Olympus Scandal: A case of Accounting Irregularities and Corporate Culture

Researchers:
Ang, Archie James A.
Concepcion, Darlene Kaye P.
Galvez, Kim Fritzie M.

National University – Baliwag

School of Business and Accountancy

Department of Accountancy

October 31, 2023

INTRODUCTION

The accounting scandal involving the Olympus Company was one of several
high-profile corporate scandals reported in Japan in 2011. The renowned Japanese
company Olympus Corporation, one of the biggest producers of optical and medical
equipment, originated back in 1919, holding about 70% of the current endoscope
market. However, it became well-known in 2011 after a massive public scandal
(Smith, 2020). The CEO and other senior executives were among the prominent
figures in the scandal as they were discovered to have been involved in fraudulent
activities for over a decade. When the organization's former CEO, Michael
Woodford, raised awareness of the massive accounting cover-up, the scandal was
made public. It was discovered that Olympus had been concealing losses totaling
more than $1.7 billion through shell companies and false accounting practices. A
panel appointed by Olympus Corp to prove the accounting scandal engulfing the
Japanese firm estimates that Olympus hid investment losses totaling 130 billion yen
($1.7 billion) at the peak of the cover-up (Staff, 2011).

This scandal highlighted the influence of Japan's culture on fraud. Maintaining

harmony and saving face are highly valued in Japan, and this can result in a culture
of silence and deference to authority. One of the most essential aspects of Japanese
culture is maintaining dignity in front of others and oneself. The Japanese try to find
a suitable way to adjust their preferences to those of others to avoid offending or
damaging their reputation (Garcia, 2015). This cultural dynamic most likely
contributed to the fraud's ability to go undetected for a long time. The Olympus
scandal case study is critical because it highlights the potential risks of a society that
places a high value on deference and conformity. It serves as a reminder of how
crucial transparency, accountability, and ethical business conduct are in preventing
incidents of this nature. The CEO and other senior executives were ousted from the
company due to the scandal, which had devastating implications for Olympus's
reputation. The main objective of this case study is to provide an overview of the
scandal while highlighting the actions of its major players, such as the Olympus
representatives, Michael Woodford, the main whistleblower of information, and all
the media outlets that covered the issue.
BACKGROUND OF KEY PLAYERS AND EXECUTIVES

The Olympus Scandal included several key individuals and executives. One
of them was Toshiro Shimoyama, who was the Olympus president and CEO from
1984 to 1993 (Tabuchi, 2011). He revealed that the company invested in financial
derivatives and other risky ventures to try and make some cash, and fortunately for
Olympus, the Tokyo economic bubble burst in early 1990, so their financial
engineering plan did not work out so well. Shimoyama decided to develop an
aggressive financial assets management unit within the Accounting Department
headed by Hideo Yamada. Yamada was in charge of speculative investments with
his subordinate, Hisashi Mori. Hideo Yamada was the Former Executive Vice
President of Olympus Corporation (Bloomberg, 2023). Hideo Yamada was a high-
ranking executive at Olympus who played a significant role in the accounting fraud
scandal. He was involved in the cover-up of the fraudulent activities at the company.
Yamada resigned in October 2011 after the scandal: Hisashi Mori, former President
and Director of Olympus Corporation. Hisashi Mori, the President of Olympus, was
also a key player in the scandal (Reuters, 2011). He was involved in the accounting
irregularities and the cover-up of financial misdeeds. Mori resigned from his position
in October 2011. Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, managing director, president, and chairman of
Japanese camera maker Olympus in 1993, hid $1.7 Billion of losses in the firm
(Partridge, 2019). Shuichi Takayama succeeded Kikukawa as chairman, president,
and CEO (Tabuchi, 2011).

Olympus has an external auditor, KPMG AZSA, and Ernst & Young
ShinNihon LLC. KPMG disagreed with the vastly overvalued goodwill ascribed. Then
Olympus removed KPMG AZSA as its group auditor in 2009 (Uranaka, 2011)—Ernst
& Young ShinNihon LLC, which took over as Olympus auditor in 2009. Ernst &
Young ShinNihon is Japan's largest auditor, with more than 4,000 clients and 3,000
certified public accountants; declined to comment, citing client confidentiality
(Uranaka, 2011).
In 2011, Michael C. Woodford, a British executive who had a long history with
Olympus, was appointed as the company's CEO. His tenure marked the beginning of
an investigation into the company's financial records, where he whistleblowed the
company's fraudulent activities. He raised concerns about suspicious payments
made in acquisitions.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Olympus scandal in 2011 revealed a complex web of financial irregularities

and corporate misconduct that had a profound impact on the company and its
stakeholders. The key problems associated with the scandal can be outlined as
follows:

1. What kind of fraud was committed?

2. Using the fraud triangle, identify the components of fraud.
3. What should be done to prevent white-collar fraud?
4. In hindsight, what could the company have done differently instead of
committing a crime to survive? Please take into account the circumstances
before providing alternative courses of action.
5. What could the regulators do to enhance the protection of the public against
corporate fraud?

ANALYSIS

Various cultural and corporate governance factors influenced the Olympus

scandal in Japan. The traditional Japanese culture places a strong emphasis on
hierarchy and respect for authority figures (Matsumoto, 2019). This can make
employees hesitant to question or challenge their superiors, which may have
contributed to the cover-up of fraudulent activities within Olympus. Employees,
including whistleblowers, may have been reluctant to confront top executives
involved in the fraud. Furthermore, the concept of "Group Harmony" in Japanese
culture stresses the importance of maintaining unanimity and not causing disruption
(Hirose, 2022). In a corporate setting, this can lead to a reluctance to report or
address wrongdoing, as doing so may be seen as disruptive and damaging to the
collective harmony within the organization. This may have discouraged employees
from speaking out about the fraud. Japanese culture emphasizes saving face and
avoiding shame, which can lead to a tendency to keep problems hidden (Matsumoto,
2019). The Olympus Corporation's top executives may have been motivated to
conceal the accounting fraud to avoid public embarrassment and damage to the
company's reputation. The executives colluded with external advisors and auditors to
carry out this fraudulent scheme.

Nature of the Fraud

In the 1980s, several Japanese firms had financial difficulties as they relied on
investments to boost their declining business viability. The country's exports dropped
because of the strength of its currency relative to other currencies, notably the U.S.
Dollar. One of the worst casualties of Japan's economic crisis was Olympus. The
company was struggling with its business operation, so it employed financial
engineering, or "zaitech," a Japanese concept, to try to turn things around. In Japan,
when a company buys valuable paintings and objects to hide the profits it has made.
Many Japanese corporate collectors appear to have used high-priced art for tax
purposes, a practice known here as 'zaitech' (Powell, 2011). To increase its
revenues, the company consequently chose to invest in risky ventures and financial
derivatives. However, in the early 1990s, the economic endeavors resulted in
enormous losses of roughly 2.1 billion Yen.

At that time, Olympus management devised strategies to hide the significant

losses from the public financial reports. Key members of the organization worked
together to plan the fraud with a high level of sophistication. A plan was developed to
sell the losing investments, at the original cost, to shell companies set up by
Olympus for that purpose (Norris, 2011). The firm began encountering problems
when the Japanese government instituted new accounting standards prioritizing
market-to-market methods over cost-accounting approaches. There was no way
Olympus could have concealed the losses in this particular case. The company's
senior management had to devise a strategy to omit the losses from its publicly
released annual financial reports. Olympus created a scheme known as a Loss
Separation Scheme to hide the losses, with the help of its financial consultancy
firms, Axes America and Axam Investment. A loss separation scheme comprises of
various funds and bank accounts to get impaired securities off its balance sheet and
out of the view of regulators (Pomfret, 2011). In this situation, Olympus generated
sales at book value and appeared to have incurred no losses.

Banks and other investors operated under bank deposit pledges or bonds
financed their receiver funds. Utilizing the SG Bond Plus Fund in Singapore, the LGT
Bank in Europe, and L.P. to carry out the plan in Japan (Lorsch et al., 2020).
According to the PwC Report, approximately 96 billion Yen has been diverted to
those receiver funds by Olympus through its loss operation scheme. Olympus
purchased shares from the target companies with the funds it received as the
receiver. Olympus would then purchase the shares at inflated prices from the
receiver funds. Profits were consequently transferred to the receiver funds. The
business employed the same tactic to acquire Gyrus Group Plc for $2 billion.
Olympus Corporation paid almost 60 percent more than the total market value for
British medical equipment maker Gyrus Group PLC, according to a report by a
foreign-affiliated auditing company. Several of the questionable acquisition deals
were recorded as goodwill. The main objective of doing all this was to conceal the
losses from the shareholders and the public.

Moreover, the company paid substantial advisory fees related to these

fictitious acquisitions. Olympus paid significant advisory fees, purportedly related to
acquisitions and business advisory services. Olympus paid ¥66 billion as a retainer
to a financial advisory firm in connection with the acquisition. The money is believed
to have been used to cover off-the-book investment losses (Kyodo, 2011).

The concealment of these massive investment losses was achieved through a

complex and coordinated deceptive financial transaction. The fictitious acquisitions,
deceptive advisory fees, and off-balance sheet activities collectively constituted a
strategy to maintain the appearance of profitability and financial health while
protecting the company's reputation.

B. White Collar Fraud Forestalling

White-collar fraud is a non-violent, financially motivated crime typically

committed by individuals or organizations in positions of trust and authority, often in
a professional or business setting (Hayes, 2023). This type of fraud is characterized
by deceit, concealment, or violation of trust to obtain financial or personal gain.
White-collar is typically associated with individuals who wear white-collar shirts as
part of their professional attire (Donath, 2022). White-collar fraud encompasses
many illegal activities, including embezzlement, forgery, insider trading, and
securities fraud (Haye, 2023).

Preventing white-collar fraud is essential for maintaining the integrity of

organizations and financial systems. Implement robust internal control systems to
monitor and safeguard financial transactions and reporting. These controls should
include checks and balances, segregation of duties, and regular internal audits.
Ensure transparent and accurate financial reporting, emphasizing explicit and
understandable disclosures. Avoid overly complex financial instruments or structures
that obscure the proper financial position; engage external auditors to review
financial statements and ensure compliance with accounting standards and
regulations. This provides an independent check on the company's financial
reporting. Consider the engagement of independent advisors, legal counsel, or
forensic accountants to monitor and investigate financial activities. This can add an
extra layer of oversight. Lastly, it promotes ethical decision-making and discourages
rationalizing unethical behavior within the organization. Encourage employees to
report ethical concerns.

It involves strategies and measures to address the psychological and

behavioral factors leading individuals to justify or rationalize fraudulent actions.
Rationalization is one of the key components of the Fraud Triangle. It is critical to
understand how individuals convince themselves that their dishonest actions are
acceptable or necessary—regarding that, providing employees with comprehensive
training on ethics, integrity, and the company's code of conduct. Ensure they know
the ethical standards expected of them and the potential consequences of unethical
behavior.

Preventing white-collar fraud is an ongoing effort that involves a combination

of structural, cultural, and legal measures. It is crucial for organizations to
continuously assess their practices and adapt to new challenges and risks. However,
it is not always possible to eliminate all risks; these measures can significantly
reduce the likelihood of white-collar fraud.

C. Fraud Triangle

The Fraud Triangle is a well-known model used to understand the factors

contributing to fraud within organizations. It consists of three elements that, when
present together, increase the likelihood of fraud occurring. The convergence of
three elements—pressure, opportunity, and rationalization—led to the accounting
fraud and cover-up in the Olympus scandal. The company's dire financial situation,
the lack of adequate controls, and the rationalization that concealed the wrongdoing
created an environment where fraudulent activities could persist for an extended
period before exposure (RiskOptics, 2020).

C.1. Pressure

Regarding the Olympus scandal, internal pressure within the company played
a big part in driving people to commit fraud. The term "pressure" refers to a
situation's impact on an individual's decision to commit fraud, which is one of the
fraud triangle's three components (Kniepmann, 2020).

Olympus Corporation faced an extraordinary financial challenge. Over nearly

two decades, the company had incurred substantial investment losses (Norris,
2011). The pressure resulting from these losses was multi-fold. It created a pressing
need to conceal the losses from shareholders, investors, and the public. The
exposure of such significant losses could have severely affected the company's
financial stability. The need to hide these losses from stakeholders drove individuals
within Olympus to engage in fraudulent activities. The pressure was not only
financial but also tied to the company's survival.
 Olympus was not just a corporation but a renowned global player with a
storied history. The pressure to maintain the appearance of financial stability and
profitability was immense. The company had to uphold its image and reputation in
the global marketplace. The revelation of massive losses could have severely
eroded trust in the company, and investors and stakeholders might have questioned
their association with Olympus. The pressure to protect the company's image and
reputation was a driving force behind the fraudulent activities. The fear that the
disclosure of massive losses could tarnish Olympus's image and erode its market
value was a powerful motivator for those involved in the fraud.

Beyond the financial and reputational pressure on the company, individuals

within Olympus were also under immense personal and professional pressure.
Those in leadership positions may have faced severe personal and career
consequences if the investment losses were exposed. These consequences could
include the loss of their jobs, reputational damage, and even potential legal
repercussions. The fear of these personal and professional consequences added to
the overall pressure. It led some individuals to engage in fraudulent measures to
hide the losses and protect their interests. The pressure to safeguard personal and
professional standing within the company and the industry was a critical factor in
their decision to participate in fraudulent activities.

The pressure in the Olympus scandal was substantial and multifaceted. It was
not limited to financial pressure but also encompassed the need to preserve the
company's image and the personal and professional consequences for those
involved in the fraud. This pressure, along with the opportunity and rationalization
elements, contributed to the perpetration of fraudulent activities within Olympus
Corporation.

C.2. Opportunity

Olympus had the opportunity to commit fraud due to several factors. The
company's complex corporate structure, which included numerous subsidiaries and
affiliated companies, allowed for the concealment of fraudulent transactions. The
lack of strong internal controls and oversight created opportunities for executives to
manipulate the financial statements and engage in accounting irregularities. The
element of "opportunity" from the Fraud Triangle refers to the conditions and
circumstances that allowed for the accounting fraud and cover-up to take place
(Kniepmann, 2020).

Olympus had a complex corporate structure that included numerous

subsidiaries and affiliated companies. This complexity created a convoluted web of
financial transactions and relationships, making it difficult for external parties and
even some internal stakeholders to understand the company's financial operations
fully. Adequate internal controls and oversight mechanisms are essential for
preventing organizational fraud. However, Olympus needed more robust internal
controls and oversight procedures. This created an environment where fraudulent
activities could go undetected. Weak controls allowed those involved in the fraud to
manipulate financial data, create false documentation, and execute transactions
without adequate scrutiny. The lack of transparency within Olympus contributed to
the opportunity for fraudulent activities. The culture of secrecy and non-transparency
within the company discouraged employees from questioning or reporting
irregularities. This environment allowed executives involved in the fraud to operate
with little fear of exposure. The breakdown in corporate governance, including a lack
of independent oversight, played a significant role in creating an opportunity for
fraud. Key executives and board members either participated in the fraud or failed to
detect and prevent it. The absence of a robust governance structure allowed those
involved in the fraud to manipulate financial statements and misrepresent the
company's financial health.

Olympus engaged in complex financial transactions, including acquisitions

and investments, that were used to hide losses. This complexity made it challenging
for external auditors and regulators to detect fraudulent activities. The executives
responsible for the fraud took advantage of this complexity to maintain the
appearance of financial stability. The company's corporate culture, which
emphasized group harmony, respect for authority, and a reluctance to challenge
superiors, contributed to the opportunity for fraud. Employees may have hesitated to
question top executives or blow the whistle on misconduct, enabling the fraudulent
activities to continue.

C.3. Rationalization

Rationalization involves the mindset that justifies fraudulent behavior (Muñoz,

2023). In the Olympus scandal, rationalization could have taken several forms.
Executives and individuals involved in the fraud may have believed that they were
acting in the company's best interests or that they had no other choice but to engage
in fraudulent activities to protect the organization. Rationalization refers to the
mindset or justification that individuals use to condone their fraudulent actions
(Muñoz, 2023). This element helps to explain how individuals involved in the scandal
might have mentally justified their behavior.

Those involved in the Olympus scandal may have believed that their
fraudulent actions were justified somehow. They might have convinced themselves
that hiding losses and manipulating financial statements were necessary to protect
the company, its employees, and shareholders from the potential consequences of
disclosing the actual financial situation. This rationalization is rooted in believing the
fraudulent actions were for the greater good. There may have been significant
pressure on executives to meet financial targets and market expectations. In this
high-pressure environment, some individuals could have rationalized their actions by
thinking they had to do whatever it took to meet these expectations, even if it
involved fraudulent accounting practices. They may have perceived this as their only
option to avoid severe consequences. Some individuals involved in the scandal
might have rationalized their actions out of fear of retaliation or repercussions. They
may have believed that refusing to participate in the fraudulent activities would result
in their termination or harm to their career. This fear could have led them to
rationalize their involvement as a form of self-preservation.

A sense of loyalty to the company and a desire to protect its reputation

contributed to rationalization. Executives and employees involved may have
genuinely cared about the organization's well-being and rationalized their actions as
necessary to ensure its survival and success. Over time, a normalization of
fraudulent activities can occur within an organization. If such behavior becomes
commonplace and condoned by superiors, individuals may rationalize their actions
as part of the corporate culture. They might believe that "everyone is doing it" and
that their actions follow the norm. Individuals can sometimes rationalize their actions
by blurring ethical boundaries. They might convince themselves that what they are
doing is not really "that bad" or that their actions are not as unethical as they appear
to be. This type of rationalization allows them to distance themselves from the moral
implications of their actions.

It is important to note that while rationalization can help explain why

individuals engage in fraudulent behavior, it does not justify or excuse such actions.
The Fraud Triangle model helps us understand the psychological and emotional
aspects that contribute to fraud within organizations. However, ethical behavior and
adherence to legal and moral standards are paramount in maintaining trust, integrity,
and corporate responsibility.

D. Alternative Course of Actions

Due to significant investment losses, Olympus, a prominent international firm,

was in a difficult situation. The corporation may have easily been persuaded to use
dishonest tactics or hide important information from stakeholders due to the rising
pressure to recover these losses. However, a different course of action may have
been taken, one that puts transparency and moral behavior. By opting for early
recognition of losses and open communication with shareholders, investors, and the
market, Olympus could have potentially mitigated the impact on its market
capitalization (Verma, 2023).

On top of that, this moral strategy would have maintained the corporation's
standing as a reliable and transparent company while simultaneously demonstrating
its dedication to integrity. To have been transparent, Olympus would have to publish
its investment losses on time and with accuracy. This would have required thorough
details about the kind and scope of the losses and the underlying causes.
Shareholders and investors would have been able to make educated investment
decisions and evaluate the company's prospects with such open communication.
Furthermore, Olympus might have shown its dedication to moral conduct and
corporate governance by openly admitting its errors and accepting responsibility for
them.

Transparent disclosure may have immediate severe repercussions, but the

long-term benefits would have exceeded those. Olympus would have maintained its
image as an open and truthful company by opting for openness over deception.
Once lost, trust can be difficult to regain. By deciding to follow the ethical disclosure
path, Olympus would have shown its stakeholders that it cares about them and that it
accepts accountability for its deeds. This commitment to integrity and accountability
would have likely earned the respect and trust of shareholders, investors, and the
broader market (Cohen et al., 2002).

In retrospect, the monetary losses and decline in market value brought on by

truthful disclosure would have been challenging to overcome. However, the moral
and reputational benefits would have been priceless. Olympus may have survived
the crisis undamaged, demonstrating that moral values and openness are essential
to a reliable and long-lasting company. In the end, Olympus would be positioned as
a responsible corporate citizen and a beacon of integrity among the business
community had it emphasized openness and moral behavior.

One moral choice that may have been looked at to provide the firm with the
much-needed short-term financial relief was debt restructuring, together with the
strategic sale of non-core assets. Debt restructuring is the process of bargaining with
creditors to change the conditions of an existing loan, including the interest rate, the
repayment plan, and perhaps even the principal amount. Olympus might have
started talks with its creditors to find solutions that benefited both parties. By
engaging in open and honest dialogue, the company could have sought to
restructure its debt in a way that made repayment more manageable, given the
challenging circumstances it faced (Nicholls, 2012). A debt restructuring plan may
have included reducing interest rates, extending loan terms, or, in some situations,
approving brief suspensions of debt repayment. Such actions may have given
Olympus some breathing room and a less onerous financial strain, lessening the
urgent need to engage in fraudulent operations.
 Olympus might have carefully chosen non-core assets in its portfolio for sale
in addition to debt restructuring. Assets that are not essential to the business's core
activities are referred to as non-core assets. Selling these assets would have
produced the cash required to deal with the current financial difficulties. These
assets may have included surplus property, underperforming business divisions, or
investments in projects inconsistent with the company's primary goal. Selling assets
may be an excellent way to inject money into a company rapidly. The proceeds from
these sales could have been directed toward debt reduction, operational
stabilization, or necessary investments to restore the company's financial health
(Deloitte, 2020).

Olympus would have to engage closely with creditors and potential bidders to
find answers through the debt restructuring and asset sales strategy. Regarding the
debt restructuring, creditors would have been amenable to discussions that would
have safeguarded their interests and allowed Olympus to restore its financial stability
if they had recognized the long-term benefits of keeping the business intact. The
simultaneous sale of assets would have required finding purchasers ready to
purchase non-core assets for fair market value. A well-executed strategy would have
aimed at maximizing the value of these assets, providing Olympus with the liquidity it
needed to address immediate financial challenges (Bats, J & Houben, A., 2017).

By using these strategies, Olympus might have avoided engaging in

dishonest tactics and instead committed to moral standards, openness, and fiscal
discipline. The company's image and integrity would be protected, resulting in a
broader recovery process and a better base for the company's future.

E. Stakeholders Protection

Corporate fraud seriously compromises public confidence, financial stability,

and economic prosperity. To protect the interests of the general public and investors
from corporate fraud, regulators are essential. A crucial first step in boosting public
protection against corporate fraud is the improvement of regulatory frameworks.
Regulators do this by putting additional restrictions and guidelines on businesses
and ensuring they uphold strict moral and open standards. A prime example of
governmental action to safeguard investors against accounting fraud is the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), passed after significant corporate accounting scandals,
notably Enron and WorldCom. An essential component of fortifying regulatory
systems is raising reporting requirements. SOX introduced stringent reporting
requirements, particularly in financial reporting. Public companies in the United
States must provide more accurate and detailed financial information in their annual
and quarterly reports. The act mandates the certification of financial statements by
the company's CEO and CFO, holding them personally accountable for their
accuracy (Romano, 2005). SOX significantly increased disclosure obligations for
public companies. It mandated the disclosure of off-balance-sheet transactions,
related-party transactions, and financial arrangements. By making these previously
hidden financial details public, SOX aimed to prevent companies from hiding
potentially risky activities or transactions that could harm investors (Blokhin, 2022).

Corporate governance is essential for preserving honesty and integrity in

businesses. By mandating that a majority of the board of directors be independent
and creating a more robust audit committee, SOX clarified the rules for corporate
governance. The independence of outside auditors was highlighted by the law as
well. These provisions were designed to reduce conflicts of interest and enhance the
independence of decision-makers within the company (Romano, 2005). The ultimate
goal of SOX is to safeguard investors against accounting fraud. The legislation aims
to construct and preserve trust between corporations and their shareholders by
enacting regulations that are more stringent and mandating responsibility, openness,
and accuracy in financial reporting, as well as corporate governance. The provisions
of SOX also include measures to enhance the accountability of executives and
auditors. For instance, the act introduced criminal penalties for executives who
willfully certify false financial statements (Blockhin, 2022).

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a shining illustration of how regulators may

improve the general public's defense against corporate wrongdoing. Through
implementing stricter regulations, enhanced reporting requirements, increased
transparency duties, and more lucid corporate governance norms, Sarbanes Oxley
(SOX) has been crucial in restoring investor trust and fortifying the US regulatory
environment. The protection of the general public against corporate fraud and
preserving the integrity of the financial markets are goals shared by similar
regulatory initiatives worldwide.

CONCLUSION

The Olympus scandal led to calls for corporate governance reforms in Japan.
The Japanese government and regulatory bodies initiated efforts to strengthen
governance rules and practices within Japanese corporations. Reforms included
enhancing the independence of boards of directors and improving internal controls.
In the wake of the scandal, Olympus underwent significant leadership changes. Key
figures implicated in the fraud, including the CEO and other top executives, resigned
or were removed from their positions.

Fraud affected the trust of the shareholders in the company. Initially, the
company's shareholders believed that the company was making huge profits.
However, the fraud changed their perception of the organization. The existing
investors also pulled out their resources from the company, and this reduced the
financial capacity of Olympus. Coupled with the losses hidden in the past, Olympus
lost its competitive advantage in its market segments. Fraud allegations always have
a direct negative impact on the image of a company as well as its ability to maintain
its market shares. The scandal had a lasting impact on Olympus's share price and
market capitalization. Shareholder value has been eroded, and the company needs
help regaining market confidence.

The company also lost its brand name, which it had established
internationally. Olympus was a known brand in the major European markets, and
customers adored its products and services. The emergence of fraud hindered its
reputation and the perception of its customers about the products and services it
offers. The major print media discussed the hidden scandal (Lorsch et al. 8). The
information reached the market immediately. As a result, Olympus lost some of its
potential customer bases.
 The Olympus scandal provides lessons on the significance of corporate
culture and its role in shaping an organization's behavior. The secretive and non-
transparent culture at Olympus was seen as a contributing factor to the perpetuation
of the fraud, highlighting the need for cultural shifts toward openness, accountability,
and ethical conduct.

References:

Aubin, D., & Uranaka, T. (2011, November 10). Reuters. Retrieved from Analysis:
Olympus scandal puts auditors under scrutiny:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympus-auditors-
idUSTRE7A91SA20111110

Bats, J., & Houben, A. (2017, December). DMB Working Paper. Retrieved from
Bank-based versus market-based financing: Implications for systemic risk:
https://www.dnb.nl/media/igjp5crb/wp_577_tcm47-369482.pdf

Blokhin, A. (2022, January 17). Investopedia. Retrieved from The Impact of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052815/what-impact-did-
sarbanesoxley-act-have-corporate-governance-united-states.asp#:~:text=The
%20Sarbanes%2DOxley%20Act%20of%202002%20was%20passed%20by
%20Congress,accurate%20handling%20of%20financial%20reports

Bloomberg. (2023, November 29). Retrieved from The Canadian Conference:

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/4822789#xj4y7vzkg
Carozza, D. (2012, April). Fraud Magazine. Retrieved from The Real Cost of
‘Choosing Truth Over Self': https://www.fraud-magazine.com/woodford/

Donath, G. (2022, April 24). Law Offices of Graham D. Donath, APC. Retrieved from
what is white-collar crime?: https://www.gddlaw.com/2022/04/24/white-collar-
crime/

Garcia, G. (2015, June 12). Real Instituto. Retrieved from Japanese cultural values
in business relationships:
https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/japanese-cultural-values-in-
business-relationships/#:~:text=Perhaps%20one%20of%20the%20most,or
%20harming%20their%20public%20image

Hayes, A. (2023, May 31). Investopedia. Retrieved from What Is White-Collar Crime?
Meaning, Types, and Examples: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/white-
collar-crime.asp#:~:text=White%2Dcollar%20crime%20is%20a%20nonviolent
%20crime%20of%20deceit%20or,laundering%20are%20white%2Dcollar
%20crimes

Hirose, Y. (2022, March 8). Routledge. Retrieved from Action Learning in Japan:
challenging cultural:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14767333.2022.2047609

IvyPanda. (2020, August 12). Retrieved from Olympus Fraud, Its Nature and
Company’s Governance Coursework: https://ivypanda.com/essays/olympus-
fraud-its-nature-and-companys-governance/

Kniepmann, C. (2020, August 6). Anders. Retrieved from The Fraud Triangle: Three
Conditions That Increase The Risk Of Fraud: https://anderscpa.com/the-fraud-
triangle-three-conditions-that-increase-the-risk-of-fraud/?tag=fvl

Kyodo. (2011, November 13). The Japan Times. Retrieved from Olympus bought
Gyrus for 58% more than market value:
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/11/13/business/olympus-bought-
gyrus-for-58-more-than-market-value/

Liberto, D. (2022, July 15). Investopedia. Retrieved from Off-Balance Sheet

Financing (OBSF): Definition and Purpose:
 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/obsf.asp

Matsumoto, K. (2019, April 24). Medium. Retrieved from Face Is Everything In

Japan: https://medium.com/@kiyoshimatsumoto/face-is-everything-in-japan-
9507ced54770

Muñoz, J. (2023, May 19). Alice. Retrieved from Understanding the psychology of
fraudsters: opportunity, rationalization and pressure:
https://alicebiometrics.com/en/understanding-the-psychology-of-fraudsters-
opportunity-rationalization-pressure/#:~:text=Rationalization%20is%20another
%20key%20aspect,will%20not%20suffer%20significant%20harm

Nicholls, G. P. (2012). IMF eLibrary. Retrieved from Chapter 9. Selected Debt

Restructuring Experiences in the Caribbean:
https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781484369142/ch09.xml?
tabs=fulltext

Norris, F. (2011, December 8). The New York Times. Retrieved from Deep Roots of
Fraud at Olympus: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/business/deep-roots-
of-fraud-at-olympus.html

O'Brien, D., Main, A., Kounkel, S., & Stephan, A. R. (2019, October 14). Deloitte.
Retrieved from Valuing your most important asset—talent:
https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/our-thinking/insights/topics/marketing-
sales/global-marketing-trends/2020/workforce-experience.html

Powell, B., & Tokyo. (2011, December 12). Time. Retrieved from A Rotten Picture at
Olympus: https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2100994-
2,00.html

Reuters. (2011, December 5). Retrieved from Olympus panel puts losses hidden at
peak at $1.7 billion: source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-olympus-
panel/olympus-panel-puts-losses-hidden-at-peak-at-1-7-billion-source-
idUSTRE7B310020111204

RiskOptics. (2020, January 15). Retrieved from What is the Fraud Triangle?:
https://reciprocity.com/resources/what-is-the-fraud-triangle/
Romano, R. (2005, May). Article. Retrieved from The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the
Making of:
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/9585/53_114Yale
LJ1521_May2005_.pdf?
sequence=2&fbclid=IwAR2uLMRaPf3NUKNdcJUBgLbXzuYRNJ2Obstu-
cng8z_ybjrlepA2Rm_PEy0

Smith, M. (2020, July 2). FStoppers. Retrieved from The Demise of Olympus: How
and Why Did It Happen, and What Does the Future Hold?:
https://fstoppers.com/originals/demise-olympus-how-and-why-did-it-happen-
and-what-does-future-hold-495764

Tabuchi, H. (2011, November 9). The New York Times. Retrieved from Corporate
Japan Rocked by Scandal at Olympus:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/business/global/corporate-japan-rocked-
by-scandal-at-olympus.html

Verma, V. (2023, June 11). LinkedIn. Retrieved from The Significance of Investor
Relations in the Context of Listed Companies:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/significance-investor-relations-context-listed-
companies-vikash-verma