Search results

The case is appropriate for courses in financial accounting and reporting, audit and assurance, forensic accounting, accounting practice and regulations and corporate governance. After studying the case, students should be able to explain the concept of control and power under IFRS; explain the concept of economic; discuss audit committee and external auditor independence issues and ways to strengthen auditor’s independence; assess the usefulness of the new extended audit report; and evaluate the role of gatekeepers such as financial analysts, audit committee, external auditor, institutional investors and regulators in enhancing the quality of financial reporting.

This case focuses on the accounting policy choices of the foreign associates of AirAsia Berhad. AirAsia Berhad is a phenomenal success, from a debt laden company to having been voted as World’s Best Low-Cost Airline in the annual World Airline Survey by Skytrax for eight consecutive years from 2009 to 2016 and the World’s Leading Low-Cost Airline in the annual World Travel Awards for four consecutive years from 2013 to 2016. In June 2015, an analyst report was leaked, and it led to heated discussion and exchanges in the market. The report questioned the non-consolidation of AirAsia Berhad associates. The share market also reacted. Various players in the market came into foray with their statements and opinions on the merit of the accounting policy choice by AirAsia Berhad. Whose views actually reflect the nature of accounting policy choice that is true and fair? Are these gatekeepers attesting to the accounting crux of substance over form?

Senior undergraduates; MBA; EMBA

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS: 1: Accounting and Finance

The theoretical basis for this case is a focus on vertical integration, first-mover advantage and competitive dynamics. Vertical integration is based on Williamson’s (1979) theory of transaction-cost economics as it relates to vertical integration; the discussion on first-mover advantage is built off of Suarez and Lanzolla’s (2005) dynamics of first-mover advantage; and the analyzes on competitive dynamics derives from the MacMillan et al. (1985) early empirical tests of interfirm rivalry dynamics.

The authors conducted extensive research using the following sources: IBISWorld, MergentOnline and academic journals, trade magazines and websites. Additionally, the authors successfully piloted the case on more than 350 undergraduate students enrolled in a business and corporate strategy course.

Peloton used vertical integration to control the creation of its own software, bikes, exercise classes and retail outlets. In doing so, Peloton was one of the first companies in the industry to have near full control of the production process (Gross and Caisman, 2019). Due to this integration, Peloton was one of the fitness equipment industry leaders. However, Peloton’s high level of vertical integration coupled with rapid growth led to lackluster profitability. Given the rise in popularity of in-home exercise equipment, Peloton had room to continue its growth, but the question remained whether it was strategically positioned to do so.

This case is best taught in undergraduate and graduate strategy courses. For undergraduate courses, it could be incorporated into lessons on competitive dynamics, internal analysis and first-mover advantage and strategic positioning. For graduate courses, it could be incorporated into lessons on vertical integration and delving more in-depth into the long-term sustainability of having a first-mover advantage.

This case study draws on interviews conducted with officials from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), City of Woonsocket and Town of North Smithfield. Additionally, it pulls from relevant legal documents, recordings and minutes from meetings of the Woonsocket City Council and North Smithfield Town Council, City Council resolutions, state legislation and local press coverage.

From 2012–2017, the communities of Woonsocket and North Smithfield engaged in a protracted dispute concerning wastewater disposal. For 30 years, the two jurisdictions had maintained a signed service agreement. Following its expiration; however, Woonsocket imposed a new host fee on North Smithfield. Woonsocket needed to upgrade the facility to comply with mandates from the RI DEM. Over the next five years, leaders from both jurisdictions vociferously fought over the new fee. At the same time, leaders within communities experienced their own divisions. This case study highlights the challenges that decision-makers faced in both communities.

This case is appropriate for graduate and executive level courses in environmental policy, communication and leadership.