No abstract

No abstract

When organizational researchers competitively test two or more theories, or compare the predictive or relational strength of two or more factors or variables, the results can lead them to conclude that one theory or variable is stronger than the other(s). Such conclusions can be remarkably insensitive to a potential alternative explanation of the results: The stronger theory, factor, or variable was favored by being more strongly operationalized, manipulated, or measured. This can unwittingly render the comparative study into a test of a poorly framed empirical question, the results of which are at least partial artifacts of the procedures, manipulations, or measures used. Four illustrations of this alternative explanation of comparative results are drawn from recent manipulation-and measurement-based studies of organizational behavior. We then describe generic procedures that can make for fairer comparisons, address several grounds for misunderstanding the substance of this article, and conclude by restating the main point. Our intent is to encourage fairer comparisons.1-9.

due process, accounting standard-setting, IASB,

No abstract

We develop a model of the process linking corporate social responsibility to capital market responses. The model recognizes that corporate social responsibility behaviours and the disclosure of information about those behaviours can impact on capital market processes, have cash flow consequences for the firm and affect the discount rate used by investors to value that stream of cash flows. We use this model to review the literature on this relationship and to identify continuing gaps in our knowledge.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to introduce and illustrate the insights of the sociology of worth as advanced by sociologist Luc Boltanski and his collaborator economist/statistician Laurent Thévenot in their works, including their path‐breaking book De la justification published in 1991.Design/methodology/approachThe paper explores the basic tenets of this “new sociology” and draws on it to render a reinterpretation of Ansari and Euske's study of cost accounting in a military depot.FindingsThe sociology of worth complements extant sociological approaches to accounting by providing a language and a conceptual tool‐box for understanding the multiple rationalities in which accounting is implicated. In addition, given its pragmatic micro level approach to accounting, it has the potential to act as a bridge between institutional theory and practice theory.Originality/valueThis paper is the first known to render an extensive discussion of Boltanski and Thévenot's work in the accounting literature and to apply insights from this work to accounting research.

No abstract