable twins? original research. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 10(1), 1-8.

Reilly, B. J., & Kyj, M. J. (1990). Ethical business and the ethical person. Business Horizons, 33(6), 23-27.

Sarji, A. A. (1993). The changing civil service: Malaysia's competitive edge. Pelanduk Publications.

Ssonko, D. K. (2010). Enhancing professionalization of human resource management in the public service in Africa. Uganda Management Institute.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), (2001). Public Service Ethics in Africa, Vol 1. New York

Williams, S. (1985). Conflict of interest: The ethical dilemma in politics. Great Britain: Gower Publishing.

Zaal, R. (2012). Organizational determinants of unethical behavior in commercial banking Organizational determinants of unethical behavior in commercial banking. Doctorate Thesis, Nyenrode Business Universiteit