Search results

This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB.

There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion.

The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

This study aims to examine how firms choose an auditor in the presence of bilateral information asymmetry between insiders and outsiders regarding firms’ economic performance.

This study presents a one-period reporting bias game with a firm’s risk-neutral manager and investors in the capital market, in which a manager with private information chooses an auditor and reports earnings to investors who acquire their own information. The analysis focuses on the possibility that the manager engages an auditor to constrain earnings management as a commitment device to minimize reporting error cost.

The results show that the manager’s optimal auditor choice is determined based on investor sensitivity to the earnings report, and managerial incentives for earnings management, discounted by the uncertainty of reporting errors. The results for optimal auditor choice are counterintuitive: engaging a higher-quality auditor could seemingly be associated with aggressive earnings management.

This study advances the understanding of the theoretical basis of firms’ auditor choice in the context of market investors’ information acquisition when auditors exercise their discretion in reporting. This issue has received limited attention in the extant literature.

The purpose of this paper is to examine investors’ propensity to litigate when harmful events occur subsequent to accounting choices. Consistent with Culpable Control Theory, the authors find that investors are more likely to pursue litigation against management when managers are perceived to have more financial reporting flexibility, such as when they apply imprecise, principles-based accounting guidance. Investors are more likely to pursue litigation when they find management more responsible for harmful events, and they find management more responsible for those events when they perceive management to have more reporting flexibility. To provide additional insight, the authors investigate how the relationship between reporting flexibility and assessed manager responsibility is mediated by investors’ perceptions of management’s self-interested behavior. The authors consider monetary and non-monetary motivations for litigation against management such as recouping financial losses and punishing management. The results suggest that recouping financial losses is not the sole motivation for litigation. The authors provide evidence that punishing management is an important non-monetary component of the litigation decision. The results contribute to the limited literature on investor litigation decisions and inform the debate surrounding the potential effects of more principles-based accounting standards.

The authors test the hypotheses using an experiment with a 2×1 between-subjects design in which the authors manipulate reporting flexibility at two levels by varying the precision of accounting guidance and measure all other variables of interest. Participants are 82 part-time executive MBA program students at a major public university in the USA. Most participants work full-time (94 percent), own or have owned stocks either directly or through retirement plans (84 percent), indicate general investment knowledge (97 percent), and report high levels of familiarity with corporate financial statements, including balance sheets and income statements (92 percent). Thus, the authors conclude that these executive MBA students are reasonable surrogates for investors.

Consistent with the predictions, perceived management reporting flexibility affects investors’ propensity to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events such as investor losses, employee job losses, and economic losses suffered by a community mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. As predicted, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. This result suggests that the litigation decision is driven at least in part by corporate governance goals such as the desire for retribution or punishment of management. The second experiment provides additional support for the theory that the desire to punish management is an important component of investors’ litigation decisions.

The research makes important contributions to the literature on investor litigation and to the ongoing debate regarding principles- vs rules-based accounting standards. While some archival research addresses the conditions under which securities litigation occurs, little empirical research has directly addressed the investor decision to litigate. The paper provides additional evidence to address the question of why investors litigate. By doing so, the authors add to the debate on the desirability of shifting from more rules-based to more principles-based accounting standards.

The theory tested in this study could be used to design mechanisms to mitigate the differential propensity for investors to litigate under differing accounting regimes. As standard setters discuss a move to more principles-based standards in the USA, some observers have expressed concern that investor litigation will increase. The theory suggests that if the standard-setting body can control perceptions of management reporting flexibility such that investors believe principles-based standards provide no more flexibility than rules-based standards, they can limit an increase in the amount of investor litigation.

The authors contribute to theory by providing evidence regarding why investors desire to pursue litigation against management. The authors find that the assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events mediates the relationship between reporting flexibility and investors’ intention to litigate. The authors also find that the relationship between reporting flexibility and assignment of responsibility to management for harmful events is not direct but instead works through the effect of reporting flexibility on perceived management self-interested behavior. Furthermore, assessed management responsibility for the harmful event is positively related to investors’ propensity to litigate against management, and this relation is only partially mediated by investors’ perceptions that the litigation will be successful. Those findings provide theoretical contributions to the literature.

This paper problematizes TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) reporting in a way that demonstrates areas where academic research can contribute towards realizing the transformative potential of this unique form of sustainability accounting in its early stages of development.

The paper proposes a number of research agendas for impactful interdisciplinary research into new forms of corporate reporting of sustainability risks, opportunities and dependencies.

There are several major challenges that both reporting corporations and investors need to address in realizing the potential of TCFD style risks, opportunities and dependencies reporting. Key among these is developing new practices of climate-related scenario analysis and reporting.

There is potential for many different academic research studies to provide solid evidence in helping improve the practical impact of TCFD style sustainability reporting. These impacts may assist in moving corporate policies and actions towards zero carbon.

This is the first agenda-setting paper that addresses the need for, and opportunities of, academic research into TCFD reporting and its potential to transform corporate accounting and reporting of sustainability.

The aim of the study being reported, was to determine the status of online reporting in South Africa. The history, advantages and disadvantages of web‐based reporting were evaluated. A survey was undertaken among the top South African listed companies to determine the extent of their use of technology for online financial reporting and investor relations. The results of the survey indicate that the use of the internet by top South African companies has increased tremendously over the past number of years. The increased importance of online reporting is demonstrated by the fact that several companies not only provide copies of their annual financial statements on their website, but have also progressed to the second and the third stage of online reporting. Communication with investors, which is a part of online reporting, is very important. The results of the survey indicate that companies take this matter into account when preparing a home page on their website. From a comparison of some of the results of this survey with those of international surveys it can be concluded that South African companies are keeping abreast of international trends regarding the use of the Internet as a medium of communication with investors and shareholders.

This paper aims to examine the stewardship practices of BlackRock, one of the world’s biggest index managers, to highlight a tension and contradictions associated with demonstrating sustainability leadership and its actual substance.

To support its argument, this paper draws on the author’s long-standing industry and academic experience, existing academic evidence and documentary analysis.

This paper reveals conflicting data, highlighting a tension between BlackRock’s commitment to environmental, social and governance (ESG) in its public statements and translating this commitment into tangible outcomes through voting, ESG investments and stewardship reporting, which seem to be more assumed than demonstrated.

This viewpoint is based on a review of existing evidence. It offers some critique on current stewardship reporting practices, which has implications for management and policymakers. It identifies areas for future research in the area of stewardship and ESG reporting.

This paper highlights the need for a more critical interrogation of investor stewardship and ESG reporting and a more joined-up policy and regulatory approach to stewardship and sustainability reporting.

Improving stewardship practices of asset managers will help enhance the social value created by the financial services sector.

In drawing on personal experience and existing literature, the originality lies in the combination of arguments brought together to highlight the challenges of making sense of the conflicting ESG reporting data to see how this may impact policies, regulation and future practices in the area of sustainability and ESG reporting.

Purpose – This chapter reviews the influence that institutional investors have on corporate climate change disclosures and related reporting regimes.

Approach – We overview recent research undertaken by the authors that provides evidence of the influence of institutional investors on voluntary reporting of climate change information in annual and sustainability reports. In addition, this chapter considers the influence of institutional investors on climate change disclosure regulation and the use of climate change information by investors.

Findings – The material presented in this chapter indicates that institutional investor coalitions have been internationally influential in determining the extent and content of climate change disclosures of large corporations. The CDP annual questionnaire has been particularly influential. The influence of other initiatives such as development of the CDSB reporting framework is not yet clear. Further, the ability of institutional investor coalitions to influence the regulation of climate change disclosure is uncertain, since most national governments have not yet headed requests for greater regulation.

Research implications – Several avenues for future research are identified including a consideration of the trade-offs between investor information demands, costs of compliance and a desire for concise reporting; investor decision making processes as well as the impediments to use of the information currently available; and the validity of the perception that increased disclosure requirements assists with driving emissions reductions and ensuring adequate consideration of climate change risks.

Value – The material presented in this chapter is expected to be useful for informing the continuing debate around the regulation of and/or provision of guidance to companies about the disclosure of climate change related information to investors and other stakeholders.

This paper aims to examine differential perceptions of lenders and investors on (1) the use, perceived usefulness, importance and adequacy of annual reports, (2) the importance of qualitative characteristics (QCs) and (3) the perceived impact of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on financial reporting quality (FRQ) in Sri Lanka.

A questionnaire survey study of practising professionals consisting of Sri Lankan investors (N = 214) and lenders (N = 235).

In relation to (1), lenders and investors rank three out of ten information sources ahead of the remaining seven: both include annual reports and personal knowledge. However, the highest average response for lenders is direct communication with clients, and for investors, it is stock market publications. Within annual reports, both decision-makers identify financial statements as the most useful part. Concerning (2), they both identified understandability as the most important QC followed by timeliness. Relevance ranked last, surprisingly. In relation to (3), both groups perceived that the new IFRS reporting environment improved the FRQ compared to the previous Sri Lanka Accounting Standards regime.

Ranking understandability as the most important QC in terms of decision usefulness contradicts IASB's categorisation. The authors provide empirical data on the perceived degree of success of adopting IFRS in a developing economy.

The authors design a decision-oriented (lending vs investing) and context-specific (IASB's financial reporting framework) questionnaire to examine the perceptions of key capital providers separately on the issues mentioned above in “Purpose” within a developing economy. The survey fits into two aspects of the decision-useful theory: useful to make what decisions and useful to whom.

This study aims to investigate the equity market reaction to sustainability disclosure measures derived from firms' inaugural sustainability reports following the implementation of mandatory sustainability reporting in Singapore.

This study explores the equity market reaction to first-time sustainability reports of mandatory adopters and compares the reactions between voluntary and mandatory adopters. To mitigate any imbalanced distribution effects, entropy balancing techniques are employed.

The author observes a significant equity market reaction when mandatory adopters adhere to a reporting framework and release sustainability reports as standalone documents. Additionally, the study indicates that government regulation amplifies the equity market reaction for companies that include a board statement within their sustainability reports and present them as standalone publications.

The lack of quantitative information disclosed in the first-time sustainability reports may restrict the generalizability of the findings.

The findings provide valuable insights for organizations and managers to evaluate the market's response to sustainability disclosures and improve communication effectiveness with investors. Furthermore, the study has direct policy implications for global standard-setting organizations in sustainability reporting. The findings support the notion that investors value market-led and investor-focused sustainability disclosures.

The study contributes to the limited body of research that examines the capital market effects of mandatory sustainability disclosures. To the author’s knowledge, this is among a few studies to directly investigate the equity market reaction to mandatory sustainability disclosures at the firm level.

This paper aims to critically examine the conceptualisation of the principle of materiality, which is one of the most divisive concepts in current regulatory work on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This paper pays particular attention to the current agenda for standard setting for sustainability reporting and the related discourse, including the International Sustainability Standard Board (ISSB) Exposure Draft IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. A new conceptualisation of materiality is proposed based on the critique.

The academic and grey literature relating to current regulatory work on sustainability reporting, responses to the ISSB General Requirement Exposure Draft and sustainability reporting frameworks and standards are reviewed. This review also includes the papers in this journal’s special issue on standard setting for sustainability reporting. This review is used to develop original views on how materiality could be conceptualised and interpreted for sustainability reporting. This paper’s viewpoint is built on the criticisms of various definitions of materiality found in the literature and the author’s original critique of the materiality definitions provided in various reports and standards/frameworks on sustainability reporting.

Both financial materiality and double materiality approaches have drawbacks. A single materiality approach underpinned by accountability for financial and non-financial capitals instead of decision usefulness for any stakeholder is proposed. The proposed conceptualisation is also underpinned by the need to recognise dependencies between the environment, society and organisations when creating long-term enterprise value. The proposed approach is expected to trigger real changes in organisational practices to pursue a purpose beyond profit.

The proposed approach to defining materiality for sustainability reporting bridges the divide between financial materiality and social and environmental materiality concepts underpinning different standards and regulations.

The approach to materiality proposed in this paper is aimed at enabling organisations to pursue United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to make the planet and societies more sustainable.

This paper proposes a new conceptualisation of and approach to materiality determination for sustainability reporting.