Search results

This study uses an experimental approach to examine how the perceptions and decisions of prospective nonprofessional investors are influenced by risk disclosures in the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). The between-subjects experiment used 157 MBA students as nonprofessional investors. The participants were given a firm's financial statements. In addition, the experimental group received the section on risk in the MD&A, whereas the control group did not receive any part of the MD&A. The participants were then asked to make several investment assessments and a final investment decision. The results show that the information included in the risk section of the MD&A has a significant negative effect on perceptions of the firm's future performance, a significant positive influence on perceptions of the stock's risk, and a marginally significant negative effect on the investment decision. The effect on the investment decision is mediated by respondents' perceptions of the firm's future performance and stock risk. By providing evidence on the effect of risk disclosures on nonprofessional investors' investment decision-making process, this study can help professional bodies and national market regulators understand how some market participants react to risk information provided under their regulations. In fact, the results indicate that there is little to be gained by firms voluntarily providing these risk disclosures. This would seem to support the fact that disclosure of risk information needs to be mandated by market regulators.

This paper analyses the activities that are taking place to introduce quality function deployment (QFD) into an original equipment manufacturer (OEM). QFD literature presents many different types of planning tools and techniques that can be used in product development but very few actually demonstrate how QFD can be introduced into the management system of an organisation. This paper aims to address that imbalance by the use of a case study detailing how the OEM has implemented the first six steps of a proposed 16‐step QFD introductory process. The tools and techniques used to introduce these first six steps of the programme are presented with a discussion of their effectiveness. The rationale behind the design of the last ten steps of the implementation programme, including suggestions on how they can be introduced into the management system, are fully discussed.

This paper aims to investigate to what extent quality function deployment (QFD) can be used in quality improvement rather than design activities.

A framework was developed for implementation of QFD as a quality improvement tool. A case study approach is used to test this framework, and quality issues were analyzed using the framework in a ceramic tile manufacturing company.

The results showed considerable improvements in the critical quality characteristics identified and sales rates, demonstrating the potential of QFD to be used in assessing and prioritizing areas of improvement, and converting them into measurable process or product requirements.

One case study was completed. More studies would be beneficial to support current findings.

This framework provides structured approach and guidelines for practitioners in adapting QFD for quality improvements in existing products or processes.

This study proposes a new framework to use QFD in quality improvement activities, expanding its application areas. Moreover, the results of the literature study performed provide a valuable collection of practical QFD implementation examples.

This paper provides a wide-ranging and up-to-date (1997–2016) review of the archival empirical risk-reporting literature. The reviewed papers are classified into two principal themes: the incentives for and/or informativeness of risk reporting. Our review demonstrates areas of significant divergence in the literature specifically: mandatory versus voluntary risk reporting, manual versus automated content analysis, within-country versus cross-country variations in risk reporting, and risk reporting in financial versus non-financial firms. Our paper identifies a number of issues which require further research. In particular we draw attention to two: first, a lack of clarity and consistency around the conceptualization of risk; and second, the potential costs and benefits of standard-setters’ involvement.

Risk reporting in financial reports has a positive impact on the company and its stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to present a literature review using the bibliometric method with the title we used is Risk Reporting, and the keywords are risk disclosure, risk reporting, stakeholders, and stakeholder theory. Data processing in this chapter uses Publish or Perish (PoP) software and Vos Viewers. This study uses the Google Scholar database. The researcher scanned the journal by using Scimagojr.com to view the journal quartile. Before the search was revised, there were 230 papers from 1991 to 2021 (30 years). Researchers will see the development of risk reporting from several sides, such as the country of origin of the researcher, the type of industry that reports risk, the research methods that have been used so far, and the analysis used for reporting risk.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the voluntary disclosure of risk-related issues, with a focus on credit risk, in graphical reporting for listed banks in the major European economies. It aims to understand if banks portray credit risk-related information in graphs accurately and whether these graphs provide incremental, rather than replicative, information. It also investigates whether credit risk-related graphs provide a fair representation of risk performance or a more favourable impression than is warranted.

A graphical accuracy index was constructed. Incremental information was measured. A multi-level linear model investigated whether credit risk affects the quantity and quality of graphical credit risk disclosure.

Banks used credit risk graphs to provide incremental information. They were also selective, with riskier banks less likely to use risk graphs. Banks were accurate in their graphical reporting, particularly those with high levels of credit risk. These findings can be explained within an impression management perspective taking human cognitive biases into account. Preparers of risk graphs seem to prefer selective omission over obfuscation via inaccuracy. This probably reflects the fact that individuals, and by implication annual report’s users, generally judge the provision of inaccurate information more harshly than the omission of unfavourable information.

This study provides theoretical insights by pointing out the limitations of a purely economics-based agency theory approach to impression management.

The study suggests annual reports’ readers need to be careful about subtle forms of impression management, such as those exploiting their cognitive bias. Regulatory and professional bodies should develop guidelines to ensure neutral and comparable graphical disclosure.

This study provides a substantive alternative to the predominant economic perspective on impression management in corporate reporting, by incorporating a psychological perspective taking human cognitive biases into account.

This paper aims to examine the “quality” of narrative risk management disclosures (RMD) from a “quantity” and “richness” (width and depth) perspective, utilising a finer-grained approach. Evidence is then provided on the relationships between RMD quality and the corporate determinants driving that quality.

Within a multidimensional quality disclosure framework, annual report narrative RMD from the top 100 Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) listed companies precisely “matched” for the 2010 and 2012 years were examined using semantic content analysis. The relationship between the dimensions and sub-dimensions of RMD “quantity” and “richness”, and various corporate characteristics were explored using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis.

The results indicate that RMD are considerably lacking in quality, from the “quantity”, “width” and particularly the “depth” dimension and sub-dimensions for both years. Many companies provide “boiler plate” RMD over consecutive years and many do not comply with the intent of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations under the “if not, why not” regime (ASX CGC, 2010). Company size and cross-listing were found to be the primary determinants of higher quality RMD and, to a lesser extent, firm risk. Some evidence was found that “quality” RMD were less likely where companies are more highly leveraged and when their shareholders are more concentrated.

Although two coders independently coded the RMD and specific decision rules were followed, the subjectivity inherent in conducting semantic content analysis into the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the framework cannot be completely eliminated. However, by adopting a finer-grained approach, this study contributes to the global literature on the quality of RMD. Previous studies are extended by analysing and testing the individual dimensions and sub-dimensions of “quantity” and “richness” which provides new empirical evidence and a more comprehensive portrayal of RMD quality and a greater understanding why some companies are more likely to disclose higher quality RMD than others.

These results provide useful and predominantly new empirical evidence on the quality of RMD for practitioners, regulators and researchers. As many companies are not complying with the “intent” of the “if not, why not” approach, these results support the argument for mandated narrative RMD regulations at an international level.

The multidimensional framework of RMD “quantity” and “richness” provides a basis for examining not only how much is disclosed, but what is disclosed and how. In adopting a finer-grained approach, this study analyses and tests the individual dimensions and sub-dimensions of the framework. This provides a deeper understanding of the overall quality of RMD and the determinants driving RMD quality for the sample companies.

This paper continues the analysis of the data collected in a survey of quality function deployment (QFD) carried out in Brazil, and deepens the study by carrying out interviews at some of the companies which participated in the survey to identify best practices on QFD application.

To analyze the data collected in a survey of QFD and interviews, eight exemplary criteria based on the QFD literature were considered. The paper then presents and discusses best practices in QFD application.

The results of analyzing the interviews showed that there were exemplary aspects in the use of the method and the key points in the QFD implementation that should be considered were related to: support from upper management, carrying out training, creating the team, frequency and length of meetings, and creating a conceptual model, among other aspects.

It is important to stress that the importance of some of these exemplary aspects varies with the type of company and the product developed with QFD, and could be less important for other products and industries.

The results showed that there were key points in the QFD implementation that should be considered depending on type of company and the product.

The key points in the QFD implementation identified in this paper may be useful to QFD users and academics.

The purpose of this paper is to report case studies conducted in a company in Italy that produces packaging systems, in comparison with a Brazilian company within a similar industrial sector. The paper compares those two cases in terms of quality function deployment (QFD) usage and discusses the lessons learned from the cases.

Case‐based research was employed. Data were mostly gathered through semi‐structured interviews with engineers and managers involved with product development. Direct observation and archival data were also used to extract more evidence towards triangulation. Then, the aggregation of results was done a posteriori.

QFD implementation process was found to be similar in both companies but with some differences in terms of managerial aspects of product development, e.g. gathering the voice of customer and a more extensive use of other matrices besides the “house of quality”.

The study was limited in two companies. Although one of the purposes was to analyse if there are contextual differences between those two cases, this study was unable of verifying the context of QFD application. In addition, the study findings are not generalisable to other similar plants.

The research shows the importance of QFD implementation and similarities between the cases, in addition to contributing to application by identifying relevant aspects of its introduction. It enables practitioners to use the findings on factors that should be taken into consideration when applying QFD.

Besides the comparison between two companies, the paper discusses the innovation on QFD projects in one of the companies. In addition, the empirical results found grounding in existing theory to some extent.