David Ebbevi, Ulrica Von Thiele Schwarz, Henna Hasson, Carl Johan Sundberg and Mandus Frykman
To review the literature and identify research gaps in the role and influence boards of directors of companies have in occupational health and safety (OHS).
Abstract
Purpose
To review the literature and identify research gaps in the role and influence boards of directors of companies have in occupational health and safety (OHS).
Design/methodology/approach
This was done in a scoping review built on a structured search in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, CCInfoWeb, EconLit, Web of Science, CINAHL and gray literature. Citations and reference lists were tracked. Inclusion criteria were publication in English. Exclusion criteria were studies covering companies using subcontractors to arrange OHS, or with <250 employees.
Findings
Forty-nine studies were included. The majority contained empirical data (n = 28; 57%), some were entirely normative (n = 16; 33%), and a few contained normative claims far beyond empirical data (n = 5; 10%). Empirical studies gave no insight into the scope of impact of board activities on OHS, and no studies assess the causal mechanisms by which board activities influence OHS outcomes. Most studies focused on both health and safety (n = 20; 41%) or only safety (n = 15; 31%). Context might explain the focus on safety rather than health, but is not clearly elucidated by the studies. Several studies are describing leadership behavior, although not framed as such. A narrative summary is presented to facilitate future research.
Research limitations/implications
Future research should include: (1) which board activities influence OHS, (2) how board activities influence OHS, (3) the influence of context and (4) the leadership role of boards of directors.
Originality/value
This study identifies a total lack of research on the basic mechanics of the relationship between boards and OHS.
Details
Keywords
Jani Saastamoinen, Arsen Djatej, Kati Pajunen and M. David Gorton
Accounting standards for goodwill may intensify the agency conflict. Since auditors evaluate intangible asset valuations, this study examines to what extent being an auditor…
Abstract
Purpose
Accounting standards for goodwill may intensify the agency conflict. Since auditors evaluate intangible asset valuations, this study examines to what extent being an auditor (including Big 4 auditors) and being female as indicators of professional skepticism and conservatism predict accounting professionals' critical views of goodwill accounting under US GAAP.
Design/methodology/approach
Statistical analyses of a survey of accounting professionals in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.
Findings
The respondents' views are dispersed from trust in GAAP to views reflecting management opportunism in goodwill accounting. While being an auditor (including Big 4 auditors) does not predict a critical perception, being a female auditor is correlated with critical views to some extent.
Research limitations/implications
The survey was carried out in a limited geographical area and personal contacts were used to maximize the response rate, which may limit generalizability.
Practical implications
Standard setters can use the results to learn how practitioners perceive the current accounting standards for goodwill. The results provide users and preparers knowledge about potential pitfalls of goodwill accounting. Preparers could increase transparency to alleviate user concerns regarding managerial opportunism in goodwill accounting.
Originality/value
This paper extends the IFRS-based literature exploring practitioners' perceptions of accounting standards by focusing on goodwill accounting in the US GAAP environment. This study also contributes to the auditing literature by providing further evidence on how gender moderates an auditor's perception of accounting standards.
Details
Keywords
Ayodeji E. Oke, Seyi S. Stephen and Clinton O. Aigbavboa