What belief might a business use to rationalize illegal conduct according to Silk and Vogel?

A business may use the belief that regulations are unjustified to rationalize illegal conduct, as presented by Silk and Vogel. This belief can lead individuals within the organization to justify unethical actions by arguing that the regulations impose undue burdens or limitations that hinder business operations or profitability. When a company perceives regulations as unnecessary or overly restrictive, it may feel entitled to bypass compliance in favor of what it considers more beneficial or practical approaches to achieving its objectives. This mindset can foster an environment where illegal practices are seen as acceptable, thereby increasing the risk of fraudulent behavior.

The other beliefs do not align with the reasoning provided by Silk and Vogel in the same way. For instance, believing that government regulations are necessary suggests an acknowledgment of the law's importance, while the notion that violations do not affect the business implies a lack of consequences, which doesn't inherently justify illegal behavior. Lastly, the idea that illegal behavior is always prosecuted does not relate to rationalization but rather highlights the external enforcement mechanisms, which do not provide grounds for justifying one's actions.