The Role of Going Concern Evaluation in Both Prediction and Explanation of Corporate Financial Distress: Concluding Remarks and Future Trends

  • Marisa Agostini


This chapter reviews the main research questions raised in the previous chapters. Their answers will enable us to formulate some concluding remarks about the evaluation of corporate financial distress according to going concern standards in both international and US contexts. In particular this chapter aims at summarizing the main points considered in the book with a view to re-evaluating and updating the existing literature about the concept of corporate financial distress, the types of corporate distressed paths, the prediction and evaluation of corporate financial distress from the viewpoint of different stakeholders, the way in which managers and auditors influence and evaluate the corporate communication of financial distress, the results, and the implications of the convergence process implemented by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) regarding going concern evaluation.


Accounting conservatism Corporate financial distress Corporate recovery Going concern Managers’ and auditors’ responsibilities 


  1. Al-Hadi, A., Chatterjee, B., Yaftian, A., Taylor, G., & Monzur Hasan, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility performance, financial distress and firm life cycle: Evidence from Australia. Accounting & Finance.
  2. Altman, E. I. (1983). Corporate distress: A complete guide to predicting, avoiding, and dealing with bankruptcy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Argenti, J. (1976). Corporate planning and corporate collapse. Long Range Planning, 9(6), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Basu, S. (1997). The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings1. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biddle, G. C., Ma, M. L., & Song, F. M. (2013). The risk management role of accounting conservatism for operating cash flows. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from or
  6. Bradford, W. C. (2014). Because that’s where the money is: A theory of corporate legal compliance. Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law, 8, 337.Google Scholar
  7. Chui, L., & Pike, B. (2013). Auditors’ responsibility for fraud detection: New wine in old bottles? Journal of Forensic and Investigative Accounting, 5(1), 204–233.Google Scholar
  8. Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe: IL7 Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Deegan, C. (2002). Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures—A theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donovan, J., Frankel, R. M., & Martin, X. (2015). Accounting conservatism and creditor recovery rate. The Accounting Review, 90(6), 2267–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2014). Presentation of financial statements—Going concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of uncertainties about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014–15. Norwalk, CT: Author.Google Scholar
  12. Gerson, J. S., Brolly, J. P., & Skalak, S. L. (2006). The roles of the auditor and the forensic accounting investigator. In T. W. Golden, S. L. Skalak, & M. M. Clayton (Eds.), A guide to forensic accounting investigation (pp. 243–257). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Hoi, C. K., Wu, Q., & Zhang, H. (2013). Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) associated with tax avoidance? Evidence from irresponsible CSR activities. The Accounting Review, 88(6), 2025–2059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopwood, W. S., Leiner, J. J., & Young, D. G. R. (2012). Forensic accounting and fraud examination. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Jamal, K. (2008). Mandatory audit of financial reporting: A failed strategy for dealing with fraud. Accounting Perspectives, 7(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keasey, K., Pindado, J., & Rodrigues, L. (2015). The determinants of the costs of financial distress in SMEs. International Small Business Journal, 33(8), 862–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koh, S., Durand, R. B., Dai, L., & Chang, M. (2015). Financial distress: Lifecycle and corporate restructuring. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Langevoort, D. C. (2002). Monitoring: The behavioral economics of corporate compliance with law. Columbia Business Law Review, 71, 77–117.Google Scholar
  19. Li, X., & Yang, H. I. (2015). Mandatory financial reporting and voluntary disclosure: The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on management forecasts. The Accounting Review, 91(3), 933–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosen, L. S. (2006). CAP forum on forensic accounting in the post-enron world: Accounting and auditing education reform. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 5(2), 275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarbanes, P. (2002, July). Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002. In The Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. Washington, DC: US Congress.Google Scholar
  22. Silverstone, H., & Davia, H. R. (2005). Fraud 101: Techniques and strategies for detection. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  23. Singleton, T. W., Singleton, A. J., Bologna, G. J., & Lindquist, R. J. (2006). Fraud auditing and forensic accounting. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  24. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 59. (AICPA, 1989). The Auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.Google Scholar
  25. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 82. (AICPA, 1997). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit.Google Scholar
  26. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99. (AICPA, 2002). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit.Google Scholar
  27. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 132. (AICPA, 2017). The Auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.Google Scholar
  28. Tan, L. (2013). Creditor control rights, state of nature verification, and financial reporting conservatism. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 55(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watts, R. L. (2003a). Conservatism in accounting part I: Explanations and implications. Accounting Horizons, 17(3), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Watts, R. L. (2003b). Conservatism in accounting part II: Evidence and research opportunities. Accounting Horizons, 17(4), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zhang, J. (2008). The contracting benefits of accounting conservatism to lenders and borrowers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marisa Agostini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementCa’ Foscari UniversityVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations