This paper has been accepted as a chapter in a Handbook on Organizational Integrity. It presents a (conceptual) framework concerning integrity and integrity violations (in governance). Eight views on integrity resulted from the study of multi-disciplinary literature. These vary from wholeness and incorruptibility, to the presence of moral reflection or exemplary moral behaviour, to acting in accordance with law and codes and -my perspective- integrity as in accordance with the relevant moral values and norms (and rules). Behaviour that violates these norms and values is divers, ten types of integrity violations are distinguished (from corruption to intimidation and discrimination).

Integrity is about moral norms and values, about good and bad behaviour, based on what we share and what really matters. So when someone’s integrity is put in doubt, that really damages and hurts the accused. Thus it is really important to be careful in using the integrity word. Integritism refers to the possible misuse, to inappropriate accusations on violating integrity, without good reason. This can be the result of misunderstanding of what integrity is about (the moral quality of behaviour, not every mistake, and not of the content and outcome of decisions). Sometimes the background of integritism is malicious, trying to harm the opponent. It is argued that more attention for integritism is important, also because of the importance of integrity.

Research on integrity in public administration has grown over the last decades. Scholars have written extensively about the definitions and perspectives of integrity and how they differ in governance and about how public organizations can institutionalize integrity at all levels of government. However, most attention so far has been paid to the integrity of administrators, while barely acknowledging the unique and distinctive characteristics of political office. This is problematic, because the demands of public political office might be explanatory as to why and how moral decisions are made. This research answers the call for a more elaborate way of thinking about integrity in political conduct and decision-making that realistically evaluates the demands and dynamics of the profession. In line with this, we aim to study how political office holders, given their unique context, deal with integrity in their individual and collective decision-making.

To study how political office holders deal with integrity in local government in the Netherlands, this research will focus on aldermen and their interactions within the board of mayor and aldermen. Aldermen fulfill a complex role in the day-to-day governance of a municipality where their duties and the context in which they perform them, exhibit characteristic and unique properties that could influence the moral quality of their conduct and decision making. In addition to this, they are entangled in different social systems with different relationships to the members. We will explore these connections and how they influence the process of moral decision making as well.

This research has a mixed-method research design. Through four sub-questions we aim to answer the main research question; ''To what extent are the distinct and unique characteristics of the role and work environment of aldermen influential in shaping their moral decision-making and the preservation of integrity in local government?''.