Search results

This study aims to examine whether the impact of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) on audit fees differs between early and late adopters.

The authors use robust econometric estimation on a sample of 314 firms from both early and late IFRS adopting countries.

The authors find that IFRS is positively and significantly associated with an increase in audit fees for early adopters, but the impact is very weak for late adopters and insignificant in some cases. The results on auditing time suggest that increase in audit fees around IFRS adoption is due to an increase in audit reporting lags. After accounting for pre- and post-years, the authors find that the relationship between IFRS and audit fees, as well as audit time for late adopters, is significant only in the adoption year. However, early adopters experience a significant increase in audit fees and audit time in the transition year to one-year post-adoption.

The findings imply that countries that are yet to adopt IFRS are less likely to experience a significant increase in audit fees audit time. Hence, is probable that the benefit of IFRS will outweigh the cost.

The results, therefore, suggest that early adopters paid a premium for been the first users of IFRS, which is consistent with any innovation. The study provides new insights by demonstrating that the consequences of IFRS differ between early and late adopters.

The concept of materiality is becoming increasingly important for sustainability performance measurement and reporting. It is widely agreed upon that materiality matters, in the sense that companies should identify, prioritize and disclose information on sustainability issues that are considered material. There is, however, a tension at the heart of this consensus, owing to parallel approaches to materiality being used in practice. This paper aims to shed light on how and why the parallel uses of the materiality concept may cause confusion and how this tension could be resolved.

This paper takes as point of departure the tension between two approaches to materiality: based on the Global Reporting Initiative definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are important to stakeholders and that have significant impacts and based on the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are financially material, i.e. likely to influence the financial performance of the company. This paper discusses the nature and consequences of the tensions between how the two definitions of materiality in sustainability reporting are used in practice, with a particular emphasis on users of information in financial markets. This paper provides empirical insight on these users’ perspectives through a survey (n = 30) and qualitative interviews (n = 6) of financial market professionals.

This study reveals tensions between different approaches to materiality in practice and how this may lead users of sustainability reports to draw unjustified conclusions on the basis of materiality assessments. Specifically, this paper demonstrates the perceived shortcomings in information availability and information quality from the perspectives of different stakeholders in financial markets with different information needs.

The users of sustainability reporting information require clarity in the communication of materiality in non-financial reports. This paper addresses how such clarity can be pursued.

Clarity about materiality in non-financial reporting is important both for investors that pursue financial return on green investments and for society at large, which relies on information about real sustainability impacts.

This paper furthers the understanding of how different materiality concepts may be problematic and how recent and ongoing developments may mitigate the risks of conflating uses of the concept.

This study is an analysis that aims to understand the rationale behind the concept of value creation contained in the integrated reporting (IR) framework. As such, the authors examined the quality of the disclosures made in integrated reports by measuring the level to which the six capitals (6Cs) have been integrated into disclosures on value creation.

The IR framework’s value creation model focuses on six content elements and three guiding principles. Hence, the present analysis combines content analysis with quantitative measures in the form of a bespoke Integrated Disclosure Index. The index measures the level of integration found in the disclosures instead of the mere presence or absence of mentioned capitals, content elements and guiding principles in isolation. The present sample comprised the 2016 integrated/sustainability reports for 184 listed companies sourced from the Integrated Reporting Examples Database.

The 6Cs are well disclosed in form but only partially disclosed in substance. Further, overall levels of integration between the capitals, the content elements and the guiding principles are higher than average. Disclosures on materiality, business models and stakeholder relationships are somewhat lacking, as are the related medium- and long-term disclosures on outlook.

The paper contributes to the academic debate on IR by building a case for holistically assessing the substance of integrated reports. Considering that the IR value creation model can underpin and align with the 17 UN sustainable development goals, the authors show how the fundamental concept of the 6Cs sustaining value creation is understood and implemented differently across the various elements and principles of the IR framework.

This research also provides guidance for overcoming some of the practical hurdles associated with assessing the quality of reports because the authors provide tools for spotlighting the substance of disclosures over their form.

This paper delves into the substance of integrated reports by assessing how well the 6Cs have been integrated into disclosures on the content elements and guiding principles of the IR framework. In contrast to previous IR research that has mainly analysed capital, elements and principles in isolation, the authors develop an index assessing the integration of these three fundamental concepts of IR.

This paper reviews a substantial body of scholarly work on the audit expectation gap (AEG) for many years and aims to construct a new synthesis of the existing knowledge of the AEG discovered by numerous scholars in the world.

A broad search of the literature was conducted using a few AEG related keywords in the Google Scholar search engine and two databases of Scopus and Emerald from 1974 to 2021. Only the articles published in reputable journals concerning the AEG were selected after applying some selection criteria.

The concept of AEG is a multidimensional concept. Different causes for the AEG were identified, and several strategies were summarized into major promising strategies for narrowing it. It was found that the AEG cannot be eradicated entirely from society.

This review of the literature will be of interest to auditors, financial statement users, regulatory agencies, and policymakers, among other parties. Further, this AEG synthesis may be useful in understanding misperceptions and determining how they differ across diverse stakeholders.

There is a dearth of literature review studies incorporating all the facets of AEG. Hence, this study incorporates all those facets, namely research methods and instruments and dimensions used along with causes and mechanisms to narrow down the AEG while addressing the gaps and highlighting the themes for future research. Finally, a fresh, yet more straightforward definition was generated as a result of the comprehensive review of the literature, adding novelty to the extant literature.

This rich descriptive study examines auditors' client risk assessment (i.e. “key audit matters”/critical audit matters) disclosures in expanded audit reports of 328 Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. The study compares auditor-identified client risks with corporate risk disclosures identified in audit committee reports, in terms of number and type of risks. The research also compares variation in auditor-identified client risks between individual Big 4 audit firms. In addition, the study examines auditor ranking of their client risks disclosed.

The study manually content analyses disclosures in audit reports and audit committee reports of a sample of 328 FTSE-350 companies with 2015 year-ends.

Audit committees identify more risks than auditors (23% more risks). However, auditor-identified client risks and audit-committee-identified risks are similar (80% similar), as are auditor-identified client risks between the individual Big 4 audit firms. Only ten (3%) audit reports rank the importance of auditor-identified client risks.

Sample is restricted to one year, one jurisdiction, large-listed companies and companies audited by Big 4 auditors.

The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

The paper mobilises institutional theory to interpret the findings. The findings suggest that auditor-identified client risks in expanded audit reports may demonstrate mimetic behaviour in terms of similarity with audit-committee-identified risks and similarity between individual Big 4 audit firms. The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.