The influence of organisational culture on corporate accountants' ethical judgement and ethical intention in Vietnam

Abstract

Purpose

This research examines the impact of organisational culture on the ethical judgement and ethical intention of corporate accountants in Vietnam.

Design/methodology/approach

The study relies on survey data collected from 283 practising accountants in Vietnam. Organisational culture was measured using the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument, developed by Cameron and Quinn (2011). The Instrument is developed based on the competing values framework comprised of four distinct cultures: clan, hierarchy, market and adhocracy. Ethical judgement and ethical intention were measured based on respondent responses to five ethical scenarios, each linked to a principle of professional conduct in the code of ethics.

Findings

The findings indicate that the clan culture (family oriented) is dominant and has a significant positive influence on accountants' ethical judgement and ethical intention. Respondents in the clan culture evaluate scenarios more ethically compared with accountants in the adhocracy and market cultures but not the hierarchy culture. Accountants who emphasise the adhocracy and market cultures display a more relaxed attitude towards unethical scenarios whereas respondents in the hierarchy culture (rule oriented) display the highest ethical attitude.

Research limitations/implications

The code of ethics, its content and how it is interpreted and applied may differ between professions, organisations or cultures.

Originality/value

Organisational research on ethical decision-making is ample but few studies link organisational culture with ethical judgement and ethical intention from the perspective of individual accountants.

Citation

Nguyen, L.A., Dellaportas, S., Vesty, G.M., Pham, V.A.T., Jandug, L. and Tsahuridu, E. (2022), "The influence of organisational culture on corporate accountants' ethical judgement and ethical intention in Vietnam", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 325-354. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2020-4573