Previous studies on accounting innovations emphasize the key role played by innovators and other core actors in theorizing and popularizing such innovations. This paper extends this literature by drawing attention to the role of actors who occupy a more peripheral position within the innovation‐based field. We regard accounting innovations as strategic action fields, in which core and peripheral actors interact to shape the trajectory of the innovation. In contrast to core actors, peripheral actors only weakly identify with the innovation‐based field and often occupy a core position in some other industry, professional, and/or geographical field. Given their embeddedness in these other fields, they are likely to try to accommodate an innovation with existing practices. Such frame blending can be problematic for core actors who envisage a more radical frame shift. Using the case of Beyond Budgeting, we show how the interplay between core and peripheral actors shapes the trajectory of an innovation, in terms of the composition of the field and the framing tactics that dominate at different stages in the development of the field. Our paper advances a perspective on accounting innovations which highlights the variable nature of the innovation space, in terms of different actors entering and exiting this space over time, as well as the importance of considering the overlaps between an innovation‐based field and other (industry, professional, geographical) fields

This study examines how the design of incentive contracts for tasks defined as workers' official responsibilities (i.e., standard tasks) influences workers' propensity to engage in employee‐initiated innovation (EII). EII corresponds to innovation activities that are not formally assigned to workers but are nonetheless encouraged and considered to be important for the company's success. Like other extra‐role behaviors, EII is difficult to incentivize directly. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how explicit incentive contracts designed for the workers' standard tasks may indirectly influence their EII activity. We use field data from a manufacturing company that uses a dedicated information system to track workers' EII idea submissions. We find theory‐consistent evidence that, compared to workers receiving fixed pay, employees rewarded for their standard tasks with variable compensation contracts exhibit a lower propensity to engage in EII. This result is concentrated among ideas benefiting other constituents and activities beyond the proponents' standard task (i.e., broad‐scope ideas). In contrast, we find no difference attributable to standard task incentive design in the proposal of innovation ideas narrowly focused on the proponent's standard task (i.e., narrow‐scope ideas). Our findings suggest that variable pay narrows employees' conceptual focus around the standard task and hinders employee engagement in broad‐scope innovation activities compared to fixed compensation contracts. We contribute to the literature on incentives for innovation by showing that standard task compensation contracts have spillover effects on EII behavior. We also contribute to the nascent literature on EII by showing that innovation types , defined based on their relation with the proponent's standard task, matter. Our results are relevant for practitioners in that managers relying on variable pay contracts to incentivize standard task performance should expect lower employee engagement in broad‐scope EII

The current audit environment encourages auditors to conduct defensive auditing procedures in lieu of using new, innovative, and potentially more effective audit procedures, due to concerns these procedures may be second‐guessed in litigation or by audit inspectors such as the PCAOB. As a result, auditors may prefer traditional “generally accepted” procedures over innovative procedures that are potentially more effective. We test recent proposals that an Audit Judgment Rule (AJR) encourages the use of innovative, and potentially more effective, audit procedures analogous to the similar Business Judgment Rule that affords legal protections to corporate directors. Under an AJR, litigators or audit inspectors could not second‐guess auditor judgments, even if they perceive that alternate judgments would have ordinarily been reached, provided the auditor's judgment was made in good faith and in a rigorous manner. However, the AJR's requirements that auditors must defend the rigor of their innovative judgments could potentially backfire and lead auditors to select more traditional procedures. Under the framework of goal activation theory, we conduct an experiment with audit managers and seniors and find that an AJR makes auditors less likely to select innovative audit procedures, particularly when audit risk is high. They do so despite believing the innovative procedures to be more effective than the traditional procedures. Findings from a supplementary experiment with experienced auditors further suggest that national office affirmation of the reasonableness of the procedures does not help overcome this effect. Overall, our findings suggest that an AJR may have the unintended consequence of further increasing auditors' focus on more traditional, and potentially less effective, audit procedures

In 2007, Pink Sheets LLC assigned each Pink Sheets ® company to a disclosure tier and on its website affixed a colorful graphic to its stock symbol signifying the company's public disclosure level. This unique innovation allows us to investigate the impact of increased salience of disclosure practices on liquidity. Using a difference‐in‐difference design, we find evidence that firms classified into the Current Information category experienced an increase in liquidity while firms classified into the No Information category experienced a decrease in liquidity, both relative to other unclassified over‐the‐counter firms. This suggests that increases in the salience of disclosure practices via assignment to disclosure tiers affect investors’ attention, leading to changes in trading behavior that ultimately translate into liquidity changes. We also provide evidence that some investors anticipated the resulting liquidity changes because stock returns around a key event date leading up to the release of the disclosure tiers are positively associated with subsequent liquidity changes

Analysts have been found to underweight the innovation in the most recent quarterly earnings when forecasting next‐quarter earnings, and these expectations have been posited as an explanation for post‐earnings‐announcement drift. This study uses an experimental asset market to examine whether similar errors in forecasting quarterly earnings are made by student‐subjects. We examine two aspects of their behavior: (1) do subjects underestimate the autocorrelation in quarterly earnings when forming earnings expectations? and (2) are asset prices consistent with a subject's underestimation of the autocorrelation in quarterly earnings? We observe subject errors in forecasts that underweight extreme innovations in the most recent quarterly earnings by approximately 40 percent. The prices in the experimental markets also fail to reflect fully the most recent innovation in quarterly earnings. We are able to predict the sign of the incorrect pricing, from the mean initial earnings predictions of the subjects, in 74 percent of the 135 markets. These forecast errors observed in this study are consistent with forecast errors observed for analysts, and this consistency suggests that errors in analysts' forecasts may be at least partially attributable to the use of judgmental heuristics

The stated goals of the SEC are to protect investors, maintain orderly markets and facilitate capital formation. These goals can be achieved with very light regulation if, as assumed by traditional economic theory, investors process information costlessly and protect themselves from informational disadvantages, and firms optimally balance the costs and benefits of committing to make their reports reliable. A growing body of research demonstrates that light regulation fails to achieve the SEC 's goals, because investors find information processing costly and fail to protect themselves. After reviewing theory and prior evidence, I discuss new lessons learned from Jiang, Petroni, and Wang ( ), who show that Pink Sheets ® reduced the liquidity of firms with low reporting quality and increased the liquidity of firms with high reporting quality, merely by highlighting the quality of their listed firms’ disclosure. While the Pink Sheets ® innovation might have occurred through many causal channels, all of them entail a violation of costless processing and self‐protection, and lead to the conclusion that this lightly regulated market did not initially meet the stated goals of the SEC . I conclude by arguing that markets can achieve the SEC 's goals only if they exhibit a particularly strong version of “dynamic” market efficiency, which requires that each individual trade on the path to even incomplete revelation occurs at the then‐optimal price. Because dynamic efficiency is unlikely, we should stop being surprised to see evidence that lightly regulated markets fall short on key dimensions. Instead, we should use our well‐developed understanding of market inefficiency to guide regulation

Researchers typically infer real earnings management when a firm's operating and investing activities differ from industry norms. A significant problem with classifying deviations from industry averages as myopic earnings management is that companies can change their operating and investing decisions for strategic business reasons rather than to mislead stakeholders. Using principal components analysis, we systematically evaluate existing measures and develop a comprehensive real activities measure to better capture earnings manipulation. Our measure reflects (i) deviations from industry averages across multiple activities and (ii) other signals of manipulation. This approach is promising because, although there are many sources of abnormal activities, manipulation is more likely the cause when managers engage in multiple income‐increasing abnormal activities that coincide with other signals that indicate an elevated risk of manipulation. This simple approach results in a metric that associates negatively with future operating performance and earnings persistence, yields high‐power tests, and captures manipulation reasonably well across most life‐cycle stages. Importantly, this approach performs better than the standard real earnings management metrics across all dimensions. Specifically, it generates the expected reduction in future earnings and reduced earnings persistence in 82% of the tests compared to 36% and 46% in common alternatives. Also, because this innovation does not require a long time‐series or rely on future period realizations for classification, it can be useful in more research settings than other recent innovations in the literature

This paper presents an in-depth longitudinal case study examining the processes through which practitioners in two Big 4 professional services firms have attempted to construct sustainability assurance (independent assurance on sustainability reports). Power’s (1996, 1997, 1999, 2003) theorization of the way in which new subject areas are made auditable is used to frame the findings. The case analysis reveals the fragile nature of efforts to innovate with sustainability assurance and render sustainability reporting auditable. It suggests that innovation in new assurance practices may be constrained by an over-reliance on traditional financial audit training and techniques and certain internal professional services firm control procedures. Practitioners are shown to have experienced considerable discomfort in their attempts to construct a stable and legitimate knowledge base for assurance practice. Tacit knowledge embedded in highly subjective assessments of evidence has been frequently enrolled to make assurance possible in the presence of vague guidance from assurance standards. In light of ongoing practitioner struggles, both firms have publicly acknowledged the limitations of traditional financial audit practice operating alone in the conduct of sustainability assurance. In order to offset these limitations, they have proposed a coupling of ‘‘expert’’ stakeholder assessments of reporting completeness with traditional audit assessments of data reliability. This assigns part of the responsibility for delivering on a key assurance objective (reporting completeness) to what many practitioners perceive as questionable stakeholder expertise. The findings extend prior research highlighting the trial and error nature of the processes through which accountants seek to develop their presence in new markets for their expertise. They also question the extent to which the core aims being espoused for sustainability assurance can be substantively aligned with the operational capabilities available within Big 4 professional services firms

U.S. multinational corporations increasingly use intra‐firm, cross‐border research collaboration to disperse R&D across different countries. This paper investigates the implications of such collaboration on the abilities of firms to garner benefits from R&D tax incentives. We find that the association between R&D intensity and tax incentives is three to five times larger when firms have extensive cross‐border collaboration connected to a country. We also find that the effect is stronger when local intellectual property protection is weaker and when local innovation resources are higher. Our results suggest that cross‐border collaboration helps firms achieve more tax‐efficient R&D investments both by reducing the nontax frictions posed by weak intellectual property protection and by increasing the nontax benefits of foreign R&D

We use changes in mandatory pension funding to investigate the relation between internal financing constraints and incremental investment. Pension funding relief enacted in 2012 significantly reduced mandatory employer contributions to defined benefit pension plans. Prior to learning of the pension relief, firms disclosed their expected pension contributions under FAS 132R, which allows us to infer changes in investment plans in response to this unanticipated pension relief. Although our setting is pensions, our inferences contribute to the broader literature on how access to finance impacts the firm. We predict and find that pension relief resulted in increased nonpension investment in the year after enactment for financially constrained firms, and is stronger for constrained firms with greater pension underfunding. Our results are consistent with pension relief providing an important means of funding investment for financially constrained firms. Our identification strategy and results provide an important innovation to the literature examining the effect of financing constraints on investment