Article Sidebar

Download
Statistic
Read Counter : 18

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose: This study analyses the factors causing and the impacts of business ethics violations at state-owned business.
Method: a qualitative descriptive case study was conducted using secondary data from audit reports, court decisions, and media coverage.
Results: findings show that pressure, opportunity, and rationalisation drive ethical violations, causing state losses and corporate reputational damage
Novelty: Integrating the fraud triangle theory and stakeholder theory offers a new lens for understanding misconduct in state-owned enterprises.
Contribution: The study supports stronger ethical governance and accountability mechanisms to prevent future ethical violations in Indonesia’s state-owned business sector.


Abstrak: Pelanggaran Etika Bisnis Dalam BUMN: Integrasi Fraud Triangle Dan Stakeholder Theory
Tujuan: Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis faktor penyebab dan dampak pelanggaran etika bisnis pada perusahaan milik negara.
Metode: Penelitian menggunakan studi kasus deskriptif kualitatif dengan data sekunder berupa laporan audit, putusan pengadilan, dan pemberitaan media.
Hasil: Hasil menunjukkan tekanan, peluang, dan rasionalisasi menjadi pemicu utama pelanggaran etika yang menyebabkan tekanan, peluang, dan rasionalisasi menjadi pemicu utama pelanggaran etika yang menyebabkan kerugian negara dan menurunkan reputasi perusahaan.
Kebaruan: Integrasi fraud triangle theory dan stakeholder theory juga memberikan perspektif baru dalam memahami pelanggaran etika pada perusahaan milik negara.
Kontribusi: Penelitian ini berkontribusi dalam memperkuat tata kelola etika dan akuntabilitas di perusahaan milik negara untuk mencegah pelanggaran di masa depan.

Keywords

BUMN Business Ethics Corporate Governance Case Study Ethical Violations

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Teguh Setiawan, Gita Riaulina Sitorus, Henny Lestari Br Sembiring, Aqila Parahita Putri, Anak Agung Gde Satia Utama

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Andriyana, H., & Trisnaningsih, S. (2022). Analisis Pelanggaran Etika dan Kode Etik Profesi Akuntan di Era Persaingan yang Kompetitif (Studi Kasus PT. Garuda Indonesia (Persero), Tbk.). Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan Dan Kemasyarakatan, 16(6), 2304–2318. https://doi.org/10.35931/aq.v16i6.1568
  2. ANTARA News. (2020, Desember 15). Jaksa KPK beberkan 41 proyek PT Waskita Karya yang dinilai fiktif. Diakses 17 November 2025, dari https://www.antaranews.com/berita/1888604/jaksa-kpk-beberkan-41-proyek-pt-waskita-karya-yang-dinilai-fiktif
  3. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  4. CNBC Indonesia. (2022, Desember 7). Saham Waskita (WSKT) jeblok nyaris 5%, gegara korupsi? Diakses 17 November 2025, dari https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/research/20221207142354-128-394608/saham-waskita--wskt--jeblok-nyaris-5-gegara-korupsi
  5. Cressey, D. R. Other people's money: A study of the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press; 1953.
  6. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2016.
  7. Dunn, P., & Sainty, B. (2020). Professionalism in accounting: a five-factor model of ethical decision-making. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-11-2017-0240
  8. Espinosa-Pike, M., & Barrainkua, I. (2020). Professional accountants in Spain: a comparative study of ethical and professional values. Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad, 49(2), 234–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/02102412.2019.1620491
  9. Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (2005). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. The Blackwell handbook of strategic management, 183-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9780631218616.2006.00007.x
  10. Hubais, A. S. A., Kadir, M. R. A., & Bilal, Z. O. (2023). The Impact of Auditor’s Independence, Ethics, and Competency in Audit Quality: Using Auditor’s Integrity as a Mediator in the Sultanate of Oman. WSEAS Transactions on Computer Research, 11, 440–449. https://doi.org/10.37394/232018.2023.11.40
  11. Hukumonline. (2020, Juli 24). Ini 5 tersangka baru proyek infrastruktur fiktif di Waskita Karya. Diakses 17 November 2025, dari https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/ini-5-tersangka-baru-proyek-infrastruktur-fiktif-di-waskita-karya-lt5f1a8fa11689b/
  12. Ishaque, M. (2021). Managing Conflict of Interests in Professional Accounting Firms. Source: Journal of Business Ethics, 169(3), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.2307/48755329
  13. Investor.id. (2023, November 23). BEI ingatkan potensi delisting Waskita Karya (WSKT). Diakses 17 November 2025, dari https://www.ipotnews.com/ipotnews/newsDetail.php?group_news=RESEARCHNEWS&halaman=1&jdl=BEI_Ingatkan_Potensi_Delisting_Waskita_Karya_%28WSKT%29&news_id=434044
  14. Kiradoo, G. (2020). Ethics in Accounting: Analysis of Current Financial Failures and Role of Accountants. International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(2), 241–247. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=11&IType=2JournalImpactFactor
  15. Lokanan, M. E. (2015). Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness. Accounting Forum, 39(3), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2015.05.002
  16. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2022, 22 Februari). Putusan No. 944 K/Pid.Sus/2022 tentang tindak pidana korupsi proyek infrastruktur fiktif PT Waskita Karya (Persero) Tbk. Direktorat Putusan MA. Diakses 17 November 2025, dari https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/download_file/6831676f552a28119a517adb06e9fdae/zip/zaeed2262b488546af63313533333037
  17. Maulidi, A. (2020). When and why (honest) people commit fraudulent behaviours?: Extending the fraud triangle as a predictor of fraudulent behaviours. Journal of Financial Crime, 27(2), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-05-2019-0058
  18. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2014.
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.01.006
  20. Onumah, R. M., Simpson, S. N. Y., & Kwarteng, A. (2022). The effects of personal and organisational attributes on ethical attitudes of professional accountants: evidence from Ghana. Journal of Global Responsibility, 13(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-04-2021-0041
  21. Payne, D. M., Corey, C., Raiborn, C., & Zingoni, M. (2020). An applied code of ethics model for decision-making in the accounting profession. Management Research Review, 43(9), 1117–1134. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2018-0380
  22. Rachmawati, A., Kuang, T. M., Kwang En, T., Meythi, M., & Marpaung, E. I. (2025). Building financial reporting quality through ethics, authenticity, and leadership: a study in Indonesia. Cogent Business and Management, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2523414
  23. Rahmawati, N., & Kassim, A. A. M. (2020). Fraud triangle theory and accounting irregularities: A conceptual framework. Selangor Business Review, 55-64.
  24. Rogošić, A., & Perica, I. (2023). Affective professional commitment and accounting ethics principles: examining the mediating role of the code of ethics. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 36(1), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2077791
  25. Romero-Carazas, R., Chávez-Díaz, J. M., Ochoa-Tataje, F. A., Segovia-Abarca, E., Monterroso-Unuysuncco, I., Ocupa-Julca, N., Chávez-Choque, M. E., & Bernedo-Moreira, D. H. (2024). The Ethics of the Public Accountant: A Phenomenological Study. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 13(1), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2024-0025
  26. Said, J., Alam, M. M., Ramli, M., & Rafidi, M. (2017). Integrating ethical values into fraud triangle theory in assessing employee fraud: Evidence from the Malaysian banking industry. Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-2/13
  27. Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2016). The Fraud Triangle revisited. Security Journal, 29(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2013.1
  28. Sripan, M., & Wisaeng, K. (2022). Competencies of accounting professionals and quality of financial reporting: evidence from enterprises in thailand. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 10(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.18488/73.v10i2.2957
  29. Tickner, P., & Button, M. (2020). Deconstructing the origins of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle. In Journal of Financial Crime (Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 722–731). Emerald Group Holdings Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-10-2020-0204
  30. Van Helden, J., Budding, T., Guarini, E., & Pattaro, A. F. (2025). Ethics of accounting information manipulation in local government: opportunism or selfishness? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 54, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2025.107356
  31. West, A. (2017). The ethics of professional accountants: an Aristotelian perspective. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 30(2), 328–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2015-2233