We investigate how activist short sellers (AShSs) expose publicly listed firms in an increasingly popular form of “research reports” openly denouncing alleged frauds, flawed business models, accounting irregularities, and wrongdoings. We focus on six AShSs that issued research reports that often led to a strong negative market reaction. Our empirical analysis exploits both qualitative and quantitative methods for a comprehensive data set of 383 research reports targeting 171 unique firms, and 3 firsthand interviews with AShSs. Drawing on Aristotle's rhetoric, we first examine how AShSs use narratives in striving to convince other investors that the target firms are overvalued. Specifically, we search the documents produced by AShSs for stylized narratives related to credibility‐based (ethos), emotions‐based (pathos), and logic‐based (logos) rhetorical strategies. To assess the impact of these strategies, we examine the extent to which the AShSs' rhetorical strategies resonate in 3,665 press articles. As expected, the press often refers to logos‐based arguments. Interestingly, the press also frequently brings up pathos‐based and ethos‐based statements. Considering the importance of the press in shaping investors' opinions, our study points to AShSs' narratives playing a major role in policing financial markets. Theoretically, we show that AShSs, as dissenting market participants, produce narratives that go beyond the language of formal rationality—as they strive to reveal new information and frame it persuasively, in order to destabilize the extent of trustworthiness surrounding target firms.

Using a sample of firms from France, where the law requires the use of two auditors, we study the effect of auditor pair composition on audit quality by examining a specific account, goodwill impairment. We document that firms audited by a Big 4–non‐Big 4 auditor pair ( BS ) are more likely to book an impairment and book a larger impairment than firms audited by a Big 4–Big 4 auditor pair ( BB ) when low‐performance indicators suggest a greater likelihood of impairment. Moreover, firms audited by a BB pair reduce impairment disclosures when they book impairments, while firms audited by a BS pair do not, suggesting lower transparency for firms audited by a BB pair. Our results inform investors and firms in mandatory joint audit regimes, as well as regulators who are considering requiring joint audits.

Evidence suggests that society still does not view whistleblowers as wholly legitimate—despite legal protections now offered in some jurisdictions, such as the United States. Drawing on a discourse analysis (i.e., an examination of statements), we investigate the well‐publicized stories of seven whistleblowers from 69 sources, including books, first‐ and second‐hand interviews, websites, and videos. Our focus is to examine how whistleblower discourses can build legitimacy by more tightly defining the whistleblower role and demonstrating its alignment with social norms. Using whistleblower self‐narratives, we identify four narrative patterns: (i) Trigger(s)—the event(s) leading to whistleblowing; (ii) Personality traits—whistleblower's morality, resourcefulness, and determination; (iii) Constraints—barriers requiring regulatory and organizational change; and (iv) Consequences—the longer term positive impact of the whistleblowing act. These patterns rely on symbolic, analogical, and metaphorical framing to allow others to better understand the role of whistleblowers and enlist their support. Exploring a data set of 1,621 press articles, we find indications that these narrative patterns resonate in the media—which provide a form of support and may be instrumental in legitimizing the whistleblower role. Grounded on these results, we develop a legitimacy construction model of the whistleblower role, that is, a representation of how role legitimacy is produced and sustained. From this model, we identify a number of important areas for future research.

We examine whether the joint provision of corporate social responsibility (CSR) assurance services and financial audit by the same audit firm influences auditors' assessment of going‐concern risk. We predict that the provision of CSR assurance and financial audit by the same audit firm creates CSR‐related knowledge spillovers from the CSR assurance team to the financial audit engagement team, which helps in the auditor's assessment of going‐concern risk. Using more than 28,000 firm‐year observations from 55 countries, we document that, relative to audit firms that provide only the financial audit, audit firms that provide both CSR assurance and financial audit for the same client (i) issue more frequent going‐concern opinions and have lower Type II going‐concern errors, (ii) have clients that book larger environmental and litigation provisions, (iii) report earnings that are more persistent and value‐relevant and are less likely to book income‐decreasing earnings restatements, and (iv) do not charge higher audit fees or total fees. Our results are important especially because of firms' increasing exposure to CSR risks and the growing number of countries that require assurance of CSR reports.