Advertisement

‘Whistleblowing Triangle’: Framework and Empirical Evidence

  • Hengky Latan
  • Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour
  • Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour
Original Paper

Abstract

This work empirically tests the concept of the ‘whistleblowing triangle,’ which is modeled on the three factors encapsulated by the fraud triangle (pressure or financial incentives, opportunity and rationalization), in the Indonesian context. Anchored in the proposition of an original research framework on the whistleblowing triangle and derived hypotheses, this work aims to expand the body of knowledge on this topic by providing empirical evidence. The sample used is taken from audit firms affiliated with both the big 4 and non-big 4 companies operating in Indonesia. The results of analysis using the PLS-PM method found a significant relationship between the components of the whistleblowing triangle and the intention of blowing the whistle. We found that financial incentives are the most significant predictor of auditors’ intention to blow the whistle in Indonesia. Other components, such as opportunity and rationalization, also play an important role in supporting auditors’ intention to blow the whistle. Our findings also suggest that related pressures are the top priority for audit firms in Indonesia to consider in increasing whistleblowing intention. We expand the previous literature on whistleblowing which has been derived from the components of the fraud triangle (Brown et al. in Account Public Interest 16(1):28–56, 2016; Smaili and Arroyo in J Bus Ethics,  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3663-7, 2017) by adding empirical evidence.

Keywords

Business ethics Whistleblowers Whistleblowing intention Whistleblowing triangle Reporting fraud 

Notes

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. ACFE. (2016). Report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse: 2016 global fraud study. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners.Google Scholar
  2. Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduliader, N. (2018). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, V., Dacin, M. T., & Murphy, P. R. (2015). The continued need for diversity in fraud research. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(4), 751–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andon, P., Free, C., Jidin, R., Monroe, G. S., & Turner, M. J. (2016). The impact of financial incentives and perceptions of seriousness on whistleblowing intention. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3215-6.Google Scholar
  5. Andrade, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualising whistleblowing in a complex world. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandalos, D. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berger, L., Perreault, S., & Wainberg, J. (2017). Hijacking the moral imperative: How financial incentives can discourage whistleblower reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personal Psychology, 69, 229–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boo, E., Ng, T. B.-P., & Shankar, P. G. (2016). Effects of incentive scheme and working relationship on whistle-blowing in an audit setting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(4), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyle, D. M., DeZoort, F. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2015). The effect of alternative fraud model use on auditors’ fraud risk judgments. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34(6), 578–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brink, A. G., Lowe, D. J., & Victoravich, L. M. (2013). The effect of evidence strength and internal rewards on intentions to report fraud in the Dodd-Frank regulatory environment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(3), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brink, A. G., Lowe, D. J., & Victoravich, L. M. (2017). The public company whistleblowing environment: Perceptions of a wrongful act and monetary attitude. Accounting and the Public Interest, 17(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, J. O., Hays, J., & Stuebs, M. T. (2016). Modeling accountant whistleblowing intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior and the fraud triangle. Accounting and the Public Interest, 16(1), 28–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng, J., Bai, H., & Yang, X. (2017). Ethical leadership and internal whistleblowing: A mediated moderation model. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3517-3.
  15. Chiu, R. K. (2003). Ethical judgment and whistleblowing intention: Examining the moderating role of locus of control. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance fifty years of a classic theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Cressey, D. R. (1973). Other peoples’ money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Patterson Smith.Google Scholar
  19. Culiberg, B., & Mihelič, K. K. (2017). The evolution of whistleblowing studies: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 146, 787–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dellaportas, S. (2013). Conversations with inmate accountants: Motivation, opportunity and the fraud triangle. Accounting Forum, 37(1), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dellaportas, S., Jackling, B., Leung, P., & Cooper, B. J. (2011). Developing an ethics education framework for accounting. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 8(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  23. DeZoort, F. T., & Harrison, P. D. (2016). Understanding auditors’ sense of responsibility for detecting fraud within organizations. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3064-3.
  24. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Dorminey, J., Fleming, A. S., Kranacher, M.-J., & Riley, R. A. (2012). The evolution of fraud theory. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(2), 555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dyck, A., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2010). Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? Journal of Finance, 65(6), 2213–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Field, A. (2016). An adventure in statistics: The reality enigma. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Free, C. (2015). Looking through the fraud triangle: A review and call for new directions. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gao, L., & Brink, A. G. (2017). Whistleblowing studies in accounting research: A review of experimental studies on the determinants of whistleblowing. Journal of Accounting Literature, 38, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guthrie, C. P., & Taylor, E. Z. (2017). Whistleblowing on fraud for pay: Can I trust you? Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 2(1), A1–A19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2017). Partial least squares path modeling: Updated guidelines. In H. Latan & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling: basic concepts, methodological issues and applications (pp. 19–39). Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoffman, W. M., & Schwartz, M. S. (2015). The morality of whistleblowing: A commentary on Richard T. De George. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jo, M.-S., Nelson, J. S., & Kiecker, P. (1997). A model for controlling social desirability bias by direct and indirect questioning. Marketing Letters, 8(4), 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaplan, S. E., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2001). An examination of auditors’ reporting intentions when another auditor is offered client employment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kock, N. (2011). Using WarpPLS in e-collaboration studies: Mediating effects, control and second order variables, and algorithm choices. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 7(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Latan, H., Jabbour, C. J. C., & de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. (2017). Ethical awareness, ethical judgment and whistleblowing: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3534-2.
  40. Latan, H., & Noonan, R. (Eds.). (2017). Partial least squares path modeling: basic concepts, methodological issues and applications. Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar
  41. Latan, H., Ringle, C. M., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2016). Whistleblowing intentions among public accountants in Indonesia: Testing for the moderation effects. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3318-0.Google Scholar
  42. Lee, G., & Xiao, X. (2018). Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 41, 22–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lokanan, M. E. (2015). Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness. Accounting Forum, 39(3), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2014a). The silent Samaritan syndrome: Why the whistle remains unblown. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2014b). Whistle while you work: Whistleblowing in the presence of competing incentives and pressures. Accounting Perspectives, 13(4), 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maroun, W., & Atkins, J. (2014). Whistle-blowing by external auditors in South Africa: Enclosure, efficient bodies and disciplinary power. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(5), 834–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maroun, W., & Solomon, J. (2014). Whistle-blowing by external auditors: Seeking legitimacy for the South African Audit Profession? Accounting Forum, 38(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compas, 11(12), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2009). A word to the wise: How managers and policy-makers can encourage employees to report wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 379–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2012). Predicting employee reactions to perceived organizational wrongdoing: Demoralization, justice, proactive personality, and whistle-blowing. Human Relations, 65(8), 923–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017). A theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Macat Library.Google Scholar
  53. Murphy, P. R. (2012). Attitude, Machiavellianism and the rationalization of misreporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(4), 242–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Murphy, P. R., & Dacin, M. T. (2011). Psychological pathways to fraud: Understanding and preventing fraud in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 601–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murphy, P. R., & Free, C. (2016). Broadening the fraud triangle: Instrumental climate and fraud. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistle-blowing. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 679–708.Google Scholar
  57. Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2009). Whistleblowing as planned behavior: A survey of South Korean police officers. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Park, H., Blenkinsopp, J., Oktem, M. K., & Omurgonulsen, U. (2008). Cultural orientation and attitudes toward different forms of whistleblowing: A comparison of South Korea, Turkey, and the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 929–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Price, L. R. (2017). Psychometric methods: Theory into practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  60. Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). In B. Rihoux & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques (pp. 87–121). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ramli, N. A., Latan, H., & Nartea, G. V. (2018). Why should PLS-SEM be used rather than regression? Evidence from the capital structure perspective. In N. K. Avkiran & C. M. Ringle (Eds.), Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Recent advances in banking and finance (pp. 171–209). Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (2013). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. In A. C. Michalos & D. C. Poff (Eds.), Citation classics from the journal of business ethics: Celebrating the first thirty years of publication (pp. 173–190). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reinstein, A., & Taylor, E. Z. (2017). Fences as controls to reduce accountants’ rationalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. In Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH.Google Scholar
  65. Rose, J. M., Brink, A. G., & Norman, C. S. (2016). The effects of compensation structures and monetary rewards on managers’ decisions to blow the whistle. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3222-7.
  66. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2017). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In C. Homburg, M. Klarmann, & A. Vomberg (Eds.), Handbook of market research (pp. 1–40). Cham: Springer International.Google Scholar
  67. Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2015). Beyond the fraud triangle: Swiss and Austrian elite fraudsters. Accounting Forum, 39(3), 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8.Google Scholar
  69. Seifert, D. L., Sweeney, J. T., Joireman, J., & Thornton, J. M. (2010). The influence of organizational justice on accountant whistleblowing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smaili, N., & Arroyo, P. (2017). Categorization of whistleblowers using the whistleblowing triangle. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3663-7.Google Scholar
  71. Soni, F., Maroun, W., & Padia, N. (2015). Perceptions of justice as a catalyst for whistle-blowing by trainee auditors in South Africa. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(1), 118–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stikeleather, B. R. (2016). When do employers benefit from offering workers a financial reward for reporting internal misconduct? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 52, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Streukens, S., Leroi-Werelds, S., & Willems, K. (2017). Dealing with nonlinearity in importance-performance map analysis (IPMA): An integrative framework in a PLS-SEM context. In H. Latan & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling: Basic concepts, methodological issues, and applications (pp. 367–403). Cham: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Trompeter, G. M., Carpenter, T. D., Desai, N., Jones, K. L., & Riley, R. A. (2013). A synthesis of fraud-related research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tsang, J.-A. (2002). Moral rationalization and the integration of situational factors and psychological processes in immoral behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vandekerckhove, W. (2006). Whistleblowing and organizational social responsibility: A global assessment. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  77. Watts, L. L., & Ronald Buckley, M. (2017). A dual-processing model of moral whistleblowing in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(3), 669–683.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2913-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Webber, S., & Archambeault, D. S. (2015). Whistleblowing: Not so simple for accountants. The CPA Journal, 85(8), 62–68.Google Scholar
  79. Wolfe, D. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2004). The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud. The CPA Journal, 74(12), 38–42.Google Scholar
  80. Young, R. F. (2017). Blowing the whistle: Individual persuasion under perceived threat of retaliation. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 29(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hengky Latan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour
    • 3
  • Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of AccountingSTIE Bank BPD JatengSemarangIndonesia
  2. 2.HLC ConsultingSemarangIndonesia
  3. 3.Montpellier Business SchoolMontpellier Research in ManagementMontpellier, Cédex 4France

Personalised recommendations