metric

• Can budgeting impact employee wellbeing?

  Although many may think of accounting as something abstract that happens only in spreadsheets, our new study shows that budgeting can impact employee wellbeing. Specifically, based on a large survey in a well-known multinational, we find that participative budgeting practices can enhance job satisfaction and diminish presenteeism of middle managers.

  Stress at work
  First, let’s consider for a moment the typical middle manager. Sandwiched between top-management and the employees, they often find themselves in stressful situations. A 2025 report by Deloitte[i] found that 40% of the managers experienced a decline in their mental health after taking on a managerial or leadership role, and another survey[ii] finds that almost three out of four middle managers sometimes or always feel stressed at work. What can be done to reduce their stress and enhance their job-related wellbeing?

  

  Figure 1 – Key relations examined. All hypotheses are confirmed in our study. Source: Van der Kolk et al. (2026).

  Participatory work practices and wellbeing
  In our study, we find that giving middle managers a greater say in budgeting decisions (also known as participative budgeting) can improve their wellbeing. Participative budgeting allows middle managers to actively shape their department’s financial targets rather than simply following top-down mandates. So, budgeting is less top-down, and more bottom-up.

  Our findings suggest that giving managers a greater say in the budgeting process increases their perceptions of the fairness of internal procedures and enhances their bonds with the organization. Together, these factors make middle managers happier with their jobs. So, their job-related wellbeing, of which job satisfaction is an important dimension, increases. But there’s more!

  Presenteeism
  We all know absenteeism: it is when employees are not present at work for illness or some other reason. In our study, however, we focus on presenteeism, which can best be understood as health-related productivity loss. Put differently, it’s when employees don’t feel well, but still show up at work. As a result, they are less productive than normal, which is what presenteeism is about. Compared to absenteeism, presenteeism is less easy to observe.

  In our study, we find that participative budgeting and higher job satisfaction reduce presenteeism. This is an important finding, as it stresses that participative work practices are not only beneficial for employees, but also positively impact organizations through increased productivity.

  Positive impact
  As stress and mental health issues continue to grow, our study contributes to a better understanding of how everyday organizational practices like accounting can influence wellbeing. Empowering middle managers by giving them a greater say in the budgeting process may be a small change that yields substantial benefits for the entire workforce. Read our full paper (open access) here.

   

  Reference to full paper (open access)
  Van der Kolk, B., Schoute, M., Kuroki, M. (2026). Participative Budgeting, Job Satisfaction, and Presenteeism: Survey Evidence from Middle Managers. BMC Public Health, In press. Link: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-26572-5

   

  Bios
  Dr. Berend van der Kolk is an associate professor of management accounting at VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  Dr. Martijn Schoute is an assistant professor of management accounting at VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  Dr. Makoto Kuroki is a professor of accounting at Yokohama City University, Japan.

   

  Endnotes
  [i] Source: Deloitte’s 2025 Global Human Capital Trends survey.
  [ii] Source: Capterra’s 2023 Middle Manager Survey.

  [This blog was also published on socialsciencespace.com.]

• Echoes of Populism in Corporate Reporting: Evidence from Poland

  How do contemporary political forces shape what companies say about themselves?

  In a new paper, Echoes of Right-Wing Populism in Annual Reports of Polish Listed State-Controlled Companies, published in Accounting in Europe, we explore how right-wing populism has leaked into corporate narrative disclosures in a European context.

   Drawing on the populist syndrome model, the study analyses annual reports of Poland’s largest listed state-controlled companies before and after 2015, when a right-wing populist party came to power. We identify four recurring narrative threads that subtly and selectively echo populist rhetoric. We demonstrate that these incremental narrative elements resonate with both the core ideological features of populism and its local right-wing characteristics.

   Our findings suggest that corporate disclosures are not neutral reflections of reality. Instead, they serve as strategic responses to political and institutional pressures, enabling companies closely tied to the state to position themselves as “insiders”. By mobilising the concept of corporate populism, the paper contributes to accounting research on narratives, politics, and the role of reporting in polarised societies. The study also offers insights for researchers and practitioners interested in how accounting practices evolve under populist rule, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.

   Łada, M., Kozarkiewicz, A., Haslam, J., & Łazarowicz, E. (2026). Echoes of Right-Wing Populism in Annual Reports of Polish Listed State-Controlled Companies. Accounting in Europe, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2026.2623965 

    

  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17449480.2026.2623965

   

   

• Capabilities-related disclosures and investors’ recognition of organisational resilience – an automated textual analysis of 10-K filings

  Recent economic crises have reinforced top management’s attention for organisationalresilience, i.e. to consider how firms can absorb and recover from adverse events in their business environment. To strengthen organisational resilience, firms require capabilities that stabilise the current business and effect changes to fit the new environment. Given the limited informativeness of financial disclosures to predict a firm’s future, reliable information about firms’ capabilities becomes increasingly strategically relevant for investors.

  Based on a sample of 1,020 publicly traded U.S. firms, this study analyses how pre-crisis information relating to the capabilities of firms for creating slack (i.e. financial cushions), supporting learning (i.e. incremental changes), and fostering innovation (i.e. fundamental changes) is associated with investor reactions that are consistent with a recognition of organisational resilience during an adverse event (COVID-19). To quantify the extent of capabilities-related information, we apply an automated textual analysis to voluntary disclosures in the Item 1 and Item 7 of 10-K filings in a cross-sectional sample of firms listed in the S&P 1500 Index (2018-2022). We use the share prices of our sample firms to create a comprehensive measure of organisational resilience, considering three sequential stages of adversity. Specifically, we quantify a firm’s absorption level through the decrease in the share price at the onset of adversity, its adaptation level through the recovery of the share price amid adversity, and its transformation level through the increase in the share price following adversity.

  At the onset of adversity, we find that disclosures about slack capabilities appear to mitigate the immediate decrease in the share price (absorption), suggesting that investors might prioritise information on the financial soundness of a firm over its ability to conduct changes. In the intermediate term, we find that disclosures about slack, learning, and innovation capabilities are associated with an accelerated share price recovery for most sample firms(adaptation), suggesting that investors then tend to recognise information on firms’ ability to implement changes. In the longer term, we find that disclosures about innovation capabilities are primarily associated with an increased share price (transformation), which suggests that innovation disclosures may create expectations among investors of fundamental rather than incremental changes. Our empirical results indicate that capabilities-related disclosures are differently associated with investor reactions as firms progress through sequential stages of adversity. The usefulness of capabilities-related disclosures for investors is a new and important finding given the increasing uncertainty among investors regarding firms’ ability to manage prospective challenges.

  The reference for this article can be found below:

  Neunsinger, C., Reimann, L., & Fischer, T. M. (2026). Capabilities-related disclosures and investors’ recognition of organisational resilience – an automated textual analysis of 10-K filings. European Accounting Review, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2025.2606678

• Teaching Sustainability Reporting as Practice: Reflections from the Classroom

  by Thorsten Sellhorn, LMU Munich School of Management

  At the recent EAA EFRAG ISSB Sustainability Reporting Standards Education Workshop, I shared some reflections on how I have tried to bring sustainability reporting into the classroom—not through a grand pedagogical innovation, but through concrete teaching practices anchored in regulatory developments and real-world data.

  My perspective is shaped by more than 25 years of teaching, mostly in financial reporting, and more recently by our work on the Sustainability Reporting Navigator (SRN). The SRN is a digital platform that supports research, regulation, and education by collecting, benchmarking, and analyzing sustainability disclosures—initially under the CSRD/ESRS, but we are gearing up to increasingly cover ISSB standards and ISSB-compliant reports as well.

  Over time, I’ve come to believe that three core assumptions guide my thinking:

  1. Sustainability reporting is not an end in itself—sustainability is: ecological, surely, but also environmental and social. BUT:

  2. Sustainability reporting (including sustainability-related financial disclosure)
     provides critical information to providers of capital (the “financial materiality
     perspective”).

  3. Well-calibrated and enforced sustainability reporting requirements that bring out
     corporate impacts on people and the planet (including “externalities”) can ‘nudge’
     companies towards more ecologically and socially sustainable business conduct—
     often, I suspect, to these companies’ own long-term benefit (the “impact
     materiality perspective”).

  These beliefs inform my teaching. Let me briefly highlight three key messages that I think may resonate beyond our own experience at LMU Munich.

  1. Sustainability reporting education needs integration—not silos.

  At LMU Munich School of Management, rather than treat sustainability reporting as a standalone topic, we embed it across our accounting curriculum. Whether in introductory courses, IFRS-based financial reporting, or valuation and analysis, students encounter sustainability topics in ways that reflect their practical and regulatory relevance. For example, we use the SRN’s report archive and AI assistant in introductory courses to demonstrate real corporate disclosures. In more advanced courses, students use the SRN to analyze ESG-related risk disclosures, or trace connectivity between financial and sustainability reporting.

  2. Students engage more deeply when working with real data and real standards.

  We’ve involved over 150 students from four universities in collecting ESG transparency data for academic projects—together producing over 750,000 data points on indicators such as emissions and workforce composition. Many students use this data for their BSc, MSc, or PhD theses, often in combination with internships at preparers or audit firms.

  More recently, students helped prepare our School’s own voluntary sustainability report (under EFRAG’s VSME standard). They analyzed academic travel data to calculate carbon footprints and assess related risks. This work doesn’t just create engagement—it builds technical and interpretive skills grounded in current regulatory requirements.

  3. Sustainability reporting remains a vital professional competence—despite the backlash.

  Involving students in our ongoing research—e.g., on ESRS adoption or climate disclosure in financial statements—has shown us just how motivated they are to understand the evolving sustainability reporting landscape. From experimental studies on materiality assessments to field-level analyses of ESRS implementation, we invite students to contribute as research assistants and co-creators.

  That said, many students today express unease. They perceive the political headwinds—especially in the U.S., but also in Europe’s regulatory debates—and wonder whether sustainability reporting has a real future. I believe it does, and that it’s our job as educators and researchers to show that the work remains essential, rigorous, and value-relevant.

  Looking Ahead

  We continue to build out the SRN as an open-science platform for transparency and performance—supporting educators, students, and researchers alike. But more broadly, I see value in teaching sustainability reporting not as a separate craft, but as an integrated part of accounting education. It’s about connecting students with the standards, the data, and the purpose of reporting—while keeping the focus where it ultimately belongs: on sustainability itself.

  If you’re interested in joining the SRN initiative—whether as an educator, researcher, or contributor—please feel free to reach out: sellhorn@lmu.de. 

• ‘Are we good? or do we need to keep going?’: unraveling auditors’ comfort with evidence sufficiency determinations

  Suppose you think of auditors’ work as completing a puzzle. Auditors can’t form a complete picture to conclude that the financial statements are “free from material misstatement” when evidence is missing or incorrect.

   

  Audit evidence, then, is the information the auditors rely on to form a sound judgment.

   

  But not all evidence is created equal. The standards emphasize two key qualities. First, the evidence must be appropriate, meaning it must be both relevant and reliable. Evidence must also be sufficient, referring to the quantity of evidence considered enough to convincingly support the auditor’s opinion.

   

  While audit standards state that evidence must be “sufficient and appropriate,” in practice, those standards rarely specify precisely how much evidence is enough.

   

  Drawing on interviews with 45 auditors from firms of varying sizes, we analyzed how professionals determine that they have collected sufficient appropriate evidence to conclude.

   

  We found that auditors typically begin with established guidance: predefined document lists, criteria, and clear sampling and testing thresholds. These structured tools offer initial certainty, but they often fall short in complex or ambiguous situations, where risk, estimation, or unusual transactions challenge expectations. In such cases, auditors described a shift from checklist-based reasoning to a more adaptive, fluid process of interpreting and contextualizing evidence.

   

  A central finding is that comfort drives many sufficiency decisions. Comfort reflects a provisional state that emerges through iterative judgment. When discomfort arises, auditors adjust expectations by revising thresholds, gathering incremental evidence, or forming new mental models. They also draw on prior experience, client history, and peer consultation to recalibrate what counts as enough evidence.

   

  This suggests that evidence sufficiency is not a one-time determination, but a recursive feedback loop between structured procedures, interpersonal interactions, and auditors’ affective sense of when evidence sufficiency has been achieved. In practice, the process is shaped by interpersonal interactions as much as technical standards: discussions with clients, specialists, and reviewers often tip the balance toward either “we’re good” or “we need to keep going.”

   

  Overall, the study contributes to a more realistic understanding of how sufficiency judgments are made. By uncovering how auditors blend procedural rules with evolving discomfort/comfort cues, our findings offer insights for standard setters, regulators, and practitioners seeking clearer guidance on evidence expectations, especially in complex areas involving estimates and uncertainty.

   

  The reference for this article can be found below:

  Altiero, E. C., Baudot, L., & Hazgui, M. (2025). ‘Are we good? or do we need to keep going?’: unraveling auditors’ comfort with evidence sufficiency determinations. European Accounting Review, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2025.2589183

• Expectation management through private interactions: evidence from in-house meetings

  We investigate how managers use private channels to adjust analysts’ forecasts, based on a unique dataset of firms’ private in-house meetings in China. For firms facing strong expectation management incentives, we find that compared to analysts who do not attend their private meetings, those who attend produce steeper forecast walkdowns, suggesting that managers with such incentives opportunistically exploit private interactions to dampen analysts’ forecasts. Moreover, this private guidance is more effective if the meeting attendees include both mutual funds and analysts or if meetings occur after the current fiscal year-end. Further analyses indicate that analysts’ incentives to gain better access to management information and secure underwriting business induce their cooperative behaviour. We further identify unique roles of private versus public guidance in managing expectations. Overall, we depict a dynamic and interactive process of private guidance.

  The reference for this article can be found below:

  Hu, J., & Li, T. (2025). Expectation management through private interactions: evidence from in-house meetings. European Accounting Review, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2025.2593373

• The Mediterranean Accounting Conference (TMAC 2026 – Call for Papers)

  CALL FOR PAPERS
  THE MEDITERRANEAN ACCOUNTING CONFERENCE (TMAC 2026)
  June 14–17, 2026, Minoa Palace Resort, Chania/Crete, Greece

  CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION

  THE MEDITERRANEAN ACCOUNTING CONFERENCE (TMAC 2026)
  DATE: June 14 – 17, 2026
  LOCATION: Minoa Palace Resort, Chania/Crete, Greece
  SUBMISSION DEADLINE: January 15, 2026
  WEBSITE: https://tmac2026.com/

  Invited Speakers
  Ronald A. Dye, Northwestern University
  Wayne Landsman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  Mohan Venkatachalam, Duke University
  Joanna Wu, University of Rochester

  Organizing Institutions
  Tel Aviv University, Israel
  University of Cyprus, Cyprus

  Conference Objective
  This conference seeks to bring together leading academics, researchers, and professionals to discuss the latest developments and innovative research in accounting and related fields.

  Areas of Interest
  We invite submissions in all areas of accounting and closely related fields.

  Paper and Thesis Submission Guidelines
  Please visit the submission system here, to submit your paper or working paper by January 15, 2026.

  Registration Fee
  Early registration (until March 15, 2026): €450
  Late registration (from March 16, 2026): €550
  PhD student early registration (until March 15, 2026): €250
  PhD student late registration (from March 16, 2026): €300
  The registration fee includes conference participation, welcome reception (June 14), boat trip or afternoon excursion with dinner (June 15), conference dinner (June 16), coffee break, lunches.
  Accompanying persons may participate in social events for an additional fee.
  Register here.

  Important Dates
  Paper submission deadline: January 15, 2026
  Notification of decision: February 15, 2026

  Venue
  Minoa Palace Resort
  730 14 Platanias
  Chania, Greece

  Scientific Committee
  Aboody, David, University of California, Los Angeles
  Amihud, Yakov, New York University
  Amir, Eli, Tel Aviv University
  Amiram, Dan, Tel Aviv University
  Bar-Yosef, Sasson, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
  Bilinski, Pawel, City, University of London
  Callen, Jeffrey, University of Toronto
  Cascino, Stefano, London School of Economics and Political Science
  Clatworthy, Mark, University of Bristol
  Correia, Maria, London School of Economics and Political Science
  Demers, Elizabeth, University of Waterloo
  Drymiotes, George, Texas Christian University
  Even-Tov, Omri, University of California, Berkeley
  Garcia Lara, Juan, Charles III University of Madrid
  Garcia Osma, Beatriz, Charles III University of Madrid
  Gox, Robert, University of Zurich
  Guttman, Ilan, New York University
  Hemmer, Thomas, Rice University
  Kartapanis, Antonis, Texas A&M University
  Kasznik, Ron, Stanford University
  Lambertides, Neofytos, Cyprus University of Technology
  Larocque, Stephannie, University of Notre Dame
  Lehavy, Reuven, University of Michigan
  Lev, Baruch, New York University
  Livnat, Joshua, New York University
  Livne, Gilad, Queen Mary University of London
  Loumioti, Maria, The University of Texas at Dallas
  Michaeli, Beatrice, University of California, Los Angeles
  Panaretou, Argyro, Lancaster University
  Panayides, Marios, The University of Oklahoma
  Pope, Peter, Bocconi University
  Prencipe, Annalisa, Bocconi University
  Ronen, Joshua, New York University
  Rothenberg, Naomi, University of Alberta
  Shakespeare, Cathy, University of Michigan
  Shin, Jee-Eun, University of Toronto
  Stolowy, Herve, HEC Paris
  Vasvari, Florin, London Business School
  Versano, Tsahi, Tel Aviv University
  Vyas, Dushyant, University of Toronto
  Wong, Franco, University of California Irvine
  Xin, Baohua, University of Toronto
  Yehuda, Nir, University of Delaware
  Yoon, Aaron, Northwestern University
  Zarowin, Paul, New York University
  Ziv, Amir, Columbia University

  Organizing Committee
  Eti Einhorn, Tel Aviv University
  Shai Levi, Tel Aviv University
  Dan Weiss, Tel Aviv University
  Andreas Charitou, University of Cyprus
  Irene Karamanou, University of Cyprus

• Institutional logics and IPSAS preparedness: evidence from Portuguese public sector entities

  Public sector accounting reforms are rarely linear or predictable. Our research investigates how competing institutional logics shaped the preparedness of 229 Portuguese public entities as they transitioned toward an IPSAS-based accounting system.

  We developed a novel diagnostic proxy to capture the critical “middle phase” between formal adoption and actual implementation—where intentions are translated into tangible actions. This approach enabled us to assess not only whether entities initiated the reform, but also how effectively they mobilized to carry it forward.

  Entities guided by a strong financial accounting logic were significantly more prepared, and this effect was amplified when combined with a market-oriented mindset. However, once external compliance pressures subsided, so did reform momentum—suggesting strategic compliance rather than deep institutional commitment. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, entities primarily motivated by IPSAS logic did not exhibit higher engagement, challenging the notion that legitimacy-seeking alone drives reform. In contrast, group logic played a constructive role by prompting earlier preparation.

  Our findings also underscore the importance of people and context. Entities led by individuals with higher academic qualifications demonstrated greater preparedness, indicating that formal education enhances the capacity to manage complex reforms. Variation across public subsectors further influenced reform trajectories.

  Overall, the study advances our understanding of how institutional logics shape reform readiness. It shows that preparedness cannot be reduced to technical compliance alone. The proxy we introduce offers regulators and policymakers a practical tool to monitor progress and anticipate implementation challenges—especially relevant for countries embarking on IPSAS or similar reforms.

  For the full study, see our article in Accounting in Europe: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2025.2585795

   

• 2025 Junior Network Virtual Workshop

  The EAA is pleased to announce that the 2025 Junior Network Virtual Workshop will be held on Zoom, on December 18th, starting at 10 am. 

   

  The submissions were invited by the EAA Virtual Activities Committee in collaboration with the Editors of the PMI and the Chairs of the EAA Doctoral Colloquium, in an effort to further support students who submitted to the PMI in the past or applied to the EAA DC. 

   

  We hope this initiative in the future may prompt more interest in the PMI and EAA DC as presentation at the workshop is intended to be only accessible to students who have tried to engage with the EAA initiatives in support of junior scholars. We welcome the attendance of all EAA members. The program is available here and registration is open at this link.

• Researcher Exposure to Political Risks

  The year 2025 will likely be remembered as the moment where politics and academia became deeply divided. Universities are increasingly under scrutiny for allegedly advancing partisan research agendas. To safeguard their credibility and autonomy as well as to protect their academics, universities should strive to minimize their exposure to politically charged research priorities. Individual researchers, too, benefit from steering clear of such topics—but they cannot achieve this independence alone.

  The danger of political bias arises when researchers feel pressurized to pursue topics or draw conclusions aligned with the ideological preferences of university leadership—whether left- or right-leaning. This pressure can intensify when editorial boards of academic journals and government funding bodies share similar biases. The resulting distortion is rarely the fault of individual researchers. The structural environment often makes neutrality difficult. The following sections explain why.

   

  Conscious or Unconscious Bias?

  Consider a social science study conducted by two researchers: one who, consciously or unconsciously, views a lack of diversity as problematic, and another who does not. Both examine how a specific intervention affects the academic success of particular groups. How can the research process ensure that personal bias does not influence the results?

   

  Correcting Bias Through Systemic Safeguards

  If a researcher manipulates data to produce results that align with their beliefs—a practice known as “p-hacking”—they are guilty of statistical misconduct. Manipulating samples similarly violates research ethics. Fortunately, most reputable journals now require access to raw data to prevent such abuses. Moreover, designs such as registered reports, where researchers predefine their analyses before data collection, significantly reduce the likelihood of bias.

  Further safeguards include peer review and editorial oversight. Other scholars and editorial boards assess whether the study follows sound methodological principles and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. As long as these checks function properly, the researcher’s personal beliefs have little impact on the published outcome.

   

  The Role of University Administrators, Editors, and (government-)funders

  It is understandable that researchers’ values influence the selection of their topics. However, problems arise when universities hire or promote scholars whose views align with institutional preferences. Similarly, journal editors and funding agencies can be susceptible to (un)conscious biases, threatening the independence of research through topic selection rather than methodology.

  A striking example appeared in The Wall Street Journal in early February. It reported that the number of papers accepted by top U.S. journals on the positive effects of corporate sustainability reporting declined as the sitting president’s popularity rose. As the political climate shifted, support for such topics waned—and by January, publications advocating ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) benefits had nearly disappeared. It is highly damaging to the individual academic and to the university as an employer if a researcher has produced a set of papers that will never by published while they were written on instigation of the institutional leadership.

  The Dutch research Associations (NOW) highlights several research priorities—such as inclusion—that are not entirely politically neutral. While it is important to study participation in society, framing the issue immediately in terms of “inclusion” introduces a politically charged premise. Earlier studies from the 1980s and 1990s approached similar questions through the lens of “affirmative action,” assessing whether such measures held social value without embedding ideological assumptions.

   

  Creating Conditions for Independent Research

  Concerns about diversity in universities should primarily be directed at administrators, funding bodies, and journals—not at the researchers themselves.

  To truly depoliticize scientific inquiry, reforms must begin with university administrators, research funders, and journal editorial boards. Administrations that prioritize politically fashionable themes—such as sustainability or inclusion—risk compromising research freedom and diversity of thought.

  Rather than promoting specific viewpoints, university leaders, funders, and editors should focus on creating the optimal conditions for rigorous, independent, and world-class research.

   

  Brodeur, A., Carrell, S., Figlio, D., & Lusher, L. (2023). Unpacking p-hacking and publication bias. American economic review, 113(11), 2974-3002.

  Holzer, Harry, and David Neumark. 2000. “Assessing Affirmative Action.” Journal of Economic Literature 38 (3): 483–568.DOI: 10.1257/jel.38.3.483

  Harvard stands up to Trump, in The Economist, Apr 15th 2025

  What Donald Trump is teaching Harvard in The Economist, Jul 30th 2025

   

  Jan Bouwens

  Professor of Accounting

  Amsterdam Business School/University of Amsterdam

  Research Fellow at Judge Business School

  University of Cambridge