Workforce environment and audit fees: International evidence

Sun, Xuan Sean; Habib, Ahsan; Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin

doi:10.1016/j.jcae.2020.100182

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, following Sun et al (2020), we used instrumental variables in a two‐stage‐least‐squares (2SLS) regression. We argue, based on mimetic isomorphism of institutional theory, that there is a mimetic effect on firms (Reppenhagen, 2010), inducing firms to disclose quality carbon information if their competitors adopt the same practice.…”

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic versus cosmetic efforts of the quality of carbon reporting by top New Zealand firms. Does market reward or penalise?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores the quality of carbon reporting (QCR) by New Zealand (NZ) firms and its changes over time. It also explores the impact of QCR on the market reputation of firms. Using a sample of 300 company‐year observations between 2015 and 2020 from top listed firms of NZ, the study develops a 14‐item QCR index. The study finds that the company‐level QCR reporting by NZ firms overall is not praiseworthy, as firms need to improve QCR in many aspects (both in‐house efforts as well as external reporting). Although QCR has increased over time, firms' QCR efforts cannot be treated completely authentic. Majority of firms in NZ have disclosed unaudited carbon information to investors and other stakeholders. Additionally, our study finds that QCR positively affects the market reputations of firms, and the market behaves accordingly. Specifically, firms' organic carbon efforts are paid‐off (through increased market reputation) by the market players and cosmetic/decoupled behaviour is penalised (through decreased market reputation). This study is the first on QCR reporting using a sample of NZ firms and an account of their initiatives towards the carbon emission reduction initiative and related disclosures. The study's findings have policy implications.

show abstract

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organic versus cosmetic efforts of the quality of carbon reporting by top New Zealand firms. Does market reward or penalise?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, to control for endogeneity and potential reverse causality between disclosure and performance, we adopt two-staged least squares procedures (2SLS). Following prior studies (Cheng et al , 2014; Gupta and Krishnamurti, 2020; Sun et al , 2020), in the first stage, we estimate CCPER t−1 and CCDIS t−1 based on the country-year mean ( CCPER t−1 _COUNTRY; CCDIS t−1 _INDUSTRY ) and the industry-year mean ( CCDIS t−1 _COUNTRY; CCDIS t−1 _INDUSTRY ) and CCDIS t−1 and CCPER t−1 , respectively. In the second stage, we replace the original CCPER t−1 and CCDI S t−1 with the predicted CCPER t−1 and CCDIS t−1 generated from the first stage.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change disclosure ratings: the ideological play

Bui

Chelli

Houqe

2021

MEDAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of climate change rating organisations on rated firms, to understand whether disclosure ratings can facilitate enhanced emissions performance. Design/methodology/approach This study uses 1,848 cross-country firm-year observations from organisations that responded to the carbon disclosure project (the rater) between 2011 and 2015 and, hence, were rated for their disclosure. Drawing on the ideology of numbers, this paper hypothesises that the disciplinary power of ratings will result in rated firms improving their subsequent disclosure scores. Following the environmentally-friendly ideology, this study hypothesises that poorly-rated firms will adopt decoupling behaviour, by improving their climate change disclosure scores without reducing the intensity of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Findings The results indicate that climate change disclosure ratings pressure poorly-rated firms to improve their disclosure scores in subsequent years, yet these firms are not inclined to lower their GHG emissions. Further, the direct publication of firms’ GHG emissions intensity can exert some restricted disciplinary impact on rated firms, as the more polluting firms tend to improve their subsequent climate change performance compared with those having lower emissions levels. Practical implications This paper argues that the ability of corporate sustainability rating schemes to influence corporate behaviour comprehensively is limited and should be used with caution. Originality/value This paper sheds new light on the ideological dynamics at play between the rater and the rated, while highlighting new aspects of the power-rating nexus in the climate change arena.

show abstract

“…Conceptually, the workforce environment encompasses employee recognition and reward systems, the provision of employee support, responding to employee concerns, and providing direction (see Koys and DeCotiis 2015). A firm which creates a workforce environment with well-constituted elements has a supportive environment for organizational success (Sun et al 2020).…”

Section: Workforce Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impliedly, the internal dynamics of an entity's processes and procedures for managing its resources may be critical for firm effectiveness and efficiency. Arguments premised on resource-based theory suggest that workforce environment quality of a firm may constituent a resource for sustained competitive advantage due to its ability to enhance organizational competencies for firm success (Sun et al 2020). Workforce environment practices such as employee recognition and reward systems, the provision of employee support, and the provision of adequate responses to employee concerns among others are common practices for attaining organizational efficiency.…”

Section: Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We followed Sun et al (2020) in measuring our proxy for workforce environment quality (WFEQ). Consistent with Sun et al (2020), we collected data on the 20 list items used in measuring workforce environment quality and applied the same measurement procedure to determine workforce environment quality for listed Australian firms in our sample. Workforce environment quality is the sum of a firm's score out of 20.…”

Section: Independent Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender Diversity and Human Capital Efficiency in Australian Institutions: The Moderating Role of Workforce Environment Quality

Miglani

Obeng

2023

JRFM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the relationship between board gender diversity and human capital efficiency and further consider the moderating role of workforce environment quality from the perspectives of profit-making and loss-making firms. Using a sample of 2700 firm-year observations from listed Australian firms for the period 2008–2019, we found a positive relationship between the presence of females on boards and human capital efficiency which was more pronounced for loss-making firms as against profit-making firms. Additionally, the relationship between gender diversity and human capital efficiency was moderated by the quality of workforce environment with the moderating effect being more pronounced for loss-making firms as compared to profit-making firms. Board gender diversity plays a substitutive role in the management of human capital efficiency for loss-making firms where investment in human capital development is limited.

show abstract

Workforce environment and audit fees: International evidence

Cited by 15 publications

References 79 publications

Organic versus cosmetic efforts of the quality of carbon reporting by top New Zealand firms. Does market reward or penalise?

Organic versus cosmetic efforts of the quality of carbon reporting by top New Zealand firms. Does market reward or penalise?

Climate change disclosure ratings: the ideological play

Gender Diversity and Human Capital Efficiency in Australian Institutions: The Moderating Role of Workforce Environment Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About