Search results

Internal Control – Integrated Framework (COSO Report, 1992) defines internal control, suggests a framework for internal control, and presents criteria to use in evaluating controls. The document also provides guidance to management developing a report on controls for use by external parties. SSAE 2, “Reporting on an Entity′s Internal Control Structure over Financial Reporting” (1993) offers assistance to the practitioner reporting on management′s assertion regarding internal control over financial reporting. Discusses and provides an example of management′s report on internal control prepared according to COSO. Also discusses the accountant′s examination under SSAE guidance of management′s assertions and subsequent report and provides an example of the accountant′s report. Concludes by discussing the new business opportunities for the accountant which may result from external reporting on internal controls over financial reporting.

Professional accounting associations in various countries and governmental and other quasi‐official bodies have played an important role not only in the evolution of internal control reporting on a global scale, but also in educating management, investors, financial institutions, accountants, auditors, and other interested parties highlighting the pervasiveness of the effects of a sound internal control structure in corporate reporting as well as other aspects of an organization′s success. These associations include the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Cadbury Committee, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW), the Scottish Institute of Chartered Accountants (SICA), the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), and others. Business failures, management fraud, corporate misconduct, international bribery, and notorious business scandals in all sectors of business have prompted the US government to take drastic action on internal control reporting to safeguard public interest. Several professional and government committees were formed to study this precarious situation: the Treadway Commission, the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) of the Treadway Commission, the Packard Commission, the Cohen Commission, the Adams Commission in Canada, the Cadbury Committee in the UK, and others. The principal motivation for the changing dynamics has been growing public pressure for greater corporate accountability. The government′s pressure on the accounting profession and management of public corporations has been pivotal in spearheading internal control reporting. Examines the role of professional associations, governmental agencies, and others in promulgating standards for internal control reporting, and the impact of legislation on this aspect of internal auditing in the USA and worldwide.

Points out that traditional financial systems used for internal reporting are limited in several ways. Describes how a company implemented a philosophy of dynamic management reporting (DMR) that provided for a highly flexible performance reporting system. DMR can serve as a catalyst for organizational change, introduce new reporting concepts, incorporate a wide variety of performance measures, and encourage cross‐ functional understanding and co‐ordination.

The purpose of this paper is to examine investors’ propensity to litigate when harmful events occur subsequent to accounting choices. Consistent with Culpable Control Theory, the authors find that investors are more likely to pursue litigation against management when managers are perceived to have more financial reporting flexibility, such as when they apply imprecise, principles-based accounting guidance. Investors are more likely to pursue litigation when they find management more responsible for harmful events, and they find management more responsible for those events when they perceive management to have more reporting flexibility. To provide additional insight, the authors investigate how the relationship between reporting flexibility and assessed manager responsibility is mediated by investors’ perceptions of management’s self-interested behavior. The authors consider monetary and non-monetary motivations for litigation against management such as recouping financial losses and punishing management. The results suggest that recouping financial losses is not the sole motivation for litigation. The authors provide evidence that punishing management is an important non-monetary component of the litigation decision. The results contribute to the limited literature on investor litigation decisions and inform the debate surrounding the potential effects of more principles-based accounting standards.

The authors test the hypotheses using an experiment with a 2×1 between-subjects design in which the authors manipulate reporting flexibility at two levels by varying the precision of accounting guidance and measure all other variables of interest. Participants are 82 part-time executive MBA program students at a major public university in the USA. Most participants work full-time (94 percent), own or have owned stocks either directly or through retirement plans (84 percent), indicate general investment knowledge (97 percent), and report high levels of familiarity with corporate financial statements, including balance sheets and income statements (92 percent). Thus, the authors conclude that these executive MBA students are reasonable surrogates for investors.

Consistent with the predictions, perceived management reporting flexibility affects investors’ propensity to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events such as investor losses, employee job losses, and economic losses suffered by a community mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. As predicted, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. This result suggests that the litigation decision is driven at least in part by corporate governance goals such as the desire for retribution or punishment of management. The second experiment provides additional support for the theory that the desire to punish management is an important component of investors’ litigation decisions.

The research makes important contributions to the literature on investor litigation and to the ongoing debate regarding principles- vs rules-based accounting standards. While some archival research addresses the conditions under which securities litigation occurs, little empirical research has directly addressed the investor decision to litigate. The paper provides additional evidence to address the question of why investors litigate. By doing so, the authors add to the debate on the desirability of shifting from more rules-based to more principles-based accounting standards.

The theory tested in this study could be used to design mechanisms to mitigate the differential propensity for investors to litigate under differing accounting regimes. As standard setters discuss a move to more principles-based standards in the USA, some observers have expressed concern that investor litigation will increase. The theory suggests that if the standard-setting body can control perceptions of management reporting flexibility such that investors believe principles-based standards provide no more flexibility than rules-based standards, they can limit an increase in the amount of investor litigation.

The authors contribute to theory by providing evidence regarding why investors desire to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. Furthermore, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. Those findings provide theoretical contributions to the literature.

This paper explores the reporting of the Russian American Company (RAC), from 1840 to 1863. Trading in fur, company fears of animal extinctions viewed from a monetary perspective led to early extinction reporting practice. These were not altruistic reports; they were generated by a wish to use natural resources. Despite the motivations, these reports present an example of successful extinction management by a for-profit company and a workable example of emancipatory extinction accounting.

Using thematic analysis, this study demonstrates how moving from transparency to accountability driven accounting can assist in biodiversity reporting, by exploring this historical business case of extinction management through the lens of Atkins and Maroun's (2018) extinction framework.

The application of the framework to the RAC's set of reports indicates that this offers a viable proposal for development of extinction management, providing a reporting tool for a for-profit company.

Exploring RAC's reports focusing on their extinction management processes and reporting, the paper contributes to the contemporary debate on the development of extinction reporting frameworks. These historical examples of extinction accounting, show extinction management and reporting is not a unique contemporary development in accounting. The research uses historical data as the empirical foundation for exploring applicability and further development of this extinction framework.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Johnson and Kaplan's claim that “external reporting influences managerial accounting information” in an emerging capital market, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The paper relies on a survey instrument and institutional theory analysis in order to: first, explore accountants' perceptions of the extent to which financial accounting conventions‐based information is utilized, instead of managerial accounting information, in internal decision making; and second, articulate respondents' perception to the UAE's wider social and institutional context expressed in terms of accounting regulars, accountancy profession and partnership with multinational companies.

In line with Johnson and Kaplan's claim and contrary to the studies of Hopper et al., Joseph et al. and Scapens et al., the paper's findings show evidence of financial reporting domination on managerial accounting information in the UAE. Locating such results in a UAE companies social and institutional context, the paper reveals that the activities of regulators and accountancy professionals pay more attention to financial reporting, an issue which contributes towards reinforcing respondents' general perceptions that management accounting is subservient to the demands of financial reporting requirements.

Although the paper's findings trigger the importance of the UAE's institutional context in reinforcing accountants' perceptions, the interaction between financial accounting requirements and managerial accounting information is an area that needs further in‐depth case‐study‐based investigation in emerging market economies.

The paper's findings highlight the type of information that UAE's managers utilize when making decisions. These findings are in the interest of business investors and the accountancy profession that aims at increasing practitioners' professional knowledge.

This is one of few papers that combine survey results and institutional theory analysis to explore whether financial accounting dominates managerial accounting information and, at the same time, provides an understanding of the underlying reasons behind that domination in an emerging market economy such as the UAE.

With a view to enabling organisations provide a clear understanding of firm value creation, several national and supranational institutions have produced guidelines and frameworks for externally reporting intellectual capital (IC). In many cases regulators, the accounting profession and accounting scholars have driven these initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to summarise, analyse and compare the guidelines and frameworks that have been developed with a focus on externally reporting IC.

The paper analyses the assumptions underpinning 20 guidelines and frameworks that have been developed with a focus on reporting IC using a self-constructed framework.

The review resulted in a comparison of IC reporting guidelines and framework based on target audience, role of IC within the organisational strategic management process and reporting IC indicator. It provides an understanding of the state of the art in relation to external reporting of IC.

The insights provided by the comparison of the guidelines and frameworks are likely to be helpful for practitioners wanting to adopt or develop an IC reporting model for their organisation. Policy-makers will find these insights beneficial when attempting to refine existing frameworks and guidelines for reporting IC and in developing new ones to suit various circumstances. Also, this paper provides a useful review for academics.

This is the first paper to provide a review of a large number of business reporting guidelines and frameworks with a focus on IC. It is a valuable reference for practitioners, policy-makers and academics on IC reporting models.

In recent years, numerous studies have investigated whether individual executives and their characteristics relate to financial reporting choices. In this article, we review archival, experimental and survey research on the influence of individual executives on corporate financial reporting and use upper echelons theory as our organizing framework. Our review of 60 studies shows that research consistently finds that top management executives exert significant influence on financial reporting decisions, particularly on disclosure quality. Empirical research has developed promising approaches to investigate executives' psychological attributes and character traits. The results of studies examining the influence of demographic characteristics of individual executives are, however, sometimes contradictory and ambiguous. Nevertheless, the overall empirical results we review are supportive of upper echelons predictions. Additional research in this field is needed to clarify the influence of unexamined upper echelon characteristics, important moderator variables, and adverse selection effects. We also suggest that future research more closely investigates the magnitudes of managerial influence and adopts a more holistic perspective on financial reporting outcomes.

This paper explores how the text complexity and content of management discussion and analysis (MD&A) relate to earnings management in Baltic listed companies.

Using a panel data set of 250 firm-year observations from the Baltic markets in the period 2012–2016, this paper uses linear regression analysis to examine the relation between earnings management and reporting complexity.

The results show that earnings could be managed in about 6–11% of firm-years, depending on specification, and there is a positive relationship between earnings management and reporting complexity; however, this relationship is confined to more liquid companies. The authors argue that higher scrutiny by market participants in more liquid companies incentivizes managers to obfuscate negative financial results through report complexity.

This paper presents a novel application of the opportunistic perspective of positive accounting theory (PAT) in relation to managers' choice of reporting complexity. The findings of this paper contribute by providing empirical evidence for strategic reporting by managers and can be useful for regulators and investors that should monitor the level of reporting complexity in the listed companies.

The purpose of this paper is to present the development of an integrated sustainability reporting. In this paper success criteria are named and empirical values when dealingwith specific challenges are formulated. The focus is on the development of criteria for reporting, the involvement of university members and quality assurance.

The voluntary and compulsory reporting requirements of German universities are presented, and the concept for integrated reporting is developed from them. Possible criteria catalogues for the evaluation of sustainable development are presented and evaluated. However, the focus is on the practical experience that the university has made in the launch and implementation of an integrated sustainability reporting – both in terms of content and organisation.

A prerequisite for the preparation of a sustainability reporting is that the university develops a common understanding of sustainability and formulates objectives. This results in a structure for the reporting which is self-explanatory. For the project management before, during and after the reporting, it is indispensable to structure the work sequence (data collection, data analysis, text editor, etc) and to ensure a process-accompanying communication. Participation by all university groups in reporting is necessary.

Universities have a special responsibility for the sustainable development of society. To be accountable for their activities in the field of sustainability, the practical report provides a handbook on which universities can set up their own sustainability reporting.

At German universities, there is a lively discussion on how to define a criteria catalogue to report objectively on sustainability. The Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development is involved in the discussion and, at the same time, sets a good example. This article describes the practical implementation of the Sustainability Report.