The current study aims to investigate empirically the main incentives for mandatory and voluntary risk reporting (MRR and VRR) across the USA, the UK and Germany, each of which has a unique approach towards risk reporting. While the UK approach encourages more voluntary risk reporting above imposing risk rules, the German approach formally requires firms to provide risk information in a certain place in their annual report narratives. The US approach is a compromise between these two approaches; it obligates and encourages firms to provide more information about their risks mandatorily and/or voluntarily, respectively. Investigating the incentives for risk reporting in such set of countries answers the calls of some prior research (e.g., Linsley and Shrives, 2006; Dobler, 2008; Dobler, Lajili and Zeghal, 2011) to deepen our understanding of what motivates firms to disclose their risks. To this end, computerised content analysis and multilevel analysis (MLA) on a large scale (compared with previous work e.g., Linsley and Shrives, 2005, 2006; Abraham and Cox, 2007) are utilised. The results are produced in four cumulative contexts through Chapters Six to Nine. These results are consistent with managers’ incentives theories (discussed in Chapter Two) and prior risk reporting literature (discussed in Chapter Three and Chapter Four). Based on 15 firms in each country during 2007 and 2008, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) results reveal significant differences between a firm’s risk levels and its risk disclosure levels across the USA, the UK and Germany. The correlation results indicate that these differences are statistically correlated, supporting the main argument of the current study that differences in a firm’s risk levels should be reflected in their risk reporting practices (Chapter Six). Based on 1160 firm-years of non-financial firms of the FTSE all share index over 2005-2008, linear mixed model (LMM) results document that firms with higher levels of systematic and financing risks are likely to exhibit significantly higher levels of aggregated and voluntary risk reporting, whereas firms with high variability of stock returns or lower levels of liquidity are likely to exhibit significantly lower levels of aggregated and voluntary risk reporting. The current study also finds, however, that MRR is associated significantly and positively with firm size rather than with risk levels. The results also indicate that managers of firms exhibiting greater compliance with UK risk reporting regulations have greater incentives to disclose voluntary risk information (Chapter Seven). When the study extends the scope to the other two countries, different patterns of relations are found. Based on 1270, 1410 and 1005 firm-year observations over 2005 to 2009 in the USA, the UK and Germany, respectively, repeated measures multilevel analysis (RMMLA) results suggest that, in the USA, MRR is more sensitive to firm risk levels (total, systematic and liquidity risks) than is VRR, which is more correlated to other firm characteristics. The UK results suggest that VRR is more sensitive to firm risk levels (systematic and liquidity risks) than is MRR, which is dominated by firm size, among other firm characteristics. In Germany, however, both MRR and VRR are significantly related to risk levels (total, systematic, un-systematic, financing and liquidity risks) (Chapter Eight). Based on 3685 firm-year observations during the period between 2005 and 2009, and concerning both firm- and country-level analyses, repeated measures multilevel analysis (RMMLA) results support that variations in MRR can be attributed to differences in the legal systems (country characteristics) and in firm size (firm characteristics). The variations in VRR are more associated with firm characteristics, especially a firm’s risk levels across the USA, the UK and Germany (Chapter Nine). These results have many implications and support the respective regulatory approach adopted within each country by interpreting the extent to which either MRR or VRR is more or less sensitive to underlying risks.

Using a sample of 21 OECD-countries we measure productivity in top-edge economic research by using data envelopment analysis (DEA). DEA is a tool for evaluating relative efficiency and is widely used when there are multiple inputs and outputs and one lacks a specific functional form of a production function. The publications in 10 economics journals with the highest average impact factor over the time period 1980-1998 are taken as research output. Inputs are measured by R&D expenditures, number of universities with economics departments and (as uncontrolled variable) total population. Under constant returns-to-scale the USA are in dominant position with remarkable distance to other countries. Under variable returns-to-scale the efficiency frontier is created by the USA with most productive scale size (MPSS), and by Ireland and New Zealand, which are technical efficient but scale inefficient. All countries - except the USA - display increasing returns-to-scale, which shows that they have a possibility to improve their efficiency by scaling up their research activities. (author's abstract) / Series: Department of Economics Working Paper Series

Submitted by Thassia da Silva (tdasilva22@gmail.com) on 2018-01-18T18:07:34Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Thassia da Silva--Key Success Factor Ranking for Intrafirm Knowledge Sharing A Delphi Method Approach in the Oil and Gas Industry.pdf: 2005716 bytes, checksum: 3357ec23f1c093750910850a6e7e9434 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by ÁUREA CORRÊA DA FONSECA CORRÊA DA FONSECA (aurea.fonseca@fgv.br) on 2018-03-02T19:31:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Thassia da Silva--Key Success Factor Ranking for Intrafirm Knowledge Sharing A Delphi Method Approach in the Oil and Gas Industry.pdf: 2005716 bytes, checksum: 3357ec23f1c093750910850a6e7e9434 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-12T18:57:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Thassia da Silva--Key Success Factor Ranking for Intrafirm Knowledge Sharing A Delphi Method Approach in the Oil and Gas Industry.pdf: 2005716 bytes, checksum: 3357ec23f1c093750910850a6e7e9434 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-18 / Knowledge and its propagation are unquestionably at the center of most, if not all, discussions on innovation, performance, as well as other elements related to firm success. Although the literature has proposed several key success factors for knowledge sharing, it has yet to explore how these factors rank in terms of importance from a firm nationality perspective. Through a Delphi Method approach, upstream professionals from four major multinational Oil & Gas firms (Brazilian, North American, Norwegian and French), with at least seven years of experience, ranked specific literature-based proposed factors for successful intrafirm knowledge sharing. There was a total of three rounds, where the first round had 41 participants, and the remaining two rounds (second and third) had 39 participants. On average, open door policy was the most relevant factors that lead to knowledge sharing among the four firms. In terms of the least relevant ones, acknowledgement and status were seen, on average, as factors less likely to lead to intrafirm knowledge sharing.

Yes / Objectives: Making a medical error can have serious implications for clinician wellbeing, affecting the quality and safety of patient care. Despite an advancing literature base, cross-country exploration of this experience is limited and a paucity of studies has examined the coping strategies used by clinicians. A greater understanding of clinicians¿ responses to making an error, the factors that may influence these, and the various coping strategies used are all essential for providing effective clinician support and ensuring optimal outcomes. The objectives were therefore to investigate a) the professional or personal disruption experienced after making an error, b) the emotional response and coping strategies used, c) the relationship between emotions and coping strategy selection, d) influential factors in clinicians¿ responses, and e) perceptions of organisational support. Methods: A cross-sectional, cross-country survey of 265 physicians and nurses was undertaken in two large teaching hospitals in the UK and USA. Results: Professional and personal disruption was reported as a result of making an error. Negative emotions were common, but positive feelings of determination, attentiveness and alertness were also identified. Emotional response and coping strategy selection did not differ due to location or perceived harm, but responses did appear to differ by professional group; nurses in both locations reported stronger negative feelings after an error. Respondents favoured problem-focused coping strategies and associations were identified between coping strategy selection and the presence of particular emotions. Organisational support services, particularly including peers, were recognised as helpful, but fears over confidentiality may prohibit some staff from accessing these. Conclusions: Clinicians in the UK and US experience professional and personal disruption after an error. A number of factors may influence clinician recovery; these factors should be considered in the provision of comprehensive support programmes so as to improve clinician recovery and ensure higher quality, safer patient care. / This research was funded by the Bradford Institute for Health Research as part of a PhD studentship and supported by a travel grant through the Postgraduate Study Visits scheme by the British Psychological Society.