Professional equality between men and women in France: progress and hesitation


French Politics

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Mots clés : Justifications for equality policies, Professional equality and intersectional approaches, Professional-equality policies and collective bargaining, Professional-equality policy, State feminism

The purpose of this article is to present and analyze both the progress achieved and the difficulties for professional-equality policies in France. After presenting the development of the legislative framework, both in terms of equality between men and women and in terms of collective bargaining for professional-equality agreements, the article focuses on the ambiguities and difficulties that remain in implementing professional-equality policy. These concern the diversity of strategies for implementing professional equality, debates about the various justifications for these approaches, the effects of recent evolutions in collective-bargaining laws in France and, finally, the low level of judicial activism in fighting discrimination. The last section of the article focuses on key concerns for the future of these policies

When do we feel responsible for other people’s behavior and attitudes?


Advances in Group Processes

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism


Journal of Business Ethics

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, Management et Ressources Humaines, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Mots clés : Accountability, Auditors, Professional skepticism, Joint audit, Judgment, Experiment

The European Commission has suggested that the use of joint audits should lead to improved auditor skepticism and—by extension—audit quality, throughincreased accountability. However, archival research does not find support for improved audit quality in a joint audit setting. To better understand the relationship between accountability in different review regimes and auditors’judgments, we examine the behavioral effect of implementing a joint audit relative to other review regimes based on a 1 9 3 experimental design. Forty-seven senior auditors and partners from a Big Four firm performed a goingconcern evaluation task under one of three review regimes: the joint audit, the internal review, and the no review regime. Notwithstanding the difference in the audiences to which auditors are accountable, there is no difference in thejudgment process. In terms of their judgment outcome, however, auditors in the joint audit setting were the least skeptical in their judgment of the going concern assumption. Overall, we suggest that the joint audit may lead tounintended behavioral consequences