*2.2. Corporate Sustainability and Its Dimensions*

The term "corporate sustainability" is complex to define, and thus a congruent definition of corporate sustainability is lacking [18,29,30]. Based on a review of the corporate sustainability literature, Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos, 2014 [31], define corporate sustainability as a tri-dimensional construct, which includes economic, social, and environmental aspects. This study follows one of the most recent definitions given by Valente, 2012 [32]. Valente, 2012, [32] (p. 586) defines corporate sustainability from the perspective of the "sustain-centric" orientation of the firm, "which is described as a step toward a proactive orientation to sustainability [ ... ] to find ways to interconnect social, economic, and ecological systems, using coordinated approaches that harness the collective cognitive and operational capabilities of multiple local and global social, ecological, and economic stakeholders operating as a unified network or system".

Researchers highlight various dimensions of corporate sustainability [33] practices. To address the aforementioned three constructs of corporate sustainability, Szekely and Knirsch, 2005 [13], list its 10 different dimensions, namely economic growth, shareholder value, prestige, corporate reputation, customer relationships, product quality, ethical business practices, sustainable job creation, value creation for all stakeholders, and attention to the need for the underserved stakeholders. Though this study agrees on the need to sustain all these different dimensions, it seems overwhelming for us to measure firms' corporate sustainability in respect to all dimensions [14]. Thus, our study pays attention to the ethical business practice dimension of corporate sustainability, i.e., the bribery aspect of corporate sustainability.

#### *2.3. Corporate Bribery*

Corporate sustainability practices are affected by numerous negative phenomena that interrupt the corporate sustainability performance and exacerbate the possibility of ensuring commitment to social good and firm reputation, which result in various drawbacks for the wider community [34]. However, the commitment to the social good may be useful for constraining corporate employees' greed. One of the challenges that the modern business environment experiences is corporate bribery.

Veselovská et al., 2020, [21] (p. 1972) define corporate bribery as "being symbiotic with broken ethical principles and criminal activities. Both present serious issues on their own; however, they represent a critical problem for organisations and their employees". A recent World Bank report published that USD 1 trillion annually accounts for 5% of the GDP, funded as bribery by individuals and firms [34,35]. Therefore, the risk of corporate bribery in the corporate sector is a critical issue that must be challenged. The CSR literature suggests that corporations that participate in corporate sustainability activities are less inclined to be involved in corporate corruption [36,37]. Thus, corporations must fight against bribery to ensure sustainable social and economic development [3]. When a firm engages in high-level CSR activities, it is expected to be ethically responsible and less likely to be involved in corruption risk, such as bribery [34]. Although the governments of many emerging countries, including Bangladesh, have undertaken several initiatives to enhance transparency and integrity in business operations, bribery issues, specifically with public services, are still continuing [38]. Corporate bribery practices by public service organisations impede their performances, damage the organisations' reputation and boost up the costs of transactions [3]. According to Abdullah et al., 2018 [39], there is an association between the quality of governance practices, such as employee attitude towards corporate ethics, and integrity is likely to reduce a firm's exposure to corporate bribery risk.
