Search results

When financial statements are public, the choice between alternative reporting regimes constitutes a signal that addresses external stakeholders. Generally, the choice of more complex regimes acts as a complement of firms' transparency. However, in the absence of audits, opportunistic behaviors could be incentivized. This study aims to test whether SMEs' choice between alternative accounting regimes is associated with earnings quality.

Drawing on the literature about accounting choices and earnings quality, this study investigates whether the same conclusions are confirmed for SMEs. Using a sample of 4,054 Italian companies and 12,114 observations, it compared four earnings quality proxies of a group of companies that opted for the “Full” rules and those of a subsample of the population of companies that applied the Simplified rules.

The results suggest that the signaling power of accounting rules' choice could lead to wrong conclusions for SMEs. Indeed, a positive relationship emerged (H1) between the choice of the “Full” rules and income smoothing behaviors, while the same choice appears to reduce the probability to disclose SPOS. Moreover, the results suggest that opportunistic behaviors are more frequent for firms that have settled in a “non-cooperative” social environment (H2).

This study could foster research on financial reporting quality in private firms.

Comparing the quality of financial statements drawn up according to two alternative accounting regimes could provide useful suggestions for both users and regulators.

The results contribute to the limited literature on the implications of differential reporting. Finally, it enriches the literature about heterogeneity in accounting quality within private firms.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between auditing/non-auditing and accounting timeliness among Swedish private firms.

This paper uses regression analysis to test the relationship between auditing and two measurements of timeliness; lead time and late filing. The sample consists of Swedish private firms.

This paper finds that audited firms, when compared with unaudited firms, are significantly less timely. Moreover, greater profitability was associated with more timeliness but only for audited firms. The results of this paper also show that firms being audited by a big 4 auditor are significantly timelier than firms being audited by a non-big 4 auditor.

The findings in this paper suggests that one aspect of accounting quality, timeliness, does not seem to benefit from auditing in a Swedish context. There is a debate about whether the threshold levels in Sweden should be raised so that more firms voluntarily can opt out of audit. Those opposing a raised threshold level claim that auditing has positive effects on accounting quality and consequently that a raised level would have adverse effects. The findings in this paper do not support such a claim.

Little is known about timeliness in private firms compared to public firms and this paper fills that void. Contrary to prior research, findings show that unaudited firms in a Swedish regulatory setting actually are timelier than their audited counterparts. This questions one of the (presumed) benefits of auditing and should stimulate more research on this issue.

Government-owned companies (GOCs), such as ports, have engaged in efforts to become more sustainable. Most of such efforts have been technological and policy ones and mainly focusing on the environment, with limited research on organisational change management. This paper aims to provide insights into how ports have been addressing sustainability change forces and pressures.

Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with top-level directors and sustainability managers, representing ports across Europe’s maritime regions and a range of port types and sizes. The interviews were analysed using grounded theory’s constant comparative analysis.

The findings highlighted that the ports’ success in their process to become more sustainable depends on how they take advantage of the thrust forces and reduce the drag ones. The findings serve to develop the “ports’ sustainability change management framework”, with five stages: reactive, proactive, transactive, interactive, and sustainable port.

Ports, and other GOCs, should capitalise on their private–public nature in their contribution to making societies more sustainable by adopting a holistic perspective and interactive changes.

This paper provides a dynamic perspective on corporate sustainability efforts, particularly on GOCs, through organisational change management complementing technocentric and managerial approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to identify actions and guidelines for enabling and fostering the Industry 4.0 adoption, as well as to understand the role of three ecosystem actors in these actions (i.e. companies, educational organizations and regional policy makers).

52 semi-structured expert interviews in the Tyrol-Veneto cross-border macro-region were carried out and interpreted using the innovation ecosystem concept. In particular, drawing from this latter, six ecosystem building blocks were identified and used to analyze the interviews' content.

The findings allow not only to build a comprehensive framework for action to support Industry 4.0 adoption, but also to confirm the importance of exploring Industry 4.0 through the lens of the ecosystem concept. Indeed, the authors show that R&D activities should be complemented with interorganizational actions, such as training and networking, and that all ecosystem actors should be involved in the Industry 4.0 adoption.

This is among the few studies that adopt the innovation ecosystem perspective to explore best practices for Industry 4.0 adoption, thus overcoming the weakness of existing papers based on a firm-level perspective. It also complements previous ecosystem-based research on Industry 4.0 by exploring the technology adoption side, rather than the technology provision one, and by considering the adoption of a wide set of technologies.

This paper aims to identify the factors that are constraining technological innovation to support the development of coalbed methane in China.

The analysis applies ideas relating to national and sector systems of innovation to explain why China’s strategies to support research and technological innovation have failed to stimulate the desired progress in coalbed methane production. It also provides a counter-example of the USA that implemented a number of measures in the 1970s that proved very effective.

The deficiencies of China’s research and development strategies in support of coalbed methane development reflect the national and sectoral systems of innovation. They are exacerbated by the structure of the national oil and gas industry. Key constraints include the excessively top-down management of the national R&D agenda, insufficient support for basic research, limited collaboration networks between companies, research institutes and universities and weak mechanisms for diffusion of knowledge. The success of the USA was based on entirely different systems for innovation and in quite a different industrial setting.

The originality of this analysis lies in placing the challenges facing research and innovation for China’s coalbed methane development in the context of the national and sectoral systems for innovation and comparing with the approach and success of the USA.

The purpose of this study is to showcase that the valuation of startups is still considered to be more “art than science”. Moreover, such non-rigorous approaches often lead to valuations, which turn out to be too high, which in turn has become a well-known phenomenon to a broader audience due to shining examples such as We Work. This is reason enough to revisit the important topic of where we stand today with startup valuation procedures and methodologies.

Literature synthesis and exploratory analysis.

While some studies describe sound results about how to assess startups, what the authors found was that many questions remain open or have not been covered at all. This is the reason why the authors needed to apply a substantial amount of reasoning in the analysis of studies, which do not exactly deal with startup companies. The authors provided some interesting impulses for future research.

Based on an original overview of the current state of research about the valuation of startup companies, this paper makes the following principal contribution to both the literature and practice: on the one hand, the authors assess four impact factors on startup values critically; on the other, the authors provide an outlook on promising future research avenues.