Search results

Through its impact on both demand and supply, the outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has profoundly disrupted supply chains throughout the world. The purpose of this paper is to explore the underlying drivers of the supply chain vulnerability exposed by COVID-19 and considers potential future directions for global supply.

This paper adopts a case study approach, reviewing the automotive manufacturing sector in Australia to illustrate how neoliberal globalisation policy settings have shifted large tracts of manufacturing from the global north to the global south.

The authors demonstrate the way that neoliberal globalisation policies, facilitated by certain accounting rhetorics and technologies, have consolidated manufacturing in China and Southeast Asia in ways that embed vulnerabilities in global supply chains. The authors present three scenarios for post-COVID-19 supply chains and the accounting techniques likely to garner stronger attention as a result of the pandemic.

The paper illustrates how certain accounting rhetorics and technologies facilitate neoliberal globalisation, embedding supply chain vulnerability that has been exposed by COVID-19. It also suggests how supply chain accounting may develop more robust supply chains in a post-COVID-19 world and sets out an agenda for future research in this area.

A number of practical supply chain accounting and planning technologies are suggested to facilitate more robust supply chains.

This paper draws attention to the neoliberal globalisation policies that have shaped global supply chains as well as how COVID-19, in concert with other geopolitical trajectories, may represent a watershed moment for global supply chains.

The authors examine how political players attempt to rationalise arguments for and against the expansion of auditing into governmental affairs, and how state audit authorities respond to politically motivated boundary work. This study is motivated by growing evidence of political involvement in attempts to both expand and undermine state audit oversight of government affairs.

The authors present an interpreted history (covering relevant events from 1995 to 2016) of political rationales and associated boundary work that led to the expansion of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario's (OAGO) mandate to audit government advertising campaigns for partisanship as well as attempts to modify this new audit remit over time.

The authors reveal substantive, formal and practical ways in which political players sought to rationalise/counter-rationalise expanding the OAGO's authority to the unfamiliar territory of advertising probity. The authors show how such justification claims ebb and flow in accordance with changeable political interests, and how state auditors react to the fraught nature of politically motivated boundary work.

The authors conceptualise important forms of rationalising rhetoric (which cannot be reduced to expressions of neoliberal government) that can be mobilised to deem state auditor authority legitimate in overseeing otherwise novel, unfamiliar and controversial government affairs. The authors also reveal a hitherto unrecognised resolve in state auditor responses to political intervention and shed further light on generalised forms of rationale that can underpin boundary work at the margins of accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to examine prominent issues and knowledge contributions from research exploring the nexus between accounting and the business of sport, overview the other papers presented in this AAAJ Special Issue and draw from this work to scope out future impactful research opportunities in this area.

A review and examination of the prior literature and the other papers published in this AAAJ Special Issue.

The paper identifies and summarises three key research themes in the extant literature: financial regulation and assurance; commercialisation and professionalism; and accountability and control. Then it draws from work within these research themes to set out four broad areas for future impactful research.

The value of this paper rests with collating and synthesising several important research issues on the nexus between accounting (broadly defined) and the business of sport, and in prompting future extensions of this work through setting out areas for further innovative accounting research on sport.

The research examined in this paper and the future research avenues proposed are highly relevant to administrators and regulators in sport. They also offer important insights into matters of accounting, accountability, valuation and control more generally.

This paper adds to vibrant existing streams of research in the area by bringing together authors from different areas of accounting research for this AAAJ Special Issue. In scoping out an agenda for impactful research at the intersection of accounting and sport, this paper also draws attention to underexplored issues pertaining to the rise of integrity and accountability concerns in sport, strategic choices in financial regulation, valuation issues and practices and the rise of technology in sport.

The authors examined how squad members within an Australian state police force perceived and attached enabling or coercive meanings to a suite of management control system (MCS) changes that were new public management (NPM) inspired.

The authors conducted a longitudinal case study of a large Australian state police department utilizing an abductive research design.

The authors found that identification processes strongly conditioned the reception of the MCS changes introduced. Initially, the authors observed mixed interpretations of controls as both enabling and coercive. Over time, these changes were seen to be coercive because they threatened interpersonal relationships and the importance and efficacy of squads in combating serious and organized crime.

The authors contributed to MCSs literature by revealing the critical role that multifaceted relational and collective identification processes played in shaping interpretations of controls as enabling–coercive. The authors build on this to elaborate on the notion of employees’ centricity in the MCS design.

This study suggests that, in complex organizational settings, the MCS design and change should reckon with pre-existing patterns of employees’ identification.

The authors suggested shifting the starting point for contemplating the MCS change: from looking at how what employees do is controlled to how the change impacts and how employees feel about who they are. When applied to the MCS design, employee centricity highlights the value of collaborative co-design, attentiveness to relational identification between employees, feedback and interaction in place of inferred management expectations and traditional mechanistic approaches.

Online ratings and reviews have recently emerged as mechanisms to facilitate accountability and transparency in the provision of goods and services. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature and outcome of the accountability that online ratings and reviews create in the sharing economy.

The study draws on 30 face-to-face and Skype interviews with Airbnb guests and hosts as well as on secondary materials, including content from Airbnb data analytic reports.

The authors demonstrate that face-saving practices widely condition user ratings and comments. Face saving occurs when individuals attempt to preserve their own identity and the identity of others during a social interaction. At Airbnb, the authors find that reviewers adopt three distinct face-saving strategies: the use of private reviewing channels, the creation of tactful reviews and refraining from reviewing entirely. The authors also find that users are sceptical of rating metrics and public comments and draw upon a wide range of alternative sources, such as private messaging and other publicly available resources, in their decision making.

This paper highlights the overwhelmingly positive character of Airbnb ratings and reviews. It proposes the concept of crowdbased accountability as a limited, partial form of assurance for sharing economy users. Guests and hosts alike prioritise face-saving practices over reviewer responsibilities to provide authentic, reliable accounts to the public. Consequently, reviewers effectively remove the risk of sanctions for those in the network who underperform.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize insights from the emerging work in accounting on greenwashing and sustainability assurance and propose an agenda for future research in this area.

This article offers an original analysis of papers published on greenwashing and sustainability assurance research in the field of accounting. It adopts a systematic literature review and a narrative approach to analyse the dominant themes and key findings in this new and rapidly evolving field. From this overview, specific avenues for future research are identified.

In the past few years there has been a substantial spike in concern relating to greenwashing among academics, practitioners, regulators and society. This growing concern has only partly been reflected in the research literature. To date, research has primarily focused on: (1) the characteristics of firms adopting sustainability assurance, (2) the challenges facing sustainability auditors, (3) the development of appropriate assurance standards and regulations, and (4) capital market responses to greenwashing and sustainability auditing/assurance. Three key future research issues with respect to greenwashing are identified: (1) the future of standard-setter attempts to regulate greenwashing, (2) professional jockeying in sustainability reporting assurance, and (3) capital market opportunities and challenges relating to greenwashing and assurance.

Despite the profound economic and reputational impact of greenwashing and the rapid development of sustainability assurance services, research in accounting remains fragmented and emergent. This review identifies avenues offering considerable scope for inter-disciplinarity and bridging the divide between academia and practice.

As the new millennium draws near, the business world is experiencing a number of radical changes on a global scale. Globalisation, information technology, increasing competitive pressures and changing international law have set the scene for a vastly changing business environment for the 21st century. The future prosperity of the accounting profession will depend on its ability to manage this change and to be prepared to adapt to capitalise on new opportunities. In particular, the Big‐5, with their immense size and resource pool, are well placed to respond to and take advantage of these changes in the global business environment. The impact of the response of the Big‐5 to the anticipated market parameters of the new millennium raises a number of interesting issues in terms of the impact they have on the various segments of both the accounting profession and the entire business community.

This article aims to review popular frameworks used to examine fraud and earmarks three areas where there is considerable scope for academic research to guide and inform important debates within organisations and regulatory bodies.

The article reviews published fraud research in the fields of auditing and forensic accounting, focusing on the development of the dominant framework in accounting and fraud examination, the fraud triangle. From this review, specific avenues for future research are identified.

Three under-researched issues are identified: rationalisation of fraudulent behaviours by offenders; the nature of collusion in fraud; and regulatory attempts to promote whistle-blowing. These topics highlight the perspective of those directly involved in fraud and draw together issues that have interested researchers in other disciplines for decades with matters that are at the heart of contemporary financial management across the globe.

In spite of the profound economic and reputational impact of fraud, the research in accounting remains fragmented and emergent. This review identifies avenues offering scope to bridge the divide between academia and practice.