Search results

For the past 10 years, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has operated as an independent overseer of public company audits. Over 70 percent of PCAOB studies have been published since 2010, evidencing the increasing relevance of PCAOB-related research in recent years. Our paper reviews the existing literature on the PCAOB’s four primary functions – registration, standard-setting, inspections, and enforcement. In particular, we examine PCAOB registration trends and evaluate the effects of PCAOB registration requirements on the issuer audit market, as well as discuss the relative costs and benefits (e.g., auditor behavior changes, improvements in audit quality, auditor perceptions) of the 16 auditing standards the PCAOB passed in its first 10 years of operation. Further, we summarize the literature’s findings on the effects of the PCAOB inspection process on various facets of audit quality. Finally, we analyze the research concerning the PCAOB’s enforcement actions to determine how markets have responded to sanctions against auditors and audit firms. We contend that understanding and reviewing the effects of the PCAOB’s activities are important to future audit research because of the PCAOB’s authority over and oversight of the issuer audit profession. We also identify PCAOB-related research areas that have not been fully explored and propose several research questions intended to address these research areas.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and synthesize the current academic literature on emerging trends to increase CSR reporting credibility.

This paper synthesizes literature on emerging trends to increase CSR reporting credibility from the past ten years, focusing mainly on the most recent five years, by searching ABI/Inform and Business Source Premier for academic papers containing the following keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting, CSR, Sustainability, and Social Responsibility.

This paper identifies four relatively unexplored trends to improve CSR credibility: CSR assurance, integrated reporting, CSR reporting standards, and CSR regulation.

This study will be of use to academic researchers to facilitate research and discussion on the credibility of CSR disclosure.

Regulatory agencies, boards of directors, customers, suppliers, and investors are increasingly using CSR information for decision making; therefore the credibility of the information is important.

Much of the extant research investigating CSR has focused on financial performance metrics. The study synthesizes the recent CSR literature, including some interdisciplinary research focusing on emerging accountability trends in reporting. The authors identify several research opportunities that will enhance the authors’ understanding of CSR reporting.

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.

There is no industry in the world where a crisis caused by terrorism has such a strong impact as in tourism. Providing security for visitors before and during a trip can be a critical success factor for the competitiveness of a particular destination or organization or for business tourism when tourists consider multiple alternatives. Information about political instability, violence, crime or terrorist attacks could cause a substitution effect by tourists. International terrorism and tourism share some characteristics, as both cross national borders, involve citizens from different countries and use the new travel and communications technologies. In recent decades, terrorism organizations have been using tourism targets to gain global visibility. Based on a broad analysis of literature and data, the main goal of this research is to update the work of Seabra (2019) and help to analyse the main connections between terrorism and tourism, specifically by presenting the main terrorist events targeting tourism activity and destinations in the last 35 years and their main consequences for tourism industry.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the contributions of Agenda 2063 in tourism development in Africa while examining the inherent contradictions in its implementation. Ultimately, it brings out a meaningful synthesis of the overall implications and proposes recommendations for an equitable and sustainable tourism development in Africa.

This study draws from desk-based research and content analysis of documents and research studies related to Agenda 2063. A hypothetico-deductive approach was adopted, as this allowed for the deconstruction of text and context.

The findings reveal several internal inconsistencies which cuts like a double-edge sword. Empirical results show that Africa can emerge as a desirable destination if the aspirations of Agenda 2063 are appropriately popularized and operationalized. African countries need to align their tourism plans with the aspirations projected in the plan. It is imperative that the African Union (AU) oversees that there is consistent and sustainable tourism development across all member states.

The study draws from and relies solely on available secondary data. This implies that unofficial and unpublicized secondary data (proceedings, concept notes, position papers and archived documents) developed from AU’s conferences and workshops have not been considered. The outcome might therefore be indicative, but not necessarily reflective of trends and hidden realities of Africa.

The outcome of this empirical study provides an improved understanding of opportunities and challenges faced by African countries seeking to develop tourism as an economic activity. It unveils discrepancies which need address and further articulates recommendations which are practical and workable to achieve the aspiration of Agenda 2063 to be a “United Africa.”

The study provides valuable information for the socio-economic transformation of the continent, one of the aspirations of Agenda 2063. It further seeks to promote social and economic development based on a spirit of Pan-Africanism.

Unlike previous studies, this exploratory piece of paper provides a meaningful synthesis of Agenda 2063 from a unique perspective – the double-edge sword approach; it examines the potentials and opportunities the agenda triggers for tourism and at the same time, reveals its contradictions.