Search results

The study aims at reviewing a synthesis of disclosure, transparency, and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) implementation in an attempt to provide directions for future research. Prior research overwhelmingly supports that the IFRS adoption or effective implementation of IFRS will enhance high-quality financial reporting, transparency, enhance the country’s investment environment, and foreign direct investment (FDI) (Dayanandan, Donker, Ivanof, & Karahan, 2016; Gláserová, 2013; Muniandy & Ali, 2012). However, some researchers provide conflicting evidence that developing countries implementing IFRS are probably not going to encounter higher FDI inflows (Gheorghe, 2009; Lasmin, 2012). It has also been argued that the IFRS adoption decreases the management earnings in countries with high levels of financial disclosure. In general, the study indicates that the adoption of IFRS has improved the financial reporting quality. The common law countries have strong rules to protect investors, strict legal enforcement, and high levels of transparency of financial information. From the extensive structured review of literature using the Scopus database tool, the study reviewed 105 articles, and in particular, the topic-related 94 articles were analysed. All 94 articles were retrieved from a range of 59 journals. Most of the articles (77 of 94) were published 2010–2018. The top five journals based on the citations are Journal of Accounting Research (187 citations), Abacus (125 citations), European Accounting Review (107 citations), Journal of Accounting and Economics (78 citations), and Accounting and Business Research (66 citations). The most-cited authors are Daske, Hail, Leuz, and Verdi (2013); Daske and Gebhardt (2006); and Brüggemann, Hitz, and Sellhorn (2013). Surprisingly, 65 of 94 articles did not utilise the theory. In particular, four theories have been used frequently: agency theory (15), economic theory (5), signalling theory (2), and accounting theory (2). The study calls for future research on the theoretical implications and policy-related research on disclosure and transparency which may inform the local and international standard setters.

This study examines whether the source from which nonprofessional investors obtain corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure influences their investment-related judgments and decisions and whether that influence depends on the company's financial performance. In an experiment, we find an asymmetrical effect of information source that varies with financial performance. In particular, information source affects investors' management credibility judgments when the firm announces unfavorable earnings result but not when the announced result is favorable. The mediation analysis reveals that investors' management credibility judgments mediate the joint effect of information source and financial performance on investors' investment decisions. Our findings highlight that the effectiveness of CSR communication can be complicated and that investors are sensitive to other factors that exist in the communication setting, such as the context in which CSR is disclosed (contextual factor) and information source of CSR disclosures (attributional factor).

Using market-risk disclosures as an empirical context, and drawing on the diffusion of innovations (DOIs) model, this paper contributes new sociological perspectives to a theorization of compliance. We propose that stakeholder behaviors during accounting standard-setting discussion and adoption phases are motivated by social, political, and economic factors. These phases interrelate, and consequently, any analysis of managerial disclosure decisions benefit from considering them together, rather than in isolation, as is typical.

The authors use a mixed-methods design, including detailed analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 26), constituents’ comment letters (n = 106), annual report disclosures (FTSE 350: firm-year observations n = 1,131), technical meetings, and standard-setting documents.

Results suggest that constituents initially supported introduction of a set of mandatory market-risk disclosures, but implied costs of the proposed and subsequently approved requirements outweighed perceived benefits and efficiencies. This study elaborates on these issues, exploring how and why a financial reporting innovation that stakeholders deemed technically inefficient was diffused. Although the authors were told that compulsion (i.e., forced-selection) dominates disclosure decisions, some freedom of choice remains, as evidenced by greater than 40% non-compliance during the first year of adoption. Respondents indicate that theoretically, market-risk disclosure adoption decisions rest on assessment of the costs of disclosure (e.g., preparation and competition) versus non-disclosure (e.g., litigation and reputation). Second-phase adoption is more straightforward because the costs of disclosure decrease over time.

Although mixed-methods research offers several advantages, self-selection bias, issues with coding reliability, and interviewer/interviewee bias are possible. It is impossible to achieve a truly holistic understanding of standard-setting, and therefore the authors acknowledge that findings are not generalizable, though the risks were minimized.

Recognizing that disclosure choices are not made in political and social vacuums, this study suggests that sociological perspectives such as innovation-diffusion inform a theory of compliance.

This study investigates how disclosure of the board of directors’ leadership and role in risk oversight (BODs oversight disclosure) influences investors’ judgments when information on risk exposures is disclosed. The theoretical lens through which we examine this issue involves negativity bias. Sixty-two stock market investors who engage in the evaluation and/or investment of stocks on a regular or professional basis participated in our study. Our results reveal that the addition of BODs oversight disclosure (positive information) does not carry significant weight on investor judgments (i.e., attractiveness and investment) when financial statement disclosures indicate a high level of operational and financial risk exposures (negative information). In contrast, under the condition of a low level of risk exposures, BODs oversight disclosure causes investors to assess higher risk in terms of worry, catastrophic potentials and unfamiliarity about risk information and, in turn, make less favorable investor judgments. Our findings add to the literature on negativity bias and contribute to the debate on the usefulness of disclosures about risk.

The authors measure the impact of culture on Sharia; Social and Financial Disclosure (SSFD) of Islamic Banks (IBs) around the world.

Content analysis is used to measure levels of disclosure for a sample of 136 IBs of 25 countries for years 2013 and 2014. Different cultural measures are used. These include secrecy/transparency as suggested by Gray (1988) and Hofstede (1980, 1983, 2001, 2010)’s culture dimensions which include: Power Distance; Individualism; Masculinity; Uncertainty Avoidance; Long-Term Ordination and Indulgence. Ordinary least square (OLS) regression is used to test the research hypotheses.

After controlling bank-specific, corporate governance and country characteristics, the authors found that Hofstede’s culture dimensions have a significant impact on SSFD. They also found that Gray's transparency dimension positively influence levels of sharia, social and aggregated disclosure. Therefore, they conclude that culture influences levels of disclosure in IBs.

This study has policy implications for managers and regulators of Islamic banking industry.

This study is the first to use both Gray and Hofstede models in the context of IBs around the world. It also the first to explore the impact of culture on three different disclosure levels for IBs.

Part IV provides readers with the extant requirements for the application of materiality to recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure in the financial statements. This part also includes a detailed critical review of the recent Practice Statement on materiality, the FASB’s proposed ASU on the notes and the amendments to the Conceptual Framework proposed by the IASB and the FASB.

The part expands to issues that are typical of Management Commentary, including the SEC guidance on materiality in Management Discussion and Analysis.

It informs about the complexities and subtle differences between financial statements and bookkeeping and the different standards of reasonableness versus materiality.

A section moves from materiality to material misstatements and covers the application of materiality in auditing.

Another section goes in depth on internal control over financial reporting, showing the linkages between materiality and risk appetite and risk tolerance and the related application guidance.

This chapter assesses the effects of corporate governance (CG) variables on the level of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure (CSRD), Shari'ah Supervisory Board Disclosure (SSBD), and Financial Disclosure (FD) for Islamic banks. This study, based on a sample of 95 Islamic banks, assessed this in 2013. The findings suggest that CG mechanisms, firm's age, auditor and shari'ah auditing department are effective in influencing SSBD, CSRD, and FD practices in Islamic banks. This chapter encourages regulators to improve CG mechanisms in their Islamic banking systems through the optimization of ownership structure (dispersed ownership) and the board's characteristics in order to promote transparency and disclosure. Moreover, the findings support theoretical arguments that firms disclose CG information in order to mitigate information asymmetry and agency costs and to improve investor confidence in the reported financial statements. The empirical evidence of this study enhances the understanding of the CG disclosure environment in Islamic banks as a promoting new financial system.

The last chapter of this book grouped the studies that discusses and investigates the relationship between sustainability reporting and firm performance in three different regions: Europe, Mena and Africa. In Europe, the findings deduced from the empirical results demonstrate that there is significant positive impact of ESG on the performance. However, the relationship between ESG disclosures varies if measured individually; the environmental disclosure positively affects the ROA and TQ, whereas the corporate social responsibility disclosure negatively affects the three models. However, the corporate governance disclosure negatively affects the ROA, ROE and positively affect the Tobin's Q. In Mena, the empirical results show that there are differences in the impact of sustainability reporting (ESG) on firm's operational performance (ROA), financial performance (ROE) and market performance (TQ) between the sectors. Lastly, the findings from Africa show that there is a significant relationship between ESG and operational performance (ROA) and market performance (TQ) with ROA and TQ varying directly with the level of ESG disclosure. However, there is no significant relationship between ESG and financial performance (ROE).