In this paper, we investigate how auditors respond to shareholder activism against their clients. Our study is important because activism may be viewed by auditors as a source of increased engagement risk, thereby impacting audit outcomes. The potential relationship between shareholder activism and audit outcomes leads us to predict that activism targets will pay higher audit fees and also will be more likely to receive adverse internal control opinions (ICOs) and first‐time going concern opinions (GCOs). Our results, which support all three predictions, suggest that the public scrutiny associated with activism campaigns heightens auditors' concerns about reputational damage and litigation risk. Consistent with this notion, we find that activism targets are more likely to experience accounting‐related lawsuits. We also find that the increased likelihood of adverse ICOs documented in our baseline tests reflects higher‐quality reporting rather than increased auditor conservatism. Overall, our findings suggest that activism campaigns spur auditor diligence while also increasing the possibility of negative outcomes that may not be fully anticipated by activist investors. 相似文献
A consumer makes choices by following a certain paradigm, a system for organizing his thinking based on norms that are determined by certain norm-setters or role models. Widespread societal ills such as depression and suicide seem to correlate with certain types of consumer behavior. However, current consumer choice theories don't appear to be effective in evaluating epidemiology research. This study compares existing consumer choice paradigms and introduces the linguistic paradigm as a framework for studying the organization of human thinking. The linguistic paradigm is based on the nature of human language and on spiritual wisdom. The paradigm is implemented to generate models (process templates) for the analysis of selected consumer choice issues. The potential effectiveness of these models in analyzing consumer behavior is discussed. 相似文献
We present a model that helps explain several past collapses of securitization markets. Originators issue too many informationally insensitive securities in good times, blunting investor incentives to become informed. The resulting endogenous scarcity of informed investors exacerbates primary market collapses in bad times. Inefficiency arises because informed investors are a public good from the perspective of originators. All originators benefit from the presence of additional informed investors in bad times, but each originator minimizes his reliance on costly informed capital in good times by issuing safe securities. Our model suggests regulations that limit the issuance of safe securities in good times. 相似文献
The charged debate on the 'C-S-R-ization' of organizational practices seems to have produced two opposing and seemingly incompatible explanations for why organizations should engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR): one, the normative rationale based on an appeal to ethics; and the other, the instrumental rationale, based on an appeal to business pragmatism. This paper argues that a missing link in this debate is the failure to recognize that the normative and instrumental approaches to corporate social responsibility are underpinned by substantively, differentiating, relative logics of emotional rationalism on the one hand, and instrumental rationalism on the other. The paper makes a case that for CSR as a management practice to be practicable and actionable within a sustainable business agenda, it will need to be stripped of its current normative undertone and reconstructed in the instrumentally, pragmatic ( utlish ) language of business. Otherwise, the whole concept of CSR may continue to dwell in the realm of abstract theorizing without yielding many beneficial and practicable outcomes. The paper concludes that such an approach that situates CSR within a pragmatic business lingua, rather than a non-business lingua, will help in legitimizing CSR as a 'neutral' management practice. 相似文献
This discussion with the chairman of the Godrej Group, a well-known India-based conglomerate, begins by exploring the issue of diversification versus a single-industry focus, particularly in developing countries. Mr. Godrej observes that the capital and managerial talent provided by a corporate parent can be invaluable resources in a developing economy, where such commodities are likely to be in relatively short supply. On the other hand, he notes, a conglomerate must have some underlying strategic rationale in order to create value, and a diversified company will work only "when each of its businesses is run with clear and focused accountability." To that end, the Godrej Group recently instituted the EVA performance management framework in six of its key businesses. In particular, the management teams running those businesses are rewarded according to the terms of an EVA-based incentive plan. Each business has since seen significant improvements in capital efficiency, market share, and overall performance. The stock price of the Godrej Group's publicly held entity has more than doubled (in a flat market), and the vast majority of the employees believe that the EVA implementation has been the company's most important recent initiative. Management teams are said now to look much more carefully at options for outsourcing, contract manufacturing, eliminating bottlenecks, and even reusing old equipment at new facilities. Perhaps the most significant change, however, is that the "improved rigor and discipline of our EVA-based capital allocation system" has permitted Godrej family members to move from operationsoriented, owner-manager functions to a broader leadership role. The EVA system has allowed them to feel more comfortable in decentralizing day-to-day decision-making because they are confident that managers and employees are all working in the shareholders' interests. 相似文献
This study answers Vazquez’s (J Bus Ethics 150(3):691–709, 2016) call for more research focused on the intersection between family firms and business ethics. We investigate two contextual factors potentially affecting the ethical reporting of chief financial officers (CFOs): a firm’s social ties to the controlling family and the CFOs’ perceived relationship quality with the CEO. We test our hypotheses by examining the financial reporting behavior of Chinese CFOs who work at (1) family or nonfamily businesses and in (2) private or public firms. Results of this study advance our understanding of social and contextual factors that may compromise CFOs' reporting behavior in family firms (Suh et al., J Bus Ethics, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3982-3). This research also suggests that failure to distinguish between public and private companies may bias the results of studies that examine family firms.