Current issue

College of Business E-Journal 

Spring 2026 Volume XXI, Issue I

ISSN  number 2158-303X

I. Think Your Way Forward. A practical 4 question approach to understanding and resolving business problems.  

BIO

Before recently changing careers to teach high school science in the Phoenix area, Wade Siers devoted over 30 years to organizational learning and development, change management, and leadership. He has applied these skills in multiple fields and industries including retail, public safety, higher learning, and community health. His first professional article, "Neurodiversity and Digital Literacy: Content Development Strategies to Create Inclusive Training" appeared in the Spring 2023 issue of Training Industry Magazine. Wade holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Leadership from Louisiana Baptist University where his research focused on labor economics with an emphasis in U.S.-China relations. 

by

Wade Siers, Ph.D. 

 II. The Dominance of non-CPA-verifiers as providers of ESG Assurance Opinions 

ABSTRACT

ESG reporting by public U.S. companies has increased steadily since first appearing in the 1990s. The inclusion of assurance reviews to verify all or a portion of those ESG reports has not kept pace. To explore this, we compiled a cross-sectional sample of assurance opinions within ESG reports published by S&P 500 companies dated in 2024. Thus far, ESG reporting by U.S. companies has been voluntary, except for certain reports required by the European Union. Except for the EU, assurance opinions are not required by any ESG reporting framework in use through this voluntary period. U.S. companies were free to claim that their ESG reports were prepared “in accordance” with a specified ESG framework or words to that effect. As a result, many ESG reports by U.S. companies are published without third-party verification. Third party verifiers fall into two groups: CPA-verifiers that are also independent PCAOB-registered auditors, and non-CPA-verifiers from other professions. GHG emissions disclosures are the principal topic supported by such verifications. Assurance opinions on other ESG topics, including social impact and governance issues, are rare. Currently, non-CPA-verifiers have a larger market share of U.S. assurance opinions than CPA-verifiers. Even if CPA-verifiers obtain most of the remaining verification work yet to be awarded, the established market niche held by non-CPA-verifiers should remain dominant and sustainable. We conclude that the non-CPA-verifiers’ market niche for ESG assurance opinions may now be unassailable to encroachment from CPA-verifiers.

by

Matthew D. Crook, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Finance
Southeastern Louisiana University
matthew.crook@selu.edu

&

Louis P. Le Guyader*
Professor of Accounting
Southeastern Louisiana University
louis.leguyader@selu.edu
*Corresponding Author 

 III. Teaching the Weighted Average Cost of Capital using a Capital Structure Approach

ABSTRACT

The weighted average cost of capital is one of the fundamental building blocks for understanding many corporate financing decisions.  In this paper, we explain a method showing the dynamic nature of the weighted average cost of capital.  We begin with a discussion of the firm’s cost of capital in a tax-free environment and incorporate taxes.  Following the introduction of the tax shield involving debt, we demonstrate that as the firm’s capital structure changes the returns demanded by both the debt holders and equity holders of the firm change as well.  We have used this method for several years and find that students develop the necessary understanding to progress in future finance courses.

Keywords: WACC, Weighted Average Cost of Capital, Hamada Equation

by

Matthew D. Crook*

Assistant Professor of Finance
Southeastern Louisiana University

matthew.crook@selu.edu
*Corresponding Author

&

Brian R. Walkup

Professor of Finance
Crummer Graduate School of Business
Rollins College

BWALKUP@rollins.edu

IV. Do The Top 15 Hotel Chains in the United States Have Persuasive Mission Statements?
It Is Your Call!

ABSTRACT 

Purpose
This study investigates the mission statements of the top 15 U.S. hotel companies compared to the top 15 Fortune 50 firms, examining their challenges, solutions, and impact on organizational performance through an extensive literature review.

Design/methodology/approach
This study employed an observational and comparative methodology, analyzing mission statements from the top 15 U.S. hotel and Fortune companies through an extensive literature review to assess their challenges, solutions, and impact on performance.

Findings
The study found that mission statements involve multiple stages: planning, communication, resource allocation, and evaluation. The top 15 Fortune 50 companies averaged a 20.55% profit margin, compared to 11.92% for the top 15 U.S. hotel firms, highlighting a structural profitability gap. Challenges include resistance to change, limited employee involvement, and inadequate resources. Effective solutions involve fostering urgency, engaging employees, and ensuring proper resource allocation. Strong leadership, clear communication, and consistent evaluation are essential. Overall, the top hotel organizations’ mission statements are less effective than those of the leading Fortune companies.

Limitations
While this descriptive, observational study does not include independent analysis or control groups due to its nature, it offers valuable insights and an informative assessment that deepens understanding of effective, well-written mission statements.

Originality
This study fills a gap in existing literature by uniquely comparing hotel and Fortune company mission statements, identifying challenges, solutions, and performance impacts, and offering practical insights to enhance organizational success.

Key Words: mission statements, senior-level leaders, strategic management, strategy

by

Dr. Angel F. González

Associate Professor of Hospitality Management
College of Business,
California State University Monterey Bay

&

Dr. James I. Schaap

Associate Adjunct Professor
College of Business,
California State University Monterey Bay

V. College Athlete Revenue Sharing and NIL: Financial Considerations and Implications

INTRODUCTION

Student athletes have not historically been recipients of cash-based compensation while simultaneously participating in collegiate sports.  Alternatively, these respective athletes have received academic “in-kind” or “non-cash” funding in the form of scholarships.  While these aforementioned scholarships often vary by individual sport and institution, they often include several of the following classifications: tuition, housing, meal plans, textbooks, and related supplies/expenses (Brown, 2019).  Until recently, student athletes have not been allowed to seek external revenue aside of their scholarship as a condition of maintaining their “amateur status” as regulated by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), the governing body of collegiate sports (Staurowsky, 2021).

 Initially the NCAA decided that athletes, as a condition of remaining eligible for participation within intercollegiate sports, would be forbidden from enriching themselves financially from revenue streams related to Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) concepts (Jessop & Sabin, 2021).   However, a series of legislative acts spanning from the early 1980s to the present have gradually changed the landscape for college athletes and recognized their right to profit from new revenue streams such as NIL.  The Supreme Court ruling of NCAA v. Alston (2021), opened the doors for student athletes to receive compensation outside of their athletic scholarships, thus creating today’s current landscape of collegiate NIL and its related emerging issues (Ternes & Gurney, 2022).  The current prominence of social media and related technology is paramount to NIL and the compensation that accompanies it.  Athletes are now being evaluated jointly on their academic prowess and respective market/brand values; those with the highest value are sought after by collectives and companies for sponsorships (Frederick, Pegoraro, & Burch, 2022).

While generally perceived as  having a positive effect on the lives of student-athletes, large volumes of currency being placed into the hands of young adults has the potential to create various financial difficulties.  To date, the NCAA has issued minimal regulation over NIL compensation indicating there is little guidance in assisting student athletes once this income is  acquired.  Generally speaking, most student-athletes do not possess a background of financial literacy and lack extensive knowledge on this subject (Edelman & Harrison, 2021).  For the first time, many college athletes are being exposed to a world rife with financial issues and resulting pitfalls they may not be aware that even exist.  One of the most important issues within this financial planning lexicon is the area of income taxation and proper filing.  While the possibility of additional income streams such as NIL income has opened many doors of opportunity, college athletes must be equipped with the appropriate knowledge and tools to prevent their dreams from becoming financial nightmares within this new environment (Smith, 2021).

by 

Julie Staples

Instructor of Accounting/Department Head
Jacksonville State University
700 Pelham Road North
Jacksonville, AL 36265
Phone: (256) 782-5795

jstaples@jsu.edu

& 

Keith Lowe, PhD

Distinguished Professor of Business Statistics & Analytics
Jacksonville State University
700 Pelham Road North
Jacksonville, AL 36265
Phone: (256) 782-5506

klowe@jsu.edu