Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine risk disclosures by UK companies within their annual reports. Tests are performed to measure the level of the readability of the risk disclosures and to assess whether directors are deliberately obscuring bad risk news.

The paper draws upon methodologies developed in prior empirical studies of annual report readability. Thus it uses the Flesch Reading Ease formula to measure the readability of the risk disclosures and coefficients of variation are used to measure obfuscation. A content analysis approach is adopted to identify risk disclosures.

The paper finds that the mean Flesch reading ease ratings for the sample companies are all below 50 indicating that the level of readability of the risk disclosures is difficult or very difficult and this supports prior research examining the readability of sample passages in annual reports. No evidence is found to suggest that directors are deliberately obfuscating or concealing bad risk news through their writing style.

The paper also finds that the Flesch reading ease ratings measure the readability, not the understandability, of disclosures and whilst actions can be taken to minimise problems associated with reliability when performing content analysis they cannot be wholly eliminated.

The paper shows that there have been calls for improved risk disclosures to enable stakeholders to better understand a company's risk position. Requiring directors to issue extra risk information will not, however, lead to enhanced risk communication unless the readability of the risk disclosures is also improved.

In this paper it is shown that there have been no prior studies that focus upon testing for readability and obfuscation in risk disclosures. It is important that transparent risk information is provided to the marketplace and therefore this study is valuable in its examination of the clarity of communication of published risk information.

Centuries of protection have impeded innovation in the textile industry. As these protections elapse, the industry must contend with increasing competition from abroad. This raises the question: will more R&D expenditure enhance competitiveness? To assess this, we measure firm profitability using Tobin's q, the ratio of the stock market valuation of the firm compared to the book value of the firm's assets. Q values are compared to other financial ratios, and then used to assess the impact of research and development (R&D) spending. A Mann‐Whitney rank test indicates firms that conduct R&D are not more profitable, as measured by q, than those that do not conduct R&D.

On 4th January, 1996, Mr Michael Lawrence was dismissed from his position as chief executive of the Stock Exchange, instigating a wave of media interest in the decision‐making process of the Exchange. Generally, this media interest was not especially flattering to the Board of the Exchange; and there were wider concerns about the damage that may have been caused to the reputation and credibility of the City of London itself:

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.

Why has responsible management been so difficult and why is the chorus of stakeholders demanding responsibility getting louder? We argue that management has been framed within the structural confines of corporate governance. Corporate governance in turn has been developed within the frame of agency theory (Blair, 1995; Eisenhardt, 1989). Agency theory in turn is based on ontological assumptions that do not provide for responsible actions on behalf of management (Jensen, 2001; Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Jensen & Meckling, 1994). As such, we argue that managers need to be aware of the paradigmatic frame of the dominant economistic ontology and learn to transcend it in order to become truly response-able.