Search results

In this paper, the authors examine auditor upward feedback, which provides a unique opportunity for staff auditors to exercise their voice within an audit firm. Upward feedback can improve employee perceptions of fairness and justice while mitigating feelings of burnout and turnover intentions, thus enhancing audit quality. However, it is unclear which circumstances improve the likelihood that auditors will use their voice and give feedback to superiors. The purpose of this study is to investigate contextual factors that impact the likelihood that auditors will provide upward feedback.

Using a 2 × 2 + 2 experiment with staff auditors, the authors test the likelihood of giving feedback when presented with different feedback systems (electronic anonymous, face-to-face or no opportunity) and experiences with managers (favorable or unfavorable).

The authors find that, while feedback type alone does not change the likelihood of auditors providing upward feedback, auditors are more likely to provide feedback after a favorable manager experience than an unfavorable one. The likelihood of providing feedback after an unfavorable experience is higher, however, when the feedback type is electronic and anonymous as opposed to face-to-face. Additional analyses illustrate strong relationships between manager experience, feedback type and procedural justice, which significantly influence the turnover intentions of staff auditors.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the authors are the first to examine the value of subordinates’ upward feedback on firm outcomes, including burnout and turnover intention.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate public disclosures and accountability for government decision-making in the case of a major prison project delivered through a Public–Private Partnership (PPP) in the State of Victoria (Australia).

The study explores a unique case to provide insights into public disclosures for PPPs in a jurisdiction that is a recognised leader in PPP policy and practice. The analysis is theoretically framed by an understanding of neoliberalism and New Public Management, and draws on data from case-specific reporting, media reporting and public policy, to examine interconnections between accounting, public discourse and accountability.

The analysis shows how publicly available information relating to key government decisions routinely lacked supporting evidence or explanation, even though areas of subjectivity were recognised in public policy. Accounting was deployed numerically and discursively to present potentially contestable decisions as being based on common-sense “facts”. The implied “truth” status of government reporting is problematised by media disclosure of key issues absent from government disclosures.

Under neoliberalism, accountingisation can help depoliticise the public sphere and limit discourse by constructing ostensible “facts” in an inherently contestable arena. By contrast, democratic accountability requires public disclosures that infuse a critical dialogical public sphere.

The paper shows how neoliberalism can be embedded in public policies and institutional practices, and buttressed by the use of accounting. The analysis illuminates the persistence and “failing forward” character of neoliberalism, whereby crises are addressed through further neoliberalisation.

In the UK, food poverty has increased in the last 15 years and the food aid supply chain that has emerged to tackle it is now roughly 10 years old. In this time, we have seen the food aid supply chain grow at a rate that has astounded many. Recently that growth has been aided by a grant of £20m from a large supermarket chain. It appears institutionalisation is just around the corner, if not already here. It also appears that there is far greater emphasis on dealing with the symptoms as opposed to solving the root causes of the problem. As an opinion piece, this paper reflects on some of the prevalent issues, and suggests some ways forward.