Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Fraud in the Not-For-Profit Sector: A Stakeholder Perspective for Charities

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The theorisation of fraud has largely been developed in the for-profit sector, and the paper extends this to the not-for-profit sector. Motivated by social control theory, we adopt a qualitative approach to assess the views of key charity stakeholders (social control agents) of charities registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales about fraud. We find that stakeholders, especially donors and beneficiaries, are often reluctant to label ‘fraud’ as a threat to the sector. This reflects ‘trusting indifference’, a value embedded in the sector that brings more harm than good to the sector in terms of wrongdoing, by hampering effective social control. Adapting existing theories of fraud to charities, we propose a ‘fraud tower’ with three layers: the social layer (trusting indifference), organisational layer (opportunity), and individual layer (fraudsters-opportunity seekers).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdullahi, R., & Mansor, N. (2018). Fraud prevention initiatives in the Nigerian public sector: understanding the relationship of fraud incidences and the elements of fraud triangle theory. Journal of Financial Crime, 25(2), 527–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. C., & Albrecht, C. O. (2004). Fraud and corporate executives: Agency, stewardship and broken trust. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 5(1), 109–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C., & Albrecht, C. C. (2008). Current trends in fraud and its detection. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 17(1), 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, W. S., Howe, K. R., & Romney, M. B. (1984). Deterring fraud: the internal auditor’s perspective (pp. 1–42). Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2013). Charitable giving. Handbook of public economics (pp. 1–50). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambeault, D. S., Webber, S., & Greenlee, J. (2015). Fraud and corruption in US nonprofit entities: A summary of press reports 2008–2011. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1194–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2014). Why stakeholders ignore firm misconduct: A cognitive view. Journal of Management, 40(3), 676–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020). The rise and stall of stakeholder influence: How the digital age limits social control. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, M. S. (1996). An empirical analysis of the relation between the board of director composition and financial statement fraud. Accounting Review, 71(4), 443–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T. B., & Carcello, J. V. (2000). A decision aid for assessing the likelihood of fraudulent financial reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 19(1), 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boenigk, S., & Helmig, B. (2013). Why do donors donate? Examining the effects of organizational identification and identity salience on the relationships among satisfaction, loyalty, and donation behavior. Journal of Service Research, 16(4), 533–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno-van Vijfeijken, T. (2019). Culture is what you see when compliance is not in the room: Organizational culture as an explanatory factor in analyzing recent INGO scandals. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 10(4), 20190031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, D. D., & Sanney, K. J. (2018). Applying the fraud triangle to higher education: Ethical implications. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 35(1), 5–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, C., & Olegario, R. (2020). Pathways to corporate accountability: Corporate reputation and its alternatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(2), 173–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charity Audit Spotlight (2017) Charity audit spotlight report [Online]. Retrieved May 5, 2019, from https://secure.charityfinancials.com/PDF/charity%20audit%20spotlight%20new.pdf

  • Charles, C., & Kim, M. (2016). Do donors care about results? An analysis of nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(4), 864–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choo, F., & Tan, K. (2007). An “American dream” theory of corporate executive Fraud. Accounting Forum, 31(2), 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Civil Society (2019) More than half of charities that suffer fraud know the perpetrators [Online] Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/more-than-half-of-charities-that-suffer-fraud-know-the-perpetrators.html

  • Charity Commission (2020). Charity Commission Data Set [Online]. Retrieved December 3, 2020, from https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortletandp_p_lifecycle=0andp_p_state=normalandp_p_mode=viewand_uk_gov_ccew_portlet_CharitySearchPortlet_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Fadvanced-search

  • Cooper, D. J., Dacin, T., & Palmer, D. (2013). Fraud in accounting, organizations and society: Extending the boundaries of research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(6–7), 440–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costello, B. J., & Laub, J. H. (2020). Social control theory: The legacy of Travis Hirschi’s causes of delinquency. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtois, C., & Gendron, Y. (2017). The “normalization” of deviance: A case study on the process underlying the adoption of deviant behavior. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 36(3), 15–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, R. L., & Weirich, T. R. (2011). Fraud guidance for corporate counsel reviewing financial statements and reports. Journal of Financial Crime, 18(4), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money; a study of the social psychology of embezzlement. Free Press, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Sweeney, A. P. (1996). Causes and consequences of earnings manipulation: An analysis of firms subject to enforcement actions by the SEC. Contemporary Accounting Research, 13(1), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellaportas, S. (2013). Conversations with inmate accountants: Motivation, opportunity and the fraud triangle. Accounting Forum, 37(1), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorminey, J., Fleming, A. S., Kranacher, M.-J., & Riley, R. A., Jr. (2012). The evolution of fraud theory. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(2), 555–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont, Q., & Karpoff, J. M. (2020). The trust triangle: Laws, reputation, and culture in empirical finance research. Journal of Bussiness Ethics, 163, 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraud Act, (2006). [Online]. Retrieved January 3, 2021, from Fraud Act 2006 (legislation.gov.uk)

  • Free, C. (2015). Looking through the fraud triangle: A review and call for new directions. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(2), 175–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free, C., & Murphy, P. R. (2015). The ties that bind: The decision to co-offend in fraud. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(1), 18–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fremont-Smith, M. R. (2004). Pillaging of charitable assets: Embezzlement and fraud. Exempt Organization Tax Review, 46(33), 333–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fremont-Smith, M. R. and Kosaras, A. (2003). Wrongdoing by officers and directors of charities: A survey of press reports 1995-2002. Hauser Center For Nonprofit Organizations Working Paper, 20.

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2001). Very public scandals: Nongovernmental organizations in trouble. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(1), 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2002). Should we have faith in faith-based social services? Rhetoric versus realistic expectations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(1), 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patterns of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, S., & Weißenberger, B. E. (2017). The relationship between informal controls, ethical work climates, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 505–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goncharenko, G. (2021). In the spotlight: rethinking NGO accountability in the# MeToo era. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Online,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk, P. (2019). Organizational convenience for white-collar crime: Opportunity expansion by offender behavior. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(1), 50–60.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Greenlee, J., Fischer, M., Gordon, T., & Keating, E. (2007). An investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 676–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groff, E. R. (2015). Informal social control and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(1), 90–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gullkvist, B., & Jokipii, A. (2013). Perceived importance of red flags across fraud types. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), 44–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, E., Petrovits, C., & Yetman, M. H. (2017). Why bad things happen to good organizations: The link between governance and asset diversions in public charities. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 149–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, A. D. (2018). Fraud and internal controls in nonprofit organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.

  • Heald, D. (2006). Transparency as an instrumental value. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 59–74). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermanson, D. R., Justice, S. E., Ramamoorti, S., & Riley, R. A., Jr. (2017). Unique characteristics of predator frauds. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 2(1), A31–A48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537–52). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1993). Commentary: Testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtfreter, K. (2008). Determinants of fraud losses in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(1), 45–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, E. K., Fischer, M., Gordon, T. P. and Greenlee, J. S. (2005). Assessing financial vulnerability in the nonprofit sector. Unpublished paper.

  • Kihl, L. A., Misener, K. E., Cuskelly, G., & Wicker, P. (2021). Tip of the iceberg? An international investigation of fraud in community sport. Sport Management Review, 24(1), 24–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubrin, C. E., & Mioduszewski, M. D. (2019). Social Disorganization Theory: Past, Present and Future. Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 197–211). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kummer, T.-F., Singh, K., & Best, P. (2015). The effectiveness of fraud detection instruments in not-for-profit organizations. Managerial Auditing Journal, 30(4/5), 435–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamothe, M., Ter-Mkrtchyan, A., Ruddle, T. B., & Kuyon, K. (2023). Examining the efficacy of accountability systems in preventing nonprofit misconduct: A look beyond financial fraud. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(1), 106–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasalle, R. E. (2007). Effects of the fraud triangle on students’ risk assessments. Journal of Accounting Education, 25(1), 74–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawry, R. P. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An ethical perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lianos, M. (2003). Social control after Foucault. Surveillance and Society, 1(3), 412–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lokanan, M. E. (2015). Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness. Accounting Forum, 39(3), 201–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lokanan, M. (2018). Theorizing financial crimes as moral actions. European Accounting Review, 27(5), 901–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, J. (2009). Playing offense in a high-risk environment. Crowe Horwath, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, D. (2017). Improving charity accountability: Lessons from the Scottish experience. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 725–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, D., & Rutherford, A. C. (2018). The determinants of charity misconduct. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster, I. (1996). Merriam-Webster's dictionary of law, Merriam-Webster.

  • Morales, J., Gendron, Y., & Guénin-Paracini, H. (2014). The construction of the risky individual and vigilant organization: A genealogy of the fraud triangle. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(3), 170–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. R., & Free, C. (2015). Broadening the fraud triangle: Instrumental climate and fraud. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 28(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neu, D., Everett, J., Rahaman, A. S., & Martinez, D. (2013). Accounting and networks of corruption. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(6–7), 505–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Higgins, E. R. E. (2006). Corruption, underdevelopment, and extractive resource industries: Addressing the vicious cycle. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohalehi, P. (2019). Fraud in small charities: evidence from England and Wales. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(1), 211–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Dictionary. (2003). Oxford english dictionary. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrovits, C., Shakespeare, C., & Shih, A. (2011). The causes and consequences of internal control problems in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 325–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A. (2010). Ethics and network organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 533–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phiri, J., & Guven-Uslu, P. (2019). Social networks, corruption and institutions of accounting, auditing and accountability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(2), 508–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, J., Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2008). Corrupt organizations or organizations of corrupt individuals? Two types of organization-level corruption. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 685–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramamoorti, S., Morrison, D. & Koletar, J. (2009). Bringing Freud to fraud: Understanding the state-of-mind of the C-Level suite/white collar offender through “ABC” analysis. The Institute for Fraud Prevention at West Virginia University, 1-35.

  • Raval, V. (2016). A disposition-based fraud model: Theoretical integration and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 741–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rebellon, C. J., & Anskat, P. (2018). Crime, deviance, and social control: Travis Hirschi and his legacy. In R. A. Triplett & Hoboken (Eds.), The handbook of the history and philosophy of criminology (pp. 189–206). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American Sociological Review, 16(2), 196–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rezaee, Z. (2005). Causes, consequences, and deterrence of financial statement fraud. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3), 277–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roden, D. M., Cox, S. R., & Kim, J. Y. (2016). The fraud triangle as a predictor of corporate fraud. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 20(1), 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J., & Hamilton, V. L. (1997). Distributing responsibility for wrongdoing inside corporate hierarchies: Public judgments in three societies. Law and Social Inquiry, 21, 815–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saravanamuthu, K., & Lehman, C. (2013). Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(6), 410–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & Hudson, J. (2008). Charity brand personality: The relationship with giving behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(3), 468–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the UK charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scurlock, R., Dolsak, N., & Prakash, A. (2020). Recovering from scandals: Twitter coverage of oxfam and save the children scandals. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(1), 94–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadnam, M., Crane, A., & Lawrence, T. B. (2020). Who calls it? Actors and accounts in the social construction of organizational moral failure. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(4), 699–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, W. E., Simmons, R. S., & Yip, R. W. (2016). Social responsibility, professional commitment and tax fraud. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(1), 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods. Criminology, 42, 551–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, S. S. (2013). White-collar crime: A review of recent developments and promising directions for future research. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 309–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltani, B. (2014). The anatomy of corporate fraud: A comparative analysis of high profile American and European corporate scandals. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 251–274.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sorunke, O. A. (2016). Personal ethics and fraudster motivation: The missing link in fraud triangle and fraud diamond theories. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(2), 159–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 48, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trompeter, G. M., Carpenter, T. D., Jones, K. L., & Riley, R. A., Jr. (2014). Insights for research and practice: What we learn about fraud from other disciplines. Accounting Horizons, 28(4), 769–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Fundraising (2019). Five small charities win 2019 small charity big impact awards [Online]. Retrieved August 11, 2021, from: https://fundraising.co.uk/2019/06/21/five-small-charities-win-2019-small-charity-big-impact-awards/#.XZ3uBUYzYdU

  • Valentinov, V., & Iliopoulos, C. (2013). Economic theories of nonprofits and agricultural cooperatives compared: New perspectives for nonprofit scholars. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, H. (2018). Financial fraud, scandals, and regulation: A conceptual framework and literature review. Business History, 61(8), 1259–1299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Iwaarden, J., Van Der Wiele, T., Williams, R., & Moxham, C. (2009). Charities: how important is performance to donors? International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 26(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct and disaster. Annual Review Of Sociology, 25(1), 271–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 33(3), 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walliman, N. (2006). Social research methods. SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, L., Weber, L. R., & Carter, A. I. (2003). The social construction of trust. Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wong, J., & Ortmann, A. (2016). Do donors care about the price of giving? A review of the evidence, with some theory to organise it. Volunta:s International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 958–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Priem, R. L., & Rasheed, A. A. (2005). The antecedents and consequences of top management fraud. Journal of Management, 31(6), 803–828.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK

    Saffet A. Uygur & Christopher J. Napier

Authors
  1. Saffet A. Uygur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher J. Napier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saffet A. Uygur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uygur, S.A., Napier, C.J. Understanding Fraud in the Not-For-Profit Sector: A Stakeholder Perspective for Charities. J Bus Ethics 190, 569–588 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05373-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05373-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation