Search results

This paper aims to examine the performance of Islamic and conventional stocks listed at the Pakistan Stock Exchange by using both parametric and non-parametric approaches. The motivation is to do risk-return analysis of Islamic stock prices and conventional stock prices.

It uses various measures of performance, e.g. Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio, Jensen's alpha, beta, generalized auto-regressive conditional heteroskedasticity and stochastic dominance. Using the Karachi Meezan Index-30 (KMI-30) and the Karachi Stock Exchange Index-30 (KSE-30) as proxies for Islamic and conventional stock prices, respectively, it examines the performance of Islamic and conventional stocks. The daily data of KMI-30 and KSE-30, covering period from June 9, 2009 to June 20, 2020 are used.

The results show that the overall KMI-30 outperforms the KSE-30. The returns of the KMI-30 are greater than the KSE-30. However, the risk and volatility of the KMI-30 and KSE-30 are similar. Further, the KMI-30 has higher excess returns per unit of total risk than the KSE-30. But both indexes have similar excess returns per unit of systematic risk. Moreover, the KMI-30 returns have stochastically dominance over the KSE-30 returns. These results reveal that the Islamic index performs better than the conventional index.

The findings provide several practical implications in financial and investment decisions making by investors, managers and policymakers such as strategies for asset allocation and investment. Further, in risk management, it provides guidance for allocating portfolios and managing risk. The investment in Islamic stocks may mitigate potential risk within asset portfolios.

This research is unique in its approach to the analysis of the performance comparison of conventional and Islamic stock by using comprehensive parametric and non-parametric estimation techniques. Such research has not been undertaken in the Pakistan's equity market since.

This study aims to conduct an empirical investigation to assess the hedge, diversifier and safe-haven properties of different environmental, social and governance (ESG) assets (i.e. green bonds and ESG equity index) vis-à-vis conventional investments (namely, equity index, gold and commodities).

The authors examine the sample period 2007–2021 using the bivariate cross-quantilogram (CQG) analysis and a dynamic conditional correlation (DCC) multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) experiment with several extensions.

The evidence shows that the analyzed ESG investments exhibit mainly diversifying features depending on the asset class taken as a reference, with some potential hedging/safe-haven qualities (for the green bond) in peculiar timespans. Therefore, the results suggest that investors might consider sustainable investing as a new measure of risk reduction, which has interesting implications for both portfolio allocation and policy design.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first that empirically investigates at once the dependence between different ESG investments (i.e. equity and green bond) with different conventional investments such as gold, equity and commodity market indices over a large sample period (2007–2021). Well-suited methodologies like the bivariate CQG and the DCC multivariate GARCH are used to capture the spillover effect and the hedging/diversifying nature, even in temporary contexts. Finally, a global perspective is used.

This research aims to examine and understand the rationales and modalities behind the use of disclosure before, during and after a corporate governance scandal involving CPA Australia (CPAA).

Data beyond CPAA's annual reports were collected, such as news articles, media releases, an independent review panel (IRP) report, and the Chief Operating Officer's letter to members. These disclosures were manually coded and analysed through the word counts and word trees in NVivo. This study also relied on Norbert Elias' conceptual tool of power games among networks of actors – figurations – to model the scandal as a power game between the old Board, the press, concerned members, the IRP and the new Board. This study analysed the data to reveal a collective and in fieri power balance that changed with the phases of the scandal.

A mix of voluntary, involuntary, requested and absent disclosures was important in triggering, managing and ending the CPAA scandal. Moreover, communication and disclosure fulfilled a constitutive role since both: mobilised actors, enabled coordination among actors, contributed to pursuing shared goals and influenced power balances. Such a constitutive role was at the heart of the ability of coalitions of figurations to challenge and restore the powerful status quo.

This research introduces to accounting studies the collective and in fieri dimensions of power from figurational theory. Moreover, the research sheds new light on using voluntary, involuntary, requested and absent disclosures before, during and after a corporate crisis.

This study aims to provide a critical assessment of developments in the field of voluntary corporate non-financial and sustainability reporting and disclosure (VRD). The assessment is grounded in the empirical material of a three-year research project on integrated reporting (IR).

Alvesson and Deetz’s (2021) critical management framework structures the arguments in this paper. By investigating local phenomena and the extant literature, the authors glean insights that they later critique, drawing on the empirical evidence collected during the research project. Transformative redefinitions are then proposed that point to future opportunities for research on voluntary organisational disclosures.

The authors argue that the mainstream approaches to VRD, namely, incremental information and legitimacy theories, present shortcomings in addressing why and how organisations voluntarily disclose information. First, the authors find that companies adopting the International IR Council’s (IIRC, 2021) IR framework tend to comply with the framework only in an informal, rather than a substantial way. Second, the authors find that, at times, organisations serendipitously chance upon VRD practices such as IR instead of rationally recognising the potential ability of such practices to provide useful information for decision-making by investors. Also, powerful groups in organisations may use VRD practices to establish, maintain or restore power balances in their favour.

The paper’s limitations stem directly from its aim to be a critical reflection. Even when grounded on empirics, a reflection is mainly a subjective effort. Therefore, different researchers could come to different conclusions and offer different lessons from the two case studies.

The different rationales the authors found for VRD should make a case for reporting institutions to tone down any investor-centric rhetoric in favour of more substantial disclosures. The findings imply that reporting organisations should approach the different frameworks with a critical eye and read between the lines of these frameworks to determine whether the purported normative arguments are achievable practice.

The authors reflect on timely and relevant issues linked to recent developments in the VRD landscape. Further, the authors offer possible ways forward for critical research that may rely on different methodological choices, such as interventionist and post-structuralist research.

Opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation are two central concepts in the entrepreneurial process. However, there is a lack of both a clear specification of the content domains of the constructs and valid and reliable multi-item scales for their measurement. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper first reveals existing issues around the definitions and measures relating to the concepts, then defines their content domains, and also proposes scale items to measure the concepts. Four samples are used to develop the measurement instruments.

Two scales are suggested, one to measure opportunity recognition, and other to measure opportunity exploitation. The scales demonstrate reliability and construct, discriminant, and nomological validity.

The resulting instruments provide tools for research and practice that could prove valuable when examining the antecedents and consequences of both opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation.