Search results

The Accounting Information Systems (AIS) research field emerged around 30 years ago as a subfield of accounting but is at risk to develop further as an isolated discipline. However, given the importance of digitalization and its relevance for accounting, an amalgamation of the parent research field of accounting and the subfield of accounting information systems is pivotal for continuing relevant research that is of high quality. This study empirically investigates the distance between AIS research that is included in accounting literature and AIS research that prevails in dedicated AIS research outlets.

To understand which topics define AIS research, all articles published in the two leading AIS journals since 2000 were analyzed. Based on this topical inventory, all AIS studies that were published in the top 16 accounting journals, also since 2000, are identified and categorized in terms of topic, subtopic and research methodology. Next, AIS studies published in the general accounting field and AIS studies published in the AIS field were compared in terms of topics and research methodology to gain insights into the distance between the two fields.

The coverage of AIS topics in accounting journals is, to no small extent, concentrated around the topics “information disclosure”, “network technologies” and “audit and control”. Other AIS topics remain underrepresented. A possible explanation might be the focus on archival studies in accounting outlets, but other elements might play a role. The findings suggest that there is only a partial overlap between the parent accounting research field and the AIS subfield, in terms of both topic and research methodology diversity. These findings suggest a considerable distance between both fields, which might hold detrimental consequences in the long run, if no corrective actions are taken.

This is the first in-depth investigation of the distance between the AIS research field and its parent field of accounting. This study helped develop an AIS classification scheme, which can be used in other research endeavors. This study creates awareness of the divergence between the general accounting research field and the AIS subfield. Given the latter's relevance to the accounting profession, isolation or deterioration of the AIS research must be avoided. Some actionable suggestions are provided in the paper.

The paper aims to carry out a comprehensive literature mapping to synthesise and descriptively analyse the research trends of biodiversity accounting, providing implications for managers and policymakers, whilst also outlining a future agenda for scholars.

A bibliometric analysis is carried out by adopting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses protocol for searching and selecting the scientific contributions to be analysed. Citation analysis is used to map a current research front and a bibliographic coupling is conducted to detect the connection networks in current literature.

Biodiversity accounting is articulated in five thematic clusters (sub-areas), such as “Natural resource management”, “Biodiversity economic evaluation”, “Natural capital accounting”, “Biodiversity accountability” and “Biodiversity disclosure and reporting”. Critical insights emerge from the content analysis of these sub-areas.

The analysis of the thematic evolution of the biodiversity accounting literature provides useful insights to inform both practice and research and infer implications for managers, policymakers and scholars by outlining three main areas of intervention, i.e. adjusting evaluation tools, integrating ecological knowledge and establishing corporate social legitimacy.

Currently, the level of biodiversity reporting is pitifully low. Therefore, organisations should properly manage biodiversity by integrating diverse and sometimes competing forms of knowledge for the stable and resilient flow of ecosystem services for future generations.

This paper not only updates and enriches the current state of the art but also identifies five thematic areas of the biodiversity accounting literature for theoretical and practical considerations.

The purpose of this study is to describe the development of market based accounting research (MBAR) published in Indonesia for 10 years. This study attempts to explain the topics of MBAR, research method used, the variables, between-variable relationship formed, and the units analysis used in MBAR. This research uses qualitative-descriptive method to create descriptive models of MBAR articles published in accounting journals that have been accredited with minimum grade of B. The analysis of 109 MBAR articles of five accounting journals shows that 10 MBAR themes are still potential. Among three methods in MBAR, the multivariate association study is dominant. Some papers use intervening and moderating model to explore the relationship between accounting data and capital market reaction. The results for each theme are described in a research map that shows the relationship between variables (constructs) of MBAR from three units of analysis. This paper finds some implications to MBAR research agenda in the future, especially for meta-analysis research and triangulation research, due to many inconsistencies of the MBAR findings in Indonesia. In addition, accounting standard research topic is still promising in the moment of accounting standards transition.

This paper explores the historical roots of accounting for biodiversity and extinction accounting by analysing the 18th-century Naturalist's Journals of Gilbert White and interpreting them as biodiversity accounts produced by an interested party. The authors aim to contribute to the accounting history literature by extending the form of accounting studied to include nature diaries as well as by exploring historical ecological accounts, as well as contributing to the burgeoning literature on accounting for biodiversity and extinction accounting.

The authors’ method involves analysing the content of Gilbert White's Naturalist's Journals by producing an 18th-century biodiversity account of species of flora and fauna and then interpretively drawing out themes from the Journals. The authors then provide a Whitean extinction account by comparing current species' status with White's biodiversity account from 250 years ago.

This paper uses Gilbert White's Naturalist's Journals as a basis for comparing biodiversity and natural capital 250 years ago with current species' status according to extinction threat and conservation status. Further the paper shows how early nature diary recording represents early (and probably the only) forms of accounting for biodiversity and extinction. The authors also highlight themes within White's accounts including social emancipation, problematisation, aesthetic elements and an example of an early audit of biodiversity accounting.

There are limitations to analysing Gilbert White's Naturalist's Journals given that the only available source is an edited version. The authors therefore interpret their data as accounts which are indicative of biodiversity and species abundance rather than an exactly accurate account.

From the authors’ analysis and reflections, the authors suggest that contemporary biodiversity accounting needs to incorporate a combination of narrative, data accounting and pictorial/aesthetic representation if it is to provide a rich and accurate report of biodiversity and nature. The authors also suggest that extinction accounting should draw on historical data in order to demonstrate change in natural capital over time.

Social implications include the understanding gleaned from the authors’ analysis of the role of Gilbert White as a nature diarist in society and the contribution made over time by his Journals and other writings to the development of nature accounting and recording, as well as to one’s understanding and knowledge of species of flora and fauna.

To the authors’ knowledge this is the first attempt to analyse and interpret nature diaries as accounts of biodiversity and extinction.

This paper examines whether financial distress is associated with tax avoidance and whether the COVID-19 pandemic moderates such association.

The sample covers 38,958 firm-year observations from 32 countries during the period 2015–2020. Financial distress is measured using the ZSCORE by Altman (1968), while tax avoidance is based on the book-tax difference.

Financially distressed firms exhibit low tax avoidance pre- and during the pandemic periods. The authors find higher tax avoidance during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period, but the pandemic enhances the negative relationship between financial distress and tax avoidance.

The study offers evidence on how financial distress drives firms to engage in more tax avoidance when firms globally encountered various levels of financial difficulty sparked by the economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The findings provide insights to policymakers on the need to monitor and incentivise financially distressed firms, especially during economic challenges due to pandemic.

This study adds to the limited, albeit important, evidence on the joint effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and financial distress on tax avoidance.

The purpose of this study is to present a review of the literature on strategic management accounting (SMA). Specifically, it focuses on the trend of SMA research since the publication of Langfield-Smith’s (2008) influential paper “Strategic management accounting: how far have we come in 25 years?” which raised the question of relevance of further SMA research.

The study reviewed articles published on SMA as a whole (comprising a set of advanced management accounting techniques) and its specific techniques for the period of 2008 to 2019 in 23 leading accounting journals.

The review finds that research on SMA has focused on the contingencies influencing the adoption and implementation of SMA techniques and the effects of such adoption on various aspects of firm and employee performance. The renovation and modification of existing practices in attempt to match with the organizational context has also attracted the attention of several SMA scholars. In addition, a noticeable shift to the strategic management theory and case study method was observed during the study period.

The study focuses on the trend of SMA research in an attempt to revisit the relevance of further research in this arena, particularly as a response to the criticism raised by Langfield-Smith (2008).

This paper aims to examine the current practice of reporting on translation issues in qualitative, interdisciplinary accounting research. Based on an analysis of the methodological consideration of the translation of quotations from non-English interviews and additional interviews with experienced researchers, the authors aim to develop recommendations for the reporting on such translation procedures in future accounting research relying on interviews not conducted in English.

The analysis is based on papers published in four highly ranked interdisciplinary accounting journals: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA) and Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management (QRAM). The subjects of the analysis are publications of non-English-speaking researchers who conducted non-English interviews and therefore were confronted with translation issues when attempting to get published in these English-language journals. Additionally, to gain deeper insights into reporting decisions on language and translation issues, the authors conducted interviews with experienced researchers in the field of qualitative, interdisciplinary accounting research whose mother tongue is not English. The authors combine these empirical insights with current developments in translation studies.

As suggested by translation studies, translation is an act of sense making and reconstruction of meaning, and therefore is a complex task that needs to be carried out with caution. However, the findings suggest that in current interdisciplinary, qualitative accounting research, the reporting of language and translation issues, especially with regards to the translation of quotations from interview data, have so far received only limited attention. The authors therefore call for more awareness of and sensibility toward dealing with language and translation issues, which should be reflected in more transparent reporting on translation processes to support the credibility and authenticity of qualitative accounting studies based on non-English interviews.

This paper is limited to the reporting on the methodological consideration of translating quotations from non-English interviews in papers published in AAAJ, AOS, CPA and QRAM between 2004 and 2015. For future accounting research that relies on such interviews, the authors call for more transparency and provide specific recommendations. This in turn should strengthen the awareness that language and translation are factors to be considered and reported.

This paper is the first to develop recommendations for the reporting of translation processes in accounting research studies, which are based on interviews not led in the English language.

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

This paper provides a structured literature review of blockchain in accounting. The authors identify current trends, analyse and critique the key topics of research and discuss the future of this nascent field of inquiry.

This study’s analysis combined a structured literature review with citation analysis, topic modelling using a machine learning approach and a manual review of selected articles. The corpus comprised 153 academic papers from two ranked journal lists, the Association of Business Schools (ABS) and the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC), and from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). From this, the authors analysed and critiqued the current and future research trends in the four most predominant topics of research in blockchain for accounting.

Blockchain is not yet a mainstream accounting topic, and most of the current literature is normative. The four most commonly discussed areas of blockchain include the changing role of accountants; new challenges for auditors; opportunities and challenges of blockchain technology application; and the regulation of cryptoassets. While blockchain will likely be disruptive to accounting and auditing, there will still be a need for these roles. With the sheer volume of information that blockchain records, both professions may shift out of the back-office toward higher-profile advisory roles where accountants try to align competitive intelligence with business strategy, and auditors are called on ex ante to verify transactions and even whole ecosystems.

The authors identify several challenges that will need to be examined in future research. Challenges include skilling up for a new paradigm, the logistical issues associated with managing and monitoring multiple parties all contributing to various public and private blockchains, and the pressing need for legal frameworks to regulate cryptoassets.

The possibilities that blockchain brings to information disclosure, fraud detection and overcoming the threat of shadow dealings in developing countries all contribute to the importance of further investigation into blockchain in accounting.

The authors’ structured literature review uniquely identifies critical research topics for developing future research directions related to blockchain in accounting.

This study aims to offer a bibliometric and coding analysis of blockchain articles published in the accounting, auditing and accountability fields.

The data were collected using the Scopus database and a bibliometric and qualitative coding analysis with the keywords “blockchain” and “accounting” or “auditing” or “accountability.” Of the 514 initial sources, 93 peer-reviewed papers, book chapters and conference proceedings in the areas of business, management and accounting were finally selected. Nonscientific sources such as nonpeer-reviewed books and white papers were excluded.

This study reveals a promising and multidisciplinary field of research dominated by scholars and less by practitioners. Qualitative research, especially discourse analysis, is the most used method among authors. This study gives some useful insights about blockchain's definition and characteristics, business models, processes involved, connection with other technologies and relationships with accounting theories. Among the most interesting insights, the results confirm that technology as an external force can create an intersection among several research areas: accounting, auditing, accountability, business, management, computer science and engineering fields. Finally, in terms of research themes, although blockchain has a clear effect on auditing accounting, the links with the area of accountability are less clear and validated.

This study highlights the current state of the field, combining methodological approaches and providing valuable future research insights. Additionally, it is also a starting point for professionals to fully understand blockchain's characteristics and potential with a constructive and systemic approach.