|
9:00 am–10:15 am
|
Concurrent Sessions
2.1: Student Ethics
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Mohammed Alsurayhi, Morgan State University
The Influence of the Dark Triad in the Ethical Decision Making of Accounting and Business Students
David J. Emerson, Salisbury University (Presenter)
Timothy Haight, Loyola Marymount University
Kenneth J. Smith, Salisbury University
Bob G. Wood, University of South Alabama
Discussant: Patrick Kelly, Providence College
Assessing the Foundation That Giving Voice to Values Is Built Upon
William F. Miller, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
Steven Mintz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Tara J. Shawver, King’s College (Presenter)
Discussant: Anne Schnader, Suffolk University
2.2: Reputational Crisis
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Hwei C. Wang, University of Maryland Eastern Shore
How Stakeholders Voice Concerns about Unethical Organizational Conduct: Examining Twitter Communication
Charles Cho, York University
Dorota Dobija Kozminski, University (Presenter)
Joanna Krasodomska, Cracow University of Economics
Chaoyuan She, University of Essex
Ewelina Zarzycka, University of Lodz
Discussant: Maria Alvarez, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Reputation Repair after a Restatement: The Role of CSR Disclosure
Lei Dong, University of Idaho (Presenter)
Y. Ken Wang, University of Pittsburgh
Discussant: Jacob B. Lennard, University of Central Florida
Stakeholder Reintegration Following Moral Polysemy: A Netnographic Case Study of LPP SA
Dorota Dobija, Kozminski University
Joanna Krasodomska, Cracow University of Economics (Presenter)
Ewelina Zarzycka, University of Lodz
Discussant: Gregg McPhee, Clemson University
|
|
10:45 am–12:00 pm
|
Concurrent Sessions
3.1: Fraud/Teaching Cases
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Tara Shawver, King’s College
Deficiencies in the Audit of Wirecard: A Case Study of the Enron of Germany
William F. Miller, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
Steven Mintz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Presenter)
Discussant: Martin Steubs, Baylor University
Analyzing the Fraud at Halliburton: A Case Study
Steven Mintz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Presenter)
Anthony Menendez, Loyola Marymount University
Discussant: Joan Lee, Fairfield University
Teaching Case: Look at the Whole Picture!
Mohammed Alsurayhi, Morgan State University (Presenter)
Bilal Makkawi, Morgan State University
Discussant: Lori Fuller, West Chester University
3.2: Alternative Social Accounts
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Jacob Lennard, University of Central Florida
Against EBITDA: The Objectionable Social Costs of an Accounting Metric
Chris Melenovsky, Suffolk University
Anne Schnader, Suffolk University (Presenter)
Discussant: Todd L. Sayre, University of San Francisco
The Growth of Sports Betting and Problem Gambling—New Challenges and Actions to Promote the Public Interest
Patrick Kelly, Providence College (Presenter)
Discussant: David Emerson, Salisbury University
The Illusion of Shareholder Ownership: Literature Review and Implications for Reporting
Todd. L. Sayre, University of San Francisco (Presenter)
Discussant: Michael Ruff, Northeastern University
3.3: Ownership/Governance
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Joanna Krasodomska, Cracow University of Economics
The Impact of Ownership Structure and Corporate Governance on Energy Intensity: Evidence from Indian Business Groups
Emily Hickman, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Presenter)
Nemiraja Jadiyappa, Indian Institute of Management
Namrata Saikia, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Discussant: Susana Gago-Rodriguez, Universidad Pontificia de Comillas
Corporate Diversification and CEO Compensation: Evidence from the Moderating Effect of Firm Size
Ken Y. Chen, National Taiwan University
Chih C. Fang, Morgan State University
Hwei C. Wang, University of Maryland Eastern Shore (Presenter)
Randall Z. Xu, University of Houston–Clear Lake
Discussant: Kate Suslava, Bucknell University
|
|
1:30 pm–2:45 pm
|
Concurrent Session
4.1: Professional Ethics
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Inae Yang, San Francisco State University
The Effect of Group Dynamics on Individual Ethical Decision Making
Rachel Daniel, PricewaterhouseCoopers
Ashley Douglas, Trinity University (Presenter)
Abagail Kleutz, KPMG
Julie Persellin, Trinity University
Discussant: Charles Bailey, James Madison University
Soft Skills for Accounting Professionals: A Clearer Definition than “I Know It When I See It”
Kara Hunter, Fairfield University
Joan Lee, Fairfield University (Presenter)
Dawn Massey, Fairfield University
Discussant: Inae Yang, San Francisco State University
Accounting Researchers’ Beliefs about Debatable Research Practices, with Advice and Anecdotes from the Field
Charles D. Bailey, James Madison University (Presenter)
Irana Scott, James Madison University
Discussant: Ashley Douglas, Trinity University
4.2: Performance Metrics
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Greg McPhee, Clemson University
Forward-Looking Sustainability Information and Financial Analysts
Isabel Hertl, Technical University of Munich (Presenter)
Janine Maniora, Heinrich-Heine University
Discussant: Emily Hickman, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Motivating CSR Investment and Social Impact through Relative Performance Information
Jace Garrett, Clemson University
Greg McPhee, Clemson University (Presenter)
Dan Way, Clemson University
Discussant: Hrishikesh Desai, Arkansas State University
Using Prosocial Rewards and Cash Rewards in Whistleblower Programs as Detective and Deterrent Controls
Khim Kelly, University of Central Florida
Jacob B. Lennard, University of Central Florida (Presenter)
Yu Tian, University of Central Florida
Discussant: Lei Dong, University of Idaho
4.3: Gender
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Michael Ruff, Northeastern University
CSR and Board Gender Diversity: Antecedent or Consequence?
Cynthia Phillips, St. John’s University (Co-presenter)
Victoria Shoaf, St. John’s University (Co-resenter)
Abraham Stefanidis, St. John’s University
Discussant: Matt Reidenbach, James Madison University
Benefits of Having a Female CFO
Julia Klevak, PGIM
Joshua Livnat, New York University
Kate Suslava, Bucknell University (Presenter)
Discussant: Victoria Shoaf, St. John’s University
Women Manager´s Resilience, Gender Discrimination in Hiring and Compensation Systems: A Laboratory Experiment in Online-Teams
Maria J. Alvarez, University Carlos III de Madrid
Barbara de la Vega, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Susana Gago-Rodriguez, Universidad Pontificia de Comillas (Presenter)
Discussant: Dorota Dobija, Kominski University
|
|
3:15 pm–4:30 pm
|
Panel Session
5.1: Which Side Are They On? Do Auditors Still Protect the Public?
Behavioral Ethics - 1.5
Moderator: Steven Mintz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Panelists: Francine McKenna, University of Pennsylvania
Tony Menendez, Loyola Marymount University
Steven Mintz, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Sri Ramamoorti, University of Dayton
Who is the Public and What Does it Mean to be an Accounting Professional?
Panelist: Francine McKenna, Faculty, University of Pennsylvania and independent journalist
Accountants are required by law to maintain the public trust, and this obligation transcends any employment relationship with their firm or client relationship with a company, according to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co. nearly 40 years ago. “This ‘public watchdog’ function demands that the accountant maintain total independence from the client at all times and requires complete fidelity to the public trust.” Are auditors living up to this standard and managing the tension between their public duty and professionalism versus the commercialism required to gain and retain clients ethically?
Dealing With Threats to Auditor Professional Judgment and Professional Skepticism
Panelist: Tony Menendez, George A. Dasaro Clinical Professor, Loyola Marymount University
Auditors face common bias tendencies that can influence independence and objectivity in a negative way while creating challenges to professional judgment and professional skepticism. These threats can make it difficult for auditors to meet their ethical and professional obligations to serve as gatekeepers. The fraud triangle can help us understand these threats to the public interest by analyzing pressures and the motivation to commit fraud, the opportunity to do so, and rationalizing why such actions were taken.
Turmoil at the PCAOB: Has the PCAOB Lived Up to its Mandate?
Panelist: Sri Ramamoorti, University of Dayton, Ohio
The PCAOB was created by the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 to provide oversight of the auditing profession (after the collapse of Arthur Andersen & Co, as well as the AICPA’s system of “peer review”). The goal, by making auditing a “regulated profession,” was to shore up public confidence and allow the profession time to reclaim its prestige and credibility. However, recent happenings at the PCAOB—first the revelation of the KPMG attempt to cheat on PCAOB inspections (2016-2017), and replacement of the Board members (December 12, 2017) then the wholesale firing of the entire, politicized Board again on June 4, 2021—have only served to further shake up public confidence in public company auditing. We have been left asking Juvenal’s ultimate governance question: “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Juvenal, Satire VI, 347-348), but who will guard the guards themselves? Let us hope the “lotus flower analogy” provides the solution…”the darker the hour the nearer the dawn.” (H.W. Longfellow).
Cheating on Exams: Should Accounting Professionals Be Trusted?
Panelist: Steve Mintz, Professor Emeritus, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
The SEC brought actions against three audit firms for cheating by professionals on ethics and internal exams. EY was fined $100 million for cheating by almost 50 audit staff on the ethics component of CPA exams and in ethics CPE, the latter with software flaws that allowed exam takers to achieve a passing score by answering as little as one question correctly. The PCAOB fined PwC-Canada $750,000 and the Canadian Public Accountability Board fined them another $200,000 for having faulty quality control standards that allowed more than 1,200 professionals to cheat on training courses covering auditing, accounting, and professional independence. The PCAOB fined KPMG-Australia $450,000 for widespread cheating on internal audit integrity exams by around 1,130 partners and staff for improper answer sharing. These failures raise questions about professional integrity in accounting firms and the very culture that should support ethical behavior. Why should clients trust audit firms when they can’t get their own house in order?
|
