We examine income-shifting dynamics by Oil and Gas firms, focusing on the impact of preferential tax treatments, dividend withholding taxes, and the international implementation of stricter anti-tax avoidance policies. Using 41,030 affiliate-year observations from 145 firms across 85 countries between 2007 and 2019, we document significant income-shifting across jurisdictions. Additionally, we find a strong decline in income-shifting following the 2016 implementation of multilateral anti-tax avoidance measures, including the EU's Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive and the OECD/G20′s BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting), suggesting the effectiveness of these reforms in curbing aggressive tax planning in the sector. We also show that income-shifting is shaped by country-level fiscal policies. It is particularly less pronounced in countries offering substantial subsidies to the O&G sector and more prevalent in jurisdictions with high dividend withholding taxes. Finally, income-shifting strategies respond to oil price fluctuations, underscoring the interaction between market conditions, regulatory reforms, and fiscal policy design.

This study investigates the association between book-tax differences and financial reporting quality among firms listed on the Athens Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2021. Using discretionary accrual-based and real earnings management measures, we find that book-tax differences are positively associated with discretionary accrual-based earnings management, suggesting earnings manipulation. Firms with larger book-tax differences also tend to report either high profits or losses. However, the impact on real earnings management measures is less consistent. We also examine the role of capital controls, showing that while they do not systematically alter the book-tax differences–financial reporting quality relationship, they increase accrual-based earnings management and constrain certain real earnings management practices.

This paper explores how institutional logics influenced the preparedness of 229 Portuguese public sector entities to transition to an IPSAS-based accounting system. Using a novel entity-level proxy capturing the ‘middle-phase’ between adoption and implementation, we find that financial accounting logic significantly enhanced preparedness, especially when combined with market logic. These effects weakened when coercive pressures declined, revealing strategic compliance behavior. Contrary to expectations, IPSAS logic alone did not drive engagement, thereby challenging legitimacy-based adoption explanations. Group logic positively influenced the initiation of preparedness efforts. The academic qualifications of staff leading the transition, and the entity’s subsector, also shaped levels of preparedness, highlighting the importance of organizational context and formal education. Overall, the findings provide new insights into how institutional logics shape reform trajectories. The proxy developed offers a practical diagnostic tool for regulators and policymakers, particularly in jurisdictions initiating IPSAS or similar accounting reforms.

The reporting of unaccounted intangibles remains a complex and unresolved issue in financial accounting. Recent regulatory developments, including possible revisions to IAS 38 and new sustainability reporting requirements, have renewed interest in how such resources should be measured, reported and disclosed. Through a survey-based analysis this study firstly explores the contingency factors that affect the views of preparers, users, and professionals on the treatment of unaccounted intangibles as well as their costs-benefits considerations. Results show that professional role significantly shapes preferences. From a tradeoffs perspective, preparers generally adopt more conservative positions, consultants and auditors call for reform and users tend to rely on resources other than the financial statements. By examining all key stakeholder groups jointly, the study highlights important considerations for different regimes for accounting on intangibles. These findings offer timely and practical insights for standard setters aiming to improve the relevance of financial reporting.

We study whether auditors feel anxiety stemming from detection risk in their work and the consequences of anxiety for job satisfaction and job retention. Our survey of Finnish auditors and exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors we label Productive Anxiety and Unproductive Anxiety, which explain anxiety related to detection risk. We suggest that Productive Anxiety is typical in the auditing profession and helps cope with detection risk. However, Unproductive Anxiety represents personal anxiety that may involve elements of fear of the consequences of audit failure and undermine the intentions to remain in the audit field. We applied structural equation modelling and found a negative mediation effect from Unproductive Anxiety on job retention via lower job satisfaction. The open answers in our survey were also qualitatively analysed, and the survey findings and possible implications were discussed with a professional auditor.

The accounting profession is a web of interconnected global, national, and local niches, shaped by professional standards, national laws and provincial practices. Using niche construction theory and archival analysis, we explore to what extent the Italian profession ecosystem embeds international standards or local and national professional knowledge and practices. We study how local practices are influenced by national law, professional bodies, and global harmonization efforts by IFAC. Findings reveal that local practitioners resist global and national influences due to the persistence of inherited cultural practices. We show a disconnect between these three levels, allowing the local to dominate. Three policy and practical implications emerge: all professional bodies should standardize practices across boundaries; rigorous oversight is needed by IFAC of its member bodies and branches; the movement of accountants across niches will foster the sharing of idiosyncratic practices. Together, these recommendations will bring about greater harmonization, ultimately safeguarding the public interest.

Does more information about sustainability lead to more sustainable outcomes, or does it lead to more greenwashing? We hold the latter view. European Sustainability Reporting Standards are insufficiently ‘green’ such that the process can be described as one of political ‘capture.’ It seems an impossible task to summarize the ESG footprint of diverse firms with any acceptable level of decision-usefulness. We advocate replacing ESG reporting standards with an ‘over-the-fence’ regulatory model inspired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This model emphasizes clear, enforceable, science-based environmental standards with binary compliance outcomes (pass/fail), monitored by well-funded public authorities. Unlike current ESG regimes, this approach would reduce information overload, improve accountability, and better align corporate behavior with societal goals. Such an EPA-style system offers a more effective and credible path forward for ESG governance, rather than delegating ESG to beauty contests involving consultants, bankers, lawyers, and rating agencies as self-interested judges.

The potential benefits of joint audits for audit quality and audit market competition remain the subject of ongoing debates in Europe. Within this context, a consensus emphasizes the importance of a balanced allocation of work between the two audit firms. This raises questions about the factors that may hinder the implementation of balanced joint audits. We examine the supply-side determinants of joint-audit imbalance in the French setting. We find that mixed joint auditor pairings, involving a Big 4 and a Non Big 4, are a primary driver of imbalance, reflecting differences in reputation, technology and resources. Moreover, frequent collaboration between joint auditors and disparities in industry specialization further contribute to the imbalance. Our findings provide insights into the role of auditors’ production functions in shaping the (in)ability to achieve balanced joint audits. Consequently, requiring strictly balanced joint audits may limit the ability to involve smaller audit firms as joint auditors.

ABSTRACT The objective of this paper is to provide insights into the textual attributes of biodiversity disclosures and the extent to which they participate in better disclosures. This work also aims to identify the drivers of these attributes. Through an analysis of listed firms in the mandatory French context, we demonstrate that the sectoral risk profile of companies and their acknowledgement of significant risks of impacts and dependencies on biodiversity influence the textual attributes of biodiversity disclosures. In low-risk sectors, firms provide higher-quality disclosures than do those in moderate-risk sectors due to more quantified and neutral information. In high-risk sectors, firms that recognise significant risks also have better disclosures. They disseminate more numerous, quantitative, and readable information. Conversely, those that do not recognise risks exhibit slightly lower-quality disclosures than do firms in moderate-risk sectors. Through legitimacy and impression management theories, we contribute to an in-depth understanding of how strategies for reducing the legitimacy gap or defensive/assertive impression management are achieved and, therefore, of the factors involved in improving biodiversity disclosures and commitments.

This paper offers a review of the recent literature examining the adoption of the new revenue recognition accounting standards under IFRS (IFRS 15) and US GAAP (ASC 606). Drawing on questions from the post-implementation reviews aimed at academics, this literature review synthesises and analyses 52 relevant academic studies. We utilise a proposed framework of the economic consequences of regulatory changes, identify gaps in the literature, and propose future research. This study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the implications of the new revenue recognition standards, thereby enlightening standard-setters on the effects of these changes and ultimately bridging the demand and supply of accounting research.