Search results

This study aims to examine the impact of corporate board characteristics and country-level legal system on corruption disclosures mandated by the recent European Union (EU) Directive No. 95/2014.

Based on a sample of 234 European listed companies and covering the 2017–2018 period, this study uses regression analyses to empirically test the association of independent directors, board gender diversity and country’s legal system with disclosure of corruption information.

The presence of independent directors and female directors is positively associated with corporate corruption disclosures. The association between independent directors and corruption disclosures is especially strong when firms are operating in the common law environments.

This study is exclusively focused on larger European listed firms and therefore the findings may not be valid for small and medium firms.

This study provides important information to policymakers to have a better understanding of the factors that influence firms’ disclosure policy on corruption-related activities. It also offers useful information to investors because it shows firms’ propensity to disclose corruption information that would enable them to evaluate their risk and return better.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates firms’ response to the EU Directive No. 95/2014 in disclosing corruption information after its implementation in 2017. It documents the effective role played by female directors in influencing firms’ information disclosure policies. It also confirms that common law environment is more conducive to disclosures.

The purpose of the study is to examine the effect of managerial stock ownership on the relationship between material internal control weaknesses (ICW) and audit fees.

The paper uses multivariate regression analyses on a sample of 1,578 ICW and 1,578 pair-matched (based on both propensity score and managerial stock ownership) non-ICW firm observations for a period from 2004 to 2010 to investigate how managerial incentive at various stock ownership levels impacts the relationship between material ICW and audit fees.

For the firms with low managerial stock ownership (up to 5 per cent stockholdings), the authors find no significant effect of managerial ownership on the positive relationship between audit fees and ICW. However, the impact of managerial stock ownership on the relationship between ICW and audit fees is significantly positive when managerial ownership is medium, i.e. more than 5 per cent and less than or equal to 25 per cent stockholdings, and the managerial ownership effect is even higher when managerial stock ownership is high, i.e. more than 25 per cent stockholdings. The result is especially robust for the ICW firms with high managerial stock ownership (i.e. where managers hold more than 25 per cent equity stake in the firms). The additional analyses further show that this managerial ownership effect is more pronounced when the firms suffer from company-level material control weaknesses that have pervasive negative effect on financial reporting quality.

The results imply that in a low managerial ownership firms with substantial misalignment between manager and shareholder incentives, managerial stock ownership has little effect on the ICW and audit fee relationship. But when managers’ ownership interest is at a high level, they are more prone to purchase higher-quality audit service to reduce the risk of financial misstatements due to material ICW, which results in higher audit fees. The results add to the audit fee literature by suggesting that managerial incentive at various ownership levels is a critical governance factor that impacts auditor’s fee structure especially when higher reporting risk exists due to material ICW.

Prior literature documents that there is some relationship between managerial attributes and earnings quality; however, there is no substantive empirical evidence on the effect of managerial stock ownership on audit pricing when client companies face higher risk of financial misreporting as a result of material ICW. In this study, the authors seek answers to these empirical questions and fill the gap in the literature.

This investigation/report/reflection was motivated largely by the occasion of the first Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) “Summer School” in North America.¹ But its roots reach down as well to other recent reflection/investigation pieces, in particular, Mathews (1997), Gray (2002, 2006), and Deegan and Soltys (2007). The last of these authors note (p. 82) that CSEAR Summer Schools were initiated in Australasia, at least partly as a means to spur interest and activity in social and environmental accounting (SEA) research. So, too, was the first North American CSEAR Summer School.² We believe, therefore, that it is worthwhile to attempt in some way to identify where SEA currently stands as a field of interest within the broader academic accounting domain in Canada and the United States.³ As well, however, we believe this is a meaningful time for integrating our views on the future of our chosen academic sub-discipline with those of Gray (2002), Deegan and Soltys (2007), and others. Thus, as the title suggests, we seek to identify (1) who the SEA researchers in North America are; (2) the degree to which North American–based accounting research journals publish SEA-related research; and (3) where we, the SEA sub-discipline within North America, might be headed. We begin with the who.

Sustainability is a word that is included often in the current lexicon. In the academic world, the American Accounting Association devoted a plenary session to sustainability accounting in its 2009 annual meeting and the theme of the 2009 Academy of Management meeting was also on green management and sustainability. Many MBA programs have developed a special track focusing on sustainability, which suggests that there is some demand for the graduates of programs specializing in environmental issues. Is this all a fad and just rhetoric or will this emphasis on sustainability lead to discussions, plans, and programs that will be helpful in saving the planet?

This chapter evaluates whether disclosures on global warming by companies from the European Union are more extensive than disclosures by Japanese and Canadian firms. The study is based on disclosures made on websites, annual reports, social, environmental and sustainability reports and on a questionnaire developed by the Carbon Disclosure Project by 282 of the largest firms from these countries. Content analysis is utilized to asses their disclosures. The results indicate that the EU firms make significantly less global warming disclosures than firms from Japan or Canada. We also find no relation between the changes in carbon emissions and global warming disclosures indicating that these disclosures do not truly reflect emission performance. These findings suggest that the EU requirements of reducing GHG pollution have not improved GHG disclosures. Regulatory disclosure requirements may be the answer to improve disclosures.