Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Memorandum of Understanding

Article Writing Guide

Files

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Consultants

Publons

The Relationship between Contingency Factors and Non-Financial Sustainability Performance: The Moderating Role of Managers' Behavioral Dimensions

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

2 MA. student of Accounting .Ilam University,Ilam,Iran

Abstract

In today’s world, a company’s profile is not determined solely by financial issues; rather, there is a growing need to include environmental and social perspectives. Consequently, there has been a rapidly increasing awareness of social and environmental activities, which in recent years has been considered under the concept of sustainability performance. According to the contingency theory, the implementation of a sustainability approach can vary significantly depending on an organization’s unique conditions. This theory has had significant implications for management decision-making, as management decisions are influenced by the characteristics of the managers themselves. The purpose of this research is to investigate the moderating role of managers' behavioral dimensions on the relationship between contingent factors and non-financial sustainability performance. Nine research hypotheses were tested and analyzed using the information of 142 firms admitted to the Tehran Stock Exchange during the period from 2013 to 2022 (including 1,420 firm-year observations) and using regression. The results indicated a positive and significant effect of firm size on non-financial sustainability performance and a negative and significant effect of environmental complexity and uncertainty on non-financial sustainability performance. No significant relationship was documented between board independence and non-financial sustainability performance. Management optimism strengthens the relationship between firm size and non-financial sustainability performance. In addition, management myopia changes and negates the relationship between board independence and non-financial sustainability performance. However, management optimism does not have a moderating role in the relationship between environmental complexity and uncertainty and the independence of the board of directors with non-financial sustainability performance. Finally, management myopia does not moderate the relationship between firm size, environmental complexity, and uncertainty with non-financial sustainability performance.
 

Introduction

The business environment for companies is increasingly uncertain and unstable due to many factors, not only financial but also non-financial. The application of contingency theory to sustainability reveals several factors that may influence performance and shape sustainability-oriented practices. In the field of corporate sustainability, this theory guides companies to prioritize sustainability as a dynamic capability to identify new opportunities and threats, leverage relevant opportunities, and adapt to market dynamics. Organizational strategic outcomes and processes are influenced by the managerial characteristics of senior managers. In particular, strategic choices are driven more by behavioral factors than by mechanical optimization. This theory emphasizes that the different characteristics of senior managers affect their strategic and structural decisions, which directly impact organizational performance. Based on this, the aim of the current research is to investigate the moderating role of managers' behavioral dimensions on the relationship between contingent factors and non-financial sustainability performance.

Methodology

According to its nature, this research is classified as applied, descriptive, and based on regression analysis. The necessary information for the research variables and hypothesis testing was gathered by referring to audited financial statements, independent audit reports, and financial database software such as Rahvard Navin and Tadbir Pardaz. The research data was then compiled in Excel, and used for statistical analysis with EViews software.
In this research, the statistical population includes all the companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. Considering the conditions, a total of 142 companies (equivalent to 1,420 company-years) were selected, and their data was compiled using Excel software, then summarized, classified, and refined. Based on the objectives of the research, nine hypotheses were formulated as follows:
First hypothesis: Firm size has a relationship with the company's non-financial sustainability performance.
Second hypothesis: Environmental complexity and uncertainty are related to the company's non-financial sustainability performance.
Third hypothesis: Board independence is related to the company's non-financial sustainability performance.
Fourth hypothesis: Management optimism moderates the relationship between firm size and non-financial sustainability performance
Fifth hypothesis: Management optimism moderates the relationship between environmental complexity and uncertainty with non-financial sustainability performance.
Sixth hypothesis: Management optimism moderates the relationship between board independence and non-financial sustainability performance.
Seventh hypothesis: Management myopia moderates the relationship between firm size and non-financial sustainability performance.
Eighth hypothesis: Management myopia moderates the relationship between environmental complexity and uncertainty and non-financial sustainability performance.
Ninth hypothesis: Management myopia moderates the relationship between board independence and non-financial sustainability performance.
 
To test the above hypotheses, the following regression models are used:
+
(1)
 
+
(2)
+
(3)

Conclusion

The increasing pressure to meet sustainability requirements has encouraged companies to implement sustainability programs to monitor and evaluate their processes and the impact of their activities along the value chain. It appears that not only is there a difference of opinion about the definition of corporate sustainability, but there is also ambiguity regarding the implementation of corporate sustainability practices. As a result, a significant diversity in organizations and various approaches to corporate sustainability can be identified. In this context, to enhance the understanding of the implementation of sustainable practices, it is suggested to adopt contingency theory. The aim of the current research is to investigate the role of managers' behavioral dimensions on the relationship between contingent factors and non-financial sustainability performance.
The results of the first hypothesis test showed that firm size has a positive and significant effect on non-financial sustainability performance. Since firm size affects the company's strategy, organizational goals, and competitive environment, non-financial performance is also influenced by these factors. Therefore, the larger the firm, the better its sustainability performance. This finding is in line with the findings of Mousanejad et al. (2021) and Yaghoubian et al. (2021).
The test of the second hypothesis indicates a negative and significant impact of environmental complexity and uncertainty on non-financial sustainability performance. Non-financial sustainability performance, which encompasses diverse aspects of the company's activities such as employees, the role of shareholders, supplier contracts, internal processes, and service quality, is relevant to health indicators. The presence and increase of environmental uncertainty negatively affect the quality of these factors, meaning that environmental uncertainty and complexity reduce non-financial sustainability performance. This result is consistent with the findings of Yuliusman et al. (2023) and contradicts the findings of Yaghoubian et al. (2021).
In the third hypothesis, no significant relationship between board independence and non-financial sustainability performance was documented. This finding can be explained by the fact that several factors, including the specific characteristics of companies, can affect the relationship between board independence and non-financial sustainability. Therefore, no significant relationship between these two variables was found in the companies studied.
In the fourth hypothesis, the moderating role of management optimism, as one of the behavioral dimensions of managers, was investigated in the relationship between firm size and non-financial sustainability performance. The findings indicate a positive effect of management optimism on this relationship. In other words, management optimism strengthens the relationship between firm size and non-financial sustainability performance.
The fifth and sixth hypotheses examined the moderating role of management optimism on the relationship between complexity, environmental uncertainty, and board independence with non-financial sustainability performance. The findings showed that management optimism does not moderate the relationship between environmental uncertainty, company complexity, and board independence with non-financial sustainability performance.
The moderating role of management myopia on the relationship between contingency variables and non-financial sustainability performance was investigated in the seventh to ninth hypotheses. The findings indicate that management myopia does not moderate the relationship between firm size, complexity, and environmental uncertainty with non-financial sustainability performance. However, regarding the relationship between board independence and non-financial sustainability performance, management myopia, as a moderating variable, has changed the direction of the relationship, resulting in a negative effect of board independence on non-financial sustainability performance. In other words, management myopia leads to reduced attention to non-financial sustainability performance under conditions of greater managerial independence, thereby degrading this performance.

رابطه بین عوامل اقتضایی و عملکرد پایداری غیرمالی؛ نقش 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  1. Abdullah, M., Shukor, Z. A., & Mohamed, Z. M., & Ahmad, A. (2015). Risk management disclosure: A study on the effect of voluntary risk management disclosure toward firm value. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 16(3), 400-432. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2014-0106
  2. Abu Afifa, M. M., & Saleh, I. (2022). Management accounting systems effectiveness, perceived environmental uncertainty and companies’ performance: the case of Jordanian companies. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(2), 259-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2020-2288
  3. Al-Abbadi, L. H., & Abu Rumman, A. R. (2023). Sustainable performance based on entrepreneurship, innovation, and green HRM in e-Business Firms. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2189998. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2189998
  4. Alves, I., & Lourenço, S. M. (2022). The use of non-financial performance measures for managerial compensation: evidence from SMEs. Journal of Management Control, 33(2), 151-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-022-00337-8
  5. Aprisma, R., & Sudaryati, E. (2020). Environmental Uncertainty and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Corporate Governance. Jurnal Akuntansi, 24(2), 187-203. https://doi.org/10.24912/ja.v24i2.690
  6. Asare, N., Muah, P., Frimpong, G., & Anyass, I. A. (2022). Corporate board structures, financial performance and stability: Evidence from banking markets in Africa. Journal of Money and Business, 3(1), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMB-12-2021-0071
  7. Baccar, A., Ben Mohamed, E., & Bouri, A. (2013). Managerial optimism, overconfidence and board characteristics: towards a new role of corporate governance. Australian journal of basic and applied sciences, 7(7), 287-301. https://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2013/may/287-301.pdf
  8. Ben-David, I., Graham, J.R., & Harvey, C.R. (2010). Managerial miscalibration, Working paper, Duke University. https://people.duke.edu/~charvey/Research/Published_Papers/P110_Managerial_miscalibration.pdf
  9. Bouwman, C. H. (2014). Managerial optimism and earnings smoothing. Journal of Banking & Finance, 41, 283-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2013.12.019
  10. Budiarto, D. S., Rahmawati, Prabowo, M. A., Bandi, Djajanto, L., Widodo, K. P., & Herawan, T. (2018). Accounting information system (ais) alignment and non-financial performance in small firm: a contingency perspective. In Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2018: 18th International Conference, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, July 2-5, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 18 (pp. 382-394). Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95165-2_27
  11. Calderón, R., Piñero, R., & Redín, D. M. (2020). Understanding independence: board of directors and CSR. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 552152. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552152
  12. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), 946-967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
  13. Chen, J., Shu, W., Wang, X., Sial, M. S., Sehleanu, M., & Badulescu, D. (2021). The impact of environmental uncertainty on corporate innovation: Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010334
  14. Chung, T. S., Low, A., & Rust, R. T. (2023). Executive confidence and myopic marketing management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(5), 1118-1142. doi:10.1007/s11747-022-00909-z
  15. Dagiliene, L., & Šutiene, K. (2019). Corporate sustainability accounting information systems: a contingency-based approach. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 10(2), 260-289. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2018-0200
  16. Deng, M., Fang, X., Tian, Z., & Luo, W. (2022). The Impact of Environmental Uncertainty on Corporate Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies. Sustainability, 14(9), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14094902
  17. Di Leo, A., Sfodera, F., Cucari, N., Mattia, G., & Dezi, L. (2023). Sustainability reporting practices: an explorative analysis of luxury fashion brands. Management Decision, 61(5), 1274-1297. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2022-0142
  18. Dzeraviaha, I. (2023). The impact of firm size on environmental sustainability: The assessment based on the analysis of cost structure. Business Strategy & Development, 6(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.221
  19. Fan, M. (2023). Managerial Short-termism, Corporate Social Responsibility and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from China. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2628429/v1 . 1-26. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2628429/v1
  20. Fuzi, S. F. S., Halim, S. A. A., & Julizaerma, M. K. (2016). Board independence and firm performance. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 460-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30152-6
  21. Ghodratolla.B. (2014). A model for the disclosure of social responsibility of companies and its connection with financial performance. PhD thesis in accounting..Allameh Tabatabi, Tehran.
  22. Heaton, J. B. (2002). Managerial optimism and corporate finance. Financial management, 33-45. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=304622
  23. Hoque, Z. (2004). A contingency model of the association between strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance measurement: impact on organizational performance. International business review, 13(4), 485-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.04.003
  24. Hoque, Z. (2005). Linking environmental uncertainty to non-financial performance measures and performance: a research note. The British Accounting Review, 37(4), 471-481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2005.08.003
  25. Hoti Arifaj, A., Berisha, V., Morina, F., & Avdyli, E. (2023). Exploring the impact of cash flow, company size, and debt on financial performance in corporations. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 20(3). 264-272. doi:10.21511/imfi.20(3).2023.22
  26. Hu, X., Lin, D., & Tosun, O. K. (2022). The Effect of Board Structure on Firm Performance-New Evidence from Product Market Conditions. WBS Finance Group Research Paper, (249). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3171998
  27. Ihar Dzeraviaha. (2022). The impact of firm size on environmental sustainability: The assessment based on the analysis of cost structure. Business strategy and development, 6(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.221
  28. Imbrogiano, J. P. (2021). Contingency in business sustainability research and in the sustainability service industry: A problematization and research agenda. Organization & Environment, 34(2), 298-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619897532
  29. Kaya, H. D. (2020). Business friendliness, firm performance and owner’s optimism. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4(3), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.21272/fmir.4(3).13-23.2020
  30. Keskin, A.İ., Dincer, B., & Dincer, C. (2020). Exploring the Impact of Sustainability on Corporate Financial Performance Using Discriminant Analysis. Sustainability, 12(6), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062346
  31. Kuranchie-Pong, L., Bokpin, G. A., & Andoh, C. (2016). Empirical evidence on disclosure and risk-taking of banks in Ghana. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, 24(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRC-05-2015-0025
  32. Le, H. O., Tran, A. H., & Le, D. T. (2023). The Contingency Factors, Integrated Performance Measures and Organizational Performance–Evidences from Vietnamese Manufacturing Enterprises. In International Conference on Emerging Challenges: Strategic Adaptation in The World of Uncertainties (ICECH 2022) (pp. 423-441). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-150-0_28
  33. Lewellen, W. G., & Badrinath, S. G. (1997). On the measurement of Tobin's q. Journal of financial economics, 44(1), 77-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(96)00013-X
  34. Lisin, A., Kushnir, A., Koryakov, A. G., Fomenko, N., & Shchukina, T. (2022). Financial Stability in Companies with High ESG Scores: Evidence from North America Using the Ohlson O-Score. Sustainability, 14(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010479
  35. Liu, X. (2020). Understanding the Classical Researches in Contingency Theory: A Review. 3rd International Conference on Economic Management and Green Development (ICEMGD 2020), 559-564. https://clausiuspress.com/conferences/LNEMSS/ICEMGD%202020/465.pdf
  36. Liu, Y., Kim, C. Y., Lee, E. H., & Yoo, J. W. (2022). Relationship between sustainable management activities and financial performance: Mediating effects of non-financial performance and moderating effects of institutional environment. Sustainability, 14(3), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031168
  37. Mahmud, M., Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. (2021). A contingency theory perspective of environmental management: Empirical evidence from entrepreneurial firms. Journal of general management, 47(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630702199148
  38. Maletič, M., Maletič, D., & Gomišček, B. (2018). The role of contingency factors on the relationship between sustainability practices and organizational performance. Journal of cleaner production, 171, 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.172
  39. Malik, M. F., Zaman, M., & Buckby, S. (2020). Enterprise risk management and firm performance: Role of the risk committee. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 16(1), 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcae.2019.100178
  40. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). Does overconfidence affect corporate investment? CEO overconfidence measures revisited. European financial management, 11(5), 649-659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-7798.2005.00302.x
  41. Mousanezhad, S., Mohammadi, E., Mohammadipour, R., & Sabzalipour, F. (2021). Using Contingency Approach to Improve Firms’ Financial Performance Forecasts. Advances in Mathematical Finance and Applications, 6(2), 357-376. Doi: 10.22034/amfa.2020.1886008.1345
  42. Ong, T. S., Teh, B. H., & Lee, A. S. (2019). Contingent factors and sustainable performance measurement (SPM) practices of Malaysian electronics and electrical companies. Sustainability, 11(4), 1058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041058
  43. Orazalin, N., Mahmood, M., & Narbaev, T. (2019). The impact of sustainability performance indicators on financial stability: evidence from the Russian oil and gas industry. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 8157-8168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04325-9
  44. Ortas, E., Álvarez, I., & Zubeltzu, E. (2017). Firms’ Board Independence and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 9(6), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061006
  45. Ortiz-Martínez, E., Marín-Hernández, S., & Santos-Jaén, J. M. (2023). Sustainability, corporate social responsibility, non-financial reporting and company performance: Relationships and mediating effects in Spanish small and medium sized enterprises. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 349-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/‌j.spc.2022.11.015
  46. Padlah Riyadi, P. R. (2023). Effect of financial performance, leverage, good corporate governance and company size on the sustainability report (study of companies listed on the Idx, LQ 45year 2015 – 2019. Cebong Journal, 2(3), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.35335/‌cebong.‌v2i3.128
  47. Pascual, A. G., Natalucci, F., & Piontek, T. (2023). Nonbank Financial Sector Vulnerabilities Surface as Financial Conditions Tighten. Financial Stability, IMF Blog. April, 4. 63-84. B2n.ir/f47408
  48. Phan, T. K., Nguyen, T. H. T., Dang, T. H., & Le, K. N. (2021). Non-financial factors affecting the operational performance of hospitality companies: Evidence from Vietnam. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(4), 48-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/‌ppm.19(4).2021.05
  49. Pires, R., & Alves, M. C. G. (2022). The Impact of Environmental Uncertainty on Accounting Information Relevance and Performance: A Contingency Approach. Economies, 10(9), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10090211
  50. Porter, C., & Sherwood, M. (2023). The effect of increases in board independence on financial reporting quality. Accounting Research Journal, 36(2/3), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-12-2021-0344
  51. Rezaee, Z., & Tuo, L. (2017). Voluntary disclosure of non-financial information and its association with sustainability performance. Advances in accounting, 39, 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2017.08.001
  52. Romero-Silva, R., Santos, J., & Hurtado, M. (2018). A note on defining organisational systems for contingency theory in OM. Production Planning & Control, 29(16), 1343-1348. https://doi.org/10.1080/‌09537287.2018.1535146
  53. Saeedi, A., Daghani, R., & Hajian, N. (2020). Firm-Specific Characteristics and The Disclosure Level: Evidence From The Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 36(4), 129–152. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4237099
  54. Saiful, S. (2017). Contingency factors, risk management, and performance of Indonesian banks. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, 9(1), 35-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ajfa.v9i1.10372
  55. Srinivasan, D., & Thevaranjan, A. (2016). The role of non-financial measures in controlling myopic activities: the case of hard selling. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 12(2), 103-130. https://doi.org/10.1504/‌IJAAPE.2016.075614
  56. Ting, I. W. K., Tebourbi, I., Lu, W. M., & Kweh, Q. L. (2021). The effects of managerial ability on firm performance and the mediating role of capital structure: evidence from Taiwan. Financial Innovation, 7(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-021-00320-7
  57. Uyar, A., Wasiuzzaman, S., Kuzey, C., & Karaman, A. S. (2022). Board structure and financial stability of financial firms: do board policies and CEO duality matter?. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 47, 100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/‌j.intaccaudtax.2022.100474
  58. Vlasenko, М. (2020). Assessment of Influence of External Factors on Financial Stability of Construction Companies. Journal of Corporate Finance Research / New Research, 14(3), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.14.3.2020.51-62
  59. Vuojela, J., & Rascon, A. (2022). Too Big to Fail Applied to Non-Financial Companies. In Resilienz durch Organisationsentwicklung: Forschung und Praxis (pp. 315-336). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-36022-1_13#DOI
  60. Waheed, A., Hussain, S., Hanif, H., Mahmood, H., & Malik, Q. A. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: The moderation of investment horizon and corporate governance. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1938349. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975‌.2021.1938349
  61. Wang, W., Sun, Z., Wang, W., Hua, Q., & Wu, F. (2023). The impact of environmental uncertainty on ESG performance: Emotional vs. rational. Journal of Cleaner Production, 397, 136528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136528
  62. YahiaMarzouk, Y., & Jin, J. (2022). The relationship between environmental scanning and organizational resilience: Roles of process innovation and environmental uncertainty. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 966474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.966474
  63. Yuliusman, Y., Zulma, G. W. M., & Azis, A. D. (2023). Contingency perspective: company characteristics, risk management voluntary disclosure, and company performance. JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia), 9(3), 1696-1704. https://doi.org/10.29210/‌020232924
  64. Yusuf, M. F., Mohamad Nasarudin, N. A. I., Sorooshian, S., Fauzi, M. A., & Kasim, N. M. (2023). Exploring the Impact of Contingency Theory on Sustainable Innovation in Malaysian Manufacturing Firms. Sustainability, 15(9), 7151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097151
  65. Azad, R., Kamyabi, Y., & Khalilpour, M., (2020). Managers' behavioral characteristics and stock liquidity. Financial accounting and audit research, 12(45), 191-214 Doi: 20.1001.1.23830379.1399.12.45.8.8 [In Persian]
  66. Bazrafkan, S., & Ghaderi, S. (2017). Improving Organizational Effectiveness in the Light of Internal Contingency Factors. Journal of Strategic Management Studies, 7(28), 191-210 Doi: 20.1001.1.22286853.1395.7.28.9.4 [In Persian]
  67. Darabi, R. (2017). Determining factors of financial stability in investment companies accepted in the securities market. Accounting and Auditing Research, 9(36), 17-34 https://www.iaaaar.com/article_98783.html?lang=fa [In Persian]
  68. Darabi, R., & Emamjomeh, S. (2014). Effects of Ownership Structure on Benefit (Profit) Anticipation Accuracy. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 3(10), 55-72 https://www.jmaak.ir/article_7618.html [In Persian]
  69. Dehroye, E., Ashrafi, M., Gorganli Davaji, J., & Khozain, A. (2020). Effective Behavioural and Ethical Factors in Occupation and Decision Making of Financial Managers: An Empirical Application (Case study: Agriculture bank of Iran). Ethical Research, 10(38), 139-172 http://akhlagh.saminatech.ir/Article/17804/FullText [In Persian]
  70. Delshad, A., & Tehrani, R. (2019). Investigating the Role of Management Characteristics On Stock Price Crash Risk in Companies Listed on Tehran Stock Exchange. Financial Management Strategy, 7(27), 89-122 Doi: 10.22051/JFM.2019.23897.1921 [In Persian]
  71. Dianati Deilami, Z., Alam Beigi, A., & Khatibi, H. (2016). Investigation of the Influence of Environmental Uncertainty on the Effectiveness of Management Accounting Practices. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 5(17), 87-98 https://www.jmaak.ir/‌‌article_8438.html [In Persian]
  72. Dianati Deilami, Z., & Bayati, M. (2015). The relationship between product market competition and independent auditor's fees. Financial accounting and audit research, 7(27), 23-38 Doi: 20.1001.1.23830379.1394.7.27.2.1   [In Persian]
  73. Esmailikia, G., & Oshani, M. (2022). Corporate Financial Stability and Fraudulent Financial Reporting: The Role of Quality of Corporate Governance Mechanisms. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 13(2), 83-104 Doi: 10.22103/JAK.2021.17763.3515 [In Persian]
  74. Ghorbani Esfahlan, V. (2021). The effect of the tenure of the CEO and the company's auditor on the quality of the audit. Journal of Accounting and Management Vision, 4(43), 16-33 https://www.jamv.ir/article_131466.html [In Persian]
  75. Hiedari, M., Didar, H., & Qaderi, B. (2015). The Empirical Investigation of Relationship between Political Costs and Growth Opportunities: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 12(47), 141-157 https://doi.org/10.22054/qjma.2015.2541 [In Persian]
  76. Homayoun. A., Ranjbar. M. H., Ahmadi, F., & Talebnia. G. A. (2023). The Effect of Voluntary Disclosure of Historical and Prospective Non-Financial Information on the NonFinancial Sustainability Performance of Companies. Empirical Research in Accounting, 13(47), 129-152 Doi: 10.22051/JERA.2022.35042.2826 [In Persian]
  77. Kalantar, F., Moeinaddin, M., & Abtahi, S. Y. (2023). Analyzing the moderating effects of corporate governance and profitability on the relationship between financial leverage and growth using a switching regression model. The Journal of Economic Policy, 14(28), 285-313 Doi: 10.22034/EPJ.2023.19608.2395 [In Persian]
  78. Karbarz, B., & Shahverdiani, Sh. (2017). The test of Herfindahl-Hirschman and Tobin's Q indices on the analysis of capital structure, efficiency and product market competition. Investment knowledge, 6(23), 283-298 https://jik.srbiau.ac.ir/article_11113.html [In Persian]
  79. Khalili, M., Zabihi, A., & Faghanimakrani, K. (2024). The effect of organizational culture and contingency factors on sustainability reporting with economic performance approach (GRI201). Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 13(50), 319-338 https://journals.srbiau.ac.ir/article_22277.html [In Persian]
  80. Khoshkar, F., Seyfi, S., & Moein Nemati, M. (2022). The relationship between firm complexity and corporate social responsibility of companies listed in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting and Management Vision, 5(64), 70-82 https://www.jamv.ir/article_154344.html?lang=fa [In Persian]
  81. Malek Jafarian, R. (2013). Examining theories related to the decision making process and strategy selection. Social, Economic, Scientific and Cultural Work and Society Research, 162, 67-73 B2n.ir/e92187 [In Persian]
  82. Mohammadian, Z., Heidari, M., & Chalaki, P. (2019). Investigating the impact of complexity and uncertainty of environmental account on the accuracy of management profit forecasting with emphasis on clay quality as a mediator. Financial accounting and audit research, 11(43), 247-268 Doi: 20.1001.1.23830379.1398.11.43.10.9 [In Persian]
  83. Mokhtari, H. (2019). Investigating the moderating role of board independence on the relationship between free cash flow and investment efficiency of listed companies in the Tehran Stock Exchange. Journal of Accounting and Management Vision, 2(11), 93-107 https://www.jamv.ir/article_92137.html [In Persian]
  84. Mollanazari, M., Nourifard, Y., & Ghashghaei Abdi, S. (2013). The differing effects of firm size and industry on firm profitability. Financial Accounting and Auditing Research, 4(16), 157-183 Doi: 20.1001.1.23830379.1391.4.16.7.3 [In Persian]
  85. Moradzadehfard, M., Adlzadeh, M., Farajzadeh, M., & Azimi, S. (2013). Information Uncertainty, Information Asymmetry and Growth Options. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 10(39), 125-145 Doi: 20.1001.1.28210166.1391.10.39.6.1 [In Persian]
  86. Nik Kar, J., Hamidi, E., & Abedini, S. (2022). Effects of Managers' Optimistic and Myopic Behavior on the Asymmetry of Cost Behavior and Various Companies’ Strategies. Journal of Asset Management and Financing, 10(1), 93-116 Doi: 10.22108/AMF.2022.125924.1607 [In Persian]
  87. Nikbakht, M. R., Jahandoust Marghoub, M., & Weysihesar, S. (2020). Investigating the effect of company complexity on the relationship between managementability and lack of transparency of information. Financial Accounting Research, 12(3), 83-104 Doi: 10.22108/FAR.2021.124385.1654 [In Persian]
  88. Nonahal nahr, A. A., & Rahnama Roodposhti, F. (2018). Contingent Performance Assessment Measures Design Based on Futurology: A Theoretical Approach. Future study Management, 29(112), 67-91 https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/jmfr/Article/784659 [In Persian]
  89. Pajoohi, M. R., & Jafari, F. (2020). The Impact of the moderating role of product market competition on the relationship between financial leverage and innovation performance in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. Operational and Performance Research in Accounting and Auditing, 4(1), 89-113 https://jopa.khatam.ac.ir/article_156966.html [In Persian]
  90. Pakdelan, S., Azarberahman, A., & Rafiee, S. (2023). Examining the relationship between the characteristics and expertise of the board of directors and sustainability performance in companies listed on the Tehran stock exchange. Advances in Finance and Investment, 4(1), 29-54 Doi: 10.30495/afi.2023.1971292.1165 [In Persian]
  91. Vagfi, S. H., Rajabi Jirandeh, A., & Nourbakhsh Hosseiny, Z. (2021). Analyzing the impact of management ability on firm value in response to competitive market threats. Journal of Management and Sustainable Development Studies, 1(1), 125-149 Doi: 10.30495/msds.2021.1938936.1010 [In Persian]
  92. Yaghoubian, S. M., Jamshidi Navid, B., Ghanbary, M., & Nademi, A. (2021). A Contingency Model of performance evaluation: emphasizing on the role of modern management accounting tools. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 10(37), 113-127 https://www.jmaak.ir/article_17184.html [In Persian]
  93. Zabihi Khargh, A. R., Kaffashpoor, A., Farahi, M. M., & Rahimnia, F. (2018). Exploring Contingency Factors of Strategic Human Resource Management and Identify Effective practices of human resource. Public Management Researches, 10(38), 89-116 Doi: 10.22111/JMR.2018.3718 [In Persian]
  94. Zibaian, M., Chitsaz, S., & Saeedi, H. (2017). The Impact of Various Sources of Funds (Paying with Company’s Funds Against Personal Funds) on Hoaw to Judge the Price Fairness and the Intention of Subsequent Purchases. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(34), 1-26 https://journals.srbiau.ac.ir/article_13851.html [In Persian]
Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting
Volume 21, Issue 82
September 2024
Pages 43-98
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 02 February 2024
  • Revise Date: 25 April 2024
  • Accept Date: 28 April 2024
Share
How to cite
Statistics