Search results

This study explores auditors’ professional attitudes and behaviours. It tests the influence of public interest commitment, independence enforcement beliefs and organisational ethical culture on auditors’ acceptance of and engagement in practices that compromise their objectivity. The study is based on survey responses of 122 Spanish auditors. To analyse the combined effect of the variables under study, variance-based structural equation modelling (partial least squares, PLS) was employed. The results suggest that the regulatory efforts to improve auditors’ behaviours by enforcing independence rules have been internalised by auditors. The results also reinforce the need to instil the societal responsibilities of professional auditors, since auditors’ public interest commitment is related to their ethical decision making. Furthermore, this study reveals that firms’ ethical cultures influence auditors’ commitment to the public interest, as well as their ethical decision making. The study raises practical implications for auditing professionals, regulators and audit firms. Understanding auditors’ beliefs and behavioural patterns is critical to proposing mechanisms that enhance their ethical behaviours, which could ultimately enhance audit quality. The chapter contributes to the field by analysing the combined effect of the regulatory framework and organisational context on auditors’ professional values and behaviours.

Despite its voluntary nature, the Johannesburg stock exchange (JSE) requires all listed companies to apply the King III principles, including providing independent CSR assurance. King III has accordingly made independent CSR assurance a de facto mandatory requirement, albeit on an “apply or explain” basis. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact mandatory corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance practices in South Africa, within a King III context.

To understand the impact of King III on South African CSR assurance practices, a longitudinal study covering reporting periods both before and after King III implementation. The first stage reviewed the annual reports of the 200 largest JSE-listed companies to establish the frequency of CSR assurance provision. The second stage involved performing a content analysis on the CSR assurance reports.

King III is driving the institutionalisation of CSR assurance practices in South Africa, as evidenced by the growth in CSR assurance since the implementation of King III. The study also found that the audit profession’s dominance was being eroded by specialist CSR assurors providing higher levels of assurance, despite concerns about the rigour of their assurance methodologies. Voluntary CSR assurance practices have resulted in the inconsistent application of CSR assurance practices, impairing the ability of stakeholders to understand the nature and scope of CSR assurance engagements. It is argued that this deficiency may be overcome through the imposition of a mandatory CSR assurance regime.

The pervasive impact of the King Code of Governance on South African organisations makes it appropriate to examine its impact on South African CSR assurance practices. As such, this paper represents one of the first studies to specifically consider the impact of a mandatory regulatory requirement for independent CSR assurance and suggests a future direction for global CSR assurance practices.

The passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act has heightened awareness of the importance for companies to conduct internal investigations in appropriate circumstances when wrongdoing is suspected. When such an investigation is conducted, the challenges faced by the company may include whether to disclose voluntarily the results of the internal investigation to governmental agencies and regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department of Justice, who are investigating the suspected wrongdoing and potentially threatening civil or criminal charges against the company. The decision as to whether to disclose such results is riddled with potential pitfalls, including the concern that disclosing information in this manner will waive the attorney‐client privilege or work product protection with respect to third parties, opening the door to a wave of potential lawsuits. This article discusses the doctrine of selective waiver, which allows a company to disclose privileged information to the government without waiving the privilege as to third parties. Some case law, including some recent district court opinions, supports the notion of selective waiver, at least in circumstances where the privileged information has been disclosed pursuant to an appropriately crafted confidentiality agreement. The majority view, however, is that once privileged information is disclosed to anyone, the privilege is lost and waiver therefore occurs with respect to all third parties, irrespective of whether a confidentiality agreement exists. Recognizing the conundrum posed by this unsettled area of law, the SEC recently has proposed

The Mental Health Act Commission (MHAC) is a “watchdog” body concerned with the rights of detained psychiatric patients in England and Wales. It was created by the UK government as a “quasi‐governmental” body in an ad hoc manner to defuse the controversy engendered by competing lobbying bodies during the passage of reforming legislation. The consequence was that its formal (legal) constitution conflicted with the “informal constitution” of expectations about the structure and operating of the MHAC, leading ultimately to major and bitter internal conflict. The history of the MHAC suggests important lessons about the need for such bodies to have a clear and consistent constitution.

Provides a descriptive account of workplace reform in Australia, focusing on award restructuring and the question of who should pay.

The use of expert testimony in arbitration is explored. Why has it become so important in arbitration? The author has examined when and how to use an expert's testimony. He also discusses how to counteract an expert's testimony.

The breakup of Yugoslavia and the development of conflict and massacres from 1991 to 1993 was widely reported in the West, in contrast with prior patterns of denial, concealment of evidence, lack of recognition, misperception, and avoidance of massacres and genocides since World War II. The chapter addresses reasons why bystanders did not intervene to stop the genocide and check war crimes by asking how the situation was framed by an influential segment of the press. An intensive content analysis in nine leading U.S. newspapers revealed that a majority of articles conformed to moral obligation and rational choice models. The study concludes with a critique of political will for action and the position that it was not the direct influence of the media, which reflected rather than refined perceptions and the recognition of genocide.