Search results

Provides a response to the comments by Joni Young and Alistair Preston and by Sue Llewellyn, and seeks to clarify the authors’ use of the term “rhetoric”. Argues that both sets of commentators rely on rhetoric to express their own arguments. While the authors recognize and agree with most of the concerns raised by Llewellyn, they do not accept many of Young/Preston’s criticisms of their paper. Emphasizes that, although the authors were arguing for more scholarship, they were not seeking to dismiss the work of others.

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.

Raises several points of contention with Humphrey and Scapens’ paper. Questions their chronology of the accounting research scene in the 1980s, points out the possible dangers of pursuing the eclecticism advocated by the authors, and finds a proper definition of accounting theory to be lacking. However, commends the authors for raising interesting questions which will benefit from further debate and lead to a greater understanding of accounting research and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to re‐examine accountability in a concrete historical context from the perspective of pragmatism and feminist theory.

An archival case study of Hull House.

Both pragmatism and feminist theory of Benhabib provide new insight into alternative conceptions of accountability, conceptions at odds with the prevailing and dominant emphasis on quantitative measures of performance. Further, this paper suggests that this limited view severely narrows the understanding of organizational “success.”

While this research serves to problematize notions of accountability further, it leaves the task of developing alternative practices to future researchers.

This paper contributes in two ways: first, there is a paucity of research linking pragmatism to the actual workings of concrete organizations. This paper begins to fill that gap. Second, this work draws the attention of accounting and other organizational researchers to the important role played by the settlement movement, and particularly Hull House, in the development of contemporary organizations.

Considers what role history plays in the US accounting standard‐setting process and how this role may be constrained by an emphasis on objectivity and an adherence to a positivistic view of bureaucratic decision making. Explores the role history could play in the development and review of accounting standards and, in particular, how history might contribute to pluralizing the past, problematizing the present and revisioning the future.

Auditor independence is a construct that has been, and continues to be, connected to the credibility of financial statements and the effective functioning of capital markets. Given the important role assigned to independence by various regulators including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), its appearance as a recurring issue of concern and debate is unsurprising. Concerns about auditor independence in the context of various accounting scandals, such as Enron and WorldCom, contributed to the enactment of changes in the institutional arrangements for regulating auditors and renewed efforts to enhance auditor independence. Rather than continuing with perhaps futile efforts to achieve independence, I argue that we need to re-evaluate the utility of this concept as a guide to regulating audit practices. Independence, with its connotations of an unachievable autonomy and linkage of professionalism to an unobservable mind-state, may hinder, rather than aid, the audit purpose for SEC registrants – the mitigation of aggressive financial reporting. Independence as autonomy is impossible within an environment in which management pays for the audit, hires and fires the auditor, and is the primary contact for auditors. Rather than searching for ways to make the auditor “more” independent, I discuss changing the focus of regulatory attention to an open examination of and emphasis upon the relationality of auditing practice. This change in perspective requires us to examine the various relationships in which auditors are embedded and to assess whether these are more or less likely to encourage the auditor/audit firm to fulfill the purpose of an audit. I specifically explore three categories of relationships – relationships with the auditee, relationships with the audit committee and relationships with the audit firm. I also examine how this focus on relationships may contribute to our thinking about policy decisions relevant within the current audit environment, including assessing the likely impacts of consulting and personal relationships with auditees, ways to put a “face” on the public and assessing the compensation and marketing practices of accounting firms.

This paper aims to highlight the need for corporations to engage politically to create a more functional capitalist system.

Selective review of relevant economic and sociopolitical developments is presented in this paper.

There is a growing movement among economists and commentators to hold corporations accountable for political engagement which they ignore at their peril.

While individual strands of this story have been discussed before, the subject has never been handled from the perspective of corporate reputation in a comprehensive manner.