Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine accountants’ application of principles-based accounting standards to a lawsuit contingency recognition scenario and the potential role that accounting work experience plays in mitigating accountants’ aggressive financial reporting.

This study presents a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with accounting experience (measured as high vs low) and contingency type (asset vs liability) as independent variables and accountants’ lawsuit contingency conservatism likelihood judgments and US$ recognition recommendations as the dependent variables.

Consistent with expectations, findings indicate that more experienced accountants are more likely to recognize liabilities and items that decrease income and less likely to recognize assets and items that increase income than their less experienced counterparts. Accountants also recommended recognizing lower (higher) mean US$ amounts for assets (liabilities), as expected. Supplemental analyses show a significant moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of contingency type and accounting experience on individuals’ US$ recognition recommendations is partially mediated through the nature of the conservatism judgment.

The finding that less experienced accountants report more aggressively than more experienced accountants when applying a principles-based standard supports the call for using judgment frameworks in imprecise standard settings and suggests that firms may want to ensure that accountants with adequate work experience are on hand as U.S. generally accepted accounting principles become more principles-based over time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the impact of accounting work experience on the application of principles-based accounting standards and the mitigation of aggressive financial reporting. Our supplemental analyses also identify the nature of the conservatism judgment as a mediating mechanism which partially explains more experienced accountants’ US$ asset and liability recognition recommendations.

The purpose of this study is to provide preliminary insights into the relationships between self-monitoring, emotional expressivity, emotional labor, felt leader authenticity, and authentic leadership (AL) within a unique context – West Texas Baptist congregations. Using a sample of 40 Baptist pastors, we employed survey research methods and correlational analyses to explore the focal relationships. Our results revealed that self-monitoring is positively correlated with surface acting, yet negatively associated with AL, within our sample of West Texas Baptist pastors. Emotional expressivity is negatively related to surface acting, but not deep acting, and positively related to genuine emotional displays. We also found that surface acting is negatively associated with genuine emotion displays and felt authenticity, while felt authenticity and AL are positively correlated. However, no relationships between self-monitoring, deep acting, felt authenticity, and AL were revealed. Thus, we identified cases where leader authenticity may be threatened within an organizational context with strong emotional display rules, suggesting a boundary condition for AL. Additionally, we advance propositions gleaned from our research regarding the influence of the omnibus (e.g., community religiosity) and discrete context on leader emotional labor and authenticity. We conclude with practical recommendations for leaders seeking to balance authenticity with emotional display rules associated with unique roles and contexts, as well as recommendations for scholars seeking to conduct research in such settings. We also provide candid insights regarding the challenges we encountered in researching leader authenticity within a highly religious context.

This chapter critically reviews the literature on authentic leadership (AL) that emerged in response to scandals in private- and public-sector organisations, drawing on theories, concepts and methods from other disciplines. The author finds that AL lacks a consensus definition, and that quantitative research has largely been at the level of employees rather than executives or board members. The review reveals 12 categories of criticisms. Schaefler advocates inductive qualitative research on the major concerns of executive leaders and means of addressing them via group dynamics, maintaining that exploring processes of AL in real-world settings would complement existing quantitative research and contribute to the development and extension of AL theory.

This chapter offers a comprehensive review the literature on authentic leadership (AL). The authors employ a bibliometric approach to identify, classify, visualise and synthesise relevant scholarly publications and the work of a core group of interdisciplinary scholars who are key contributors to the research on AL. They review 264 journal articles, adopting a clustering technique to assess the central themes of AL scholarship. They identify five distinct thematic clusters: authenticity in the context of leadership; structure of AL; social perspectives on AL; dynamism of AL; and value perceptions of AL. Velt and Sinkovics assert that these clusters will help scholars of AL to understand the dominant streams in the literature and provide a foundation for future research.

This paper aims to examine the relevance of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in emerging markets, with special reference to the case of Greece.

This paper adopts a mixed methodology relying primarily on secondary sources such as the relevant legislation, published annual reports and reports on the effects of the application of IFRS by Greek firms as well as the results of a postal survey addressed to the finance managers of the top 100 Greek firms. For the postal survey, a modified version of the questionnaire used by Tyrall et al. was adopted.

Although the Greek environment was not appropriate for IFRS application, participants in the survey believe that their adoption improved the quality of financial reporting. The introduction of IFRS increased the reliability, transparency and comparability of the financial statements.

This study provides insights regarding the extent to which the introduction of IFRS influenced the accounting information supplied by firms operating within the European Union.

The paper empirically investigates the impact of the introduction of IFRS on the quality of financial statements within the context of emerging markets.

To better detect potential audit issues, since 2010, the Internal Revenue Service has required firms to file a separate schedule individually disclosing each of their uncertain tax positions (UTPs). This study uses an experiment to examine how this increase in detection risk from the newly created IRS schedule influences both a firm’s tax reporting and financial reporting concurrently. We find that corporate tax professionals were more likely to recommend an UTP when their firm had a strong UTP reporting quality, regardless of the detection risk level of the reporting environment. However, we find an interaction effect for the recording of the tax reserve. In a low detection risk environment, corporate tax professionals recorded a higher (lower) tax reserve when their firm had a weak (strong) UTP reporting quality. However, in a high detection risk environment, corporate tax professionals recorded a lower (higher) tax reserve when their firm had a weak (strong) UTP reporting quality. Overall, the results provide insight into the dual nature of UTP reporting and the determinants that influence each reporting behavior.

The objective of this study is to examine how the heterogeneity of the institutional environments within a single country influences International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) convergence and earnings quality based on a meso- and multi-level approach.

Using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to capture the between-group heteroskedasticity and within-cluster interdependence, this study investigates the simultaneous effect by incorporating institutional factors residing at different hierarchical levels and the interaction effects of factors within the same level on IFRS convergence and earnings quality in the largest IFRS adopter, China.

The results show that after IFRS convergence (i.e. 2007–2015), earnings quality decreases in terms of conservatism. However, the further analysis indicates that the strong institutional environment could mitigate the negative impact of IFRS on conservatism.

Consistent with the emphasis of heterogeneity within a country by Terracciano et al. (Science, 2005, 310 (5745)), this study indicates that the heterogeneity in the institutional environments and the simultaneous effect of the multilevel institutional environments within a single country cannot be ignored. This study also indicates that, equally important, research methodology plays a substantial role in investigating the outcomes of IFRS convergence. Finally, this study, based on an integrated theory, adopts a meso-paradigm linking macro- and micro-level institutions to provide comprehensive insights into IFRS convergence and conservatism.

This paper investigates whether the greater flexibility of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in contrast to accounting models that were used before those standards became mandatory meant a significant change in the magnitude of accruals recognized in the accounting income.

18,126 observations are analyzed on 1,881 non-financial companies in 19 European countries in 2000–2012. A difference-in-differences regression method is used. The treatment sample includes companies that were required to adopt IFRS as from the 2005 fiscal year, while the control sample comprises companies that voluntarily adopted IFRS prior to 2005.

Compared to prior accounting standards, the mandatory adoption of IFRS increased the absolute value of accruals. This result is seen only in those companies where the magnitude of accruals is negative. The observed effect is independent of the degree of similarity between IFRS and prior standards.

This paper complements the literature analyzing the effect of IFRS on the financial statements and on the financial-economic indicators of companies. It analyzes the component of accounting income that is most sensitive to the use of professional judgment: accruals. Focusing on observed accruals helps avoid an error in measurement that can be made when working with the discretionary component of accruals. Additionally, a longer time horizon than in previous studies is considered.

Este trabajo investiga si la mayor flexibilidad de las Normas Internacionales de Información Financiera (NIIF) respecto a los modelos contables que se empleaban antes de que dichas normas fueran obligatorias supuso un cambio significativo de la magnitud de los ajustes por devengo reconocidos en el resultado contable.

Se analizan 18.126 observaciones de 1.881 empresas no financieras de 19 países europeos en 2000–2012. Se utiliza la metodología de regresión del tipo diferencia en diferencias. La muestra de tratamiento incluye empresas que adoptaron obligatoriamente las NIIF, lo que tuvo lugar en el ejercicio contable 2005, y la muestra de control está compuesta por empresas que las adoptaron voluntariamente antes de 2005.

Con respecto a las normas contables previas, la adopción obligatoria de las NIIF incrementó el valor absoluto de los ajustes por devengo. Este resultado se observa solamente en el grupo de empresas donde la magnitud de los devengos es negativa. El efecto observado es independiente del grado de similitud entre las NIIF y las normas previas.

Este trabajo complementa la literatura que analiza el efecto de las NIIF sobre los estados financieros y los indicadores económico-financieros de las empresas, analizando el componente del resultado contable más sensible al uso del juicio profesional: los devengos. El hecho de centrarse en los devengos observados permite evitar el error de medición en el que se incurre cuando se trabaja con el componente discrecional de los mismos. Adicionalmente, se analiza un horizonte temporal más amplio que en trabajos previos.

The purpose of this paper is to examine investors’ propensity to litigate when harmful events occur subsequent to accounting choices. Consistent with Culpable Control Theory, the authors find that investors are more likely to pursue litigation against management when managers are perceived to have more financial reporting flexibility, such as when they apply imprecise, principles-based accounting guidance. Investors are more likely to pursue litigation when they find management more responsible for harmful events, and they find management more responsible for those events when they perceive management to have more reporting flexibility. To provide additional insight, the authors investigate how the relationship between reporting flexibility and assessed manager responsibility is mediated by investors’ perceptions of management’s self-interested behavior. The authors consider monetary and non-monetary motivations for litigation against management such as recouping financial losses and punishing management. The results suggest that recouping financial losses is not the sole motivation for litigation. The authors provide evidence that punishing management is an important non-monetary component of the litigation decision. The results contribute to the limited literature on investor litigation decisions and inform the debate surrounding the potential effects of more principles-based accounting standards.

The authors test the hypotheses using an experiment with a 2×1 between-subjects design in which the authors manipulate reporting flexibility at two levels by varying the precision of accounting guidance and measure all other variables of interest. Participants are 82 part-time executive MBA program students at a major public university in the USA. Most participants work full-time (94 percent), own or have owned stocks either directly or through retirement plans (84 percent), indicate general investment knowledge (97 percent), and report high levels of familiarity with corporate financial statements, including balance sheets and income statements (92 percent). Thus, the authors conclude that these executive MBA students are reasonable surrogates for investors.

Consistent with the predictions, perceived management reporting flexibility affects investors’ propensity to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events such as investor losses, employee job losses, and economic losses suffered by a community mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. As predicted, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. This result suggests that the litigation decision is driven at least in part by corporate governance goals such as the desire for retribution or punishment of management. The second experiment provides additional support for the theory that the desire to punish management is an important component of investors’ litigation decisions.

The research makes important contributions to the literature on investor litigation and to the ongoing debate regarding principles- vs rules-based accounting standards. While some archival research addresses the conditions under which securities litigation occurs, little empirical research has directly addressed the investor decision to litigate. The paper provides additional evidence to address the question of why investors litigate. By doing so, the authors add to the debate on the desirability of shifting from more rules-based to more principles-based accounting standards.

The theory tested in this study could be used to design mechanisms to mitigate the differential propensity for investors to litigate under differing accounting regimes. As standard setters discuss a move to more principles-based standards in the USA, some observers have expressed concern that investor litigation will increase. The theory suggests that if the standard-setting body can control perceptions of management reporting flexibility such that investors believe principles-based standards provide no more flexibility than rules-based standards, they can limit an increase in the amount of investor litigation.

The authors contribute to theory by providing evidence regarding why investors desire to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. Furthermore, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. Those findings provide theoretical contributions to the literature.