Search results

This study aims to demonstrate how pressures (incentives) in the audit environment can lower audit quality because of a breakdown between professionally skeptical (PS) judgment (risk assessment) and PS action (testing).

The authors used a Qualtrics-based experiment with attitude change as a proxy measure of cognitive dissonance (CD). The authors analyze the results using a one-way independent between-group ANOVA with post hoc tests and t-tests.

The authors find that auditors experience CD when they fail to take appropriate high PS action (audit tests) that are in line with high PS judgment (risk assessments). The motivational force to reduce CD drives auditors to revise their assessments upward (rank higher), lower diagnostic audit tests (PS actions) and lower risk assessments (PS judgments). This leads to lower overall professional skepticism, and hence lower audit quality.

This investigation provides an empirical investigation of Nelson’s (2009) model of professional skepticism and demonstrates a specific mechanism for how incentives in the audit environment lower audit quality. Based on the findings, treatments to enhance audit quality can benefit by strengthening the critical link between PS judgments (risk assessments) and PS actions (audit tests).

In this study, the authors investigate if analysts, as knowledgeable information intermediaries, can correctly identify bank corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and can reliably transmit that information to investors. Hence, the authors specifically explore if analysts perceive and behave differentially in the presence of genuine bank CSR activities (strengths). The authors also analyze if financial markets differentially assess bank CSR strengths. The authors further explore the viability of focusing on analyst and financial markets to validate genuine bank CSR strengths.

The authors use COMPUSTAT and CRSP for firm and financial data, I/B/E/S for analyst reporting data and MCSI Research KLD for CSR data. The sample consists of 329 distinct banks and 2,525 bank-year observations from 2003 to 2016. The primary CSR score is the total number of CSR strengths less the total number of CSR concerns, across six of the seven dimensions for each firm in each year of the sample (Adjusted CSR Score). In addition, the authors estimate all the analyses with dis-aggregated measures of total CSR strengths and total CSR concerns (Adjusted Total Strength Score).

The authors find that analysts correctly distinguish and construe bank CSR strengths from CSR concerns. Specifically, bank CSR strengths increase analyst following and forecast accuracy, while decreasing analyst forecast dispersion. The authors further find that bank CSR strengths increase bank market returns. These results are reversed for bank CSR concerns. Additionally, the authors demonstrate that this method using knowledgeable intermediaries can help validate bank CSR strengths.

The sample is limited to US banks and financial markets. The regulatory and information environment is likely to be different from global or emerging markets. However, since banks in many countries aspire to emulate the US banks, these results would be a precursor of banking sectors conditions in emerging markets. Additionally, the availability of data limits the sample to a period that ends in 2016. To the extent that the importance of ESG and CSR concerns has increased in the intervening time, the results may not accurately reflect the current state of the market.

This investigation benefits researchers, customers, banking executives, regulators and activist groups. First, the authors show that in addition to customers, analysts and the financial markets appreciate bank CSR strengths. Second, despite sophisticated financial reporting by banks, analysts correctly distinguish and construe bank CSR strengths. Third, the authors demonstrate a method for bank marketing researchers to validate genuine bank CSR activity, as well as provide additional support for customer related bank CSR outcomes. Fourth, the findings highlight the importance for banks to have high-quality CSR reporting. This might be especially helpful to a bank rebuilding its reputation after a CSR failure. Finally, this investigation using US banks could serve as a precursor for future bank CSR research and help develop CSR reporting guidelines for banks in emerging economies.

This investigation benefits researchers, customers, banking executives, regulators and activist groups.

This investigation benefits researchers, customers, banking executives, regulators and activist groups. First, the authors show that in addition to customers, analysts and the financial market appreciates bank CSR strengths. Second, despite sophisticated financial reporting by banks, analysts correctly distinguish and construe bank CSR strengths. Third, the authors demonstrate a method for bank marketing researchers to validate genuine bank CSR activity, as well as provide additional support for customer related bank CSR outcomes. Fourth, the findings highlight the importance for banks to have high-quality CSR reporting. This might be especially helpful to a bank rebuilding its reputation after a CSR failure. Finally, this investigation using US banks could serve as a precursor for future bank CSR research and help develop CSR reporting guidelines for banks in emerging economies.