Search results

The objective of this paper is to investigate how webmasters within government bodies explain quality of websites. Despite the central position for advancing the communication, bridging usability tests and design, there are surprisingly few studies on how webmasters perceive, experience and explain website quality or design issues.

The authors' unit of analysis is webmasters from Norwegian web‐award‐winning organizations. Eight webmasters from four types of websites were interviewed. The websites were purposefully sampled, using the strategy of maximal variation sampling to maximize difference between the four types of websites.

The findings reveal that issues concerning usability are found to be an important dimension of website quality. The authors' analysis of how webmasters explain website quality reveals substantial variance in explanation of website quality. Repeated keywords of website quality are mainly related to user‐friendliness, effective website usage, content‐related issues and accessibility (WAI‐principles).

This study includes webmasters from award‐winning websites. In upcoming research contributions, it would add to the richness of the study if webmasters from non‐award‐winning websites were included. Measurement of website quality and success is widely addressed within the research literature. This paper offers the opportunity to understand how practitioners (i.e. webmasters) facilitate for website quality, grounded in their perception and explanations of which quality aspects they found to be of importance.

The website quality aspects identified in this paper can be used as insights for how to develop and improve the quality of websites with the public sector.

The overall digital enabled transformation of government appears to be guided by a rather heterogeneous set of quality standards. While a variance of quality standards might stimulate innovation in websites, it can also lead to a substantial difference in digital services provided to citizens. Thus, the authors' research stimulates the awareness of diversity of quality parameters and could have as an implication that national and international standards beyond accessibility standards are more explicitly shared and debated.

The aim of this paper is to provide insights into website practitioners' (i.e. webmasters') perception and explanation of quality aspects in websites. Webmasters are important contributors to the quality of available websites, and it is of particular benefit to learn about their suggestions. Most studies tackle perception of website quality from a user's point of view, while the added knowledge in this paper is the webmaster's explanation.

This study aims to investigate if, when, and how the use of four different types of explanations affect customer satisfaction after a service failure.

The study used written scenarios of a hypothetical service failure to manipulate explanation type, failure magnitude and compensation offered. Participants were randomly assigned to read and respond to one version of the scenario, whilst imagining they were the customer experiencing the service failure.

The paper finds that explanation type, explanation quality, failure magnitude and compensation each had significant effects on customer evaluations. Explanation type and explanation quality interactively affected the extent to which customers were satisfied with service recovery: Apologies and excuses yielded higher satisfaction levels than did justifications and referential accounts but only when the explanations were perceived to be of high (vs low) quality. Specific types of attributions and forms of justice were shown to mediate the effects of three of the explanation types.

The study shows that customer evaluations following service failure vary with the type of explanation provided. Service firms need to provide an explanation in such circumstances, preferably a high quality excuse or apology, and need to understand the “process variables” that determine whether the explanation will satisfy aggrieved customers.

This is one of very few studies that have compared the efficacy of different types of explanations in service situations. The research sheds light not only on what types of explanations work best, but also on how they have their effect.

This study aims to explore the quality of corporate governance disclosure under an “apply and explain” regime in the context of an emerging economy (Mauritius), following a transition from the traditional “comply or explain” approach within the national code of corporate governance.

The research relies on a content analysis of corporate governance disclosure in 86 annual reports of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius for the financial periods 2018–2019 and 2019–2020, one-way analysis of variance tests and draws on the typology of corporate governance explanations developed by Shrives and Brennan (2015), focusing on specificity, location and comprehensiveness dimensions. This paper draws on legitimacy theory and the concepts of substantive and symbolic disclosures to guide the interpretation of the findings.

From a specificity point of view, the disclosure index revealed significant variations, with the highest score being four times the lowest score. With regards to location and comprehensiveness, only around half of companies are making optimum use of a corporate governance report and providing explanations by principles. This paper also illustrated how some firms provided symbolic disclosures. Overall, there are disparities in the application of the code by companies, reflected in a blend of substantive and symbolic disclosures to maintain their legitimacy.

This study examines “apply and explain” disclosures in a emerging economy in contrast to the “comply or explain” approach studied so far in the literature. Merely professing a “well intended” shift to the “apply and explain” approach does not necessarily lead to improvements in the quality of corporate governance disclosures. Companies, governance professionals and regulatory bodies could formulate disclosure guidance to better underpin the implications of the “apply and explain” approach.

Are the explanations that companies provide when deviating from two board structure-related best practices under the Australian Stock Exchange’s “If not, why not” regulatory regime systematically influenced by company characteristics?

Multinomial logistic regressions are performed on a sample of 258 ASX-listed firms in the period 2004-2007. The dependent variable is the level of response to the “why not” pillar of the regime which requires companies to provide an explanation where they deviate from the recommended governance practice or practices. The variable is categorised into three levels: zero response, inadequate explanation and adequate explanation. This variable takes on a fourth possible level (full compliance) if both pillars of the regime are considered jointly. The independent variables are company size, ownership concentration, profitability, liquidity, age and the market-to-book ratio.

The regime appears to be well specified, but size is positively correlated to the quality of explanations given for the deviation. Other company characteristics have no important systematic effect.

Small firms, while availing of the regulatory flexibility that enables them to adopt governance systems that suit their corporate governance requirements, tend not to meet the reporting requirements that go with that flexibility.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is one of the first to explore the justifications given for deviations from full compliance in the “if not why not” regime and covers new ground with respect to explanations given for non-adoption of board structure recommendations.

The aim of this study is to examine the attitude of Romanian companies listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange towards the “comply-or-explain” principle, under which they fulfill their corporate governance obligations.

We design and use five indexes to investigate the compliance of Romanian listed companies with their corporate governance obligations, and the quality of their explanations in case of non-compliance under the “comply-or-explain” principle. Further, we perform additional analyses by firm characteristics to identify the more compliant companies.

Our results point to the difficulties in the application of the “comply-or-explain” principle approach to corporate governance in emerging economies. First, applicable laws and regulations in these countries deter themselves the application of this principle, by the confusions and unclear provisions that they contain. Second, these countries are characterized by low enforcement mechanisms and less demanding users of information. These create an environment where local companies get away with unsanctioned non-compliance instances, and general type of explanations. However, our results suggest that larger, first-tier companies with larger boards have better corporate governance practices.

The small number of companies listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange prevented advanced statistical treatment of data.

We fill a gap in literature by providing, to our knowledge, the first study that addresses the case of corporate governance practices based on the “comply-or-explain” principle in Romania (one of the recent members of the European Union), and one of the few studies addressing the case of Central and Eastern European countries.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the quality of corporate governance (CG) disclosures in the framework of CGS and the “comply or explain” code principle in Slovenia. It aims to observe the differences among companies of the prime, standard and entry markets in terms of the differences in governance standards and regulatory frameworks.

This paper analyzes the historical development, legal approach and methods used in the regulation of the “comply or explain” principle in Slovenia. In the 2014 SEECGAN research – Slovenia, we measured the quality of CG by applying the newly created SEECGAN index methodology covering seven segments of CG and assessing 98 attributes. This paper upgrades the results of this research with additional case study research.

The analysis from 2011 to 2014 on the “comply or explain” principle showed a gradual improvement of transparency in Slovenian public companies. The 2014 SEECGAN research – Slovenia revealed that the number of specific and high-quality explanations of deviations has increased. The study in this paper showed that the governance practice in some cases is still not in line with code recommendations and does not disclose the deviations from the code.

Disclosures of the Slovenian public companies are presented for the period 2004-2018. This paper points out the improvements to be realized to change unsatisfactory practices. The measurement of the quality of CG by the 2014 SEECGAN research – Slovenia introduced a methodology, which could be recognized and improved by the EU and/or its member states.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to assess the degree of disclosure about compliance with corporate governance code and the explanations provided by Italian firms and second, to analyze the relationships between this disclosure and different variables of ownership structure.

The sample was composed of 75 non-financial companies listed in Italy in 2016. Content analysis of the corporate governance statement and ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression models were used to test the hypotheses.

Companies tended to comply with the corporate governance code and to disclose this information, but when they decided to not comply, they did not provide adequate explanations. Findings revealed a negative relation between ownership concentration and the disclosure analyzed. Results also highlight that a more equal distribution of shares among larger shareholders is beneficial for disclosure. Moreover, the presence of a dominant financial shareholder at a high level of ownership concentration creates inefficiency of the degree of adherence to the comply-or-explain principle.

This study examines in depth the underexplored issue of “explanation” and exceeds the issue of ownership concentration, which has already been examined extensively, raising the issues of counterweight power and shareholders’ identities, which remain underexplored. In this way, results presented contribute to explaining some causes of the diverse findings that research has found about the relationship between ownership concentration and voluntary disclosure, demonstrating the importance of counterweight power and largest shareholder’s identity. Consequently, when self-regulating initiatives are designed and implemented, legislators, regulators and managers should not ignore the characteristics of the firms’ ownership structure.

In recent years, the principle of the “comply or explain” approach has become the trend in corporate governance statements that are not fully compliant with national codes. This is because managers of companies deviating from corporate governance codes try to be lawful, providing reasonable explanations; thus, they reach an impasse, copying explanations from other companies, in a mimetic behavior. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether companies listed in Greek Stock exchange tend to imitate one each other thus to be legitimate in terms of the “comply or explain: approach”.

This study focuses on the “comply or explain” approach in Greek listed companies, analyzing statements by 162 companies (80.2 per cent) listed on the Athens Stock Exchange (ASE), showing a total of 1,211 deviations from the national code. Therefore, the explanations were classified for analysis, grouping them into three main categories and investigating the degree of imitation.

In total, 96 companies deviating from the Code (56.3 per cent) provided explanations as to their legitimacy practices. Thus, the managers of these companies tried to explain their deviations from the national code in such a way that it could be considered that they tend to imitate each other, striving to be lawful.

Owing to Greece’s ongoing economic crisis, many companies listed on the ASE in previous years have suspended the trading of their shares. An examination of previous years may have led to biased results, owing to the different samples of companies. Another limitation concerns the number of companies in the sample; although it covers almost 80 per cent of listed companies, the actual number of companies is not big enough.

This study tries to investigate whether Greek listed companies comply with or deviate from the National Corporate Governance Code. For that purpose, context analysis was performed on 80.2 per cent of these companies (162 out of 202 companies) for the calendar year 2017. Most companies tried to explain their deviations from the Code in such a way that it could be considered that they tend to imitate each other.

Companies that deviate from the corporate governance code tend to imitate each other. This phenomenon occurs mainly in small companies, which, while striving to be lawful, even copy other companies’ phrases verbatim. This study reveals that managers of such companies care to provide an explanation for only deviations from the Code as a logical justification and not to capture the existing situation of their companies.

This study is the first to examine the mimetic behavior on corporate governance statements in Greece. Although the trend of imitation is a fact in developed economies, similar studies never took place on emerge economies. This study contributes to the literature by examining whether the trend of mimetic behavior exists in emerging economies as well.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyse gender differences in job quality during the first years of the economic crisis in Spain.

The paper uses microdata from the Quality of Working Life Survey. A representative sample of 5,381 and 4,925 Spanish employees (men and women) in 2008 and 2010, and a two-stage structural equation modelling (SEM) are empirically tested.

The study revealed three main results. First, the improvement in job quality was more favourable to men than it was to women. Second, the gender differences in the explanation of job quality increased considerably in favour of men. Third, this increase in gender-related job inequality in favour of men is explained by a worsening of 4 of the 5 explanatory dimensions thereof: intrinsic job quality; work organisation and workplace relationships; working conditions, work intensity and health and safety at work; and extrinsic rewards. Only inequality in the work-life balance dimension remained stable.

The availability of more detailed microdata for other countries and new statistical methods for analysing causal relationships, particularly SEM-PLS, would allow new approaches to be taken.

Public policy measures required to fight against gender inequalities are discussed.

The paper contributes to enrich the understanding of the multidimensional and gender-related determinants of job quality and, in particular, of studying the effects of the first years of the economic crisis.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has importance in several industrial applications. The study aims to provide a comparison of two important methods used for explainable AI algorithms.

In this study multiple criteria has been used to compare between explainable Ranked Area Integrals (xRAI) and integrated gradient (IG) methods for the explainability of AI algorithms, based on a multimethod phase-wise analysis research design.

The theoretical part includes the comparison of frameworks of two methods. In contrast, the methods have been compared across five dimensions like functional, operational, usability, safety and validation, from a practical point of view.

A comparison has been made by combining criteria from theoretical and practical points of view, which demonstrates tradeoffs in terms of choices for the user.

Our results show that the xRAI method performs better from a theoretical point of view. However, the IG method shows a good result with both model accuracy and prediction quality.