trust

• European Accounting Association response to proposed amendments to the IFRS Foundation Constitution

  European Accounting Association (EAA)

  Rue Cantersteen 47

  1000 Brussels, BELGIUM

  Mr Erkii Liikanen

  Chair, IFRS Foundation Trustees

  IFRS Foundation

  Colombus Building 7

  Westferry Circus Canary Wharf October 30, 2026

  LONDON E14 4HD

  Re. European Accounting Association response to proposed amendments to the IFRS Foundation Constitution

  Dear Mr. Liikanen, dear Trustees,

  The EAA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the IFRS Foundation Trustees’ Exposure Draft, Proposed Targeted Amendments to the IFRS Foundation Constitution, published in August 2026. We represent the accounting academic community in Europe and internationally, with more than 2,500 members from over 60 countries. Our principal concern is that reducing the size of the boards, particularly the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), could further weaken academic representation and the contribution of rigorous research to standard-setting decisions.

  We acknowledge that the Foundation’s financial situation may require prompt organizational changes. We also wish to highlight the value of the constructive relationship between the Foundation and the academic community, including the EAA joint activities and communication have increased in recent years, and we acknowledge the efforts made to strengthen these ties and to take accounting research into account in standard setters’ decision-making.

  Nevertheless, we also believe that the materials presented to downsize do not provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of the causes of the Foundation’s worsening financial position or of the alternatives available to address it. We would also welcome separate assessments of the implications for the IASB and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), given their different circumstances, organisational arrangements and objectives. Such assessments would provide a stronger basis for evaluating the proposed changes to board size.

  In our view, cost reductions should not come at the expense of the expertise, representativeness and diversity needed for high-quality technical deliberations. For a global standard-setting organisation, diversity encompasses both geographical representation and the professional and academic backgrounds of board members. In the case of geographical diversity reducing American representation to 2 members makes very likely to ignore all (or most) South American countries. In the case of Europe, which a great diversity in their circumstances, most countries will be ignored. EAA AISBL 47 rue Cantersteen, Brussels 1000, Belgium RPM Brussels number: 0477 783 297 VAT: BE 0477 783 297

  In terms of background diversity, academic representation is already very limited (nil currently in IASB), and smaller boards are likely to make it much more difficult to retain this essential perspective. We therefore urge the Trustees to pursue other opportunities to reduce costs rather than reduce the size of the IASB.

  We consider direct participation by a board member with a strong academic and research background essential. Such a member can bring objective, reliable research findings into technical debates as they develop, assess the quality and relevance of the available evidence, and contribute directly to the Boards’ decisions. We therefore ask the Trustees to safeguard this representation on the IASB and to give explicit consideration to ensuring academic representation on the ISSB.

  The Foundation’s engagement with academia is valuable, but it serves a different purpose from academic membership of a board. A board member acting as a liaison with academia, academic consultation groups or advisory panels can support the exchange of knowledge. These arrangements cannot, however, substitute for the continuing participation of an academic board member in deliberations and decisions. The Foundation’s constructive relationship with the EAA and other academic organisations should complement direct academic representation.

  Weakening this direct contribution would create three related risks. First, standard-setting debates could give insufficient weight to rigorous research on the causes and consequences of accounting practices, standards and reported figures. Second, the Foundation could make less effective use of the substantial resources, mainly publicly funded, invested in accounting research worldwide, limiting the contribution of research to society. Third, overlooking relevant evidence could lead to decisions that generate additional costs for the Foundation over the longer term.

  We therefore kindly ask the Trustees to reconsider the proposed reduction in IASB membership, provide a fuller explanation of the financial pressures and alternative cost-saving measures, and assess the needs of the two boards separately. Any changes to the Constitution should preserve the diversity of expertise required for robust technical debate and safeguard the direct contribution of academic research to the Foundation’s standard-setting work.

  Yours sincerely,

  On behalf of the EAA

  Araceli Mora                                      Christof Beuselinck

  EAA President 2025-2027             EAA President-elect 2026-27

  Original letter can be viewed here.

   

• Performativity and the professionalization of a family firm

  In our recent European Accounting Review paper, we examine how a family firm professionalized after a private equity fund took over 51% of the shares. Our case illustrates the performative nature of accounting devices like budgets, and highlights how key employees can help render them taken for granted. In this blog, we highlight the key findings from our work.

  What is performativity?

  Prior research established that accounting devices like budgets and KPIs are not neutral, but shape organizations, individuals and worldviews (e.g. Miller & Power, 2013). To some extent, they create the reality that they seek to describe. This is called the performativity of accounting devices (see also Vosselman, 2022).

  In our study, we examine how three new accounting devices (management reports, KPIs, and cash flow analyses) shape a family firm after a takeover. Also, we examine how some managers “amplify” the impact of these accounting devices. We follow a suggestion by Power (2021) to focus on organizational actors that he coins “agents of amplification,” who can play an important role in embedding accounting devices.

  Setting: Family firms and professionalization

  Prior literature states that accounting devices usually do not play an important role in small family firms (e.g. Hiebl, 2013). Also, we know that a takeover and a related professionalization process of a family firm may go hand in hand with the introduction of more formal accounting devices such as budgets and KPIs.

  We study the takeover of family firm FAMFEET by private equity firm PRICAP, and pay specific attention to newly introduced accounting devices. We draw on 18 interviews with the family founders, employees, representatives of the private equity fund, and the new managers to study the changes following the takeover by PRICAP.

  Three practices related to performativity

  In our paper, we zoom in on the role of new managers with a strong financial background. These ‘agents of amplification’ engage in three related practices that amplify the performativity of management reports, cash flow analyses and KPIs. These practices are:

  1. specifying: developing accounting devices and tailoring them to the context in which they are used;
  2. showcasing: demonstrating organizational performance and showing their own skills by communicating results through increasingly sophisticated accounting devices;
  3. streamlining: aligning organizational processes in a way that better fits with the mobilized accounting devices.

  Through these three practices, the newly hired managers (the agents of amplification) help the organization navigate resistance to the accounting devices, while simultaneously emphasizing their benefits and increasing their own positional power.

  In addition, our analysis also draws attention to the impact of the accounting changes on the social fabric of the family firm. One interviewee pointed to eroded relations and less commitment among employees, and summarized her observations by stating:

  It was all much more personal and now it’s more ‘the way it has to be done’…[laughs]… the way it has to be done in a big company!

  Conclusions

  We contribute to the accounting literature in two ways. First, we add to the performativity literature by exploring the practices that agents of amplification engage in: specifying, showcasing, and streamlining. Furthermore, we also show how the social fabric of a family firm may change following a takeover and professionalization process.

  Second, we analyze a small family firm that professionalizes after a private equity fund took over 51% of the shares. By doing so, we make an empirical contribution, as this event often takes place beyond closed doors. We hope our findings help to better understand accounting in family firms and the role organizational actors can play in amplifying the performativity of accounting devices.

   

  Full paper on which this blog is based

  • Van der Kolk, B., Bullinger, B., and Stam, L. (2026). The Performativity of Accounting Devices and the Role of Agents of Amplification: Evidence from a Family Firm Following a Takeover. European Accounting Review, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2026.2725572

   

  Other references

  • Hiebl, M. (2013). Management accounting in the family business: tipping the balance for survival. Journal of Business Strategy, 34(6), 19–25.
  • Miller, P., & Power, M. (2013). Accounting, Organizing, and Economizing: Connecting Accounting Research and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 557–605.
  • Power, M. (2021). Modelling the micro-foundations of the audit society: Organizations and the logic of the audit trail. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 6-32.
  • Vosselman, E. (2022). The performativity of accounting: advancing a Posthumanist understanding. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 19(2), 137–161.

   

  Authors:

  Berend van der Kolk is an associate professor of management accounting at VU Amsterdam.
  Bernadette Bullinger is an assistant professor of human resource management at IE University Madrid.
  Leon Stam is a research assistant who carried out work for this project while he was at the University of Groningen.

• Call for Abstracts — EAA DEI Research Workshop Series, Part One Deadline: 21 September 2026

  The EAA Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee invites submissions of extended abstracts for the first part of a three-part developmental series on DEI research in accounting.

  What we are looking for. Research at the individual, team, organisational, or national level that engages one or more ways of conceptualising diversity — including race, ethnicity, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, power differentials, disability status, and neurodiversity. Work on equity and differential outcomes within organisations and other societal structures. Work on inclusion, respect, and belonging within teams, organisations, and professions. Quantitative, qualitative, conceptual, and mixed-methods work are all welcome, as is work grounded in any national or regional context.

  Selection criteria. Abstracts will be selected on the basis that they (1) fall within the DEI domain; (2) are not currently under review at a journal; and (3) are at an early or middle stage of development. Priority goes to junior faculty and doctoral students, and to authors who identify a specific question they want help with. Authors may submit more than one abstract; one per author will be selected.

  What to submit (one document, maximum three pages):

  • An extended abstract
  • A list of the key questions on which you want feedback
  • Your stage of development (idea, data collection, analysis, full draft)
  • Three keywords
  • Your career stage (doctoral student, or years post-PhD)
  • Target journal, if you have one in mind

  What participation involves. Authors are asked to read the other abstract discussed in their breakout room. Participants who join a room as a reviewer are asked to read two abstracts. Those who wish to attend the panel only are welcome to register as observers, with no reading commitment.

  Decisions will be communicated by 23 September. Submit to EAA DEIC by 21 September 2026.

• Do investors value mandatory sustainability reporting standards?

  The European Union’s sustainability reporting reforms are often presented as a trade-off. On one side are the expected benefits of more complete, reliable and comparable corporate information. On the other are the costs imposed on companies required to collect, verify and disclose large volumes of sustainability data. At the same time, sustainability reporting serves a broader set of stakeholders than financial reporting, and the standard-setting process can therefore embed societal objectives that do not necessarily coincide with equity investors’ information needs.
  Recent debates surrounding the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, or CSRD, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, or ESRS, have placed particular emphasis on the cost side of this trade-off. Policymakers have proposed narrowing the scope of the regulation, delaying implementation and simplifying reporting requirements in order to reduce compliance burdens.

  But how do investors perceive these reforms?
  In our recent study published in European Accounting Review, we examine stock market reactions to key events associated with the development and adoption of the ESRS. Unlike the earlier Non-Financial Reporting Directive, they introduce a common and detailed reporting framework covering environmental, social and governance issues. They also embed the principle of double materiality, requiring companies to report both how sustainability issues affect the firm and how the firm affects society and the environment.

  Investors reacted positively on average
  Across the four events, the average three-day cumulative abnormal return was 0.301%, equivalent to about EUR 17.8 million in market value for the average firm. This finding contrasts with some earlier evidence on broader non-financial disclosure mandates, where investors often reacted negatively. One possible explanation is that the ESRS do more than require additional disclosure: they introduce common standards that can make sustainability information easier to interpret and compare. But the average reaction is only part of the story.

  The benefits are not distributed equally
  We find stronger positive reactions for companies with lower-quality sustainability disclosure before the adoption of the standards. This is consistent with investors expecting greater improvements among firms whose previous reporting practices were relatively weak. We also find stronger reactions where existing sustainability reporting practices were more divergent, suggesting that investors anticipate greater benefits from standardisation when firms previously reported similar issues in inconsistent ways. Taken together, these findings suggest that mandatory sustainability reporting standards may be particularly valuable where voluntary reporting has been least effective.

  Who gains—and who does not?
  The market response was less positive for firms with poor environmental performance, consistent with investors anticipating greater reputational, operational or compliance costs as sustainability performance becomes more visible. By contrast, firms with stronger sustainability governance – including board-level sustainability committees and sustainability-linked managerial incentives – experienced more positive reactions, suggesting that investors viewes them to be better equipped to implement the new standards. Reactions were also weaker when firms’ sustainability disclosure appeared strong relative to their underlying environmental performance, consistent with greater perceived exposure to disclosure–performance gaps.

  What does this mean for the current simplification debate?
  The European policy debate has increasingly focused on reducing reporting complexity and administrative burdens. Some simplification may be justified, particularly where requirements generate costs without producing useful information.
  Our additional analyses suggest a note of caution. We examine events associated with the weakening or delayed application of the ESRS and find negative market reactions. Although these analyses should be interpreted cautiously, they are consistent with investors viewing reduced regulatory stringency as lowering the expected benefits of the reporting regime.
  This does not mean that every reporting requirement should be preserved. Nor does it imply that the ESRS will necessarily generate long-term benefits in practice. Our event-study design captures investor expectations around regulatory events, rather than the realised effects of the standards after several years of implementation. Reducing unnecessary compliance costs may benefit companies and investors. But weakening the features that improve information quality and comparability may remove precisely the benefits that investors appear to value.

  The broader lesson
  The broader lesson extends beyond the ESRS. Mandatory sustainability reporting may create capital-market benefits when it addresses weaknesses in voluntary reporting: incomplete information, inconsistent measurement and limited comparability across firms.
  The key question is therefore not simply whether sustainability reporting should be mandatory or voluntary, but how reporting standards should be designed. For policymakers, the challenge is to distinguish requirements that create unnecessary costs from those that make sustainability information more informative and comparable for capital markets.

   

• Interfirm cooperation and capital market performance: automated textual analysis of voluntary disclosures in Form 10-Ks

  In today’s business environment, firms are increasingly struggling to navigate through volatility and uncertainty. Therefore, successful cooperation across corporate and even industry boundaries is becoming highly important. In this context, interfirm cooperation (IFC) refers to an informal, non-equity-based arrangement typically formed by a small and limited number of independent firms pursuing individual, compatible, or concurrent, joint goals. A recent example of this is the partnership between heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar and technology firm Nvidia, which aims to accelerate the integration of AI in heavy machinery and manufacturing in order to drive industrial innovation. Similarly, conglomerate 3M has partnered with technology firm Microsoft, combining advanced materials science with digital resources and capabilities to enhance data centre infrastructure and enterprise transformation. In these and many other cases, the partners gain access to each other’s resources, capabilities, and expertise. This enables them to strengthen their competitive position and thus secure their long-term viability. Despite their high strategic relevance, however, IFCs are not yet subject to mandatory disclosure requirements. Consequently, partnering firms may voluntarily disclose IFC-related information to reduce information asymmetries between managers and investors, which can eventually improve their capital market performance.

  Against this background, the study ‘Interfirm cooperation and capital market performance: automated textual analysis of voluntary disclosures in Form 10-Ks’ examines how the extent of voluntary IFC-related disclosures relates to various capital market performance indicators of U.S.-listed firms. Drawing on signalling theory, the authors propose a non-linear relationship: While increasing disclosure levels may initially enhance capital market performance by reducing information asymmetries, higher levels could raise concerns about proprietary costs and information overload, ultimately triggering detrimental effects. To test this assumption, the study focuses on Form 10-K filings of 208 firms listed in the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 stock market index between 2008 and 2020. Using a rule‑based approach of automated textual analysis supported by a newly developed dictionary, the authors construct a novel, text‑based measure of voluntary IFC-related disclosures. Subsequent multivariate analyses applying this new measure confirm the proposed non-linear pattern. More specifically, the results reveal U-shaped associations for market value and trading volume, as well as U-shaped associations for the cost of equity capital and the bid-ask spread. These findings remain consistent across multiple robustness checks and sample splits.

  Overall, this study highlights the value relevance of voluntary IFC-related disclosures and their importance for investor decision-making. Contrary to previous findings, it contributes to the accounting literature by unveiling the non-linear effects of these disclosures. In terms of corporate practice, the study shows how a balanced IFC-related disclosure strategy can help to improve firms’ capital market performance compared to low or excessive disclosure levels.

  Reference:

  Zink, D., Fischer, T. M., & Gaschler, S. (2026). Interfirm cooperation and capital market performance: automated textual analysis of voluntary disclosures in Form 10-Ks. European Accounting Review, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2026.2695138

• Sophisticated information systems and controller involvement in strategy development

  In this paper published in the European Accounting Review, we investigate whether the sophistication of management accounting information systems (MAIS) enhances controllers’ involvement in strategy development. Prior research offers inconclusive and largely qualitative evidence on this relationship: while some studies suggest that more advanced systems enable a stronger strategic role for controllers, others report limited or no such effect. Against this mixed empirical backdrop, we develop and test a role-theoretical model that links MAIS sophistication to controllers’ strategic participation and examine whether this relationship differs in family firms.

  We argue that more sophisticated MAIS should enable controllers to contribute more meaningfully to strategic decision-making by providing higher-quality and more integrated information. However, we expect family control to attenuate this relationship because strategic authority in such firms often remains concentrated within the owning family.

  Using survey data from German Mittelstand firms, we find a positive association between MAIS sophistication and controllers’ involvement in strategy development. Additional analyses indicate that this effect is primarily driven by improvements in information quality and analytical support rather than by time savings from automation. We also unpack the moderating role of family control and show that it weakens—but does not eliminate—the positive MAIS–strategy involvement relationship.

  Overall, we contribute to the management accounting and family business literatures by providing large-sample quantitative evidence that MAIS sophistication is an important enabler of controllers’ strategic role, while also demonstrating that ownership structures shape the extent to which this potential is realized.

  Reference:

  Hiebl, M. R. W., Thaller, J., Dohmen, C. J., & Papiorek, K. L. (2026). Management accounting information systems sophistication, family control, and controller involvement in strategy development. European Accounting Review, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2026.2619581

• The Last Signal Wins: What Professional Tennis Can Teach Us about Performance Feedback

  Why the Latest Performance Signal Matters

  Consider two employees with similar overall performance. One initially performs below colleagues but subsequently improves and receives positive recent performance information. The other starts strongly but receives negative information about their latest results. Although their cumulative performance may be comparable, is their subsequent performance likely to be the same?

  In our forthcoming article in European Accounting Review, we examine how individuals perform after receiving contradictory performance signals. Drawing on recency theory, we predict that subsequent performance is more strongly associated with the latest signal. We test this prediction using more than 29,000 professional tennis matches in which players receive opposing performance signals before a deciding set. This setting allows us to observe individuals in the same overall position but arriving there after either a recent success or setback.

  We find that a recent positive signal is associated with better subsequent performance than a recent negative signal. However, this relationship varies with the signal’s informativeness and the recipient’s characteristics. The recency relationship is weaker among individuals with characteristics associated with higher self-efficacy. We also document different patterns among men and women. Women tend to underperform following unexpected positive signals, consistent with choking under pressure, whereas men perform worse following recent setbacks, consistent with the Golem effect.

  These findings have implications for performance-information systems. Managers should consider not only the information provided but also its sequence, timing and informativeness. The most recent signal may have a particularly strong association with employees’ motivation and subsequent performance. Moreover, these relationships are unlikely to be uniform across employees. Understanding differences in confidence, experience and responses to pressure may therefore be important when interpreting the relationship between performance information and subsequent performance.

  Reference:

  Aranda, C., Arellano, J., & Dávila, A. (2026) The last signal wins: How recent performance information shapes subsequent performance under contradictory signals. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638180.2026.2708177

   

• Can Management Control Impact Sustainable Behavior?

  From prior research, we know that management control can impact employee motivation and behavior. In our new study, recently published in Public Administration Review, we find that sustainability-related management controls can stimulate pro-environmental behavior of employees. Below, we highlight our main findings.

  Pro-environmental behavior and management control

  While CO₂ levels are reaching record high levels, the scientific consensus is that it is “unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land” (IPCC 2023). We are interested in studying how the impact of human beings and organizations on climate can be prevented or mitigated, which is why we examine pro-environmental behavior in organizations.

  Survey evidence was collected in a Dutch city government that is at the forefront of implementing sustainability-related forms of management control. We categorized their management control efforts in output control (e.g., a sustainability budget and a coalition agreement on sustainability goals), behavior control (e.g., a sustainability roadmap and compulsory sustainability formats for new proposals), and clan control (e.g., statements from senior management, training, and inspiration sessions).

  Finding 1: Climate-concerned employees engage in more sustainable behavior

  First, we find that employees who are more concerned about the climate, also engage more in pro-environmental behavior in the workplace (H1). This is in line with the theory of planned behavior, which states that actual behavior often correlates with intentions.

   

  Finding 2: Output controls strengthen the relation between concern and behavior

  Second, our findings suggest that the familiarity of employees with sustainability-related output controls strengthens the relation between employee concerns about the climate and their pro-environmental behavior (H4). We theorize this by arguing that budgets can signal a norm, and stronger social norms can strengthen the likelihood that employees translate their environmental concerns into action.

  Finding 3: Behavior controls directly increase sustainable behavior

  Third, our survey evidence suggests that behavior controls, such as formats that force employees to write about the climate impact of their proposals, directly impact pro-environmental behavior (H3). This finding is independent from the level of employee concerns about the climate. In other words, if employees have lower levels of concern for the environment, behavior controls can still be effective to increase their pro-environmental behavior.

  Conclusion

  Research in the field of management control and sustainability is still in development. We contribute to this literature by unpacking how different types of management control can help facilitate pro-environmental behavior. Have a look at our paper (open access) in Public Administration Review for more information about this study, its limitations, and its implications.

   

  Full paper (open access)

  Van der Kolk, B., Wiersma, E., Odekerken, W. (2026). Stimulating Pro-Environmental Behavior Using Management Control. Public Administration Review, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.70156

   

  Biographies

  Berend van der Kolk is an Associate Professor of Management Accounting at VU Amsterdam.
  Eelke Wiersma is an Associate Professor of Management Accounting at VU Amsterdam.
  Willemijn Odekerken is a Senior Controller at a Dutch City Government.

   

• Call for Papers: Special Issue in International Journal of Auditing, “Audits Beyond Public Companies”

   The idea behind this special issue is to broaden the focus of auditing research to include audit practices outside the typical public company context. 

  So far, audit research has mainly focused on auditors and audit practices related to public companies. However, the majority of audit engagements actually involve non-listed clients. Looking at how the audit market is shaped in practice means looking at the auditors who work with these clients. 

  From the client perspective, and building on the review by Vanstraelen and Schelleman (2017), “Auditing Private Companies: What Do We Know?”, we invite submissions that address gaps in our understanding of private company audits. While prior research confirms that audits can enhance financial reporting quality, important questions remain about the context-specific value of audits, the design of audit regulation for private firms, and the viability of alternative assurance services. 

  From the auditor perspective, we aim to expand our knowledge of auditors and their relationships with all types of clients, not only listed companies. This means paying more attention to smaller audit firms and individual auditors. Despite increasing interest in audit inputs, we still know relatively little about how individual auditors and audit teams (their experience, judgment, interpersonal dynamics, and allocation of resources) shape audit outcomes. Research exploring the interactions) between publicly listed and private companies in the audit context is also of interest for this special issue. 

  Moreover, in private firm contexts, the nature of the auditor-client relationship is often more multifaceted. Clients typically rely on auditors not only for the assurance of their financial statements but also for a broader range of services, including support on internal control systems, accounting treatments, tax planning, and, more recently, sustainability reporting. This blurs the line between audit and advisory work, especially in smaller engagements where the same individual or closely connected team may provide multiple services to the same client. This dynamic raise important questions about independence, role conflict, and how multidisciplinary expertise is coordinated across different service lines within auditor’s work. 

  We welcome contributions from a broad spectrum of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies. Submissions may include empirical studies (whether qualitative, quantitative, archival, experimental, or mixed methods) as well as purely theoretical or conceptual papers. We especially encourage work that offers novel insights, challenges prevailing assumptions, or explores emerging issues from diverse scholarly approaches. 

  Submissions are reviewed on a rolling basis as they are received and remain open through October 31, 2026. 

  Guest editors: 

  Ann Vanstraelen (Maastricht University), Pietro A. Bianchi (Bocconi University), Like Jiang (University of Melbourne) and Miguel Minutti-Meza (University of Miami). 

  Online access and submission details:

  International Journal of Auditing

  Special Issue in International Journal of Auditing 2026 (with QR code for online access and submission details)

• Extended Deadline for the 10th Workshop on Accounting and Regulation (Siena – June 25-27, 2026)

  New Deadline for applications: 24^th April 2026 (to be submitted by email to dipietra@unisi.it)

  The 10th Workshop on Accounting & Regulation will take place in the Rectorate building of the University of Siena (Via Banchi di Sotto, no. 55, Siena) and the “Santa Chiara Lab” (Via Valdimontone nº 5, Siena) from June 25^th to June 27^th, 2026.

  The submission of papers addressing Accounting & Regulation topics is welcome and should be done by email to dipietra@unisi.it (rather than through the EIASM system).

  Note: papers submitted before March 20th through the EIASM system should not be resubmitted unless there are paper updates,  which must be sent to dipietra@unisi.it.

  More information can be found here:

  10th Workshop on Accounting and Regulation – ARC

  ORGANISING CONTACT IN SIENA: Roberto Di Pietra, University of Siena (previously co-organized with EIASM)

  STEERING COMMITTEE Roberto Di Pietra (University of Siena); Luzi Hail (University of Pennsylvania); Jörg-Markus Hitz (University of Tübingen); Araceli Mora (University of Valencia); Carien van Mourik (Open University); Ivana Raonic (Bayes Business School); Alfred Wagenhofer (University of Graz)

  ORGANISING COMMITTEE Jonida Carungu, London Metropolitan University; Matteo Molinari, University of Bergamo