Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between formal ethics and ethics in practice in the empirical context of real estate agents (REAs) working in the residential housing market, including owner-occupied houses and owner-occupied apartments, in Sweden. The paper investigates problems with the Swedish middleman model of real estate agency with regard to the acceptance among REAs of borderline professional behavior.

We report on a survey distributed to all Swedish licensed residential REAs to investigate their attitudes towards eight scenarios displaying borderline ethical behavior. Firstly, the means of each scenario were calculated, investigating signs of distance between formal ethics and ethics in practice. Secondly, logistic regressions were run for each scenario separately, thereby investigating factors affecting misconduct among REAs.

The empirical results show a clear difference between formal ethics and ethics in practice and also illustrate that some scenarios of borderline ethical behavior are creating greater problems for the REAs.

In Sweden, the seller is the principal, assigning the REA to sell a house or apartment, but the regulation is clear on the role of the licensed REA as responsible for promoting an informed and fair sales process where the buyer is safe to act without their own representative. Our study contributes with information to policymakers on possible areas for the development of the middleman model.

The paper is the first to empirically investigate the middleman model of a Swedish real estate agency in relation to the business ethics of the agents. The use of scenarios in close relation to the everyday working context of REAs as tests of ethics of practice is also of original methodological value to investigate possible diversions of professionals from national regulations.

The study aims to determine whether a relationship exists between the potential significance of corporate controversies for stakeholders and how organisations respond to them in their annual and sustainability reports.

This paper employs content analysis on annual and sustainability reports of 48 listed companies from the Refinitiv database. The logit regression was used to estimate the model.

The study revealed that the main factors increasing the probability of a controversial issue being addressed in a corporate report are the controversy’s potential significance, companies’ financial performance and lawsuits.

Our study has three major limitations. These are a relatively small sample of companies and reports, focusing on disclosures made in corporate reports and omitting other channels of communication, for example, social media, and a certain amount of subjectivity in the process of coding information.

Former studies show that corporations face a serious risk of their hypocritical strategies becoming too evident for stakeholder groups. Our findings suggest that the risk is already materialising and may undermine the idea of CSR and sustainability reporting.

Our research focuses on high-profile adverse incidents widely reported in the media, the omission of which from corporate reports seems to constitute a particular case of organised hypocrite. It also demonstrates that companies use an impression management strategy to defuse adverse publicity and that major controversies cause minor ones to be omitted from their reports.

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.