Search results

Prior research identified conflicts in implementing performance measurement systems that include both financial and non-financial measures. Attempts to incorporate non-financial measures, for example, balanced scorecards (BSCs), have shown short-term success, only to be replaced with systems that rely on financial measures. We develop a theoretical model to explore evaluators’ choice and use of the most important performance measurement criterion among financial and non-financial measures.

Our model links participants’ prior evaluation experiences with their attitudes about relative accounting qualities and with their choice of the most important performance measure. This choice subsequently affects their evaluation judgments of managers who perform differentially on financial versus non-financial measures.

Experimental testing of our structural equation model indicates that it meets the accepted goodness of fit criteria. We conclude that experience has an influence on choice of performance measures and on decision heuristics in making such evaluations. We suggest that an “experience gap” must be considered when deciding which performance metrics to emphasize in scorecards or similar performance reports. We analyzed four accounting qualities, importance, relevance, reliability, and comparability and found that importance, relevance, and reliability have strong effects on how managers prioritize and use accounting measures.

We conducted our study in a controlled, experimental setting, including participants with diverse experiences. We provide direct evidence of participants’ experience and attitudes about the relative accounting qualities of financial and non-financial measures which we link to their choice of the most important performance measure. We link this choice to their performance evaluations.

To achieve sustainable development objectives, managers are encouraged to implement best practices in corporate social and environmental responsibility within their establishments. The main objective of this chapter is to assess the quality of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) communication for Moroccan financial institutions. This chapter is devoted to the content analysis of the annual reports of 14 financial institutions listed in Morocco regarding ESG strategies between 2017 and 2021. The reference assessment tool we used is the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards (2016), based on six principles. Each principle contains requirements and guidance on how to apply it. These principles are summarized in the following: Accuracy, Balance, Clarity, Comparability, Reliability, and Timeliness. The sample is composed of 14 financial institutions listed on the Casablanca Stock Exchange. After checking the content of the annual reports of listed Moroccan financial institutions, we detected several shortcomings in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting behavior. Companies avoid disclosing information about negative events and performance. We saw this as a bad sign for stakeholders. The results showed a significant gap between the GRI standards and the content of the annual reports. These weaknesses mainly concern accuracy, comparability, and, timeliness, hence the need to carry out corrective measures to improve the quality of ESG practices within Moroccan financial institutions. One of the limitations of this research is its focus on financial institutions. However, it is possible to broaden the scope of the research by assessing the quality of ESG communication for nonfinancial companies.

We have considered both the de jure and de facto aspects of comparability in financial reporting. Generally, the findings presented in this monograph show that there is a lack of both de jure and de facto comparability in financial reporting across countries. We have considered the de jure aspect of comparability in financial reporting by identifying the ways in which IFRS are adopted and enforced in the South Pacific region and also investigated the relationship between country-specific characteristics and the selection of the appropriate approach for adoption. An examination of the convergence process in the South Pacific region provides evidence that countries use different approaches in their adoption of IFRS. We have broadly identified five different approaches for convergence and harmonization of accounting standards, ranging from adoption of IFRS in their entirety to the lack of reference to IFRS, that is, no convergence or harmonization.

Massive shifts in the recruitment landscape, the continually changing nature of work and workers, and extraordinary technological progress have combined to enable unparalleled advances in how current and prospective employees receive and process information about organizations. Once the domain of internal organizational public relations and human resources (HR) teams, most employment branding has moved beyond organizations’ control. This chapter provides a conceptual framework pertaining to third party employment branding, defined as communications, claims, or status-based classifications generated by parties outside of direct company control that shape, enhance, and differentiate organizations’ images as favorable or unfavorable employers. Specifically, the authors first theorize about the underlying mechanisms by which third party employment branding might signal prospective and current employees. Second, the authors develop a framework whereby we comprehensively review third party employment branding sources, thus identifying the different ways that third party employment branding might manifest. Third, using prototypical examples, the authors link the various signaling mechanisms to the various third party employment branding sources identified. Finally, the authors propose an ambitious future research agenda that considers not only the positive aspects of third party employment branding but also potential “dark sides.” Thus, the authors view this chapter as contributing to the broader employment branding literature, which should enhance scholarly endeavors to study it and practitioner efforts to leverage it.

Measures are comparable if and only if measurement equivalence has been demonstrated. Although comparability and equivalence of measures are sometimes used interchangeably, we advocate a subtle but important difference in meaning. Comparability implies that measures from one group can be compared with measures from another group. It is a property of the measures, which is given or not. In particular, comparability presumes valid measures within each group compared. Measurement equivalence, by contrast, refers to the way measures are derived and estimated. It is intrinsically tied to the underlying theory of measurement. Thus, measurement equivalence cannot be dealt with in isolation. Its assessment has to be incorporated into the theoretical framework of measurement. Measurement equivalence is closely connected to construct validity for it refers to the way manifest indicators are related to the latent variable, within a particular culture and across different cultures. From this it follows that equivalence cannot, or should not, be treated as a separate issue but as a constitutive element of validity. A discussion of measurement equivalence without addressing validity would be incomplete.

The objective of this study aims at reviewing a synthesis of the economic impact of the implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in an attempt to provide directions for future research. There are significant evidences of adopting a high-quality set of harmonised accounting standards (i.e. IFRS) fosters trade and foreign direct investment (FDI), financial transparency, and comparability and reduces information asymmetries. From the extensive structured review of literature using the Scopus database tool, the study reviewed 108 articles, and in particular, the topic-related 41 articles were analysed. Seven journals contribute to 39% of the articles (The Accounting Review; European Accounting Review; International Journal of Accounting; Journal of Accounting Research; Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad; Asian Review of Accounting; and International Journal of Economics and Management). However, most of the cited journals were Journal of Accounting Research, The Accounting Review, European Accounting Review, and International Journal of Accounting (Armstrong, Barth, Jagolinzer, & Riedl, 2010; Brüggemann, Hitz, & Sellhorn, 2013; Christensen, Lee, & Walker, 2007; Daske, Hail, Leuz, & Verdi, 2008, 2013). Most of the studies did not use any theory, and most of the articles utilised quantitative approach. The study calls for future research on the theoretical impactions on the economic impact of IFRS implementation in a country-specific study, cross-country study, and global study. Future studies should also focus on the policymaking agenda for the local and international standard setters.

Outside influences affect the progression of research in any discipline, including accounting. These influences offer one explanation for problems of replicability or comparability to previous studies, a common concern today. This article examines “who” participates in behavioral experiments and surveys involving accountants. This issue is important because of nontrivial differences in the composition of those in the accounting profession (and thus, participants in subject pools) over approximately 50 years of behavioral accounting research. Based on the theory of individual differences, we explore whether differences in the population of accounting research participants through the years could impact the replication or comparability of current-day research to earlier studies.

Our reading of available literature suggests that our profession has become more diverse in terms of gender and country of origin and that the oft-referenced characteristics of the millennial generation may also represent a distinct difference from previous generations of accountants. We discuss instances in which this changing nature of our profession, and thus our research population, could have implications for current-day behavioral accounting research.

This chapter deals with the patterns of International Financial Reporting Standards’ accounting policy choices that have been analyzed by several authors in a country-specific context. Instead of a country-specific context, this chapter adopts a sector-specific approach in terms of the airline industry in a regional and global context in order to observe the patterns of cosmetic and non-cosmetic policy options. Cosmetic policy options are related to the presentation of financial information which is not expected to impact the comparability of financial information versus non-cosmetic policy options are considered to be policy options that are related to measurement and, therefore, if there is more than one allowable accounting treatment, the comparability of financial information weakens. In the context of the airline industry, this chapter considers the patterns of policy choices related to IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, IAS 2 Inventory, IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment, IAS 38 Intangible Assets, and IAS 40 Investment Property, within the framework of frequently observed policy options as well as taking depreciation methods and expected useful life into consideration in terms of industry-specific policy options in order to observe whether there is uniformity rather than diversity in the airline industry for presentation and measurement.

Anchoring vignettes have become a popular method to adjust self-assessed data for systematic differences in reporting behaviour to aid comparability, for example, of cross-country analyses. The method relies on the two fundamental assumptions of response consistency and vignette equivalence. Evidence on the validity of these assumptions is equivocal. This chapter considers the utility of the vignette approach by considering how successful the method is in moving self-assessed reports of health mobility towards objective counterparts. We draw on data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and undertake pairwise country comparisons of cumulative distributions of self-reports, their objective counterparts and vignette adjusted reports. Comparison of distributions is based on tests for stochastic dominance. Multiple cross-country comparisons are undertaken to assess the consistency of results across contexts and settings. Both non-parametric and parametric approaches to vignette adjustment are considered. In general, we find the anchoring vignette methodology poorly reconciles self-reported data with objective counterparts.

The purpose of this chapter is to make sense of the cultural distance paradox through a basic assessment of the cross-cultural comparability of cultural distance measures. Cultural distance between a base country and partner countries is a key construct in international business (IB). However, we propose that what exactly is measured by cultural distance is unique for each country that is chosen as the base country to/from which cultural distance to a set of partner countries is calculated.

We use a mathematical argument to establish that cultural distance may correlate rather differently with the culture of partner countries depending on which base country one considers, for example, the United States or China. We then use empirical analysis to show the relevance of this argument, using Hofstede’s data on national culture for 69 countries.

Results show that cultural distance indeed has very different correlations with partner country culture, depending on which country one selects as the base country in one’s distance calculations.

Implication of our findings is that measured cultural distance is not equivalent across different base countries. The effect of cultural distance on such issues as foreign market entry mode or market selection, therefore, lacks international generalizability.

This chapter presents the first assessment of the cross-cultural comparability of cultural distance. Paradoxical findings that plague extant cultural distance research may be understood from the found lack of measurement equivalence.