Search results

“The definition of auditing calls for the communication of the degree of correspondence between assertions and established criteria” [ASOBAC, 1973]. As the profession has rejected adoption of universal quantitative definitions of materiality as infeasible [FASB, 1979], Don Leslie [1984] recommended adoption of a standard requiring disclosure of specific engagement materiality thresholds in the auditor's report. This study examines how such disclosures might affect perceptions of an auditor's culpability and liability in instances where post publication errors are discovered which alternately aggregate to more or less than reported materiality thresholds. A behavioral experiment was conducted in which eighty‐seven U.S. general jurisdiction judges participated. Findings support the potential for meaningful modifications to the standard auditor's report to reduce perceived auditor liability but also note the importance of jurists' pre‐experimental attitudes and beliefs respecting the public accounting profession. In 1985, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants published Materiality: The Concept and its Application to Auditing [CICA, 1985]. In that research study, Don Leslie focused on his perceptions of the communication deficiencies of the standard form audit report used in Canada and the U.S. — the most critical of which he found to be the continuing lack of a quantitative definition of materiality. Leslie's remedy for the problem was novel and controversial even if his recognition of this problem was not without precedent. Leslie did not recommend the prompt adoption of universal, quantitative materiality standards (a proposal which has stalemated progress in the profession for years) but rather adoption of a standard making it compulsory that auditors disclose their individual materiality standards, whatever they may be, on each specific audit, in the audit report. To date, no serious research has examined this proposal since the report's publication, and yet the costs of the communications gap between accounting/auditing professionals and the public seem to be getting greater. The Auditing Standards Board recently readdressed the communications provided by the standard form audit report. One of the clearest observa‐tions to emerge from those deliberations was that there is a lack of reliable research data upon which to base regulatory decisions in this area [Elliott and Jacobson, 1987]. This paper contributes to reduce that vacuum. Specifically, on the following pages we outline the genesis of a research project and the findings of that study in which eighty‐seven (87) U.S. judges evaluated whether and to what degree an altered form of the audit report (including quantitative definition of materiality) would reduce the assessed culpability and legal liability of auditors. The remaining sections of this paper are organized as follows: in section one, we will summarize representative recent relevant literature; in section two, we develop testable hypotheses from that background literature; in section three, we provide a description of the design of our study; in section 4, our findings are reported and in section 5 we discuss implications for practice and future research.

In 1988, the US standard form audit report experienced its first major modification in 39 years. Among the objectives of the “new” report were better auditor/user communications leading to, among other things, an abridgement of auditor liability. Nearly a decade later, this issue has yet to be addressed empirically and with rigour. The empirical research reported examines the ability of the “new” audit report to reduce perceptions of auditor responsibility/liability across two instances of alleged audit failure. It is argued that a jurist’s advantage of “perfect hindsight” may mitigate the effectiveness of revised communications contained in the audit report, in instances where audit risk at the time of the audit appears high. Accordingly, consideration of environments of both high and low perceived risk were provided in a behavioural experiment conducted with 81 investors serving as subjects. Findings reveal that the revised audit report language may provide relief for auditor liability, but the presence of red‐flags, or red‐flag related environmental conditions, may exacerbate negative perceptions.

The preceding article, “The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique,” argues that the Shareholder Theory, which the authors refer to as the “Friedman Paradigm” represents the only intellectually and ethically meritorious model for assessing corporate social responsibility. This response argues that the 19th Century Shareholder Theory is based upon numerous factual and legal inaccuracies and fictions when evaluated in the context of the modern era. Requiring that management serve only the interests of the shareholders is morally untenable. The authors’ assertion that the competing theory, The Stakeholder Theory, is unworkable is based upon both a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the theory. Refinements and clarifications about who qualifies as a stakeholder make the Stakeholder Theory both workable and a very useful way to improve corporate governance. Now is the time to apply the Stakeholder Theory as part of the ongoing process of improving the moral and social responsibility of corporation management.

Frederick R. Post’s response (2003) to our paper (“The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique,” 2003) is factually mistaken, inconsistent, and confused over: 1) the contents of our paper, 2) how corporate capitalism works, and 3) the consequences of what he advocates. This reply discusses these points, and revisits both our critique of the stakeholder paradigm and defense of shareholder primacy.

There is more than a bit of ‘ethical neediness’ in society. One good question is what can be done about it. The answer pursued here is that we should promote integrity aggressively and integritively. Directing attention to the arena of higher education and problems associated with academic or educational integrity, the chapter (a) discusses honor codes as a device for promoting academic integrity; (b) identifies and explains a key virtue and a vice of honor codes and, in relation to the values an honor code is meant to safeguard, a significant way in which honor codes are like a professional ethic; and (c) argues that success in this project requires abandonment of an attractive but misleading conception of ethics that suggests, wrongly, that acting rightly is simply a matter of rigid adherence to standards. To be sure, some questions about what one should do are straightforwardly and quite legitimately answered by reference to rules. In this, ethics may seem quite like law (adjudication). But one has to be careful here, lest one be seduced by the siren song of what Roscoe Pound called mechanical jurisprudence, for in law and ethics, as in the Greek myth, this does not have a happy ending. There is more to the story. In ethics (adjudication too) one confronts genuine complexity that cannot be dealt with algorithmically. This is something that we have to face head on, if we are committed to promoting integrity integritively.

The worlds of literature and business are as different as they get. While literature often revels in the artistic and abstract aspects, business focuses on the more practical and realistic facets of life. Literature talks ideas, business speaks money. Writers express themselves with words, business men prove themselves through numbers. Former US President Calvin Coolidge once exclaimed, “The business of America is business. Not Art!” (West brook, 1980:1). However, this difference is, at most, on the surface. Literature and business intertwine on more perspectives than one might think. For example, there are traces of corporate capitalism in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle in which workers are portrayed as “slaves to the economic system” (Watts, 1982:77). Or Joseph Heller’s Something Happened depicts the harsh rules of business by which any one who is not contributing efficiently to the success of a company will be discarded, also known as corporate Darwinism (Horner, 1992:27). Or in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, with a humourous tone, medieval England is modernised with various economic measures, such as new currency, stock exchange in the court, and full‐time employment for the knights, and hence saved from financial ruins (West brook, 1980:49). In other words, literature has been drawing inspirations from the financial market. Therefore, it might not be surprising if there are major themes in literature than can be applied to the corporate world. In fact, managers at all levels can learn valuable lessons for the many areas of business from literature.

This paper aims to offer a framework of five questions for analyzing ethical dilemmas faced by managers and professionals. The framework's main purpose is to help individuals understand the nature of ethical issues and to avoid making ethical mistakes – decisions or actions that are unintentionally unethical that they would later regret and wish they could undo.

The framework developed is based on traditional ethical theories reframed into a set of simple questions that have been applied in a variety of private‐ and public‐sector organizations to help managers identify and resolve ethical dilemmas and conflicts.

The benefits of this framework are that the five questions cover the broad range of underlying factors that create ethical issues and dilemmas, are simple and easy for individuals to understand and remember and, considered together, help to identify conflicting ethical priorities.

Most breaches of ethics are not intentional and most individuals want to behave ethically. Their breach of ethics is often the result of making decisions without adequately thinking through the implications and possible consequences. The application of this simple framework can help individuals and organizations avoid making such ethical mistakes.

The framework has helped public‐ and private‐sector organizations evaluate and cope with ethical issues and value conflicts.

This study aims to examine publications of supply chain management (SCM) researchers from across the world and maps the leadership role of authors and institutions based on how prolific they are in publishing and on network measures of centrality while accounting for the quality of the outlets that they publish in. It aims to inform stakeholders on who the leading SCM scholars are, their primary areas of SCM research, their publication profiles and the nature of their networks. It also identifies and informs on the leading SCM research institutions of the world and where leadership in specific areas of SCM research is emerging from.

Based on SCM papers appearing in a set of seven leading journals over the 15-year period of 2001-2015, publication scores and social network analysis measures of total degree centrality and Bonacich power centrality are used to identify the highest ranked agents in SCM research overall, as well as in some specific areas of SCM research. Social network analysis is also used to examine the nature and scope of the networks of the ranked agents and where leadership in SCM research is emerging from.

Authors and institutions from the USA and UK are found to dominate much of the rankings in SCM research both by publication score and social network analysis measures of centrality. In examining the networks of the very top authors and institutions of the world, their networks are found to be more inward-looking (country-centric) than outward-looking (globally dispersed). Further, researchers in Europe and Asia alike are found to exhibit significant continental inclinations in their network formations with researchers in Europe displaying greater propensity to collaborate with their European-based counterparts and researchers in Asia with their Asian-based counterparts. Also, from among the journals, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal is found to exhibit a far more expansive global reach than any of the other journals.

The journal set used in this study, though representative of high-quality SCM research outlets, is not exhaustive of all potential outlets that publish SCM research. Further, the measure of quality that this study assigns to the various publications is based solely on a publication score that accounts for the quality of the journals, as rated by Association of Business Schools that the papers appear in and nothing else.

By informing the community of stakeholders of SCM research about the top-ranked SCM authors, institutions and countries of the world, the nature of their networks, as well as what the primary areas of SCM research of the leading authors in the world are, this research provides stakeholders, including managers, researchers and students, information that is helpful to them not only because of the insights it provides but also for the gauging of potential for embedding themselves in specific networks, engaging in collaborative research with the leading agents or pursuing educational opportunities with them.

This research is the first of its kind to identify and rank the top SCM authors and institutions from across the world using a representative set of seven leading SCM and primary OM journals based on publication scores and social network measures of centrality. The research is also the first of its kind to identify and rank the top authors and institutions within specific areas of SCM research and to identify future research opportunities relating to aspects of collaboration and networking in research endeavors.

This paper aims to argue that the rationale for community investment in developing countries is broader and more complex than in the West, and that the usual drivers of corporate social responsibility (CSR) behaviour are less explicit and robust in these settings.

Development of descriptive theory using the results of a qualitative study of 42 firms in Fiji’s tourism industry. The primary data were derived from in-depth interviews with senior managers about their firm’s CSR values and practices. This paper focuses on one aspect of CSR practice, community investment, and provides a comparative analysis of the results from the interview data.

The paper presents evidence that shows that the rationale for engaging with and supporting local communities is more concerned with long-term sustainability than short-term profitability. The findings reveal that issues of legitimacy, interdependence and risk management are important strategic reasons for undertaking community investment.

The paper adds to theoretical understanding of the nature of CSR practices in developing countries. In particular, it reveals the importance of institutional factors in community investment decision-making and argues for an expanded theory of the business-case for CSR.

This research adds to the growing number of developing-country case studies by focusing on a region that has been largely absent from empirical CSR research.

The purpose of this research is to provide a systematic insight into corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate citizenship (CC) in supply chain development, by analyzing the current literature, contemporary concepts, data and gaps for future discipline research.

This research identifies information from existing academic journals and investigates research designs and methods, data analysis techniques, industry involvement and geographic locations. Information regarding university affiliation, publishers, authors, year of publication is also documented. A collection of online databases from 2001 to 2018 were explored, using the keywords “corporate social responsibility”, “corporate citizenship” and “supply chain” in their title and abstract, to deliver an inclusive listing of journal articles in this discipline area. Based on this approach, a total of 164 articles were found, and information on a chain of variables was collected.

There has been visible growth in published articles over the last 18 years regarding supply chain sustainability, CSR and CC. Analysis of the data collected shows that only five literature reviews have been published in this area. Further, key findings include 41% of publications were narrowly focused on four sectors of industry, leaving gaps in the research. 85% centered on the survey and conceptual model, leaving an additional gap for future research. Finally, developing and developed nation status should be delineated, researched and analyzed based on further segmentation of the industry by region.

This research is limited to reviewing only academic and professional articles available from Emerald, Elsevier, Wiley, Sage, Taylor and Francis, Springer, Scopus, JSTOR and EBSCO containing the words “corporate social responsibility”, “corporate citizenship” and “supply chain” in the title and abstract.

This assessment provides an enhanced appreciation of the current practices of current research and offers further directions within the CSR and CC in supply chain sustainable development.