accounting research and trust: a literature review
TRANSCRIPT
Accounting research and trust:a literature review
Gudrun BaldvinsdottirTrondheim Business School, Trondheim, Norway, and
Andreas Hagberg, Inga-Lill Johansson,Kristina Jonall and Jan Marton
School of Business, Economics and Law,University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured overview of literature in the nexus oftrust and accounting. This can serve as a basis for future research, and thus provide a framework forasking more precise and focused research questions.
Design/methodology/approach – All papers published in prominent accounting journals during a15-year period were examined. Papers pertaining to the field of trust and accounting were categorizedand analyzed in more detail, and qualitatively classified in accordance with selected dimensions. Thereview focused on papers explicitly exploring the link between accounting and trust.
Findings – A large proportion of the papers is in the field of management accounting (MAN). Themajority of published papers in the field are based on sociological theory, but there are someeconomics-based papers. Sociologically based analysis seems to provide more structure, but is alsoless paradigmatic in nature than economic theory. Only a small number of papers have an explicitdefinition of the concept of trust. The authors’ conclusion is that the state of research has beendeveloping to become more paradigmatic in recent years.
Originality/value – This is the only literature review that provides a comprehensive overview ofresearch on trust and accounting. Thus, it is an aid to future research in the area.
Keywords Trust, Accounting, Research work, Serials, Paradigmatic research, Trust definition
Paper type Literature review
1. IntroductionThe concept of trust has received interest in research in a variety of fields. In the area ofeconomics, North (1990) claims that trust in institutions, for example in proprietorshipand the judicial system, is crucial for achieving economic growth. The importance oftrust for the functioning of societies is also pointed out by Putnam (1993, 2002). He refersto social capital, a concept closely related to trust, as important for the functioning of ademocratic society. Both North and Putnam discuss trust on an overall societal level.In the organizational literature, the role of trust as a facilitator of effective organizationalrelations has been widely discussed, and considerable interest has been directed towards
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1176-6093.htm
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Jan Wallanders and Tom HedeliusFoundation, the Swedish Research Council, and from the Torsten and Ragnar SoderbergsFoundation. The authors also thank the Editor, Deryl Northcott, and two anonymous reviewersfor their encouragement and suggested improvements. Finally, thanks are also due to workshopparticipants at the AAA Annual Meeting in New York 2009 and at the EAA Annual Congress inTampere, 2009.
QRAM8,4
382
Qualitative Research in Accounting& ManagementVol. 8 No. 4, 2011pp. 382-424q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1176-6093DOI 10.1108/11766091111189891
the issue of how trust can be both created and maintained (Mayer et al., 1995; Nooteboom,1996). This research indicates the importance of the concept of trust in humaninteraction, and its applicability to various social fields.
Recent developments in practice reinforce the importance of understanding trust.The significance of trust becomes especially obvious when there is a strong decline intrust. The credit crisis of 2007-2009 was to a large extent a crisis of confidence and trust,evidenced by a flight from risk. In the autumn of 2008, interbank credit markets onlyfunctioned when guaranteed by governments, a clear indication of lack of trust inprivate financial organizations. Loss of trust in emerging markets has occurred severaltimes in the last few decades, for example in Southeastern Asia (1997), Russia (1998), andLatin America (Mexico and Argentina, 1995). According to Krugman (2009), the problemin those crises was in some cases not fundamental economics, but rather loss ofconfidence or trust from international investors. Accordingly, the response to crises bygovernments and international organizations – such as the International MonetaryFund – was not based on the “theoretically correct” economic remedies, but rather onrestoring trust in those emerging markets (Akerlof, 1970).
A feature that became apparent in the credit crisis of 2007-2009 is the role ofaccounting, and its relation to trust in markets. An aspect of the crisis is the perceivedlack of information about credit exposure in financial institutions. This exacerbated theloss of trust and created calls for new regulation of accounting for financial instruments,both from regulators directly involved, and from politicians. The Financial AccountingStandards Board (FASB’s), International Accounting Standards Board (IASB’s) andFinancial Crisis Advisory Group (FCAG) have acknowledged that weakness in theapplication of accounting rules and standards has reduced credibility in financialreporting (FCAG, 2009). A few years earlier, the Enron bankruptcy of 2001 led to thethreat of loss of trust in the accounting system (Rockness and Rockness, 2005). Theimportance of restoring trust in financial reporting is indicated by the strong response ofgovernments, especially in the USA with the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in2002, but also in the European Union with the update of the eighth Directive in 2005.
Consequently, the interaction of trust and accounting may be of particularimportance. Accounting as codified and/or institutionalized practice can increase trust,both in systems and in organizations (Van der Meer-kooistra and Vosselman, 2000).In addition, trust in accounting is arguably necessary for an accounting system tofunction properly ( Jones and Dugdale, 2001). Thus, the very nature of accounting, and itsrole in economic and social interaction, point to the importance of understanding trust insuch a setting.
There is a need for further research on trust and accounting, as organizations,regulators and governments would benefit from a better understanding of whichaccounting choices and disclosures help increase trust, and which ones may destroytrust. Thus, research on trust and accounting helps us understand not only the role oftrust in accounting processes, but also how trust can come about by means of accounting.
As early as 1972, Hopwood pointed out that accounting can be studied as an aspect ofsocial interaction and analyzed at the organizational level. This was developed as earlywork in the field of trust and accounting by Neu (1991a, b, c), who concluded that there is aneed for additional research. Following Neu, there has been an increase in research in thefield, although calls for additional research continue to appear in the literature. These callsare both general, and more specifically focused on particular issues. O’Connor (1995),
Accountingresearch
and trust
383
for example, suggests longitudinal case studies to enhance the understanding oftheoretical relationships. With a similar intention, Jonsson and Macintosh (1997) arguefor more ethnographic studies in the field. Tomkins (2001) points to further research in anumber of directions, however stressing the need for developing “explicit theories of howtrust needs to be taken into account in all the different dimensions of accounting” (p. 185).Arguably, the study of trust in relation to accounting is of interest, as researcherscontinue to call for additional research. Judging from the references, there are especiallycalls for qualitative research in the field. The review reported in this paper also indicatesthat the majority of research done to date is qualitative in nature.
Before making another call for further research, however, it is relevant to makea systematic analysis of what has been done so far. In this paper, we report the results ofa literature review in which we summarize and structure trust-related papers publishedwithin the accounting field. The purpose of the study is to assist researchers in the areaof trust and accounting, and thus to provide a framework for asking more precise andfocused research questions. This is done by providing a structured overview of what hasbeen done to date. It shows in which areas substantial prior research exists, and alsowhere relevant issues for future research have been identified. In addition, we attempt topoint out the dimensions along which the concept of trust has been categorized inresearch. Finally, we study the extent to which paradigms have emerged within the fieldof trust and accounting research. The emergence of paradigms indicates areas whereresearchers have focused particular attention. In paradigmatic research, it may also bepossible to develop more complex theories.
The focus in the paper is on the nexus between trust and accounting. We do not,however, aim at providing a definition of trust, nor do we suggest a theory most suitablefor this type of research. Instead, the definitions used in the reviewed papers arepresented together with the theoretical bases used. As noted previously, we expect trustto be an important concept in relation to accounting. Given the ongoing debate in societyabout the importance of trust, we assume that the topic of accounting and trust willgather further interest in the accounting research community. The literature studyprovided here could thus serve as a useful starting point for researchers interested indeveloping this important field. (The Appendix includes studies that were canvassed toprovide a basis for the overview of the research field, that is, Primary 1 papers.)
The remainder of the paper is structured in four sections. We start in Section 2 bypresenting the method used for the identification and analysis of papers included in theliterature review. Section 3 presents our empirical data, that is, the findings of the reviewincluding descriptive data, and results of the categorization and classification of papers,and this is statistically tested in Section 4. Section 5 includes a discussion and analysis ofthe results, including some suggestions for future research. The paper ends with a briefsummary of results in Section 6.
2. MethodIn this section, we present the method used in the literature review. The review can bedivided into several steps. Only papers published in scientific journals are included inthe study. First, we delimited the search for papers both in terms of journals included,and in terms of time period covered. Second, we applied criteria for which papers toinclude in the review, and third, once a number of relevant papers had been identified weused a structured method for analyzing them.
QRAM8,4
384
2.1 Journals included and time period coveredOur field of interest is the interaction between trust and accounting. In order to findpapers in this field, we could either look for papers in the trust literature, or in theaccounting literature. Given that only a small minority of trust papers is related toaccounting, and that such papers are dispersed in a large number of journals, it would bedifficult to search potential journals. The trust literature does not appear in a fewselected journals. Instead, we chose to focus on the accounting literature. In doing so,we believe we have identified the overwhelming majority of papers on trust andaccounting, although it is possible that we may have missed some papers.
The next issue was to decide what accounting journals to include, given the largenumber of potential journals available. We chose to base our selection on two publishedrankings of the most influential journals in the field of accounting, one by Ballas andTheoharakis (2003), and the other by Zeff (1996). We selected the top ranked journalsfrom the two studies (the journals selected are shown in Table I). Our selection includes20 out of the top 25 journals ranked by Ballas and Theoharakis, and 13 out of the 15 topjournals suggested by Zeff (1996, p. 164)[1]. These 13 were all among the top 25 journalsranked by Ballas and Theoharakis (2003).
Three top ranked journals were excluded. The first is Issues in Accounting Educationtop ranked in both studies. We also excludedAuditing: A Journal of Practice andTheory,and Journal of American Taxation Association top ranked by Ballas and Theoharakis(2003). A search of these three journals showed that no papers were relevant to our study.This is not surprising, since the journals have a focus that differs from our primaryinterest as we study trust in relation to accounting practice. We focus neither oneducation, nor auditing or taxation issues.
After having identified the most influential journals in the field of accounting,we needed to delimit the time period of review. In Section 1 above, we refer to a fewimportant papers, such as Neu (1991a, b, c), O’Connor (1995), Jonsson and Macintosh(1997), and Tomkins (2001). We chose a time-period that would include publishedresponses to these six papers. Given the inherent time lag in the publication of papers, wedecided to review papers in the years 1995 through 2009 inclusive. The total number ofpapers in the journals selected, stratified by year of publication, are shown in Table I.
2.2 Selection of papersAfter having identified more than 9,000 potential papers in 20 journals, the next step wasto search for papers that specifically relate to trust and accounting. We did this byelectronically searching the full text of all papers for the word “trust”[2]. We excludedpapers where trust was only used in the meaning of trust fund, hospital trust, etc. We alsoexcluded papers where the word “trust” appeared only in the reference list, footnotes,etc. This search resulted in the identification of the 793 papers included in the review.
2.3 Categorization of papersAll of the identified papers do not have the same relevance to our research issues,however. An initial review of the papers indicated one dimension for classification inthat they were qualitatively different in terms of their treatment of the relation betweentrust and accounting. Within this dimension, we identified three categories. First, therewere papers that contribute to the knowledge of the relation between trust andaccounting, either empirically and/or theoretically. These papers, we categorized
Accountingresearch
and trust
385
Jou
rnal
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Tot
al
ABACUS
1313
1116
1820
2223
2623
2128
3128
2832
1Accounting,
Auditing&
AccountabilityJournal
(AAAJ)
2030
2824
3328
2426
3227
5240
3654
5951
3Accounting&
BusinessResearch
(ABR
)41
4639
3033
2624
2325
3322
4035
3626
479
AccountingHorizons
(AH
)48
5346
3628
2729
2737
2118
2327
3223
475
Accounting,
OrganizationsandSociety
(AOS
)33
3740
4034
3732
3246
4338
3335
4858
586
BehavioralResearchin
Accounting
(BREA
)7
1212
87
1112
116
911
1313
1411
157
British
AccountingReview
(BAR
)15
1822
1923
2326
2325
4035
3529
3119
383
Contemporary
AccountingResearch
(CAR
)29
2630
2332
2828
2628
3642
4251
4744
512
CriticalPerspectiveson
Accounting
(CPA
)54
8196
102
6464
5866
7110
059
8168
7552
1,09
1EuropeanAccountingReview
(EAR
)55
4355
4348
4440
4945
4145
4946
4046
689
Journalof
Accounting,
Auditing&
Finance
(JAAF
)39
3118
2524
2521
1631
2622
1729
2524
373
Journalof
AccountingandEconom
ics
(JAE
)27
3036
1847
4024
2244
3926
3534
4329
494
Journalof
AccountingLiterature
(JAL
)5
44
64
83
44
44
44
34
65Journalof
AccountingandPublicPolicy
(JAPP
)10
1415
1819
1918
1023
3922
3126
3032
326
Journalof
AccountingResearch
(JAR
)20
2830
3035
2535
4534
3328
3537
4442
501
Journalof
BusinessFinance
&Accounting
(JBFA
)72
8780
6855
5858
5656
4470
7773
5355
962
Journalof
ManagementAccountingResearch
(JMAR
)7
99
135
56
1012
1110
88
2015
148
ManagementAccountingResearch
(MAR
)22
2023
2219
2421
2220
3120
2018
2122
325
Reviewof
AccountingStudies
(RAS
)0
187
2716
1723
2526
2422
2526
2525
306
TheAccountingReview
(AR
)29
2827
2422
1929
4045
4738
4549
9487
623
Tot
al54
662
862
859
256
654
853
355
663
667
160
568
167
576
369
79,
325
Table I.Number of papers in eachof journals selected,stratified by year(1995-2009)
QRAM8,4
386
as Primary 1 (P1) papers. Second, there were papers that refer to, and use, existingknowledge about trust and accounting[3], but that do not add to this knowledge. Thesepapers we categorized as Primary 2 (P2) papers. Third, we identified papers that are inthe accounting literature, and refer to trust, but where the relation between trust andaccounting is neither developed nor mentioned. Rather, in these papers, trust is used inan incidental, and often everyday manner, such as “trust in financial markets” with nofurther analysis. These papers, we classified as Secondary (S) papers. This category alsoincluded papers that focus on or mention trust in the accounting researcher, rather thanin accounting per se[4].
Another dimension used for classification of papers was the topic covered. Somepapers focus on the relation between trust and auditing, trust and accounting regulation,or trust and accounting education. These papers add to our understanding of the relationbetween trust and accounting in a broader sense, but are not specifically related to ourmain topic of interest, that is, trust and accounting practice. Thus, these papers wereclassified into their own category, which we call Primary 3 (P3)[5].
2.4 Dimensions used in the paper reviewOnce papers were identified and categorized, we started the actual analysis of thepapers. In order to structure the review, different dimensions were selected for analyzingthe papers. All 793 papers included in the study were reviewed, although the P1 papers,the most relevant to our research topic, were subject to a more in-depth analysis. Thedimensions presented below were only applied to the P1 papers[6]. For the other papers,we provide descriptive statistics in Section 3.
The selection of dimensions for analysis was based on the research issues presentedin Section 1, that is, to provide an overview of what has been published in the area oftrust and accounting, to identify dimensions along which the concept of trust can becategorized, and to study the paradigmatic nature of the research field. The chosendimensions are summarized below. Once dimensions had been selected, we developedcategories for classification within each dimension. This was largely done in an iterativeprocess, inspired by a grounded theory approach. Thus, initial reviews of the paperswere used to develop categories. Then, a more in-depth analysis was conducted,applying the categories already developed.
Trust inwhom. The categories in this dimension were developed from the material, thatis, no predefined categories were used. The identified categories were of different kinds.First, there was trust in a specific type of actor, such as partners, peers, managers/superiors(by employees/subordinates), employees/subordinates (by managers/superiors), or clients(by auditors). Second, there was trust in institutions or systems.
Direction of relation between trust and accounting. This dimension was directlyapplicable to the study, since we were specifically interested in the relation betweentrust and accounting. Logically, the direction could fall into one of three categories:
(1) trust affecting accounting practice;
(2) accounting practice affecting trust; and
(3) a relationship working in both directions between accounting and trust.
The role of trust in accounting practice. During the review it became apparent that paperscould be classified into a few distinct qualitative categories as regards the view taken onthe role of trust in relation to accounting practice. This dimension is somewhat similar
Accountingresearch
and trust
387
to the previous dimension, but we posit that this new dimension provides additionalunique information for our study. The categories identified were: trust as an intangibleasset, trust as a facilitator of business activity on an individual or organizational level, andtrust as important for the functioning of regulation or on a societal level. A separatecategory was where trust is being influenced by accounting practice. In this last categorytrust does not have a role per se, but is rather the outcome of an accounting activity.
Research approach. We classified papers by the overall research approach taken.Three main categories were used: empirical, experimental, and theoretical. Theempirical papers were then further subdivided into categories such as archival, casestudies, document studies, interviews, observation, and questionnaires. This dimensionwas included in the review in order to supply an overview of how research in the field isconducted. Indirectly, to the extent that there was agreement in research approachesbetween papers, it gave indications of the extent to which paradigmatic research exists.
Theoretical basis. In the literature there are observations that accounting researchtends to be based on two main theoretical bases; economic and sociological (Tomkins,2001; Searcy and Mentzer, 2003). An initial review of the P1 papers clearly showed thatthis was also the case for research in the area of trust and accounting, that is, the papersreviewed could largely be classified into these two categories. In addition, some papersexhibited a theoretical movement, that is, they moved between the categories. Weidentified the following four categories:
(1) Economic theory rejected. Papers starting out from economic theory,but criticizing and rejecting it.
(2) Economic theory applied. Papers that are based on economic theory and thatapply it either for an empirical study or for theoretical development[7].
(3) Sociological theory applied. Papers that apply one theoretical basis (like theprevious category) but that are based on sociological theory and apply it eitherfor an empirical study or for theoretical discussion. There are also papers in thiscategory combining a theoretical discussion with an empirical study.
(4) From economic theory to sociological theory. Papers starting out from economictheory, criticizing and rejecting it, only to make way for sociological theory.
Papers in the first and last categories are similar, in that they both reject economic theory.However, while the papers in the last category argue for a specific alternative, those in thefirst category argue in more general terms that some alternative theoretical basis is needed.
After having classified the papers into the four categories listed above, we noted amore detailed structure in the theoretical basis of the papers. The economics-basedpapers fell into the following three discernible subcategories:
(1) Papers reflecting general economic thinking although not explicitly linked toany specific economic theory or literature reference.
(2) Papers identifying specific references in economic theory and applying these toan empirical study.
(3) Analytical papers that contribute to theory development.
The sociology-based papers fell into four discernible subcategories:
(1) Papers contributing to a field-specific theory through an empirical study.
QRAM8,4
388
(2) Papers involving an empirical study without explicitly relating to theory.
(3) Papers relating to a field-specific theory without applying it to an empirical study.
(4) Papers neither relating to field-specific theory nor carrying out an empirical study.
The dimension of theoretical basis of papers was used to analyze the state of research ontrust and accounting. It helped to us evaluate the paradigmatic nature of research in thefield. It was also useful in identifying issues for future research, as such issues tend to bedependent on the theoretical base adopted.
Central trust reference. This dimension related to the primary reference(s) used indeveloping and structuring the concept of trust in each of the papers. Not all papers havea central trust reference, however. These references can be both from inside and outsidethe field of accounting. The dimension indicated to what extent there is a common basisfor the discussion of trust in the field.
Definition of trust. Some papers provide a definition of trust. The definition can bebased either on a reference (cf. the previous dimension), or developed in the specificpaper. A paper was classified as having an explicit definition of trust in either of thefollowing three situations:
(1) in the paper there is an explicit statement that a definition is provided;
(2) a definition is provided through modeling; or
(3) trust is explicitly operationalized as a variable.
This dimension indicated to what extent papers in the research field are based on acommon understanding of trust. In that sense, both this and some of the previousdimensions provided insight into the paradigmatic nature of research.
3. Presentation of descriptive data and resultsThe presentation of data starts with descriptive statistics of the papers included in thestudy. As mentioned previously, all included papers containing the word trust wereclassified as either Primary 1-3 (P1-P3), or Secondary (S) papers. The categorization ofthe 793 papers included in the study (Table I) shows that in the period from 1995 to 2009there were 196 papers that made a contribution to our knowledge of trust in relation toaccounting practice (P1 papers). Almost as many, or 158 papers, made use of existingknowledge of trust related to accounting practice, however, without making a newcontribution to the area (P2). One hundred and nine papers cover issues related to the roleof trust in relation to auditing, accounting regulation, and accounting education (P3).The remaining 330 papers use trust as an everyday concept (S).
In order to acquire an overview of published research, Table II, Panel A presentsstatistics regarding in what journals the included papers have been published organizedby classification P1-P3 and S. This table provides us with a rough idea as regards thedirection of the research since the different journals tend to specialize in specific types oftopics, research methods and theoretical approaches. Four journals dominate:Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting, Organizations& Society (AOS), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA), and ManagementAccounting Research (MAR). All four journals can be said to largely publish papersconcerned with accounting in a social context. For the most part, the research in thesejournals is carried out using some form of case study and predominantly the papers
Accountingresearch
and trust
389
Primary1
Primary2
Primary3 Secondary S
Panel A: number of papers by journal, grouped by classificationAAAJ 23 33 20 70 146Abacus 3 6 2 12 23ABR 9 5 3 12 29AH 3 5 9 25 42AOS 42 40 26 61 169AR 11 2 3 10 26BAR 10 1 1 6 18BREA 2 9 9 8 28CAR 8 5 3 3 19CPA 24 12 15 58 109EAR 10 6 8 11 35JAAF 3 2 2 5 12JAE 7 1 2 8 18JAL 3 1 0 4 8JAPP 7 5 4 7 23JAR 3 4 0 2 9JBFA 0 1 1 5 7JMAR 7 1 0 5 13MAR 20 19 1 15 55RAS 1 0 0 3 4Total 196 158 109 330 793Panel B: number of papers by topic area, grouped by classificationAccounting education (AED) 0 2 2 9 13Accounting history (AHI) 4 8 6 34 52Accounting and information systems (AIS) 2 2 0 2 6Accounting theory (ATH) 2 6 0 6 14Auditing (AUD) 3 7 57 32 99Critical perspectives (CPP) 27 11 15 36 89Economic and analytical modelling (EAA) 8 3 0 5 16Financial accounting (FAN) 14 8 0 30 52Financial reporting (FRG) 20 7 5 36 68Accounting and governance (GOV) 6 5 3 9 23International accounting (INA) 0 0 1 10 11Management accounting (MAN) 82 47 0 35 164Organizational and behavioral accounting(OBA) 4 16 6 9 35Public sector accounting (PSA) 11 17 7 23 58Social and environmental accounting (SEA) 0 9 3 18 30Taxation (TAX) 1 0 0 1 2Several 6 8 2 6 22Unclear 6 2 2 29 39Total 196 158 109 330 793Panel C: Number of papers by year of publication, grouped by classification1995 8 6 4 8 261996 9 4 11 12 361997 9 6 8 10 331998 5 11 6 13 351999 5 5 5 14 28
(continued )
Table II.Papers by journal,topic area, and yearof publication, groupedby classification
QRAM8,4
390
are informed by sociology. Their dominance is especially strong for P1 and P2 papers,that is, those papers that either contribute new knowledge about trust or those that useexisting knowledge about trust in relation to accounting practice. For P3 and S papers,that is, papers about trust in relation to auditing, regulation, and education and papersusing the word trust as an every-day concept, there is more variation in terms of journals.
In order to generate an overview of what type of topics have generated interestamongst researchers, the papers have been classified by topic area in Table II, Panel B[8].The table shows that management accounting (MAN) is clearly the most prevalentresearch topic amongst P1 papers and P2 papers. Four additional topics have createdrelatively large interest, that is, public sector accounting (PSA), financial accounting(FAN), financial reporting (FRG) and critical perspectives (CPP). Organizational andbehavioral accounting (OBA) is substantial among P2 papers. All other topic areas aresmall or non-existent within the P1 and P2 categories. In the P3 category, naturally, theauditing (AUD) topic is the one that dominates, since this category consists of papersrelated to auditing and its regulation. Regarding the S category, we see a more dispersedpattern, with the AUD topic again being important, as well as the accounting history(AHI), CPP, FAN, FRG and MAN topics. Overall, this indicates that there are sometopics, such as MAN, CPP and AUD, that more frequently than others relate toaccounting and trust issues, although there are also many trust papers in other topics[9].
In order to obtain an indirect indication of knowledge accumulation, the papers havebeen classified based on their publication year in Table II, Panel C. As shown in the table,the number of published papers in all four categories has increased in the last fewyears of the sample. This increase in the number of published papers could be seen asindicative of increased interest in trust-related research and accounting over time.As seen in Section 4 of this paper, the increase over time is statistically significant[10].
In Table II, the data has been divided into the categories P1-P3 and S in order to createan overview of research where the concept of trust is used in different ways and settings.The primary concern of this paper, however, is to gain insights into the accumulation ofknowledge about trust in relation to accounting practice, that is, there is a focus on theP1 papers. The remainder of this section will thus be dedicated to the 196 paperscategorized as P1. In Table III, the papers have been organized by journal and year to seeif the interest in trust research in relation to accounting practice has remained stable over
Primary1
Primary2
Primary3 Secondary S
2000 5 9 1 9 242001 8 6 4 14 322002 8 6 6 10 302003 11 13 6 21 512004 16 15 5 22 582005 23 10 12 39 842006 21 15 8 28 722007 20 10 11 33 742008 23 17 10 50 1002009 25 25 12 47 109Total 196 158 109 330 793 Table II.
Accountingresearch
and trust
391
Jou
rnal
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
S
AAAJ
01
21
22
32
33
01
00
323
Abacus
00
00
00
10
00
00
02
03
ABR
10
10
00
00
10
10
11
39
AH
00
00
00
00
00
01
10
13
AOS
65
14
13
22
15
11
35
242
AR
00
00
00
01
03
21
02
211
BAR
00
00
00
00
01
41
00
410
BREA
00
10
00
00
00
00
10
02
CAR
00
00
00
01
00
11
32
08
CPA
01
00
00
10
03
13
53
724
EAR
00
10
00
00
00
51
21
010
JAAF
00
00
00
01
00
11
00
03
JAE
10
00
00
11
00
30
01
07
JAL
00
00
10
00
00
01
01
03
JAPP
00
10
00
00
00
14
10
07
JAR
00
00
00
00
00
20
00
13
JBFA
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
JMAR
02
20
00
00
10
01
00
17
MAR
00
00
10
00
51
14
25
120
RAS
00
00
00
00
00
00
10
01
Tot
al8
99
55
58
811
1623
2120
2325
196
Table III.Papers by journaland year (P1 only)
QRAM8,4
392
the period of this study or if we can identify any changes. As partly shown in Table II, thefour journals AAAJ, AOS, CPA and MAR dominate within the P1 category.Interestingly, however, in Table III, it can be seen that the publication frequency variesover time in different journals. In AAAJ there is a decreasing tendency over time, whileAOS has been relatively stable over the 15-year period. From the table, we can see thatinterest in trust related to accounting practice increases over time, and is relatively highthroughout the period of 2005-2009. The increase in the last five years is due to trustpapers being published in journals that have not previously published such papers.These include, for example, MAR, CPA, Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR),Accounting Review (AR), British Accounting Review (BAR), and European AccountingReview (EAR). The first two mentioned journals, that is, MAR and CPA, generallypublish research that shows some similarity with AAAJ and AOS regarding researchtopics, methodological approach and the use of sociological theory. CAR andAR, however, typically publish research of a more quantitative nature with a clearinfluence of economic theory, while BAR and EAR are more mixed. This indicates thatthe interest in trust issues related to accounting practice has not only increased but alsothat the interest has broadened across publication outlets as the number of journalsfrequently publishing papers in the field has increased[11].
Table IV presents what is known empirically about the relation between trust andaccounting. In Table IV, Panel A the data has been divided into groups based on whois the trusted party. Six groups were identified. The largest group is trust ininstitutions/systems where topics such as the implementation of new publicmanagement systems are discussed (Hood, 1995). This group has also received moreinterest in the last few years, with the increase in research on FAN and reporting.Another large group is trust in partners, for example trust in a setting of inter-firmrelations. Van der Meer-kooistra and Vosselman (2000) discuss how a number of factors,such as organizational culture, explain why a company opts for a bureaucracy or atrust-based control pattern in its relations with other companies. The third largest groupis trust in management/superiors. Sholihin and Pike (2009), included in this group,conclude that when performance evaluations are perceived as fair, trust in managersincreases. An effect of this is that job satisfaction also increases.
In Table IV, Panel B, the papers have been categorized based on the direction of therelationship between accounting and trust, that is, what is seen as having an impact onwhat. As an example of how trust has an impact on accounting practice, Broadbent et al.(1996) show how high trust relations imply less need for accounting controls within theUK public sector. In relation to the impact of accounting practice on trust, Llewellyn(1998) discusses how the “caring” sector can be constrained by costing and argues thataccounting systems can destroy trust in professionals. Langfield-Smith (2008) discusseshow managers effectively can use the control package – , i.e. governance structure,behavior controls, output controls, social controls and internal processes – to developtrust in alliances and in partners, and how the need for detailed accounting informationdecreases with interaction between the parties. The P1 papers are largely dividedbetween those studying the impact of trust on accounting or vice versa, with the latterpredominating. As seen in Table IV, the majority of the papers, or 80.1 percent, examinea one-sided relation between trust and accounting or accounting and trust, with only8.2 percent of the papers looking at the relationship in both directions.
Accountingresearch
and trust
393
To better understand the impact of trust in relation to accounting practice, the papershave been grouped by the role that has been ascribed to trust in Table IV, Panel C. Twocategories predominate. One of the categories is when trust is seen to be a facilitator ofthe functioning of companies (Subramaniam and Mia, 2003), to smooth the auditingprocess and establish the areas where auditing is needed (Power, 1996), and how it canassist cooperation in arms-length relations (Seal et al., 2004). The other category iswhen accounting is seen to influence trust, either positively for example by creatingethical awareness (McPhail, 2009) or negatively such as when accounting informationcontributes to the creation of budgetary slack (Lau and Eggleton, 2003).
The remaining tables relate to the state of research in the field of trust and accounting.First, we categorize the papers by the research approach adopted. Three categories wereidentified: empirical, experimental, and theoretical (Table V, Panel A). The majority ofpapers, or 59.7 percent, are of an empirical nature, where the researcher has directlystudied an empirical setting, for example how the introduction of new accountingtechniques may affect the image of the accountant (Friedman and Lyne, 1997). Only7.7 percent of the papers are experimental studies, which can be said to share somesimilarities to empirical studies although, instead of studying practitioners,experimental settings are created by the researcher, usually by exposing students tohypothetical situations. This was done by, for example, Fan and Wong (2002)
Number %
Panel A: papers categorized by trust in whom/whatPartnersa 55 28.1Peers 18 9.2Management/superiors 28 14.3Employees/subordinates 12 6.1Clients, by auditors 2 1.0Institutions/systems 75 38.3Unclear 6 3.1Total 196 100Panel B: papers categorized by direction of accounting/trust relationTrust ! Accounting 63 32.1Accounting ! Trust 94 48.0Both directions 16 8.2Unclear 23 11.7Total 196 100Panel C: Papers categorized by role of trustTrust is an intangible asset that has value 4 2.0Facilitates functioning of companies, audits,cooperation between companies, etc. 92 46.9Important on a regulatory and societal level 31 15.8Accounting affects trust, positively or negatively 51 26.0Other or unclearb 18 9.2Total 196 100
Notes: aPartners represent companies having business transactions with each other; trust in thosecases may refer either to trust in the organizations, or in specific individuals within thoseorganizations; bpapers can be classified as unclear because they have a more theoretical discussion,i.e. they are not about the role of trust in practice
Table IV.Papers categorized bytrust dimensions
QRAM8,4
394
in examining the effects of verification of managers’ private information on efficiency.The other main category, papers of a more theoretical nature, contain analyses based onprior research, or have a more theoretical focus in their research orientation. Twoexamples of this type of research are Lau and Tan (2006), who develop a model on thelinks between budgetary tension, procedural fairness, job-related tension andinterpersonal trust, and Jones and Dugdale (2001) who carry out a theoretical analysisbased on Giddens (1990) while looking at the concept of accounting regime.
Empirical studies can be done using a variety of data-collection methods and datasources. A classification of the 117 empirical papers into six categories of researchmethods resulted in the distribution shown in Table V, Panel B. The methods include:archival data from databases such as Barros Kimbro (2002), who look at the correlationbetween trust, accounting information and corruption; interviews as when Goddard(2004) examines how accountability is perceived in budgeting processes within thepublic sector; observations as done by Peters (2001) when looking at changes in theadministrative practice of budgeting; experiments when looking at how informationsystems may affect honesty (Hannan et al., 2006); and questionnaires, for example asdone by Magner et al. (1995) when examining the relation between trust and employeebudget participation.
The remainder of the analysis focuses on the theoretical basis of the papers. As seenin Table VI, Panel A, sociological research is a more common theoretical basis forpapers than economic theory. The research inspired by sociological theory is muchmore varied, making it difficult to talk about a common paradigm. Some of thesociological papers discuss and criticize economic theory, but none of theeconomics-based papers argue against sociological research. This can be interpretedas economics-based literature being the mainstream in overall research. Thirteenpapers start out from economic theory but then reject the theory. An example of thistype is the paper by Pentland and Carlile (1996) where economic theory is rejectedbased on the complexity of real-world situations, making it difficult to capture insimple models.
A further subdivision of the theoretical basis of the papers is possible. The 69 papersclassified as “Economic theory applied”, are further divided into three subcategories:
Number %
Panel A: papers by research approachEmpirical 117 59.7Experimental 15 7.7Theoretical 64 32.7Total 196 100Panel B: empirical papers by research methodArchival 16 13.7Case studies, mixed methods 8 6.8Document 15 12.8Interview 46 39.3Observation 9 7.7Questionnaire/survey 23 19.7Total 117 100
Table V.Papers categorized
by research approachand method
Accountingresearch
and trust
395
(1) papers that reflect economic thinking but without an explicit link to it;
(2) papers that have an explicit reference to economic theory; or
(3) analytical research papers with development of economic theory (Table VI,Panel B).
Some 30 percent of the papers are based on economic thinking, without explicit links toany specific theory. Otley and Pierce’s (1995) paper on leadership and auditing is as anexample of this type of paper. It examines the relationship between the design ofcontrol-systems and dysfunctional behavior in budgeting processes, and concludes thatsubordinates who trust their superiors will result in a better handling of budgetprocesses. However, most economic theory papers have explicit references to theeconomics literature, such as Mitchell et al. (1995), which is based on a principal-agentframework and empirically investigates the accounting requirements that venturecapitalists have on companies and shows how trust in investees mitigates the issue ofinformation asymmetry. Among those few papers that develop economic theory, thepaper by Luft (1997) includes theoretical modeling, and concludes that factors such asfairness and ethics should be included in transaction cost models. The main argument isthat trust is a factor that improves the predictive ability of transaction cost models inresearch (assuming that there is a link between honesty and trust). Also, Coletti et al.(2005) attempt to develop economic thinking by involving social dilemmas and by linkingtheir theoretical framework to more sociologically inspired research on trust. Their study,
Theoretical basis Number % Number %
Panel A: papers by theoretical basisEconomic theory rejected 5 2.6Economic theory applied 69 35.2Sociological theory applied 89 45.4Economic theory ! Sociological theory 13 6.6Unclear, review paper 20 10.2Total 196 100Panel B: papers by theoretical subcategory (economic theory applied only)Reflect economic thinking, but no explicit link 20 30.0Explicit reference to economic theory 37 53.6Analytical research, development of economic theory 10 14.5Unclear 2 2.9Total 69 100Panel C: Papers by theoretical subcategory (sociological theory only)
Soc. Applied Econ. ! Soc.Contribute to field-specific theory by empirical study 49 55.1 8 61.5Involve empirical study without explicitly relating totheory 11 12.4 0 0Relate to field-specific theory, without empiricalstudy 18 20.2 5 38.5Neither relate to field-specific theory, nor involveempirical study 9 10.1 0 0Unclear 2 2.2 0 0Total 89 100 13 100
Table VI.Papers categorized bytheoretical basis
QRAM8,4
396
carried out as an experiment, shows that strong control systems can increase trustbetween colleagues and thus reduces incentives for opportunistic behavior.
The 102 papers with a theoretical basis in sociology, classified as “Sociological theoryapplied” or “Economic theory ( Sociological theory”, make up more than half of theP1 papers. These have been classified into four subcategories:
(1) papers that contribute to field-specific theory by empirical studies;
(2) papers that involve empirical studies without explicitly relating to theory;
(3) papers that relate to a field-specific theory, without empirical studies; or
(4) papers that neither relate to field-specific theory, nor involve empirical studies.
As seen in Table VI, Panel C, most of these papers contribute or relate to theory.Compared to papers based on economic theory, however, these papers applyfield-specific, rather than general, theory. Also, worth noting in Table VI is that somepapers neither relate to theory, nor involve an empirical study (10.1 percent).
Chua (1995) serves as an illustration of the type of papers belonging to the firstsub-category, that is, papers that contribute to field-specific theory by empirical studies.This paper is based on case studies of three hospitals. Drawing on actor-network theory,change in accounting models is explained by faith, experts, rhetoric and by efforts oftying together different interests. Trust is found to be a necessary precondition forallowing a function to perform certain tasks, such as accounting tasks. An example ofthe type of papers in the second category, that is, papers that involve empirical studieswithout explicitly relating to theory, is the paper by O’Dwyer et al. (2005) where theauthors report on the role that sustainability reports play in holding non-governmentalorganizations accountable to stakeholders. They conclude that sustainability reportspractice is viewed negatively and adds neither credibility nor trust to financialinformation. The third subcategory, papers that relate to a field-specific theory withoutempirical studies, can be illustrated by the paper of Covaleski et al. (1996). In this paper,alternative approaches to mainstream MAR are put forward as being useful. Theauthors point to requirements for obtaining validity in alternative research, and to thephenomenon of trust affecting employees’ action, thus negating intended effects ofmanagement accounting systems. The fourth subcategory, papers that neither relate tofield-specific theory nor involve empirical studies, is illustrated by Gibson (2000). Thispaper is based on the analysis of prior literature and discusses how accounting languageand terminology fails to include and account for social values central to the beliefsystems of Aboriginal society.
Our data indicates that the main body of research on trust in relation to accountingpractice is based on sociological theory as the theoretical departure and framework.Papers based on economic theory represent a minority, with 35.2 percent (Table VI,Panel A) of the papers demonstrating attempts to relate the concept of trust to economictheory. To the extent that these two theoretical bases represent paradigms, one mayexpect that some central references are more frequently drawn on than others byresearchers working within the respective paradigms. This expectation is howevercontradicted in Table VII, which shows the wide variety of central trust references usedin the 196 P1 papers analyzed in this paper. In the table, the central trust referencesreferred to in at least two papers are listed. Tomkins’ paper from 2001 is the mostfrequently used accounting reference. Since its publication, this paper has had an impact
Accountingresearch
and trust
397
on the literature. Giddens’ (sociological theory) and Sako’s (economic theory)are two authors whose writings from the early 1990s are heavily referredto. Some other accounting researchers, apart from Tomkins (2001), have been referredto more than once. An interesting observation is that there is an increase in references toaccounting papers in the last five years of our study. The accounting papers that arereferred to most (Dekker, 2004; Langfield-Smith and Smith, 2003; Neu, 1991a, b, c; Sealand Vincent-Jones, 1997; Tomkins, 2001; Van der Meer Kooistra and Vosselman, 2000,2006) are cited mainly in papers published in the 2005-2009 period. Thus, it seems as ifthe level of cross-referencing in the field of trust and accounting is increasing over time.This indicates that there is an increase in the paradigmatic nature of research in the field.
An area where it is still difficult to see signs of a paradigm – even an emerging one –in trust research in accounting concerns the definition of trust. Table VIII shows that only36 papers (18.4 percent of the P1 papers) have an explicit definition of trust, based on
References Field of research Times usedOf which2005-2009
Giddens (1984, 1990, 1991a, b) Non-accounting 18 7Tomkins (2001) Accounting 18 14Sako (1992) Non-accounting 12 7Neu (1991a, b, c) Accounting 6 4Dekker (2004) Accounting 5 5Das and Teng (1998, 2001) Non-accounting 5 5Granovetter (1985) Non-accounting 5 5Luhmann (1979, 1984, 1988) Non-accounting 5 3Van der Meer Kooistra and Vosselman (2000, 2006) Accounting 5 4Berg et al. (1995) Accounting 4 2Gambetta (1988) Non-accounting 4 2Langfield-Smith and Smith (2003) Accounting 4 4Seal and Vincent-Jones (1997) Accounting 4 3Bachmann (2001) Non-accounting 3 3Garfinkel (1963, 1967) Non-accounting 3 0Rousseau et al. (1998) Non-accounting 3 3Williamson (1975, 1993) Non-accounting 3 1Zand (1972, 1997) Non-accounting 3 1Zucker (1986) Non-accounting 3 1Bolton (1991, 1997) Non-accounting 2 0Busco et al. (2006) Accounting 2 2Coletti et al. (2005) Accounting 2 2Cook (2001) Non-accounting 2 2Evans et al. (2001) Accounting 2 2Gulati (1995) Non-accounting 2 1Johansson and Baldvinsdottir (2003) Accounting 2 2Mayer et al. (1995) Non-accounting 2 1Putnam (1993) Non-accounting 2 2Read (1962) Non-accounting 2 1Ring and Van de Ven (1992) Accounting 2 1Seal et al. (1999) Accounting 2 1Seal et al. (2004) Accounting 2 2Unerman and O’Dwyer (2004) Accounting 2 1
Table VII.Number of papers usingeach reference as acentral trust-relatedreference
QRAM8,4
398
a reference. About 14 additional papers provide a structure to the concept of trust. Theremaining 146 papers have no explicit definition or structure related to the concept.
Table IX presents the explicit trust definitions used in the papers. Most papers witha definition refer to sociological research such as Zand (1972), Giddens (1990), andRousseau et al. (1998). A few definitions are based on economic theory. Economicmodeling is a basis for definitions by Gietzmann (1996) and Luft (1997). A moreempirically operationalized definition is provided in Abernethy et al. (2004).
Tomkins (2001) develops his own definition. In the accounting literature, his paper isunique in that his definition is used by four other researchers in the field (Coad and Cullen,2006; Dekker, 2004; Johansson and Baldvinsdottir, 2003; Kajuter and Kulmala, 2005).Most definitions used are developed outside the field of accounting. The definition byHopwood (1972) is from the accounting literature, but it is only used once in our sample.
4. Statistical analysisAfter having reviewed the papers in our study, and classified them by the dimensionsselected, we did statistical testing on the papers. The results of these tests are summarizedin this section. We conducted three types of tests. First, there are tests of significant trendsover time, that is to what extent there is a development over time in the trust literature.Second, tests are made of significant differences in papers from various journals. Third,tests of differences in papers in various topic areas are performed. The last two types oftests provide an overview of the research that has been done to date. All three tests giveinsight into the paradigmatic nature of research in the field of trust and accounting.
Tests of changes over time are both quantitative and qualitative. Quantitativedevelopment is tested on the data in Table II, Panel C. Our tests (Spearman rankcorrelation) showed that there is a significant increase in the number of trust papers overtime. For the P1, P2 and S categories, the significance level is at the 1 percent level, whileit is at the 10 percent level for the P3 papers.
Qualitative development is tested by seeing to what extent there is a significantchange over time in variables such as, topic areas, methods used, and theoretical bases ofpapers. This test was only done for P1 papers and the test used was x 2. Results showthat there are significant changes over time in terms of topic areas. The proportion ofpapers in the fields of FAN and reporting (FIN and FRG) has increased over time. None ofthe other variables changed significantly over time.
We tested P1 papers for differences between journals, in order to see to what extentthe debate and development of trust is mostly centered in certain journals. Ax 2-test wasperformed, where we looked for differences in terms of variables such as year, topic,research approach, and theoretical basis. All variables showed significant variation atthe 1 percent level, except definition of trust that was significant at the 5 percent level.There is a marked development over time in different journals (Table III). Trust research
Definition Number %
Explicit definition provided 33 16.8Structure provided to the concept of trust, but no explicit definition 15 7.7No definition provided 148 75.5Total 196 100
Table VIII.Papers categorized by
the existence oftrust definition
Accountingresearch
and trust
399
Pap
erD
efin
itio
nof
tru
stM
ain
refe
ren
ce(s
)
Gie
tzm
ann
(199
6)R
elia
bil
ity
inac
tion
s.U
ph
eld
bas
edon
poo
rre
pu
tati
onif
bro
ken
,i.e
.b
ased
onse
lf-i
nte
rest
Gam
bet
ta(1
988)
Sea
lan
dV
ince
nt-
Jon
es(1
997)
Tru
stin
vol
ves
ad
egre
eof
cog
nit
ive
fam
ilia
rity
wit
hth
eob
ject
oftr
ust
that
isso
mew
her
eb
etw
een
tota
lk
now
led
ge
and
tota
lig
nor
ance
Lew
isan
dW
eig
ert
(198
5)
“Sy
stem
tru
std
oes
not
der
ive
from
emot
ion
,b
ut
rath
erh
asa
‘pre
sen
tati
onal
’bas
ew
hic
h‘is
acti
vat
edb
yth
eap
pea
ran
ceth
atev
ery
thin
gse
ems
inp
rop
eror
der
’(L
ewis
and
Wei
ger
t,19
85,
p.
974)
.”(p
.40
9)Jo
nss
on(1
998)
Tru
stas
gro
un
ded
exp
ecta
tion
sG
arfi
nk
el(1
963)
Jon
esan
dD
ug
dal
e(2
001)
Tru
stas
con
fid
ence
inth
ere
liab
ilit
yof
ap
erso
nor
asy
stem
,reg
ard
ing
ag
iven
set
ofou
tcom
esor
even
ts,
wh
ere
that
con
fid
ence
exp
ress
esa
fait
hin
the
pro
bit
yor
lov
eof
anot
her
,or
inth
eco
rrec
tnes
sof
abst
ract
pri
nci
ple
s(t
ech
nic
alk
now
led
ge)
Gid
den
s(1
990)
Lau
and
Bu
ckla
nd
(200
1)T
rust
isd
efin
edas
the
firm
bel
ief
orco
nfi
den
ceth
esu
bor
din
ates
hav
ein
the
just
ice
ofth
eir
sup
erio
rsZ
and
(197
2)
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
Tru
stis
defi
ned
asth
ead
opti
onof
ab
elie
fb
yon
ep
arty
ina
rela
tion
ship
that
the
oth
erp
arty
wil
ln
otac
tag
ain
sth
isor
her
inte
rest
s,w
her
eth
isb
elie
fis
hel
dw
ith
out
un
du
ed
oub
tor
susp
icio
nan
din
the
abse
nce
ofd
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
eac
tion
sof
that
oth
erp
arty
Lu
hm
ann
(197
9)
Jaco
bs
and
Kem
p(2
002)
Tru
stas
soci
alca
pit
alP
utn
am(1
993)
Ch
enh
all
and
Lan
gfi
eld
-Sm
ith
(200
3)A
psy
chol
ogic
alst
ate
com
pri
sin
gth
ein
ten
tion
toac
cep
tv
uln
erab
ilit
yb
ased
onp
osit
ive
exp
ecta
tion
sof
the
inte
nti
ons
orb
ehav
iors
ofan
oth
er
Rou
ssea
uet
al.
(199
8)
Lle
wel
lyn
(200
3)T
rust
inv
olv
esa
deg
ree
ofco
gn
itiv
efa
mil
iari
tyw
ith
the
obje
ctof
tru
stth
atis
som
ewh
ere
bet
wee
nto
tal
kn
owle
dg
ean
dto
tal
ign
oran
ce
Sea
lan
dV
ince
nt-
Jon
es(1
997)
and
Lew
isan
dW
eig
ert
(198
5)
(continued
)
Table IX.Explicit definitionsof trust
QRAM8,4
400
Pap
erD
efin
itio
nof
tru
stM
ain
refe
ren
ce(s
)
“Sy
stem
tru
std
oes
not
der
ive
from
emot
ion
,b
ut
rath
erh
asa
‘pre
sen
tati
onal
’bas
ew
hic
h‘is
acti
vat
edb
yth
eap
pea
ran
ceth
atev
ery
thin
gse
ems
inp
rop
eror
der
’(L
ewis
and
Wei
ger
t,19
85,
p.
974)
”(p
.40
9)Jo
han
sson
and
Bal
dv
insd
otti
r(2
003)
Ad
opti
onof
ab
elie
fb
yon
ep
arty
ina
rela
tion
ship
that
the
oth
erp
arty
wil
ln
otac
tag
ain
sth
isor
her
inte
rest
s,w
her
eth
isb
elie
fis
hel
dw
ith
out
un
du
ed
oub
tor
susp
icio
nan
din
the
abse
nce
ofd
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
eac
tion
sof
that
oth
erp
arty
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
Ab
ern
eth
yet
al.
(200
4)T
rust
asle
vel
ofex
per
ien
ce,
oper
atio
nal
ized
asn
um
ber
ofy
ears
oncu
rren
tjo
b–
Dek
ker
(200
4)A
dop
tion
ofa
bel
ief
by
one
par
tyin
are
lati
onsh
ipth
atth
eot
her
par
tyw
ill
not
act
agai
nst
his
orh
erin
tere
sts,
wh
ere
this
bel
ief
ish
eld
wit
hou
tu
nd
ue
dou
bt
orsu
spic
ion
and
inth
eab
sen
ceof
det
aile
din
form
atio
nab
out
the
acti
ons
ofth
atot
her
par
ty
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
Gib
bset
al.
(200
4)T
rust
aste
nu
reon
the
job
–R
owe
(200
4)T
rust
asth
ew
illi
ng
nes
sto
incr
ease
one’
sv
uln
erab
ilit
yto
oth
ers
inth
eab
sen
ceof
adeq
uat
esa
feg
uar
ds
Kra
mer
(199
9),
Zan
d(1
997)
,an
dM
eyer
sonet
al.
(199
5)
Col
ettiet
al.
(200
5)P
erce
ived
lik
elih
ood
that
anot
her
per
son
wil
lco
oper
ate,
abse
nt
any
ince
nti
ves
tod
oso
–
Lau
and
Sh
olih
in(2
005)
Con
fid
ence
inth
esu
per
ior’
sm
otiv
esan
din
ten
tion
sw
ith
resp
ect
tom
atte
rsre
lev
ant
toth
esu
bor
din
ate’
sca
reer
and
stat
us
inth
eor
gan
izat
ion
Rea
d(1
962)
Bu
scoet
al.
(200
6)T
rust
asa
mec
han
ism
that
can
red
uce
un
cert
ain
tyin
con
tex
tsof
inte
ract
ion
and
faci
lita
teth
efu
nct
ion
ing
ofor
gan
izat
ion
alsy
stem
sth
rou
gh
the
beh
avio
rof
soci
alac
tors
Gid
den
s(1
990,
1984
)
(continued
)
Table IX.
Accountingresearch
and trust
401
Pap
erD
efin
itio
nof
tru
stM
ain
refe
ren
ce(s
)
Coa
dan
dC
ull
en(2
006)
Th
ead
opti
onof
ab
elie
fb
yon
ep
arty
ina
rela
tion
ship
that
the
oth
erp
arty
wil
ln
otac
tag
ain
sth
isor
her
inte
rest
s,w
her
eth
isb
elie
fis
hel
dw
ith
out
un
du
ed
oub
tor
susp
icio
nan
din
the
abse
nce
ofd
etai
led
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
eac
tion
sof
the
oth
erp
arty
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
Cu
gan
esan
(200
6)T
rust
asan
un
cert
ain
tyre
du
ctio
nm
ech
anis
mT
omk
ins
(200
1),
Sak
o(1
992)
,an
dG
amb
etta
(198
8)D
onad
aan
dN
ogat
chew
sky
(200
6)T
rust
incl
ud
esa
set
ofex
pec
tati
ons
abou
tth
eli
kel
ihoo
dof
hav
ing
ad
esir
able
acti
onp
erfo
rmed
by
the
tru
sted
par
tner
McA
llis
ter
(199
5),
Wil
liam
son
(199
3),
and
Sak
o(1
992)
Han
nan
etal.
(200
6)T
rust
asso
cial
app
rov
alE
van
set
al.
(200
1)L
auan
dT
an(2
006)
Tru
stas
ap
sych
olog
ical
stat
eco
mp
risi
ng
the
inte
nti
onto
acce
pt
vu
lner
abil
ity
bas
edu
pon
pos
itiv
eex
pec
tati
ons
ofth
ein
ten
tion
sor
beh
avio
rof
anot
her
Don
eyet
al.
(199
8),
Ela
ng
ovan
and
Sh
apir
o(1
998)
,R
ouss
eauet
al.
(199
8),
and
Wh
iten
eret
al.
(199
8)
Em
sley
and
Kid
on(2
007)
Tru
stas
ap
sych
olog
ical
stat
eof
acce
pti
ng
vu
lner
abil
ity
bas
edon
pos
itiv
eex
pec
tati
ons
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
,R
ouss
eauet
al.
(199
8),
and
Sak
o(1
992)
McG
ounet
al.
(200
7)T
rust
isth
eas
sure
dre
lian
ceon
the
tru
thof
som
eon
eor
som
eth
ing
,wh
erea
str
uth
isa
gen
eral
agre
emen
tof
asi
gn
wit
hit
sob
ject
Pei
rce
(199
1)
Cak
er(2
008)
Tru
stw
ork
son
the
bas
isof
pos
itiv
eas
sum
pti
ons
abou
tal
ter
ego’
sw
illi
ng
nes
san
dab
ilit
yto
co-
oper
ate,
wh
ile
pow
eris
con
stit
uti
vel
yb
ased
onth
ese
lect
ion
ofa
neg
ativ
eh
yp
oth
etic
alp
ossi
bil
ity
reg
ard
ing
alte
reg
o’s
(re)
acti
ons
Bac
hm
ann
(200
1)
Fre
e(2
008)
Tru
stre
fers
toth
ew
illi
ng
nes
sof
ap
arty
tob
ev
uln
erab
leto
the
acti
ons
ofan
oth
erp
arty
bas
edon
the
exp
ecta
tion
that
the
oth
erw
ill
per
form
ap
arti
cula
rac
tion
imp
orta
nt
toth
etr
ust
or,
irre
spec
tiv
eof
the
abil
ity
tom
onit
oror
con
trol
that
oth
erp
arty
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
,May
eretal.
(199
5),S
ako
(199
2),a
nd
Neu
(199
1a)
(continued
)
Table IX.
QRAM8,4
402
Pap
erD
efin
itio
nof
tru
stM
ain
refe
ren
ce(s
)
Lan
gfi
eld
-Sm
ith
(200
8)C
omp
eten
cetr
ust
,w
hic
hre
late
sto
ap
artn
er’s
abil
ity
top
erfo
rmac
cord
ing
toth
esp
ecifi
edag
reem
ent
orco
ntr
act
Noo
teb
oom
(199
6)an
dR
ing
and
van
de
Ven
(199
2)
Goo
dw
ill
tru
std
efin
edas
per
cep
tion
sof
ap
artn
er’s
inte
nti
onto
per
form
inac
cord
ance
wit
hth
ose
agre
emen
tsL
auet
al.
(200
8)T
rust
asa
psy
chol
ogic
alst
ate
com
pri
sin
gth
ein
ten
tion
toac
cep
tv
uln
erab
ilit
yb
ased
up
onp
osit
ive
exp
ecta
tion
sof
the
inte
nti
ons
orb
ehav
ior
ofan
oth
er
Rou
ssea
uet
al.
(199
8)
Vel
ezet
al.
(200
8)T
rust
asth
ew
illi
ng
nes
sof
ap
arty
tob
ev
uln
erab
leto
the
acti
ons
ofan
oth
erp
arty
onth
eex
pec
tati
onth
atth
eot
her
par
tyw
ill
per
form
ap
arti
cula
rac
tion
wh
ich
isim
por
tan
tto
the
tru
stor
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
,D
asan
dT
eng
(199
8),
and
Sak
o(1
992)
Wil
liam
son
(200
8)T
rust
asg
ame,
mea
nin
gw
illi
ng
nes
sto
giv
eu
pm
oney
for
pot
enti
aljo
int
retu
rns
un
der
un
cert
ain
tyB
erget
al.
(199
5)an
dM
ille
r(2
003)
Har
tman
nan
dS
lap
nic
ar(2
009)
Ap
erso
n’s
tru
stw
orth
ines
sas
that
per
son
’sp
refe
ren
cefo
ru
ph
old
ing
soci
alan
db
ehav
iora
ln
orm
s,su
chas
hon
esty
and
fair
nes
s,in
situ
atio
ns
inw
hic
hth
etr
ust
ing
par
tyw
ill
ben
efit
from
the
adh
eren
ceto
thos
en
orm
s
Gam
bet
ta(1
988)
Jay
asin
gh
ean
dT
hom
as(2
009)
Tru
stin
vol
ves
ale
apof
fait
hb
eyon
dth
eco
gn
itiv
ele
vel
ofex
per
ien
cean
dac
tion
Lew
isan
dW
eig
ert
(198
5)
Vos
selm
anan
dv
and
erM
eer-
Koo
istr
a(2
009)
Tru
stim
pli
esth
ata
par
tyis
wil
lin
gto
acce
pt
vu
lner
abil
ity
,al
thou
gh
this
par
tyis
not
com
ple
tely
sure
that
the
oth
erp
arty
wil
ln
otb
ehav
eop
por
tun
isti
call
y
Tom
kin
s(2
001)
Table IX.
Accountingresearch
and trust
403
is decreasing over time in AAAJ, while there is an increase in trust papers in later yearsin AR, BAR, CAR, CPA, EAR, JAR and MAR. Of special interest may be the fact thatquantitatively oriented journals such as AR, CAR and JAR started publishing trustpapers in the later years of the surveyed period. In the early years, two journals (AAAJand AOS) dominate trust research. Over time, trust research is more evenly distributedamong journals. The difference in topics, research approach and theoretical basis isexpected, since journals tend to specialize.
The third test involved comparing papers from different topics. A x 2-test on theP1 papers was performed, testing for significant differences in terms of variables such asresearch approach and method, theoretical basis, and use of trust definition. There aresignificant differences at the 0.1 percent level for all these variables, except researchmethod (significant at the 5 percent level). Most experimental studies are found in MAN,while CPP has a high proportion of theoretical papers. Archival studies are especiallyprevalent in FRG, while MAN has most of the interview studies (Table V). Economic theorydominates among analytical modeling (EAA) and FRG papers. Sociology dominatesamong CPP papers, while MAN papers are evenly spread among economics and sociologyas a theoretical basis (Table VI). Finally, having an explicit definition of trust is morecommon among MAN papers than in other topic areas (Table VIII). In FIN and FRG, on theother hand, explicit definitions of trust are very unusual (only 1 out of 34 papers has it).
5. DiscussionIn this section, we analyze and discuss the findings of the review as well as suggestsome possible directions for future research.
5.1 Aspects of the trust-accounting relationshipA clear finding from the literature review is that when research is done on trust andaccounting, the definition and operationalization of trust will vary by certain aspects.There is, for example, some variation in the definition of trust, as shown in Table IX,although the variation is not as large as it might appear at first sight. Arguably, theconcept of trust is context-dependent and different aspects of trust are relevant to focuson in different contexts. If this is the case, it is helpful for researchers to know accordingto which contextual aspects trust tends to vary in research. Below we attempt to identifysuch aspects and provide a framework for asking more precise and focused researchquestions. The aspects discussed below offer help in the identification of what can affectdifferent empirical manifestations of trust. In addition, they provide a basis foranalyzing how trust manifests itself in different situations (Free, 2008).
First, we have some aspects that are related to the empirical setting studied:. The type of accounting studied, for example MAN and FAN. This aspect is based
on the findings presented in Table II, Panel B.. The actor being focused on. Actors could be, for example, management,
accountants, auditors, and regulators. This is based on the actors noted in Table IV,Panel A.
Other aspects are related to the specific situation is being studied, for example:. Trust in a pre- versus a post-contract situation could vary. This is related to
Tomkins’ (2001) distinction between different stages of a trust-building process.
QRAM8,4
404
. Type of information studied, also based on Tomkins (2001) who distinguishesbetween accounting information used to build trust, and information used for“mastery of events” (p. 171), which is a more functional usage.
. The role of trust. This aspect is based on the findings presented in Table IV, Panel C.
There are also aspects related to trust per se, and to the relationship between trust andaccounting that is studied. These include:
. Personal trust versus system trust. This aspect is related to the analysis shownin Table IV, Panel A, on who/what is the object of trust.
. The direction of the relationship between trust and accounting, based on thedistinctions made in Table IV, Panel B.
5.2 Research issues identifiedLeaving the empirical context of trust and accounting, we now focus on differenttheoretical bases of research. As shown in Table VI, Panel A, research can be classifiedas based on economics or sociology. Below we point out some research issues thatemanate from the papers studied in the two theoretical areas. We begin witheconomics-based papers.
In economic models, human activities are often assumed to be costly and to requireconsumption of scarce resources. For instance, business relations require costlycontracting. Both an accounting system (including auditing and regulatory oversight)and the building of personal trust are assumed to be costly activities. The notion of trustand accounting as substitutes gives rise to the issue whether there is an optimal level oftrust (Tomkins, 2001). One possible future research path could be to find the optimallevel of trust in different situations. Many existing studies implicitly assume that moretrust is better than less trust (Free, 2008)[12]. An optimal level of trust would presumablybe a level that would optimize total economic output. Having said this, it needs to bepointed out that this does not necessarily mean it would be optimal for each individualactor. Therefore, another issue for future research could be to study the implications onwealth for different parties for different levels of trust and accounting. Of course, once anoptimal level of trust (for the economy or for the individual actor) is determined, the nextchallenge would be how to achieve this level. To generate a specified level of trust is not atrivial exercise and more knowledge is needed in order to find out how this can beachieved. Gietzmann (1996) and Luft (1997) suggest ways to analytically model this inresearch. A number of studies focus on this issue and identify factors and circumstancesthat help enhance or destroy trust (Seal and Vincent-Jones, 1997).
Another issue related to the definition of trust is how to measure trust. In order for anoptimal level of trust in a specified setting to be meaningful, there must be a definition oftrust so that we can attain a measure of the level of trust. Moreover, for the purposes ofresearch we must also be able to operationalize this measure. An issue for research iswhat the validity of instruments for measuring trust is. A number of instruments tomeasure trust have been used (for an overview of intra-organizational trust measures,see for example Dietz and Den Hartog, 2006), although no comparison and evaluation oftheir usefulness in different research settings has been carried out.
This leads into another avenue for future research, namely the value of trust. If weassume that it is costly to achieve trust, it should also be possible to attach value to it.And in that case, what is the value of trust, and is it possible to improve the precision
Accountingresearch
and trust
405
of measuring it? The issue of intangible assets and intellectual capital may serve asan example (Guthrie, 2001). Some of the papers included in our review treat trust as anintangible asset, for example Van der Meer-Kooistra and Zijlstra (2001) and Roslenderand Fincham (2004). The difficulty of measuring the value of intangible assets isdiscussed from a theoretical perspective by Lev and Daum (2004), and was madeempirically evident by the issuance of Statements of Financial Accounting Standards(SFAS) 141 and 142 (2002) and International Financial Reporting Standard 3 (2004).Much of what is paid for in a business combination is the value of ongoing relationships,where trust has had time to develop. For example, brand names can be analyzed in termsof trust as they relate to trust in the product or organization carrying the name (Ford et al.,1998; Holland, 2001). Customers expect a positive outcome from buying the product orinteracting with the organization and are therefore willing to accept vulnerability, wherenormal quality controls are disregarded. A similar reasoning applies to customerrelations as intangible assets. The role of trust in value creation, materialized asintangible assets, would also be a fruitful area for future research.
As shown in Table VI, sociological research dominates in the field of trust andaccounting even though the interest within the field of economics has increased over time.The former may be an indication that sociology offers a stronger potential for theorydevelopment than economics. We now continue with pointing out research issues that arebased on sociological research. All of the sociological analysis within the accounting fieldis ultimately about accounting’s role in the establishment and preservation of socialorder. Specific attention is paid to how accounting regulates human relations and aspectsof this role are in need of further research. Sociology has contributed foremost by addingaspects important for understanding the dynamic nature of the relationship betweentrust and accounting. The role of commitment is one of these aspects. Commitment isevident through the fulfillment of expectations, and trust is associated with positiveexpectations in individuals or systems (Giddens, 1990, 1991a, b). In an accountingcontext, the commitments may become visible through people’s habits and throughorganizations’ accounting routines ( Johansson and Baldvinsdottir, 2003). The researchdone to date shows that accounting may affect people’s expectations; however, we do notknow how. An important area of interest is thus linked to expectations with respect toperformance and the role of accounting in creating those expectations.
Based on research with a sociological foundation, we can draw the conclusion that thereare reasons to treat the relation between trust and accounting seriously and look furtherinto how accounting systems and accounting information affect trust-relations. Thefindings here are somewhat contradictory and it seems to be the control environment thatdecides whether the effect will be positive or negative. On one hand, we see how the merepresence of accounting systems in organizations can be connected to a stringent controlenvironment that affects trust-relations negatively (Jacobs and Kemp, 2002). On the otherhand, reduced reliance on accounting as a basis for performance evaluation may actuallyreduce trust and increase job-related tension since accounting information often serves asa common reference for the evaluation of individuals’ performance, which in turn affectsthe experience of the fairness in the evaluation (Lau and Buckland, 2001). More knowledgeis thus needed to find out what kinds of control environments promote or destroy trust.In regard to trust affecting accounting, even less is known and more research is neededabout the circumstances where trust-relations will affect the use of accounting.
QRAM8,4
406
The world has become more complicated and trust in systems has replaced trustbetween people in many situations (Porter, 1995). Moreover, trust in systems, such asaccounting systems, is often taken for granted. We could argue that accounting systemsdiffer from other systems because of their unique possibility of reflexivity. This isbecause accounting information conveys messages, for example about competence,responsibility and trustworthiness of both the accountant and the “object” beingportrayed by the accounting numbers. Another area to look into is thus to investigatehow personal trust affects system trust. This is an unexplored field, at least empirically.We still do not know how personal and system trust interact and affect each other.In order to truly understand what makes people trust accounting information, furtherempirical research needs to be done.
5.3 An emerging paradigm?Paradigmatic research involves research that relates closely to what has previously beendone. Hereby, it is possible to develop more complex theory and to achieve a highercertainty in findings. However, paradigmatic research comes at a cost. As mentionedpreviously, it may be relevant to see the concept of trust as context-dependent and, if so,paradigms based on shared or standardized definitions can conceal variation andcomplexity of the concept. But, whether paradigms are good or bad for research, we stillconsider it relevant for future researchers on trust and accounting to know to whatextent paradigms do exist.
To evaluate to what extent paradigms exist, it is necessary to operationalize thisconcept. Paradigms can be defined in different ways, as discussed by Searcy andMentzer (2003). They define paradigms in accounting research in terms of high levelontological and epistemological starting points, as well as types of research issues mostfrequently focused on. We provide this type of data for the papers reviewed, and classifythem into such categories (Table VI). Here, however, we will apply the concept ofparadigm in a slightly different manner and focus on the extent to which research papersappear to be building on each other’s results (Kuhn, 1962). In order to examine to theextent to which a paradigm has emerged in the field of trust research in accounting,we first focus on the extent to which different researchers refer to each other. Second,we look at the definitions of trust in the papers reviewed, including to what extentdefinitions come from other accounting papers. In addition, we study whetherresearchers tend to increasingly agree on definitions over time. This gives an indicationof the extent to which a paradigm emerges in the field of trust research in accounting.
Starting with cross-referencing, it is evident from Table VII that few papers useanother accounting paper as a central trust reference. Instead, the typical centraltrust reference is from outside the field of accounting, often from sociological ororganizational theory. There is, however, one exception, Tomkins (2001), who suggests astructure for the study of the interaction between trust and accounting. His work hasbeen referenced in 18 of the papers included in this study and Tomkins may thusconstitute the start of research with a paradigmatic nature. Seven of the papers that referto Tomkins were found in one journal, MAR. Although there is a variety in researchissues in the papers, it is possible to discern signs of a common debate. First, the findingsof all papers are possible to relate to how accounting processes (changes) affect behaviorand other organizational processes (changes) and vice versa. Second, a number of papersdiscuss the role of trust in the specific context of MAN and organizational change.
Accountingresearch
and trust
407
Third, a number of papers touch upon the relationship between trust and control. Toconclude, paradigmatic research can be said to exist within a sub-topic.
In general, MAN dominates among trust papers, both intra- and inter-organizationalMAN. This is not surprising, given that MAN is more often related to long-term, andpersonal, relationships, when compared to FAN. Thus, it may render a more appropriatesetting for the study of the relation between trust and accounting. Statistical testingfurther shows that a definition of trust is significantly more common in MAN papersthan in other fields. In fact, some recent papers that contribute to the theoreticaldevelopment of the relationship between trust and accounting are all in a setting of MANin inter-firm relations (Free, 2008; Tomkins, 2001; Vosselman and van derMeer-Kooistra, 2008)[13]. The long-term nature, as well as the high level of interactionbetween transacting parties, makes this setting suitable for theoretical development oftrust. This indicates that the relation between trust and accounting is easier to modelinternally in organizations, than for topics such as FRG and FAN.
The relevance for future research is that it may be easier to conduct research in the areaof MAN, both because of the nature of the context studied, but also because there is moreresearch to relate to. On the other hand, this opens an opportunity for research on FRG andtrust, as this field is underrepresented. In addition, the relevance for FRG practice inrelation to accounting scandals and the financial crisis is strong, as discussed in Section 1.
A broadening of research is already evident in the last few years of our literaturereview. There is a higher proportion of papers in FAN and reporting than before, thereare more papers based on economic theory, and there is wider variety in terms of journalswhere trust papers are published. A possible reason for this development could be thatthere is more interest in trust following accounting scandals and financial crises.To conclude, paradigmatic research exists within a sub-topic.
Another indication of paradigmatic research would be if there was a common definitionof trust, especially if the use of this definition is increasing over time. As shown inTable VIII, the overwhelming majority of papers do not have any explicit definition oftrust. This lack of definitions also indicates non-paradigmatic research. On the other hand,those few that have a definition (Table IX) share some common themes. These are:
. Willingness to accept vulnerability/risk. Relying on trust means acting onincomplete information. In that sense, trust can be seen as a form of uncertaintyreduction.
. Expectations of certain behavior, usually based on past events. In economicmodeling, it could be based on known self-interest of the trusted party.
. Trust is important in situations of dependence and cooperation.
Having concluded that the paradigmatic research is non-comprehensive in the field oftrust and accounting, we can ask ourselves whether this is a problem, and what theimplications for research are. Searcy and Mentzer (2003) show that the broader field ofaccounting research in general is characterized by paradigmatic diversity. Llewellyn(2003) claims that there may be rational reasons for this diversity, such as specific casesbeing more important than patterns or regularities and that the context of accountingphenomena is important for understanding them. However, if trust and accountingconstitute a unique economic and empirical setting, a paradigm specific for this fieldmay be desirable since this research field is potentially different both from research ontrust in other empirical areas, and from non-trust-related accounting research.
QRAM8,4
408
6. SummaryAfter having searched more than 9,000 published research papers, we can conclude thatthere is some research done on trust in the accounting field (Free, 2008), and that it isincreasing over time. Approximately 800 out of the 9,000 papers mention trust, either asa primary or a secondary concept. Further, almost 200 papers make a substantivecontribution to the field.
Although a number of papers on trust and accounting have been published since1995, the review indicates that questions and issues remain unresolved. Research ontrust and accounting is largely non-paradigmatic. There may, however, be signs of anemerging paradigm in that Tomkins (2001) is increasingly referred to, and based on therecent research debate in the journal MAR.
One interesting observation is that several of the papers that have contributed to atheoretical development of trust and accounting in the last decade are in the field ofinter-firm relations (Free, 2008; Tomkins, 2001; Vosselman and van der Meer-Kooistra,2009). This field may be particularly appropriate for the study of trust and accounting,although we believe important contributions can also be made in other areas ofaccounting research. Our analysis indicates, however, that to date, no overall paradigmin research on trust and accounting has developed, even though cross-referencing in thefield has increased in the last five years. If this development continues, it may well bethat a paradigm on a more general level will develop.
We also note a broadening of trust research in accounting in the last few years, forexample in terms of topics covered (more papers in FAN and reporting), theoreticalbasis (more papers based on economic theory), and journals where papers arepublished. This could be interpreted as the field of trust and accounting becomingmore mature and mainstream.
A remaining issue is that there does not seem to be agreement regarding thedefinition of trust. Where definitions are found, there is variation albeit with somecommon themes. We believe that, for the field to develop, it is necessary to have morerigorous and common definitions of trust.
A different type of issue is to what extent the development of such a research strandwould contribute back to accounting research and trust research in general. Theanalysis strongly suggests that trust research would be useful for accounting research ingeneral. This is because, arguably, trust is an essential feature of accounting practice. Toconclude that there would be a contribution to trust research in general from this newresearch strand is less self-evident. We do, however, believe that an importantcontribution can be made, in that the role of information and communication in buildingand destroying trust can be structured and analyzed in accounting research.
Both economic and sociological theories could be useful in modeling the relationshipbetween trust and accounting. Researchers have a choice. Economic theory, withstringent assumptions, appears to be more easily used to develop a research paradigm,although not much has been done to date relating to trust. Sociology, on the other hand,allows a richer analysis with additional aspects, at the cost of making it more difficult todevelop paradigmatic research. Economic and sociological theory may be possibleto combine in some way. However, the development of a rigorous theory or modelfor the field is beyond the scope of this paper. One contribution made in the paper is thatwe identify aspects along which trust and accounting can demonstrate variation.We also point out research issues that emanate from the existing literature.
Accountingresearch
and trust
409
Although this literature review cannot provide a rigorous theory for accounting andtrust, we hope this review is helpful in identifying the islands of current research in anocean of emerging theory.
Notes
1. Zeff’s ranking is based on number of library subscriptions, i.e. top ranked journals are thosethat are most likely to be subscribed to by academic libraries. He notes, however, that these15 journals also tend to rank highest in perception and citation studies.
2. It has been acknowledged that other key-words belonging to the semantic field of trust couldhave been used (e.g. confidence and faith). In the first search, for 1995, these words wereincluded. This resulted in a high number of hits. This, together with the observation thatmany authors used the words to define concepts other than trust, made us decide to use theword trust as the only key-word.
3. For example, by making references to other papers.
4. The classification was carried out by two researchers, in an iterative process. A number ofpapers were selected for calibration between the researchers, until the correlation was foundto be high and the categories were found to be qualitatively distinct.
5. The papers categorized as P3 were included in our literature review since, for example,auditing is a field close to accounting. More knowledge about auditing practice is thus likelyto add to the knowledge of accounting practice. However, these papers were not included inthe P1 category as they do not directly relate to accounting.
6. The analysis of the P1 papers was coordinated and discussed among several researchers.
7. Among papers classified as “economic theory applied”, some researchers argue for aninter-paradigmatic development in research and thus do not reject sociological research.
8. The classification follows the topic areas used by the European Accounting Association inits classification of papers presented at the 2007 annual congress.
9. A x 2-test (further discussed in the following section) was performed to see whether there aresignificant differences between papers in different topics. There are differences in terms ofresearch approach and the theoretical basis of a paper. This is not surprising, since journals tendto specialize in such respects. A more interesting finding is that papers inmanagement accounting are more likely to have a definition of trust than papers in otherareas. This could be an indication of stronger theory development of trust in managementaccounting than elsewhere.
10. Statistical tests were applied to see whether there was a significant increase of trust papersover time. The Spearman rank correlation was performed for P1, P2, P3, S, and all papers,separately. For all categories there is a significant increase in number of papers over time,although the significance level is weak for P3 papers (10 percent).
11. A statistical analysis was performed to test whether there is a significant difference betweenpapers in different journals (further discussed in the following section).
12. An optimal level of trust assumes that trust can vary along a (continuous) scale. There couldbe situations where trust is more correctly modeled as binary, i.e. that trust either exists ordoes not exist. If so, the research issue becomes whether it is optimal in a certain situation totrust, or not to trust.
13. Tomkins, for example, uses a setting of long-term alliances between companies to develop amodel for trust and accounting. The long-term nature of the relationships enables thedevelopment of a step-wise model, mapping out the dynamic nature of the interaction of trustand accounting, through the use of a temporal model. Free uses long-term relations between
QRAM8,4
410
suppliers and customers to develop a more empirically based model for trust and accounting.Vosselman and van der Meer-Kooistra discuss the relation between accounting and control ina setting of inter-firm relationships.
References
Akerlof, G.A. (1970), “The market for ‘memons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism”,Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 488-500.
Bachmann, R. (2001), “Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations”, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 337-65.
Ballas, A. and Theoharakis, V. (2003), “Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journalperceptions”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 619-44.
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. and McCabe, K.A. (1995), “Trust reciprocity, and social history”, Games andEconomic Behavioral, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 122-42.
Bolton, G.E. (1991), “A comparative model of bargaining: theory and evidence”, The AmericanEconomic Review, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 1096-136.
Bolton, G.E. (1997), “The rationality of splitting equally”, Journal of Economic Behavior& Organization, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 365-81.
Cook, K.S. (Ed.) (2001), Trust in Society, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.
Das, T. and Teng, B. (1998), “Between trust and control: developing confidence in partnercooperation alliances”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 491-512.
Das, T. and Teng, B. (2001), “Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: an integratedframework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 251-83.
Dietz, G. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2006), “Measuring trust inside organisations”, Personnel Review,Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 557-88.
Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P. and Mullen, M.R. (1998), “Understanding the influence of nationalculture on the development of trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 601-20.
Elangovan, A.R. and Shapiro, D.L. (1998), “Betrayal of trust in organizations”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 547-66.
Evans, J.H.I., Hannan, L.R., Krishnan, R. and Moser, D.V. (2001), “Honesty in managerialreporting”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 537-59.
FCAG (2009), Report on the Financial Crisis Advisory Group, Financial Accounting StandardsBoard, Norwalk, CT.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Hakansson, H., Lundgren, A., Snehota, I., Turnbull, P. and Wilson, D.(1998), Managing Business Relationships, Wiley, Chichester.
Gambetta, D. (1988), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Garfinkel, H. (1963), “A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stableconcerted actions”, in Harvey, O.J. (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction. CognitiveDeterminants, Ronald Press Company, New York, NY, pp. 187-238.
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration,Polity Press, Cambridge.
Giddens, A. (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Giddens, A. (1991a), Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age,Polity Press, Cambridge.
Accountingresearch
and trust
411
Giddens, A. (1991b), The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action, social structure, and embeddedness”, AmericanJournal of Sociology, Vol. 91, pp. 481-510.
Gulati, R. (1995), “Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractualchoice in alliances”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 85-112.
Guthrie, J. (2001), “The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital”,Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Hopwood, A.G. (1972), “An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performanceevaluation”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 156-82.
International Financial Reporting Standard 3 (2004), Business Combinations, InternationalAccounting Standards Board, London.
Kramer, R. (1999), “Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduringquestions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 569-98.
Krugman, P. (2009), The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, W.W. Norton& Company, New York, NY.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962),The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Lev, B. and Daum, J.H. (2004), “The dominance of intangible assets: consequences for enterprisemanagement and corporate reporting”,MeasuringBusiness Excellence, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), “Trust as a social reality”,Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 967-85.
Luhmann, N. (1979), Trust and Power: Two Works, Wiley, Chichester.
Luhmann, N. (1984), Trust and Power, Wiley, Chichester.
Luhmann, N. (1988), “Familiarity, confidence, trust: problems and alternatives”,in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Co-operative Relations, Blackwell,Oxford, pp. 94-109.
McAllister, D. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonalcooperation in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 24-59.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizationaltrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. and Kramer, R. (1995), “Swift trust in temporary groups”, in Kramer, R.M.and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, G. (2003), “Why is trust necessary in organizations? The moral hazard ofprofitmaximization”, in Cook, K.S. (Ed.), Trust in Society, Russell Sage Foundation,New York, NY, pp. 307-31.
Neu, D. (1991a), “New stock issues and the institutional production of trust”, Accounting,Organizations & Society, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 185-200.
Neu, D. (1991b), “Trust, contracting and the prospectus process”, Accounting, Organizations& Society, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 243-56.
Neu, D. (1991c), “Trust, impression management and the public accounting profession”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 295-313.
Nooteboom, B. (1996), “Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control model”,Organization Studies, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 985-1010.
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Peirce, C.S. (1991), “Peirce on signs”, in Hoopes, J. (Ed.), Peirce on Signs, The University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
QRAM8,4
412
Putnam, R.D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.
Putnam, R.D. (Ed.) (2002), Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in ContemporarySociety, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Read, W.H. (1962), “Upward communication industrial hierarchies”, Human Relations, Vol. 15,February, pp. 3-15.
Ring, P.S. and van de Ven, A.H. (1992), “Structuring cooperative relationships betweenorganizations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 483-98.
Rockness, H. and Rockness, J. (2005), “Legislated ethics: from Enron to Sarbanes-Oxley,the impact on corporate America”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 31-54.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), “Not so different after all:a cross-discipline view of trust”,Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Sako, M. (1992), Prices, Quality and Trust: Inter-Firm Relations in Britain and Japan, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Searcy, D.W.L. and Mentzer, J.T. (2003), “A framework for conducting and evaluating research”,Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 22, pp. 130-67.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 141 (2002), Business Combinations, FinancialAccounting Standards Board, Norwalk, CT.
Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 142 (2002), Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,Financial Accounting Standards Board, Norwalk, CT.
Van der Meer-Kooistra, J. and Vosselman, E.G.J. (2006), “Research on management control ofinterfirm transactional relationships: whence and whither, editorial”, ManagementAccounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 227-37.
Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Werner, J.M. (1998), “Managers as initiators oftrust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthybehavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-30.
Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-Trust Implications: A Studyin the Economics of Internal Organization, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Williamson, O.E. (1993), “Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization”, Journal of Law& Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 453-86.
Zand, D.E. (1972), “Trust and managerial problem solving”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 229-39.
Zand, D.E. (1997), The Leadership Triad: Knowledge, Trust, and Power, Oxford University Press,Oxford.
Zeff, S.A. (1996), “A study of academic research journals in accounting”, Accounting Horizons,Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 158-77.
Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 53-111.
AppendixAbernethy, M.A., Bouwens, J. and van Lent, L. (2004), “Determinants of control system design in
divisionalized firms”, Accounting Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 545-70.
Adams, C.A. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental social reporting-performanceportrayal gap”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 731-57.
Ahrens, T. (1996), “Styles of accountability”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 21Nos 2/3, pp. 139-73.
Accountingresearch
and trust
413
Alp, S. and Ustundag, S. (2009), “Financial reporting transformation: the experience of Turkey”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 680-99.
Anderson, S.W. and Dekker, H.C. (2009), “Strategic cost management in supply chains, part 1:structural cost management”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 201-20.
Anderson, S.W., Glenn, D. and Sedatole, K.L. (2000), “Sourcing parts of complex products:evidence on transactions costs, high-powered incentives and ex-post opportunism”,Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 723-49.
Andersson, P. and Hellman, N. (2007), “Does pro forma reporting bias analyst forecasts?”,European Accounting Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 277-98.
Armstrong, P. and Tomes, A. (1996), “Art and accountability: the languages of design andmanagerial control”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5,pp. 114-25.
Arnold, B. and Lange, P.D. (2004), “Enron: an examination of agency problems”, CriticalPerspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 751-65.
Arnold, P.J. (1998), “The limits of postmodernism in accounting history: the Decatur experience”,Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 665-84.
Arya, A. and Mittendorf, B. (2005), “Using disclosure to influence herd behavior and altercompetition”, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol. 40 Nos 1-3, pp. 231-46.
Baiman, S. and Rajan, M.V. (2002), “Incentive issues in inter-firm relationships”, Accounting,Organizations & Society, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 213-38.
Baker, M. and Collins, M. (2005), “Audit and control in the not-for-profit sector: an endowedcharity case 1739-1853”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 111-28.
Banker, R.D. and Iny, H. (2008), “Importance of measures of past performance: empirical evidence onquality of e-service providers”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 307-37.
Barros Kimbro, M. (2002), “A cross-country empirical investigation of corruption and itsrelationship to economic, cultural, and monitoring institutions: an examination of the roleof accounting and financial statements quality”, Journal of Accounting, Auditing& Finance, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 325-49.
Barton, J. and Mercer, M. (2005), “To blame or not to blame: analysts’ reactions to externalexplanations for poor financial performance”, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol. 39No. 3, pp. 509-33.
Basu, S. and Waymire, G.B. (2006), “Recordkeeping and human evolution”, Accounting Horizons,Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 201-29.
Benston, G.J., Carmichael, D.R., Demski, J.S., Dharan, B.G., Jamal, K., Laux, R., Rajgopal, S. andVrana, G. (2007), “The FASB’s conceptual framework for financial reporting: a criticalanalysis”, Accounting Horizons, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 229-38.
Bhimani, A. and Ncube, M. (2006), “Virtual integration costs and the limits of supply chainscalability”, Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 390-408.
Birnberg, J.G., Hoffman, V.B. and Yuen, S. (2008), “The accountability demand for information inChina and the US – a research note”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 33 No. 1,pp. 20-32.
Boden, R., Gummett, P., Cox, D. and Baker, K. (1998), “Men in white coats . . . men in grey suits.New public management and the funding of science and technology services to the UKGovernment”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 267-91.
Bol, J.C. (2008), “Subjectivity in compensation contracting”, Journal of Accounting Literature,Vol. 27, pp. 1-32.
QRAM8,4
414
Booth, P. and Schulz, A.K.D. (2004), “The impact of an ethical environment on managers’ projectevaluation judgments under agency problem conditions”, Accounting, Organizations& Society, Vol. 29 Nos 5/6, pp. 473-88.
Boritz, J.E. and No, W.G. (2005), “Security in XML-based financial reporting services on theInternet”, Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 11-35.
Bouillon, M.L., Ferrier, G.D., Stuebs, M.T. and West, T.D. (2006), “The economic benefit of goalcongruence and implications for management control systems”, Journal of Accounting& Public Policy, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 265-98.
Bourguignon, A., Malleret, V. and Nørreklit, H. (2004), “The American balanced scorecard versusthe French tableau de bord: the ideological dimension”, Management Accounting Research,Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 107-34.
Broadbent, J., Dietrich, M. and Laughlin, R. (1996), “The development of principal-agentcontracting and accountability relationships in the public sector: conceptual and culturalproblems”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 259-84.
Broadbent, J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003), “Evaluating the private finance initiative in theNational Health Service in the UK”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16No. 3, pp. 422-45.
Broadbent, J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2008), “Identifying and controlling risk: the problem ofuncertainty in the private finance initiative in the UK’s National Health Service”, CriticalPerspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 40-78.
Bryer, R. (2006), “Accounting and control of the labour process”, Critical Perspectives onAccounting, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 551-98.
Burns, J. and Baldvinsdottir, G. (2005), “An institutional perspective of accountants’ new roles –theinterplay of contradictions and praxis”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 725-57.
Busco, C., Giovannoni, E. and Scapens, R.W. (2008), “Managing the tensions in integrating globalorganisations: the role of performance management systems”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-25.
Busco, C., Riccaboni, A. and Scapens, R.W. (2006), “Trust for accounting and accounting fortrust”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 11-41.
Caker, M. (2008), “Intertwined coordination mechanisms in interorganizational relationshipswith dominated suppliers”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 231-51.
Caglio, A. and Ditillo, A. (2008), “A review and discussion of management control in inter-firmrelationships: achievements and future directions”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 865-98.
Callahan, C.M., Gabriel, E.A. and Sainty, B.J. (2006), “A review and classification of experimentaleconomics research in accounting”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 25, pp. 59-126.
Catasus, B. (2008), “In search of accounting absence”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19No. 7, pp. 1004-19.
Chabrak, N. and Daidj, N. (2007), “Enron: widespread myopia”, Critical Perspectives onAccounting, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 539-57.
Chang, H., Chen, J., Liao, W.M. and Mishra, B.K. (2006), “CEOs’/CFOs’ swearing by the numbers:does it impact share price of the firm?”, Accounting Review, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 1-27.
Chenhall, R.H. and Langfield-Smith, K. (2003), “Performance measurement and reward systems,trust, and strategic change”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 117-43.
Accountingresearch
and trust
415
Chew, A. and Greer, S. (1997), “Contrasting world views on accounting. Accountability andaboriginal culture”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 276-98.
Cho, C.H., Phillips, J.R., Hageman, A.M. and Patten, D.M. (2009), “Media richness, user trust, andperceptions of corporate social responsibility: an experimental investigation of visual website disclosures”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 933-52.
Chong, V.K. and Johnson, D.M. (2007), “Testing a model of the antecedents and consequences ofbudgetary participation on job performance”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 37No. 1, pp. 3-19.
Chua, W.F. (1995), “Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting images:a story of the representation of three public hospitals”, Accounting, Organizations& Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 111-45.
Chua, W.F. and Mahama, H. (2007), “The effect of network ties on accounting controls in a supplyalliance: field study evidence”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 47-86.
Citron, D., Robbie, K. and Wright, M. (1997), “Loan covenants and relationship banking inMBOs”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 277-94.
Clor-Proell, S.M. (2009), “The effects of expected and actual accounting choices on judgments anddecisions”, Accounting Review, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 1465-93.
Coad, A.F. and Cullen, J. (2006), “Inter-organisational cost management: towards an evolutionaryperspective”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 342-69.
Coletti, A.L., Sedatole, K.L. and Towry, K.L. (2005), “The effect of control systems on trust andcooperation in collaborative environments”, Accounting Review, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 477-500.
Collier, P.M. (2001), “Valuing intellectual capacity in the police”, Accounting, Auditing& Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 22, pp. 437-55.
Cooper, R. and Slagmulder, R. (2004), “Interorganizational cost management and relationalcontext”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W. and Samuel, S. (1996), “Managerial accounting research: thecontributions of organizational and sociological theories”, Journal of ManagementAccounting Research, Vol. 8, pp. 1-35.
Cowton, C.J. (2009), “Accounting and the ethics challenge: re-membering the professional body”,Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 177-89.
Cuganesan, S. (2006), “The role of functional specialists in shaping controls within supplynetworks”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 465-92.
Cuijpers, R. and Buijink, W. (2005), “Voluntary adoption of non-local GAAP in the EuropeanUnion: a study of determinants and consequences”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 487-524.
Dahmash, F.N., Durand, R.B. and Watson, J. (2009), “The value relevance and reliability of reportedgoodwill and identifiable intangible assets”,BritishAccountingReview, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 120-37.
DeFond, M. and Hung, M. (2007), “Investor protection and analysts’ cash flow forecasts aroundthe world”, Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 12 Nos 2/3, pp. 377-419.
Dekker, H.C. (2003), “Value chain analysis in interfirm relationships: a field study”, ManagementAccounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Dekker, H.C. (2004), “Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on appropriationconcerns and coordination requirements”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 29No. 1, pp. 27-49.
QRAM8,4
416
Dekker, H.C. (2008), “Partner selection and governance design in interfirm relationships”,Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 915-41.
Dickhaut, J. (2009), “The brain as the original accounting institution”, Accounting Review, Vol. 84No. 6, pp. 1703-12.
Dickhaut, J.W. and McCabe, K.A. (1997), “The behavioral foundations of stewardship accountingand a proposed program of research: what is accountiability?”, Behavioral Research inAccounting, Vol. 9 No. 9, pp. 60-87.
Donada, C. and Nogatchewsky, G. (2006), “Vassal or lord buyers: how to exert managementcontrol in asymmetric interfirm transactional relationships?”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 259-87.
Duff, A. and Einig, S. (2009), “Understanding credit ratings quality: evidence from UK debtmarket participants”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 107-19.
Efferin, S. and Hopper, T. (2007), “Management control, culture and ethnicity in a ChineseIndonesian company”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 223-62.
Ekanem, I. (2005), “‘Bootstrapping’: the investment decision-making process in small firms”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 299-318.
Elnathan, D., Lin, T.W. and Young, S.M. (1996), “Benchmarking and management accounting:a framework for research”, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8, pp. 37-54.
Emsley, D. and Kidon, F. (2007), “The relationship between trust and control in internationaljoint ventures: evidence from the Airline Industry”, Contemporary Accounting Research,Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 829-58.
Fan, J.P.H. and Wong, T.J. (2002), “Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness ofaccounting earnings in East Asia”, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol. 33 No. 3,pp. 401-25.
Farber, D.B. (2005), “Restoring trust after fraud: does corporate governance matter?”, AccountingReview, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 539-61.
Fedor, D.B. and Ramsay, R.J. (2007), “Effects of supervisor power on preparers’ responses toaudit review: a field study”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 19, pp. 91-105.
Fogarty, T.J. and Radcliffe, V.S. (1999), “Extending practice accountants’ constructions of theindustrial relations arena in USA”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12No. 5, pp. 525-60.
Fogarty, T.J. and Rogers, R.K. (2005), “Financial analysts’ reports: an extended institutionaltheory evaluation”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 331-56.
Free, C. (2007), “Supply-chain accounting practices in the UK retail sector: enabling or coercingcollaboration?”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 897-933.
Free, C. (2008), “Walking the talk? Supply chain accounting and trust among UK supermarketsand suppliers”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 629-62.
Friedman, A.L. and Lyne, S.R. (1997), “Activity-based techniques and the death of thebeancounter”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Further reading Adams, C.A. (2002), “Internal organisational factors influencing corporate socialand ethical reporting. Beyond current theorising”, Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 223-50.
Gibbs, M., Merchant, K.A., van der Stede, W.A. and Vargus, M.E. (2004), “Determinants andeffects of subjectivity in incentives”, Accounting Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 409-36.
Gibson, K. (2000), “Accounting as a tool for aboriginal dispossession: then and now”, Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 289-306.
Accountingresearch
and trust
417
Gietzmann, M.B. (1996), “Incomplete contracts and the make or buy decision: governance designand attainable flexibility”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 611-26.
Goddard, A. (2004), “Budgetary practices and accountability habitus: a grounded theory”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 543-77.
Gode, D.K. and Singh, R. (2006), “The impact of verifiability on contracts”, Journal of Accounting,Auditing & Finance, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 149-68.
Gordon, L.A., Loeb, M.P., Sohail, T., Tseng, C.-Y. and Zhou, L. (2008), “Cybersecurity, capitalallocations and management control systems”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 215-41.
Gordon, T.P. and Khumawala, S.B. (1999), “The demand for not-for-profit financial statements:a model of individual giving”, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 18, pp. 31-56.
Graham, J.R., Harvey, C.R. and Rajgopal, S. (2005), “The economic implications of corporatefinancial reporting”, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol. 40 Nos 1-3, pp. 3-73.
Granlund, M. (2003), “Management accounting system integration in corporate mergers: a casestudy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 208-43.
Groot, T.L.C.M. and Merchant, K.A. (2000), “Control of international joint ventures”, Accounting,Organizations & Society, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 579-607.
Guay, W.R. (2008), “Conservative financial reporting, debt covenants, and the agency costs ofdebt”, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol. 45 Nos 2/3, pp. 175-80.
Guilding, C. (2003), “Hotel owner/operator structures: implications for capital budgetingprocess”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-99.
Hakansson, H. and Lind, J. (2004), “Accounting and network coordination”, Accounting,Organizations & Society, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 51-72.
Halliday, T.C. and Carruthers, B.G. (1996), “The moral regulation of markets: professions,privatization and the English Insolvency Act 1986”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 371-413.
Hannan, R.L., Rankin, F.W. and Towry, K.L. (2006), “The effect of information systems onhonesty in managerial reporting: a behavioral perspective”, Contemporary AccountingResearch, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 885-918.
Hartmann, F. and Slapnicar, S. (2009), “How formal performance evaluation affects trust betweensuperior and subordinate managers”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 34 Nos 6/7,pp. 722-37.
Hausken, K. (2007), “Information sharing among firms and cyber attacks”, Journal of Accounting& Public Policy, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 639-88.
Holland, J. (2001), “Financial institutions, intangibles and corporate governance”, Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 497-529.
Homburg, C. and Stebel, P. (2009), “Determinants of contract terms for professional services”,Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 129-45.
Hood, C. (1995), “The ‘new public management’ in the 1980 s: variations on a theme”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 20 Nos 2/3, pp. 93-109.
Hunton, J.E., Mauldin, E.G. and Wheeler, P.R. (2008), “Potential functional and dysfunctionaleffects of continuous monitoring”, Accounting Review, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 1551-69.
Hyvonen, T. and Jarvinen, J. (2006), “Contract-based budgeting in health care: a study of theinstitutional processes of accounting change”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 3-36.
QRAM8,4
418
Jacobs, K. and Kemp, J. (2002), “Exploring accounting presence and absence: case studies fromBangladesh”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 143-61.
Jamal, K., Maier, M. and Sunder, S. (2005), “Enforced standards versus evolution by generalacceptance: a comparative study of e-commerce privacy disclosure and practice in theUnited States and the United Kingdom”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 43 No. 1,pp. 73-96.
Jayasinghe, K. and Soobaroyen, T. (2009), “Religious ‘spirit’ and peoples’ perceptions ofaccountability in Hindu and Buddhist religious organizations”, Accounting, Auditing& Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 997-1028.
Jayasinghe, K. and Thomas, D. (2009), “The preservation of indigenous accounting systems ina subaltern community”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3,pp. 351-78.
Johansson, I.-L. and Baldvinsdottir, G. (2003), “Accounting for trust: some empirical evidence”,Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 219-34.
Jones, S.C. (1999), “Hierarchies, networks and management accounting in NHS hospitals”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 164-87.
Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D. (2001), “The concept of an accounting regime”, Critical Perspectiveson Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 35-63.
Jones, T.C. and Dugdale, D. (2002), “The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity”,Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 121-63.
Jørgensen, B. and Messner, M. (2009), “Management control in new product development:the dynamics of managing flexibility and efficiency”, Journal of Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 21, pp. 99-124.
Jonsson, S. (1998), “Relate management accounting research to managerial work!”, AccountingOrganizations & Society, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 411-34.
Jonsson, S. and Macintosh, N.B. (1997), “Cats, rats, and ears: making the case for ethnographicaccounting research”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 22 Nos 3/4, pp. 367-86.
Kadous, K., Koonce, L. and Towry, K.L. (2005), “Quantification and persuasion in managerialjudgement”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 643-86.
Kajuter, P. and Kulmala, H.I. (2005), “Open-book accounting in networks: potential achievementsand reasons for failures”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 179-204.
Kamminga, P.E. and Van der Meer-Kooistra, J. (2007), “Management control patterns in jointventure relationships: a model and an exploratory study”, Accounting, Organizations& Society, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 135-58.
Karamanou, I. and Vafeas, N. (2005), “The association between corporate boards, auditcommittees, and management earnings forecasts: an empirical analysis”, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 453-86.
Keller, A.C. (2007), “Smith versus Friedman: markets and ethics”, Critical Perspectives onAccounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-88.
Khumawala, S.B., Parsons, L.M. and Gordon, T.P. (2005), “TRACKS assessing the quality ofnot-for-profit efficiency ratios: do donors use joint cost allocation disclosures?”, Journal ofAccounting, Auditing & Finance, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 287-309.
Kidwell, L.A. and Kidwell, R.E. (1997), “Toward a multilevel framework for studying electroniccontrol systems”, Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 89-109.
King, R.R. (2002), “An experimental investigation of self-serving biases in an auditing trustgame: the effect of group affiliation”, Accounting Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 265-84.
Accountingresearch
and trust
419
Kreander, N., Beattie, V. and McPhail, K. (2009), “Putting our money where their mouth is:alignment of charitable aims with charity investments – tensions in policy and practice”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 154-68.
Kyj, L. and Parker, R.J. (2008), “Antecedents of budget participation: leadership style,information asymmetry, and evaluative use of budget”, Abacus, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 423-42.
Lambert, C. and Sponem, S. (2005), “Corporate governance and profit manipulation: a Frenchfield study”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 717-48.
Lambert, R.A. (2001), “Contracting theory and accounting”, Journal of Accounting & Economics,Vol. 32 Nos 1-3, pp. 3-87.
Langfield-Smith, K. (2008), “The relations between transactional characteristics, trust and risk inthe start-up phase of a collaborative alliance”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19No. 4, pp. 344-64.
Langfield-Smith, K. and Smith, D. (2003), “Management control systems and trust in outsourcingrelationships”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 281-307.
Lau, C.M. and Buckland, C. (2001), “Budgeting – the role of trust and participation: a researchnote”, Abacus, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 369-88.
Lau, C.M. and Eggleton, I.R.C. (2003), “The influence of information asymmetry and budgetemphasis on the relationship between participation and slack”, Accounting & BusinessResearch, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 91-104.
Lau, C.M. and Sholihin, M. (2005), “Financial and nonfinancial performance measures: how do theaffect job satisfaction?”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 389-413.
Lau, C.M. and Tan, S.L.C. (2006), “The effects of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust onjob tension in budgeting”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 171-86.
Lau, C.M., Wong, K.M. and Eggleton, I.R.C. (2008), “Fairness of performance evaluationprocedures and job satisfaction: the role of outcome-based and non-outcome-based effects”,Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 121-35.
Lee, T.A. (2006), “The war of the sidewardly mobile corporate financial report”, CriticalPerspectives on Accounting, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 419-55.
Linsley, P.M. and Shrives, P.J. (2007), “Mary Douglas, risk and accounting failures”, CriticalPerspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 492-508.
Llewellyn, S. (1998), “Boundary work: costing and caring in the social services”, Accounting,Organizations & Society, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Llewellyn, S. (2003), “What counts as ‘theory’ in qualitative management and accountingresearch? Introducing five levels of theorizing”, Accounting, Auditing & AccountabilityJournal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 662-708.
Lowe, A. and Koh, B. (2007), “Inscribing the organization: representations in dispute betweenaccounting and production”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 952-74.
Luft, J.L. (1997), “Fairness, ethics and the effect of management accounting on transaction costs”,Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9, pp. 199-216.
Magner, N., Welker, R.B. and Campbell, T.L. (1995), “The interactive effect of budgetaryparticipation and budget favorability on attitudes toward budgetary decision makers: aresearch note”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 20 Nos 7/8, pp. 611-18.
Maltby, J. (2004), “Hadfields Ltd: its annual general meetings 1903-1939 and their relevance forcontemporary corporate social reporting”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 36 No. 4,pp. 415-38.
QRAM8,4
420
Marnet, O. (2007), “History repeats itself: the failure of rational choice models in corporategovernance”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 191-210.
Masquefa, B. (2008), “Top management adoption of a locally driven performance measurementand evaluation system: a social network perspective”, Management Accounting Research,Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 182-207.
McGoun, E.G., Bettner, M.S. and Coyne, M.P. (2007), “Pedagogic metaphors and the nature ofaccounting signification”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 213-30.
McPhail, K. (2009), “Where is the ethical knowledge in the knowledge economy? Power andpotential in the emergence of ethical knowledge as a component of intellectual capital”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 804-22.
Meeks, G. and Swann, G.M.P. (2009), “Accounting standards and the economics of standards”,Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 191-210.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1995), “Complementarities and fit: strategy, structure, andorganizational change in manufacturing”, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol. 19Nos 2/3, pp. 179-208.
Minelli, E., Rebora, G. and Turri, M. (2009), “Why do controls fail? Results of an Italian survey”,Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 933-43.
Mitchell, F., Reid, G.C. and Terry, N.G. (1995), “Post investment demand for accountinginformation by venture capitalists”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 99,pp. 186-96.
Mittendorf, B. (2006), “Capital budgeting when managers value both honesty and perquisites”,Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18, pp. 77-95.
Moilanen, S. (2007), “Knowledge translation in management accounting and control: a case studyof a multinational firm in transitional economies”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 16No. 4, pp. 757-89.
Moilanen, S. (2008), “The role of accounting and an intermediate subsidiary in the managementcontrol system”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 252-69.
Mouritsen, J. and Thrane, S. (2006), “Accounting, network complementarities and thedevelopment of inter-organisational relations”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 241-75.
Nor-Aziah, A.K. and Scapens, R.W. (2007), “Corporatisation and accounting change: the role ofaccounting and accountants in a Malaysian public utility”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 209-47.
Nørreklit, H. (2003), “The balanced scorecard: what is the score? A rhetorical analysis of thebalanced scorecard”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 591-619.
O’Connell, B.T. (2004), “Enron.Con: ‘he that filches from me my good name. . . makes me poorindeed’”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 733-49.
O’Connor, N.G. (1995), “The influence of organizational culture on the usefulness of budgetparticipation by Singaporean-Chinese managers”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 383-403.
O’Dwyer, B. and Owen, D.L. (2005), “Assurance statement practice in environmental, social andsustainability reporting: a critical evaluation”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 205-29.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J. and Hession, E. (2005), “User needs in sustainability reporting:perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 759-87.
Accountingresearch
and trust
421
Otley, D.T. and Pierce, B.J. (1995), “The control problem in public accounting firms: an empiricalstudy of the impact of leadership style”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 20 No. 5,pp. 405-20.
Pahl, J. (2000), “Couples and their money: patterns of accounting and accountability in thedomestic economy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 502-17.
Peace, R. (2006), “Accountants and a religious covenant with the public”, Critical Perspectives onAccounting, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 781-97.
Pentland, B.T. and Carlile, P. (1996), “Audit the taxpayer, not the return: tax auditing as anexpression game”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, pp. 269-87.
Peters, K. (2001), “When reform comes into play: budgeting as negotiations betweenadministrations”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 521-39.
Porter, T.M. (1995), “Information cultures: a review essay”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 83-92.
Power, M. (1996), “Making things auditable”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 21Nos 2/3, pp. 289-315.
Raar, J. (2008), “A basic user utility preference to reduce uncertainty: a dissent to reporting andasset measurement”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 785-804.
Raar, J. (2009), “The new global accounting community: rationale for dialogue to establish itsaccountability?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 509-27.
Raman, K. and Shahrur, H. (2008), “Relationship-specific investments and earnings management:evidence on corporate suppliers and customers”, Accounting Review, Vol. 83 No. 4,pp. 1041-81.
Ravenscroft, S. and Williams, P.F. (2005), “Rules, rogues, and risk assessors: academic responsesto Enron and other accounting scandals”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 363-72.
Ronen, J., Tzur, J. and Yaari, V. (2006), “The effect of directors’ equity incentives on earningsmanagement”, Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 359-89.
Roslender, R. and Fincham, R. (2004), “Intellectual capital accounting in the UK”, Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 178-209.
Roslender, R. and Stevenson, J. (2009), “Accounting for people: a real step forward or more a caseof wishing and hoping?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 855-69.
Rowe, C. (2004), “The effect of accounting report structure and team structure on performance incross-functional teams”, Accounting Review, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 1153-80.
Sarens, G., De Beelde, I. and Everaert, P. (2009), “Internal audit: a comfort provider to the auditcommittee”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 90-106.
Scapens, R.W. (2006), “Understanding management accounting practices: a personal journey”,British Accounting Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-30.
Schwartz, S.T. and Young, R.A. (2002), “A laboratory investigation of verification and reputationformation in a repeated joint investment setting”, Contemporary Accounting Research,Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 311-42.
Seal, W. and Vincent-Jones, P. (1997), “Accounting and trust in the enabling of long-termrelations”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 406-31.
Seal, W., Berry, A. and Cullen, J. (2004), “Disembedding the supply chain: institutionalizedreflexivity and inter-firm accounting”, Accounting, Organisations and Society, Vol. 29No. 1, pp. 73-92.
QRAM8,4
422
Seal, W., Cullen, J., Dunlop, A., Berry, T. and Ahmed, M. (1999), “Enacting a European supplychain: a case study on the role of management accounting”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 303-22.
Shields, M.D. (1997), “Research in management accounting by North Americans in the 1990s”,Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 9, pp. 3-61.
Sholihin, M. and Pike, R. (2009), “Fairness in performance evaluation and its behaviouralconsequences”, Accounting & Business Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 397-413.
Solodchenko, I. and Sucher, P. (2005), “Accounting in Ukraine since independence: real politik,problems and prospects”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 603-33.
Staunton, J.J. (2008), “Multiple dimensions of accounting in the development of GAAP”, Abacus,Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 109-35.
Subramaniam, N. and Mia, L. (2003), “A note on work-related values, budget emphasis andmanagers’ organisational commitment”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,p. 389.
Sunder, S. (2005), “Minding our manners: accounting as social norms”, British AccountingReview, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 367-87.
Thrane, S. (2007), “The complexity of management accounting change: bifurcation andoscillation in schizophrenic inter-organisational systems”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 248-72.
Tomkins, C. (2001), “Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances andnetworks”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 161-91.
Uddin, S. (2009), “Rationalities, domination and accounting control: a case study from atraditional society”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 782-94.
Unerman, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (2004), “Enron, WorldCom, Andersen et al. a challenge tomodernity”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 Nos 6/7, pp. 971-93.
Van der Meer-kooistra, J. and Vosselman, E.G.J. (2000), “Management control of interfirmtransactional relationships: the case of industrial renovation and maintenance”,Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 51-77.
Van der Meer-Kooistra, J. and Zijlstra, S.M. (2001), “Reporting on intellectual capital”,Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 456-76.
Velez, M.L., Sanchez, J.M. and Alvarez-Dardet, C. (2008), “Management control systems asinter-organizational trust builders in evolving relationships: evidence from a longitudinalcase study”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 968-94.
Vollmer, H. (2007), “How to do more with numbers: elementary stakes, framing, keying, and thethree-dimensional character of numerical signs”, Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 577-600.
Vosselman, E. and van der Meer-Kooistra, J. (2009), “Accounting for control and trust building ininterfirm transactional relationships”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 34 No. 2,pp. 267-83.
Walker, S.P. (1998), “How to secure your husband’s esteem. Accounting and private patriarchy inthe British middle class household during the nineteenth century”, Accounting,Organizations & Society, Vol. 23 Nos 5/6, pp. 485-514.
Whitley, R. (1999), “Firms, institutions and management control: the comparative analysis ofcoordination and control systems”, Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6,pp. 507-24.
Accountingresearch
and trust
423
Wilkinson, B.R. and Clements, C.E. (2006), “Corporate governance mechanisms and theearly-filing of CEO certification”, Journal of Accounting & Public Policy, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 121-39.
Williamson, M.G. (2008), “The effects of expanding employee decision making on contributionsto firm value in an informal reward environment”, Contemporary Accounting Research,Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 1183-209.
Zingales, L. (2009), “The future of securities regulation”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 47No. 2, pp. 391-425.
Corresponding authorGudrun Baldvinsdottir can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
QRAM8,4
424