Search results

With the help of “self-learning” algorithms and high computing power, companies are transforming Big Data into artificial intelligence (AI)-powered information and gaining economic benefits. AI-powered information and Big Data (simply data henceforth) have quickly become some of the most important strategic resources in the global economy. However, their value is not (yet) formally recognized in financial statements, which leads to a growing gap between book and market values and thus limited decision usefulness of the underlying financial statements. The objective of this paper is to identify ways in which the value of data can be reported to improve decision usefulness.

Based on the authors' experience as both long-term practitioners and theoretical accounting scholars, the authors conceptualize and draw up a potential data value chain and show the transformation from raw Big Data to business-relevant AI-powered information during its process.

Analyzing current International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) regulations and their applicability, the authors show that current regulations are insufficient to provide useful information on the value of data. Following this, the authors propose a Framework for AI-powered Information and Big Data (FAIIBD) Reporting. This framework also provides insights on the (good) governance of data with the purpose of increasing decision usefulness and connecting to existing frameworks even further. In the conclusion, the authors raise questions concerning this framework that may be worthy of discussion in the scholarly community.

Scholars and practitioners alike are invited to follow up on the conceptual framework from many perspectives.

The framework can serve as a guide towards a better understanding of how to recognize and report AI-powered information and by that (a) limit the valuation gap between book and market value and (b) enhance decision usefulness of financial reporting.

This article proposes a conceptual framework in IFRS to regulators to better deal with the value of AI-powered information and improve the good governance of (Big)data.

This study aims to analyse whether theories and views of classical Islamic scholars are widely adopted as references in Islamic accounting and finance (IAF), Islamic economics (IE) and Islamic business management (IBM) research studies as part of their contribution to solving current economic and financial problems.

The research adopts a qualitative meta-analysis methodology using NVivo 12 with selected data from 474 international journal articles published between 1981 and 2021. The study considers 172 IAF articles, 111 IE articles and 191 IBM articles.

The results of the study show that the use of theories and views of classical Islamic scholars is not widespread among the examined research papers. The findings show that 90% of researchers tend to acquire modern economics, management, psychological and sociological theories instead of classical theories. Both modern and classical theories have been discussed in the studied articles namely agency theory, stakeholders' theory, ḥisbah (accountability), maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (objectives of Islamic law) and waʿd (unilateral promise). The gaps prevail not only in the taxonomy of terms but also in the choice of paradigm references. It is found that 66% of the 474 journal articles adopt a positivist paradigm, followed by interpretivism (19%), post-structuralism (9%) and critical orientation (6%).

This paper considers only ABS ranking journal articles. Future research may consider other journal articles from different ranking groups such as Scopus or Thomson & Reuters.

The paper sheds light on how Islamic educational institutions can develop strategies for the Integration of Knowledge (IOK) in their curriculum.

This paper helps to shape the Muslims' way of thinking within an Islamic worldview which will lead to an Islamic way of expressing knowledge, skill and behaviour.

This paper contributes to the model of IOK that has been deliberated among Islamic universities, especially those that develop IAF, IE and IBM studies.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the differences of audit quality of financial statements among auditors, including Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors.

By employing cross-sectional analysis of compliance (a proxy of audit quality) of goodwill impairment testing of listed firms in the context of Hong Kong, the variation of audit quality of financial statements of auditees has been shown.

Audit quality of Big 4 auditors is viewed to be higher than that of non-Big 4 audit firms and the homogeneity of audit quality among Big 4 auditors is not long accepted, but variation.

Even though unqualified opinions have been given on the auditors’ reports, the quality of financial statements audit is a skeptical issue because of the high level of non-compliance of goodwill impairment testing under International Financial Reporting Standards.

This study does emphasize the higher audit quality of financial statements of Big 4 auditors than that of non-Big 4 auditors and stresses the variation of audit quality among Big 4 auditors.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the amendments to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 and the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 9 enhanced the readability, and thus the quality and usefulness of risk disclosure information.

Readability analyses are performed on companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) from 2005 to 2021. The sample period includes the period when companies disclosed information according to IAS 39 (2005–2017) and IFRS 9 (2018–2021).

The results of the analyses show risk disclosures for JSE-listed companies to be complex and difficult to understand. Furthermore, risk disclosures have become longer and less readable with the introduction of amendments to IAS 39 and the introduction of IFRS 9.

This study uses readability measures as a proxy for the complexity and usefulness of risk disclosures. The amount of utility a user of financial statements derives could be dependent on other factors such as the quality of disclosure, individual user background and perceptions.

The results have valuable implications for the various stakeholders that make use of the information contained in financial statements. Stakeholders such as regulators and standard setters should carefully assess how accounting standards change to ensure that one of the key objectives of the IASB, namely, to provide information that is relevant, reliable and understandable, is met.

The results of this study contribute to the discourse on the usefulness of companies’ risk disclosures. Though, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to compare the readability of risk disclosures from an emerging market perspective, the results can be applied to other countries using IFRS to assess the readability of risk disclosures.