Search results

Despite the increasing demand for socially responsible investments (SRIs) and the importance of information intermediaries in providing corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance information through SRI screens, relatively little is known about the relationship between nonprofessional investors’ views regarding SRI, their use of SRI screens and their actual SRI behavior. This study aims to distinguish between investor views about the importance of corporate environmental responsibility (environmental performance importance views) and whether they view environmentally responsible firms as yielding higher returns (environmental performance return views). It examines the association between these views, SRI screen use and reported SRI holdings.

Nonprofessional investor participants completed an online survey about their SRI investment views, screen use and investment behavior. The survey yielded 201 usable responses.

The strength of participants’ environmental performance importance and environmental performance return views is positively associated with their use of SRI screens and the proportion of their portfolios held in SRIs. SRI screen use only partially mediates the association between investors’ environmental performance importance and return views and their SRI holdings.

The study does not precisely address what types of SRI screens nonprofessional investors may be using. It does not control for investors’ specific experience with SRIs, nor does it examine how or why investors come to believe that environmental responsibility may improve a company’s return potential.

The fact that SRI screen use only partially mediates the association between investors’ views and their SRI holdings suggests that either reliable, unfiltered CSR information is important for nonprofessional investors or some investors are choosing SRIs without obtaining adequate relevant information.

The study’s findings confirm earlier research findings which show an association between investors’ pro-environmental views and their decision to invest in SRIs (Williams, 2007; Nilsson, 2008) and suggest that nonprofessional investors are becoming aware of the positive relation between environmental performance and firm value (Dhaliwal et al., 2011; Clarkson et al., 2013; Hawn et al., 2014; Matsumura et al., 2014).

This study simultaneously examines the influence of environmental performance importance (an “alternative” investment perspective) and environmental performance return (a “traditional” investment perspective) on investors’ SRI behavior.

This paper aims to examine the influence of sustainability assurance report format (separate versus combined with financial information assurance) and level (limited versus reasonable) on nonprofessional investors’ judgments.

This study uses a 2 × 2 between-participants experiment with 436 US nonprofessional investors. The authors manipulate sustainability assurance report format and level to identify differences in judgments of information credibility, investment desirability and investment amount.

This study finds that sustainability assurance level influences participants’ judgments only when the financial and sustainability assurance reports are presented separately. Specifically, participants assess sustainability performance information as more credible and make higher investment judgments when presented with a separate limited, as opposed to reasonable, assurance sustainability report.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board expressed concerns regarding whether assurance reports accompanying emerging forms of extended external reporting (EER) effectively communicate the level of assurance provided by the independent practitioner. The result that assurance level does not influence investor judgments in the combined reporting format appears contrary to the idea that integrated reporting should provide connectivity between financial and sustainability information. The finding that investors make higher investment and credibility judgments with limited assurance is inconsistent with the intent of sustainability assurance professional guidance and recent research results. Together, the findings suggest that investors may not be able to distinguish between differing levels of sustainability assurance when this information is presented in a combined report format.

Standard setters should consider how sustainability assurance report format and assurance level impact nonprofessional investor judgments.

Research on the effects of EER assurance report format is sparse. The results indicate that even slight changes in assurance report wording may cause investors to perceive that a limited assurance report conveys a higher assurance level than a reasonable assurance report.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether investor views regarding the benefits of corporate environmental responsibility moderate the influence of environmental performance and assurance information on their judgments. Specifically, the authors examine the effects of two broad views: environmental responsibility is more important than financial performance, regardless of investment returns (i.e. environmental responsibility importance) and positive environmental performance will increase investment returns (i.e. environmental performance return).

Nonprofessional investors completed an online study where environmental performance (high or low) and assurance on environmental performance information (present or absent) were varied. Participants’ corporate environmental responsibility views were assessed using a series of questions adapted from Cheah et al.’s (2011) study.

Environmental performance and assurance information had a greater influence on the investment judgments of investors with strong environmental responsibility views. In contrast, participants’ environmental performance return views did not moderate the influence of environmental performance and assurance information on their judgments. Supplemental analysis indicates that these contrasting results are due to the fact that the two investor views have differing influences on the relative importance that investors place on financial vs environmental performance information.

This study presented participants with summarized financial and environmental performance information to maintain scale compatibility between financial and environmental measures. However, the information was presented in a format similar to those used by online brokerages.

This study suggests that financial statement preparers should consider investors’ views regarding the importance and value of environmental performance information when making decisions to disclose and obtain assurance on this information.

Standard setters should consider individual differences among investors when developing guidance regarding the disclosure and assurance of environmental performance information.

There is limited prior research which examines how investors’ views of the importance of environmental performance information may influence investment judgments. This research indicates that the strength of investors’ environmental responsibility importance moderates the previously reported influence of environmental performance and assurance information on investment judgments.

This research seeks to examine whether two relevant characteristics, source objectivity and internal control effectiveness, influence how auditors evaluate evidence items supporting accounting estimates.

A controlled experiment approach with a sample of 24 auditors from one large international firm.

Results indicate that effective internal controls reduce the impact of relying on internal as opposed to external evidence items. Results also suggest that auditors place reliance on internal control effectiveness when they evaluate external evidence items.

Recent professional trends, such as the demand for faster financial reporting, put pressure on auditors to rely on internal rather than more persuasive external evidence items. Relying on less persuasive evidence items reduces audit effectiveness. Auditors may respond by examining a second evidence characteristic; US audit standards suggest evaluating internal control effectiveness if evidence was generated from internal (i.e. client) sources. Thus, this study explores whether internal control effectiveness reduces the impact of relying on evidence items with lower source objectivity.

Prior research has concentrated on examining the impact of a change in one evidence characteristic on audit judgment; this study expands the understanding of the evidence evaluation process by exploring how auditors evaluate multiple evidence characteristics. Furthermore, as suggested by Bonner, this research identifies an audit judgment deficiency (i.e. reliance on less persuasive internal evidence due to the demand for faster financial reporting) and examines one potential remedy (i.e. consideration of internal control effectiveness).

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

This research is a 6-year extension of Bernardi's (2005) initial ranking of the top ethics authors in accounting; it also represents a broadening of the scope of the original data into accounting's top-40 journals. While Bernardi only considered publications in business-ethics journals in his initial ranking, we developed a methodology to identify ethics articles in accounting's top-40 journals. The purpose of this research is to provide a more complete list of accounting's ethics authors for use by authors, administrators, and other stakeholders. In this study, 26 business-ethics and accounting's top-40 journals were analyzed for a 23-year period between 1986 through 2008. Our data indicate that 16.8 percent of the 4,680 colleagues with either a PhD or DBA who teach accounting at North American institutions had authored/coauthored one ethics article and only 6.3 percent had authored/coauthored more than one ethics article in the 66 journals we examined. Consequently, 83.2 percent of the PhDs and DBAs in accounting had not authored/coauthored even one ethics article.

Recent research and policy reports indicate public sector organizations struggle to leverage information technology-based performance measurement systems and fail to effectively evaluate performance beyond financial metrics. This study aims to focus on organizational factors that influence the assimilation of business intelligence (BI) systems into integrated management control systems and the corollary impact on improving business process performance within public sector organizations.

The complete Australian client list was acquired from a leading BI vendor; and the authors surveyed all public sector organizations, receiving 226 individual responses representing 160 public sector organizations in Australia. Using latent construct measurement, structural equation modeling (SEM)-partial least squares is used to test the theoretical model.

When top management promotes knowledge creation among the organization’s operational level employees and support their activities with strong BI infrastructure, the same knowledge and infrastructure capabilities that are critical to assimilation in private sector hold in the public sector. However, public sector organizations generally have difficulty retaining staff with expertise in new technologies and attracting new innovative staff that can leverage smart systems to effect major change in performance measurement. When top management effectively manages knowledge importation from external entities to counteract deficiencies, public sector organizations effectively assimilate BI knowledge into performance measurement yielding strong process performance.

When top management promotes knowledge creation among the organization’s operational level employees and support their activities with strong BI infrastructure, the same knowledge and infrastructure capabilities critical to assimilation in the private sector hold in the public sector. However, public sector organizations generally have difficulty retaining staff with expertise in new technologies and attracting new innovative staff that can leverage smart systems to effect major change in performance measurement. The research extends the theory behind organizational absorptive capacity by highlighting how knowledge importation can be used as an external source facilitating internal knowledge creation. This collaborative knowledge creation leads to affective assimilation of BI technologies and associated performance gains.

The results provide guidance to public sector organizations that struggle to measure and validate service outcomes under New Public Management regulations and mandates.

The results reveal that consistent with the philosophies behind New Public Management strategies, private sector measures for increasing organizational absorptive capacity can be applied in the public sector. However, knowledge importation appears to be a major catalyst in the public sector where the resources to retain skilled professionals with an ability to leverage contemporary technologies into service performance are often very limited. Top management team knowledge and skills are critical to effectively leveraging these internal and external knowledge creation mechanisms.