The nonprofit sector may suffer financially from inconsistency in regulations and polices surrounding internal control implementation. To address this issue, our study explores how perceived internal control strength differs between nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Furthermore, we examine three components of the Committee of Sponsoring Organization framework to determine which components might significantly influence whistleblowing for nonprofit organizations. As expected, all three components appear to significantly influence whistleblowing for those in for-profit organizations. For those in nonprofit organizations, the perception of control activities and monitoring activities significantly mediates the relationship between organization type and whistleblowing intentions. Finally, the data indicate that the use of an anonymous website for whistleblowing at a nonprofit organization may require added attention and resources if employees at nonprofits are to use this outlet to the same extent as it is used at a for-profit organization.
AgbejuleA.JokipiiA. (2009). Strategy, control activities, monitoring and effectiveness. Managerial Auditing Journal, 24(6), 500–522.
2.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2002). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit. Statement on auditing standards No. 99.
3.
AnheierH. K.ToeplerS. (Eds.). (2020). The Routledge companion to nonprofit management. Routledge.
4.
ArchambeaultD. S.WebberS.GreenleeJ. (2015). Fraud and corruption in U.S. nonprofit entities: A summary of press reports 2008-2011. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1194–1224.
5.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2020). Report to the nations: Global study on occupational fraud and abuse.
6.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). Moderator-Mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 391–394.
7.
BurksJ. J. (2015). Accounting errors in nonprofit organizations. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 341–361.
8.
ChristM. H. (2013). An experimental investigation of the interactions among intentions, reciprocity, and control. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 25, 169–197.
9.
ChristM. H.SedatoleK. L.TowryK. L. (2012). Framing sticks as carrots: An experimental investigation of contract frame and effort in agency relationships. The Accounting Review, 87(6), 1913–1938.
10.
ChristM. H.SedatoleK. L.TowryK. L.ThomasM. A. (2008). When formal controls undermine trust and cooperation. Strategic Finance, January, 39–44.
11.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations. (1999). Fraudulent financial reporting: 1987-1991—An analysis of US public companies. AICPA.
12.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations. (2013). Internal control—Integrated framework. AICPA.
13.
DasT. K.TengB. (2001). Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283.
14.
DennisE.PecheuxC.WarlopL. (2020). When public recognition inhibits prosocial behavior: The case of charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 951–968.
15.
DonelsonD. C.EgeM. S.McInnisJ. M. (2017). Internal control weaknesses and financial reporting fraud. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(3), 45–69.
16.
DormineyJ.FlemingA. S.KranacherM.RileyR. A.Jr (2012). The evolution of fraud theory. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(2), 555–579.
17.
FalkA.KosfeldM. (2006). Distrust–The hidden cost of control. American Economic Review, 96, 1611–1630.
18.
FengN. (2014). Economic consequences of going concern audit opinions in nonprofit charitable organizations. Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting, 3, 20–34.
19.
GallagherM.RadcliffeV. S. (2002). Internal controls in nonprofit organizations: The case of the American Cancer Society, Ohio Division. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12, 313–325.
20.
GaoL.BrinkA. G. (2017). Whistleblowing studies in accounting research: A review of experimental studies on determinants of whistleblowing. Journal of Accounting Literature, 38, 1–13.
21.
GarvenS. A.BeckA. W.ParsonsL. M. (2017). Are audit-related factors associated with financial reporting quality in nonprofit organizations?Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(1), 49–68.
22.
GrahamL. (2015). Internal control audit and compliance: Documentation and testing under the new COSO framework. Wiley.
23.
GreenleeJ.FischerM.GordonT.KeatingE. (2007). An investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 676–694.
24.
HannanR.RankinF. W.TowryK. L. (2006). The effect of information systems on honesty in managerial reporting: A behavioral perspective. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(4), 885–919.
25.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.
26.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
27.
IyerV. M.WatkinsA. L. (2008). Adoption of Sarbanes-Oxley measures by nonprofit organizations: An empirical study. Accounting Horizons, 22, 255–277.
28.
KlammB. K.WatsonM. W. (2009). SOX 404 reported internal control weaknesses: A test of COSO framework components and information technology. Journal of Information Systems, 23(2), 1–23.
29.
LeeG.XiaoX. (2018). Whistleblowing on accounting-related misconduct: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 41, 22–46.
30.
LennonT.SpottsD.MitchellM. (2013). Benchmarking women’s leadership in the United States. Colorado Women’s College at the University of Denver.
31.
LiuX. K.WrightA. M.WuY. J. (2015). Managers’ unethical fraudulent financial reporting: The effect of control strength and control framing. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(2), 295–310.
32.
MaierF.MeyerM.SteinbereithnerM. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.
NearJ. P.MiceliM. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 1–16.
35.
NearJ. P.MiceliM. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41(2), 267–281.
36.
NearJ. P.MiceliM. P. (1996). Whistle-blowing: Myth and reality. Journal of Management, 22(3), 507–526.
37.
NezhinaT. G.BrudneyJ. L. (2012). Unintended? The effects of adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22, 321–346.
OmerT. C.YetmanR. J. (2003). Near zero taxable income reporting by nonprofit organizations. Journal of the American Taxation Association, 25(2), 19–34.
40.
ParsonsL.PryorC.RobertsA. (2017). Pressure to manage ratios and willingness to do so: Evidence from nonprofit managers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 1–20.
41.
PattersonE. R.SmithJ. R. (2007). The effects of Sarbanes-Oxley on auditing and internal control strength. The Accounting Review, 82(2), 427–455.
42.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
43.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2007a). An audit of internal control over financial reporting that is integrated with an audit of financial statements. Auditing standard no. 5.
44.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2007b). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit. AU Section 316.
45.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2010). Audit risk. Auditing standard no. 8.
RothschildJ. (2013). The fate of whistleblowers in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 425(5), 886–901.
48.
ScheetzA.SmallsT. D.WallJ.WilsonA. B. (2020). Do employee fraud reporting intentions differ between for-profit and nonprofit organizations?Journal of Governmental & Nonprofit Accounting, 9(1), 94–117.
49.
ShangJ.SargeantA.CarpenterK. (2019). Giving intention versus giving behavior: How differently do satisfaction, trust, and commitment relate to them?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 1023–1044.
TinkelmanD. (1999). Factors affecting the relation between donations to not-for-profit organizations and an efficiency ratio. Research in Governmental and Nonprofit Accounting, 10, 135–161.
54.
U.S. Congress. (2002). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Public Law No. 107-204. H.R. 3763.
55.
VerbruggenS.ChristiaensJ.MilisK. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32.
56.
VermeerT. E.EdmondsC. T.AsthanaS. C. (2014). Organizational form and accounting choice: Are nonprofits or for-profit managers more aggressive?The Accounting Review, 89(5), 1867–1893.
57.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
