SYNOPSIS We report the results of a survey of 178 corporate responsibility officers designed to explore how accountants can add value to sustainability initiatives. Specifically, we examine how three areas of accounting expertise (risk identification and measurement, financial reporting, and independent review/assurance) contribute to the strategic integration of sustainability initiatives (cf. Porter and Kramer 2006; IIRC 2011). Our results indicate that accounting professionals are rarely involved in sustainability initiatives, but their involvement is highly associated with strategic integration. This finding suggests that increased involvement likely would provide significant benefits to organizations and their stakeholders. We use these and other important insights into a series of research questions for future accounting or interdisciplinary research in sustainability. These insights about accountants' ability to enhance the strategic integration of sustainability initiatives also should be of interest to accounting and consulting firms as they design and market their sustainability services. Data Availability: Data are available upon request.
This paper investigates the relation between the value of a firm and employee attitudes on the firm's workplace quality—workplace attitudes. Workplace attitude refers to recognition of those organizational characteristics that enhance employee work experiences and assist employees in balancing their jobs and personal lives. Using inclusion on Fortune's annual list of “The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America” as a proxy for successful efforts in creating high workplace attitudes, we compare the market values of listed firms to the market values of nonlisted firms in the same industry matched on earnings. After controlling for book value, past operational performance, and research and development expense, we find that market values of listed firms exceed those of matched firms. We also provide evidence that firms ranked high on the Fortune list receive higher market values than those ranked lower on the list. Finally, the two-year forward market returns for listed firms exceed the returns for the matched sample while the two-year prior returns are not significantly different between the two groups. This result suggests that market performance does not determine inclusion on the Fortune list.
Strategic-systems auditing (SSA) approaches require auditors to perform analyses of their clients at two levels (i.e., strategic and business-process levels) when conducting audits (e.g., Bell et al. 2002; Lemon et al. 2000). One advantage of using SSA approaches is that through these analyses, auditors gain a complex systems understanding of the client. This understanding enhances decision making in part by recognizing that small actions can have big effects that increase overall business risk (Jacobson 2001; Richmond 2000). This study examines how the two levels of analysis in SSA impact auditor judgments regarding small changes in a business process that can have big (risk-increasing) effects. Specifically, we predict that when strategic-positioning information (contained within the strategic-level analysis) indicates a client is typical of others in its industry, information at the business-process level regarding a small problem in a business process will be weighted less than when the strategic-positioning information indicates the client is atypical. Results support this contention. This behavior may have implications for the effectiveness of SSA approaches under certain conditions.
SYNOPSIS Enterprise risk management (ERM) programs are an emerging component of managerial accounting that enable senior management to manage critical threats to the organization and identify strategic opportunities to exploit. A growing area of debate within ERM involves the extent to which risk reports should be assessed qualitatively or measured quantitatively (Risk and Insurance Management Society [RIMS] 2012). In many settings, quantitative reports are used and appear to be preferred due to their precision. Additional research suggests, however, that the directional nature of qualitative reports might fit better with senior management's cognitive expectations when considering strategic risks. We conduct an experiment that manipulates risk reporting format (quantitative versus qualitative) across both strategic and operational settings to examine their impact on risk management professionals' perceptions related to the preparer of the reports and the underlying quality of the information. We find that qualitative (quantitative) report information has a positive (negative) indirect association with managerial perceptions regarding strategic risk management activities. Specifically, in the strategic risk setting, the choice of format is directly associated with the perceived reliability and perceived relevance of the risk information. However, we do not find this relationship in the setting where risk reports focus on operational risks. These findings suggest that senior management favors qualitative information for strategic risks, whereas they are skeptical about quantitative measures for complex strategic risks.
SUMMARY Critics of the legal system argue that the use of lay jurors to adjudicate auditor negligence claims results in non-meritorious decisions of auditor liability. Palmrose (2006) therefore proposes that the courts rely on panels of experienced auditors to evaluate the merits of auditor negligence claims and make recommendations to the courts. There is, however, scant evidence to indicate how auditors' and lay evaluators' judgments might differ in cases of alleged auditor negligence. Our study addresses this gap in the literature by providing theory and empirical evidence that elucidates several systematic differences between auditors' and lay evaluators' judgments. Results of an experiment indicate that auditor evaluators are less reliant on plaintiff losses as evidence than lay evaluators, but—consistent with social identity theory—experience greater empathy for auditor defendants. Consequently, auditor evaluators consistently provide lower assessments of auditor liability than lay evaluators, irrespective of audit quality. In addition, results of the experiment indicate that different legally irrelevant inputs primarily determine both auditor and lay evaluators' negligence verdicts—emotional reactions for auditor evaluators and plaintiff losses for lay evaluators. Finally, results are mixed as to whether auditor evaluators' judgments are more sensitive to varying levels of audit quality than lay evaluators' judgments.
Public accounting firms have invested significant resources to develop reliable substantive tests using large data sets and sophisticated algorithms ("data and analytics based procedures"). Developing reliable procedures, however, is just one hurdle firms must clear before leveraging such data sets and algorithms. In particular, firms will also need to convince audit stakeholders that relying on data and analytics based procedures will not only enhance audit efficiency, but also improve, or at least maintain, audit effectiveness. This study provides exploratory, experimental evidence to indicate how three key audit stakeholder groups-non-professional investors, peer reviewers, and jurors-perceive two prominent data and analytics based audit procedures (population testing and predictive modeling) relative to a more traditional substantive procedure (sample testing). Results suggest that key audit stakeholders are generally open to, and, in some cases, favorably disposed to the use of data and analytics based audit procedures. Nevertheless, participants also expressed some concerns about the appropriateness of relying on data and analytics based procedures, particularly predictive modeling, as primary sources of substantive evidence. This paper reports these and other key findings to develop an agenda for future research to help firms better understand and ultimately address stakeholder concerns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.