uk bribery act

Project

A CASE STUDY EVALUATION TO DETERMINE HOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UK BRIBERY ACT 2011 HAS IMPACTED

THE EVENTS INDUSTRY IN THE UK

VICTORIA WALKER

1

PROJECT

Victoria Louise Walker

B1035841

Events Management with Arts and Entertainment

Ian Whiteside

A CASE STUDY EVALUATION TO DETERMINE HOW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UK BRIBERY ACT 2011 HAS IMPACTED THE EVENTS INDUSTRY IN THE UK

B. Sc. Event Management with Arts and Entertainment

Supervisor – Ian Whiteside

1

2

CONTENTS

Project .................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 Context and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.2 introduction of the UK Bribery Act 2011 ...................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 The New UK Bribery Act 2011 ................................................................................................................ 5

3.2.2 Attitudes towards the UK Bribery Act.................................................................................................... 6

3.3 the Events Industry and the uk bribery act................................................................................................... 7

3.3.1 Events and the Hospitality Industry ....................................................................................................... 7

3.3.2 Explanation of Corporate Hospitality Under the UK Bribery Act 2011 .................................................. 8

3.3.3 Events and the UK Bribery Act 2011 ...................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Method ........................................................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Primary Data ............................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Justification ................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.3 Distribution ................................................................................................................................................. 10

4.4 Sample ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

4.5 Validity ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

4.6 Variable ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

4.7 Secondary data ........................................................................................................................................... 11

4.8 Generalisation ............................................................................................................................................. 12

4.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 12

5.0 Findings and Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 12

5.2 Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................................. 12

5.3 Interview Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 13

5.3.1 fears about bribery .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.3.2 Confusion surrounding the Bribery Act ............................................................................................... 14

5.3.3 Little change to the events industry .................................................................................................... 14

5.3.4 Agreement with the act ....................................................................................................................... 15

5.3.5 This research project done differently ................................................................................................ 15

5.3.6 Correct or incorrect hypothesis ........................................................................................................... 16

6.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

7.0 Reference List ................................................................................................................................................. 19

2

3

8.0 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................... 28

Interview question template ................................................................................................................................ 29

Interview 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 30

Interview 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 32

Interview 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 34

Interview 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 36

Interview 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 37

Interview 6 ............................................................................................................................................................ 38

Interview 7 ............................................................................................................................................................ 39

Ethics Form ........................................................................................................................................................... 40

Health and Safety Form ........................................................................................................................................ 41

3

4

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research document will look into the possible impacts created by the introduction of the UK Bribery Act 2011 on the Events Industry with in the UK. This topic needs copious amounts of research completed due to the new legislation being 3 years old and still causing confusion due to lack of knowledge from businesses. If understanding is not gained by the industry then events as a whole may decrease or the companies may end up serving 10 years in jail for breaching the rules set in the Bribery Act.

In order to delve into this topic, this report will be using a literature review to show the background of the Bribery Act, any previous research surrounding this matter as well as showing any relationships between the event industry and the UK Bribery Act. In addition to this, independent research was carried out by performing qualitative interviews with event industry experts. This data collected all together shows a very distinctive relationship between the two subject areas. If every event company with in the UK has the correct anti-bribery procedures in place, it will create knowledge and clarity on what is appropriate corporate hospitality events. Ultimately this will result in very little impact to the events sector, with only minimal change to the type of events put on for the corporate industry.

2.0 CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES

The UK Bribery Act has only been around since July 2011 which means it is a very new piece of legislation which has been put into place. Within the guidelines of the Bribery Act, one of the policies mentions that an individual or company will be prosecuted if facilitation of cash or hospitality is committed. The events industry falls under the same category as the hospitality industry and this piece of legislation has left a lot of businesses confused about what they can or cannot do with in their own business sector.

Due to this law not having much time to settle into the events industry, there has been very little to no research regarding this specific principle. Vast confusion and lack of knowledge all together surrounds this act which may result in prosecutions or events stopping all together. This topic is in desperate need of study because it aims to answer the questions which people in the industry seem to know nothing about. To date, there have been zero prosecutions within the hospitality industry, but more than 5 successful trials with in the business sector as a whole. Nevertheless, with events industries having a lack of knowledge and confusion surrounding the bribery act, it is only a matter of time before events companies become very vulnerable and fall victim of the UK Bribery Act.

As well as the worry of large scale prosecutions, the other concern is the loss of the hospitality and events sector as a whole. At the end of 2011, a survey from Ernst & Young highlighted that 18% of companies have reduced their level of corporate entertaining in light of the Bribery Act. This is not a huge amount of the UK events industry but it shows that the addition of the Bribery Act could cause more problems down the line. This may be due to the fact that no companies wish to be the first to fall foul of the bribery act. Corporate events offer the events industry millions of pounds each year, and the loss of this will be a vast dip in the UK’s economy, passion and excitement that the industry holds.

The aim of this research is to determine how the introduction of the UK Bribery Act 2011 has affected the UK events industry. SMART objectives have been created to help complete this aim. They include:

4

5

1. To investigate via face to face interviews with event industry professionals how the Bribery Act has impacted upon their work

2. To analyse though journals, books and online resources how the Bribery Act works and how this might impact the events industry

3. To consider the implications of the Bribery Act for the events industry in light of the primary and secondary research and make recommendations as necessary

Through the use of research using books, journals, websites and the use of industry interviews I hope to answer the following questions regarding this topic: Where is the line? What is acceptable? What is not? Does the industry approve of it? Are they confused by it? Where is the confusion?

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this literature review is to justify and show how this research topic relates to other published work with in the Events and Hospitality Industry. By looking in depth at the relationships between the Events industry and the UK Bribery Act 2011, this research will show any patterns which determine if the new act has impacted the sector or not. The UK Bribery Act does not state any legal requirements or impacts regarding the events industry so one would think it will not be affected, however, it does state legal terms for corporate hospitality. According to the British Hospitality Association Survey (2013), the hospitality sector includes event management, hotels, restaurants, catering and temporary agencies. Therefore, any implications with in the corporate hospitality industry will have a direct effect on the events sector.

3.2 INTRODUCTION OF THE UK BRIBERY ACT 2011

The United Kingdom (UK) has always been criticised for having lenient laws in place, so it came as no surprise when the government sought after revaluating the laws surrounding corruption within the business world. Before the introduction of the bribery act the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1916, Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 were in place to prohibit the giving or receiving of gifts or any advantage from a public official (Kochan, N 2013). In a similar way the Common Law enhanced these by making it illegal to bribe or receive a bribe from public officials (Ryznar and Korkor 2010). Even though there were multiple laws in place, they have been described as ‘inconsistent, anachronic, complex and inadequate’ (Aaronberg and Higgins 2010 and Sheikh 2011).

In 1974 the British architect, John Poulson was found guilty and sentenced to 7 years in prison for bribing 23 local authorities and 300 individuals with cash and gifts worth over £30,000. This high class scandal cost an estimated £1.25m and was the longest trial for corruption in legal history (BBC News 1974). This brought concerns about the current laws surrounding bribery and so a judge led committee was formed to examine the UK bribery legislation (Kochan 2013). Unfortunately the examining committee released their concerns in 2005 by stating ‘there was broad support for reform of the current law, but there was no consensus as to how this could be achieved’ (Sheikh 2011, p1).

3.2.1 THE NEW UK BRIBERY ACT 2011

On 8th April 2010 the new and reformed UK Bribery Act gained Royal Assent and came into force on 1st July 2011. On 8th April 2010 the new and reformed UK Bribery Act gained Royal Assent and came

5

6

into force on 1st July 2011 (Ministry of Justice Guidance 2010). The main offences under the act include:

• Section 1: The offense of active bribery • Section 2: The offense of receiving bribes • Section 6: The offense of bribery of a foreign public official • Section 7: The corporate offense of failing to prevent bribery • Section 12: Territorial application

It is now one of the toughest anti-bribery and corruption legislation in the world (Reid 2011). This is evident when looking at the new additions to the act such as the introduction of a rise in the prison sentence from seven to ten years, a possible unlimited fine, the law now applying to any company who carries out business or even a section of the business in the UK and it was created with a wide scope so it was ‘easier to bring prosecutions’ (Ministry of Justice Guidance 2010, Leighton 2012 and Kochan 2013). Elizabeth Robertson, head of corporate crime at law firm Addleshaw Goddard, emphasises this by adding ‘the consequences [could be] catastrophic. The fines are unlimited. It's a massive change’ (Tyler 2010).

There seems to be a lot of pressure on the new Act as it aims to not only be easy to comprehend but also to take the lead on an international scale to raise the bar of not only how bribery should be addressed but also to eject it altogether in order to create an equal playing field with in the business world (Lippmann 2013, Kochan 2013 and Ministry of Justice Guidance 2010). The Ministry of Justice did confirm that the act is mainly about using common sense and not to burden firms who keep within the law. Regardless of this, research has proved that there is a lot of support for this new act but there has also been concerns and confusion.

3.2.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE UK BRIBERY ACT

A conservative business spokesman, Jonathan Djanogly (2010) confessed his feelings in parliament in 2010 about what bribery does to the business world, "Bribery is a crime that undercuts competitiveness, derails honest companies and distorts the marketplace". This should be the general consensus when it comes to corruption, however Ernst & Young completed a survey in 2011 which exposed a shocking 15% of Chief Financial Officers worldwide agreed to handing over cash in exchange for a business contract. Even worse for the UK, the survey continues to highlight that 50% of managers with in the UK find it acceptable to ‘cut corners’ in order to reach personal targets. With the survey concluding that a staggering 71% of the respondents wanted to see bribery and corruption vastly monitored, the UK Bribery Act surely should be welcomed.

On the contrary, there has been a vast amount of media attention around the introduction of the act bringing with it scare stories, confusion and concern. Gavin Irwin, a practising barrister in criminal law reiterated the doubts that the bribery act won’t actually work, once it was put into practice (Cowie 2011). There seems to be a unanimity that the introduction of the act will slow business expenditure and investment down especially smaller sized firms who may not have the resources to prevent bribery from occurring throughout their company (Tyler 2010, Gloucestershire Echo 2011 and Robertson 2010). A reason that bribery and corruption is occurring and why individuals are worried that this new law could slow down business could be that 77% of the UK respondents expressed that they feel, now more than ever, under immense pressure to reach their targets and reduce cost (Ernst & Young Survey 2011).

Regardless of these doubts, the research for this literature review shows that there is a common ground of agreement towards an acceptance of the UK Bribery Act to replace the old fashioned and complicated laws (Addleshaw Goddard Law Firm 2010). This was echoed by David Frost, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, who confirmed that action against bribery was

6

7

essential for business both in the UK and internationally (Tyler 2010). An example of other actions against corruption is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in America which was the most successful anti-corruption law in the world (Tillipman 2011). The UK law has always been compared to American Law as being weak and less intimidating. This is evident when looking at the prosecutions in 2011, just before the UK Bribery Act was in place. The biggest fine for bribery in the UK was £6.896million compared to £218.8mill dollars in USA and the longest prison sentence in the UK was only 6 years compared to 15 years in America (Trumper 2012). The UK Bribery Act has now been nicknamed the ‘FCPA on steroids’ because it is even firmer than the already unforgiving FCPA law. The USA have received outstanding success with the FCPA, raising over $1billion in 2010 through prosecutions. If the UK Bribery Act can have this success, then this should help the economy as a whole (Irwin 2010).

With bribery and corruption costing individuals, the government and the companies millions of pounds each year, the stricter laws of the bribery act will be significant for the business community (Robertson 2010, Tyler 2010 and Ward 2010). The new law should be welcomed and not feared as it aims to ‘eradicate bribery at a time when worldwide efforts to eliminate bribery and corruption are growing’ (Ministry of Justice Guidance 2010). With this in mind, and the fact that the new act now complies with the 1997 OECD anti-bribery convention, the conservative party fully backed the UK Bribery Act 2011.

With so much certainty that the act would be a positive motion for businesses with in the UK, one industry in particular was very much living in fear waiting for the new law to become active. Even though the bribery act’s aim was to be easy to understand, many found that it lacked clarity, specifically when stating that facilitating cash, gifts and/or hospitality would be in breach of the act. This was understood by the industry as meaning that hospitality would become illegal when the act came into force (Hall 2011 and Gloucestershire Echo 2011). With this being the case, the government pushed back the introduction of the legislation in order to write guidance to clarify the new law even more. The guidance confirmed that ‘reasonable and proportionate hospitality’ will be acceptable, and therefore safe under the new act (Ministry of Justice Guidance 2010). However, this was then criticised for being too vague and still not explaining what a ‘reasonable’ form of hospitality is and what would be in breach with the act (Addleshaw Goddard Law Firm 2010). So where does this leave the hospitality industry?

3.3 THE EVENTS INDUSTRY AND THE UK BRIBERY ACT

3.3.1 EVENTS AND THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY

As previously stated, the event management industry falls under the umbrella of the hospitality sector. With this in mind Walker explains the hospitality industry as a broad ‘range of businesses each of which is dedicated to the service of people away from home, with the purpose of each being the cordial and generous reception of guests’ (Walker 2004, p278). The sector is vast and spreads all across the world creating 200 million jobs, 8% of total employment and 5.5 million new jobs a year (The World Travel and Tourism Council 2010). It is no less significant in the UK with hospitality being the 5th largest industry, contributing £34 billion to the economy each year and employing over 2.4 million people (BHA Annual Report 2010-2011).

Due to the fact the UK Bribery Act is still in its’ teething stage, there has been little to no academic research looking into how this has affected the events industry as a whole (Jones 2004). Throughout this study, it is apparent that rumours and denial has led to severe panic and confusion, which doesn’t seem necessary when looking at the working sectors which engage in bribery the most, and the hospitality industry is not mentioned (Trumper 2012). So why is the hospitality industry in danger with the introduction of the bribery act?

7

8

3.3.2 EXPLANATION OF CORPORATE HOSPITALITY UNDER THE UK BRIBERY ACT 2011

A lot of businesses will use corporate hospitality as a cover for bribing someone to gain a client or business venture (Cowie 2011 and Reid 2010). However, Kevin Robinson from Irwin Mitchell’s criminal investigations group confirms that the company will be in breach if ‘the entertainment or gift is of such a nature that the recipient is left in a position of obligation which can only be satisfied by improper behaviour designed to favour the host or donor’ (Cowie 2011). This means that the prosecution must be able to prove that the hospitality given a) provided an advantage to another person and b) was offered or given with the intention of inducing the person to perform a relevant function improperly (Ministry of Justice Guidance 2010). Each case will be looked individually and determine if it was reasonable, proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances (Robson 2011). This has led to even more doubts about the difficulty of prosecuting against a corporate hospitality bribe due to the fact that the SFO are not going to examine every gift and offer of hospitality that happens with in the UK (Blackhurst 2011).

Many remarks have been made about how the hospitality industry can remain in business and in keeping with the new bribery act. All seem to come to the same conclusion in that to avoid any problems with the Bribery Act, companies need to put into place clear policies regarding any expenses, gifts or hospitality which may look to influence business decisions (King 2012, Lord Tunnicliffe 2010, Cowie 2011, Kochan 2013 and Green 2012 ). The Serious Fraud Office produced 6 principles in which companies can follow to make sure they have the correct procedures in place. They include: - proportionate procedures, top-level commitment, risk assessment, due diligence, communication and monitoring and review (Kochan 2013). In addition to this all those items whether being received, given or even refused, should be abundantly documented (Reid 2011).

The government and the SFO feel that they have confirmed multiple times that genuine hospitality is acceptable under the act. The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green confirmed that they are not interested in corporate hospitality as it is an accepted and important part of doing business which enables relationships to develop in which a business depends and it is not the intention of the Act to criminalise such behaviour (Ministry of Justice Guidance 2011, Armstrong 2012, Lord Tunnicliffe 2010 and Kochan 2013). However, the statements in which they use to confirm that the hospitality industry will not be impacted, use language such as ‘highly unlikely’ and ‘reasonable hospitality is acceptable’ and ‘should not be prosecuted’ all of which do not include a definite answer (Robson 2011 and Addleshaw Goddard 2011).

3.3.3 EVENTS AND THE UK BRIBERY ACT 2011

A year after the introduction to the act, still harvesting mass confusion and worry amongst all businesses, The London 2012 Olympic Games arrived with more than 150,000 tickets set aside for corporate hospitality packages. (Webb 2012). With tickets costing up to £7,000 for packages, thousands remained unsold as companies did not want to seem too ‘lavish’ and be the first to fall victim of the UK Bribery Act (Moseby 2012). Rumours and media headlines were causing more trouble as reports of an FTSE 100 listed company thought it would be a safer option to give away their tickets to their staff, another company sold 40% less packages than they had estimated (Armstrong 2012 & Webb 2012). Executives were refusing invitations to the Games due to fears of breaking the new law so even if companies were willing to treat clients to tickets to the Olympics, they were having trouble finding people to go despite the Ministry of Justice providing clear instructions to organisers that anyone who received a corporate hospitality invitation would not be a target of prosecution (Webb 2012). The media produced more scare stories of pictures of empty seats, blaming it on the UK Bribery Act (Barry and Richards 2012). This shows that companies are moving further away from events as one of their means to grow reports with clients, due to the possibility of being prosecuted. This is a severe impact to the events industry, however further research shows that it may not all be down to the UK Bribery Act.

8

9

During London 2012, the economic climate was hard for companies and paying £7,000 for an Olympic package would have been a vast amount of money to spend when it could be used on the business instead (Moseby 2012). SFO Director David Green confirms this theory and includes that the empty seats with in the corporate boxes was not due to people being wary of the bribery act, but merely belonging to Olympic officials who did not go to the early qualifiers (Barry & Richard, 2012). The Bribery Act seems to of had an impact on the Olympics, but to what extend is unsure as other factors are involved.

With confusion prevailing, companies such as Hewlett-Packard and Bupa events are putting measures into place. Hewett-Packard have reduced their global hospitality events to only a few a year, similarly Bupa events are making sure that they are providing what they to consider ‘reasonable’ entertainment by only inviting the individual client and no the whole family to an event (Hall 2011). One of the biggest sectors to of fallen under the new act is the pharmaceutical industry who normally reward clients, employees and new customers with lavish holidays abroad. AstraZeneca have now announced that instead of conferences in exotic locations, they will instead be offering local education courses (Cowie 2011). However, this could actually positively impact the UK events industry as AstraZeneca will be using British hospitality companies instead of going abroad. As long as the pharmaceutical company still use events for their customers and clients, the events industry should remain similar, just producing different events.

3.4 CONCLUSION

Due to no research yet being completed around the topic of the UK Bribery Act impacting the events industry, it is hard to determine the future of the sector. There seems to be severe confusion amongst all business sectors because the new law is so broad and general that there is little understanding about what is ‘reasonable’ and what could amount to prison time. With no-one wanting to be the first company prosecuted, firms seem to be reducing the amount of events they take clients too. Nevertheless, the hospitality industry seems unfazed.

A year after the bribery act had been in force, the hospitality industry had grown to 4th largest industry, attributing £53 billion a year to the economy in profits and wages with more than 2.7 million people being employed within hospitality and tourism; 10% of the total British workforce (BHA Annual Report 2012-2013). Hosting the London 2012 Olympic Games could have attributed to the raise in figures, however, the British Hospitality Association Annual Report did not mention the addition of the UK Bribery Act or any concerns they had with it. In fact, Alan Parker, Chairman of the British Hospitality Authority seems to have no uncertainties regarding the loss of hospitality due to the Bribery Act stating that ‘we firmly believe that the industry has the potential to grow significantly and to provide jobs for hundreds of thousands more people’ (BHA Annual Report 2013, p3).

With the hospitality industry feeling fairly confident that growth will occur, there is still a common belief that until companies are told of financial limitations, the law will remain cloudy (Cowie 2011, King 2012 and Hall 2011). It is also agreed that until the first corporate hospitality case is brought through the courts to see how the legislation is interpreted, ‘an entire industry’s very existence is put on tenterhooks’ (Blackhurst 2011 and Cowie 2011). However, it is still early days of the UK Bribery Act and with the help of clarity such as the SFO Director, David Green stating that they are not interested in corporate hospitality, hopefully the worries will settle, the law will be elucidated and the events industry will be untouched.

9

10

4.0 METHOD

4.1 PRIMARY DATA

To start looking into the methodology, the first thing that was completed was the decision process of collecting primary data. As the name suggests, it is the leading part of recording any research or data with many projects using more than one form of data collection method (Williman 2011, Collis and Hussey 2003).

When first looking into data collection methods, a focus group was thought of originally because individuals in the events business needed to be contacted, a focus group would make it easier for them to voice their own opinions by listening to each other and it is a combination of interviewing and observation (Collis and Hussey 2003). The focus group would of identified anyone who had strong feelings who could contribute in an interview so further understanding could be completed. By selecting multiple techniques, the researcher creates a set of complementary data gathering activities that compensate for the weaknesses of individual tactics. (Lee 1999)

However, getting a group of working people together at the same time from different parts of the UK proved difficult. Therefore just Interviews would be used, in which subjects are selected and asked multiple questions to determine, thoughts and feelings surrounding the research area (Collis and Hussey 2003). This is a form of qualitative data which enables the researcher to get an understanding of the social and human activities through interpretation rather than numbers (Collis and Hussey 2003). Please see appendix 9 and 10 for ethics forms and health and safety forms to allow the interviews to be performed safely.

The research would take a positivist approach where structured questions would be prepared before each interview (Collis and Hussey 2003). The interview process stuck by Brenner’s (1985) strict rules, therefore the questions were all asked in the same order and nothing was said before or after the interviews so not to bring a negative or positive biased approach (Please see appendix 1 for a copy of the interview question template). The interviewer would type word for word what the respondents said, this was to also follow Brenner who states ‘record exactly what the respondent says’ (Collis and Hussey 2003, p170).

4.2 JUSTIFICATION

Interviews are particularly useful for getting the story behind a participant’s experiences. The interviewer can pursue in-depth information around the topic and include emotions instead of just statistics (McNamara 1999). This thought is echoed by Collis and Hussey (2003) who confirm that performing interviews enables the researcher to ask more complex questions. The use of an open-ended interview provides me the option to ask the same questions to each source which will lower the risk of any unfair or biased points of views. This approach is fast and can be easily analysed and compared.

4.3 DISTRIBUTION

Event industry professionals were contacted via email or the phone to ask if they would be willing to answer a few questions for this research project. Due to lack of contacts with in the event industry and the unethical topic of discussion, the samples were known previously by the researcher. The ideal scenario was to hold structured face to face interviews with event industry professionals from around the UK. This would enable a report to form and provide a strong non-verbal communication due to body language and facial expressions. However, due to work commitments, the expense of travel and the busy schedules of the sample’s it meant that 3 were carried out face to face with the remaining 4 being over the phone. This still enabled the researcher to hear the tone and expression

10

11

of the interviewees answers. This was not possible for the reason of the expense of travel to each interviewee.

4.4 SAMPLE

Due to lack of contacts with in the events industry, the type of sampling used was judgement sample, in which the researcher selects samples who will be able and willing to answer the interview questions (Marshall 1996). Through asking people the researcher knew, it was easy to establish individuals who may think the UK Bribery Act has impacted the events industry, and vice versa (Marshall 1996).

Qualitative research, such as interviews, is about the quality and deeper understanding the subjects can bring to the research, rather than the amount of responses (Larsson and Lowendahl 1996). In previous studies where interviews are the chosen form of research method, there has been as few as 16 but as many as 219 (Lee 1999). Due to the lack of responses, only 7 interviews were collected (please see analysis and findings for more information about the lack of respondents).

4.5 VALIDITY

Qualitative research as a whole can provide valuable insight and meaning in many areas of study. However it can be quite challenging to conduct. Much of the quality, reliability and validity of the study will depend on the knowledge, planning and skill of the researcher. Another research paper using interviews as one of their methodologies stated that ‘as answering the questions did not have any direct impact on the participants… they may not care about giving quality answers’ (Eysenbach and Köhler 2002, p577). Qualitative research has caused a debate with in data collection due to comments and beliefs such as the following statement from a research scientist commenting that it is ‘unfounded, un-generalisable story-telling’. (Falk and Guenther 2012, p9).

It is duly noted that there are some negative thoughts regarding the use of qualitative research such as interviews. Due to the researcher having to contact the samples individually and make time to ask the questions, it can be particularly time consuming and expensive if transportation is needed. When using judgement samples, biasness of class, race or sex can be introduced, especially if subjects have only been spoken to via the telephone as class and race maybe unidentifiable (Brenner 1985). As well as the samples being bias, the researcher can be as well due to the fact that male and female researchers can interpret the data which has been collected in different ways. An example of this could be that a female researcher may feel more sympathy or relate more to the female sample than the male sample (Rosenthal 1966). In addition to this, there could be a numerous of events that could have taken place just before the interviews took place which may impact the sample’s response to certain questions. For example, if someone one of the interviewee’s knew had recently been arrested for bribery, this could cause emotional responses which may be unreliable (Collis and Hussey 2003).

4.6 VARIABLE

Collis and Hussey (2003, p152) conclude that a qualitative variable ‘is a non-numerical attribute of an individual or object’. This would include job roles, name instead of a quantitative variable such as the number of event managers with in the industry.

4.7 SECONDARY DATA

Secondary data is the analysis of data to its furthest form. It is difficult to do this with qualitative research as it includes people’s personal opinions, not numerical facts. The easiest way for this to be done meant that the interviews were put into transcripts which were then decoded in order to help

11

12

‘draw a conclusion from and thus making a contribution to knowledge’ (Collis and Hussey 2003, p160). Please see appendix 2-8 for a copy of the interview transcripts.

4.8 GENERALISATION

There are a few different opinions surrounding the generalisation of qualitative data collection. The value of qualitative research is often questioned because it is difficult to make any form of generalisations on a sample which does not provide statistics representing the whole population in question to the research topic (Falk and Guenther 2012). However it has been argued that interviews can be generalised if cautions are acknowledged regarding the limited amounts of respondents (Benz and Newman 1998).

4.9 CONCLUSION

Despite the negatives of qualitative data, for this research topic, it has been identified that interviews is the best approach to get as much in depth information regarding the UK Bribery Act’s impact on the event industry. It will provide valuable insights as well as meaning behind any thoughts and feelings the samples may have.

5.0 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This kind of interview seeks to gain access into the interviewees’ personal experience in order to gain a better insight into the research question regarding the impacts on the events industry brought on by the introduction of the UK Bribery Act 2011. (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). The data collected from each interview will be analysed in part, by “quote-research”. This is where specific quotes will be lifted from the interview to use confirming or disconfirming examples to the study in question. Using whole quotes to describe the data is an excellent way to show specific, detailed examples for a deeper understanding, however using this form of analysis alone could cause a problem due to length and timing of the interview data (Ryen 2002).

Due to this, another way of analysing the data will be looking into a more naturalistic/ positivist approach which will involve taking an overall meaning from the context of an individual interview and reconstructing it into a more meaningful whole (Lincoln and Guba 1985). This process has four elements involved which include: 1) unitizing data, 2) emergent category designation, 3) negative case analysis and 4) bridging, extending and surfacing data.

It has been argued about whether qualitative data needs to be compared and contrasted to other qualitative data. Ryen (2002) states his opinion as interviews do not need to be cross examined but instead, provide access to actions, opinions and examples that are relevant to the research. A single respondent will provide access into their personal thoughts and views, which is central. This is a valued opinion, however, for this research, cross-case analysis will be used because it will enhance and deepen the understanding of the topic in discussion (Miles and Huberman 1994).

5.2 HYPOTHESIS

After background research and consideration, a hypothesis has been created which will either be proven or disproven by results. The hypothesis for this study is that the findings will show limited knowledge about the UK Bribery Act and will have impacted minimal amounts with in the subject’s business sector.

12

13

5.3 INTERVIEW FINDINGS

(Please see Appendix 2 through to 8 for a copy of all the interviews transcriptions)

As stated with in the methodology section, some interviews were able to take place face to face, but a few were over the phone due to work commitments, cost of travel and convenience. 100 Events companies around England were contact via email and phone asking to take part in this research study, only 7 replied saying they were willing to be interviewed. The majority of the businesses never responded, but a few did reply stating:

1. ‘I am afraid that I have never come across the UK Bribery Act 2011 so I am not in a position to comment on it. I am sorry I cannot help you as it does sound like a very interesting topic but sadly not one that has touched BAFTA’ – Claire Brown, Productions manager at BAFTA

2. ‘All sounds very interesting but not sure we are the right people to help as this falls outside of our normal work’ – Terry Race, Event and Lifestyle Manager at Hearst Magazine

Due to the lack of respondents, it is clear why little research has been conducted regarding the impact the Bribery Act has had on the events industry.

5.3.1 FEARS ABOUT BRIBERY

It seems that due to companies still not being too sure about their policies and rules, individuals are nervous to divulge any information in case they are breaching the act. The topic of bribery seems to be an unspoken commodity. The nervous disposition can be seen with interviewee number 6 when asked:

V: Did you experience any changes within the industry you work in when the act was introduced?

Mike responded with a very careful and jumpy answer:

M: Did I? Personally? No I didn’t

Due to Mike being the Chairman of one of the biggest events companies in England, his reaction is no surprise when being asked if he knows anything about the act and has he put any changes into place. The act now makes it easier to prosecute whole companies if they do not have the correct procedures in place to prevent bribery, therefore Mike’s abrupt answer could be to make sure he only says what is needed. More of his answers echoed this idea, as most of his responses are short and to the point:

V: Thank you, have you heard of the Bribery Act 2011 which includes Corporate Hospitality?

M: I have

V: Have you found that there has been any confusion regarding what is now acceptable or what would now be classed as breaching this act?

M: No not really

V: Have you experiences any changes in working practises due to this act?

M: No

13

14

Unsurprisingly, interviewee number 6, is the only one to answer that they disagree with the bribery act with an almost angry additional response stating:

M: I disagree, yes. I think it is very minimal impacts to the event industry and the law has added confusion and worry unnecessarily.

This sense of irritation towards the act confirms a lot of opinions with in the research of the literature review. Companies or individuals who may not understand the act fully or even those who maybe wanting to use hospitality as a cover for bribery will not welcome the additional new law.

5.3.2 CONFUSION SURROUNDING THE BRIBERY ACT

One of the questions was asked in order to get a deeper understanding surrounding the confusion stated with in the literature review:


5 respondents confirmed that they thought the act had brought with it a lot of confusion. Interviewee number 6 did not agree as he believed he understood what was acceptable with in his working sector and interviewee number 4 had never heard of the act, therefore could not answer if there was any confusion surrounding it. Interview number 4 inveterate the research that confusion concerning what is ‘reasonable’ hospitality will only be cleared up when companies are told of financial limitations (Cowie 2011, King 2012 and Hall 2011).

J: …I think it would be helpful to have a certain amount of money to spend on corporate hospitality and they cannot exceed that each time they give a gift etc.

This is repeated in interviewee 5’s answer:

J: …There should be a value given for each payment in kind.

In addition to the advice of setting financial limits, the common theme of confusion runs throughout those 5 respondents. All the confusion stems from individuals and companies not knowing what events they can now offer. Interviewee number 2, James confirmed this by answering:

J: I understand what bribing someone is but, the new rules under this act have created too much confusion in my mind. I don’t understand what I’m allowed to do.

Interviewee number 1 reiterated this:

E: Ermm, Yes – people I know in the industry were worried about inviting clients to small league football matches in case they got prosecuted.

5.3.3 LITTLE CHANGE TO THE EVENTS INDUSTRY

Even though confusion seems to prevail, when asked if there had been any changes to the events industry as a whole or within the specific sector they worked in, the theme tended to be only small changes.

Interviewee 1 - E: Only very little things

14

15

Interviewee 5 - S: Yeah a little bit.

Interviewee 6 - M: I think it may have impacted it in a negative way… but only marginal

The interviewees who said they did not recognise any changes, felt this way due to perfectly valuable reasons. Interviewee number 2 did not work closely with events, interviewee number 7 was an events educator, therefore not putting on events anymore, and the 2 interviewees from the Cavendish Cancer care will not have experienced any changes personally because, as Interviewee number 4 confirmed:

S: We work with charity specific guidelines and codes of practice laid out by the institute of fundraising and keep up to date with third sector press.

None of the interviewee’s could provide any evidence or examples of how the act has changed their working sector or the events industry, apart from interviewee number 1. Interviewee number 5 thought clients had to change the way they hold events to make it more educational, ‘content led’ and the fact that corporate hospitality which was acceptable, may need to be done with caution or not at all. However, no specific examples were expanded on. Interviewee number 1 had a different approach to the impact the act is having on his personal experience with events.

E: It was in a way, a good outcome for me, money wise. It created more work for me but that was fine (Eamonn smiles and pauses). When clients used to go on lavish holidays, they would book it through a travel agent, whereas now, they go through me and I will provide an educational event for them to take their clients… more work, but more money.

This is a new way of looking at the UK Bribery Act as it shows that the type of hospitality and events may need to change to be in fitting with the guidelines, but that does not mean that they need to stop altogether. It may encourage companies to use local events companies and local hospitality vendors to look after their clients, as it may look suspicious flying clients to a luxury island. This will mean more money for the UK events sector.

5.3.4 AGREEMENT WITH THE ACT

As mentioned previously, interviewee 4 and 6 do not agree with, or do not know enough about the UK Bribery Act. Interviewee 1 and 2 agreed with a lot of the research found for the literature review:

E: I guess in principle I agree with not bribing people, but do I think a whole new law needed to be introduced… probably not.

J: Anything that creates a level playing field is a good thing. However legislation is not necessarily a good thing. I think including a section about corporate hospitality has just panicked companies into making them think they don’t know if their doing the right thing.

This shows thoughts that the new law has caused a lot of confusion and suspense, when all that may have been needed was a stricter law on bribery in general, not necessarily relating to the hospitality industry. The remaining 3 interviewees all agreed that it will benefit the events industry as it creates a level playing field and will make the ‘industry more aware of why the event is being delivered’.

5.3.5 THIS RESEARCH PROJECT DONE DIFFERENTLY

If the research project were to be repeated, some strategies would be completed differently. As a result of time restrictions and access to events companies with in the UK, a lot of the respondents were people which the researcher knew on a personal level resulting in 6 male and only 1 female,

15

16

which could mean a bias result and therefore not generalisable to represent the events industry as a whole. The sample was so small that this may not show the true representation of the impacts of the bribery act. Allowing more time for individuals to respond as well as trying to approach businesses face to face may result in a larger sample.

The research could allow for a few more years for the new legislation to settle into the events industry. This will allow more certainty with individuals so they feel they are ‘allowed’ to talk about bribery and they may know more about it and how it has impacted their industry. It is difficult to determine what could be done differently as firms may never want to discuss their personal experience of bribery.

5.3.6 CORRECT OR INCORRECT HYPOTHESIS

The results of the research method confirmed that there is limited knowledge about the UK Bribery Act and has had a minimal impact with in the individuals business sector. Even though 6 out of 7 of the subjects knew about the UK Bribery Act, their knowledge regarding what it means and what is reasonable or in breach of the act, was generally a confused state. The accuracy of the hypothesis shows well considered background research.

6.0 CONCLUSION

The topic of this field of study was to get an in depth understanding on the impacts the addition of the UK Bribery Act has brought upon the events industry. Through researching into journals, books, event magazines, government documents and qualitative interviews, it is clear that the impacts are still foggy. Both research found within the literature review and the interviews carried out, complimented each other with similar results found. Figure 1 shows the relationship between evidence found during research for the literature review and how they relate to the outcomes found from the qualitative interviews from 7 event industry professionals:

Previous Research Conducted Qualitative Interview Results

The Ernst & Young 2011 survey showed that more than half of the UK respondents are aware of the UK Bribery Act, and only 26% have personally received anti-bribery training.

A year later, in 2012, the survey showed that 72% of middle managers are still unaware of the UK Bribery Act.

Interviewer V: Thank you, have you heard of the Bribery Act 2011 which includes Corporate Hospitality?

Interviewee 4 Sally: (Looks embarrassed) Ermm No I haven’t actually.

60% of employees were unfamiliar with their company’s policies and 58% of managers would like more clearly defined limits (2012).

Interviewer V: What is your personal understand of the said act?

Interviewee 2 James: ha! (Has a sarcastic expression) Well I am not too sure to be honest, I think it needs to be clarified more, as in what is acceptable and what would mean I could end up in prison. There are too many grey areas.

16

17

Interviewer V: Have you found that there has been any confusion regarding what is now acceptable or what would now be classed as breaching this act?

Interviewee 3 Johnny: I have heard of it but I am still not particularly sure about what is acceptable and what is not. I would appreciate a bit more explanation from the Government I think. Maybe, I don’t know if this is what you’re asking but, I think it would be helpful to have a certain amount of money to spend on corporate hospitality and they cannot exceed that each time they give a gift etc.

Interviewee 7 Phil: Well I am definitely confused so yes, I would think so (pauses for a slight giggle). I think it would be good if the company I work for actually explained it to us a bit more.

Some corporate hospitality providers have welcomed the Act as a way to add credibility to the industry (Hall 2011).

Interviewer V: What have been the main impacts (good or bad) brought on by the introduction of the UK Bribery Act?

Interviewee 7 Phil …I think it will make the industry more aware of 'why' the event are being delivered and make its aims more transparent…I think events will not be taken advantage of.

Reputable companies with in the events industry will already have anti-bribery policies in place, so the impact from the addition of the UK Bribery Act will be minimal (Hall 2011).

Interviewee 4 Sally: We work with charity specific guidelines and codes of practice laid out by the institute of fundraising and keep up to date with third sector press

The 2011 Ernst & Young survey has revealed only 18% of companies have reduced their level of corporate entertaining in light of the Bribery Act (King 2012).

The same survey exposed that 68% of middle managers said the tighter rules on entertaining

Interviewer V: Did you experience any changes within the industry you work in when the act was introduced?

Interviewee 6 Mike: Did I? Personally? No I didn’t

Interviewer V: Have you experiences any

17

18

had either made no difference or they were unaware of any significant reduction to their hospitality spend.

changes in working practises due to this act?

Interviewee 6 Mike: No

The aim of this research project was to determine how the introduction of the UK Bribery Act 2011 has affected the UK events industry. By working in relation to the objectives which were set out to help answer the aim, the use of primary and secondary research was used, including analysis of journals, books, online resources as well as qualitative interviews. From looking at all of this data as a collective it can be concluded that there are 3 main points of impact on the events industry. These include:

1. There is still confusion regarding what is acceptable amounts of corporate hospitality, 2. The lack of knowledge about the UK Bribery Act 3. But also, once companies get used to the provisions of the new act, the events industry

should not be negatively impacted.

It is clear that firms will have to implement new policies that will abolish the possibility of bribery being covered by corporate hospitality. This will include procedures to do with sponsorships, contracts, invitations to tender, corporate hospitality as well as gifts and charitable donations. In order for the events industry to gain a better knowledge of this act, training schemes will need to be adopted across the UK. This could also include hiring a senior manager to oversee all of the company’s anti-corruption obligations. Without these procedures in place, the business can be liable if anyone with in the firm is caught committing a bribe.

According to Caroline Newsholme, Partner at law firm Nabarro, if event companies around the UK implement these cautious procedures and once the act is fully settled into the business world, then there should be very little risk of any prosecutions. The act should not cause any significant downturn in the industry. Any change in the hospitality industry can be explained as either a reaction to the economic climate, impacting company’s budgets to produce lavish events, or changes in the type of corporate hospitality offered.

18

19

7.0 REFERENCE LIST

Aaronberg, D and Higgins, N (2010). Legislative Comment: The Bribery Act 2010: All Bark and No Bite...? Archbold Review 5 (2), 6-9.

Addleshaw Goddard (2010). Corporate Hospitality and the Bribery Act 2010: Will your strawberries and cream be followed by "porridge"? [online]. Last accessed 20 March 2014 at http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/asset_store/document/corporate_hospitality_and_the_bribery_act_2010_112048.pdf

Armstrong, J (2012). Corporate hospitality and the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 15 March 2014 at http://www.theriskradar.com/tag/bribery-act/

Barry and Richard (2012). The SFO’s view on corporate hospitality. [online]. Last accessed 17 March 2014 at http://thebriberyact.com/2012/02/20/the-sfos-view-on-corporate-hospitality/

BBC News (1974). 1974: Architect jailed over corruption. [online]. Last accessed 22 March 2014 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/15/newsid_4223000/4223045.stm

Benz, C and Newman, I (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. 1st ed., Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

Blackhurst, C (2011). Those tickets for Wimbledon may land you in jail. [online]. Last accessed 21 March 2014 at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/those-tickets-for-wimbledon-may-land-you-in-jail-6405527.html

Brenner, M (1985). The Research interview, uses and approaches. 1st ed., Michigan, Academic Press

British Hospitality Association (2013). British Hospitality Association Annual Report 2012/13 A united voice for hospitality. [online]. Last accessed 21 March 2014 at http://www.bha.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CD3146_BHA_annual_review_1213_AW_Single-Page_Lo-Res.pdf

Collins, J and Hussey, R (2003). Business Research, A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. 2nd ed., Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.

Cowie, I (2011). Thousands of Britons could fall foul of the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 8 March 2014 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/bribery-act/8557713/Thousands-of-Britons-could-fall-foul-of-the-Bribery-Act.html

Djanogly, J (2010). Bribery Bill. Last accessed 15th March 2014 at http://www.jonathandjanogly.com/content/bribery-bill

Ernst and Young (2011). European Fraud Survey 2011: Recovery, regulation and integrity. [online]. Last accessed 24 March 2014 at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/European_fraud_survey_2011/$FILE/European_fraud_survey_2011.pdf

19

20

Eysenbach, G and Köhler, C (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 324 (7337), 573–577.

Falk, I and Guenther, J (2012). Generalising from Qualitative Research: Case studies from VET in Contexts. 1st ed., Darwin: Charles Darwin University. p1-9.

Gloucestershire Echo (2011). Better get ready for Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 3 March 2014 at http://gloucestershire-echo.vlex.co.uk/vid/better-get-ready-for-bribery-act-239037015

Green, D (2012). 6th Annual European forum on anti-corruption on 26 June 2012. [online]. Last accessed 20 March 2014 at http://www.sfo.gov.uk/about-us/our-views/director's-speeches/speeches-2012/6th-annual-european-forum-on-anti-corruption-on-26-june-2012.aspx

Hall, T (2011). Bribery Act sparks event industry uncertainty. [online]. Last accessed at 3 March 2014 at http://www.citmagazine.com/article/1052302/bribery-act-sparks-event-industry-uncertainty

Jones, P (2002). Introduction to Hospitality Operations: An Indispensable Guide to the Industry, 2nd ed., London, Thomson Learning.

King, J (2012). Ernst & Young survey reveals slight reduction in corporate hospitality as a result of the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/bribery/100323/am/100323s01.htm

Kochan, N (2013). The UK Bribery Act; Britain’s New Legal Landscape. Criminal Justice Journal, 28 (3), 46-51.

Kvale, S and Brinkmann, S (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Lee, T (1999). Methods in Organizational Research. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Leighton, P (2012). Where does bribery begin and corporate hospitality end? [online]. Last accessed 19 March 2014 at http://www.michelmores.com/where-does-bribery-begin-and-corporate-hospitality-end--publication.htm

Lippman, J (2013). Business without Bribery: Analyzing the Future of Enforcement for the UK Bribery Act. Public Contract Law Journal, 42 (3), 1-20.

Lincoln, Y and Guba, E (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Marshall, M (1996). Sample for Qualitative Research. Family Practice, 13 (6), 522-525.

McNamara, C (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. [online]. Last accessed 20 February 2014 at http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm

Miles, M and Huberman, A (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

20

http://gloucestershire-echo.vlex.co.uk/vid/better-get-ready-for-bribery-act-239037015

21

Moseby, A (2012). Welcome to the Cheap Seats: Olympic Corporate Hospitality and the Bribery Act 2010. [online]. Last accessed 19 March 2014 at http://www.mondaq.com/x/181604/Hotels+Hospitality/Welcome+To+The+Cheap+Seats+Olympic+Corporate+Hospitality+And+The+Bribery+Act+2010

Newsholme, C (2010). What everyone should know about the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 25 March 2014 at http://www.caterer.com/careers-advice/features/what-everyone-should-know-about-the-bribery-act-2010

OUT-LAW.COM (2010). Bribery Act passed by Parliament but not yet in force. [online]. Last accessed 22 March 2014 at http://www.out-law.com/page-10907

Reid, R (2011). Corporate hospitality and the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 5 March 2014 at http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Corporate-hospitality-and-the-Bribery-Act-1891.aspx

Robertson, E (2010). Hospitality and the new Bribery Act-Could your strawberries and cream get you in hot water? [online]. Last accessed 11 March 2014 at http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=5141&parent_id=968

Robson, L (2011). How Will Corporate Hospitality be affected by the Bribery Act 2010? [online]. Last accessed at 23 March 2014 at http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_businesses/business_regulatory/news_and_updates/bribery_act_2010_corp_hosp.aspx

Rosenthal, R (1966). Experimenter Effects in Behavioural Research. 1st ed., New York, Appleton-century-Crofts.

Ryen, A (2002). Det Kvalitative Intervjuet: fra Vitenskapsteori til Feltarbeid. 1st ed., Bergen, Fagbokforl.

Ryznar, M and Korkor, S (2010). Anti-bribery legislation in the United States and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis of Scope and Sentencing. [online]. Last accessed 9 March 2014 at http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2012/11/Ryznar.pdf

Sheikh, S (2011). The Bribery Act 2010: Commercial Organisations Beware! International Company and Commercial Law Review, 22 (1), 1.

The Ministry of Justice Guidance (2010). The UK Bribery Act 2010 Guidance. [online]. Last accessed 25 March 2014 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legislation/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf

Tillipman, J (2011). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act & Government Contractors: Compliance Trends & Collateral Consequences. Briefing Papers, 11 (2), 2.

Trumper, M (2012). Senior executives are in the firing line. [online]. Last accessed 10 March 2014 at http://www.theriskradar.com/the-bribery-act-2010/senior-executives-are-in-the-firing-line/

21

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_businesses/business_regulatory/news_and_updates/bribery_act_2010_corp_hosp.aspx


22

Tunnicliffe, T (2010). Lord Tunnicliffe’s Letter on Corporate Hospitality-Draft Letter. [online]. Last accessed 23 March 2014 at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71131033/Lord-Tunnicliffes-letter-on-corporate-hospitality---Draft-letter

Tyler, R (2010). Bona fide corporate freebies ‘must survive Bribery Act’. [online]. Last accessed 5 March 2014 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/8118495/Bona-fide-corporate-freebies-must-survive-Bribery-Act.html

Walliman, N (2011). Research Methods: The Basics. 1st ed., Oxon, Routledge Ltd.

Walker, J (2004). Introduction to Hospitality Management. 2nd ed., New Jersey, Preston Hall.

Ward, C (2010). Bribery Bill. [online]. Last accessed 13 March 2014 at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/bribery/100323/am/100323s01.htm

Webb, T (2012). Free ticket to event of a lifetime or dangerous leap in the dark? [online]. Last accessed 6 March 2014 at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/leisure/article3413176.ece

World Travel & Tourism Council (2010). World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). [online]. Last accessed 19 March 2014 at http://www.hospitalitynet.org/organization/17001149.html.

22

23

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaronberg, D and Higgins, N (2010). Legislative Comment: The Bribery Act 2010: All Bark and No Bite...? Archbold Review 5 (2), 6-9.

Addleshaw Goddard (2010). Corporate Hospitality and the Bribery Act 2010: Will your strawberries and cream be followed by "porridge"? [online]. Last accessed 20 March 2014 at http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/asset_store/document/corporate_hospitality_and_the_bribery_act_2010_112048.pdf

Armstrong, J (2012). Corporate hospitality and the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 15 March 2014 at http://www.theriskradar.com/tag/bribery-act/

Barry and Richard (2012). The SFO’s view on corporate hospitality. [online]. Last accessed 17 March 2014 at http://thebriberyact.com/2012/02/20/the-sfos-view-on-corporate-hospitality/

BBC News (1974). 1974: Architect jailed over corruption. [online]. Last accessed 22 March 2014 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/15/newsid_4223000/4223045.stm

Benz, C and Newman, I (1998). Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. 1st ed., Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

Benz, J (2012). British Hospitality-When Is a Bed a Bribe? The U.K. Bribery Act and Its Implications for Event Organizers, Sponsors, and Related Persons. The Entertainment and sports lawyer, 30 (3), 20-30.

Blackhurst, C (2011). Those tickets for Wimbledon may land you in jail. [online]. Last accessed 21 March 2014 at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/those-tickets-for-wimbledon-may-land-you-in-jail-6405527.html

Brannen, J (1992). Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. 1st ed., Surrey, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Brenkert, G (2008). Marketing Ethics. 1st ed., Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

Brenner, M (1985). The Research interview, uses and approaches. 1st ed., Michigan, Academic Press

British Hospitality Association (2013). British Hospitality Association Annual Report 2012/13 A united voice for hospitality. [online]. Last accessed 21 March 2014 at http://www.bha.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CD3146_BHA_annual_review_1213_AW_Single-Page_Lo-Res.pdf

Clarke, A and Chen, W (2007). International Hospitality Management. 1st ed., Oxford, Elsevier Ltd.

Collins, J and Hussey, R (2003). Business Research, A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. 2nd ed., Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.

Cowie, I (2011). Thousands of Britons could fall foul of the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 8 March 2014 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/bribery-act/8557713/Thousands-of-Britons-could-fall-foul-of-the-Bribery-Act.html

23

24

Denzin, N and Lincoln, Y (1998). Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Djanogly, J (2010). Bribery Bill. Last accessed 15th March 2014 at http://www.jonathandjanogly.com/content/bribery-bill

Ebsco Host (2012). Qualitative and Quantitate Research. [online]. Last accessed 7 April 2013 at http://web.ebscohost.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f582116b-3883-4421-bc53-37beff1c30cf%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=18

Erlandson, D., et al. (1993). Doing Naturalistic Inquiry: a Guide to Methods. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Ernst and Young (2011). European Fraud Survey 2011: Recovery, regulation and integrity. [online]. Last accessed 24 March 2014 at http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/European_fraud_survey_2011/$FILE/European_fraud_survey_2011.pdf

Eysenbach, G and Köhler, C (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 324 (7337), 573–577.

Falk, I and Guenther, J (2012). Generalising from Qualitative Research: Case studies from VET in Contexts. 1st ed., Darwin: Charles Darwin University. p1-9.

Gloucestershire Echo (2011). Better get ready for Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 3 March 2014 at http://gloucestershire-echo.vlex.co.uk/vid/better-get-ready-for-bribery-act-239037015

Green, D (2012). 6th Annual European forum on anti-corruption on 26 June 2012. [online]. Last accessed 20 March 2014 at http://www.sfo.gov.uk/about-us/our-views/director's-speeches/speeches-2012/6th-annual-european-forum-on-anti-corruption-on-26-june-2012.aspx

Hall, T (2011). Bribery Act sparks event industry uncertainty. [online]. Last accessed at 3 March 2014 at http://www.citmagazine.com/article/1052302/bribery-act-sparks-event-industry-uncertainty

Hennink, M., et al. (2011). Qualitative Research Methods. 1st ed., London, Sage Publications.

Holliday, A (2002). Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. 1st ed., London, Sage Publications.

Jones, P (2002). Introduction to Hospitality Operations: An Indispensable Guide to the Industry, 2nd ed., London, Thomson Learning.

King, J (2012). Ernst & Young survey reveals slight reduction in corporate hospitality as a result of the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 12 March 2014 at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/bribery/100323/am/100323s01.htm

Kochan, N (2013). The UK Bribery Act; Britain’s New Legal Landscape. Criminal Justice Journal, 28 (3), 46-51.

24

http://gloucestershire-echo.vlex.co.uk/vid/better-get-ready-for-bribery-act-239037015

25

Kochan, N and Goodyear, R (2011). Corruption; The New Corporate Challenge. 1st ed., Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.

Kvale, S and Brinkmann, S (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Lee, T (1999). Methods in Organizational Research. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Leighton, P (2012). Where does bribery begin and corporate hospitality end? [online]. Last accessed 19 March 2014 at http://www.michelmores.com/where-does-bribery-begin-and-corporate-hospitality-end--publication.htm

Lincoln, Y and GUBA, E (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Lippman, J. (2013). Business without Bribery: Analyzing the Future of Enforcement for the UK Bribery Act. Public Contract Law Journal, 42 (3), 649.

Marshall, M (1996). Sample for Qualitative Research. Family Practice, 13 (6), 522-525.

McKinley, M (2011). Ethics in Marketing and Communications. 1st ed., Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

McNamara, C (1999). General Guidelines for Conducting Interviews. [online]. Last accessed 20 February 2014 at http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm

Miles, M and Huberman, A (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. 1st ed., California, Sage Publications.

Moseby, A (2012). Welcome to the Cheap Seats: Olympic Corporate Hospitality and the Bribery Act 2010. [online]. Last accessed 19 March 2014 at http://www.mondaq.com/x/181604/Hotels+Hospitality/Welcome+To+The+Cheap+Seats+Olympic+Corporate+Hospitality+And+The+Bribery+Act+2010

Mullins, L and Dossor, P (2013). Hospitality Management and Organisational Behaviour. 5th ed., Harlow, Pearson Education Limited.

Newsholme, C (2010). What everyone should know about the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 25 March 2014 at http://www.caterer.com/careers-advice/features/what-everyone-should-know-about-the-bribery-act-2010

OUT-LAW.COM (2010). Bribery Act passed by Parliament but not yet in force. [online]. Last accessed 22 March 2014 at http://www.out-law.com/page-10907

OUT-LAW.COM (2011). Corporate hospitality is OK, says new Bribery Act guidance. [online]. Last accessed 25 Nov 2013 at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/30/corporate_hospitality_bribery_act/.

Quainton, D (2011). Bribery Act: Watch your step - the coast is not clear yet. [online]. Last accessed 25 Nov 2013 at http://www.eventmagazine.co.uk/news/1071395/Bribery-Act-Watch-step---coast-not-clear-yet/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH.

25

26

Quainton, D (2011). Government confirms Bribery Act will not outlaw corporate hospitality. [online]. Last accessed 25th Nov 2013 at http://www.eventmagazine.co.uk/news/1062965/Government-confirms-Bribery-Act-will-not-outlaw-corporate-hospitality/.

Reid, R (2011). Corporate hospitality and the Bribery Act. [online]. Last accessed 5 March 2014 at http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Corporate-hospitality-and-the-Bribery-Act-1891.aspx

Robertson, E (2010). Hospitality and the new Bribery Act-Could your strawberries and cream get you in hot water? [online]. Last accessed 11 March 2014 at http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=5141&parent_id=968

Robson, L (2011). How Will Corporate Hospitality be affected by the Bribery Act 2010? [online]. Last accessed at 23 March 2014 at http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_businesses/business_regulatory/news_and_updates/bribery_act_2010_corp_hosp.aspx

Rosenthal, R (1966). Experimenter Effects in Behavioural Research. 1st ed., New York, Appleton-century-Crofts.

Ryen, A (2002). Det Kvalitative Intervjuet: fra Vitenskapsteori til Feltarbeid. 1st ed., Bergen, Fagbokforl.

Ryznar, M and Korkor, S (2010). Anti-bribery legislation in the United States and United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis of Scope and Sentencing. [online]. Last accessed 9 March 2014 at http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2012/11/Ryznar.pdf

Sheikh, S (2011). The Bribery Act 2010: Commercial Organisations Beware! International Company and Commercial Law Review, 22 (1), 1.

Sullivan, N (2011). BRIBERY ACT: Party's Over? Employee benefits, 23 (3), 22.

The Ministry of Justice Guidance (2010). The UK Bribery Act 2010 Guidance. [online]. Last accessed 25 March 2014 at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legislation/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf

Tillipman, J (2011). The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act & Government Contractors: Compliance Trends & Collateral Consequences. Briefing Papers, 11 (2), 2.

Trumper, M (2012). Senior executives are in the firing line. [online]. Last accessed 10 March 2014 at http://www.theriskradar.com/the-bribery-act-2010/senior-executives-are-in-the-firing-line/

Tunnicliffe, T (2010). Lord Tunnicliffe’s Letter on Corporate Hospitality-Draft Letter. [online]. Last accessed 23 March 2014 at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71131033/Lord-Tunnicliffes-letter-on-corporate-hospitality---Draft-letter

Tyler, R (2010). Bona fide corporate freebies ‘must survive Bribery Act’. [online]. Last accessed 5 March 2014 at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/8118495/Bona-fide-corporate-freebies-must-survive-Bribery-Act.html

Walliman, N (2011). Research Methods: The Basics. 1st ed., Oxon, Routledge Ltd.

26



27

Walker, J (2004). Introduction to Hospitality Management. 2nd ed., New Jersey, Preston Hall.

Ward, C (2010). Bribery Bill. [online]. Last accessed 13 March 2014 at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/bribery/100323/am/100323s01.htm

Webb, T (2012). Free ticket to event of a lifetime or dangerous leap in the dark? [online]. Last accessed 6 March 2014 at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/leisure/article3413176.ece

World Travel & Tourism Council (2010). World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). [online]. Last accessed 19 March 2014 at http://www.hospitalitynet.org/organization/17001149.html.

Zyman, S (1999). The End of Marketing As We Know It. 1st ed., London, Harper Colins Publishers.

27

28

APPENDIX

28

29

APPENDIX 1 INTERVIEW QUESTION TEMPLATE

Interviewer (Vicky): Hi XXX. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?


V: What is your personal understand of the said act?

V: That is ok, take your time.




V: What have been the main impacts (good or bad) brought on by the introduction of the UK Bribery Act?

V: Do you agree with this act? And why?

V: Ok, thank you very much for meeting me today and answering my questions.

V: Take care.

29

30

APPENDIX 2 INTERVIEW 1

Interviewer (Vicky): Hi Eamonn. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (Eamonn Hunt): Hi Vicky. I work for an organisation called VeryCreative Ltd and my job role is Creator of events


E: Yes I have


E: (Looks slightly confused whilst thinking of an answer) It was introduced when there seemed to be a large scale of abuse with in hospitality. For example, the pharmaceutical industry like to put on jollies to Barbados (giggles) for doctors and then push them to make them recommend their drugs to the doctors patients. Ermm, let me think about in events though…

V: That is ok, take your time.

E: ha-ha thank you. It has changed the perception of how events work, more educational. So the pharmaceutical companies may be able to invite doctors to Barbados, but it will have to be an educational trip not just a jolly.


E: Ermm, Yes – people I know in the industry were worried about inviting clients to small league football matches in case they got prosecuted. I get that the act was introduced to target the bigger industries but unfortunate everyone was hit with this added pressure.


E: Very little as we just put on the events our clients wished to go to. It didn’t matter to us if it was arranging a holiday or arranging an educational conference in London.


E: Only very little things such as…can I give my client a bottle of wine for Christmas, type of thing. Problems began when Chinese whispers occurred because we could not afford lawyers to work with us to say what policies we need in place to abide by the law.


30

31

E: It was in a way, a good outcome for me, money wise. It created more work for me but that was fine (Eamonn smiles and pauses). Where clients used to go on lavish holidays, they would book it through a travel

agent, whereas now, they go through me and I will provide an educational event for them to take their clients… more work, but more money.


E: ooh now then… do I agree… I guess in principle I agree with not bribing people, but do I think a whole new law needed to be introduced… probably not.


E: You’re welcome, thank you for asking me, take care.

V: Take care.

31

32


Interviewer (Vicky): Hi James. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (James): Hi there, yeah sure, I am a marketing and PR manager at Nineteen 52


J: Yes

Interviewee V: What is your personal understand of the said act?

Interviewee 2 James: ha! (Has a sarcastic expression) Well I am not too sure to be honest, I think it needs to be clarified more, as in what is acceptable and what would mean I could end up in prison. There are too many grey areas.


J: I understand what bribing someone is but, the new rules under this act have created too my confusion in my

mind. I don’t understand what I’m allowed to do. Payment in kind confuses me. As in I don’t understand where the line is between payments in kind and committing bribery. There should be a value given for each payment in kind.


J: Not first hand as I am not directly in an events company. I can imagine events industry have to be more careful and abide by a lot tighter rules. That’s just what I can imagine though, not sure if that is true.


J: No I haven’t


J: Ermm once again, I am not too sure because I don’t work directly with events or hospitality.


J: Anything that creates a level playing field is a good thing. However legislation is not necessarily a good thing. I think including a section about corporate hospitality has just panicked companies into making them think they don’t know if their doing the right thing.

32

33


J: Yeah, no worries. I hope I helped a little bit.

V: Take care.

33

34


Interviewer (Vicky): Hi Johnny. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (Johnny) Hi Vicky, I do not mind (Smiles). I am the Chief Executive of a charity and in charge of all fundraising events.


J: Yes


J: Not to receive a bribe or offer a bribe (in form of gifts, benefits, benefits in kind) in return for business advantages i.e. winning contracts etc.


J: I have heard of it but I am still not particularly sure about what is acceptable and what is not. I would

appreciate a bit more explanation from the Government I think. Maybe, I don’t know if this is what you’re asking but, I think it would be helpful to have a certain amount of money to spend on corporate hospitality and they cannot exceed that each time they give a gift etc.


J: Not that I am aware


J: No I haven’t to be honest


J: If I am honest, I don’t think there has been any. From my point of view anyway.


J: Yes I do, I think it makes an even playing field and not so only the people with the ‘big bucks’ win.


34

35

J: Thank you, take care

V: Take care.

35

36


Interviewer (Vicky): Hi Sally. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (Sally): Hey Vicky, sure. I am a charity fundraiser for Cavendish Cancer Care in Sheffield.

Interviewee V: Thank you, have you heard of the Bribery Act 2011 which includes Corporate Hospitality?

Interviewee 4 Sally: (Looks embarrassed) Ermm No I haven’t actually.


S: A mechanism for bigger business to operate in a more open and transparent way


S: Not that I am aware of, but then again I am not too sure of what the act is about.


S: No, nothing seems to of changed


S: Nope


S: I’m afraid I don’t think there has been any, sorry.


S: To be brutally honest, I’m not too bothered either way. We work with charity specific guidelines and codes

of practice laid out by the institute of fundraising and keep up to date with third sector press


S: Aww you are welcome, sorry I wasn’t much help

V: Take care.

36

37


Interviewer (Vicky): Hi Mike. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (Sam): Hello there Vicky, I am Chair EMA Event Marketing Association


S: Yes


S: You are not allowed to try and influence a decision through offering inducements or hospitality.


S: Ermm a little bit to be honest


S: Yeah a little bit. Clients have had to change rules and activities around entertaining clients, particularly around corporate hospitality, sporting events etc. Conferences, content led is acceptable.

V: Have you experienced any changes in working practises due to this act?

S: Yeah, the same as I just said really.


S: In a slightly bad way just due to the fact that some corporate hospitality will not now be acceptable


S: Yes I do because I think it means the bigger business do not take over by offering free money.


S: Thank you.

V: Take care.

37

38


Interviewer (Vicky): Hi Mike. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (Mike Kershaw): Hi Vicky, I am the Chairman of the Concerto Group


M: I have indeed


M: It is aimed at large companies and should have little impact on normal trade in the UK Events industry


M: No not really


M: Did I? Personally? No I didn’t


M: No


M: I think it may have impacted it in a negative way… but only marginal. But it has made some companies worry unnecessarily about partaking in corporate entertainment


M: I disagree, yes. I think it is very minimal impacts to the event industry and the law has added confusion and worry unnecessarily.


M: Thank you, good luck with it all.

V: Take care.

38

39


Interviewer (Vicky): Hi Phil. Would you mind telling me what your job title is please?

Interviewee (Phil): Hi Vicky, I am an Events Educator


P: I sure have


P: It makes businesses more transparent in their business dealings


P: Well I am definitely confused so yes, I would think so (pauses for a slight giggle). I think it would be good if the company I work for actually explained it to us a bit more.


P: No I didn’t


P: No because I do not directly put on the events, anymore.


P: I think it has all been good impacts, apart from the confusion side of it. I think it will make the industry more aware of 'why' the event is being delivered and make its aims more transparent


P: I fully agree. Mainly because of what I just said. I think events will not be taken advantage of.


P: Thank you Vicky, Good luck!

V: Take care.

39

40

APPENDIX 9 ETHICS FORM

40

41

APPENDIX 10 HEALTH AND SAFETY FORM

41

uk bribery act

Documents