Unclear integrity standards stop the counterplan.

Another reason for focusing on a broad and complex integrity framework (rather than the narrower spectrum of corruption) relates to the diversity of the phenomena under study. There seems to be a need for differentiation and nuance when researchers reflect in research and policy on the causes of integrity violations (including types of corruption) and the effectiveness of anti-corruption and integrity policies. Phenomena such as bribery; patronage and favoritism; private time misbehavior; fraud; intimidation and discrimination; and so forth might be caused by different characteristics of the involved individuals, the organization (culture and structure), and the environment (De Graaf, von Maravic, & Wagenaar, Citation2010).

A broader framework also is relevant for reflection on what helps to protect integrity and prevent integrity violations, including corruption.

Despite continual calls to pay more attention to “what works” (Demmke & Moilanen, Citation2011; Huberts, Jurkiewicz, & Maesschalck, 2008; Lawton & Doig, Citation2006; Menzel, 2005), knowledge of actual effects of integrity policies and policy instruments is still limited. More specific research on the effectiveness of policies is very much needed, despite overall insights on the state of the art (Huberts, Citation2014, p. 195–196) of research insights on integrity instruments, agencies, and systems. In summary, what seems to matter is

Placing integrity on the agenda. Integrity of governance means paying attention to the moral values and norms of policy making and policy implementation. Although many different instruments are available and multiple institutions can be created, a crucial starting point is that the integrity and anti-corruption issue is seen as important and placed high on the agenda.

The role of leadership. The fact that integrity concerns all members of an organization or system makes the involvement of leadership on all levels inherently important to policy success. This involvement is part of the aforementioned necessity to position integrity high on the agenda. Leadership, however, is no panacea. The extent to which different types of ethical leadership influence consciousness and behavior varies.

A central integrity actor helps. Research on agencies and systems has suggested that it is important to have specific institutions or actors that have integrity and anti-corruption as their primary task and responsibility. Having such an actor opens windows of opportunity and gives credibility to the topic.

Balancing strategies and excluding no one. On strategies based on compliance or values, on the focus on what goes wrong (violations) or on moral awareness (values), there is only one credible answer: doing both or balancing strategies is the most effective and both strategies are relevant for awareness as well as limiting wrong behavior. And these must concern all types of officials (politics, bureaucracy) at all levels (from elite to street level).

Reflecting on effectiveness. Existing institutions tend to be self-satisfied about their role, whereas supporters of the importance of integrity and anti-corruption sometimes seem to favor “the more, the better,” which can seriously undermine the credibility of integrity initiatives. Hence, more reflection and research on what works is essential, in terms of not only agencies but also instruments and systems. Such study should address possible positive and negative side effects, as Anechiarico and Jacobs (Citation1996) did so convincingly for effectiveness.

A broader integrity approach seems crucial for further progress on knowledge of “what works” because it is probable that organizations or governments will have to develop specific policies against different types of integrity violations. When one wants to fight fraud, for instance, it might be effective to be strict and tough in terms of norms, leadership, and policies, but this toughness might lead to negative effects such as intimidation and discrimination (Lasthuizen, Citation2008; Lasthuizen, Huberts, & Kaptein, Citation2002). More specific research on the effectiveness of policies for different aspects of integrity is very much needed, despite the mentioned overall lessons on the state of the art. Research relies on the “one style does not fit all” approach, whether it is on leadership (Heres, Citation2014) or other instruments and strategies, and limits the possibilities for expanding knowledge about unethical behavior (content; causes; effects; solutions).