Search results

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 chapter is intended to address efforts to improve management control systems and processes, including budgeting, accounting and reporting, within the context of a responsibility framework in government. The theory of management control is explored and then management control reform in the U.S. federal government is assessed in terms of progress towards meeting the objectives of the theoretical model. Then, the U.S. experience is compared with the efforts to reform management control in Italian local governments.

Proposes to assess the extent to which line management has responsibility for human resource management (HRM) practices in the enterprise. First, addresses a number of theoretical positions that include “traditional”, “cyclical” and “secular” approaches and that emphasizing “diversity”. Then deploys survey data based on the responses of more than 900 managers in the Institute of Management and located throughout the UK to assess these approaches. Investigates four main areas: employee involvement, training and development, rewards and work practices. Reveals that with the partial exception of rewards, line management is found to be dominant in most areas. However, this pattern is likely to have been historically the case rather than representing a “new wave” or movement associated with the rise of HRM itself.

Author considered the contradiction of Capitalism and its Solution, systemized the concept to newly define Ethics Management and social Responsibility whose various terminologies are used in Domestic and foreign country and compared, analyzed and considered global guideline, standard organization and global Evaluation Model of internationally‐performed Ethics Management on the basis of the concept of new Ethics Management.

The purpose of this research is to provide an insight into the learning process leading to the integration of company responsibility, in companies that are moving from a generic approach of Corporate Social Responsibility towards a holistic approach of stakeholder management. The analysis of a case study of a multinational Italian company, Autogrill Group S.p.a., will be explored as an organizational learning process using the framework of a recent approach of Total Responsibility Management.

The method of qualitative research is based on the analysis of the theory of the subject and through the use of various techniques to study the case to give a longitudinal perspective.

The use of the case study suggests that the path from a CSR perspective toward a stakeholder management model of responsibility is a “gradual” learning process that requires vision, commitment, integration, innovation, competence, management systems and resources. This learning process is also very important as a “catalyst” of innovation and for the continuous improvement of the company.

In this research the aim is to inquire: How do companies learn to integrate their responsibilities in the process of management, moving from a generic approach of CSR toward a holistic approach of stakeholder management?

The stakeholder management model of Total Responsibility Management in this research is used to assist understanding the importance of managing the company responsibly and to show a way of reading the progress of a multinational company, which is on the path towards a more stakeholder‐oriented model of responsibility.

Discusses the concept of “integrating management” with respect to the development of a new approach to training in the Dutch Department of Public Works; tertiary technical education is no longer enough as training for managers facing interdisciplinary problems, as the Department changes from a functional to a product organization. Describes the present and future altered organizational structures. Describes how job and training profiles were developed from the literature, analysis of data about the target population and their training needs, collected by interview and questionnaire, and a crucial two‐day workshop to test the validity of the results and to draw up the profiles.

Knowledge has become the basis of enhancing the core competitiveness of enterprises in this era of knowledge-driven economies. Collaborative knowledge management not only realizes the real-time exchange and communication of knowledge among different enterprises, but also facilitates the collaboration and integration of knowledge. Collaborative knowledge management has been successfully applied to different fields. To address the poor ecological responsibility of enterprises, the purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of collaborative knowledge management in this research to determine if the evolution of the decision-making process in collaborative knowledge management is involved in corporate ecological responsibility (CER).

This research established an evolutionary game model of collaborative knowledge management for CER. The behavioral, evolutionary law and stable behavioral, evolutionary strategy of the participants was identified according to the replicator dynamics equation. Simulation analysis was conducted using MATLAB software.

Research results demonstrated that, first, the strategic selection of firms is influenced by cost and interest coefficients. Second, the strategy, selection of enterprises, is related to the common benefits of enterprise cooperation. Third, during the systematic evolution and stabilization of strategies, enterprises adopt the same knowledge strategies.

On the basis of the research findings, policy suggestions were proposed to encourage enterprises to implement collaborative knowledge management strategies in ecological responsibility.

The purpose of this article is to establish a strategic management framework that supports the integration of corporate social responsibility principles and stakeholder approaches into mainstream business strategy.

A top‐down and bottom‐up approach was used to develop the proposed framework. The top‐down approach focused on analyzing the main strategic management theories including social responsibility movements to identify complementary concepts and create a relevant topology. The bottom‐up approach was based on empirical research on the views of business companies on corporate social responsibility, a review of best practices and case studies mainly in Greece.

The paper describes a stakeholder‐oriented integrative strategic management framework linking the main strategic management theories across value, responsiveness and responsibility dimensions. A mathematical model is presented describing the synergistic development of advantage‐creating knowledge and advantage‐creating stakeholder relations in accordance with the criteria of the resource‐based theory.

The proposed management framework is based on the results of research projects and is not fully developed and tested. The approach will be refined, exploiting results from ongoing research including further empirical research and testing in business organizations.

The paper defines a novel conceptual framework extending the resource‐ and stakeholder‐based approaches by introducing two interlinked concepts: advantage‐creating knowledge and advantage‐creating stakeholder relations.