Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:294800 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the association between national culture dimensions and
exposure to fraud with a view to drawing implications for understanding fraud risk.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on a sample of 66 countries. Regression
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
analysis is conducted using Hofstede’s national culture dimensions as independent variables and fraud
risk as a dependent variable. Transparency International’s corruption index was used as a proxy for
fraud risk.
Findings – Results suggest high fraud risk exposure in countries with high power distance and those
having limited long-term orientations.
Research limitations/implications – The study informs deeper understanding of fraud risk
through analysis of fraud risk in a culturally relative sense.
Originality/value – This is the first study (known to the author) to draw the implications of national
culture for understanding fraud risk.
Keywords Fraud, National culture, Fraud triangle, Fraud fighting, Fraud risk, Fraud theory
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Despite the growing recognition of fraud[1] as a pervasive problem in the increasingly
internationalizing business in contemporary society (Zhuang et al., 2005), implications
of national culture for analyzing fraud remain yet to be explored. Although actual
amounts lost to fraud are difficult to determine, available indicators suggest the size of
fraud losses has been rising (Albrecht et al., 2012; Glover and Aono, 1995; KPMG, 2010).
The Association of Fraud Examiners’ latest survey indicates that organizations lose
5 per cent of their revenues annually to fraud. The association also estimated the loss to
the global economy at US$3.5 trillion (The Association of Fraud Examiners, 2012). In
addition, the level of dishonesty in society tends to be on the rise (Wilson, 2004). The
literature offers systematic approaches to fraud fighting for fraud fighting
professionals – including (but not limited to) auditors. Fraud fighting comprises
preventing, detecting and investigating fraud. The contemporary model for
understanding fraud has its roots in Cressey’s (1950) fraud theory approach to fraud
investigation. This approach comprises developing hypotheses on why and how fraud
could occur and advocates taking appropriate investigation steps that enable
acceptance or rebuttal of the hypotheses (Kranacher et al., 2011; Robinson, 1951). The
approach is articulated in the literature as the fraud triangle, which consists of incentive/ Journal of Financial Reporting and
pressures, opportunities and rationalizations that serve as the motivation for Accounting
Vol. 12 No. 2, 2014
committing fraud (Hillison et al., 1999; International Federation of Accountants, 2009). pp. 161-176
This model is used to analyze fraud exposures; who the potential perpetrators might be; © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1985-2517
the elements of fraud, namely, theft, concealment and conversion (i.e. using, selling or DOI 10.1108/JFRA-10-2012-0049
JFRA exchange) of the stolen asset (Kranacher et al., 2011); and what possible prevention,
detection and investigation strategies could be effective in the circumstances (Albrecht
12,2 et al., 2004; Wilks and Zimbelman, 2004).
The reasons why people commit crimes such as fraud cannot be completely
separated from the social context of perpetrators. As numerous individual and social
situations explain why and how frauds occur, the exposure to fraud risk cannot be
162 abstracted form the cultural context of fraud (Aubert, 1952; Cressey, 1955, 1986; Zhuang
et al., 2005). The implications of national culture for understanding fraud risk received
little research attention. Understanding such implications holds promise for enhancing
the systematic approach for fighting fraud. Hofstede’s (2001) five dimensions of national
culture, namely, power distance (PDI), individualism (IDV), uncertainty avoidance
(UAI), long-term orientation (LTO) and masculinity (MAS), provide useful perspectives
on national culture. These dimensions signify, respectively, the extent to which unequal
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
and ensuring that top management models ethical conduct (Albrecht et al., 2012; Wang
and Kleiner, 2000). Providing fraud awareness training; creating good working
environment; implementing monitoring systems such as internal audit and
whistle-blowing; conducting proactive audits of fraud; and creating expectation of
punishment for fraud serve as additional fraud mitigation strategies (Albrecht et al.,
2012).
The characteristics of fraud and fraud examination strategies outlined in the
foregoing paragraphs suggest that considering the cultural context of fraud could
contribute to a greater understanding of fraud risk faced by victims in a given cultural
context. That is, conditions for the occurrence of fraud suggest the relevance of culture
to fraud risk. In Cressey’s (1955, p. 116) view, “[b]ehavior, attitudes, beliefs, and values
are not only the products but also the properties of groups”. Thus, considering culture
could allow a deeper understanding of fraud risk and the acts of theft, concealment and
conversion that accompany frauds.
The influence of culture on how people think and act (Hofstede, 1997) can be analyzed
both at the level of smaller sociological units of analysis such as organizations and at the
more macro, i.e. national, level (Hofstede, 2001). Hofstede (2001, p. 9) defines culture as
“the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or
category of people from another”. Hofstede studied national culture globally and
developed national culture classifications in terms of PDI, uncertainly avoidance, LTO,
individuality and MAS. PDI refers to “the extent to which the less powerful members of
institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unevenly” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 28). While uneven distribution of power among
members of society is a well-established notion, Hofstede’s study shows that some
cultures exhibit higher PDI than others. In a similar vein, some national cultures exhibit
the characteristic of high tolerance to ambiguity compared to others that tend to avoid
uncertainty through clearly laid out policies, rules and laws to guide actions. Hofstede
(1997, p. 116) states that “uncertainty avoiding cultures shun ambiguous situations.
People in such cultures look for a structure in their organizations, institutions, and
relationships [,] which makes events clearly interpretable and predictable”.
Also, some cultures are characterized by LTO, “which stands for fostering of virtues
oriented towards future rewards, in particular perseverance and thrift” (Hofstede, 1997,
p. 261). The other dimension, individuality, relates to the extent to which “the ties
between individuals are loose” compared to collectivistic cultures where “people from
JFRA birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s
lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1997,
12,2 p. 51). Finally, MAS:
[…] pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e. men are
supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on material success whereas women are
supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life) (Hofstede,
164 1997, p. 82).
This contrasts with femininity that “pertains to societies in which social gender roles
overlap i.e. both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with
the quality of life” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 83).
National culture dimensions offer interesting perspectives that can inform
established fraud examination approaches available in the literature. However, the
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
approaches and analytical tools are not developed in consideration of the impact of the
diverse cultures in which fraud fighting professionals could be engaged. Assuming
culture as a constant in the use of the fraud triangle as an analytical tool oversimplifies
the complex motivation for fraud and the analysis of possible mechanics of fraud
schemes. The importance of organizational culture and working approaches on the
occurrence of fraud is recognized in the literature. Nevertheless, the implications of
national cultural dimensions for understanding fraud risk remain yet to be studied. An
empirical test of the link between fraud risk and national culture holds promise for
refining the analytical tools available to fraud fighting professionals. A starting point to
understand the link between national culture dimensions and fraud is to articulate the
possible connections between the concepts of national culture and fraud risk.
Despite the limits imposed by the paucity of prior empirical and theoretical studies in
this area, conceptual links can be developed between fraud risk and national culture.
PDI has the potential to influence fraud exposure of potential victims because PDI
defines power relationships between individuals in a given society. The perception of
power distribution can influence fraud perpetrators’ perceived pressures and
opportunities as well as rationalization for contemplated fraud. Power relations often
contribute not only to the recruitment of individuals into fraud schemes (Albrecht et al.,
2012) but also how individuals behave in fraud prevention and detection mechanisms
such as whistle-blowing (Brody et al., 1999; Near et al., 1993; Tavakoli et al., 2003;
Zhuang et al., 2005). The literature does not permit proposing a directional hypothesis on
the potential association between PDI and fraud risk. Nonetheless, logical conceptual
arguments can be developed for both a positive and an inverse association. As an
example, perception of high PDI may create an attitude of being neglected on the part of
individual employees of organizations. This attitude, in turn, could erode employee
commitment to organizational values and thus lead to opportunistic behaviors to
engage in fraudulent activities. Another side of the argument could be that fear of
authority might mediate the relation between fraud and high PDI in such a way that the
two relate inversely. Hence, a non-directional hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H1. The cultural dimension of PDI is associated with fraud risk.
The national culture dimension of IDV refers to the extent to which relationships
between individuals are anchored on the individual as compared to the collective.
Values and groups, which remain important concepts of culture, influence the extent of
individual’s tendency to learn deviant behaviors that lead to unethical acts (Burgess and
Akers, 1966; Matsueda, 1988). Both individuals and collectives can commit fraud. National culture
Control mechanisms in contemporary organizations are more effective in preventing
frauds that are committed by individuals than those committed by groups. Therefore,
and fraud risk
while the direction of correlation tentatively remains an empirical question, it is logical
to predict a significant association between IDV and fraud risk. Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H2. The cultural dimension of IDV is associated with fraud risk. 165
The other dimension of culture, i.e. UAI, can influence fraud risk because cultures that
tend to minimize uncertainty may be able to foresee the potential effect of fraud and
mitigate fraud risks by putting appropriate preventive mechanisms in place. Factors
such as strong corporate governance systems could be associated with this cultural
dimension. Consistent with this notion, Beasley et al. (2000) found that differences in
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
Methods
Research model and variables
Based on the foregoing analysis of the possible association of fraud risk with national
culture dimensions, the following regression model is formulated:
Where,
CORI ⫽ corruption index, used as a proxy for fraud risk. CORI values range between
0 and 10 based on Transparency International’s 2011 corruption indices of
countries[2];
0 ⫽ the model constant;
1 to 5 ⫽ changes in CORI associated with unit changes in independent variable
values;
PDI ⫽ with scores ranging from 11 to 104;
IDV ⫽ (as compared to collectivism), with scores ranging from 6 to 91;
JFRA UAI ⫽ with scores ranging from 8 to 112;
LTO ⫽ with scores ranging from 5 to 95;
12,2 MAS ⫽ (as compared to femininity), with scores ranging from 16 to 118; and
⫽ prediction error (residual).
availability of data, this size is sufficient to produce valid results for a multiple
regression model with five independent variables (Hair et al., 2010).
Norway 31 69 8 50 20 9
Switzerland 34 68 70 58 8.8
Germany 35 67 66 65 31 8
South Africa 49 65 63 49 4.1
Finland 33 63 26 59 9.4
Poland 68 60 64 93 5.5
Czech Republic 57 58 57 74 4.1
Austria 11 55 79 70 7.8
Hungary 46 55 88 82 4.6
Israel 13 54 47 81 5.8
Spain 57 51 42 86 6.2
India 77 48 56 40 61 3.1
Argentina 49 46 56 86 3
Japan 54 46 95 92 80 8
Iran 58 41 43 59 2.7
Jamaica 45 39 68 13 3.3
Brazil 69 38 49 76 65 3.8
Egypt 80 38 52 68 2.9
Iraq 80 38 52 68 1.8
Kuwait 80 38 52 68 4.6
Lebanon 80 38 52 68 2.5
Libya 80 38 52 68 2
Saudi Arabia 80 38 52 68 4.4
United Arab Emirates 80 38 52 68 6.8
Turkey 66 37 45 85 4.2
Uruguay 61 36 38 100 7
Greece 60 35 57 112 3.4
Philippines 94 32 64 44 19 2.6
Mexico 81 30 69 82 3
Ethiopia 64 27 41 52 25 2.7
Kenya 64 27 41 52 25 2.2
Portugal 63 27 31 104 6.1
Tanzania 64 27 41 52 25 3
Zambia 64 27 41 52 25 3.2 Table I.
Malaysia 104 26 50 36 4.3 Hofstede’s national
Hong Kong 68 25 57 29 96 8.4 culture dimension scores
(continued) and CORI of countries
JFRA Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO CORI
12,2
Chile 63 23 28 86 7.2
China 80 20 66 40 118 3.6
Ghana 77 20 46 54 16 3.9
Nigeria 77 20 46 54 16 2.4
Sierra Leone 77 20 46 54 16 2.5
168 Singapore 74 20 48 8 48 9.2
Thailand 64 20 34 64 56 3.4
El Salvador 66 19 40 94 3.4
South Korea 60 18 39 85 75 5.4
Taiwan 58 17 45 69 87 6.1
Peru 64 16 42 87 3.4
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
Sources: Scores for PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI and long-term orientation are obtained from Hofstede’s s
survey results (Hofstede, 2001); CORI is obtained from Transparency International’s 2011 international
Table I. survey; the scores range from 10 (“very clean”) to 0 (“highly corrupt”)
(“highly corrupt”). Reverse coding was applied in using this data for the present study.
That is, for the purpose of data analysis, corruption indices were determined as 10 minus
X, where X is Transparency International’s CORI of a country in the sample. This makes
interpretation of the statistical analyses results more direct as countries with high code
values were those with high perception of corruption.
The data for the independent variables, i.e. PDI, IDV, UAI, LTO and MAS, were
collected from Hofstede’s (2001) scores of national culture dimensions. Hofstede
developed the scores based on a global survey of 116,000 employees of the IBM
Company in 50 countries in 1980. Hofestede’s subsequent studies enabled him not only
to cover other countries but also to identify the LTO dimension which was not part of the
original study. Hofstede’s study continues to serve as a basis for numerous accounting
and business research studies (Chand et al., 2012; Cronjé, 2011; Desender et al., 2011;
Kanagaretnam et al., 2011; Venaik and Brewer, 2010).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics were examined before conducting the regression analysis. Table I
presents the lists of 66 countries in the sample along with variable values.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table II on distribution of the data including
measures of normality. Kurtosis and Skewness statistics show suitability of the data for
regression analysis.
Correlation results and assessment of multicolinearilty National culture
Correlation values for the variables are reported on Table III show that the independent
variables are reasonably well correlated with the dependent variable. Also, the
and fraud risk
correlation values among independent variables are not too high, which indicates that
endogeneity did not affect the results.
PDI 1
IDV ⫺0.660** 1
MAS 0.076 0.090 1
UAI 0.157 ⫺0.211 0.051 1
LTO 0.193 ⫺0.291 0.278 0.166 1
CORI 0.644** ⫺0.639** 0.165 0.221 ⫺0.110 1
Table III.
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed) Correlations
H1 that PDI is associated with fraud risk is supported (t ⫽ 0.002, p ⬍ 0.05). The positive
coefficient of the PDI variable confirms one of the two possible directions predicted in
formulating the regression model:
H3. The cultural dimension of UAI is inversely associated with fraud risk.
H3 that UAI is inversely associated with fraud risk is partially supported (t ⫽ 2.511, p ⬍
0.05). While the variable exhibits statistical significance, the positive sign of the
coefficient for the UAI variable contradicts the argument developed in formulating of
the hypothesis:
H4. The cultural dimension of LTO is inversely associated with fraud risk.
H4 that LTO is inversely associated with fraud risk is also supported (t ⫽ ⫺2.347, p ⬍
0.05). The negative coefficient of the LTO variable in the regression results confirms the
inverse relation predicted in the development of the hypothesis.
environment that PDI could create for fraud than its role in preventing fraud. This
understanding could help auditors and other professionals to develop more
pragmatic fraud theories in analyzing fraud cases or assessing the potential of a
certain environment to sustain fraud.
Contrary to the prediction made in developing the model, the data showed positive
association between UAI and fraud risk. The literature presents little evidence for a
positive relation; instead, strong arguments can be made to the contrary. Fraud
opportunities are high when internal controls are poor and policies guiding actions of
employees are not clearly defined. Similarly, proactive fraud fighting steps including the
nurturing of ethical culture in organizations and recruitment of honest employees
(Albrecht et al., 2012) are logically connected to UAI. Thus, the results for H3 can only be
taken as tentative, which suggests the need for further studies to consider further
empirical tests on this relationship.
Another major finding of this study is the statistically significant association
between fraud risk and LTO of cultures. Consistent with the argument developed in the
research design, the data confirm the inverse association of LTO and fraud risk. As
long-term-orientated cultures are characterized by emphasis on self-actualization
(Hofstede, 2001), the result supports the argument that individuals in long-term-
orientated cultures are more committed to their organizations’ values and, thus, are less
likely to commit dishonest acts by giving in to short-term pressures or incentives.
Therefore, because such a LTO may result in reduced pressure for fraud, fraud fighting
efforts in such cultures should be focused on understanding the opportunity and
rationalization.
Despite the conceptual links established between the IDV variable and fraud risk, the
empirical test did not support this link. The fact that the control variable, i.e. MAS, did
not exhibit statistical significance shows that this variable has little impact on other
independent variables. On the other hand, the individuality variable has conceptual
importance in the model. The conceptual link between this variable and fraud risk is
arguably strong. Fraud happens when perpetrators face non-sharable pressures
(Albrecht et al., 2012). The extent to which pressures are non-sharable can logically be
determined by the extent to which cultural orientations are individualistic (Hofstede,
2001). Thus, the result on H2 warrants further research on the link between the two
variables with a larger sample or with methodological alterations that enable deeper
analysis of the link using case studies of actual frauds.
JFRA The validity of measures used in the study warrants a consideration. Prior
research has confirmed the validity of measures used in Transparency
12,2 International’s regular surveys (Wilhelm, 2002). Also, while Hofstede’s study was
conducted before three decades, the continuing relevance of cultural dimensions is
shown by the fact that this model is used in recent accounting and business research
(Chand et al., 2012; Cronjé, 2011; Desender et al., 2011; Kanagaretnam et al., 2011;
172 Venaik and Brewer, 2010). This continuing usefulness of Hofstede’s study is
consistent with the implied assumption in the present study that cultural values are
stable over time. In evaluating this validity consideration, the unavailability of
alternative measures of cultural dimensions should be taken into account. Another
validity consideration in interpreting the results is the use of public sector
corruption indicators for testing more general hypotheses that relate to both public
and private sector organizations. This issue does not affect the results of this study
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
Conclusion 173
Despite the understanding that numerous individual and social situations influence
why and how fraud occurs, national culture has not been explicitly considered in models
used to analyze fraud. This paper has argued that understanding the implications of
national culture for analyzing fraud motivation, namely, pressures/incentive,
opportunities and rationalizations– as well as elements of fraud, i.e. theft, concealment
and conversion is a useful approach to enhance the understanding of fraud risks facing
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
Notes
1. International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 240 defines fraud as “An intentional act by one
or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or
third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage”.
2. The 2012 corruption indices run from 0 to 100.
References
Albrecht, W.S., Albrecht, C.C. and Albrecht, C.O. (2004), “Fraud and corporate executives:
agency, stewardship and broken trust”, Journal of Forensic Accounting, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 109-130.
JFRA Albrecht, W.S., Albrecht, C.O., Albrecht, C.C. and Zimbelman, M.F. (2012), Fraud Examination,
South-Western, Mason, OH.
12,2 Aubert, V. (1952), “White-collar crime and social structure”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 3
No. 58, pp. 263-271.
Beasley, M.S., Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R. and Lapides, P.D. (2000), “Fraudulent financial
reporting: consideration of industry traits and corporate governance mechanisms”,
174 Accounting Horizons, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 441-454.
Brody, R.G., Coulter, J.M. and Lin, S. (1999), “The effect of national culture on whistle-blowing
perceptions”, Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 385-400.
Burgess, R.L. and Akers, R.L. (1966), “A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal
behavior”, Social Problems, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 128-147.
Chand, P., Cummings, L. and Patel, C. (2012), “The effect of accounting education and national
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
McKee, T.E. (2006), “Increase your fraud auditing effectiveness by being unpredictable!”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 224-231.
Matsueda, R.L. (1988), “The current state of differential association theory”, Crime & Delinquency,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 277-306.
Moyes, G.D. and Hasan, I. (1996), “An empirical analysis of fraud detection likelihood”,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 41-46.
Near, J.P., Dworkin, T.M. and Miceli, M.P. (1993), “Explaining the whistle-blowing process:
suggestions from power theory and justice theory”, Organization Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 393-411.
Owusu-Ansah, S., Moyes, G.D., Oyelere, P.B. and Hay, D. (2002), “An empirical analysis of the
likelihood of detecting fraud in New Zealand”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 192-204.
Robinson, W.S. (1951), “The logical structure of analytic induction”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 812-818.
Stevens, B. (1999), “Communicating ethical values: a study of employee perceptions”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 113-120.
Tan, H. (2002), “E-fraud: current trends and international developments”, Journal of Financial
Crime, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 347-354.
Tavakoli, A.A., Keenan, J.P. and Crnjak-Karanovic, B. (2003), “Culture and whistleblowing: an
empirical study of Croatian and United States managers utilizing Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-64.
The Association of Fraud Examiners (2012), “Report to the nation”, available at: www.acfe.com/
rttn.aspx (accessed 10 June 2012).
Transparency International (2011), “Corruption perception index 2011”, available at
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/ (accessed 24 February 2012).
Vanasco, R.R. (1998), “Fraud auditing”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 4-71.
Venaik, S. and Brewer, P. (2010), “Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1294-1315.
Wang, J.-M. and Kleiner, B.H. (2000), “Effective employment screening practices”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 73-81.
Wilhelm, P.G. (2002), “International validation of the corruption perceptions index: implications
for business ethics and entrepreneurship education”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 177-189.
JFRA Wilks, T.J. and Zimbelman, M.F. (2004), “Using game theory and strategic reasoning concepts to
prevent and detect fraud”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 173-184.
12,2 Wilson, R.A. (2004), “Employee dishonesty: national survey of risk managers on crime”, Journal of
Economic Crime Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Zhuang, J., Thomas, S. and Miller, D.L. (2005), “Examining culture’s effect on whistle-blowing and
peer reporting”, Business Society, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 462-486.
176
About the author
Dessalegn Getie Mihret, PhD, FCCA, is a Senior Lecturer in accounting at Deakin University,
Australia. Dessalegn has published in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
Managerial Auditing Journal, Accounting History (paper accepted), Pacific Accounting Review,
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, Small Enterprise Research Journal, African
Journal of Accounting, Economics, Finance and Banking Research and International Business
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 03:08 31 January 2016 (PT)
Research. His areas of research interest include auditing, accounting, corporate governance,
sustainability assurance and fraud examination. Dessalegn Getie Mihret can be contacted at:
dmihret@deakin.edu.au