Manuscript Type: EmpiricalResearch Question/Issue: This study investigates the association between the composition of the board of directors and corporate diversification, to explore the role of the board in corporate strategic choice. Research Findings/Results: Based on a sample of 101 Australian publicly listed firms in 2005, this study finds that there is no link between corporate decisions on product and/or geographic diversification and two aspects of board compositionboard independence and institutional representation. However, there is a positive link between total diversification and a third aspect of board composition -the proportion of directors who have ties to boards of corporations in other industries. Theoretical Implications: The results provide support for the managerial hegemony and the resource dependency theories. Corporate strategic decisions regarding diversification are more likely to be made by management than boards of directors, and to be encouraged by interlocking directors with extra-industry ties. Practical Implications: Contrary to the requirement or recommendation in many jurisdictions that boards be more independent, these results indicate that shareholders' interests, represented by lower levels of diversification, are not promoted under such circumstances. Interlocking directors appear to effectively link the corporation to the external business environment and to encourage diversification. Existing recommendations and regulations to align management with shareholders' interests through independent boards should be revised. Board composition should also consider directors' knowledge, relevant expertise, availability, and length of tenure.
Motivated by the importance and distinctiveness of accountability to stakeholders in not‐for‐profit organizations (NFPs), we examine the use of Ebrahim's accountability mechanisms in a large sample of service delivery NFPs in Australia. Although much prior literature relies on the concept of stakeholder power to explain NFPs’ accountability practices, stakeholder salience (embracing the concepts of stakeholder power, legitimacy, and urgency) emerges as a competing explanation. Utilizing Mitchell et al.’s stakeholder salience framework, we examine the impact of stakeholder power, legitimacy, and urgency on NFPs’ use of accountability mechanisms to account to two key stakeholder groups, government and beneficiaries. Our results show that although legitimacy and urgency of government influence the use of upward accountability mechanisms, beneficiary power influences the use of the downward accountability mechanism of participation.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to assess the impact of the 1999 Special Issue on Professionalization in Asia in the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ); and second, more generally to review research on this topic post-1999. Design/methodology/approach The paper starts with a discussion of the research articles of the Special Issue. It then identifies research that has cited papers in the Special Issue and which focusses on professionalization in Asia to identify relevant subsequent research. In addition, a literature search is conducted to locate post-1999 work that has not cited papers from the Special Issue but has investigated the same topic area. Analyzing both sets of work enables an integrated review of the field and aids the identification of future research opportunities. The study covers published research articles and books on professionalization projects in Asia from 1999 to 2018. In this paper, reference to Asia focusses on East Asia (including countries such as China and Japan), South Asia (including countries such as Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka), and South East Asia (including countries such as Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam). Given the elapsed time of near 20 years, there has been sufficient time for research to be published. Therefore, the review focusses on published output only and does not discuss unpublished theses, conference proceedings nor working papers. Findings First, the Special Issue of AAAJ in 1999 generally adopted a critical lens and studied professionalization as projects of market closure and collective mobility. The corporatist framework of Puxty et al. (1987) provided a useful framing to analyze the influence of states, markets and communities on professionalization. Second, the Special Issue has helped to spur interest in understanding professionalization in the region. Post-1999, there are studies of countries not covered in the Special Issue. Third, the themes identified in the Special Issue continue to be relevant and are examined in post-1999 work: the active role of the state, the legacies of colonization, the activities of transnational accounting bodies; and to a lesser degree, the influence of transnational accounting firms. Finally, future research could usefully focus on: the distinctive and more expansive role of Asian state agencies; the conduct of deeper comparative research; the role of accounting firms in the region; and the impact of transnational agencies such as the International Federation of Accountants and the World Bank. Research limitations/implications There are three limitations. First, the review of literature omits unpublished research such as PhD theses and working papers. Second, it focusses only on research published in English. As a result, some work may be excluded. Third, it assesses the contribution of a single issue (i.e. the 1999 AAAJ Special Issue) and does not discuss work that preceded 1999. Originality/value This paper is aimed at assessing the impact of the 1999 Special Issue but also presents a wide-ranging analytical review of published research on accounting professionalization in Asia since 1999. The paper identifies several areas for future research and proposes a modified model of state-market-community-profession relations. In particular, the paper emphasizes the large and distinctive roles of Asian state agencies and the activities of transnational actors (both those within the profession as well as those that are external).
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.