The Effect of Implicit versus Explicit Comparisons on Temporal Pricing Claims

Existing research has investigated the "pennies-a-day" strategy of reframing an "aggregate" expense as a "per day" expense (Nagle & Holden, 1995; Price 1995; Gourville 1998). This paper extends this research by considering the incremental impact on compliance of explicitly comparing the cost of a transaction to a specific petty cash expense (e.g., a cup of coffee). We show that in the presence of a per day framing of price (e.g., $1 per day), an explicit comparison provides little added value. However, we also show that in the presence of an aggregate framing of price (e.g., $350), an explicit comparison to a petty cash expense is sufficient to generate a "pennies-a-day" perspective. We conclude that it is not the per day framing, per se, which drives "pennies-a-day" effectiveness, but the petty cash comparisons that such a framing either implicitly or explicitly generates.     

Profiling exporting and nonexporting service firms: Critical differences to decision-makers

The internationalization of services has become a critical element in the global marketplace. While the internationalization of services has increased in importance, the lack of empirically based research has been a shortcoming. This article empirically examines key characteristics (i.e., total sales, number of employees, age of firm, management's desire to export, perceived profit potential from internationalization, top management's foreign language skills, and international work experience) separating exporting from nonexporting domestic-based service firms. It provides a profile for the exporting service firm that is distinctly different than that of the nonexporting service provider. These differences suggest important policy considerations for federal and state export promotion agencies and strategy considerations for service firm owners and management. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Institutional Impediments to Voluntary Ethics Measurement Systems

In this paper, we argue that calls for widespread implementation of ethics measurement systems would be better informed by institutional economic analysis. Specifically, we assert that proponents of such systems must first recognize and understand the institutions that potentially impede such efforts. We identify two potential institutional impediments to measuring ethics and social responsibility. First, we suggest that neoclassical economics, supported by traditional business education and legal precedent, serves to reinforce the notion that shareholders are the primary corporate constituency group. Such an emphasis on the needs of shareholders severely hinders implementation of measurement systems that address the needs of multiple stakeholder groups. Second, we argue that the threat of litigation may constrain corporate managers from measuring and considering ethics and corporate social responsibility matters. In particular, managers may be reluctant to quantify various ethical concerns if the resulting measurements could be used as evidence against the corporation in a lawsuit.     

Whose Capital is It? Putting Owners Back in Control

John Bogle, founder of The Vanguard Group, looks at corporate governance issues. JEL Classification G3     

Measuring Vulnerability to U.S. Foreign Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions are an important instrument of U.S. foreign policy. While politicians look favorably on unilateral economic sanctions as a policy instrument, many scholars attribute significant long-term economic costs to the United States and have doubts about their effectiveness. We outline a simple approach to assess the vulnerability of target countries to sanctions in order to develop focused sanctions and reduce unnecessary costs to U.S. business, avoid the imposition of sanctions on countries when sanctions are unlikely to have the desired effects, and determine what other countries must join the United States in imposing sanctions if they are to be effective.JEL Classification K330,F190     

Purpose, development and use of injury indicators

Injury indicators can be used to give policy makers an estimate of the scale of injuries and their long-term effects. They can help compare injury levels in different areas and countries and can be used to help measure the effectiveness of interventions. Work on severity related indicators is promising. However there are no perfect indicators to date as many are hampered with difficulties in case definition and under reporting. For example, mortality rates are affected by improvements in care even if the incidence of an injury remains the same, the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) takes 10-20 minutes to code and so is not used in health service databases, surveys have problems with recall bias, definition of injury and response rates. If we accept that we need to make the best out of imperfect indicators and imperfect data then we should use multiple sources of data and accept that no one indicator can be used universally but needs to be selected for the purpose. For example, one possible new indicator of the incidence of non-fatal injury might be fracture data in the emergency department. Fractures are painful and so nearly always end up with a hospital attendance. This might give a means to compare incidence of non-fatal injury in different areas and countries. In conclusion, we need injury indicators to progress in injury prevention. Imperfect indicators can be used for targeting and evaluating interventions as long as we know and adjust for their limitations.     

Diverging Measures of Capacity Utilization: An Explanation

In the wake of the recent recovery in manufacturing production, the capacity utilization rates published by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) have rebounded much more slowly than those published by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM). As a result, some observers have speculated that the manufacturing sector may have considerably less slack than is indicated by the FRB measures. Our view is that the two characterizations of manufacturing slack are not as incongruent as they first appear. This paper discusses the practical and conceptual differences between these measures of capacity utilization, and concludes that the recent divergence simply reflects the character of the latest business cycle. JEL Classification E220     

A Critical Analysis of the Accounting Industry’s Voluntary Code of Conduct

The public accounting industry’s voluntary code of conduct in the United States is the American Institute of CPA’s Code of Professional Conduct. Based on our analysis, we conclude that the accounting industry’s current code is limited in its ability to serve the public interest in three respects. Specifically, the code is input-based, requires no third-party attestation of compliance with the code, and contains no public reporting process of code compliance/noncompliance at the accounting firm level. We propose that the accounting profession should reorient its largely input-based Code of Professional Conduct to include output-based performance measurements. We also conclude that third-party attestation of compliance with the profession’s code would help to promote compliance. Finally, we maintain that the accounting industry should initiate a public reporting process at the individual accounting firm level. Such a requirement would add a degree of public accountability as to whether a firm complies or fails to comply with the industry’s voluntary code of conduct. John D. Neill, Ph.D., CPA, is a professor of accounting at Abilene Christian University and has previously published articles in numerous journals including the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Accounting Literature, Accounting Horizons, Advances in Accounting,theFinancial Analysts Journal,and theJournal of Accounting, Ethics, and Public Policy. O. Scott Stovall, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of accounting at Abilene Christian University and has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Management Accounting Quarterly, and Cases from Management Accounting Practice. Darryl L. Jinkerson, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of management and chair of the Management Sciences Department at Abilene Christian University and was formerly the Director of Assessment and Measurement for Arthur Andersen.     

Putting Meta-Analysis to Work: Accountants' Organizational-Professional Conflict

Commentators on empirical research in business ethics have recommended that use should be made of meta-analysis – the quantitative analysis of a group of research studies. This paper elaborates upon those recommendations by conducting, as a "case study" for further reflection, a meta-analysis of studies of accountants' organizational-professional conflict (OPC) previously published in accounting and psychology journals. Of five variables capable of analysis, only the population correlation coefficient between OPC and organizational tenure is identified. It was not possible to find the population correlation coefficient of the other four variables, for which several possible reasons are suggested. The paper then shows how meta-analysis can make a valuable contribution, even when the substantive findings are limited, by providing guidance for future research and a safeguard against the drawing of unjustified conclusions, to which the more usual narrative reviews of literature are prone.