Social responsibility, Machiavellianism and tax avoidance

William E. Shafer and Richard S. Simmons

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2008, vol. 21, issue 5, 695-720

Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of attitudes toward the perceived importance of corporate ethics and social responsibility, and Machiavellianism, a general measure of the propensity for manipulative and deceitful behaviour, on tax professionals' willingness to participate in aggressive tax avoidance schemes of corporate clients. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is based on a survey of tax professionals in Hong Kong. Findings - The paper finds that Machiavellianism affects tax advisors' expressed viewpoints toward the importance of corporate ethics and social responsibility, which affect professional judgements toward aggressive tax minimisation. As anticipated, high Machiavellians are more likely to endorse the traditional “stockholder view” of corporate responsibility (which holds that corporations have little responsibility beyond maximising their profits), and less likely to support the “stakeholder view” (which recognises corporate responsibilities to a broader range of potential stakeholders). The stockholder view (but not the stakeholder view) of corporate responsibility mediates the relationship between Machiavellianism and ethical/social responsibility judgements. Machiavellianism also had significant direct effects on ethical and social responsibility judgements. Originality/value - The paper provides insights into the decision processes used to justify aggressive tax minimisation strategies. The findings indicate that commonly articulated views toward corporate ethics and social responsibility may be used to support unethical strategies. In particular, the finding that the stockholder view mediates the relationship between Machiavellianism and ethical/social responsibility judgements suggests that the stockholder view may be adopted to rationalise overly aggressive tax avoidance.

Keywords: Political theory; Corporate social responsibility; Business ethics; Tax planning; Hong Kong (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:aaajpp:v:21:y:2008:i:5:p:695-720

DOI: 10.1108/09513570810872978

Access Statistics for this article

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal is currently edited by Prof James Guthrie and Prof Lee Parker

More articles in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().