Search results

The purpose of this paper is to open a debate on the interrelationship between categorisation, labelling, disclosure and enforcement. The extant literature on the accounting reporting environment explores the provision of both mandated and voluntary disclosures. Often disclosure is defined in a less than rigorous manner, mislabelled, misclassified and uses a strict dichotomy that limits information fineness.

The authors advance a non-dichotomous continuum of disclosure from voluntary and innovative at one end of the spectrum, to mandatory at the other, that helps reduce mislabelling and miscategorisation.

Firms’ voluntary disclosures cannot be properly interpreted without reviewing their interrelationship with mandatory disclosures and vice versa. Definitions of voluntary disclosure that have been used in empirical studies are examined, including the mislabelling and misclassification of voluntary disclosures and the authors provide examples of truly voluntary and innovative disclosures by companies.

This paper constructs, and provides evidence consistent with, a reporting continuum rather than the dichotomous disclosure measure that dominates decades of prior literature.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the circumstances that gave rise to an adverse audit opinion by a New Zealand (Christchurch) accounting firm, Hicks and Ainger, on the annual financial report of the local firm, T.J. Edmonds Ltd, in 1976. In so doing, this study revealed not only previously undocumented issues surrounding major asset purchases but also the impact of key personalities before and after the adverse opinion decision.

The study is located within the Cultural Theory of History, to theorize the narratives within the wider contextual perspective. The issues surrounding the use of memory from such interviews are also considered. The key material offered in this study is sourced from a 2015 interview with the two key audit partners in this audit engagement.

The accounting standard on depreciation at that time, SSAP 3, had not been applied properly to the accounting treatment of four helicopters for wild deer operations, purchased a week before balance date. Neither the artificial suppression of profits by this purchase decision and accounting choice nor the fall in profits nor the adverse opinion, influenced share prices or shareholder perceptions long term.

The significance of this project is that it informs the appreciation of the importance of contextual understanding of a singular adverse audit opinion.

Future developments in financial reporting, we believe, will need to be in the form of expansions beyond the basic financial statements, as we now know them. Any meaningful reform of the income statement and balance sheet alone is made difficult, if not impossible, by the constraints imposed by contractual provisions, information production costs, the always‐sensitive relationship between the auditor and the client, and top‐management's desire for smoothed and controllable earnings figures.

Mandatory auditor firm rotation (mandatory rotation) has been a controversial issue in the United States for many decades. Mandatory rotation has been considered at various times as a means of improving auditor independence. For example, in the United States, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has considered mandatory rotation as a solution to the independence problem (PCAOB, 2011) and the European Parliament approved legislation that will require mandatory rotation in the near future (Council of European Union, 2014). The concept of implementing a mandatory rotation policy has been encouraged by some constituents of audited financial statements and rejected by other constituents of audited financial statements. Although there are apparent pros and cons of such a policy, the developmental process of such a policy in this country has not necessarily been an open-democratic, objective process. Universal mandatory rotation may or may not be the ideal solution; however, an open-democratic, objective process is needed to facilitate the development of a solution that considers the needs of all major stakeholders of audited financial statements – not simply accounting firms and public companies, but also investors. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine key issues relating to mandatory rotation and to encourage and stimulate future research and ongoing dialogue regarding this issue, in spite of efforts by certain constituents to silence the issue. This paper provides an overview of the various reasons, including practical, theoretical, political, and self-motivated reasons, why a mandatory rotation policy has not been implemented in the United States in order to address the potential conflict of interest between the auditor and client. This paper will also discuss how some deliberations of mandatory rotation have been flawed. The paper concludes with a summary of key issues along with two approaches for regulators, policy makers, and academics to consider as ways to improve the process and address auditor independence. The authors are not advocating for any specific solution; however, we are advocating for a more objective, unified approach and for the dialogue regarding auditor rotation to continue.

It may be instructive to examine the reaction of the accounting profession to the inflationary phenomenon in the ten countries in which tentative or final positions have been taken. The record is curious indeed.

I It may be instructive to examine the reaction of the accounting profession to the inflationary phenomenon in the ten countries in which tentative or final positions have been taken. The record is curious indeed.

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.