Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of financial statement comparability as a qualitative feature of financial reporting on cash holdings and the mediating role of disclosure quality and financing constraints in firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).

Using panel data from 110 TSE-listed firms from 2011 to 2017 in Iran, this study uses the regression analysis to examine the research hypotheses. The first hypothesis examines the relationship between financial statements comparability and cash holdings and two other hypotheses examine the mediating role of financing constraints and disclosure quality in this relationship.

Based on pecking-order theory and institutional context of Iranian firms, the results show that financial reporting comparability has a significant negative impact on corporate cash holdings. The results also show that disclosure quality and financing constraints have no mediating role in the relationship between accounting comparability and cash holdings. The robustness tests with alternative measures of accounting comparability and cash holdings support the findings of this study.

The limitations of this study are as follows: limited number of TSE companies that have necessary data to conduct research; and using the disclosure quality scores provided by TSE organization.

The findings suggest that creditors should consider the financial status and also the quality of financial reporting of companies, before granting credit to them. It is also recommended that regulators in the capital market publish the ratings of companies in terms of financial statement comparability alongside the disclosure ratings and a continuous regulatory oversight on companies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical research on the effect of accounting comparability on the level of cash holdings that examines the mediating role of financing constraints in the context of Iran market as an emerging economy. Moreover, this is the first empirical research that studies the effect of disclosure quality on this relationship.

This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues.

The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance.

The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards.

In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.

This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The study aims to investigate whether the adoption of IFRS could ensure ultimate intercompany comparability of operating performance in terms of uniformity in the application of accounting methods and reporting style.

Using content analysis on 125 annual financial statements of 25 companies from five industries listed on the Dhaka Stock Exchange in Bangladesh, this study reports that only the sole adoption and application of principle based IFRS cannot ensure ultimate intercompany comparability of financial reports.

The findings document that the adoption of IFRS cannot ensure the application of same accounting methods as well as way of presentations which is a precondition of greater comparability of operating performance of competitive firms. The methodological and reporting direction through local regulatory agencies alongside maximum compliance with principle based IFRS can enhance intercompany comparability of financial reports in the same industry.

This study tries to manifest that sole adoption cum implementation of IFRS could not ensure ultimate intercompany comparability of operating performance within the same industry and urges to conduct further research to find out the ways to do so.

Based on mental accounting theory, this study explored whether the comparability of missed and subsequent promotional formats/frames affects inaction inertia.

Four experiments with imaginary and incentive-compatible designs were conducted to test the hypotheses.

Consumers are more likely to express inaction inertia after having missed a comparable promotion than after having missed a noncomparable promotion. Devaluation of the promoted target mediates the impact of comparability on inaction inertia, while referent others' actions do not moderate the comparability effect. Finally, when consumers accept a subsequent inferior promotion, they prefer using a different payment format because it reduces comparability of the two promotions.

Companies should use different promotional formats/frames to reduce comparability and inaction inertia when a new promotion is relatively inferior to a recent previous one. Companies should offer different payment options to help customers actively avoid comparing a current promotion with a missed promotion.

This study provides a more comprehensive conceptual structure for understanding the relationship between psychological comparability and inaction inertia. It provides insights into what actions companies should take to reduce inaction inertia. Furthermore, this study empirically tests the influence of multiple comparison referents, which provides a reference point for future studies on the factors affecting inaction inertia. A new method to examine whether consumers actively avoid comparisons is used, which clarifies the internal mechanism of inaction inertia.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two channels through which accounting standard differences could affect cross-listing: compliance costs and/or comparability benefits.

The authors use two settings to disentangle the two channels. First, financial reporting requirements are more stringent for cross-listings via direct listings than cross-listings via depositary receipts; as a result, the effect of compliance costs (if any) would be manifested differently in the two venues of cross-listings. Second, some host countries allow foreign firms to report under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) without mandating IFRS for domestic firms; compared to host countries that mandate IFRS for both domestic and foreign firms, these IFRS-permitting countries provide a setting to test the importance of comparability benefits while holding constant compliance costs.

The authors find that prior to IFRS adoption, direct listings decrease with accounting standards differences between two countries while depositary receipts increase with such differences, consistent with the costs of complying with host country’s accounting standards affecting firms’ cross-listing decisions. After the harmonization of accounting standards, the authors find that IFRS-mandating host countries gain cross-listings from other IFRS-mandating jurisdictions, while IFRS-permitting countries do not experience such gains. These combined results suggest that accounting related compliance costs and comparability benefits both influence cross-listing decisions.

The paper employs unique settings that enable an in-depth examination of the role of compliance costs vs that of comparability benefits on cross-listing decisions. The settings employed by the authors allow them to disentangle the two channels and provide an important insight that accounting standard-related compliance costs and comparability benefits both affect cross-listing decisions.

This study aims to investigate the effect of the dynamics and potential of the board of directors on investment efficiency and the comparability of financial information in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange.

The number of observations for this study includes 1,218 observations from companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange during 2014–2020. The authors used econometric statistical methods such as multiple linear regression, the Chow and Hausman test and the Kendall correlation coefficient using Eviews software to conduct the research. To measure the board’s effectiveness, two variables are used, including board dynamics and potential.

The results showed a positive and significant relationship between dynamics, board potential and investment efficiency. Also, no significant relationship was observed between the board dynamics and the comparability of financial information. Finally, a positive and significant relationship exists between the board’s potential and the comparability of financial information.

The importance of this research is the use of board proxies, including the dynamics and potential of the board. In addition, other variables of board characteristics, such as size, independence, ownership and gender, and the relationship between these variables with investment efficiency and comparability of financial information, have been examined in this study.

This study aims to investigate the impact of managerial narcissism and overconfidence on financial statements’ comparability. In other words, this paper seeks to answer the question of whether the personality characteristics of managers may affect the level of financial statements’ quality of commercial entities or not.

The research hypotheses are tested using a sample of 896 observations taken from the Tehran Stock Exchange and 245 observations from the Iraqi Stock Exchange during 2012 and 2018 using the multiple regression model based on the combined data technique.

The findings show that managerial narcissism is positively and significantly associated with Iran’s financial statement comparability. In contrast, Iraqi data articulate a negative association between these two variables. This paper finds that Chief Executive Officer overconfidence and financial statements’ comparability are negatively related in both countries. Following the market variation, the different findings suggest that institutional settings such as the general managerial style, adopting international accounting standards (now IFRS) leading to the extent of auditing market globally in Iraq and suffering from international sanctions in Iran, the governing business environment may play an allocative role in preparing financial statements.

The present research is the first research conducted in two emerging markets (Iran and Iraq) examining the relationship between managers’ narcissism and overconfidence and financial statements’ comparability. Therefore, the present research in this area can significantly contribute to the development of science and knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of translation equivalence in extant research on translation in accounting: What is the equivalence that is expected of translation, and how is it assumed to come into being? This paper presents a coherent, theoretically informed approach to how different views on equivalence are connected to the objective of international comparability in financial accounting and how related, often-underlying assumptions intertwine in this discussion.

This paper takes an interdisciplinary approach by utilizing equivalence theories from the discipline of translation studies. It canvasses two dichotomy-like approaches – natural versus directional equivalence and formal versus dynamic equivalence – to compose a theoretical framework within which to analyze 25 translation-related papers discussing accounting harmonization published from 1989 to 2018.

This paper presents evidence of theoretical contradictions likely to affect the development of translation research in accounting if they go unrecognized. Moreover, the analysis suggests that these contradictions are likely to originate in the assumptions of mainstream accounting research, which neglect both the constructed nature of equivalence and the socially constructed nature of accounting concepts.

Despite the significance of translation for the objective of international comparability, this paper is the first comprehensive theoretical approach to equivalence in accounting research. It responds to a recognized demand for studying equivalence and its limitations, challenges many of the expectations accounting research places on translation and discusses the possible origins of related assumptions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether reported net income as per US‐generally accepted accounting principles (US‐GAAP) has become comparable to net income as per International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board right before the removal of the US‐GAAP reconciliation requirement and what major accounting elements have caused the differences, if any.

Using Gray's index of comparability suggested by Haverty, the paper compares the reported net income under IFRS for a sample of US‐listed Chinese companies using IFRS with the reconciled net income under US‐GAAP.

Consistent with Haverty is the finding that net income under IFRS is still not completely comparable to net income under US‐GAAP for the same company and that the adjustment for tangible assets revaluation is a major contributor to the difference. In addition, different treatment of business acquisition is found to be another major cause of the incomparability. The comparability has improved at 10 percent threshold since Haverty's study.

This paper provides an update on the status of IFRS and US‐GAAP comparability and highlights an additional major area to work on towards improved comparability.

This paper aims to explore structural and systemic influences in the development of competence models and qualifications systems at sectoral and national levels across Europe, considering the influences of different socio‐economic models of skill formation on the processes of design and provision of qualifications.

The paper is based on a meta analysis of three European projects that used literature review, documentary analysis and interviews with practitioners and policy makers.

The main methodological and practical challenges posed by varieties of competence and qualifications to inter‐country comparability of qualifications are shown to be related to different socio‐economic models of skill formation.

The research is limited to 13 countries and four sectors but these were carefully selected to maximise coverage of European diversity with respect to competence models, training regimes and approaches to qualifications. There is clearly a need for further research involving more countries and sectors.

The paper offers recommendations for improving the potential of the European Qualifications Framework to promote comparability of qualifications and hence mobility of labour. These recommendations will be of interest to policy makers and practitioners involved in using the EQF and similar instruments.

This is the first systematic attempt to explore the methodological and practical difficulties of establishing comparability between qualifications.