Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions

Kabuye, Frank; Alinda, Kassim; Bugambiro, Nicholas; Kezaabu, Saphurah Article Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Kabuye, Frank; Alinda, Kassim; Bugambiro, Nicholas; Kezaabu, Saphurah (2021) : Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 8, Iss. 1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/245080 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oabm20 Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions Frank Kabuye, Kassim Alinda, Nicholas Bugambiro & Saphurah Kezaabu | To cite this article: Frank Kabuye, Kassim Alinda, Nicholas Bugambiro & Saphurah Kezaabu | (2021) Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions, Cogent Business & Management, 8:1, 1944960, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 02 Jul 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 495 View related articles View Crossmark data ACCOUNTING, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & BUSINESS ETHICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions Frank Kabuye 1 *, Kassim Alinda 1 , Nicholas Bugambiro 1 and Saphurah Kezaabu 1 Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine the role of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces in strengthening internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) in microfinance institutions (MFIs). This study is cross-sectional and correlational. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey of 66 MFIs that are members of the Association of Microfinance Institutions of Uganda (AMFIU). Both intellectual capital and isomorphic forces positively and significantly contribute to the strength of ICFR. In terms of control variables, ownership structure, capital structure and firm age are not significant predictors of ICFR. Policy-wise, the regulator(s) of MFIs should always issue-specific and time-bound directives to MFIs with ICFR shortfalls to enhance their control environment. Also, the responsibility of maintaining adequate ICFR should be extended to the management of MFIs by tasking them to account for lapses in ICFR. This would reduce incidences of senior management usurping the powers of the board, which would lead to overriding of ICFR. Also, policies should be specific on the composition of the board to improve its ABOUT THE AUTHORS Frank Kabuye is a Lecturer in the Department of Accounting, Makerere University Business School. He holds a degree of Master of Science in Accounting and Finance and Bachelor of Business Administration of Makerere University. His research interests are in the areas of auditing, accounting, risk management and finance. Kassim Alinda is a Lecturer/Scholar of Accounting and Finance and a PhD student of energy, economics and governance at Makerere University Business School. Nicholas Bugambiro is a Teaching Assistant in the Department of Accounting, Makerere University Business School. He holds a degree of Bachelor of Science in Accounting of Makerere University. Saphurah Kezaabu is a Teaching Assistant in the Department of Accounting, Makerere University Business School. She holds a degree of Master of Science in Accounting and Finance of Makerere University. Her research interests are in the areas of integrated reporting, corporate governance, taxation, financial reporting, and auditing. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) are the first line of defence against financial reporting risks. ICFR entails policies designed to provide reasonable assurance that an entity’s financial statements are prepared following the applicable financial reporting framework and other relevant laws and regulations. Nonetheless, Ugandan MFIs continue to operate with weak ICFRs, which cost them a lot through fraud losses and inaccurate financial reporting. For example, according to the Bank of Uganda Annual Supervisory report (2020), there is a disconnect between approved policies such as those related to ICFR, MFI operating environment and the actual business practices in MFIs. This has partly exacerbated the incidence and materiality of internally perpetuated or assisted frauds in MFIs. Since MFIs are public interest organizations, this study indicates that their ICFR can be strengthened by intellectual capital and isomorphic forces. Thus, MFI regulators ought to issue specific and time-bound directives to MFIs to enhance their control environment for better ICFR. Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 1 of 23 Received: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 15 June 2021 *Corresponding author: Frank Kabuye, Department of Accounting, Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Collins G. Ntim, Accounting, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. intellectual potential. To the authors’ knowledge, this study provides initial empirical evidence of the influence of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces in strengthening ICFR in MFIs using evidence from a developing African country. Overall, this study found that intellectual capital (entity factor) and isomorphic forces (institutional factors) are all predictors of ICFR. This is possible because managers, employees and those charged with governance of the entity can be influenced by institutional forces that affect ICFR positively. Subjects: Business, Management and Accounting; Accounting Education; Financial Accounting Keywords: Internal controls over financial reporting; intellectual capital; isomorphic forces; Microfinance institutions; Uganda 1. Introduction Internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) are continuously being accentuated as a mechanism for improving the quality of financial reporting (Jokipii, 2009; Nalukenge et al., 2017; Rubino & Vitolla, 2014). This is because ICFR are viewed as the first line of defence against financial reporting risks (IIA, 2013; Krishnan et al., 2020). More so, they are policies designed to ensure proper documentation of accounting information. Indeed effective ICFR provide reasonable assurance that an entity’s financial statements are prepared following the applicable financial reporting framework and other relevant laws and regulations (Lari Dashtbayaz et al., 2019). Across entities, the ICFR includes employment of certified public accountants in accounting functions, proper documentation of transactions, supervision of accounting personnel, proper authorisation and approval of transactions, reconciliations, segregation of duties and others (Gao & Zhang, 2019; Doyle et al., 2007). To that end, Lari Dashtbayaz et al. (2019) confirm that weaknesses in the aforementioned ICFR decrease the quality of financial reporting since they provide managers with opportunities to manipulate the financial information (Nalukenge et al., 2017). Globally, emerging market trends indicate a near-universal adoption of robotic process automation lens (RPA) in the next 5 years within the accounting and financial systems for transaction processing, accounts closure, consolidation and financial reporting (Deloitte 2017 RPA survey). However, for RPA’s to be successfully adopted in firms such as the MFI’s there must be an embedment of effective ICFR in the transaction systems (Deloitte, 2018). Thus, there is a need to strengthen ICFR in organisations. The current study explores mechanisms of strengthening ICFR in Ugandan MFIs. Because studies by Nalukenge et al. (2017) and the DFID (2007) indicate that MFIs in Uganda have weak ICFR. Also, Duggan (2016) reports that, even though Uganda has one of the deepest and most competitive landscapes for microfinance in sub-Saharan Africa, it still has few effective policies and procedures for its clientele and lenders. As such, there is a myriad of continued calls for increasing internal controls management, data collection, monitoring, and regulation of the microfinance sector in Uganda to improve its effectiveness (AMFIU Directory, 2020; Uganda Microfinance Sector Effectiveness Review, 2014). Further still, weak ICFR have diversely affected Ugandan MFIs. Indeed, Duggan (2016) indicates that hitherto, theft and fraud in a few microfinance institutions led to a large-scale crisis and contributed to a precipitous decline in trust in the financial sector as a whole. For example, according to the Bank of Uganda Annual Supervisory report (2020), there is a disconnect between approved policies such as those related to ICFR, MFI operating environment, and the actual business practices in MFIs. This has partly exacerbated the incidence and materiality of internally perpetuated or assisted frauds in MFIs. These facts are likely to be pervasive to most MFIs (AMFIU Directory, 2020; Mugisa 2017), though little has been reported since the majority of players in the microfinance sector choose not to report such incidents owing to the perception of their prevalence and impact in the sector (Kabuye et al., 2017). Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 2 of 23 Previously, Nalukenge et al. (2017) examined the contribution of corporate governance factors (board role performance, expertise, independence, separation of CEO and chairman roles, and AMFIU membership) on ICFR in Ugandan MFIs and explained only 63.5% variance in ICFR. Implying that other organisational and institutional factors could explain the remaining variance in ICFR in Ugandan MFIs. MFIs are public interest organizations in Uganda because they provide savings and credit facilities to their clients (ICPAU, 2016). In this regard, they are expected to maintain a strong ICFR to ensure reliable reporting and accountability (Jokipii, 2009). Otherwise, weak ICFR in MFIs lead to errors, frauds, and omissions which continue occurring for a long period without being detected (DFID, 2007; Gao & Zhang, 2019; Kabuye et al., 2017). Also, MFIs have low-staffing levels that make ICFR such as segregation of duties non operational. Accordingly, it is common for an individual to initiate a transaction, authorize and approve it, and also make a payment which could increase frauds such as teeming and lading. Furthermore, MFI management and board which are mandated with overseeing the ICFR effectiveness, are not independent, they lack the technical capacity and their CEOs and chairmen roles are not separate (DFID, 2007). Thus, with the increasing academic and practitioners concerns over weak ICFR, it is timely to explore further mechanisms that can strengthen ICFR in MFIs. According to the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) framework, an effective internal control system comprises of five interrelated components that are as follows: the control environment, risk assessment process, information system and communication, control activities and monitoring of internal controls COSO framework (ERM, 2004). Though the COSO framework provides broad guidance regarding internal control components, it leaves the implementation details of those components to the adopting firm (Kim et al., 2021; Länsiluoto et al., 2016; Paape & Spekle, 2012). We believe that since MFIs operate in a wide financial institutions sector, their implementation decisions of the ICFR are likely to be influenced by the institutional forces. Institutional forces explain how elements such as those of the ICFR are created, adopted, diffused and adapted over space and time (Musimenta et al., 2017; Scott, 2004). Thus, we argue that since managers and those charged with governance of MFIs have absolute responsibility of designing, implementing, and maintaining a strong system of ICFR, it is likely that their intellectual capital capability and the influence of isomorphic forces will influence their decisions towards implementing ICFR. Whether this is an acceptable consideration has previously remained an empirical question, which we answer in this study. Research on the role of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces in strengthening ICFR is sparse. Yet, Choi et al. (2013) indicate that investments in human resources which is part of human capital a dimension of intellectual capital are valuable in determining the strength of a firm’s ICFR. With this in mind, we believe that intellectual capital, which comprises relational capital, human capital, and structural capital (Kaawaase et al., 2019; Bananuka et al., 2019; Nkundabanyanga, 2016; Rezaei and Mousavi, 2015; Kalkan et al., 2014; Kamukama, 2013; Bontis, 2001:Bontis et al., 2000), is likely to strengthen ICFR. Since ICFRs are likely to operate well in an environment where they are regarded as being important (International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 315 Revised, 2019). Such favourable ICFR environments can be ensured through strengthening relational, human and structural capital which elevates communication and enforcement of integrity and ethical values; improves commitment to competence; increases participation by those charged with governance; leads to better management of operating style and organisational structure, among others. Isomorphic forces which entail that entities in similar positions face similar circumstances, and they respond alike (Amoako et al., 2017), can inspire leaders of MFIs to strengthen their ICFR. This is because isomorphism is a pressuring process that compels managers and those charged with governance to act like or better than other firms in the industry (Bananuka et al., 2019), or else remain isolated in operations. Indeed, isomorphic forces such as lenders requirements, regulations, and the need to upgrade MFIs services (Nalukenge et al., 2017), can influence MFIs to strengthen their ICFR as a plausible mechanism of protecting their customers, investors, and the overall entity’s interests (Kosgei et al., 2014). Duggan (2016) also reports that reasonable research on challenging behaviour by MFIs has been done by qualitative research Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 3 of 23 design which is less easy to generalise (Creswell, 2003). Overall, the impact of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces on the components of ICFR has remained an escalating academic, regulatory and practitioners’ concern, thus this study fills the void quantitatively. While a study by Nalukenge et al. (2017), about corporate governance and ICFR over financial reporting was conducted on Ugandan MFIs, it did not examine the possibility of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces as jointly affecting the strength of ICFR. The authors continue to call for more research in the area of ICFR. Similarly, this study responds to calls for further research examining the influence of organisational, institutional and personal factors towards the effectiveness of internal controls and internal control structures (Länsiluoto et al., 2016). In the current study, we, therefore, investigate the role of intellectual capital (as an entity factor) and isomorphic forces (as an inter-institutional factor) in strengthening ICFR in MFIs in an emerging economy. This was achieved by a questionnaire survey of 66 MFIs that are members of the Association of Microfinance Institutions of Uganda (AMFIU). Results of the study suggest that both intellectual capital and isomorphic forces significantly strengthen ICFR in MFIs. This study has significant implications for academia, policymakers and the public. First, the study adds to the body of existing knowledge on ICFR, especially the MFIs which have rarely been studied. Second, we provide initial empirical evidence of the contribution of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces on the strength of ICFR in a developing economic setting. Third, this study alerts management and those charged with governance of MFIs, the Government and the funders on what matters in ensuring the performance and survival of MFIs through strong ICFR. Finally, the study highlights the importance of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces within the microfinance arena. 2. Background This study was carried out in Uganda—a developing country in East Africa along the equator. Like in other emerging economies, Uganda’s microfinance sub-sector of the financial institutions’ sector is still growing. The financial institutions in Uganda are classified into four tiers where Tier I are the commercial banks, Tier II—credit and finance companies, Tier III—central bank–regulated microfinance institutions and Tier IV—institutions are not regulated by the central bank (Bank of Uganda). In particular, MFIs are in Tier III and IV, and these have the largest number of institutions in the financial institution’s subsector in Uganda (AMFIU Directory, 2020). The tier structure recognizes MFIs at varying levels of development with capitalization levels and the development efforts need to be well coordinated to take advantage of the different structures. According to the Bank of Uganda Financial Stability Report (“2019), total assets held by Micro Deposit-Taking Institutions (MDIs) increased to UGX 642.3 billion from UGX 562.2 billion largely due to growth in gross loans by UGX 55.2 billion and fixed assets by UGX 14.9 billion. “In May 2016, the Tier IV Microfinance Institutions and Moneylenders Act were passed by the Parliament of Uganda to effectively govern the Tier IV financial institutions and Money Lenders to protect the savings of the depositors, limiting predatory lending and unethical practices, and building confidence in the system to promote financial inclusion” (Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA) Website (2020)). “Subsequently in 2017, the UMRA board was inaugurated (AMFIU Directory, 2020). UMRA is mandated to promote a sound and sustainable nonbank financial institution’s sector (savings and credit cooperatives, village saving and loan associations, non-deposit taking microfinance institutions and moneylenders) to enhance financial inclusion, financial stability, and financial consumer protection among the clients” (Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA) Website, 2020). We believe that UMRA can successfully achieve this mandate through advocating for strong ICFR in MFIs. Institutions under Tier I, II and III are regulated by the Bank of Uganda. Tier III MFIs are deposit-taking institutions, regulated under the Micro Deposit-Taking Institutions Act (MDI) of 2003, by the Central Bank of Uganda. Under the MDI Act, the board is required to ensure and report to shareholders at the AGM whether adequate ICFR have been maintained to provide reasonable assurance as to the integrity and Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 4 of 23 reliability of the financial statements. Moreover, the MDI Act necessitates the independent external auditor to alert and report to the board all the ICFR weaknesses. In turn, these could be categorised as isomorphic forces towards the strengthening of ICFR in MFIs. Tier IV MFIs are regulated by the Tier 4 Micro Finance Institutions and money lenders Act of 2016 and specific laws such, the Companies Act of 2012, Cooperatives Act of 1991, and the NGO Act of 2016 depending on the legal form of the MFI. For MFIs that are incorporated as companies, they are regulated by the Companies Act of 2012. Although the Act is not clear on the role of the board towards ICFR. Nevertheless, it reveals that the statement of financial position has to be signed and approved by two board members on behalf of the board. We, therefore, anticipate that MFIs in Tier 4 will have a weak ICFR. For the cooperative Act, the responsibility of the board relative to the ICFR is also not obvious like in the MDI Act. The internal control structure of MFIs in Uganda consists of the systems, structures, or processes, implemented by a firm’s board of directors, management and other personnel, intended to provide reasonable assurance about achieving entity’s control objectives such as effectiveness and efficiency of operations; reliability of financial reporting and compliance with applicable laws and regulations (Pride Microfinance, 2019). This is due to the increasing attention on MFI operations and their significance in the financial systems of developing countries such as Uganda. An appropriate internal control structure is imperative for each organisation. For a typical MFI in Uganda, internal controls are directed towards discouraging fraud and negligence, detection of violations of rules, regulations and policies at an early stage, fostering efficient operations and efficient use of human and technical resources, and assisting subsidiary management at all levels in controlling and guiding staff and operations, with the aim of performance improvement. In Uganda, Tier III and Tier IV MFIs are mandated to have boards of directors to oversee the effectiveness of ICFR (AMFIU Directory, 2020; Ssekiziyivu et al., 2018; Kabuye, Kato, Akugizibwe & Bugambiro, 2019). Also, MFIs are supposed to have documented policy manuals for finance, human sources, IT, board and other relevant transaction systems to ensure streamlined operations(Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA) Website, 2020). The existence of boards, the regulatory framework and the internal policies and functions make Ugandan MFIs well-constituted to implement the sophisticated internal control systems. This study specifically gathered data from the Association of Microfinance Institutions of Uganda (AMFIU) member MFIs in Uganda. AMFIU was formed in 1996 as an umbrella body for MFIs in Uganda committed to promoting professionalism in the sector. AMFIU is missioned to promote a professional, inclusive and responsive microfinance industry that contributes to the transformation of livelihoods of Ugandans. In Uganda, MFIs are organizations that offer financial services to low-income populations. Almost all give loans to their members, and many offer insurance, deposit and other services. A great scale of organizations is regarded as microfinance institutions. Uganda's microfinance industry has witnessed significant growth over the years (Nalukenge et al., 2018). This growth has been enabled partly due to the enabling economic and regulatory environment as aforementioned. Nonetheless, despite the above economic and regulatory environment, MFIs still face ICFR weaknesses (AMFIU Directory, 2020, 2017/2018; Nalukenge et al., 2017:World Bank, 2014). Thus, this study is timed to fill the empirical gap on the mechanisms of strengthening ICFR in Ugandan MFIs. 3. Theoretical literature review This study employs resource-based theory (Barney, 1991), dynamic capabilities (DC) theory (Teece et al., 1997), and institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) to explain the contribution of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces, respectively, on the strength of ICFR in MFIs. Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 5 of 23 3.1. Resource-based theory and dynamic capabilities (DC) theory The relationship between intellectual capital and ICFR in this study is explained by the resource-based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991) and dynamic capabilities (DC) theory (Teece et al., 1997). RBV focuses on strategic resources a firm can exploit to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. In this case, strong ICFR can be regarded as a source of competitive advantage (Jokipii, 2009). As such, intellectual capital as a strategic resource can guide in establishing a suitable ICFR to achieve the anticipated competitive advantage. This is possible because Barney (1991) reveals that firms always have resources that are peculiar, rare, heterogeneously present and inimitable and that can be used to drive performance even of strong ICFRs. As a result, RBV proposes that a firm should focus on its resources rather than the external environment. Such organisational resources comprise both intangible resources (intellectual capital) and tangible/physical capital (Kaawaase et al., 2019). Since MFIs are expected to have intangible resources in the form of intellectual capital components that are human, structural and relational capital, this examines their contribution to strong ICFR. However, due to its static nature, the RBV was found wanting (Williamson, 1999), and as a result, the DC concept was introduced to help firms succeed with their resources in the dynamic and turbulent operating environment (Teece et al., 1997). The dynamic and turbulent environments call for changes in strategy and existing resources to gain and maintain a competitive advantage. Therefore, RBV and DC show that MFI managers and those charged with governance are supposed to keep monitoring the changes in the environment and adequately respond (Teece, 2007), by strengthening their ICFR to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage. 3.2. Institutional theory According to institutional theory, organisations must adhere to the rules and systems prevailing in the environment to survive (Scott, 1995; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Institutional theory is used to explain the influence of isomorphic forces in this study. This is because isomorphic forces are compelling processes that force a unit in a population to resemble other units that are exposed to the same environmental conditions (DiMaggio and Powell,1991). DiMaggio and Powell (1991) identify three categories of isomorphic forces which are pertinent in explaining the strengthening of ICFR in institutions. The first type of isomorphism is coercive isomorphism which denotes forces on an institution from related institutions and the cultural expectations from the society (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). In this case, since MFIs are public interest institutions (ICPAU, 2016) their clients and regulators can force them to strengthen their ICFR. This attracts clients to continue dealing with them since they will have met their expectations. In addition, AMFIU, UMRA, UCSCU and the central bank may also have an upper hand in forcing MFIs to strengthen their ICFR. Indeed, Nalukenge et al. (2017) found a significant positive contribution of AMFIU membership on ICFR. Additionally, international agencies that provide aid to emerging economies and the Government through the Ministry of Trade can also force MFIs to strengthen their ICFR. The second isomorphic force is a mimetic isomorphism. This refers to the imitation of other institutions regarded as more legitimate and successful (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991) for instance, MFIs may imitate what other financial institutions such as commercial banks, insurance firms and credit institutions are doing to strengthen their ICFR. This is because they believe the ICFR of those other institutions are stronger. Finally, normative isomorphism refers to the change motivated by forces caused by the level of education and professionalism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). In this case, the level of professionalism in a given firm can influence organizational practices such as maintaining strong ICFR (Berthod, 2016). According to Oradi, Asiaei & Rezaee (2019) CEOs' financial expertise significantly reduce internal control weaknesses. Similarly, Nalukenge et al. (2017) reported that board expertise is a significant and positive predictor of the ICFR. Equally important, the level of educational attainment among the organizational managers, boards and workers can provide a competent human capital base, through which facilitating infrastructure, processes and databases can be assembled to enable human capital to function well and also develop associations with external agents such as accountancy regulatory bodies to Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 6 of 23 strengthen ICFR. Thus, this shows that IC components of human capital, structural capital and relational capital can be enhanced by institutional theory through normative isomorphism. Correspondingly, Berthod (2016) indicates that institutional theory exposes organisations to the analyses of their design and conduct. This suggests that organizations have differing rules, beliefs, and norms that make them. Organizations will thus adhere to different rules and belief systems prevailing in the environment to reduce uncertainty, gain acceptability, and increase unambiguousness of their actions and activities (Bananuka et al., 2019; Berthod, 2016). In addition, organisations will adhere to institutional pressures to gain legitimacy. In the same way, since organisations do not operate in a vacuum but rather in a socialised context, the institutional theory asserts that organizational processes are shaped by the existence and operation of organisations within the industry or country (Musimenta et al., 2017). This corroborates well with the narrative that institutional theory considers the social rather than exclusively economic influences on organizational practice (Rogers et al., 2007). At the same time, institutions such as the legal system, other firms, cultural and professional norms are paramount in influencing an organisations practice. As such, Mizruchi and Fein (1999) confirm that firms continually aim to maintain and increase legitimacy by responding to forces that arise from their institutional environment. 4. Empirical literature review and hypotheses development 4.1. Intellectual capital Intellectual capital encompasses the organisation’s knowledge, expertise and associated soft assets, rather than its hard-physical capital(Hsu & Wang, 2012; Tayles et al., 2007; Widiatmoko et al., 2020). Nkundabanyanga (2016) further describes intellectual capital as the aggregate expression of intangible assets possessed by an organization. Equally significant, intellectual capital has also been expressed in terms of human, structural and relational capital (e.g Bontis et al., 2000; Clarke et al., 2011; Riahi-Belkaoui, 2003). Human capital refers to the skills, talents and know-how of workers that are required to perform the routine tasks that are needed for the firm’s strategy (Rezaei and Mousavi, 2015). Structural capital consists of the supportive infrastructure, processes and databases of the organization that enable human capital to function (Kamukama, 2013). Relational capital on the other hand includes the knowledge, capabilities, procedures and systems which are developed from relationships with external agents (Kalkan et al., 2014). Literature shows the influence of intellectual capital on ICFR in different ways. According to Chen, Smith, Cao & Xia (2014), intellectual capital in the form of a firm’s IT capability has the additional benefits of supporting the functioning of internal controls and the efficiency of the audit process. Similarly, Choi, Lee & Sonu (2013) indicates that human resource investment determines the strength of a firm’s ICFR over financial reporting (Le et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2013). Contrarily, there is limited evidence on the effect of management assessments on internal control quality (Schroeder and Shepardson, 2016). Nonetheless, employee treatment policies were found to influence the integrity of internal control and financial reporting (Guo et al., 2016). From literature, we find mixed and inconsistent opinions of the influence of intellectual capital on ICFR. Yet, scholars such as Bananuka et al. (2019) found a significant and positive contribution of intellectual capital on the adoption of IFRSs in Uganda’s MFIs. We, therefore, believe that, since intellectual capital is already influencing MFIs activities, it can be stated that: H1. There is a positive relationship between intellectual capital and ICFR. 4.2. Isomorphic forces Isomorphic forces are pressures that compel an organisation to adapt to institutional practices prevailing in the environment (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). These institutional pressures may exist at the individual, organisational or organisational field level (Scott, 2008). Organizations tend to Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 7 of 23 predictor variables. Also, Durbin–Watson test was also carried out to test for serial correlations between errors in regression models. As a very conservative rule of thumb, values lesser than 1 or greater than 3 are cause for concern, but, the closer to 2 the value is, the better it is (Field, 2009). For this study, the Durbin–Watson statistic was 1.662, which justifies the assumption of independent errors or no serial correlation. 6. Empirical results and discussion 6.1. Descriptive statistics Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for intellectual capital, isomorphic forces, ICFR and the control variables included in the analyses. ICFR has a mean score of 4.8723, with a minimum score of 3.57, and a maximum score of 5.95 with a standard deviation of 0.61046. This implies that internal auditors and accountants of MFIs have knowledge of ICFR, and they agree that strong ICFR are a necessity for MFIs. Intellectual capital has a mean score of 4.8527, with a standard deviation of 0.38220. For Isomorphic forces mean score is 4.9223 with a standard deviation of 0.45640. The standard deviations relative to the mean values are small, the calculated means highly represent the observed data (Field, 2009). The data also indicate that predictor variables are rated high towards ICFR in the MFIs. This implies that intellectual capital and isomorphic forces are crucial to enhance the QFR in the organization. 6.2. Correlation analysis results We present Pearson’s correlation coefficient analysis of the study variables. Correlations from Table 6 indicate a significant positive relationship between intellectual capital and ICFR (r = 0.671**, p < 0.01), meaning that any positive change in intellectual capital is related to a positive change in ICFR. Thus, H1 is accepted. There is also a significant positive relationship Table3. (Continued) Item Component 1 2 3 Our organization considers professional qualifications in its recruitment policy .520 Our industrial association emphasizes adherence to professionalism .734 Our staff members are encouraged to adhere to professional code of ethics of their respective professions .696 Our staff undertake periodic continuing professional development programs. .637 Eigen values 3.908 3.735 1.816 Percentage of variance 24.422 23.343 11.351 Cumulative percentage 24.422 47.765 59.116 KMO measure of sampling adequacy .704 Bartlett’s test of sphericity 566.258** 1= Mimetic forces; 2= Coercive forces; 3= Normative forces. Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization Source: Primary data (2021) Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 14 of 23 Table 4. Factor structures of internal control for financial reporting Item Component 1 2 3 4 5 Our top management is willing to report the true financial position of this Institution to stakeholders .787 Financial reporting responsibilities are included in staff performance objectives. .774 Ineffective or unnecessary controls are identified and eliminated .708 Management is committed to employing qualified staff .651 We have effective controls over the reconciliation of data entry and reports from different systems. .640 Management is aware of the objective of financial reporting .637 Internal control policies are communicated to all of the organization’s employees. .609 The accounting section has established processes to identify significant changes in accounting policies and accounting standards .904 There are measures put in place to report unusual transactions .863 This Institution has a designated committee to deal with weaknesses raised by the external auditor .843 Management has identified those accounting standards where compliance is not easily achieved .832 Our staff members have been provided with adequate resources to accomplish the risk management activities. .783 Management releases sufficient financial information to the relevant employees to be able perform their work .882 (Continued) Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 15 of 23 between isomorphic forces and the ICFR (r = 0.647**, p < 0.01). This implies that isomorphic forces are linked to the effective ICFR. As such, isomorphic controls through creating a desirable control environment, ensuring effective risk assessment, improving information and communication of ICFR, strengthening control activities and monitoring of implemented ICFR. Therefore, H2 is also supported. Additionally, the correlation analysis results indicate that control variables that is, ownership structure (r = 0.039, p < 0.01), capital structure (r = 0.071, p < 0.01) and firm age (r = 0.181, p < 0.01) are not significantly related to the ICFR. This suggests that control variables do not confound the results of testing for the relationship between intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and ICFR in MFIs. Table4. (Continued) Item Component 1 2 3 4 5 The accounting system in place produces accurate financial data to enhance decision-making .559 There are regular checks to ensure compliance with the internal controls .744 There is adequate supervision of finance staff while carrying out their duties .714 Proper financial records are maintained in relation to the entity’s operations .640 The board take appropriate follow-up action in instances of noncompliance that are reported to it. .628 Management gives appropriate and timely attention to material control weaknesses once identified .826 There is adequate supervision of finance staff while they are carrying out their duties .808 Our organization has sufficient security over financial information and system access .756 Eigen values 4.216 3.772 2.972 2.683 1.845 Percentage of variance 20.078 17.964 14.153 12.778 8.788 Cumulative percentage 20.078 38.042 52.195 64.973 73.760 KMO measure of sampling adequacy 0.721 Bartlett’s test of sphericity 1025.755** 1= Control environment; 2= Risk assessment; 3= Information and communication; 4= Control activities; 5= Monitoring. Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization Source: Primary data (2021) Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 16 of 23 6.3. Hierarchical regression analysis results A hierarchical regression analysis was carried out to further test for the sensitivity of the results in the control variables and the contribution of each predictor variable. Hierarchical regression was also utilised as compared to the stepwise regression because it is powerful in testing which predictor variable contributes more to the variances in the outcome variable and it also examines the incremental validity of each additional predictor variable to the already existing variable(s) in explaining the outcome variable (Field, 2009; Sekaran, 2003). The studied variables were entered simultaneously within each hierarchical model (Field, 2009; Aiken and West, 1991) as shown in Table 7. We used standardized versions of the beta values since they are easier to interpret and are not dependent on the units of measurement of the variables (Field, 2009). The standardized beta values also tell us the number of standard deviations that the outcome will change as a result of one standard deviation change in the predictor; thus, they are directly comparable and provide a better insight into the importance of each predictor in the model (Field, 2009). The hierarchical regression results in Table 7 show that Model 1 reports the baseline model with only control variables. The results indicate that the control variables do not explain any significant variance in the ICFR. This reveals that the models in this study are not sensitive to confounding factors and the models are highly acceptable (Field, 2009). Results in Models 2, and 3 show that the F is significant at the 1% level or better. In model 2, intellectual capital with (β = 0.666, p < 0.01) is a significant predictor of ICFR. When isomorphic forces are added to model 3, the predictive potential of intellectual capital slightly reduces (β = 0.442, p < .01), though it remains positive and significant. Fundamentally, Model 3 presents the impact of all the predictor variables on the outcome variable, and the results indicate that intellectual capital is stronger and significant predictor variable of ICFR (β = 0.442**), followed by isomorphic forces which are also significant (β = 0.379**). Therefore, both intellectual capital and isomorphic forces are the significant predictors of ICFR in MFIs in Uganda, providing further support for H1 and H2 that “intellectual capital is positively related with ICFR” and “Isomorphic forces is positively related with ICFR”, respectively. This means that appropriate intellectual capital and strong isomorphic forces are likely to strengthen the ICFR in terms of creating a favourable control environment, risk assessment, information systems, control activities and monitoring of controls. Overall, the predictor variables explain about 52.9% of the variance in ICFRs in MFIs in Uganda. Overall, the results suggest that Model 3 in Table 7 is the most suitable. The incremental validity of adjusted R2 in Models 1–3 indicates a better fitting model which develops as intellectual capital and isomorphic forces are sequentially introduced (Field, 2009) because in all the cases but Model 1, the F change is significant. Table 5. Descriptive statistics for dependent, independent and control variables Variables n Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Intellectual capital 66 3.92 5.52 4.8527 0.38220 Isomorphic forces 66 4.00 5.81 4.9223 0.45640 Internal control for financial reporting 66 3.57 5.95 4.8723 0.61046 Ownership structure 66 1.00 3.00 1.5758 0.60918 Capital structure 66 1.00 3.00 1.5909 0.58117 Firm age 66 0.00 1.00 0.5758 0.49801 Source: Primary data (2021) Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 17 of 23 6.4. Discussion The findings of this paper reveal that both intellectual capital and isomorphic forces are important factors in strengthening ICFR. These findings further substantiate the role of institutional forces in shaping, creating, diffusing, adopting, and adapting better ICFR practices in an organisation. MFIs do not operate in a vacuum but rather in a financial environment characterised by several reporting, accountability, compliance and risk management organisational challenges. Therefore, it is crucial to explore how ICFR can be strengthened to further assure the stakeholders of a better organisation. Intellectual capital has been found to influence various organisational variables such as fire performance (Tiwari and Vidyarthi, 2018; Nkundabanyanga, 2016; Kamukama, et al., 2011); competitive advantage (Kamukama and Tumwine, 2017); financial reporting (Graaf, 2013; Darabi et al., 2012), innovation generation and adoption (Dost et al., 2016), and adoption of IFRSs in Uganda’s MFIs. Collaboratively, our study finds intellectual capital to be a significant variable in enhancing ICFR. In this regard, organisations such as MFIs ought to ensure that their top managers and employees have the proficiency, and know-how of employees are required to perform their respective tasks that are needed for the firm’s strategy (Rezaei and Mousavi, 2015). Also, organisations have to build supportive infrastructure, processes and databases that enable human capital to function (Kamukama, 2013). On the other hand, MFIs have to collaborate with external agents such as commercial banks to develop capacity, increase the knowledge, improve procedures and systems (Kalkan et al., 2014). Overall, intellectual capital means assets possessed by the firm that are intangible and not quantified, thus excluded from a firm’s financial reports due to the challenge of attaching value to them (Nkundabanyanga, 2016). As such, strong internal control components can be established for better ICFR in MFIs. Correspondingly, MFIs are smaller than the other players in the financial sector that is: commercial banks, credit institutions and insurance firms. However, given the nature of the financial sector in most African economies, MFIs serve the biggest populations of unbanked adults. Thus, they ought to protect their interests and those of their clients and regulators. In Uganda, MFIs have strong regulatory, economic and social frameworks in the form of acts, (the microfinance and money lenders act of 2016, UMRA, Micro Deposit-Taking Institutions Act (MDI) of 2003; the Companies Act of 2012, the Cooperatives Act of 1991, and the NGO Act of 2016), and associations such AMFIU. Similarly, MFIs have been categorised as public interest organisations by the ICPAU (ICPAU, 2016). Therefore, with all these institutional forces it is substantiated that isomorphic forces influence ICFRs in MFIs. This finding is consistent with Table 6. Pearson correlations for dependent, independent and control variables Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 Intellectual capital (1) 1 Isomorphic forces (2) .586** 1 Ownership structure (3) -.053 .066 1 Capital structure (4) -.023 -.020 -.194 1 Firm age (5) .145 .094 .158 -.077 1 Internal control for financial reporting (6) .671** .647** .039 .071 .181 1 n = 66. *, **indicate that correlation is significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively (one-tailed) Source: Primary data (2021) Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 18 of 23 Bananuka et al. (2019) who indicated that indeed MFIs in Uganda are adherent to institutional forces. Therefore, isomorphic forces can ensure that MFIs maintain adequate ICFR like their peers such as commercial banks. Their industrial associations are also called upon to continue emphasizing adherence to professionalism. 7. Summary and conclusion The aim of this paper was is to examine the contribution of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces on ICFR in MFIs. We sampled 66 out of 85 MFIs and the results indicate that intellectual capital and isomorphic forces are significant predictors of ICFR. The results of this study imply that MFIs ought to establish adequate human, structural and relational capital. Thus, MFI top managers should be innovative and creative to ensure ICFR are up to date. They should also sufficiently equip their staff with the essential resources needed to do their work. Regulators such as the Bank of Uganda and UMRA, as well as associations such as AMFIU, have to continue emphasizing maintenance of adequate ICFR in MFIs since MFIs in Uganda are willing to adhere to their directions. Also, clients have to point out their dissatisfaction with the ICFR in MFIs through customer feedback platforms. Professional association’s such as ICPAU have to continue emphasising strong ICFR in MFIs since they declared them public interest organisations. The results of this study are also critical for internal control policy development in smaller institutions such as MFIs. Despite the contributions and implications, this study focused on MFIs in Uganda to determine the contribution of Intellectual capital and isomorphic forces to ICFR. The study variables of this study predict only 52.9% of the variance in ICFR, suggesting that there are other predictors of ICFR. Future research may be conducted to establish other predictors of ICFR in Uganda and other national settings. The study used a questionnaire survey which is strong in prompting responses from a larger population (Sekaran, 2003), but it does not consider the respondent opinions on the topic of study. Further research may be conducted with a qualitative approach to further substantiate the results of this study. Nonetheless, this study clearly explains the role of intellectual capital and isomorphic forces in strengthening ICFR. Table 7. Hierarchical regression results Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Tolerance VIF Constant 4.547 -0.663 -1.351 n/a n/a Intellectual capital 0.666** 0.442** 0.636 1.571 Isomorphic forces 0.379** 0.647 1.546 Control variables Ownership structure 0.028 0.083 0.045 Capital structure 0.091 0.109 0.104 Firm age 0.183 0.079 0.082 Model F0.876 13.661** 15.627** Adjusted R 2 -0.006 0.438 0.529 F Change 0.876 49.943** 12.865** R 2 Change 0.041 0.432 0.093 **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 Source: Primary data (2021) Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 19 of 23 Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Frank Kabuye 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9367-9950 Kassim Alinda 1 Nicholas Bugambiro 1 Saphurah Kezaabu 1 1 Department of Accounting,Makerere University Business School, Kampala, Uganda.. Citation information Cite this article as: Intellectual capital, isomorphic forces and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan microfinance institutions, Frank Kabuye, Kassim Alinda, Nicholas Bugambiro & Saphurah Kezaabu, Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960. References Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Al-Dmour, A., Abbod, M., & Al Qadi, N. S. (2018). “The impact of the QFR on non-financial business performance and the role of organizations demographic attributes (Type, size and experience)”. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 22(1), 1–18. AMFIU Directory. (2017/2018). Uganda Microfinance Directory (8th ed.). Association of Microfinance Institutions of Uganda. AMFIU Directory. (2020). Uganda Microfinance directory (pp. 2019–2020). Amoako, K.O., Lord, B.R. and Dixon, K. (2017). Sustainability reporting: insights from the websites of five plants operated by newmont mining corporation, Meditari Accountancy Research, 25(2), 186–215. Bananuka, J., Tumwebaze, Z., Musimenta, D., & Nuwagaba, P. (2019). “Determinants of Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in Ugandan microfinance institutions”. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 10(3), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-08-2018-0236 Bank of Uganda Annual Supervision Report (December 2020) Issue No. 1 Bank of Uganda Financial Stability Report (June 2019) Issue No. 11 Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. Bartov, E., Gul, F.A. and Tsui, J.S.L. (2000). Discretionaryaccruals models and audit qualifications, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30(3), 421–452. Bekiaris, M., Psimada, C., & Sergios, T. (2014). “Internet financial reporting quality and corporate characteristics: The case of construction companies listed in Greek and Cypriot stock exchange”. European Research Studies, 17(2), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/418 Berthod, O. (2016). Institutional Theory of Organizations (pp. 1–5). Springer International Publishing AG. Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: a review of the models used to measure intellectual capital, International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(1), 41–60. Bontis, N., Chua Chong, K. W., & Richardson, S. (2000). “IC and business performance in Malaysian industries”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(1), 85–100. https:// doi.org/10.1108/14691930010324188 Caban-Garcia, M., & Ríos-Figueroa, C., & Petruska, K. (2017). The Impact of Culture on Internal Control Weaknesses: Evidence from Firms That Cross-List in the U.S. Journal of International Accounting Research, 16. doi:10.2308/jiar-51916 Chen, Y., Smith, A.L., Cao, J., and Xia, W. (2014). Information Technology Capability, Internal Control Effectiveness, and Audit Fees and Delays. Journal of Information Systems, 28(2), 149–180. Chenhall, R. H. (2003). “Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 127–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7 Choi, J. H., Choi, S., Hogan, C. H., & Lee, J. (2013). “The effect of human resource investment in internal control on the disclosure of internal control weaknesses”. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory: November 2013, 32(4), 169–199. Choi, J.H., Lee, J., & Sonu, C.H. (2013). Determinants of human resource investment in internal controls, China Journal of Accounting Research, 6(3), 167–185. Clarke, M., Seng, D., & Rosalind, H. W. (2011). “Intellectual capital and firm performance in Australia”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(4), 505–530. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14691931111181706 Cooper, D.R., & Schindler, P.S. (2003). Business Research Methods. McGraw-Hill Companies. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches. Sage Publications. Darabi, R., Rad, S.K. and Heidaribali, H. (2012). The impact of intellectual capital on financial reporting quality: an evidence from Tehran stock exchange, International Journal of Business and Commerce, 1 (11), 21–39. Deloitte (2018). Internal controls over financial reporting considerations for developing and implementing bots. Available online at: https://www2.deloitte.com/con tent/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/audit/us-auditinternal-controls-over-financial-reportingconsiderations-for-developing-and-implementingbots.pdf. (Accessed 22 February 2021). DFID. (2007). An assessment of the capacity gaps in the work and functions of accountants and auditors of Ugandan SACCOs. Fineline systems and Management Ltd. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Social Structure, Institutions, and Cultural Goods: The Case of the U.S. In Social Theory for a Changing Society. Westview Press. Dost, M., Badir, Y.F., Ali, Z. and Tariq, A. (2016). The impact of intellectual capital on innovation generation and adoption, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 17(4), 675–695 Doyle, J., Ge, W. and McVay, S. (2007). Determinants of weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 44, 193–223. Duggan, C. S. M. (2016). Doing bad by doing good? Theft and abuse by lenders in the microfinance markets of Uganda. Studies in Comparative International Development, 51(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s12116-015-9211-5 ERM, C. O. S. O. (2004). Committee of Sponsoring Organization of Treadway Commission. In Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework. AICPA. Fathi, J. (2013). Corporate Governance System and Quality of Financial Information. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), ISSN 2039–2117. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage. Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 20 of 23 Gao, P., & Zhang, G. (2019). Accounting manipulation, peer pressure, and internal control. The Accounting Review: January 2019, 94(No. 1), pp. 127–151. https:// doi.org/10.2308/accr-52078 Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing Statistical Assumptions (2012 ed.). Statistical Associates publishing. Graaf, J. (2013). Colouring the numbers – on the role of intellectual capital in financial reporting, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14 (3), 376–394 Guo, J., Huang, P., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, N. (2016). “The effect of employee treatment policies on internal control weaknesses and financial restatements”. The Accounting Review: July 2016, 91(4), 1167–1194. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51269 Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern factor analysis. Univ. Chicago Press. Hermanson, D. R., Smith, J. L., & Stephens, N. M. (2012). “How effective are organizations’ internal controls? Insights into specific internal control elements”. Current Issues in Auditing, 6(1), A30–A50. https://doi. org/10.2308/ciia-50146 Hurley, D. A., & Boyd, D. (2007). Sarbanes-Oxley act section 404: Effective internal controls or overriding internal controls? Forensic Examiner, 16(2), 19–21. ICPAU. (2016). “The adoption of international financial reporting standards”. Uganda. IIA (2013), “IIA position paper: The three lines of defence in effective risk management and control, January 2013”, available at: https://www.theiia. org›3-lines-defence (accessed 03 May 2020). Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). “Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure”. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X Johns, R. (2010). Survey question bank: methods fact sheet 1 (March 2010). Likert items and scales. Jokipii, A. (2009). Determinants and consequences of internal control in firms: A contingency theory-based analysis. Journal of Management & Governance, 14 (2), 115–144. https://doi.org/doi:10.1007/s10997009-9085-x Kaawaase, T. K., Bananuka, J., Peter Kwizina, T., & Nabaweesi, J. (2019). “Intellectual capital and performance of small and medium audit practices: The interactive effects of professionalism”. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, ahead-of-print (ahead–of–print). Kabuye, F., Kato, J., Akugizibwe, I., Bugambiro, N., & Ntim, C. G. (Reviewing editor) (2019). Internal control systems, working capital management and financial performance of supermarkets. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2019.1573524. Kabuye, F., Nkundabanyanga, K. S., Opiso, J., & Nakabuye, Z. (2017). “Internal audit organisational status, competencies, activities and fraud management in the financial services sector. Managerial Auditing Journal, 32(9), 924–944. https://doi.org/10. 1108/MAJ-09-2016-1452 Kalkan, A., Bozkurt, O. C., & Arman, M. (2014). “The impacts of intellectual capital, innovation and organizational on firm performance”. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150(2014), 700–707. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.025 Kamukama, N. (2013). “Intellectual capital: Company’s invisible source of competitive advantage”. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 23(3), 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10595421311319834 Kamukama, N., Ahiauzu, A. and Ntayi, J.M. (2011). Competitive advantage: mediator of intellectual capital and performance, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(1), 152–164. Kamukama, N. and Tumwine, S. (2017). Intellectual capital and competitive advantage in Uganda’s microfinance industry, African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 8(4), 498–514. Kim, N., Trung, Q., & McMillan, D. (Reviewing editor) (2021). “The relationship between internal control and credit risk – The case of commercial banks in Vietnam”. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1908760.. Kosgei, C. H., Abdi, M., & Kosgei, B. S. (2014). “Effects of corporate governance on MFIs financial sustainability”. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(30), 71–81. Krishnan, J., Krishnan, J., & Liang, S. (2020). “Internal control and financial reporting quality of small firms: A comparative analysis of regulatory regimes”. Review of Accounting and Finance, 19(2), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAF-05-2018-0107 Länsiluoto, A., Jokipii, A., Eklund, T., & Prof. Graham Gal, A. (2016). “Internal control effectiveness – A clustering approach”. Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-08-2013-0910 Lari Dashtbayaz, M., Salehi, M., & Safdel, T. (2019). “The effect of internal controls on financial reporting quality in Iranian family firms”. Journal of Family Business Management, 9(3), 254–270. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JFBM-09-2018-0047 Le, T. D. Q., Nguyen, D. T., McMillan, D., & McMillan, D. (Reviewing editor) (2020). “Intellectual capital and bank profitability: New evidence from Vietnam”. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1859666. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1859666. Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin. Li-Chang, H., & Chao-Wang, H. (2012). “Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: The mediating role of dynamic capability”. British Journal of Management, 23(2), 179–205. McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). “Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities”. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033–1055. https://doi. org/10.1002/smj.484 Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony”. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550 Mizruchi, M. S., & Fein, L. C. (1999). The social constitution of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism. American Science Quarterly, 44, 653–683. Mugisa, M.B. (2017). Microfinance Risk Management: current status in the Microfinance Industry in Uganda. Available online at: https://www.summitcl.com/sum mitcl/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Role-of-theBoard-in-Risk-Management_Microfinance-Casestudy.pdf. Accessed 23 March 2021 Musimenta, D., Nkundabanyanga, K. S., Muhwezi, M., Akankunda, B., & Nalukenge, I. (2017). “Tax compliance of small and medium enterprises: A developing country perspective”. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 25(2), 149–175. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JFRC-08-2016-0065 Myers, R. (1990). Classical and Modern Regression with Applications, 2nd ed., Duxbury Press, CA. Nalukenge, I., Nkundabanyanga, S. K., & Ntayi, J. M. (2018). “Corporate governance, ethics, internal controls and compliance with IFRS”. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 16(4), 764–786. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-08-2017-0064 Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 21 of 23 Nalukenge, I., Tauringana, V., & Mpeera Ntayi, J. (2017). “Corporate governance and internal controls over financial reporting in Ugandan MFIs”. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 7(3), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-02-2016-0018 Nkundabanyanga, S. K. (2016). “Board governance, intellectual capital and firm performanceImportance of multiplicative effects”. Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 32(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/JEAS-09-2014-0020 Nyahas, S.I., Munene, J.C., Orobia, L. and Kaawaase, T.K. (2017). Isomorphic influences and voluntary disclosure: the mediating role of organizational culture, Cogent Business and Management, 2017(4), 1–18. Onumah, J. M., Kuipo, R., & Obeng, A. V. (2012). “Effectiveness of internal control systems of listed firms in Ghana”. In Accounting in Africa, Research in Accounting in Emerging Economies 12 Part A, (pp. 31–49). Oradi, J., Asiaei, K., & Rezaee, Z. (2019). CEO financial background and internal control weaknesses, Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1111/corg. 1230. Accessed 24 June 2021 Paape, L., & Spekle, R. (2012). “The adoption and design of enterprise risk management practices: An empirical study”. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 533–564. Pride Microfinance. (2019). Annual report. https://www. pridemicrofinance.co.ug/wp-content/uploads/2017/ 07/Pride-2019-annual-report-final.pdf. Accessed 24th June 2021. Rezaei, Z. and Mousavi, Z. (2015). The impact of intellectual capital on the performance of Islamic banking, Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 5(1), 1806–1813. Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2003). “Intellectual capital and firm performance of US multinational firms -a study of the resource-based and stakeholder views”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/14691930310472839 Rogers, K., Purdy, L., Safayeni, F. and Duimering, R.B. (2007). A supplier development program: rational process or institutional image construction?, Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 556–557. Rubino, M., & Vitolla, F. (2014). “Internal control over financial reporting: Opportunities using the COBIT framework”. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(8), 736–771. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-03-2014-1016 Schroeder, J.H & Shepardson, M.L. (2016). Do SOX 404 Control Audits and Management Assessments Improve Overall Internal Control System Quality, Accounting Review, 91(4), 16–1. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Sage. Scott, W. R. (2004). “Institutional theory.”. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory (pp. 408–14). Sage. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Sage Publications. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business. John Willey and Sons. Soheilyfar, F., Tamimi, M., Ahmadi, M.R. and Takhtaei, N. (2014). Disclosure Quality and Corporate Governance: Evidence from Iran, Asian Journal and Finance and Accounting, 6(2), 75–86. Ssekiziyivu, B., Mwesigwa, R., Bananuka, J., Namusobya, N., Ntim, C. G., & Ntim, C. G. (Reviewing editor) (2018). Corporate governance practices in microfinance institutions: Evidence from Uganda. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1. https://doi. org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1488508. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Tayles, M., Pike, R. H., & Sofian, S. (2007). “Intellectual capital, management accounting practices and corporate performance: Perceptions of managers”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(4), 522–548. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513570710762575 Teece, D. (2007). “Expanding dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance”. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/ smj.640 Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AIDSMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z Tiwari, R. and Vidyarthi, H. (2018). Intellectual capital and corporate performance: a case of Indian banks, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 8(1), 84–105. Uganda Microfinance Regulatory Authority (UMRA) Website (2020). About UMRA. Available at: https:// umra.go.ug/about-umra/ (Accessed 10 May 2020). Uganda Microfinance Sector Effectiveness Review, 2014. Available online at: https://fsduganda.or.ug/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/Uganda-MicrofinanceSector-Effectiveness-Review-2014.pdf. Widiatmoko, J., Indarti, M. G. K., Pamungkas, I. D., Ntim, C. G., & Ntim, C. G. (Reviewing editor) (2020). “Corporate governance on intellectual capital disclosure and market capitalization”. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1750332. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2020.1750332. Williamson, O. (1999). Strategy research: governance and competence perspectives, Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1087–1108. World Bank. (2014). “Report on the observance of standards and codes (ROSC)”. Republic of Uganda. Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 22 of 23 © 2021 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Kabuye et al., Cogent Business & Management (2021), 8: 1944960 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1944960 Page 23 of 23