Search results

This study aims to provide evidence of how budget officers use non-financial and accrual-based cost information in the budgeting process and how the usage of this information is influenced by financial constraints.

A randomized survey-based field experiment investigating budget officers in 546 Japanese local governments (LGs) was conducted. This allowed us to identify the budget officers' decision-making in the public sector budgeting process by creating and analyzing primary data with regression models.

We found that budget officers suppress budget amounts based on non-financial information of good performances. Under fiscal constraints, officers further reduce budget amounts using information on high accrual-based costs and poor non-financial performance.

Our survey-based field experiment allowed us to obtain primary data from officers making budget decisions. To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the first evidence that non-financial good and poor performance information and accrual-based cost information affect budget officers' decision-making under financial constrain.

This paper aims to investigate whether managers use impression management through the presentation of non-financial information in an integrated reporting setting.

The authors performed an experiment with experienced professional controllers and part-time students enrolled in the executive master’s degree in finance and control at universities in the Netherlands. In this experiment, we manipulated the financial performance to test if managers present non-financial information differently based on the firm’s financial performance.

This study found that impression management is not applied by including or excluding non-financial key performance indicators (KPIs) in the integrated report, but by using more prominent presentation forms for positive non-financial performance and non-prominent ones for negative non-financial performance. However, the use of impression management through the presentation form decreased when the firms’ financial performance was positive. In that instance, this study noted that managers statistically significantly more often decided to present poor non-financial performance in a prominent presentation format in comparison to managers who were not aware of the financial performance.

A limitation of this paper is that the authors focused on only two impression management strategies: opportunistic/under-reporting and the presentation form. This analysis shows that the use of impression management mainly seems to occur through the presentation format. Future research could investigate other impression management strategies in an integrated reporting setting.

The results of this study are of importance for users of integrated reports, because it will provide more insight into whether firms are truly transparent in their integrated reports. Furthermore, the theoretical implication of this study is relevant to regulatory authorities, because it sheds light on the different forms of impression management used in integrated reporting and the influence of positively or negatively performing KPIs on the decisions of preparers of integrated reports.

Therefore, in this study, the authors add to prior literature by investigating the concept of impression management in an integrated reporting setting. More specifically, the authors perform an experiment and focus on different forms of impression management (the presentation format and under-reporting) through non-financial KPIs in an integrated reporting setting and link it to firm financial performance.

Research dealing with non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations is progressively expanding. This paper systematizes the existing literature with the aim of understanding how research is developing and identifying the gaps in need of further investigation.

A structured literature review was conducted by rigorously following the steps defined in previous studies. The structured nature of the literature review paves the way for a solid understanding and critical analysis of the state of the art of research on non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations.

The critical analysis of the literature shows that most existing studies have focused on sustainability reporting in higher education institutions, local governments and state-owned enterprises, while remaining silent on the healthcare sector. Additional theoretical and empirical approaches should feed future research. Several areas deserve further investigations that might impactfully affect public sector organizations, standard setters, practitioners and scholars.

This paper offers a comprehensive review of the literature on different reporting formats that public sector organizations adopt to report various dimensions of their performance to both internal and external stakeholders. The structured literature review enables the identification of future directions for the literature in this field.

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.

The paper aims to explore the effect of stakeholder pressure on the disclosure of key performance indicators (KPIs) and the patterns of this disclosure in large public interest entities (PIEs).

The study is based on the content analysis of the disclosures provided by 169 large (PIEs) operating in Poland in 2019. The data was hand-collected from the companies’ non-financial statements. The research hypotheses were empirically tested with the use of linear regression.

The explanation for the disclosure of KPIs can be found in stakeholder theory, operationalized by stakeholder pressure linked to industry. In line with the expectations, business-related KPIs are disclosed by companies operating in industries with high pressure from investors, environment-related KPIs are presented by companies operating in environmentally sensitive industries and companies operating in industries with high pressure from employees disclose society-related KPIs. According to the results of the study, reporting on employee-related KPIs is accompanied by environmental and social KPI disclosures.

The study contributes to the literature on corporate non-financial disclosures as it provides new insights into non-financial KPI disclosures in a new and relatively unexplored institutional setting established by the Directive 2014/95/EU. While researchers recognize the stakeholders’ environmental and social concerns, there is nevertheless a lack of understanding of their implications for KPIs in measuring social practice. The research fills that gap by addressing the specific impact of different stakeholder groups on the disclosure of KPIs.

This paper aims to investigate the application of the Italian Banking Association (ABI) industry-specific reporting standard in microfinance institutions by determining whether or not a banking sector reporting standard can enhance non-financial reporting (NFR) quality and volume to meet stakeholders’ information needs in the specific setting investigated.

This paper develops an analysis of available ABI documents from 2006 to 2013 to conduct a content analysis of the quality and volume of the NFR of 98 Italian cooperative banks (CBs) during the 2008–2009 ABI implementation year. These data are analysed using two regression models to investigate the quality and volume of NFR disclosures.

The findings suggest that for CBs in the Italian banking sector, the information provided in the non-financial reports in adherence to the ABI sector reporting standard is relevant in terms of both volume and quality. However, when investigating specific categories of disclosure such as the community, the relevance of the ABI reporting standard is fairly low. The authors question the “one-size-fits-all” approach favouring a more sector-tailored approach to ensure that the NFR covers key sectoral concerns.

The high heterogeneity in the sector could negatively affect the capability of sector-specific standards to truly foster reliable, complete and extensive NFR. Therefore, NFR standard-setters, such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, should consider these heterogeneities.

Reporting standardisation should be multi-voiced and include different – even contrasting – perspectives to promote expert and non-expert engagements.

This paper focuses on hybrid organisations and shows how the theoretical approach of dialogic accountability can improve the quality of sector-specific reporting standards.

This paper investigates whether and how Directive 2014/95/EU affects financial performance as well as its moderation effect on the relationship between financial and non-financial performance, involving different stakeholders' perspectives.

We adopted the panel data approach to perform random effects regression analysis on a sample of 435 European listed non-financial companies, considering a timeframe of six years. Furthermore, the moderation effect of the Directive 2014/95/EU on the relationship between financial and non-financial performance has been tested.

NFD regulation negatively affects firms' operating profitability and shareholder value while produces no effects on debtholders' returns. Nevertheless, the Directive 2014/95/EU has general positive moderating effects on the relationship between non-financial and financial performance, mitigating the direct costs induced by pursuing non-financial performance.

Shifting from mimetic to coercive isomorphism caused a strengthening of the complementarity between financial and non-financial performance dimensions, extending the concept of performance itself. The analysis carried out is limited to a short-term timeframe and on non-financial companies subject to the Directive 2014/95/EU.

The paper highlights trade-offs between the costs induced by non-financial activities and the benefits of being compliant with the non-financial disclosure (NFD) regulation, supporting managers in allocating business resources.

This paper is among the first that investigates the impact of mandatory NFD on the relationship between non-financial and financial performance. It is also one of the earliest in finding some pieces of evidence on the direct impact of Directive 2014/95/EU on EU companies' financial performance.

With the European Union (EU) Directive 2014/95/UE, there is a growing interest in the corporate disclosure of “non-financial information” (NFI). However, no generally accepted definition of this term exists. This paper aims to reflect on the meaning and importance of the NFI definition by investigating how this term is defined in the literature and by exploring scholars’ cognitive perceptions of its meaning.

Two different research methods were used. A systematic literature review of NFI definitions was integrated with a survey to a sample of Italian scholars working on the NFI research topic.

This study demonstrates that the meaning of NFI is still ambiguous and multifaceted as neither a common understanding nor a single and generally accepted definition of the term exists. As the advent of the EU directive, this term has often referred to information about society and the environment, though most academics define and understand NFI differently, as corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues, intellectual capital information and information that are external to financial statements. These definitions pave the way for conceptualising NFI as a genus and its different understandings (i.e. CSR, ESG information, etc.) as species. Therefore, what constitutes NFI is open to interpretations.

This paper contributes to enriching the literature on the meaning of NFI and providing further insights into explaining the heterogeneity of the NFI definition.

This paper provides researchers, practitioners and regulators with some novel insights into the meaning and understanding of NFI. It provides regulators and standard setters with knowledge for building a commonly accepted definition of NFI. Meanwhile, policymakers, regulators, practitioners and academics can contribute to establishing a definition by following three approaches: regulative, open and adaptive. This can help to avoid the risk of an information gap among stakeholder expectations, regulator requests and NFI reporting in practice.

The literature focussing on the meaning of NFI is still scarce. This study contributes to extending the knowledge of how the term NFI is defined and understood by academics.

This study aims to examine whether chief executive officer (CEO) pay-performance sensitivity to shareholder wealth is related to the use of non-financial performance measures in incentive contracts.

Using hand-collected performance measure data in a sample of S&P 500 firms across the period 1994–2010, this study investigates the sensitivity of CEO bonus and cash pay to shareholder wealth of firms that use non-financial performance (NFPM) measures of varying types and contractual weights in their bonus contracts along with financial measures (NFPM firms) in comparison to that of firms using financial measures only (FPM firms).

This study finds evidence that the pay-performance sensitivity is stronger in NFPM firms than in FPM firms. These results are driven by the use of CEO individual goals and operational efficiency. Furthermore, when using environmental, social and governance factors, the pay-performance sensitivity is stronger in terms of accounting performance only. This study also finds that using NFPM enhances pay-performance sensitivity more as their contractual weights increase and as financial risk increases.

These findings are important to stakeholders, and especially regulators in understanding incentive effects of alternative performance measures. This study also sheds light on what types of non-financial measures are better in helping firms align CEOs’ incentives to shareholders’ interests.

This study contributes to prior research on benefits of non-financial information within the context of executive compensation. This study presents original results about the effects of contractual weights of non-financial measures and financial risk on CEO pay-performance sensitivity. This study also presents new insights regarding how different types of non-financial measures affect CEO pay-performance sensitivity.