Search results

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.

This essay raises a concern about the trajectory that new institutionalism has been following during the last decades, namely an emphasis on heterogeneity, change and agentic behavior instead of isomorphism and conformist behavior. This is a crucial issue from the perspective of the philosophy and methodology of science since a theory that admits both change and stability as a norm has less scientific weight then a theory that predicts a prevalence of passivity and isomorphism over change and strategic behavior. The former provides explanations and predictions while the latter does not.

The paper offers an analysis of the nature, characteristics, functions and boundaries of institutional theories in the spirit of philosophy and methodology of science literature.

The power of the former institutional theory developed by Meyer, Rowan, DiMaggio and Powell lies in its generalization, explanation and prediction of observable and unobservable phenomena: as a typical organizational theory that puts forward directional predictions, it explains and predicts the tendency for organizations to become more similar to each other over time and express less strategic and interest-driven behavior, conforming to ever-increasing institutional pressures. A theory of isomorphism makes scientific predictions while its modern advancements do not. Drawing on Popper's idea of the limit of domains of explanation and limited domains of theories we present two propositions that may direct our attention towards the strength or weakness of institutional theories with regard to their explanations of organizational processes and behavior.

The paper draws implications for further theory building in institutional analysis by suggesting the nature of institutional explanations and the place of institutional change in the theoretical apparatus. Once institutional theory explains the tendency of the system towards equilibrium, there is no need to explain the origins and causes of radical change per se. Institutional isomorphism theory explains and predicts how even after radical changes organizational fields will move towards isomorphism, that is, institutional equilibrium. The task is, therefore, not to explain agency and change but to show that it is natural and inevitable processes that organizational field will return to isomorphic dynamics and move towards homogenization no matter how much radical change occurred in this field.

The paper discusses the practical problems with instrumental utility of institutional theories. In order to be useful any theory must clearly delineate its boundaries and offer explanations and predictions and it is only the former 1977/1983 institutional theory that satisfies these requirements while modern advancements merely offer ambiguous theoretical umbrellas that escape empirical tests. For researchers therefore it is important to recognize which theory can be applied in a given limited domain of research and which one has little or no value.

To examine the role of explanations in influencing customer perceptions of service failures, this study investigated the impact of two types of explanations: retrospective excuses and anticipatory excuses on customers' fairness perceptions and their tipping behaviors.

A 3 (explanation: absent, anticipatory, retrospective) × 2 (service recovery effort: no tangible compensation or 20 percent off the total bill) between‐participant design was used to test the hypotheses. Simulated dining experiences were enacted and videotaped to represent the six conditions.

The findings of this study imply that customer‐contact employees might be able to influence customer impressions by offering a causal explanation for a service failure.

Owing to the restaurant‐oriented focus of this study, these results may not be generalizable to other service industries. Second, our stimuli involved service encounters that were clearly inadequate in terms of interactional treatment. Third, due to the research method employed in this study the dyadic nature of the service encounter is minimized. Fourth, the student sample somewhat limits the generalizability of the results.

The results indicate that retrospective excuses might enhance customers' fairness perceptions more than anticipatory excuses. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that explanations for failures, even when combined with tangible compensation, are poor substitutes for inadequate interpersonal treatment.

The findings of this study add to the evidence that offering an explanation for a service failure can positively influence customer perceptions. Moreover, the paper introduces tipping as a surrogate of satisfaction to the service recovery literature.

In a simulated three‐issue organizational dispute, subjects were interrupted by a third party (their supervisor) who recommended—and eventually imposed—one of five different outcomes. Each outcome provided subjects the same overall payoff, though the arrangement of payoffs across each of the three issues varied. The design allowed us to evaluate four different perspectives regarding negotiators' perceptions of their outcomes. In addition, third parties provided justifications, apologies, or excuses for their actions. Fairness judgments and supervisory evaluations were most favorable when negotiators received an outcome reflecting favorable settlements on the majority of the issues, or the midpoint compromise; the least favorable reactions occurred when subjects received favorable outcomes on only their most important issue. Third parties who offered a justification for their actions were seen as fairer than those offering apologies or excuses. The findings reiterate the importance of considering both the symbolic characteristics of outcomes and the interactional justice inherent in different types of explanations.

The purpose of this paper is to raise attention within the records management community about evolving demands for explanations that make it possible to understand the content of records, also when they reflect output from algorithms.

The methodological approach is a conceptual analysis based in records management theory and the philosophy of science. The concepts that are developed are thereafter applied to “the right to an explanation” and “an algorithmic ethics approach,” respectively, to further examine their viability.

Different forms of explanations, ranging from “certain” explanations to predictions, as well as varying degrees of control over the input data to algorithms, affect the nature of the explanations and what kinds of records the explanations may reside in.

This paper contributes to a conceptual frame for discussing where explanations to algorithms may be documented, within different kinds of records, emanating from different kinds of processes.

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.

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.

Considers why different explanations of the same event can be produced and discusses the characteristics of a good explanation. It identifies and analyses a wide range of different published explanations of a seminal public administration policy‐change. It separates those accounts of that event into families of explanations and describes their common underlying presuppositions. These shared presuppositions are used to construct four models of public policy‐making: sovereign policy‐makers; policy‐makers as relays; policy‐making as the personal; and the discursive construction of policy. Each explanation (and its conceptual model) is challenged by historically grounded counter‐evidence. Based on this analysis the paper suggest ways in which analysis of public management changes might be more fruitfully orientated.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the repetition effect bias noted in prior psychology literature impacts auditor judgments. Were auditors to succumb to this bias, repeated statements would be perceived to have higher validity than single exposure to the same statement, potentially impairing subsequent judgments, including audit opinions and thereby undermining audit quality.

Multiple explanatory hypotheses, including repeated explanations, were evaluated by audit seniors in an experimental analytical procedures setting where the nature (error or non‐error) and number (six or ten) of explanations was varied.

Auditors were not found to exhibit a repetition effect (measured as an absolute increase in perceived validity) however differences did occur in their judgments owing to both the nature and number of explanations considered. Consistently the likelihood for repeated items on short lists was increased and on longer it was decreased, while for non‐errors it was increased and for errors it was decreased.

These results suggest that audit quality could be impaired if auditors do not consider a broad set of plausible explanations, particularly where they receive repeated non‐error explanations.

No prior study has addressed this issue in this context.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of culture (Western versus East Asian) on customers' perceived informational fairness of several types of failure explanations – excuse, justification, reference, and apology. It also seeks to examine whether informational fairness influences post‐failure satisfaction and consequent loyalty intentions.

A two (culture: US and Taiwanese) × four (explanation type: excuse, justification, reference to other people, and penitence) between‐subjects experimental design was used to test the hypotheses. Participants were exposed to a written scenario describing a flight delay. A total of 286 undergraduate students served as the subject pool.

The findings of this study imply that customers from different cultures perceive service failure explanations somewhat differently. US customers perceive reference to other customers to be more just while Taiwanese customers perceive apology to be more just. Furthermore, such informational fairness influences satisfaction, and consequent loyalty intentions.

Owing to the comparison of US and Taiwanese participants in this study, these results may not be applied to customers from other countries. Second, the stimuli involved service failures that are in the context of air travel. Third, though the student sample is appropriate for cross‐cultural research, it limits the generalizability of the study's findings.

The study findings indicate that explanations for service failures enhance customers' fairness perceptions, thus inducing loyalty. Yet, it is important for front‐line employees to keep in mind that customers' cultural backgrounds can affect their perceptions of specific types of explanations.

The findings of this study add to the evidence that culture is an important factor in determining the effectiveness of a service recovery effort. Specifically, this research shows cross‐cultural differences in informational fairness perceptions across various explanation types.