Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine how accountability is constructed for blockchain systems. With the aim of increasing knowledge on accountability across three different types of blockchains (public, private and consortium), the researchers ask: how do blockchain systems construct accountability?

This study draws on theorising in the accountability literature to study how blockchains relate to our construction and understanding of accountability. A qualitative field study of the Australian blockchain technology landscape is conducted, with insights garnered from 18 blockchain experts.

Findings reveal that different types of blockchains employ different forms and mechanisms of accountability and in novel ways previously less acknowledged in the literature. Importantly, this study finds that accountability does not require a principal–agent relation and can still manifest in less pure applications of blockchain technology across a wide range of stakeholders, contrary to that espoused in earlier exhortations of blockchain use in interdisciplinary literature. This study also finds that similar subtypes of accountability operate very differently across public, private and consortium blockchains and there exists an inverse relation between trust and consensus building through transparency as blockchains progress from public to private types. Overall, this study offers novel explanations for the relevance of greater accountability in blockchains, especially when the assumptions of public blockchains are softened and applied as private and consortium blockchains.

This study contributes to the accountability literature by addressing how different blockchain systems reshape the understanding of traditional accounting and accountability practices. This study questions the very need for a principal–agent relation to facilitate accountability and offers an additional perspective to how trust and transparency operate as key mechanisms of accountability.

The purpose of this research is to understand how accounting information mobilises stakeholder salience at an industry level.

A case study method using an explanation building approach was applied to gather information surrounding dairy industry stakeholder uses of accounting information to communicate their salience, in the historical context, leading to, and the events surrounding the milk price “war” in Australia. The Mitchell et al. (1997) stakeholder salience framework was used to advance our understanding of the different ways accounting can be mobilized by stakeholders with different types of salience attributes, at an industry level.

This empirical analysis produces two insights into the relation between accounting and stakeholder salience. First, there is evidence as to how accounting information impacted on stakeholder salience at an industry level by demonstrating how accounting information (in)directly communicated and justified the increase of a stakeholder’s level of salience. Second, the Mitchell et al. (1997) model is extended by attributing levels of importance to each stakeholder attribute. It was found that, in this setting, power was the most salient attribute of the three, usurping legitimacy and urgency, leading to the outcomes observed.

This paper acknowledged the usual method limitations related to this style of qualitative research, including investigator bias and lack of statistical generalization. In addition, a second set of limitations critiques the paper’s operating framework. While the Mitchell et al. (1997) stakeholder salience model proved to be a suitable choice for this research, it is limited in the way in which stakeholder attributes are presented and used to identify stakeholders. In addition, further light may be provided on the distinctions between the different magnitudes of power, legitimacy and urgency between stakeholders after suggesting that they are not equally weighted.

The milk price “war” remains a high-profile discussion amongst the general public. This research contributes to a better understanding of how different players (stakeholders) have their salience claims mobilized through accounting information. Practitioners in the dairy industry might reflect on the findings to enhance their legitimacy pursuits in future negotiations with their counter-parties, and better deploy accounting to achieve the same.

The findings speak more broadly to notions of social equity in stakeholder relations, for the production and distribution of a product that is ubiquitously used in society (dairy – milk). The findings from this study therefore have potential to assist policymakers better understand the strategies adopted by stakeholders to impose their influence and defend their claims in a public forum, using accounting information.

The authors contend that the article provides evidence at an industry level, that is lacking in extant management accounting research (Collier, 2000). To this extent, an original contribution is claimed. The paper is also valuable to management accounting and management researchers studying stakeholder salience, and is one of the first to investigate this issue at an industry level, as well as express how accounting mobilises this salience.

This paper aims to assess the impact of the presence/absence of risk management practices on the risk of merger and acquisition (M&A) failure.

An agency theoretic perspective is adopted, along with a mixed-methods approach to study managerial complexity beyond simply “good” and “bad”. The focus is on an agency conflicts.

The authors first present an integrated framework that classifies managerial behaviour and risk management, where M&A bids can become vehicles for maximising managerial benefits rather than shareholder value. The authors proceed to consider M&A activity that benefits both managers and shareholders in the presence of risk management strategies.

The paper highlights the benefits of multiple paradigms and research paths that address dimensions captured by an agency theoretic perspective.

The authors regard this paper as having particular significance in that the global financial crisis has impacted M&A activities and objectives, shifting the employment and related risks faced by managers.

The paper suggests future research paths to advance the understanding of the complex behaviour of managers involved in M&A activities that go beyond the classification of “good” and “bad” managers.

The purpose of this paper is to enrich extant understanding of the role of both agency and context in the uptake of sustainability assurance. To this end, the authors examine auditors' attempts to promote sustainability assurance and establish it as a practice requiring the professional involvement of auditors.

Applying institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) and institutional logics (Thornton, 2002; Thornton et al., 2012) as the method theories, the authors examine interview data and a variety of documentary evidence collected in Finland, a small society characterized by social and environmental values, beliefs in functioning institutions and public trust in companies behaving responsibly.

With this study, the authors make two main contributions to extant literature. First, the authors illustrate the limits that society-level logics related to corporate social responsibility, together with the undermining or rejected institutional work of other agents, place especially on the political and cultural work undertaken by auditors. Second, the study responds to Power's (2003) call for country-specific studies by exploring a rather unique context, Finland, where societal trust in companies is arguably stronger than in many other countries and this trust appears to affect how actors perceive the need for sustainability assurance.

This is one of the few accounting studies that combines institutional logics and institutional work to study the uptake of a management fashion, in this case sustainability assurance.

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.

Tech start-ups (TSs) functioning in different domains have a responsibility of ensuring that domestic knowledge and capabilities are leveraged to minimize dependence on foreign organizations. Despite the growth of the ecosystem, while numerous TSs emerge, very few of them are able to survive, and of those that survive, very few scale up. The aim of this study is to identify the factors influencing the competitiveness of technological start-ups and to study the interrelationship and interdependence of these factors.

Modified total interpretative structural modeling (m-TISM) was employed for the current research. The analysis of what factors have an effect on competitiveness, how they affect it and why they affect it should be explored. The study begins by developing the list of factors through literature search, and further it is validated by expert opinion. A hierarchical model has been developed using m-TISM and MICMAC analysis to analyze the driving and dependency power of factors at each level.

Results show that the competitiveness of TSs is affected by organizational agility and internationalization. Factors present at the bottom level, namely entrepreneurial intensity, act as a strong driver for TSs. Team member commitment, transformational leadership, strategic alliances, knowledge sharing and organizational ambidexterity are middle-level factors.

This study is among the few articles that have explored competitiveness of TSs in the Indian context.