The British Accounting Review

Performance Measurement, Sustainability and Governance in the Healthcare Sector

Interdisciplinary accounting research in topics related to performance measurement, sustainability and governance in healthcare organizations in general, and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, remains scarce. Pre-pandemic accounting research has explored the role of accounting in financial crises (e.g., Bracci et al., 2015) and natural disasters (e.g., Sargiacomo, 2014; Sargiacomo et al., 2021), while recent studies emphasize how accounting is implicated in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in institutional settings such as Governments, municipalities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and museums (Agostino et al., 2020; Leoni et al., 2021; 2022), yet a surprising paucity of accounting research in healthcare settings remains (e.g., Huber et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has further emphasized the importance of investigating performance measurement, sustainability and governance issues in healthcare organizations. In fact, this sector has taken on a "new" centrality following the pandemic’s onset, showing more than ever its importance for health, its weaknesses in a fast and interconnected world, the need to accelerate its attention to the digital world, and the need for governance that goes beyond the single organization.

Guest Editors:

Salma Ibrahim, Kingston University, UK, [email protected]
Christos Begkos, University of Manchester, UK, [email protected]
Michela Arnaboldi, Politecnico di Milano, Italy, [email protected]
Cameron Graham, York University, Canada, [email protected]

Rationale and Scope:

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted international differences in the performance, sustainability and governance of healthcare organizations. Specifically, the additional cost of the pandemic on the healthcare system, in the form of screening, diagnosis and case management, has been substantial both in advanced and low-income economies, but to different degrees (Kaye et al., 2021; Torres-Rueda et al, 2021). In addition, sustainability in terms of reduced bed capacity, insufficient testing systems and equitable access to vaccines across different countries have been of the utmost concern (Macassa & Tomaselli, 2020; Eccleston-Turner & Upton, 2021).

Prior literature on performance measurement in healthcare settings tends to discuss multiple dimensions of hospital or healthcare organization performance such as efficiency, effectiveness and flexibility (e.g., Purbey et al., 2007). One important aspect within this broad topic focuses on costing and hospital reimbursement. Although healthcare systems around the world are inherently different, certain similarities exist. For example, the English National Health Service (NHS) employs Healthcare Resource Groups[1] (HRGs) to set reimbursement tariffs, thus displaying similar characteristics with funding systems that are based on Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), such as France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Italy, Australia and New Zealand (e.g., Busse et al., 2013). Pre-pandemic studies suggest that such cost-based funding systems benefit standardized treatments, disadvantage complex and emergency care, truncate management control and incentivize privatized care (Chapman et al., 2014; Llewellyn et al., 2020). Such implications may constitute cost-based funding systems untenable in light of national care crises. Thus, the investigation of performance measurement and costing practices in post-pandemic healthcare settings is important to shed light on how to reimburse complex, emergency care more accurately and fairly.

Another commonly investigated angle in prior research around performance measurement is financial reporting, with a focus on incentives that drive alternative forms of reporting. However, the findings are mixed and the evidence scarce. Some studies find that hospitals want to avoid reporting losses or excessive profits to appease their stakeholders (e.g., Leone and Van Horn, 2005; Eldenburg et al., 2011). Other findings suggest managers wish to report a smooth stream of profits to avoid scrutiny by the government, to avoid manager turnover and to reduce the cost of debt if the hospital relies on loans (Boterenbrood, 2014). Therefore, there is a need to advance knowledge in this area, to understand the incentives that drive financial reporting and operating decisions within the healthcare sector.

Research on sustainability and governance in healthcare organizations, while linked to the above-mentioned streams of research is separately investigated in terms of long-term financial performance. However, studies tend to be limited to non-business journals and therefore focus on medical issues (e.g., Lydon et al., 2008; Lu and Cohen, 2015) or contain limited discussions of accounting issues (e.g., Kruse and Jeurissen, 2020; Mills and Kanavos, 2020). Some studies on governance rely on country-level data, with limited insight into individual hospital management (e.g., Sharma et al., 2021).

In practice, there is ample evidence that sustainability and governance of healthcare systems is an important issue to consider from an interdisciplinary accounting perspective to understand the financial implications of alternative strategies. In the UK, over the last two decades, government reforms introduced efficiency measures and drastic spending cuts to close a funding gap of £30bn by 2021 (NHS England, 2013), which impacted long-term sustainability in the healthcare sector. Other government initiatives that aimed to encourage hospitals’ financial autonomy included the introduction of Payment by Results (PbR), a funding system that reimburses hospitals based on clinical activity, and various performance management and measurement tools such as Service Line Reporting and Patient-level Information and Costing Systems (Llewellyn et al., 2016; Begkos & Antonopoulou, 2021). However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought further strain and exacerbated the financial woes within this important sector. Since the onset of the pandemic, the National Health Service in the UK faced severe long-term pressures as it lacked a national strategy for dealing with health inequalities (Fichera, 2020).Therefore, research on issues of performance measurement, sustainability and governance in the healthcare sector both before and following the pandemic is crucial yet underexplored.

The aim of this special issue is to publish a collection of papers that focus on key questions related to performance measurement, sustainability and governance within the healthcare sector, and especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Editors are interested in articles that focus on advancing our theoretical understanding and addressing policy issues in these crucial, yet under-researched themes. Below are some examples of topics that would be considered for the special issue.

• Performance measurement practices in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic
• Healthcare costing techniques for the increase of public value
• Digitization and performance measurement technologies within healthcare settings
• Alternative costing of healthcare services
• Engagement of front-line professionals with costing and cost containment practices in healthcare settings
• Incentives embedded within healthcare systems that drive financial reporting decisions
• External accountability and communication across and after the COVID-19 pandemic: change, stability and international diversity
• Accountability for healthcare outcomes in private, for-profit healthcare
• Long-term financial sustainability of healthcare systems following the COVID-19 pandemic
• International differences in sustainability of healthcare systems
• Environmental sustainability of healthcare systems and possible change of priorities in light of climate change initiatives
• Changes in corporate governance mechanisms of healthcare systems following the COVID-19 pandemic
• Environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance and disclosure by healthcare institutions
• Government authority and the digital media role in healthcare disclosures
• International differences in governance structure of healthcare institutions

We are also open to other topics which fit the underlying general themes of this special issue.

Key Dates:

May 31, 2023: Deadline for submitting draft papers via Editorial Manager

June 2023 - June 2024: Review process and selection of articles to include in the special issue

It is anticipated that this special issue will be published in 2024.

Keywords:

· Public health systems

· Private health systems

· Pandemic response

· Post-pandemic healthcare costing systems

· Healthcare governance

· Digitization technologies

· Sustainability

· Performance management

· Performance measurement

· Cost Management

· Environmental impact

· Financial sustainability

· Climate change adaptation

· National Health Service

· Accountability

References:

Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2021). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 69-72.

Boterenbrood, R. (2014). Income smoothing by Dutch hospitals, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33(5), 510-524.

Bracci, E., Humphrey, C., Moll, J. and Steccolini, I. (2015), Public sector accounting, accountability and austerity: more than balancing the books?, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 28(6), 878-908.

Begkos, C., & Antonopoulou, K. (2021). Hybridization as practice: clinical engagement with performance metrics and accounting technologies in the English NHS. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. In press.

Busse R, Geissler A, Aaviksoo A, Cots F, HÃkkinen U, Kobel C et al. (2013). Diagnosis related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency, and quality in hospitals? BMJ, 346.

Chapman, C., Kern, A. & Laguecir, A. (2014). Costing practices in healthcare, Accounting Horizons, 28(2), 353-364.

Eccleston‐Turner, M., & Upton, H. (2021). International Collaboration to Ensure Equitable Access to Vaccines for COVID‐19: The ACT‐Accelerator and the COVAX Facility. The Milbank Quarterly, 99(2), 426-449.

Eldenburg, L. G., Gunny, K. A., Hee, K. W., & Soderstrom, N. (2011). Earnings management using real activities: Evidence from nonprofit hospitals. The Accounting Review, 86(5), 1605-1630.

Fichera, E. (2020). Coronavirus and the NHS: a big dose of cash is welcome, but not enough on its own. The Conversation, March 12, 2020, available at: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-the-nhs-a-big-dose-of-cash-is-welcome-but-not-enough-on-its-own-133550.

Huber, C., Gerhardt, N. and Reilley, J.T. (2021). Organizing care during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of accounting in German hospitals, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(6), 1445-1456. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2020-4882.

Kaye, A. D., Okeagu, C. N., Pham, A. D., Silva, R. A., Hurley, J. J., Arron, B. L., Sarfraz, N., Lee, H. N., Ghali, G. E., Gamble, J. W., Liu, H., Urman, R. D., & Cornett, E. M. (2021). Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: International perspectives. Best practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiology, 35(3), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2020.11.009.

Kruse, F.M. & Jeurissen, P.P.T. (2020). For-profit hospitals out of business? Financial sustainability during the COVID-19 epidemic emergency response." International journal of health policy and management 9.10 (2020), 423-428.

Leone, A. J., & Van Horn, R.L. (2005). How do non-profit hospitals manage earnings? Journal of Health Economics, 24(4), 815-837.

Leoni, G., Lai, A., Stacchezzini, R., Steccolini, I., Brammer, S., Linnenluecke, M. and Demirag, I. (2021). Accounting, management and accountability in times of crisis: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 34(6), 1305-1319.

Leoni, G., Lai, A., Stacchezzini, R., Steccolini, I., Brammer, S., Linnenluecke, M. and Demirag, I. (2022), The pervasive role of accounting and accountability during the COVID-19 emergency, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(1), 1-19.

Llewellyn, S., Chambers, N., Ellwood, S., Begkos, C. & Wood, C. (2016), Patient Level Information and Costing Systems (PLICS): Current Practice and Future Potential for the NHS Health Economy, Health Services and Delivery Research. 4(31).

Llewellyn, S., Begkos, C., Ellwood, S., & Mellingwood, C. (2020). Public value and pricing in English hospitals: Value creation or value extraction? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 102247.

Lu, C. Y., & Cohen, J. P. (2015). Can genomic medicine improve financial sustainability of health systems?. Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy, 19(2), 71-77.

Lydon, P., Levine, R., Makinen, M., Brenzel, L., Mitchell, V., Milstien, J. B., ... & Landry, S. (2008). Introducing new vaccines in the poorest countries: what did we learn from the GAVI experience with financial sustainability?. Vaccine, 26(51), 6706-6716.

Macassa, G., & Tomaselli, G. (2020). Rethinking developed nations' health systems through a social sustainability perspective in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. A viewpoint. Journal of public health research, 9(4), 1834. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1834.

Mills, M., & Kanavos, P. (2020). Do pharmaceutical budgets deliver financial sustainability in healthcare? Evidence from Europe. Health Policy, 124(3), 239-251.

NHS England (2013). The NHS Belongs to the People: A Call to Action, NHS England, London.

Purbey, S., Mukherjee, K. and Bhar, C. (2007). Performance measurement system for healthcare processes, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 241-251.

Sargiacomo, M. (2014). Accounting for natural disasters and humanitarian interventions, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(7), 576-578.

Sargiacomo, M., Servalli, S., Potito, S., D'Andreamatteo, A. and Gitto, A. (2021). Accounting for natural disasters from a historical perspective: a literature review and research agenda, Accounting History, 26(2), 179-204.

Sharma, A., Borah, S. B., & Moses, A. C. (2021). Responses to COVID-19: The role of governance, healthcare infrastructure, and learning from past pandemics. Journal of business research, 122, 597-607.

Torres-Rueda S., Sweeney S., Bozzani F., et al. (2021). Stark choices: Exploring health sector costs of policy responses to COVID-19 in low-income and middle-income countries. BMJ Global Health, 6:e005759.

Special Issue: New Perspectives on Financial Distress and Corporate Risk Management

Due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the world economy is characterized by an overall downward trend, and enterprises are facing highly changeable economic environments and huge competitive pressure. The unforeseen influences have been summarised in Covid-19 and the Credit Cycle (Altman, 2020) and COVID-19 and the Credit Cycle: 2020 Revisited and 2021 Outlook (Altman, 2021). The recent Russia-Ukraine conflict further imposes huge risks on a world economy that’s yet to fully recover from the pandemic shock. Without a good mechanism to adapt to this complex environment, companies are more likely to encounter financial difficulties, such as excessive liabilities, insufficient liquidity or even bankruptcy. These problems will not only adversely affect the sustainable development of companies, but also result in significant losses to investors, creditors, customers and other stakeholders. When the number of companies in financial distress accumulates to a certain level, larger-scale social financial distress will emerge, and even the sustainability and stability of macroeconomic will be seriously undermined.

It is not so long ago since the Subprime Crisis spread from the banking industry to the whole financial systems, which caused disasters for the global economy. Basel II and III have been set up as international regulatory guidelines for bank supervision (Jacobson et al., 2005) and IFRS 9 also has a great impact on how to estimate the economic capitals to guarantee the soundness of financial institutions (Dong & Oberson, 2021). To ensure the credit supply to businesses and consumers, which is vital to economic growth, credit rating is considered an essential tool for financial institutions to estimate corporate credit risk and an important element of financial services for the bond and derivatives market. Nevertheless, financial distress and corporate bankruptcy are still common in all sectors which may trigger loan and debt defaults of underlying assets (Fich & Slezak, 2008; Charitou et al., 2004; Bryan et al., 2013).

Although financial technology leads to continuous innovations in financial models to assess credit risk more accurately and efficiently, financial distress and corporate risk remain important central issues for corporate studies. With this background in mind, we will hold the 2nd Credit Scoring and Credit Rating conference (CSCR II) in Ningbo China on 14-16 October 2022. This special issue and the associated CSCR II conference will share new perspectives on financial distress and corporate risk management and discuss research findings related to new information and methodologies for credit scoring and credit rating.

Guest Editors

Edward Altman, Stern School of Business, New York University (NYU)

Email: [email protected]

Tony Bellotti, School of Computer Science, University of Nottingham Ningbo China (UNNC)

Email: [email protected]

Yizhe Dong, Business School, University of Edinburgh Business School (UEBS)

Email: [email protected] (Corresponding guest editor)

Zhiyong Li, School of Finance, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics (SWUFE)

Email: [email protected]

Rationale and Scope

The topic of financial distress prediction has long been regarded as a critical problem and of interest to finance and accounting studies for several decades since the inception of financial markets. One of the pioneering works was from Beaver (1966) who used financial ratios to predict bankruptcy. In general, the goal of corporate credit risk modeling is to predict whether a company will fall into financial distress or bankruptcy where the former is a period of financial conditions while the latter involves a formal judicial process such as in administration or liquidation. The prediction models play a significant role for banks, lenders, investors and regulators. In order to reduce information asymmetries and make reasonable decisions, accurate early warning models are particularly important for financial institutions.

Studies on financial distress or bankruptcy prediction have undergone a number of significant changes in recent decades. Previous research into bankruptcy prediction is primarily based on accounting information extracted from financial statements (Wilcox, 1973). Back in the 1960s, some academics developed scoring models by using financial ratios, such as the famous Z-score model (Altman, 1968), the logit model (Ohlson, 1980), the probit model (Zmijewski, 1984), and the hazard model (Shumway, 2001). Discriminant analysis dominated the early days (Deakin, 1972) and the logit model has since become typical (Jones and Hensher, 2004; 2007). Most of these studies used statistical methods, which are parametric regression with strong interpretability, but require strict assumptions on data distributions. They are comprehensively reviewed in Balcaen and Ooghe (2006), Kumar and Ravi (2007).

However, as financial institutions have become more demanding in terms of the effectiveness of predictive models, the key aim of studies has transferred primarily to identifying the best models that can provide the best predictive accuracy, since the early work from Marais et al (1984) who used decision trees to classify bank loans. With the development of information technologies, various novel machine learning algorithms and data mining techniques are more frequently employed to construct predictive models, such as Sun et al. (2021) and Tsai et al. 2021. Kumar & Ravi (2007) classified the intelligent techniques in financial distress prediction from the following groups, namely: neural networks, case-based reasoning, decision trees, operational research, rough sets, and so on. These models are widely used in classification problems because they run quickly and do not require too many assumptions. Surveys on them can be found in Bahrammirzaee (2010) and Verikas et al. (2010).

In order to ensure the validity of financial distress prediction, scholars continue searching for additional information and key factors that have significant impacts on the probability of distress and bankruptcy. For example, the classical Merton’s structural model (Merton, 1974) assumes the market price (share or option) to integrate forward looking information that is available in the market so that the Merton model is effective in calculating the Distance to Default. Later, Hillegeist et al. (2004), Duffie et al (2007) and Campbell et al. (2008) work were all developed on it. Other efforts include the incorporation of external resource factors (Hu and Ansell, 2007), legal actions from creditors, audit opinions, board characteristics (Wilson and Altanlar, 2014), business strategy (Bryan et al., 2013), corporate social responsibility (Sun and Cui, 2013), business plans (Perry, 2001), corporate efficiency (Becchetti and Sierra, 2013) corporate governance (Platt and Platt, 2012), and macroeconomic factors (Liou, 2007), all of which have found relationships to financial distress.

Habib et al. (2020) reviewed the literature on the determinants of financial distress and categorised these determinants into three groups: firm-level fundamental determinants, macroeconomic determinants, and corporate governance determinants. In general, firm-level fundamental determinants include employee relations, corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, corporate hedging policies, management narrative disclosures, and other qualified audit opinions. It is intuitive to assume that the risk of financial distress for companies increases due to a decline in sales, cash flow and profitability in times of economic recession. Finally, weak corporate governance including board structure, CEO characteristics, ownership structure, etc., provide an opportunity for companies falling into financial distress and it has been one of the most discussed topics among researchers and policy-makers alike (Habib et al., 2020; Li et al., 2021).

Although some early empirical works still play important roles in the field of the prediction of corporate distress and bankruptcy, new methodologies and information are constantly being added to this area, particularly in the era of financial technology, big data, artificial intelligence, climate change and the pandemic, which all present new opportunities and challenges for insights to the deeper understanding of corporate failure and financial distress. Thus, we would like to encourage authors to submit papers on the following topics, but are not limited to:

• Accounting and auditing in predicting financial distress and bankruptcy

• Textual analysis to detect financial fraud and corporate failure

• Corporate distress forecasts with machine learning

• ESG engagement, ESG reporting, and corporate insolvency and failure

• The impact of climate change on corporate financial distress

• COVID-19 and corporate distress and default

• Russia-Ukraine conflict and corporate financial distress

• The impact of geopolitics on corporate risk management

• Combining accounting and alternative data to predict financial distress

• Corporate disclosures in predicting corporate default and failure

• Risk assessment of small and micro businesses

• Early warning systems and stress testing for bank failure
• Corporate loan, bonds and debt risk management

Submission information

This special issue of the British Accounting Review (BAR) is associated with the 2nd Credit Scoring and Credit Rating conference (CSCR II) held by University of Nottingham Ningbo China in Ningbo China on 14-16 October 2022. Authors who wish to participate need to submit a full paper to the conference via the link https://cscr.credit.li/. Papers for the conference should be submitted by 15 July 2022. The guest editorial team will invite the high-quality papers presented at the conference to submit their papers to the special issue. However, attendance and/or presentation at the conference is not a prerequisite for submission to the special issue.

All submissions will be subject to an initial screening and reviewing by the guest editors of the special issue. Papers which fall outside the scope of the special issue, or which are considered unlikely to be suitable for the special issue will be desk rejected. All manuscripts considered for inclusion in the special issue will be subject to a double-blind review process and must be submitted via the journal website before by 15 Jan 2023. All papers should have an original contribution and meet the high publishing quality standard of the journal. The submissions must be in accordance with journal guidelines. There is no submission fee. The Joint-Editors of the British Accounting Review will oversee the final set of accepted papers prior to publication.

BAR is ranked by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Quality Journal List as A*. In the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Academic Journal Guide (AJG), it is 3-rated. It currently has a Scopus Cite Score of 7.0 and an impact factor of 5.577. Further information on the journal can be found at: https://www.elsevier.com/journals/the-british-accounting-review/0890-8389/guide-for-authors

The guest editors welcome informal enquiries from those who are interested in submitting a paper for consideration. It is anticipated that the special issue will be published in 2024. Initial queries about the special issue and CSCR II should be directed to Dr Yizhe Dong ([email protected]) and Professor Zhiyong Li [email protected]

Timeline

15 July 2022: Deadline for conference submission

14 August 2022: Notice of acceptance for the conference

14-16 October 2022: A two-day conference will be held in Ningbo, at UNNC

15 January 2023: Deadline of invited paper submission to the journal

July of 2023: Completion of the first round of reviews

End of 2023: Completion of all reviews

Early 2024: Publication of the issue

Organisations

Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Ningbo China

Business School, University of Nottingham Ningbo China

School of Finance, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics

Business School, University of Edinburgh

References

Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589-609.

Altman, E. I. (2020). Covid-19 and the credit cycle. Journal of Credit Risk, 16(2).

Altman, E. I. (2021). COVID-19 and the Credit Cycle: 2020 Revisited and 2021 Outlook. Journal of Credit Risk, 17(4).

Bahrammirzaee A (2010). A comparative survey of artificial intelligence applications in finance: Artificial neural networks, expert systems and hybrid intelligent systems. Neural Computing and Applications, 19(8): 1165–1195.

Beaver, W. H. (1966). Financial ratios as predictors of failure. Journal of Accounting Research, 71-111.

Becchetti, L., and Sierra, J. (2003). Bankruptcy risk and productive efficiency in manufacturing firms. Journal of Banking and Finance, 27(11), 2099-2120.

Balcaen, S., & Ooghe, H. (2006). 35 years of studies on business failure: an overview of the classic statistical methodologies and their related problems. British Accounting Review, 38(1), 63-93.

Bryan, D., Fernando, G. D., and Tripathy, A. (2013). Bankruptcy risk, productivity and firm strategy. Review of Accounting and Finance, 12(4), 309-326.

Campbell, J.Y., Hilscher, J. and Szilagyi J, (2008), In Search of Distress Risk, Journal of Finance, 63(6), 2899-2939

Charitou, A., Neophytou, E., & Charalambous, C. (2004). Predicting corporate failure: empirical evidence for the UK. European Accounting Review, 13(3), 465-497.

Chava, S., & Jarrow, R. A. (2004). Bankruptcy prediction with industry effects. Review of Finance, 8(4), 537-569.

Climent, F., Momparler, A., & Carmona, P. (2019). Anticipating bank distress in the Eurozone: An extreme gradient boosting approach. Journal of Business Research, 101, 885-896.

Deakin, E. B. (1972). A discriminant analysis of predictors of business failure. Journal of Accounting Research, 167-179.

Dong, M., & Oberson, R. (2021). Moving toward the expected credit loss model under IFRS 9: capital transitional arrangement and bank systematic risk. Accounting and Business Research, 1-39.

Duffie, D., Saita, L., and Wang, K. (2007). Multi-period corporate default prediction with stochastic covariates. Journal of Financial Economics, 83(3), 635-665.

Fich, E. M., & Slezak, S. L. (2008). Can corporate governance save distressed firms from bankruptcy? An empirical analysis. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 30(2), 225-251.

Habib, A., Costa, M. D., Huang, H. J., Bhuiyan, M. B. U., & Sun, L. (2020). Determinants and consequences of financial distress: review of the empirical literature. Accounting and Finance, 60, 1023-1075.

Hillegeist, S. A., Keating, E. K., Cram, D. P., and Lundstedt, K. G. (2004). Assessing the probability of bankruptcy. Review of Accounting Studies, 9(1), 5-34.

Hu, Y. C., and Ansell, J. (2007). Measuring retail company performance using credit scoring techniques. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(3), 1595-1606.

Jacobson, T., Lindé, J., & Roszbach, K. (2005). Credit risk versus capital requirements under Basel II: are SME loans and retail credit really different?. Journal of Financial Services Research, 28(1), 43-75.

Jones, S., and Hensher, D. A. (2004). Predicting firm financial distress: a mixed logit model. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1011-1038.

Jones, S., and Hensher, D. A. (2007). Modelling corporate failure: A multinomial nested logit analysis for unordered outcomes. British Accounting Review,39(1), 89-107.

Kumar, P. R., & Ravi, V. (2007). Bankruptcy prediction in banks and firms via statistical and intelligent techniques–A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 180(1), 1-28.

Li, Z., Crook, J., Andreeva, G., & Tang, Y. (2021). Predicting the risk of financial distress using corporate governance measures. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 68, 101334.

Liou, D. K. (2007). Macroeconomic Variables and Financial Distress. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management, 14.

Marais, M. L., Patell, J. M., and Wolfson, M. A. (1984). The experimental design of classification models: An application of recursive partitioning and bootstrapping to commercial bank loan classifications. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 87-114.

Merton, R. C. (1974). On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. Journal of Finance, 29(2), 449-470.

Ohlson, J. A. (1980). Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research, 109-131.

Pérez-Martín, A., Pérez-Torregrosa, A., & Vaca, M. (2018). Big Data techniques to measure credit banking risk in home equity loans. Journal of Business Research, 89, 448-454.

Perry, S. C. (2001). The relationship between written business plans and the failure of small businesses in the US. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(3), 201-208.

Platt, H. D., and Platt, M. B. (1990). Development of a class of stable predictive variables: the case of bankruptcy prediction. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 17(1), 31-51.

Shumway, T. (2001). Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: A simple hazard model. Journal of Business, 74(1), 101-124.

Sun, W., and Cui, K. (2013). Linking corporate social responsibility to firm default risk. European Management Journal. 32(2), 275-287.

Sun, J., Fujita, H., Zheng, Y., & Ai, W. (2021). Multi-class financial distress prediction based on support vector machines integrated with the decomposition and fusion methods. Information Sciences, 559, 153-170.

Tsai, C. F., Sue, K. L., Hu, Y. H., & Chiu, A. (2021). Combining feature selection, instance selection, and ensemble classification techniques for improved financial distress prediction. Journal of Business Research, 130, 200-209.

Verikas A, Kalsyte Z, Bacauskiene M and Gelzinis A (2010). Hybrid and ensemble-based soft computing techniques in bankruptcy prediction: a survey. Soft Computing. 14(9): 995–1010.

Wilcox, J. W. (1973). A prediction of business failure using accounting data. Journal of Accounting Research, 163-179.

Wilson, N., and Altanlar, A. (2014). Company failure prediction with limited information: newly incorporated companies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(2), 252-264.

Zmijewski, M. E. (1984). Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. Journal of Accounting Research, 59-82.

What do we know about sustainability reporting assurance quality?

Special issue information:

In recent times, investors, regulators, and other stakeholders have started looking beyond the traditional financial information from corporations for their decision-making. In response, companies have begun providing a range of non-financial information. Despite significant growth in sustainability reporting practices and increasing regulatory focus on these reports, one big concern is “the quality” of the information disclosed in those reports. Large-scale, multi-focused investigations of the reliability and the social utility of the sustainability assurance reports' reliability and social utility remains an under-researched area in the accounting literature. In this special issue, we invite scholars and researchers to provide evidence on the quality of sustainability assurance reporting using a range of research methods and institutional settings.

Guest Editors 

Gerald Lobo, University of Houston, USAEmail: [email protected]

Swarnodeep Homroy, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Email: [email protected] (Corresponding guest editor)

Yasemin Zengin-Karaibrahimoğlu, University of Groningen
Email: [email protected]

Rationale and Scope

The practice of sustainability reporting has a long history, and in today's business world, it has been a necessity, rather than a preference, for all corporations. Last two decades, corporations are embraced a strong call from investors, regulators, and other stakeholders for enhanced transparency in reporting about the operations of publicly listed corporations that goes beyond the traditional financial information. In response to these calls, corporations have started providing a range of non-financial information (Maroun, 2017; Moser and Martin, 2012), covering various social and environmental issues associated with their operations (e.g., impact on the climate, societal consequences, natural resource extraction and employee relations, etc.).

Despite significant growth in sustainability reporting practices and increasing regulatory focus on these reports, one big concern is "the quality" of the information disclosed in those reports. These concerns stem from lack of standardization in the reporting process, the absence of stakeholder involvement, and these disclosures (particularly when done voluntarily) are used as an advertising tool (Cho et al., 2015, Cho et al., 2018). Corporate sustainability reports are often long and contain complex information on multiple parameters (Boiral and Henri, 2017). Therefore, non-financial reporting may not necessarily reflect the true nature of corporate sustainability practices and guarantee stakeholders' confidence.

Companies that aim to enhance their corporate reputation and credibility are more likely to have their sustainability reports assured by an assurance provider, and companies operating in stakeholder-oriented countries tend to choose more audit firms for assurance of sustainability reports (Simnett, Vanstraelen, and Chua 2009). A sub-industry of assurance intermediaries has emerged to reduce the information asymmetry between the firms and the stakeholders. These assurance providers use independent experts to verify the reliability and credibility of corporate disclosures on non-financial aspects (O'Dwyer et al., 2011). Parallel to the audit reports on financial matters, the sustainability assurance statements aim to provide an independent appraisal to the stakeholders that the information released in sustainability reports is reliable, material, and complete (Gilbert and Rasche, 2008).

A thorough and multi-disciplinary examination of the sustainability assurance reporting practices is crucial to non-financial accounting for several reasons. First, corporate sustainability information is increasingly salient for financial and non-financial stakeholders alike. Socially responsible investing has been growing in modern times, and corporations are using climate-related financing tools to raise funds from the market (Eccles, Ioannou, and Serafiem, 2014; Cruz, 2020; Hirtenstein, 2016). For continuing or increasing the funding of sustainability initiatives, the financial market needs reliable information on corporate sustainability through assurance mechanisms (Wong and Millington, 2014).

Second, while the financial accounting reporting practices have been harmonized across the major countries over the years, it is not yet the case for sustainability reporting. Additionally, sustainability is a multi-dimensional issue. In such cases, when the information environment is complex, stakeholders are known to benefit from independent appraisal (Dass, Kini, Nanda, Onal, and Wang, 2014; Coles, Daniel, and Naveen, 2008). However, currently, there is little evidence on whether third-party assurance on sustainability reports adds value.

Finally, there is very little evidence on the reliability of sustainability assurance practices, offered predominantly by accounting and consulting firms (O'Dwyer and Owen, 2005; O'Dwyer, 2011; Power, 1997). Earlier studies have criticized these assurance services' "rubber-stamping" nature (O'Dwyer and Owen, 2005). More recent studies provide a more nuanced view of this sub-industry (Perego and Kolk, 2012). Large-scale, multi-focused investigations of the reliability and the social utility of the sustainability assurance reports' reliability and social utility remains an under-researched area in the accounting literature.

In this special issue, we invite scholars and researchers to provide evidence on the quality of sustainability assurance reporting using a range of research methods and institutional settings. Therefore, submissions from a wide range of theoretical, methodological, and empirical approaches are welcome as long as they are in the spirit of the special issue's theme. Suggested research questions include, but is not limited to:
⎯ Is high-quality sustainability reporting assurance relevant for capital market participants’ decision-making?
⎯ Does assurance on suitability reporting provide credibility in the substance or form?
⎯ What are the benefits of having high-quality sustainability reporting assurance for firms?
⎯ Do firm-specific factors (corporate governance structure, top management characteristics, ownership structure, and stakeholder attention) affect the quality of sustainability reporting assurance?
⎯ Does the presence of service providers other than Big-4 (increased market competition) improve or compromise the quality sustainability reporting assurance?
⎯ How does assurance providers’ characteristics (reputation, tenure, expertise in sustainability, independence, competencies, composition of the assurance engagement team) affect the quality of sustainability reporting assurance?
⎯ What are the main competencies required for assurance providers/assurance engagement teams in the assurance of sustainability reporting?⎯ Is there a cross-country difference in the quality of sustainability reporting assurance?
⎯ What are the best assurance approaches for higher quality sustainability reporting?

Manuscript submission information:

Submissions

Authors of fully developed and high-quality papers are encouraged to submit to the special issue of British Accounting Review (BAR). The British Accounting Review is the official journal of the British Accounting and Finance Association and has a CiteScore of 7 and an Impact Factor of 5.577. This ranks the journal in the top 2 and 3 respectively among accounting journals as well as 7 in accounting and finance. It's rated A* in ABDC Journal Quality Guide and is rated 3 on the ABS list.

BAR has a rejection rate of 94%. Therefore, all papers in the Special Issue must have an original contribution and meet the publishing quality standard of the journal. Each paper will be judged according to the highest international standards within its topic area, the originality of its contribution, its relevance to development of the subject and its quality of exposition. All papers are subject to a minimum of double-blind refereeing.
Full paper submissions must follow the journal guidelines. All submissions will be subject to an initial screening by the Guest editors of the special issue. Papers that fall outside the scope of the special issue or are considered unlikely to meet the quality threshold of the special issue will be desk rejected. All manuscripts considered for inclusion in the special issue will be subject to a double-blind review process and must be submitted via the journal website. The Joint Editors of the British Accounting Review will oversee the final set of accepted papers prior to publication. It is anticipated that the special issue will be published in 2024.

The closing date for submissions to this special issue is 31 January 2023.

References

Boiral, O., & Henri, J. F. (2017). Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Business & Society, 56(2), 283-317.
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78-94.
Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2018). The frontstage and backstage of corporate sustainability reporting: Evidence from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(3), 865-886.
Coles, J., Daniel, N., & Naveen, L. (2008). Boards: Does one size fit all? Journal of Financial Economics, 87(2), 329-356.
Cruz, Bayani S., 2020, Green, social bond investors seek sustainability oversight, The Asset, available at https://www.theasset.com/article-esg/42497/green-social-bond-investors-seeksustainability-oversight.
Dass, N., Kini, O., Nanda, V., Onal, B., & Wang, J. (2014). Board expertise: Do directors from related industries help bridge the information gap? Review of Financial Studies, 27(5), 1533–1592.
Eccles, Robert G., and Michael P. Krzus, 2018, Why companies should report financial risks from climate change, MIT Sloan Management Review 59, 1(6).
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives–a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of business ethics, 82(3), 755-773.
Hirtenstein, A. (2016). Bond Market Asking `What Is Green?' Curbs Climate-Friendly Debt, Bloomberg, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-06/bond-marketasking-what-is-green-curbs-climate-friendly-debt. Maroun, W. (2017). Assuring the integrated report: Insights and recommendations from auditors and preparers. The British Accounting Review, 49(3), 329-346. Moser, D. V., & Martin, P. R. (2012). A broader perspective on corporate social responsibility research in accounting. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 797-806. O’Dwyer, B. (2011). The case of sustainability assurance: Constructing a new assurance service. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(4), 1230-1266.
O’Dwyer, B., Owen, D., & Unerman, J. (2011). Seeking legitimacy for new assurance forms: The case of assurance on sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(1), 31-52.
O'Dwyer, B., & Owen, D. L. (2005). Assurance statement practises in environmental, social and sustainability reporting: a critical evaluation. The British Accounting Review, 37(2), 205-229.
Perego, P., & Kolk, A. (2012). Multinationals’ accountability on sustainability: The evolution of third-party assurance of sustainability reports. Journal of business ethics, 110(2), 173-190.
Power, M. (1997). Expertise and the construction of relevance: Accountants and environmental audit. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 123-146. Simnett, R., Vanstraelen, A., & Chua, W. F. (2009). Assurance on sustainability reports: An international comparison. The Accounting Review, 84(3), 937-967.
Wong, R., & Millington, A. (2014). Corporate social disclosures: A user perspective on assurance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

Learn more about the benefits of publishing in a special issue: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/submit-your-paper/special-issues

Interested in becoming a guest editor? Discover the benefits of guest editing a special issue and the valuable contribution that you can make to your field: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/role-of-an-editor/guest-editors

The road to recovery: sustainability imperatives and the reshaping of public finance and accounting in the post-pandemic world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered one of the most severe economic recessions in nearly a century: collapsing economic activity, shattering lives and families, and greatly intensifying pre-existing inequalities, particularly in developing countries. As the global pandemic plays out, now more than ever the services of public and social organisations are needed by the most vulnerable in society. Despite unparalleled increases in public spending, the pandemic has also brought into sharp focus the fragility of the apparatus of many parts of essential service provision, including healthcare, age care, co-production networks, education, and social protection. It has also revealed serious deficiencies in public sector financing, infrastructures, clean and wastewater management systems, energy systems and transport systems. In the face of the problems outlined above, policy makers, accountants and business experts have a key role to play in the recovery from the crisis. This special issue and related Accounting, Society and the Environment (ASE) research workshop seeks to create a space in which the academic accounting and finance community can explore the challenges faced by public and third sector planners and decision makers, as they aim to restore stability and functionality to post pandemic services, without losing sight of the SDGs.

Guest Editors

Audrey Paterson, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Email: [email protected] (Corresponding guest editor)

William Jackson, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Email: [email protected]

Colin Dey, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK
Email: [email protected]

Alan Lowe, RMIT University, Australia
Email: [email protected]

Rationale and Scope

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered one of the most severe economic recessions in nearly a century: collapsing economic activity, shattering lives and families, generating an upsurge in unemployment and greatly intensifying pre-existing inequalities, particularly in developing countries. This has placed extraordinary pressures on public sector services and finances worldwide with diminishing capacity and mounting debt (World Bank, 2020). Further, it has materially reversed movement towards, and advancements achieved through, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which seek to address systemic inequality, injustice and discrimination in our societies and economies (Fleming, 2021). While public and third sector organisations struggle to construct post-pandemic recovery plans, there is a danger that planners confronted with a barrage of crises could be further distracted from the SDG framework, at a time when its relevance has never been greater.

As the global pandemic plays out, the services of public and social organisations are needed, more than ever, by the most vulnerable in society. Public services and third sector work are at the heart of providing the essential services that are fundamental to the improvement of civil society and the creation of sustainable development (Cruikshank, 1999). The 17 SDGs, 169 targets and 231 indicators set out in the Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development requires governments to have efficient and effective public policy and institutional arrangements to coordinate, mediate or directly provide public services that deliver on the SDG targets (UN, 2020a). Working towards meeting the SDGs undoubtedly requires significant political will and resources to create the necessary ‘innovation and transformation’ within such organisations (UN 2020b). Under normal circumstances, providing the necessary leadership and support to service providers trying to align with their service delivery to the SDGs is challenging, but in the wake of the pandemic the financial and resource constraints begin to look insuperable.

Despite unparalleled increases in public spending, the COVID-19 pandemic has also brought into sharp focus the fragility of the apparatus of many parts of essential service provision, including healthcare, age care, co-production networks, education, and social protection. At the same time, it has emphasised serious deficiencies in public sector financing, infrastructures, clean and wastewater management systems, energy systems and transport systems. Decades of market-based reforms that have sought to create leaner more efficient service delivery have to some extent achieved this at the cost of robustness in the face of shocks to the system. In much the same way that we see just-in-time supply chains and other lean business processes failing, as various elements of their normal functions have been impeded, public and third sector service delivery is collapsing as demand for services fluctuates far beyond normal parameters with availability resulting in the availability of resources declining sharply[1]. The crisis has further exacerbated and highlighted social inequalities, discrimination, and weak governance in ways that simultaneously hinder recovery planning and make it all the more imperative.

The policy choices that governments make in their pandemic recovery plans will determine the level of movement towards developing a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future. António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, states that ‘Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change, and the many other global challenges we face’ (UN, 2020c). It has been argued that specific attention needs to be given to key areas such as development of more resilient healthcare systems, exploring ways that direct spending can create growth and job opportunities that support households and businesses and provide additional social benefits. Likewise, greater attention needs to be given to biodiversity, reducing carbon emissions and the development of a more climate-resilient economy (Sobkowiak, Cuckston, & Thomson, 2020).

In the face of the problems outlined above, policy makers, accountants and business experts have a key role to play in the recovery from the crisis (Paterson et al., 2019; Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Unerman, 2020). Therefore, this special issue seeks to create a space in which the academic accounting community can explore the challenges faced by public and third sector planners and decision makers as they aim to restore stability and functionality to post pandemic services, without losing sight of the SDGs. Topics of potential interest to the special issue include, but are not limited to:

• The role of accounting in mapping the internal-external interface between public organisations and SDGs.
• Theoretical perspectives explaining how or why SDGs are embedded (or not) in public/third sector organisations accounting systems.
• The role of financial management leadership in strengthening diversity and sustainability in times of crisis.
• Sustainable development as a challenge for public financial management during and after COVID-19.
• Budgeting in the light of SDGs: how public and third sector entities are incorporating sustainable development in their strategies and programmes.
• Sustainable procurement and its future role in the public and third sectors.
• Transparency and legitimacy of governments: how sustainable development strategies affect the preparation of budgets and financial statements.
• Mainstreaming SDGs, organisational challenges, opportunities and strategies.
• Accountants’ views and perceptions of SDGs and their deliverability.
• Lean practices and sustainability – is lean thinking a contributor to, or a detractor from organisational sustainability?
• Public-private partnerships and sustainable infrastructure development.
• Cultures of resistance – has the pandemic become a rationale deployed to deflect progress towards the SDGs.
• The inequality, poverty, and sustainability crisis, an inconvenient truth or opportunity for organisational change?
• Critiques of the effectiveness and usefulness of SDGs in public, third sector and non-government organisations.
• Reframing corruption and governance: what COVID-19 has revealed about organisational governance, accountability, and leadership.

Contributors are encouraged to interpret this theme broadly, yet critically, including the use of diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives to a wide range of countries and regional settings.

Processes for Submission

This special issue of the British Accounting Review (BAR) is associated with the 10^th Accounting, Society, and the Environment research workshop, which will be hosted online via the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, on the 28^{th of} April 2022. Registration for the event can be made through the following link: https://www.store.abdn.ac.uk/conferences-and-events/conferences-symposia-seminars/research-innovation-cpd/accounting-society-and-the-environment-10th-annual-research-workshop

Authors of fully developed and high-quality papers presented at the workshop will be invited to submit their paper to the special issue. However, attendance and/or presentation at the workshop is not a pre-requisite for submission to the special issue. Articles for this special issue should be submitted to the journal by the 1^{st of} August 2022. Papers will not be considered for the special issue if they are submitted after this date. Full paper submissions must be in accordance with journal guidelines. There is no submission fee.

All submissions will be subject to an initial screening by the Guest Co-editors of the special issue. Papers which fall outside the scope of the special issue, or which are considered unlikely to be suitable for the special issue will be desk rejected. All manuscripts considered for inclusion in the special issue will be subject to a double-blind review process and must be submitted via the journal website. All papers must have and original contribution and meet the high publishing quality standard of the journal. The Joint-Editors of the British Accounting Review will oversee the final set of accepted papers prior to publication. BAR is ranked by the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Quality Journal List as A*. In the Association of Business Schools (ABS) it is 3-rated. It currently has a Scopus Cite Score of 7.0 and an impact factor of 5.577. Further information on the journal can be found at:https://www.elsevier.com/journals/the-british-accounting-review/0890-8389/guide-for-authors

The guest editor’s welcome informal enquiries from those who are interested in submitting a paper for consideration. It is anticipated that the special issue will be published in 2024. Initial queries about the special issue and ASE workshop should be directed to Dr Audrey Paterson ([email protected]).

Important Deadlines

• Draft paper for the ASE workshop presentation by the 18^{th of} March 2022.
• Workshop to be held 28^th April 2022.
• Submission of full papers to the journal by 1^st October 2022.

References:

Bebbington, J. & Unerman, J., 2020, Advancing research into accounting and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1657-1670.

Cruikshank, B. 1999, The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Fleming, S. 2021, COVID-19 is threatening the SDGs – here’s what needs to happen, World Economic Forum, Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/sdgs-covid19-poverty-goals/

Paterson, A. S., Changwony, F., & Miller, P. B. (2019). Accounting control, governance and anti-corruption initiatives in public sector organisations. British Accounting Review, Vol. 51 No. 5, 100844.

Sobkowiak, M, Cuckston., & Thomson, I., 2020, Framing sustainable development challenges: accounting for SDG-15 in the UK, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1671-1703.

Unerman, J., 2020, Risks from self-referential peer review echo chambers developing in research fields: 2018 Keynote Address presented at The British Accounting Review 50th Anniversary Celebrations, British Accounting and Finance Association Annual Conference, London. British Accounting Review, Vol. 52, No. 5, 100910.

United Nations, 2020a, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

United Nations, 2020b, Public Service Innovation and Transformation, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Public Institutions, Available at: https://publicadministration.un.org/en/Public-Service-Innovation-and-Transformation

United Nations, 2020c, The recovery from the COVID-19 crisis must lead to a different economy, available at: https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/launch-report-socio-economic-impacts-covid-19

United Nations, 2020d, The Sustainable Development Goals Report, Available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020.pdf

World Bank Group, 2020, Global Economic Prospects, A World Bank Group Flagship Report. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/06/08/covid-19-to-plunge-global-economy-into-worst-recession-since-world-war-ii

2023 XJTLU AI and Big Data in Accounting and Finance Research Conference and the BAR special issue

2023 XJTLU AI and Big Data in Accounting and Finance Research Conference and the BAR special issue

Conference dates

25-26 May 2023

Location

Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU), Suzhou

Description

Call for Papers
2023 XJTLU AI and Big Data in Accounting and Finance Research Conference and the BAR special issue

25-26 May 2023
Suzhou, XJTLU campus

In case that travel restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic continue to exist, the conference organizers will consider holding the conference both online and onsite.

Keynote Speakers- Professor William Cong, the Rudd Family Professor of Management and Associate Professor of Finance at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University SC Johnson College of Business.

• Professor Xianjie He, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (TBC)
• Professor Markus Pelger, Stanford University (TBC)

Supporting Journals British Accounting Review Special Issue

Guest Editors

• William Cong, Cornell University
• Wei Zhang, University of Tianjin, Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University
• Jia Zhai, Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University
• Yi Cao, University of Edinburgh
  
  

OrganisersXi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University (XJTLU), Suzhou, China
Co-organiser University of Edinburgh Business School, UK

Overview:

There is a growing literature in accounting and finance applying machine learning methods for data analysis, examining the usefulness of those methods, and assessing the impact on decision making and investment. To better understand the challenges and opportunities of this emerging research area, XJTLU, International Business School (IBSS) will dedicate the 2023 AI and Big Data in Accounting and Finance Research conference with the BAR special issue.

The ultimate objective of this conference and special issue is to improve our usage of the large and growing financial data sources, our understandings of financial information align with the innovative data analytic techniques. The proposed special issue allows BAR to assemble cutting edge research in Accounting and Finance that apply AI or ML methods to ask and examine research questions that could not otherwise be examined.

Topics:

The committee welcomes studies that provide cutting-edge insights into current research work. Specific topics and research questions can include but are not limited to use various machine learning methods to improve the quality and dimension of data analysis in accounting and finance, and also to understand how traditional problems related to accounting and finance can be addressed by innovative computational methods, and whether those approaches are able to uncover more valuable information such as learning data patterns, predicting occurrences, capturing firm characteristics, determining asset prices, forecasting returns and etc.
Publication Opportunities

The British Accounting Review will publish a special issue on AI and Big Data in Accounting and Finance Research. The BAR is a well-established international journal that publishes original scholarly papers across the whole spectrum of accounting and finance (http://ees.elsevier.com/bar/). BAR’s 2020 CiteScore (7) and Impact Factor (5.577) rank BAR top 2 and 3 respectively among accounting journals as well as 7 in accounting and finance. It’s rated A* in ABDC Journal Quality Guide.(Link: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review/)

In the submission, authors should indicate if they wish their paper to be considered for publication in a special issue of British Accounting Review (BAR). This is a “no-fault” submission option: if the submission is not accepted in the conference, the authors can still submit it to a regular issue of the journal at a later date as if it were never submitted. Acceptance in the conference does not guarantee final publication. Attending the conference is not a pre-condition for the submission to this special issue. All submissions are subject to the normal review process.

Submission

Extended abstracts or full papers are to be submitted to Email: [email protected] 

Please put “AI and Big Data in Accounting and Finance” in the subject line and indicate whether you would like the submission to be considered by the British Accounting Review special issue.

Submission link to the journal: https://www.editorialmanager.com/ybare/default1.aspx

Submission Deadline: Jan 2023
Authors will be notified by March 2023
Virtual Conference: 25-26 May 2023

Conference organizing committee:

• Chair: Dr Jia Zhai
• Co-Chairs: Professor Jorg Bley (Professor in Finance, Dean of International Business School Suzhou, XJTLU), Professor Michael Chng (Professor in Finance, IBSS, XJTLU)
• Coordinator: Dr Yi Cao (University of Edinburgh Business School)

The Role of Legal, Political, and Regulatory Institutions in Influencing Accounting and Financial Outcomes

Invitation

The Global Chinese Accounting Association (GCAA) and School of Accounting, Economics and Finance at Curtin University are proud to present the Global Chinese Accounting Association (GCAA) Summit 2022 in Perth, Australia, November 28-29, 2022. The theme of the conference is the role of legal, political, and regulatory institutions in influencing accounting and financial outcomes. The aim of this Summit is to bring together accounting/finance academics to offer them incredible opportunities to collaborate with editors from a world recognised journal, British Accounting Review leading to a special issue for the journal. This Summit will be a fantastic opportunity for networking and developing collaborative links. We welcome academics and practitioners to attend this Summit.

Conference Organisers:

Global Chinese Accounting Association (GCAA)

School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Curtin University

Supporters:

Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)

Institute of Management Accountants (IMA)

 

Background

In recent years, legal, political, and regulatory institutions have become concerned with studying the origins and impacts of institutions on accounting and auditing issues. This has led to more complete explanations of long-standing concerns and a broadening of the forms of accounting and audit issues examined. The most important reason for the resurgence of research on the impact of legal and political reforms has been the perceived failure of earlier explanations to provide satisfactory explanations of important economic and political phenomena, such as rates of international economic growth, technology innovations, the distribution of income, and the changing political structures within society (Engerman and Sokoloff 2008). Legal and political reforms shape corporate policies and affects shareholder wealth in various ways.

This special issue conference will cover research based on the role of legal, political, and regulatory institutions in influencing accounting and financial outcomes.

Rationale

With the rapid growth in international business, and reforms in accounting and auditing standards, legislation, and regulations, the effect of regulatory, legal, and political frameworks on financial and accounting outcomes has gained increasing importance across all disciplines. These reforms create opportunities to test the effect of these events on a whole range of areas that deal with compliance.

Accounting and financial outcomes refer to the quality and effectiveness of changes. Indeed, the effect of forces that include regulations, legislation, and enforcement have a significant impact on accounting and financial reporting outcomes. This could include changes in securities law, taxation law, auditor liability, environmental regulations including rehabilitation or decommissioning law, governance regulations which could lead to large differences in observed outcomes. Legislation and regulation have evolved over time with changes in the effectiveness of contracting amongst parties, the importance of informativeness, and variable emphasis of compliance. These issues have implications for accounting and economic effects over time. Compliance and governance systems have evolved in line with legislative and regulatory change and the level of legal enforcement (Bebchuk, Cohen & Hirst 2017, Houston et al. 2019; Preuss & Königsgruber 2021). For instance, Houston et al. (2019) document that changed litigation risk impacts the extent and nature of voluntary disclosure requirements and show how such risk acts as a disciplinary force impacting disclosure outcomes. While previous studies have examined the effects of changes in legislation, regulation, or political processes using different settings and variable measures, the empirical evidence remains mixed. There are counter-arguments generated from the effects of legislative and regulatory change. This provides us with different opportunities in terms of research scope and empirical strategies on accounting and auditing outcomes.

The current international regulatory environment in accounting and finance is characterized by independent oversight bodies set up in response to accounting and auditing failures. These include the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in the U.S., the Professional Oversight Board (POB) in the UK, and the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR) (Canning and O’Dwyer 2016). While they are “created to watch the watchers” (Richardson, 2009, p. 571), their primary purpose is to enhance or restore public confidence in the financial reporting and auditing of public companies (Hazgui and Gendron 2015, Arnold 2009, Guenin-Paracini and Gendron 2010, Malsch and Gendron 2011, Caramanis et al. 2015). The efficacy of these bodies has recently come under scrutiny (Caramanis et al. 2015, Anantharaman 2012, Samsonova-Taddei and Humphrey 2015). This has unveiled their impotence and partial influence in several settings (Malsch and Gendron 2011, Caramanis et al. 2015). While significant research on oversight bodies such as the PCAOB focuses on the effects of their inspection processes and the wider impacts of their enforcement actions (Abernathy et al. 2013, Lohlein 2016), we have little in-depth knowledge of individuals’ efforts to shape these bodies and establish their operational effectiveness. There are increased calls for studies focusing on “[a]gendas of local [regulatory] implementation and the possibilities as to what can and cannot be implemented at national level” (Samsonova-Taddei & Humphrey 2015, p. 69).

The subjugation of accounting firms to independent monitoring is typically viewed as one of the most substantive and fundamental changes in the history of contemporary public accounting (e.g., DeFond 2009). Audits of public companies are no longer understood as a self-regulated professional activity; instead, accounting firms are now accountable to regulatory organizations located outside the boundaries of the profession’s jurisdictional domain. A range of practices are established to show that the new regulatory organizations are indeed in control of financial auditing – for example, through inspection reports and instances of disciplinary actions taken against deviant accounting firms. The increasing degree of attention devoted at the international level to coordinate independent regulation through network structures such as the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR) and European Group of Auditors’ Oversight Bodies (EGAOB) provides another reinforcing signal (Humphrey, Loft, & Woods 2009). Nonetheless, from a critical perspective, we may question the extent to which the influence of the new regulatory mechanisms is consistent with the claim that audit quality is being reinvigorated by removing control and discipline from the profession. Humphrey (2008, p. 185) argued that:

A key task for [auditing] research is one of understanding, whether in terms of studying the political nature of audit regulatory processes or what happens when auditors and regulators claim to work in the name of the public interest and how auditing and auditing regulations help to define and/or translate matters of social concern.

The significance of this special issue conference is demonstrated in several ways. First, it responds to recent requests for more studies of the emergence of accounting oversight to highlight the contextually contingent nature of the local regulatory implementation of global regulatory trends (Malsch and Gendron 2011, Hazgui and Gendron 2015, Samsonova-Taddei and Humphrey 2015, Caramanis et al. 2015).

Second, research on the proposed topics can trace the nature and extent of the institutional work undertaken by individuals within an oversight body seeking to realign a regulatory institution. This advances prior theorisations of the recursive relationship between forms of institutional work and patterns of institutional change and stability (Zietsma & Lawrence 2010). In particular, it contributes to recent research highlighting the transient and fluid nature of the institutional work involved in the process of creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions (Hayne and Free 2014, Currie et al. 2012, Gawer and Phillips 2013).

Its final contribution is the provision of deeper insights into the dynamic interplay between institutional change and strategic action (Gawer and Phillips 2013, Empson et al. 2013).

Introduction to the British Accounting Review

The British Accounting Review is a well-established international journal that publishes original scholarly papers across the whole spectrum of accounting and finance (http://ees.elsevier.com/bar/). The BAR’s 2020 CiteScore (7) and Impact Factor (5.577) rank BAR top 2 and 3 respectively among accounting journals as well as 7 in accounting and finance. It’s rated A* in ABDC Journal Quality Guide. For further information about the journal, please visit its website by following this weblink:

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review/

 

Call for papers

Authors are invited to share their research findings on issues relevant to the theme of this special issue conference. Both theoretical and empirical papers are welcome in this special issue conference, including but not limited to the following topics:

• Legal: Money laundering, whistleblowing, insider trading, tax avoidance, environmental, social, and governance, mixed-ownership reform, impact of new legislative change
• Political: Political connections and political ideology
• Regulatory: New or changed accounting standards implementation, financial regulation and market competition, financial stability and reform

Guest editors:

Douglas Cumming

Editor-in-Chief, British Journal of Management,

Florida Atlantic University, USA

Donghui Li

Director, Research Center of Accounting and Finance, Shenzhen University, China

Jing Shi

Deputy Editor-in-Chief for Accounting and Finance

Macquarie University, Australia

Grantley Taylor

Discipline Lead-accounting,

School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Curtin University, Australia

Paper selection process and the Special Issue

The selection process will involve two stages. In the first stage, participants are invited to submit their full completed papers to the conference organizer before the deadline as indicated in the invitation. The conference committee will evaluate all submissions. In the second stage, authors of short-listed papers will be invited to present their papers at the conference. After the conference and revision that accommodates the feedback received from the conference, the authors of short-listed papers will be invited to submit their papers to the British Accounting

Review here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/ybare/default1.aspx. These submissions will then go through the journal’s review process.

There is no guarantee that papers presented at the conference will be accepted by the journal for publication. In addition, the special issue also considers papers not presented at this conference for publication in that issue.

Important dates:

Conference Submission Deadline: 1 September, 2022

Decision Notification: 15 September, 2022

Registration Deadline: 1 November, 2022

Conference: 28-29 November, 2022

Special Issue Submission Deadline: 1 March, 2023

On-site registration is not available. The details of registration will be provided in due course.

Number of attendees:

The number of participants at the conference will be limited to 100.

Presentation:

All submissions will be reviewed by two academics or professionals from the conference committee. Each presentation will run 30 minutes including 15 minutes for presentation, 10 minutes for discussion, and 5 minutes for questions and feedback.

Best paper award:

Best papers awards will be given to the authors of the two best papers which will be selected by the organizing committee.

Conference paper submission contacts:

Contact person: Dr Tianpei Luo

Email: [email protected] 

We look forward to seeing you at the conference.

References:

Abernathy, J. L., Barnes, M., & Stefaniak, C. (2013). A summary of 10 years of PCAOB research: What have we learned? Journal of Accounting Literature, 32(1), 30-60.

Anantharaman, D. (2012). Comparing self-regulation and statutory regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(2), 55-77.

Arnold, P. J. (2009). Global financial crisis: The challenge to accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 803-809.

Bebchuk, L. A., Cohen, A., & Hirst, S. (2017). The agency problems of institutional investors. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(3), 89-102.

Canning, M., & O’Dwyer, B. (2016). Institutional work and regulatory change in the accounting profession. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 54, 1-21.

Caramanis, C., Dedoulis, E., & Leventis, S. (2015). Transplanting Anglo-American accounting oversight boards to a diverse institutional context. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 42, 12-31.

Currie, G., Lockett, A., Finn, R., Martin, G., & Waring, J. (2012). Institutional work to maintain professional power: Recreating the model of medical professionalism. Organization Studies, 33(7), 937-962.

DeFond, M. L. (2010). How should the auditors be audited? Comparing the PCAOB inspections with the AICPA peer reviews. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1-2), 104-108.

Empson, L., Cleaver, I., & Allen, J. (2013). Managing partners and management professionals: Institutional work dyads in professional partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 808-844.

Engerman, S. L., & Sokoloff, K. L. (2008). Debating the role of institutions in political and economic development: theory, history, and findings. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 119-135.

Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1035-1071.

Guénin-Paracini, H., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Auditors as modern pharmakoi: Legitimacy paradoxes and the production of economic order. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(2), 134-158.

Hayne, C., & Free, C. (2014). Hybridized professional groups and institutional work: COSO and the rise of enterprise risk management. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(5), 309-330.

Hazgui, M., & Gendron, Y. (2015). Blurred roles and elusive boundaries: On contemporary forms of oversight surrounding professional work. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

Houston, J.F., Lin, C., Liu, S., & Wei, L. 2019. Litigation risk and voluntary disclosure: Evidence from legal changes. The Accounting Review, 94(5), 247-272.

Humphrey, C. (2008). Auditing research: A review across the disciplinary divide. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 170-203.

Humphrey, C., Loft, A., & Woods, M. (2009). The global audit profession and the international financial architecture: Understanding regulatory relationships at a time of financial crisis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 810-825.

Löhlein, L. (2016). From peer review to PCAOB inspections: Regulating for audit quality in the US. Journal of Accounting Literature, 36, 28-47.

Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2011). Reining in auditors: On the dynamics of power surrounding an “innovation” in the regulatory space. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(7), 456-476.

Preuss, S., & Königsgruber, R. (2021). How do corporate political connections influence financial reporting? A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(1), Article 106802.

Richardson, A. J. (2009). Regulatory networks for accounting and auditing standards: A social network analysis of Canadian and international standard-setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(5), 571-588.

Samsonova-Taddei, A., & Humphrey, C. (2015). Risk and the construction of a European audit policy agenda: The case of auditor liability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 41, 55-72.

Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189-221.

Call-for-Papers: Special Issue on Green and Climate Finance & 6th Shanghai-Edinburgh-London Green Finance Conference (29 May 2022, Shanghai and Online)

Overview

Following the success of the conference series since 2017, the University of Edinburgh Business School, University College London, and Shanghai Institute of International Finance Center (SIIFC) at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics are organizing the 6th Shanghai Green Finance Conference online on 29 May 2022. The objective is to present top-quality theoretical and empirical academic research on green and climate finance. There is no registration fee for speakers. This conference also includes a high-profile forum that brings together key policymakers, top professionals, media, and academics.

The committee welcomes studies that provide cutting-edge insights into current research work. Specific topics and research questions can include but are not limited to the interplay between climate, environment and corporate finance, corporate social responsibility, capital markets, corporate governance, carbon market, entrepreneurial finance, fintech, financial development, household finance, law, and finance as well as other related topics on green and climate finance.

Guest Editors

Omrane Guedhami, University of South Carolina

Sofia Johan, Florida Atlantic University and University of Aberdeen

Feng Zhan, University of Western Ontario

Chairs

Wenxuan Hou, University of Edinburgh

Xi Liang, University College London

Wenjie Ma and Xiaoju Zhao, SIIFC, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics

Organisers

University of Edinburgh Business School, UK

Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction at University College London, UK

Shanghai Institute of International Finance Centre, SUFE, China

Overview

Following the success of the conference series since 2017, the University of Edinburgh Business School, University College London, and Shanghai Institute of International Finance Center (SIIFC) at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics are organizing the 6th Shanghai Green Finance Conference online on 29 May 2022. The objective is to present top-quality theoretical and empirical academic research on green and climate finance. There is no registration fee for speakers. This conference also includes a high-profile forum that brings together key policymakers, top professionals, media, and academics.

The committee welcomes studies that provide cutting-edge insights into current research work. Specific topics and research questions can include but are not limited to the interplay between climate, environment and corporate finance, corporate social responsibility, capital markets, corporate governance, carbon market, entrepreneurial finance, fintech, financial development, household finance, law, and finance as well as other related topics on green and climate finance.

Publication Opportunities

The British Accounting Review will publish a special issue on green finance. The BAR is a well-established international journal that publishes original scholarly papers across the whole spectrum of accounting and finance (http://ees.elsevier.com/bar/). BAR’s 2020 CiteScore (7) and Impact Factor (5.577) rank BAR top 2 and 3 respectively among accounting journals as well as 7 in accounting and finance. It’s rated A* in ABDC Journal Quality Guide.

In the submission, authors should indicate if they wish their paper to be considered for publication in a special issue of British Accounting Review (BAR). This is a “no-fault” submission option: if the submission is not accepted in the conference, the authors can still submit it to a regular issue of the journal at a later date as if it were never submitted. Acceptance in the conference does not guarantee final publication. All submissions are subject to the normal review process.

Submission

Extended abstracts or full papers are to be submitted to:

Email: [email protected]

Please put “6th Shanghai-Edinburgh-London Green Finance Conference” in the subject line and indicate whether you would like the submission to be considered by the British Accounting Review special issue.

Submission Deadline: 10 April 2022

Authors will be notified by 28 April 2022

Virtual Conference: 29 May 2022

Learn more about the benefits of publishing in a special issue: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/submit-your-paper/special-issues

Interested in becoming a guest editor? Discover the benefits of guest editing a special issue and the valuable contribution that you can make to your field: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/role-of-an-editor/guest-editors

Special Issue on “Corporate Carbon Accounting and Management for Green Transition toward Carbon Neutrality”

Carbon accounting is an emerging practice and is expected to play an important role for corporate transition management toward a net zero business model. Thus, the editorial team of the Special Issue invites high quality submissions of research work relating to all aspects of carbon accounting and reporting, climate finance and carbon management, as well as their interactions with financial markets, climate risk management and analysis, carbon trading and regulations, etc. The special issue is intended to enhance a more nuanced understanding of carbon accounting and promote the profile and reputation of the prestigious journal, British Accounting Review in the burgeoning area of carbon accounting and assurance.

Guest editors:

Professor Peter Clarkson, University of Queensland, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Associate Professor Amir Amel-Zadeh, Oxford University, UK

Email: [email protected]

Associate Professor Yue LI, University of Toronto, Canada

Email: [email protected]

Professor Qingliang Tang, Western Sydney University, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Professor Simon Gao, Edinburgh Napier University, UK

Email: [email protected]

RATIONALE and SCOPE

Carbon accounting is an emerging practice and is expected to play an important role for corporate transition management toward a net zero business model. Thus, the editorial team of the Special Issue invites high quality submissions of research work relating to all aspects of carbon accounting and reporting, climate finance and carbon management, as well as their interactions with financial markets, climate risk management and analysis, carbon trading and regulations, etc. The special issue is intended to enhance a more nuanced understanding of carbon accounting and promote the profile and reputation of the prestigious journal, British Accounting Review in the burgeoning area of carbon accounting and assurance.

The international climate change accord, the 2015 Paris Agreement was a tipping point in the global approach to limit temperature rises to well below 2°C and ideally 1.5°C and many governments and commercial organisations have committed to transforming toward decarbonised economy (Nordhaus 2019, Stern 2006, IPCC 2019). The recent development of new climate regulations includes COP26 Glasgow Climate Pact (UNFCCC, 2021), the UK proposed mandate disclosure of net zero transition plans for listed companies and financial institutions (Gov. UK 2021); ISSB proposed sustainability and climate disclosure standards (IFSB Foundation 2021). The global emergence of green transition entails studies that can provide fresh insights of optimizing energy resource utilisation and carbon emissions mitigation (Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim 2018, He et al 2021a). Consensus has been reached that improving corporate responsible responses through carbon accounting, measurement and disclosure is essential to set out how climate-related issues impact their carbon neutrality planning. This amplifies the long-standing call from accounting academics and professionals to develop robust carbon accounting paradigm. While there has been some progress (e.g. Tang and Luo 2014, Clarkson et al 2015), the research is relatively underdeveloped and thus significant gaps exist in this area (He et al 2021b, Fan et al 2021). We identify the following potential topics for this Special Issue that include, but are not limited to:

· Theoretical underpinnings for the role of carbon accounting for carbon neutrality programs

· Carbon disclosure practice and quality

· Climate risk management

· Carbon governance

· Carbon assurance and verification

· Capital market and real effect of decarbonisation

· Climate finance and green project management

· Blockchain enabled FinTech (or other emerging technologies) for carbon neutrality

· Other issues related to accounting for climate change (e.g. detecting greenwashing disclosure; carbon accounting literature review; carbon–water management synergy, etc).

PROCESSES FOR SUBMISSION

We welcome all types of research papers including theoretical, empirical, case study and experimental. Carbon accounting has been recognised as an emerging discipline, so we encourage authors to use creative ideas, apply innovative and dynamic methodologies and adopt new research data. By submitting a paper via manuscript submission system of British Accounting Review, authors acknowledge (a) that the paper is original, unpublished work, (b) that in whole or material part it is not simultaneously under consideration of publication elsewhere. All submitted papers will be externally blind reviewed according to the standard and policy of the journal. All papers must be written in English and should follow the required style.

Please send your enquiries to: Peter Clarkson, Email: [email protected]; Yue LI, Email: [email protected]; Qingliang Tang, Email: [email protected].

Submission deadline: 20 February 2023.

References:

Amel-Zadeh, A; G Serafeim. 2018. Why and How Investors Use ESG Information: Evidence from a PRGlobal Survey. Financial Analysts Journal.

Clarkson, Peter M., Li, Yue, Pinnuck, Matthew and Richardson, Gordon D. (2015). The valuation relevance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the European Union Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme. European Accounting Review, 24 3: 551-580. doi:10.1080/09638180.2014.927782

Fan, Hanlu, Qingliang Tang, Lipeng Pan. 2020. An International study of Carbon Information Asymmetry and Independent Carbon Assurance. The British Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100971.

Gov.UK. 2021. Fact Sheet: Net Zero-aligned Financial Centre. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fact-sheet-net-zero-aligned-financial-centre/fact-sheet-net-zero-aligned-financial-centre.

He, R, L Luo, Abul Shamsuddin, Qingliang Tang. 2021(a). The value relevance of corporate investment in carbon abatement: The influence of national climate policy. European Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2021.1916979.

He, R, L Luo, Abul Shamsuddin, Qingliang Tang. 2021(b). Corporate carbon accounting: A literature review of carbon accounting research from the Kyoto Protocol to Paris Agreement. Accounting and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12789.

IFRS Foundation/International Sustainability Standards Board. 2021. Climate-related Disclosure Prototype. Supplement: Technical Protocols for Disclosure Requirements. https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/groups/trwg/climate-related-disclosures-prototype-technical-protocols-supplement.pdf.

IPCC 2019. Global warming of 1.5°C. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf

Nordhaus, William. 2019. "Climate Change: The Ultimate Challenge for Economics." American Economic Review, 109 (6): 1991-2014.DOI: 10.1257/aer.109.6.1991.

Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

Tang, Qingliang, Le Luo. 2014. Carbon Management Systems and Carbon Mitigation.

Australian Accounting Review.

https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12010

.

United Nations FCCC. 2021. Glasgow Climate Pact. Advance version. https://unfccc.int/documents/310508.

Learn more about the benefits of publishing in a special issue: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/submit-your-paper/special-issues

Interested in becoming a guest editor? Discover the benefits of guest editing a special issue and the valuable contribution that you can make to your field: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/role-of-an-editor/guest-editors

Call For Special Issue/Conference Proposals

The British Accounting Review (BAR) is a well-established international journal that publishes original scholarly papers across the whole spectrum of accounting and finance (http://ees.elsevier.com/bar/). BAR’s 2020 CiteScore (7) and Impact Factor (5.577) rank BAR top 2 and 3 respectively among accounting journals as well as 7 in accounting and finance. BAR invites proposals for special issues/sections and conferences/workshops offering new insights into important emerging and pressing topics in accounting and finance. A special issue normally includes 7-9 papers and a special section includes 4-6, both including a survey article from the guest editors. BAR considers proposals twice per year with submission deadlines as 30 June and 30 December.

About BAR

Established in 1969, BAR is the official journal of the British Accounting and Finance Association. The current joint editors are Wenxuan Hou at the University of Edinburgh and Jason Xiao at the University of Macau. In addition to its highly ranked CiteScore and Impact Factor, BAR is rated 3 and A* in the recent Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide and Australian Business Deans Council Journal Quality List respectively.

Submission procedure for a special issue/section

Please submit the following documents to [email protected] and put “BAR special issue/section” in the email’s subject panel.

1. A cover letter which includes a) the title and summary of the special issue; b) the biographies of the prospective guest editors including their experience in editing journals and organising academic conferences; c) the timeline of the key stages in editing and publishing the special issue; d) the promotion plan of the special issue; e) a list of indicative scholars who might submit their work and a list of ad hoc reviewers; f) plans in handling submissions with conflict of interest.

2. A 3-page statement on the rationale of the special issue including a survey of the related literature stating why the topic deserves our readers' attention.

3. The CVs of the prospective guest editors.

If a conference or paper development workshop associated with the special issue/section is to be organised, please also provide the following information in the cover letter:

4) budget details of the event,

5) keynote speakers, and

6) conference venue and the expected number of participants.

Prospective guest editors should only plan such event if they have secured adequate funding. BAR does not encourage guest editors organising events by charging a high registration fee from participants. BAR does not charge any fee for such collaboration.

Proposals are assessed based on the novelty and significance of topics as well as the scholarly excellence of the guest editor team. One of the following decisions will be made:

a) Accept the proposal for a special issue or a special section. Prospective guest editors will be asked to draft a call for papers,

b) BAR may endorse the academic conference but will not publish a special issue, or

c) Reject the proposal.

Submission procedure for an endorsed conference without a special issue/section

BAR also considers endorsing high quality academic events, in which a selected number of conference papers are invited for submission under the regular review process for normal issues.

To apply for such collaboration, please submit the following documents to [email protected] and put “BAR conference” in the subject line.

1. A cover letter which includes the background of the event and information of organisers

2. A call for papers

3. The immediate past conference programme in case of conference series.

Examples of recent special issues

It will be helpful for prospective guest editors to consult the recent or forthcoming special issues on the journal website to avoid submitting proposals which make a marginal extension of the existing special issues.

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review/call-for-papers

i) Exploring Accounting History

ii) Corporate Governance Transformation in the Digital Era

iii) Modern Slavery and the Accounting Profession

iv) NGO Performance, Governance and Accountability in the Era of Digitalisation

v) Hybrids’ Act-Ing for Multiple Values

vi) Special Issues on Corporate Disclosures

Special issue policy

1. Submitted manuscripts will be handled by guest editors, but final decisions will be made by the joint editors. During the review process, the joint editors may request further revision or additional reviews for particular submissions.

1. The submission guidelines and standard review policy apply.
2. Guest editors are invited to submit a survey article that provides a critical overview of the related literature and outlines future research directions. Apart from this review paper, guest editors should not submit their own papers to their own special issue.

4. Based on the number and quality of submissions, the joint editors reserve the rights to cancel a special issue. In this case, submissions will be under review for regular issues.

5. Submissions should not be restricted to participants of a particular conference.

Joint Call for Papers: Special Issues on Corporate Disclosures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joint Call for Papers:

Special Issues on Corporate Disclosures

Accounting in Europe and The British Accounting Review

About the Special Issues

In conjunction with the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), we invite submissions of papers on diverse aspects of disclosure, and drawing on diverse research methods and approaches. Successful submissions will have potential to demonstrate research impact by contributing to public policy development and in particular the regulation of financial reporting. Submissions are invited under three broad themes. Studies combining two or all themes are especially welcome:

A. Compliance with Mandatory Disclosure Requirements;

B. Specific Areas of Interest to the IASB;

C. Alternative Research Approaches.

We outline each of these in more detail below.

A. Compliance with Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

Lower levels of compliance with disclosures mandated by accounting standards generally result in less, or less meaningful, information. One strand of the literature has focused on compliance with mandatory disclosure requirements.

Theory suggests that the main reason for varying levels of compliance with disclosure requirements is preparers’ trade-off between the costs of compliance and non-compliance. There is a lack of empirical evidence to support this. Little is known, also, about how such trade-offs are operationalised and whether this differs across countries with different socio-economic environments. For instance, mandatory disclosure may be lower in environments which encourage managers’ reporting incentives to prevail (e.g, where enforcement is low or non-institutional norms encourage such behaviour), or where IFRS Standards’ adoption/convergence is perceived as detrimental.

The operation of national and pan-national oversight and enforcement agencies, including their processes, the sanctions at their disposal, and even the relative significance they attribute to compliance, remains unexplored. We also lack evidence on how and to what extent users of financial statements actually process disclosures and whether, and to what extent, they are concerned about (non)compliance. Also, with few exceptions, the evidence we do have is limited to research using quantitative methods.

Finally, the large majority of studies (published in English) on corporate mandatory disclosures relates to disclosures mandated by the IASB. There is therefore a lack of evidence relating to disclosures mandated by other standard setters and policy makers – including those mandating rules on auditing, corporate governance, and other spheres of corporate reporting.

Possible topics under Theme A include, but are not limited to:

• Reasons/motivations for (non-)compliance, including
  • Socio-economic and political explanations
  • Problems arising from standards and/or standard-setting
  • Corporate governance, auditing and enforcement
  • The wording of requirements, translations, diverging interpretations and linguistic hedging
  • Cost/benefits considerations at the firm level
• Quality and content of disclosures
• The use of materiality thresholds by preparers and auditors
• Intended and unintended consequences of requirements and compliance
• Processes/methods of enforcement bodies
• Standard setter, preparer and/or stakeholder perspectives
• Comparative explorations of compliance in diverse settings
• Comparative historical explorations, especially before and after regulatory initatives
• Digital reporting and compliance
• Principles versus rules
• Theoretical, philosophical or psychological perspectives
• Alternative explanations for observed practice

B. Specific areas of interest to the IASB

• New standards and disclosure requirements. Changes to disclosure requirements that aim to improve information available to investors, with special focus on IFRS 9 Financial Instruments / IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures, IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and IFRS 16 Leases.
• Targeted Standards-level Review of Disclosures. In response to feedback on the Principles of Disclosure Discussion Paper (2017), the IASB produced guidance on how it should develop disclosure requirements in Standards. The guidance has been trialled for IAS 19 Employee Benefits and IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. Information is required to assess whether this approach will improve the usefulness of disclosures provided and address the disclosure overload problem.
• Role of materiality in high quality disclosure and the impact of guidance on materiality. IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements includes requirements relating to the presentation of financial statements and defines material information. In 2017 the IASB issued the IFRS Practice Statement 2 Making Materiality Judgements. The aim of the Practice Statement was to provide entities with guidance on making materiality judgements when preparing IFRS financial statements.
• Financial reporting and narrative disclosures. Extensive disclosures are a feature of financial statements based on IFRS Standards. However, many companies provide additional narrative disclosures. The IASB issued the IFRS Practice Statement Management Commentary: A Framework for Presentation in 2010 and is currently revising this Practice Statement and seeking feedback on its proposals.
• Taxonomy and benefits of tagged financial statements. The IFRS Taxonomy enables companies to tag the disclosures in their financial statements, including specific tagging of line items and text block tagging of note disclosures. Recently, more regulators have required the tagging of IFRS financial statements (eg the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the European Securities and Market Authority (ESMA)) and more data aggregators are providing access to tagged information. The electronic tagging of note disclosures provides researchers and users with broader access to disclosures, which may provide new ways of processing data for research purposes.

C. Alternative Research Approaches

Virtually all of the literature on disclosures employs disclosure indices to capture disclosure and compliance levels, and most draws on quantitative methods to examine potential determinants of (non)disclosure.

The aim of this call for papers is also to elicit other forms of evidence than the purely quantitative, since quantitative research cannot capture all factors that influence corporate reporting practices. Qualitative approaches may therefore be better able to shed light on internal organisational influences on corporate disclosure decision, or on users’ information processing. Qualitative approaches may also be especially useful to explore the quality and content of disclosures. Thus, although quantitative research is welcome, we are particularly interested in research based on interpretative paradigms and qualitative methods, including, but not limited to, interviews, qualitative surveys, observation, (critical) discourse analysis, interpretative content analysis, as well as normative and conceptual contributions.

Guest Editors:

Lisa Evans, University of Stirling, [email protected]

Ioannis Tsalavoutas, University of Glasgow, [email protected]

Fanis Tsoligkas, University of Bath, [email protected]

Submission and Review Process

Authors are invited to submit their draft papers to the guest Editors via e-mail to [email protected] by 31 January 2022. With this preliminary submission, authors should state

• by which journal (Accounting in Europe or The British Accounting Review) they wish their paper to be considered for publication, or whether they have not such preference, and
• if relevant, why they believe their paper best fits within the scope of that journal.

By mid-February 2022, authors will be informed whether their paper will be considered for the special issues, and to which journal they are invited to submit. Papers will be subject to the usual double-blind review process. While the IASB is actively encouraging submissions, the review process will be completely independent of the IFRS Foundation and its subsidiary bodies. The editor of Accounting in Europe and the joint editors of The British Accounting review, respectively, will oversee the final set of accepted papers prior to publication. It is expected that accepted papers will be published during the first half of 2023. There is no submission fee.

Any queries about the special issue should be directed to the guest editors.

Accepted papers will be highlighted on the website of the IFRS Foundation.

Workshop

To enable authors to improve their work and to draw their findings to the attention of standard setters and practitioners in a timely way, authors of selected papers will be invited to present their work at a workshop in June-August 2022 (exact dates to be announced at a later stage), organised by the Adam Smith Observatory of Corporate Reporting Practices (Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow).

Each paper will benefit from constructive feedback from one discussant and an open exchange with the invited audience, which will comprise academics and nonacademics (including representatives from the IASB). Authors wishing to present at the workshop should express their interest with their initial paper submission. There is no registration fee. Further details on the workshop will be provided here: https://www.gla.ac.uk/research/az/adamsmithobservatory/ (more information about the event will be live from autumn 2021).

Special Issue: ‘Exploring accounting history’

Introduction

Accounting is often perceived as a discipline focused upon contemporary issues. It seems often to be believed that every issue is new, and that solutions need a modern perspective. Most of the issues that arise in accounting are not ‘new’; while, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Santayana 1905, 284). History teaches us all lessons about circumstances that have existed and how to address them. Yet, we continuously ignore the lessons of the past and endeavour to deal with our problems in a way almost only informed by present-day opinion and perspectives.

Most accounting topics researched today have a past that deserves consideration and investigation, including: earnings management; auditing; public sector accounting; crowd funding; bitcoin; blockchain; accruals accounting; estates accounting; joint venture accounting; financial accounting; financial reporting; and management accounting, all of which have antecedents hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of years into the past. Contemporary accounting research could and should benefit from an understanding of how these and similar topics were addressed in the past.

Aims of the special issue

The aims of this special issue of British Accounting Review are:

1. To consider the historical development of accounting thought and practice;
2. To embrace subject matter related to accounting history including, but not limited to, providing a historical perspective on contemporary accounting issues; and
3. To demonstrate the relevance of accounting history to the present day, present day problems, and present day solutions. 

Approach, methodology, etc

Submissions to this special issue may adopt any appropriate approach, including theoretical, archival, and empirical. A range of research methodologies are welcomed including, but not limited to biography, cliometrics, content analysis, hermeneutics, oral history, prosopography, and social networks. Submissions may adopt a new accounting history, traditional accounting history, or a mixed accounting history perspective.

Timescale

In order to achieve timely publication, the review process will observe a strict series of deadlines. Authors submitting papers to this special issue will need to observe those deadlines. These are as follows: 

Submission deadline:     31st March, 2019
1st round feedback:    31st August, 2019
Revised submission:    31st October, 2019
2nd round feedback:    31st January, 2020
Revised submission:    31st March 2020

Final decisions on papers still in the process will be taken by April 2020. Any further review on papers provisionally accepted at that point will normally be undertaken by the guest editors.

Guest Editors

Alan Sangster, University of Aberdeen ([email protected])

Karen McBride, University of Portsmouth ([email protected])

Shraddha Verma, The Open University ([email protected])

Submission instructions

• The submission deadline for this special issue is 31 March 2019.
• Submitted papers should not be previously published or under review for publication elsewhere.
• The format of the papers must follow the submission guidelines of the British Accounting Review.
• Each paper will be reviewed by the Guest Editors and, if judged suitable for this publication, will be subject to double-blind refereeing.
• All accepted papers must have originality in their contributions and have attained the high research standard of the British Accounting Review.
• Please submit your paper online: http://ees.elsevier .com/bar/ 
• Create an author account, then follow the on-screen guidance which will take you through the submission process.
• The Joint- Editors of the British Accounting Review will exercise an oversight role prior to publication.

Reference

Santayana, G. (1905). The Life of Reason. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

Special Issue: Modern slavery and the accounting profession

Special Issue: Modern slavery and the accounting profession

Modern slavery issues are gaining greater prominence for contemporary organisations, largely because of increasing public pressure, stakeholder expectations and legislation. Such issues in the field of accounting are directly related to the need for research into the development of awareness, management, communication and accountability processes which includes, but is not limited to, assurance and credibility of disclosures. Concentrated research attention is needed if modern slavery is to be eliminated by 2030 as targeted through the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. While such need has already been acknowledged in management and sociology research (see Stevenson and Cole, 2018; Patterson & Zhuo, 2018; Cooke, 2003; Crane, 2013. Bales & Soodalter, 2009) academics need to come forward to address some of the burning modern slavery research issues facing the accounting discipline. The identification and emergence into public perception of modern slavery as a key issue presents a challenge for the three pillars of the accounting profession: practitioners in business and in firms providing accounting services, the professional bodies and academics. The role of the accounting profession in modern slavery needs to be investigated from constructive as well as critical perspectives.

Regulators, at both global and local levels, are now engaging with corporate disclosure to highlight the extent to which modern slavery exists and to reveal the extent of corporate efforts to identify and fight it, especially in global supply chains. Examples of disclosure-based regulation to emerge in recent years include the California Transparency in Supply Chain Act, Dodd-Frank Act’s conflict minerals rule in the US, the UK Modern Slavery Act, the Modern Slavery Act (NSW) and a proposed Australian Modern Slavery Act. As a result, contemporary organisations face the challenge of developing solutions to deal with the complexity of integrating organisational economic and social performance associated with the identification and avoidance of modern slavery. The new wave of modern slavery legislation requires large firms to manage and disclose actions undertaken to address modern slavery in their direct operations and supply chains (Islam & van Staden, 2018). Small and medium sized entities as suppliers of goods and services may also find management of modern slavery to be a consideration, or requirement, for establishing and continuing sales to downstream entities.

Modern slavery could impact on the accounting profession in several ways including:

• Management accountants in business need to build up their modern slavery management accounting practices, including developing strategy, planning and control of investments and operations, benchmarking modern slavery practices, developing real time monitoring and key performance indicators.
• Current and future professional practitioners need education and training about modern slavery requirements and how organisations might move beyond regulation in order to secure a competitive advantage.
• Educational institutions need to up skill their staff and change their curricula to develop an appropriate educational platform on modern slavery requirements and the international and local contexts which are likely to guide future changes.
• Partners in accounting firms need to familiarise themselves with the needs of corporate clients who are directly (e.g. companies above the threshold for reporting) and indirectly (e.g. companies below the threshold for reporting but located in the supply chains of required reporters) affected by modern slavery legislation.
• Professional accounting bodies need to support their members, within the bounds of the public interest, with professional development and lobbying activities on modern slavery.
• Assurance providers can engage in the strategic process of their corporate client’s modern slavery disclosure production to affect transparency (Christ, Burritt & Rao, 2017), policy guideline advice to minimise risk from non- transparency (Christ et al., 2017), and challenges to both internal and external auditing (Islam, 2018).
• Finally, given the structure of corporate governance, chief executive officers, accountants, and finance directors have a role to influence corporate boards in resource allocation and investment. Such a role is crucial if socially responsible investment is targeted, or if general investment is to be humane and ethical. The broader board level decision making process for controlling modern slavery needs to be considered (Radeke & Coles, 2018).

While modern slavery-related disclosure and audit is the cornerstone of external corporate accountability and transparency in the context of modern slavery regulation, research must be extended to consider all the challenges accountants face in coping with the phenomenon, and how management, practitioners, professional bodies and academics can help. 

It is expected that there will be significant change in the accounting profession by 2030 because of growing concern over the full range of sustainability issues including modern slavery, and their association with new approaches to the business cases driving management (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2018), external disclosure and accountability regulation such as that embodied within various modern slavery Acts. Members of accounting bodies are already beginning to engage in this transformation process (Islam, 2017). The implication is that transdisciplinary teams (Christ & Burritt, 2018b; Islam, 2017) developing different, but relevant, indicators of success will come together to integrate monetary and physical metrics necessary for assessing success for individual organisations striving towards zero modern slavery in their businesses, and in the industries in which they operate. In particular, when making resource allocation decisions at the corporate level it is imperative that accountants and finance directors together with other board members involved consider the issue of slavery.

The emphasis of this Special Issue is to understand how the modern slavery management and institutional landscape will shape the future of the accounting profession.

The call for this Special Issue covers, but is not limited to, the following topics:

• Accounting, its contribution to our understandings of economic performance, and the impetus to perpetuate slavery.
• Modern slavery and conflicting interests - the moral and commercial implications for organisation of fair wages, working conditions and exploitation in the developing and developed world.
  • The role of the accounting profession in striving towards elimination of modern slavery in global supply chains
  • Modern slavery and the profession’s role in management, responsibility and accountability
  • Management accountants and control of modern slavery in organisations
  • Modern slavery accounting benchmarking processes and standards
  • Opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution for modern slavery accounting and/or auditing e,g. blockchain
  • Practitioner engagement in production and communication of modern slavery statements and other related disclosures
  • Transdisciplinary challenges and accounting for modern slavery
  • The potential contribution of accounting education and training to eliminating modern slavery
  • The role of professional associations in accounting for modern slavery
  • Modern slavery assurance and audit - internal and external audit of corporate management practices and disclosures on modern slavery
  • National and international institutional influences on accounting and modern slavery
  • Etc…

Guidelines for authors

• Submissions to the journal should be to the guest co-editors of the Special Issue (see below).
• The authors need to submit their papers for the Special Issue of the British Accounting Review (using the Elsevier Editorial System for the British Accounting Review using http://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-british-accounting-review/).
• The submission deadline for receipt of papers for the special issue is 31 July, 2021.
• Note that all invited submissions to the British Accounting Review will be subject to double-blind refereeing.
• It is intended that the special issue will be published by July 2022.
• All accepted papers must have originality in their contributions and have attained the high research standard of the British Accounting Review.
• The Joint-Editors of the British Accounting Review will exercise an oversight role prior to publication.

Guest Co-editors

Professor M. Azizul Islam, University of Aberdeen, UK (email: [email protected])

Dr. Katherine L. Christ, University of South Australia, Australia (email: [email protected])

Professor Roger L, Burritt, Australian National University, Australia (email: [email protected])

Important dates

Submission deadline: 31st July, 2021.

Publication date: July 2022.

References

Bales K., Soodalter R. (2009). The slave next door: Human trafficking and slavery in America today. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burritt, R.L., Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829-846.

Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L. (2018a). Current perceptions on the problem of modern slavery in business. Business Strategy and Development, 1, 103–114.

Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L. (2018b). The role for transdisciplinarity in water accounting by business: reflections and opportunities. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 1-19.

Christ, K.L., Burritt, R.L., Rao, K. (2017). Modern slavery and how accountants can fight it’, Acuity Magazine (online), 21 August 2017, available on the internet at https://www.acuitymag.com/business/how-modern-slavery-impacts-big-brands-and-accountants Accessed 02.08.18

Cooke B. (2003). The denial of slavery in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1895–1918.

Crane A. (2013). Modern Slavery as a Management Practice: Exploring the Conditions and Capabilities for Human Exploitation, Academy of Management Review. 38(1), 46-69.

Islam, M. A. (2017). Future of Accounting Profession: Three major changes and implication for Teaching and Research, Global Knowledge Gateway, International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), available on the internet at http://www.ifac.org/global-knowledge-gateway/business- reporting/discussion/future-accounting-profession-three-majorAccessed 02.08.18

Islam, M.A. (2018). Tackling Modern Slavery: What Role Can Accountants Play?, Global Knowledge Gateway, International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), available on the internet at http://www.ifac.org/global-knowledge-gateway/audit-assurance/discussion/tackling-modern- slavery-what-role-can Accessed 02.08.18

Islam, M.A., van Staden, C.J. (2018). Social movement NGOs and the comprehensiveness of conflict mineral disclosures: evidence from global companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 65, 1-19.

Patterson, O., Zhuo, X. (2018). Modern Trafficking, Slavery, and Other Forms of Servitude. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 407-439.

Radeke, J., Coles, T. (2018). Better corporate governance can end slavery in supply chains, Corporate Knights, Spring Issue, http://www.corporateknights.com/channels/supply-chain/better-corporate-governance-can-end-slavery-supply-chains-15210036/

Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R. (2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 241-259.

Stevenson, M., Cole, R. (2018). Modern slavery in supply chains: a secondary data analysis of detection, remediation and disclosure. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(3), 81-99.