Search results

This paper aims to investigate the combined effect of two interventions, perspective taking and incentives, on auditors’ professional skepticism (hereafter skepticism) when auditing complex estimates. Specifically, this paper examines the different ways that perspective taking (management versus inspector) and incentives (absent versus reward versus penalty) combine to impact skepticism.

This paper uses an experiment with 177 experienced Big 4 auditors. The experiment used a 2 (management vs inspector perspective) × 3 (absent vs reward vs penalty incentives) between-subjects design.

In the absence of incentives, adopting a management perspective raises situational skepticism when measuring skepticism as appropriateness of management’s fair value estimate while adopting an inspector perspective raises situational skepticism when measuring skepticism as need for more evidence. The authors find some evidence that incentives complement perspective-taking by enhancing those aspects of skepticism for which perspective-taking performs poorly. When assessing management assumptions, auditors adopting an inspector perspective enhance their skepticism more substantially than those adopting a management perspective, and this enhancement is greater with rewards than with penalties. However, this study does not detect an interaction between incentive type and perspective-taking on auditor skepticism in relation to gathering additional evidence.

This paper extends the literature by shifting the focus from a single perspective to a comparison of two perspective-taking approaches and discusses how each of these approaches enhances different aspects of skepticism. This paper also illustrates the importance of the interplay between perspective-taking and incentives in enhancing auditor skepticism.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of firms’ sustainability practices on firm performance and valuation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Using a sample of Australian listed firms from 2011 to 2021, the authors perform textual analysis on sustainability practices from annual reports and sustainability report disclosures and include this variable in various regression models that assess firm valuation. The authors also use propensity score matching and Heckman two-stage regression methodology to address endogeneity concerns.

The authors find that firms disclosing sustainability practices exhibit higher market valuations relative to other firms. Specifically, loss-making firms exhibit higher market valuation during the COVID-19 crisis relative to prior period. The authors also observe a negative association between sustainability practices and firm performance proxied by return on assets. The findings suggest that engagement in sustainable practices helps loss-making firms remain resilient during the pandemic. In addition, the authors find that the positive relation between sustainability practices and firm value is stronger among firms with a higher level of annual report readability.

Considering the conflicting evidence in the literature on the economic benefits of sustainability practices, this study takes advantage of the heterogeneity in corporate practices and provides empirical evidence that a firm’s sustainability practices can build economic resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The authors believe the findings of the study is timely in informing the regulators and standard-setters on changes in reporting required to increase sustainability in the business practices.