内部审计与腐败:一个独立的逻辑还是对主流逻辑的规避?

Anderson Luiz Ara Souza, A. Ryngelblum, C. A. Rimoli
{"title":"内部审计与腐败:一个独立的逻辑还是对主流逻辑的规避?","authors":"Anderson Luiz Ara Souza, A. Ryngelblum, C. A. Rimoli","doi":"10.5935/2177-4153.20190016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the establishment of specific norms to deter corruption, it continues to be a challenge for both public agencies and private organizations. In this context, this paper sought to understand how control bodies – among which stands the Internal Audit (IA) – are circumvented, or whether corruption constitutes a logic on its own, with its practices and values. The multiple logic concepts assume that context participants follow at each situation a prescription set defined by a specific logic. Thus, they have to somehow explain their non-compliance with the practices and norms of the logic not being followed. A research was conducted with internal and external audits, and Brazilian control agencies in the financial field to examine the models that analyze this behavior. The results suggest that market logic, reflected in the organization’s prioritization of economic performance, tends to prevail in various situations over public logic. This article sheds light on how financial organizations make use of institutional strategies to handle the conflict and maintain their legitimacy in relation to the public logic, by circumventing its prescriptions, which many times lead them to practice corrupt acts.","PeriodicalId":191183,"journal":{"name":"Revista Capital Científico - Eletrônica","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The internal audit and corruption: a logic on its own or the circumvention of\\n prevailing logics?\",\"authors\":\"Anderson Luiz Ara Souza, A. Ryngelblum, C. A. Rimoli\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/2177-4153.20190016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the establishment of specific norms to deter corruption, it continues to be a challenge for both public agencies and private organizations. In this context, this paper sought to understand how control bodies – among which stands the Internal Audit (IA) – are circumvented, or whether corruption constitutes a logic on its own, with its practices and values. The multiple logic concepts assume that context participants follow at each situation a prescription set defined by a specific logic. Thus, they have to somehow explain their non-compliance with the practices and norms of the logic not being followed. A research was conducted with internal and external audits, and Brazilian control agencies in the financial field to examine the models that analyze this behavior. The results suggest that market logic, reflected in the organization’s prioritization of economic performance, tends to prevail in various situations over public logic. This article sheds light on how financial organizations make use of institutional strategies to handle the conflict and maintain their legitimacy in relation to the public logic, by circumventing its prescriptions, which many times lead them to practice corrupt acts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":191183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Capital Científico - Eletrônica\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Capital Científico - Eletrônica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-4153.20190016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Capital Científico - Eletrônica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/2177-4153.20190016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管制定了遏制腐败的具体规范,但对公共机构和私人组织来说,这仍然是一个挑战。在此背景下,本文试图了解控制机构(其中包括内部审计机构)是如何被绕过的,或者腐败是否具有其实践和价值本身构成一种逻辑。多重逻辑概念假设上下文参与者在每种情况下都遵循由特定逻辑定义的处方集。因此,他们必须以某种方式解释他们不遵守没有遵循的逻辑的实践和规范。与内部和外部审计机构以及巴西金融领域的控制机构进行了一项研究,以检查分析这种行为的模型。结果表明,反映在组织经济绩效优先级上的市场逻辑在各种情况下往往比公共逻辑占上风。本文揭示了金融机构如何利用制度策略来处理冲突,并通过规避其处方来保持其与公共逻辑相关的合法性,这些处方经常导致他们实施腐败行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The internal audit and corruption: a logic on its own or the circumvention of prevailing logics?
Despite the establishment of specific norms to deter corruption, it continues to be a challenge for both public agencies and private organizations. In this context, this paper sought to understand how control bodies – among which stands the Internal Audit (IA) – are circumvented, or whether corruption constitutes a logic on its own, with its practices and values. The multiple logic concepts assume that context participants follow at each situation a prescription set defined by a specific logic. Thus, they have to somehow explain their non-compliance with the practices and norms of the logic not being followed. A research was conducted with internal and external audits, and Brazilian control agencies in the financial field to examine the models that analyze this behavior. The results suggest that market logic, reflected in the organization’s prioritization of economic performance, tends to prevail in various situations over public logic. This article sheds light on how financial organizations make use of institutional strategies to handle the conflict and maintain their legitimacy in relation to the public logic, by circumventing its prescriptions, which many times lead them to practice corrupt acts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信