Financial statement fraud remains a persistent threat to the integrity of global capital markets despite extensive auditing standards and regulatory reforms. This study systematically reviews literature on external auditors' responsibilities in fraud detection and evaluates why significant audit failures continue to occur. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses framework, 1,232 studies were initially identified from Google Scholar and Crossref, of which 32 studies published between 2002 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria. The findings reveal a persistent expectation and performance gap between auditing standards, particularly ISA 240, and actual audit practice. Although auditors are required to obtain reasonable assurance that financial statements are free from material misstatement due to fraud, high profile corporate failures such as Enron, Wirecard, Carillion and Steinhoff demonstrate recurring deficiencies in fraud detection. The synthesis identifies four dominant factors influencing audit effectiveness: regulatory environment, auditor independence, professional competence and scepticism, and the complexity of fraud schemes. The review further shows that audit failures are driven not only by technical limitations but also by behavioural biases, institutional pressures and increasing fraud sophistication. Regulatory reforms such as the Sarbanes Oxley Act and CLERP 9 have improved compliance but have not eliminated audit deficiencies. The study contributes a multidimensional conceptual framework integrating behavioural, institutional and technological perspectives to explain persistent audit failures. It concludes that improving fraud detection requires a shift from compliance based auditing toward a more integrated approach that combines behavioural insight, enhanced professional training and advanced audit technologies such as artificial intelligence and data analytics.
E. Ocansey, Emmanuel Peprah· International journal of bus...· 0 citations
Purpose: This study examined the influence of risk on procurement in public institutions in Africa through a systematic meta-analysis of over 70 peer-reviewed and grey literature sources published between 2000 and 2025.
Methodology: The research synthesized both quantitative and qualitative evidence to identify dominant procurement risks, assess their effect sizes, and evaluate heterogeneity across countries.
Findings: The analysis revealed that corruption risks exert the strongest influence on procurement outcomes, with a pooled effect size of r = 0.62. Corruption manifested in bid rigging, inflated pricing, favoritism, and political patronage, eroding trust and inflating costs. Contract management risks (r = 0.55) and governance risks (r = 0.52) also emerged as significant, reflecting challenges in contract enforcement, monitoring, accountability, and political interference. Operational risks (r = 0.48), such as delays and supply chain inefficiencies, and technological risks (r = 0.41), linked to e-procurement adoption, were found to be moderately influential but increasingly relevant. Heterogeneity analysis demonstrated that procurement risks vary contextually: South Africa’s risks were tied to elite capture within strong legal systems, Ghana and Tanzania struggled with weak enforcement, and Nigeria faced diffuse governance-related risks.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Policy and Practice: This study integrates agency, principal–agent, institutional, governance, and risk management theories into one analytical lens, empirically quantifying and ranking procurement risks by effect size while theorizing their interdependence as a systemic, self-reinforcing phenomenon adapted to African contexts. For policy, it offers an evidence-based hierarchy for sequencing reform and supports context-sensitive, integrated interventions over one-size-fits-all fixes. For practice, it highlights layered preventive, detective, and corrective controls, stronger contract oversight, capacity-building, and carefully managed e-procurement adoption. Collectively, it reframes procurement risk reduction as a developmental imperative central to transparency, accountability, and sustainable development across the continent.
E. Ackom, E. Ocansey· Journal of Accountancy· 0 citations