This blended (field-, method-, and theory-focused) systematic literature review presents a comprehensive review of the existing literature on anticorruption. We employ the systematic literature review methodology developed and utilised in prior studies to review 97 articles published in 39 ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and management journals (The Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide (CABS/AJG), 2021) between 1994 and 2023. The findings highlight significant knowledge gaps and inconclusive results in the existing literature across various dimensions, while also identifying potential avenues for future research in areas related to research designs, settings, scope, and theories. In summary, the results suggest a scarcity of research on anticorruption indices/models, as well as on the socioeconomic consequences of corruption and the tools and mechanisms that may be used to mitigate. In this context, although most studies focus on developing countries, there remains a paucity of research on the causes and effects of corruption in these countries, with studies instead concentrating on other aspects. Additionally, there is limited research on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in developing countries, a sector that is arguably among the most corruption-prone in the public sector, particularly in African and Asian countries with extensive state-owned enterprise sectors. Consistent with these and other findings detailed throughout the review, we provide policy and practice implications, highlight research gaps, and conclude by acknowledging the study’s limitations, which may stimulate future reviews and foster convergence in the field of anticorruption research. We theoretically integrate institutional, agency, and stakeholder legitimacy perspectives into a cohesive framework, encompassing rules and enforcement, principal–agent governance, and transparency and legitimation, to synthesise drivers, frameworks, compliance, measurement, and disclosure across various sectors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adebayo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: