Situating the social in fraud management practices: a case-based approach Veronica Morino

The consequences of corruption and fraud destroy jobs, trap the poorest in poverty and even undermine our global security (Cameron, 2016). Despite the increase of laws and regulations, “fraud and economic crime rates remain at record highs, impacting more companies in more diverse ways than ever before” (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2020, p.2).

Scholars have been taking a great interest in examining the subject of fraud and corruption and how it is managed in organisations. However, the research undertaken has been strongly influenced by theories which focus on explanations around the behaviour of individuals and their immediate circumstances, and the understanding of fraud and corruption as pre-defined objects carrying intrinsic and universal properties. Supported by a formal professional body of practitioner knowledge, strategies to counteract fraud and corruption are shaped around a dominant discourse promoting the implementation of controls and encouraging evaluation, auditing, monitoring and normalisation of individuals and organisations (Morales et al., 2014).

This study is grounded in the belief that there is a need for further examination and a deeper understanding of the perspectives around which fraud and corruption can be conceptualised and researched. The objective is to develop a sociological perspective on the subject and look at fraud and corruption as a matter of social interpretation (Tenbrunsel and Chugh, 2015).

By exploring people’s understanding of the social norms around fraud and corruption, and how actions and behaviours are constructed and interpreted, the study investigates the socio-organisational processes (Pertiwi, 2018) which take place in organisations when counteracting fraud and corruption. The drive is to introduce the need for scholars, practitioners and anyone concerned with the research and the management of these ever-present threats to adopt a more critical reflexive lens on their own praxis (Godfrey and Higgins, 2020) and appreciate how alternative readings of theories can lead to different outcomes.