Does the covid-19 pandemic create an incentive for firms to manage earnings? The role of board independence and corporate social responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is argued that managers took advantage of Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns and remote auditing and used earnings management (EM) practices extensively. Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic created new unsearched crisis-related incentives. This study, therefore, tests whether Covid-19 created a new incentive for managers to manipulate earnings. It also examines the association between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and board independence and EM during Covid-19. A data set of 384 firm-year observations from 2018 to 2021 of non-financial firms listed on the Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) was investigated. Results indicate that Jordanian firms engaged in EM during Covid-19 considerably more than when compared to pre-Covid-19, suggesting that Covid-19 created a new incentive for managers to manipulate earnings. Furthermore, Jordanian firms used income-increasing EM much more when compared to income-decreasing EM. However, when taking Covid-19 into account, no significant association was found between board independence and EM. In addition, the ability of CSR to constrain EM decreased. This adds to the current debate in the literature that even well-established monitoring mechanisms like board independence and CSR are unable to constrain EM practices in a unique business environment caused by Covid-19.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".