Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 90, Supplement 2, pp 179–197 | Cite as

Corporate Governance and the Responsibility of the Board of Directors for Strategic Financial Reporting

Article
First Online:

Abstract

One of the fundamental principles of good corporate governance is transparency, i.e., the disclosure of private information to external stakeholders, so that they may make judgments and decisions relating to the corporation. Equally important, but less discussed, is the competing value that corporations need to protect legitimate secrets. Corporations thus need a communication strategy for dealing with external stakeholders which addresses the conflict between disclosure and secrecy. This article focuses on an important element of that communication strategy in the context of financial reporting: the possibility that corporate insiders may consider it in their interest, or in the interest of specific stakeholders, to alter or manipulate the financial information that it discloses publicly. Using concepts from the corporate governance and financial reporting literatures, it addresses the ethical question of who (management or the board of directors) should be responsible for making the fundamental strategic choices whether and (if so) how the corporation alters or manipulates the financial information. This article argues that the board of directors is responsible for formulating (and monitoring) the corporation's communication strategy, and that management is responsible for carrying it out.

Keywords

corporate governance disclosure earnings management ethics of earnings management financial report management financial reporting secrecy strategic financial reporting 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Babcock, L., G. Loewenstein, S Issacharoff, and C. Camerer (1995) Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining. American Economic Review 85: 1337-1342.Google Scholar
  2. Bagley, C. E. (2006) Shareholder Primacy is a Choice, Not a Legal Mandate. In Epstein, M. E. and K. O. Hanson, (eds.) The Accountable Corporation Volume 1: Corporate Governance. Westport, CT: Praeger. Pp. 85-105.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, M. E., G. Clinch, and M. W. Finn (1999) “Market Rewards Associated with Patterns of Increasing Earnings”. Journal of Accounting Research, 37: 387-413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baums, T, and K. E. Scott (2005) Taking Shareholders Seriously? Corporate Governance in the US and Germany. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 17(4): 44-63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bok. S. (1984) Secrets. New York: Vintage BooksGoogle Scholar
  6. DeCew, J.: 2008, “Privacy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/privacy/.
  7. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB): 2008, ‘Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1: Objectives of Financial Reporting by Business Enterprises, as Amended’, Originally Published 1980, http://fasb.org/pdf/aop_CON1.pdf.
  8. Financial Accounting Standards Board/International Accounting Standards Board (FASB/IASB): 2008, ‘EXPOSURE DRAFT: Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting: The Objective of Financial Reporting and Qualitative Characteristics and Constraints of Decision-Useful Financial Reporting Information’, File Reference No. 1570-100, http://www.fasb.org/draft/ed_conceptual_framework_for_fin_reporting.pdf.
  9. Gaa, J. C. (1986) User Primacy in Financial Reporting Rulemaking: A Social Contract Approach. The Accounting Review 61: 435-54.Google Scholar
  10. Gaa, J.C.: 1988, Methodological Foundations of Standardsetting for Corporate Financial Reporting, Studies in Accounting Research No. 28 (American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL).Google Scholar
  11. Glassman, C. A.: 2006, ‘Corporate Governance in the United States’, http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch062706.htm.
  12. Graham, J. R., R. H. Campbell and S. Rajgopal (2005) “The economic implications of corporate financial reporting.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 40 (1-3): 3-73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healy, Paul M. 1985. “The Effect of Bonus Schemes on Accounting Decisions.” Journal of Accounting & Economics 7(1-3): 85-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Healy, P. M. and J. M. Wahlen: 1999, A Review of the Earnings Management Literature and Its Implications for Standard Setting. Accounting Horizons 13: 365-383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC): 2008, ‘The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements. ISA 240’, in Handbook of International Auditing, Assurance, and Ethics Pronouncements, 2008 edition (International Federation of Accountants, New York), http://www.ifac.org/Members/DownLoads/2008_IAASB_Handbook_Part_I-Compilation.pdf.
  16. Jensen, M. C.: 2006, ‘Putting Integrity into Finance Theory and Practice: A Positive Approach (pdf of Keynote slides)’ (Oct. 2006), Harvard NOM Working Paper No. 06-06. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=876312.
  17. Marquardt, C.A. and Weidman, C.I. 2004. How are earnings managed? An examination of specific accruals. Contemporary Accounting Research 21(2): 461-491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McEnally, R. T. and P. D. Walters: 2003, ‘The Critical Nature of Neutral Financial Reporting’, The FASB Report August 29, 2003, http://fasb.org/articles&reports/constituents_tfr_aug_2003.pdf.
  19. Merchant, K. A. and J. Rockness (1994) The Ethics of Managing Earnings: an Empirical Investigation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 13: 79-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson, M. W.; Elliott, J. A.; Tarpley, R. L. 2003 How are Earnings Managed? Examples from Auditors. Accounting Horizons 17(suppl): 17-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada: 2007, ‘Backgrounder: The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act’, http://www.priv.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_07_e.cfm.
  22. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): 2004, ‘OECD Principles of Corporate Governance’, Revised Edition, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf.
  23. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): 2008, ‘Using the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance: A Boardroom Perspective’, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/60/40823806.pdf.
  24. Paton, W. A. and A. C. Littleton (1940) An Introduction to Corporate Accounting Standards. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.Google Scholar
  25. Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB): 2007, ‘Auditing Standard No. 5 – An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting That Is Integrated with An Audit of Financial Statements’, http://www.pcaobus.org/Rules/Rules_of_the_Board/Auditing_Standard_5.pdf.
  26. Ronen, J. and Sadan, S. (1981) Smoothing Income Numbers: Objectives and implications. Reading, MA: Addison Wellesley.Google Scholar
  27. Roychowdhury, S. (2006) Earnings management through real activities manipulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 42(3): 335-370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schipper, K.: 1989, ‘Commentary on Earnings Management’, Accounting Horizons 3(4), 91–102.Google Scholar
  29. Securities and Exchange Commission: 2000, ‘Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading’, 17 CFR Parts 240, 243, and 249, Release Nos. 33-7881, 34-43154, IC-24599, File No. S7-31-99, RIN 3235-AH82, http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm.
  30. Staubus, G. J. (2005) “Ethics Failures in Corporate Financial Reporting.” Journal of Business Ethics 57: 5-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Supreme Court of Canada: 2004, ‘Peoples Department Stores Inc. (Trustee of) v. Wise, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 461, 2004 SCC 68’, http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc68/2004scc68.html.
  32. Tucker, J. W. and P. A. Zarowin (2006) Does Income Smoothing Improve Earnings Informativeness? The Accounting Review 81(1): 251-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. U.S. Government: 1933, ‘Securities Act of 1933’, http://sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf.
  34. U.S. Government: 1934, ‘Securities Exchange Act of 1934’, http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sea34.pdf.
  35. U.S. Government: 2002, ‘Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002’, H.R. 3763, http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf.
  36. Watts, R. L. (2003) Conservatism in Accounting Part I: Explanations and Implications.” Accounting Horizons 17(3): 207-221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations