Knowledge that Transforms

Drawing on interviews with accountants working at professional services firms (PSFs) in the UK, we explore how reflexivity enables accountants to recognise and negotiate class-based barriers to progression and inclusion. We identify a range of reflexive practices (including conversations with colleagues and clients, observations, mentoring, mulling over, and imagining) and show how these interact with habitus to structure the individual (mis)recognition of class-based barriers in the workplace. We find that reflexivity can engender an awareness of ‘difference’ and sense of inferiority relative to others, primarily for those from less privileged backgrounds. We provide evidence of the enabling role of reflexive practices which lead to purposive action for negotiating class-based barriers. However, we also find that reflexivity can lead to idiosyncratic strategies which support assimilation to (rather than challenging) existing practices in the accounting field. We find contradictory accounts of the effects of class, where class is recognised as a barrier, yet individuals are thought to progress through merit. We explain this tension through the limitations of reflexivity, restricted opportunities for reflexivity, and misrecognition of the effects of class in a seemingly meritocratic system. We provide examples of enduring and unrecognised class-based inequalities in accounting PSFs, including team composition and work allocation, class-segmented service lines, and the long-term consequences for those from less privileged backgrounds of having to work harder to ‘reach the same level’. Our findings suggest that PSFs must facilitate ‘difficult’ conversations aimed at breaking the culture of silence around class.

In this study, we examine how personality attributes and a coordinated compensation design jointly contribute to complementarity in the CEO–CFO dyad. Drawing on regulatory focus theory, we propose that the combination of a CEO with a promotion focus and a CFO with a prevention focus benefits firms. In such a dyad, promotion-focused CEOs bring creativity, speed, and eagerness to advancement, whereas prevention-focused CFOs attend to vigilance, helping to keep promotion-focused CEOs grounded. We further argue that the effectiveness of this CEO–CFO dyad depends on promotion-focused CEOs being open to critical advice from prevention-focused CFOs. To make CEOs more amenable to CFOs' advice, we suggest similar compensation plans that foreground common objectives. We empirically test our arguments by focusing on the CEO–CFO dyad's influence on investment spending and firm performance in a longitudinal sample covering more than 10,000 firm years. Our results indicate a positive association between CEO promotion focus and investment spending, as well as firm performance. We further find that CFO prevention focus weakens the association between CEO promotion focus and investment spending, but strengthens the association with firm performance. These moderating influences of CFO prevention focus are more pronounced for higher compensation similarity in the CEO–CFO dyad. In sum, our findings exemplify that deliberately considering CEO and CFO personality attributes and their compensation design jointly strengthens the functioning of the CEO–CFO dyad.

We incorporate conceptualisations around the accountable self into the NGO accountability literature to consider how NGO human rights activists make sense of their accountability in relation to their postcolonial identity. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with Palestinian activists working in Palestinian and Israeli NGOs defending human rights in Gaza. Our findings provide four original insights. First, the construction of their identity as “postcolonial” considerably motivates our interviewees' work as human rights activists, but also creates conflicts with NGOs' humanitarian missions. Activists respond by stressing their postcolonial identity over their professional one. Second, due to Palestinian activists' own lived experiences, they construct accountability relations and collective identities defined by victimhood. The sense of victimhood results in blurring boundaries between activists and their “beneficiaries”, which influences their sense of accountability and motivates their practices. Third, the accountable self mobilises different accountability practices to deal with both the self's needs for narrativity and authenticity (e.g., through storytelling and remembrance) and external demands for “objective” accounts, thereby balancing their postcolonial and professional identities and responsibilities. Fourth, our interviewees sense that their accountability has limitations, as the accounts of human rights violations they produce receive insufficient recognition from others. Overall, the study indicates the importance of considering how a postcolonial identity of human rights activists creates various sources and motivations for the accountable self's relationships, practices and limitations distinguishable from, but linked, to those practised by NGOs.

Professional audit firms increasingly engage in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. This paper examines the effect of audit firms' CSR activities on auditors’ reputation. We find that audit firms that engage in CSR experience an increase in the size of their client base compared to audit firms that do not engage in CSR. The effect is stronger for audit firms without existing reputation from a Big 4 brand name or industry specialization. We also find that clients that value CSR are more likely to hire audit firms that engage in CSR. Overall, our results suggest that CSR is an effective tool for audit firms to build their reputation in the marketplace.

Firms increasingly respond to stakeholder demands by making public claims about their stances on polarizing issues, but at the same time their political activities may contradict their claims. We analyze the extent to which firms' sociopolitical claims and their political action committee contributions align. We develop a dictionary of claims related to diversity and environmental protection based on word combinations in firm communications and link firms' political contributions to candidate approval ratings provided by third-party advocacy groups. While firms generally donate mostly to lower-rated politicians (i.e., those with lower environmental and human rights ratings), firms making more sociopolitical claims donate relatively more to higher-rated politicians. The latter is consistent with political alignment but also has further limit: While firms with more claims donate more to higher-rated politicians, they donate no less to lower-rated politicians. Moreover, government subsidies, politicians’ power, and community pressure for diversity and environmental disclosures reduce political alignment.