Search results

This paper aims to investigate the moderating effect of sustainability reporting on the relationship between the independent variables of board diversity, and earnings management and the dependent variable of readability of financial statements.

The study panel data regression analysis involved 36 Kenyan-listed companies from 2016 to 2020.

Key findings were that increased board diversity was found to significantly improve the readability of financial statements. Discretionary earnings management was found to significantly reduce the readability of financial statements. Sustainability reporting was found to significantly increase the readability of financial statements, and it moderated the relationship between board diversity, earnings management and financial statements readability in Kenya.

The study sample of 36 non-financial listed in the Nairobi Securities Exchange was very small and was affected by the problem of thin trading; hence, caution should be adopted when interpreting the findings.

The Capital Markets Authorities (CMA) as a policymaker should enforce sustainability reporting by Kenyan listed firms as there is evidence that the reporting enhances the readability of financial statements. The Institute of Certified Public Accountants as a policymaker should closely monitor the published financial statements of firms for earnings management and punish the perpetrators, as there is empirical evidence that the practice reduces the readability of financial statements.

Sustainability reporting is successful as a moderating variable between readability of financial statements and determinants of readability of financial statements.

This study contributes to knowledge by studying sustainability reporting as a moderating variable between the independent variables of board diversity and earnings management and the dependent variable of readability of financial statements and measured sustainability reporting using a dummy variable for the period before and after the enactment and release of CMA code of 2016 on corporate governance that required sustainability reporting by Kenyan listed companies.

This paper investigates the relationship between risk management practices and potential fraudulent financial reporting in Malaysia by considering recent regulatory reforms of the Malaysian government on risk management practices.

The sample of this study was based on 257 firm-year observations during the 2012–2017 period. This study employed panel-least square regressions with period fixed effects.

This study found a significant association between risk management activities in the disclosure and potential fraudulent financial reporting. Nevertheless, this study found there is insignificant effect of the risk-management committee in reducing potential of fraudulent financial reporting.

This study is a pioneer research that relates firms’ risk management practices with potential fraudulent financial reporting measured by F-score. Thus, this study provides an insight to regulators on the extent of risk-management practices in deterring potential fraudulent financial reporting which can be used as an input for greater enforcement of risk-management regulations.

This paper aims to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the quality of integrated reports (IR) and highlight the gaps in the existing research to provide directions and suggestions for future research.

This study was conducted through a systematic literature review using content analysis based on 40 papers from the Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCOhost databases on IR quality. While reading the full-text papers, the authors found six additional papers referenced by the literature being reviewed that were relevant to IR quality. Thus, there were 46 papers in the final review. The analysis begins with the definition and dimension of IR quality and theoretical lenses. Furthermore, this study outlines constructs or variables used in the previous literature.

The authors found that most studies used the quantitative method (41 papers or 89%). Five papers in the literature used qualitative methods (11%). Most researchers (34 papers or 72%) defined IR quality as consistent with the International Integrated Reporting Council framework, specifically the eight content elements. In particular, with the constructs that make up the quality of the IR, variations between researchers were found. Furthermore, there were some gaps that could be the directions for future research.

The literature that provides academic knowledge about IR quality is still limited, and research on IR is still growing. The literature review conducted by this study can provide an overview of the current research positions on the quality of IR and directions for future research in this area.

This study intends to show corporate executives a framework demonstrating the quality of corporate reporting. It can impact not only investors as a specific stakeholder group but also other stakeholder groups.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first literature review to examine the quality of IR, thus providing a map of current research to suggest directions for future research. Most of the previous literature reviews have been focused on integrated reporting (IR) in general and not quality.

In the last two decades, risk reporting has followed a normative and calculative culture rather than the “materiality” of data. Although integrated reporting (IR) has become flooded with extra information, it does not adequately disseminate material information to stakeholders. In addition, the poor tone from the top diminishes creativity. This study aims to investigate how companies creatively address issues of the materiality of risk information in IR and how IR can be aligned with enterprise risk management.

Qualitative research was conducted via interviews with 50 chief risk officers and senior management executives in the Indian and UK insurance markets.

Overall, five institutions were observed to exhibit elements of being early adopters of institutional creativity. This confirmed the present study’s theoretical contribution of five divergent types of early adopters. The motivations for creativity are reflected in the resources available to these institutions.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study provides a new insight into IR from internal mechanisms to deal with issue of materiality.

This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.

Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.

Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.

Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.

This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.

The study aims to empirically investigate whether the disclosure of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) affects the level of integrated thinking and reporting (ITR) on a sample of European listed companies.

The sample focusses on companies listed to the STOXX Europe 600 Index. Data have been gathered from Refinitiv DataStream for the period 2019–2020 for the measures of ITR level and SDG disclosure. Then, a multivariate regression analysis is developed to test whether or not, and if so, to what extent, SDG disclosure affects the level of ITR.

SDG disclosure has been increased over time and companies have primarily focussed on SDG 8, SDG12 and SDG 13 demonstrating their awareness on sustainability issues close to the core business and on the climate urgency. Furthermore, SDG disclosure leads to a higher level of ITR meaning that SDG disclosure is an important pillar contributing to ITR.

The empirical analysis has not deeply investigated each component of ITR and SDG disclosure.

The research can be useful for companies aiming to improve their commitment towards the SDG implementation with an integrated approach. Moreover, the study sheds light on the importance of the SDG disclosure as a determinant of ITR.

The research contributes to literature in the stream of sustainability accounting, by adding new insights on ITR linked to SDG disclosure. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the originality of the study lies in the inclusion of SDG disclosure as a determinant for ITR that has not been analysed by academics yet.

This paper aims to examine the processes of sustainability reporting assurance (SRA) and the influence they have on shaping perception from disclosures. Given the evidence of inconsistencies and ambiguities in assurance processes, this paper examines how legitimacy is attained and maintained at different stages of SRA.

Evidence collected from 23 semi-structured interviews with assurance providers (APs), consultants, professionals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (non-APs) was used to conduct a thematic analysis from the perspectives of interviewees.

APs and non-APs are united in recognising the value of SRA, although, perspectives on transparency between the two groups differ. Experience and industry knowledge are essential to SRA delivery with non-APs preferring accounting APs. Nevertheless, non-APs are concerned about the role of companies in deciding assurance scope, as it can affect scrutiny. APs favour data accuracy (as opposed to data relevance) assurance due to team dynamics and internal review influences, with the latter also restricting assurance innovation. APs are interested in accessing better evidence and stakeholder engagement evaluations. Providing advisory services was not rejected by all APs. The perspectives of APs and non-APs demonstrate how progress in SRA has gained pragmatic legitimacy with noticeable gaps that serve to undermine attainment of moral legitimacy.

SRA is a developing practice that will adopt changes as it continues to mature; some of these changes could impact findings in this research. General perspectives on SRA were sought from interviewees, this affected the ability for an in-depth focus on any of the range of interesting SRA issues that arose over the course of the research. Interviews were conducted with relevant parties in the SRA space that operate in the UK. Perspectives from parties outside the UK were not solicited.

Companies make an important decision to commission SRA. Findings in this research have highlighted specific non-APs issues of concern that can be useful in structuring operations and reporting regimes to facilitate assurance procedures. The findings will also be helpful to APs as they can direct more emphasis on stakeholder concerns towards demonstrating greater stakeholder accountability. Regulatory and standard setters can enact appropriate policies that can potentially drive the practice forward for assessment of cognitive legitimacy.

The findings provide relevant account of stakeholder voices on the quality of corporate disclosures that has a direct effect on the wellbeing of communities and sustainability of societies. Collective stakeholder input on expectations can shape sustainability discourse.

This research demonstrates the applicability of financial audit quality indicators in SRA processes, extends the debate around the effectiveness of new audit fields and highlights the challenges of maintaining legitimacy with different audiences.

This study aims to explore to what extent stakeholder engagement affects the sustainability reporting (SR) process and if it succeeds in facilitating the encounter between demand and supply of accountability, as well as the main challenges of this practice, by focusing on a crucial and under-investigated public sector area, the judicial system.

The study adopts an action research (AR) approach. Specifically, it focuses on a specific phase (i.e. stakeholder engagement) of the broader project that was carried on from 2019 in an Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office. Data were collected from multiple sources, i.e. written notes and reports gathered during meetings, the survey administered to stakeholders and the published sustainability reports.

Stakeholder engagement may be a valuable and effective tool for improving the level of accountability, as it increases the responsiveness of SR to the informative needs of stakeholders. However, the study also highlights some critical points that must be addressed to exploit this fully. Among these is the need to act upstream of the process by working on an accounting system that goes beyond the economic dynamics and can effectively answer the accountability demand.

The study contributes to theoretical and empirical knowledge by exploring a topic and a public sphere still limited investigated, i.e. the stakeholder engagement in sustainability in the judicial sector. The AR approach also presents some originality points, as it is low widespread in management and accounting literature.

This study aims to examine the impact of national culture on classification shifting in Eastern European Member States of EU Eastern European countries (EEU) vis-à-vis the Western Member States of EU (WEU). The EEU provides a unique sample to study the quality of financial reporting that the authors measure with classification shifting given that for more than five decades they were following the model of a centrally planned economy, where market-based financial reporting was absent. Yet, the EEU transitioned to a market-based economy and completed its accession to the EU.

This study uses a panel data set of firm year observations from 1996 and 2020 that covers the full transition of EEU. This empirical analysis is based on fixed effects panel regression analysis where the authors report a plethora of identifications.

This study finds classification shifting in the EEU countries since their transition to the market-based economy, though they have no long record of market-based financial reporting. This study also notices that cultural factors are associated with classification shifting across all Member States of the EU. This study further examines the impact of interactions between cultural characteristics and special items and reveal variability between WEU and EEU. As part of the robustness analysis, this study also tests the impact of culture on real earnings management measures for both WEU vs EEU, confirming the variability of the impact of culture on earnings management.

Future research could explore the role of religion differences in WEU vis-à-vis EEU states, as they are also subject to cultural differences.

The findings are important for regulators, external monitors and investors, as they show that cultural factors affect earnings management with some variability across countries in the EU, and they should be acknowledged in policymaking.

The findings show that cultural differences between EEU and the “old” Member States of the EU could explain classification shifting.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that sheds light on the impact of national culture on classification shifting in EEU of EU vis-à-vis the “old” WEU of EU.

This study aims to identify the intellectual structure of expanded audit reporting (EAR), offers a quantitative summation of prominent themes, contributors and knowledge gaps and provides suggestions for further research.

This research uses various bibliometric techniques, including co-word and co-citation analysis for EAR science mapping, based on 123 papers from Scopus Database between 1991 and 2022.

The results show EAR research is focused on Audit Quality; Auditor Liability and Litigation; Communicative Value and Readability; Audit Fees; and Disclosure. Regarding EAR research, Brasel et al. (2016), article is the most cited paper, Bédard J. is the most cited author, Laval University is the most influential university, The Accounting Review is the most cited journal and USA is the leading country. Furthermore, the results show that in common law countries, in which shareholder rights and litigation risk is high, topics such as disclosure quality and audit litigation have been addressed more; and in civil legal system countries, which usually favor stakeholders’ rights, topics of gender diversity or corporate governance have been more studied.

This research has practical implications for standard setters and regulators, who can identify important, overlooked and emerging issues and consider them in future policies and standards.

This paper contributes to the literature by providing a more objective and comprehensive status of the accounting research on EAR, identifying the gaps in the literature and proposing a direction for future research to continue the discussion on the value-relevance of EAR to achieve more transparency and less audit expectation gap.