The relationship between legitimacy,reputation, sustainability and branding for companies and their supply chains

This paper aims at filling a gap that we perceive to exist in the scientific literature as to legitimacy, reputation and sustainability and their interrelationship to corporate and supply chain branding. A series of innovative theoretical frameworks are provided interrelating companies and their value (supply) chains with legitimacy, reputation, and branding which are essential conditions to achieve sustainability and competitive advantage based on dyadic and social context consonance to the benefit of society and all stakeholders involved. An urgently required better understanding of the concepts and their interrelations is enhanced by a synthesized explanatory basis entailing an eclectic mosaic of interdisciplinary theories (institutionalist, neo-institutionalist theories, the viable system approach, isomorphism and identity) to improve corporate and supply chain performance. To better inform managerial practice the theoretical considerations are spiced with case studies among which especially the currently debated supply chain case of the European horse meat scandal is illuminated suggesting concrete managerial cross-functional implications in the food industry. The paper culminates in the call for a newly to-be-established marketing stream we call ‘Sustainable and Curative Marketing’.     

Product pricing and solvency capital requirements for long-term care insurance

This paper presents a comprehensive assessment of premiums, reserves and solvency capital requirements (SCRs) for long-term care (LTC) insurance policies using Activities of Daily Living and US data. We compare stand-alone policies, whole life insurance policies with LTC benefit riders (LTC insurance combined with whole life insurance), life care annuities (LTC insurance combined with annuities) and shared LTC insurance in terms of net premium cost and SCRs. Net premiums and best-estimate reserves for base LTC insurance policies are determined using Thiele’s differential equation. Product features such as the elimination period and the maximum benefit period are compared using a simulation-based model. We show how a maximum benefit period can reduce costs and risks for LTC insurance products. SCRs for longevity risk and disability risk are based on the Solvency II standard formula. We quantify the extent to which whole life insurance policies with LTC benefit riders and life care annuities provide lower SCRs than stand-alone LTC insurance policies.     

Leaders,Values, and Organizational Climate: Examining Leadership Strategies for Establishing an Organizational Climate Regarding Ethics

This paper examines the critical role that organizational leaders play in establishing a values based climate. We discuss seven mechanisms by which leaders convey the importance of ethical values to members, and establish the expectations regarding ethical conduct that become engrained in the organizations climate. We also suggest that leaders at different organizational levels rely on different mechanisms to transmit values and expectations. These mechanisms then influence members practices and expectations, further increase the salience of ethical values and result in the shared perceptions that form the organizations climate. The paper is organized in three parts. Part onebegins with a brief discussion of climates regarding ethics and the critical role of values. Part two provides discussion on the mechanisms by which leaders and members transmit values and create climates related to ethics. Part three provides a discussion of these concepts with implications for theory, research, and practice.     

Save the Buyback,Save Jobs

In response to a recent New York Times op‐ed by Senators Schumer and Sanders deploring the effects of stock buybacks on workers and the economy, the authors explain the role of buybacks in increasing corporate productivity and in recycling “excess capital” from mature companies with limited growth and employment opportunities to the next generation of Apples and Amazons. Some companies, as Schumer and Sanders charge, are guilty of repurchasing shares in the name of “shareholder value maximization” instead of pursuing job‐creating investments. But as the authors argue, well‐run companies increase shareholder value not by boosting EPS through buybacks, but mainly by earning competitive returns on capital and investing in their long‐run “earnings power.” And by paying out capital they have no productive uses for, such companies give their own shareholders the opportunity to reinvest in other companies with promising prospects for growth and jobs. But the authors go on to note the tendency of companies to buy back shares not when their stock prices are low, but instead when the companies are flush with cash and nearer the top than the bottom of the business cycle. The result of this tendency, as research by Fortuna Advisors (the authors' firm) shows, is that fully three quarters of companies doing large buybacks during the period 2013‐2017 failed to produce an adequate “Buyback ROI,” a metric developed by Fortuna that indicates management's effectiveness in “timing” its stock repurchases. Given the usefulness of buybacks in recycling capital, the authors conclude that the most reliable solution to the corporate short termism and underinvestment problem is for companies to adopt better financial performance measures—including Buyback ROI—to guide their capital allocation. And when management determines that it has significantly more capital than value‐adding investments, but wants to avoid committing to unsustainable dividend increases, it should consider buybacks—but only if management is convinced that its stock price has not outpaced performance.     

The CLERP 9 Audit Reforms: Benefits and Costs Through the Eyes of Regulators,Standard Setters and Audit Service Suppliers

Over the past decade or more Australia amongst other jurisdictions has experienced substantial reforms to auditing regulation in an effort to boost public confidence in the auditing profession. This paper aims to examine whether these changes in the Australian regulatory environment for audits have (a) provided enhanced confidence in reported financial data, (b) impacted audit costs and (c) not limited competition in the market for audit services. Using qualitative interview data, this study reports on the perceptions of auditors, auditing standard setters and regulators in relation to the CLERP 9 reforms to the Australian auditing regime in the later part of the 2000s. A theoretical framework is developed to evaluate whether these reforms are substantive enough in nature to effect public confidence in reported financial data and market competition in audits.     

The Differential Value Relevance of S&P's Core Earnings Versus GAAP Earnings: The Role of Stock Option Expense

In 2002, Standard & Poor's (S&P) introduced Core Earnings as a proprietary, uniform earnings metric, with the goal of improving financial reporting. The distinguishing feature of Core Earnings is its consistent treatment of seven adjustments to GAAP earnings for which there is no consensus adjustment by managers and analysts. We use stock price and return data to assess whether investors perceive Core Earnings to be more value relevant than GAAP earnings. The implementation of FASB 123R changed the calculation of GAAP and Core Earnings. This change allows us to assess the role of stock option expense in the valuation of earnings numbers by partitioning the sample into pre‐ and post‐FASB 123R periods and creating consistent measures of GAAP and Core Earnings. Our price results indicate that Core Earnings is more value relevant than GAAP earnings in the pre‐period after controlling for stock option expense, and in the post‐FASB 123R periods. The price results provide empirical evidence consistent with S&P's expectation that a uniformly calculated earnings measure is a more consistent and useful indicator of current performance and future earnings.     

Purposes and paradigms of management accounting: beyond economic reductionism

Neo-classical economics does not of itself provide an adequate explanation of current management accounting practice and research. Ideas from several other disciplines have been used in an attempt to facilitate a more complete understanding of management accounting. There now exists a multiplicity of ‘ways of seeing’ management accounting which adds richness to the literature. This paper first describes a number of the current theoretical-paradigmatic approaches, and then offers a typology for understanding them. It is suggested that each of these schools has different insights to offer the study of management accounting and that attempts to privilege one school over another should be avoided. Management accounting is seen as fulfilling a multiplicity of purposes which can only be understood by analysing the actions of the management accounting actors involved.     

Food for Thought? A Rejoinder on Peer-review and RAE2008 Evidence

This Rejoinder responds to criticisms made by Simon Hussain (2011) Hussain, S. 2011. Food for thought on the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide. Accounting Education: an international journal, 20(6), : 545–559. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar] about the construction and operation of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide. In this paper the broad purposes of journal lists and guides are outlined before an account is given of the long history and multiple forms of these lists, particularly in the field of Accounting. Having described the main features of different types of journal list, the advantages and benefits of the approach adopted in the compilation of the ABS Journal Quality Guide is outlined. The paper then ends by noting that one of the copy-editing mistakes identified by Dr Hussain has been rectified, but the remaining concerns about the rating of accounting education and accounting history journals reflect the absence of these titles from journal citation reports and international journal lists. Furthermore, the lower rating of Accounting & Finance research in the RAE2008 in comparison with Business & Management Studies research in the same year and Accounting & Finance research in 2001, has more to do with the way in which the Accounting & Finance Panel calibrated and normalized its judgements than with the ratings contained within the ABS Guide.