We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse this repository, you give consent for essential cookies to be used. You can read more about our Privacy and Cookie Policy.

Durham Research Online
You are in:

Corporate governance quality and premature revenue recognition : evidence from the UK.

Okaily, J.A. and Dixon, R. and Salama, A. (2019) 'Corporate governance quality and premature revenue recognition : evidence from the UK.', International journal of managerial finance., 15 (1). pp. 79-99.


Purpose Since 2005, wide-ranging concerns have been raised about misleading revenue recognition practices, especially during and after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. There is a lack of research into the relationship between corporate governance (CG) mechanisms and premature revenue recognition (PRR). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a generalised least squares regression analysis of a sample of 854 FTSE 350 firm–year observations. Stubben (2010) discretionary revenue (DR) model is used to measure PRR as it is considered less biased, better specified and more likely to reduce measurement error than accrual models. Findings The results suggest that the size of audit committees plays an effective role in constraining PRR. Moreover, PRR is more likely to be curbed in the presence of small boards comprising a higher proportion of non-executive directors. Additional tests reveal that the relationship between board size and PRR is non-linear. Research limitations/implications The findings address the concerns of corporate firms, capital providers, UK regulators and standard-setters regarding misleading revenue recognition practices and should be considered while setting new governance reform recommendations in response to changing economic conditions. Originality/value This is the first study that adopts the DR model of Stubben (2010) to capture PRR and examines its association with CG internal mechanisms. Moreover, the paper considers an important time period – from 2005 to 2013 – in which many significant developments took place.

Item Type:Article
Full text:(AM) Accepted Manuscript
Download PDF
Publisher Web site:
Publisher statement:This article is © Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Date accepted:11 May 2018
Date deposited:07 June 2019
Date of first online publication:02 April 2019
Date first made open access:07 June 2019

Save or Share this output

Look up in GoogleScholar