Search results

Purpose/Aim: Over the last quarter of a century, several voluntary frameworks and non-financial reporting standards have been developed by various initiatives and organisations. Especially after the 2008 financial crisis, which deepened into values crises, the need for evaluating social, environmental, and economic consequences and herein for non-financial disclosures accrued. This chapter aims to outline the current state in the ecosystem for non-financial reporting and its projected future developments and suggests further developments in this field. Since financial institutions played a negative role in the crises and will be important in future responsible investing, the authors also addressed some financial institutions’ specific non-financial issues.

Method: In search of an answer to our questions about whether existing non-financial reporting pronouncements meet (various) stakeholders’ expectations and whether international pronouncements are needed, we rely on triangulation. We start with the identification of phenomena of non-financial reporting. Description of phenomena is further on supplemented with a literate overview. Based on a review of prior research and study of the current framework’s pros and cons, we present a possible path of further development in non-financial reporting. Making that mixed-methodological approach is used (i.e. deductive and inductive reasoning).

Results/Findings: The authors deduce that there has been a substantial increase in demand for non-financial information, social responsibility ratings and other non-financial information services on behalf of preparers, users of such reports and the public. The authors particularly highlight the shortcomings that currently exist and outline the characteristics that future international non-financial reporting frameworks would have to meet with the awareness that such framework or standards will have their advantages and disadvantages. As seen by the authors, the main problem is how to achieve political consensus and then general acceptance by users.

Originality/Significance: The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation has become active in the field of non-financial reporting and started a project to become an internationally recognised standard-setter. However, with many mandatory or voluntary initiatives being started in this field, IFRS Foundation will need to address many challenges and ambiguities to become a leading organisation in non-financial reporting. Therefore, the research question is whether a new board, comparable to the International Accounting Standards Board, with the straightforward task of setting non-financial reporting standards would be needed in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to answer a specific research question: How have EU and US regulators translated the idea of central clearing into law?

A meticulous legal research is carried out. First, the pre‐crisis regulatory regime for credit default swap (CDS) is reviewed, from a securities law angle as well as from a comparative Euro‐American perspective. Next, the regulatory processes leading to the adoption of the central clearing regulations are discussed. Thereafter, a material comparative analysis is made of the provisions related to central clearing in the EU and US regulatory initiatives. Finally, the paper is concluded with an evaluation of both legislations in the light of all previous analyses.

The research first shows that central clearing regulations rely on a series of presumptions, both concerning the gravity of counterparty risk threats and the necessity of central clearing. Additionally, the EU and US clearing regulations are similar with regard to the broad innovations they introduce, i.e. the mandatory central clearing of a variety of over‐the‐counter derivatives and counterparty risk management requirements for central clearing institutions and for non‐cleared swaps. However, the specific content of the provisions often differs. Furthermore, both legislations are limited to enouncing broad principles. This is also the case for the crucial provisions related to counterparty risk management. Therefore, these provisions in se do not guarantee the proper regulation of counterparty risk management practices. Consequently, much is to be expected from the implementing measures adopted by regulatory institutions.

The paper provides an overview of those provisions in the European and US regulations that specifically concern central clearing for CDS. It is one of the first papers which does this in a very well‐structured and clearly written manner. Also it is one of the first to provide a clear comparison between the provisions in the EU and the US regulations.

This paper examines the adoption of internationally accepted accounting standards by European companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The study focuses on the evolution of the use of different generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and on the features of those companies that have adopted these non‐local GAAP.

The sample was obtained from 336 Forms 20‐F for the period 1997‐2000. Using the information included in contingency tables and Pearson chi‐square statistic, proves whether there are any relationships between GAAP choice and other explanatory factors, i.e. country, size, industry, time listed and profitability.

The majority of the analysed companies keep using domestic‐GAAP. IAS firms are mainly non‐financial entities based in Switzerland and more profitable than US‐GAAP companies, which are mainly financial entities or companies engaged in SIC code 7 (services) based in Germany and less profitable than IAS firms.

The most important limitation of the paper is the period of the study. It is admitted that a deeper analysis would imply obtaining data from the most recent years.

Bearing in mind the next adoption in Europe of International Financial Reporting Standards issued by the IASB, the results of the paper give a clue about the type of European multinationals which tend to adopt non‐local GAAP, and which kind of internationally accepted accounting standards they preferentially adopt.

The purpose of this paper is to present a review of the literature on two lines of research, corporate governance and innovation, explaining how different internal corporate governance mechanisms may be determinants of business innovation.

It explores the theoretical background and the empirical evidence regarding the influence of both ownership structure and the board of directors on company innovation. Then, conclusions are drawn and possible future research lines are presented.

No consensus was observed regarding the relation between corporate governance and innovation, with both positive and negative arguments being found, and with empirical evidence not always pointing in the same direction. Thus, new studies trying to clarify this relationship are needed.

Over recent years, interest has grown in the influence of governance mechanisms on innovation decisions taken by the management. Innovation efforts and results depend on factors that are influenced by corporate governance, such as ownership structure or the functioning of the board of directors. Thus, the paper shows an updated state of the art in this field proposing future lines for empirical research.

This paper includes a systematic and bibliometric review of research products that address risk culture published between 1996 and 2019.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol has been followed for the systematic literature review. As to the bibliometric analysis, a network helps the readers to identify the most prominent research, if any, in terms of mutual references.

Risk culture has been extensively investigated under different perspectives by scholars who belong to a research community not so much integrated in terms of reciprocal references.

Managers, policy makers and politicians should learn that it is important to understand risk culture because the effectiveness of corporate strategies and reforms pass also through cultural values of people that determine their conduct in the everyday lives.

Being still lacking, this article contributes to the literature by providing a novel theoretical framework that reconciles the different approaches through which risk culture has been investigated. The framework explains that behind risk culture there are always people and their behaviour facing risk and uncertainty. In the extent, bounded rationality might produce (mis)perceptions of risks, a large variety of human behaviour, and so different risk cultures can be observed.

The purpose of this paper is to assist the numerous regulators around the globe who are currently considering ways to impose domestic systemic importance-based capital requirements on banks.

The article discusses in some detail a number of issues from the viewpoint of regulatory practice, mentioning relevant literature where available. Comments partly reflect the experience that the Czech National Bank gathered over the past two years while preparing its own regime of domestic systemic importance-based capital requirements on banks.

The authors stress, among other points, one weakness of the (otherwise well-designed) method suggested by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision (BCBS) for assessment of banks’ systemic importance: the method is “relative” in that it does not reflect the absolute importance of the banking sector for the economy. The paper also explains that in some cases, use of individual-level rather than consolidated-level data may be preferable, in contrast to what the BCBS guidance suggests. Further, implications of the buffers over a longer term are pointed out.

As far as the authors are aware, this article is the first to comprehensively discuss the main issues surrounding both key steps (systemic importance assessment and determination of buffer level) in the process of introducing buffers based on domestic systemic importance. A number of questions related to these two steps are raised which regulators may appreciate to be reminded of, even if some of the questions are such that it is not possible to give a generally applicable answer to them.

The aim of the paper is to understand the differences between “talking” and “walking” about sustainable development goals (SDGs) in state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Specifically, the authors have conducted an analysis on 202 entities that operate within the Italian National Healthcare System (INHS) to evaluate the overall degree of transparency in term of contribution to the SDG3.

The research evaluates the degree of contribution to SDG3 by INHS through the adoption of the theoretical framework proposed by Beck et al. (2010). Specifically, the authors assess the degree of contribution to this goal using an interpretive content analysis that combines the theoretical framework with the 13 targets that composed the SDG3. For the authors’ purposes, they analyze all INHS’s website to evaluate the presence/absence of social reports produced in the periods 2015-2018.

Although the great contribution to the SDG3, the INHS is characterized by a low degree of accountability. In fact, only 12.21 per cent of INHS’s entities disclosed at least one social report during the observed period. Moreover, the authors’ results denote how the approach of INHS’s entities to social reporting is different both in term of “quality” and “quantity.”

The SOEs play a central role within the Agenda 2030 strategies. However, public managers are less oriented than private managers to adopt non-financial reporting tools. Furthermore, the authors’ results highlight the existence of asymmetric information between SOEs and citizens even if in presence of best practices such as the INHS. In this sense, the adoption of non-financial reports tool to engage in a more effective way with citizens could be a strategic driver for the achievement of highest degree of social legitimacy to operate.

The paper is of use to public managers operating in countries characterized by a high level of contribution to SDGs. Specifically, the authors’ results suggest how the adoption of reporting tools could impact positively in terms of stakeholder’s awareness to SDG themes.

This paper contributes to the understanding of the central role covered by academics, practitioners and public sectors to SDGs through the adoption of social reporting tools.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance conceptual understanding of reporting boundaries in corporate annual reports by developing a conceptual framework of the rules and principles, referred to here as dimensions, underlying boundaries. A total of nine contemporary regulations/guidelines are compared in terms of the boundary dimensions identified to illustrate similarities and differences in boundary concepts.

To develop a conceptual framework of reporting boundary dimensions, academic and industry literature were analysed to identify boundary dimensions. Thereafter, nine contemporary regulations/guidelines were compared in terms of these dimensions. A qualitative approach was taken including document analysis and content analysis.

A total of 10 key boundary dimensions were identified through analysis of academic and industry literature. Each dimension represents a continuum along which regulations/guidelines can position themselves. Taken together, the 10 dimensions provide a comprehensive description of the chosen boundary concept.

The paper contributes to accounting theory by providing a holistic conceptual framework of dimensions relating to reporting boundaries, thus answering calls for more conceptual development of the boundary construct. The conceptual framework and comparison of contemporary regulations/guidelines adds to scarce literature considering financial and non-financial boundaries simultaneously, which is relevant for annual reports. From a practical perspective, the paper brings renewed visibility to boundaries with implications for preparers, users, standard setters and auditors of annual reports.

The paper aims to examine if corporate characteristics, general contextual factors and the internal context differentiate the quality and quantity of the disclosed non-financial Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The study is based on content analysis of the disclosures provided by large public interest entities operating in Poland after the introduction of the Directive 2014/95/EU. The quality of the KPIs disclosures is measured with the disclosure index. Regression analysis and selected statistical tests are used to examine the influence of the selected factors on the differences in the index value and corporate disclosure choices as regards the KPIs.

The study findings indicate that the sample companies provide a variety of non-financial KPIs in a manner that makes their effective comparison difficult. The research confirms that mainly industry, ecologists and the reporting standard determine the significant differences in the quality of the KPIs disclosures and the quantity of presented KPIs.

The paper adds to the understanding of the differences in the quality of KPIs presentation and the choice of disclosed KPIs.

The paper includes suggestions on how to change corporate practice with regard to the non-financial KPIs disclosures.

We shed additional light on the importance of internal contextual factors such as the reporting standard and the reporters' experience in providing non-financial KPIs disclosures.

Money Laundering Reporting Officers (MLROs) carry out day-to-day anti-money laundering (AML) tasks while directors ultimately remain responsible for AML compliance. Therefore, directors’ expectations of what their MLROs do should ideally coincide with what their actual tasks to minimise liability risk. This paper aims to test for gaps between MLROs and their directors in terms of knowledge, expectations and performance of AML tasks. Likewise, it is researched whether MLROs and directors communicate well with regard to MLROs’ tasks.

This paper first develops a model for analysing the dyadic relationship between MLROs and their directors, based on the audit expectation-performance gap. Second, a paired electronic survey of MLROs and directors of German companies was conducted in autumn 2020, testing for participants’ knowledge, expectations and performance of possible AML tasks (n = 136 pairs).

While there is no knowledge or performance gap among MLROs and directors, expectations among them are partially unreasonable and their communication needs to be improved. Additionally, this study suggests that MLROs of German non-financial businesses are less knowledgeable, perform AML duties more poorly, and communicate less effectively with their directors.

Training of MLROs and communication with their directors need to be improved. Especially in the non-financial sector, action is urgently required.

This paper reports the results of the first paired survey of MLROs and their directors, offering unique insights into their relationship and the status of private AML efforts.