This research reveals how integrity-based approach metrics impact personal integrity among construction professionals in Nigeria, suggesting stronger ethical culture development.
Purpose This study aims to investigate how the components of an integrity-based approach to ethics management (IBAEM) influence the personal integrity of construction professionals operating within a corruption-prone environment. Studies have highlighted the deficiencies of a compliance-based approach to ethics management, such as “check-box mentality” and challenges in enforcement and monitoring. To address these shortcomings, the IBAEM, which aims at continuous building of ethical culture, is advocated. The IBAEM embodies ethical conduct spearheaded by the management towards building personal integrity (PIN) in employees. However, the impact of this approach on the ethical stance of professionals in the construction industry is limited, even in developed nations. Design/methodology/approach This study examined the impact of an IBAEM metrics (management responsibility [MRE], internal ethics audit [IAU], monitoring and review [MRV] and ethics training and awareness [TAN]) on the integrity of construction professionals (CPs). The data received from the survey of 149 CPs were analysed using Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modelling. Findings The findings of this study indicate that MRE alone does not significantly influence the integrity of CPs in Nigerian construction organisations. However, through TAN (β = 0.583), the significant interaction between MRE and PIN can be established. Similarly, IAU demonstrates a direct influence on these mediating factors. Originality/value This research investigated the interaction of multiple metrics of ethics management (MRE, IAU, TAN and MRV) and their subsequent impact on PIN of CPs, which is unique from previous studies that used single metric of ethics management. Through a survey of CPs in a business environment associated with unethical conduct, this study’s findings provide useful information to construction stakeholders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ojo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: