Search results

This study aims to investigate the quality of disclosure of a cutting-edge reporting tool – integrated reporting (<IR>) – in terms of its effectiveness to report on COVID-19 pandemic information, its ability to provide forward-looking information and risk impact implications, and its quality determinants in challenging times.

Thanks to a content analysis of 247 <IR> for FY20, an integrated reporting disclosure score was developed to assess the disclosure quality provided by the sampled companies. Three research questions were tested through logistic regressions.

Non-financial disclosure activities struggle to provide adequate information in terms of potential future scenarios, risk assessment and forward-looking analyses. However, companies incorporated in “Anglo-Saxon” territories drafted integrated reports of higher quality. More recently, incorporated companies have made a greater effort to measure and report COVID-19 pandemic impacts on environmental, social and governance and business activities, also increasing their risk assessment and mitigation efforts. Concerning the determinants of disclosure quality, leverage, corporate governance structures, country of incorporation and belonging to “high impact” industries all lead to a higher quality of <IR> disclosure.

Examining in detail corporate social responsibility activities and corporate governance integrity is pivotal to orienting strategy towards sustainable trajectories: to do so, corporate reporting and disclosure practices are essential tools. In this context, corporate governance systems that emphasize board diversity are proven, even in disruptive circumstances, to play a crucial role in providing corporate reports of higher quality. High disclosure quality that goes beyond mere financial results is considered to be necessary to remain competitive strategically, socially and environmentally.

In recent times, stakeholders have called on corporate organizations especially those charged with governance to embrace full disclosure on non-financial issues, especially sustainability reporting. Based on this premise, this study aims to examine the influence of corporate board and assurance on sustainability reporting practices (SRP) of selected 80 firms from 8 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

To measure the corporate board, the authors use both board variables and audit committee variables. Also, the authors adapted the sustainability score model as used by previous authors in the field of sustainability disclosure to measure SRPs. The analysis was done using both ordered logistic regression and probit regression models.

The results show that the combination of board corporate and assurance has a positive and significant impact on the sustainability reporting practice of selected firms in sub-Saharan Africa.

The study places emphasis on the need for strong collaboration between the corporate board and external assurance in evaluating and enhancing the quality of sustainability disclosure.

The study bridged the gap in the literature in the area of corporate board, assurance and SRP of corporate firms which has received little attention within sub-Saharan Africa.

This study aims to propose a longitudinal analysis of motivations for Integrated Reporting (IR) adoption, internal changes, the benefits of IR implementation and compliance challenges.

The authors analyse a longitudinal case study of an Italian-listed company (Eni) participating in the IR-Pilot Programme (PP) and covering 10 years of IR adoption. The analysis was based on a mixed-method approach that included semi-structured interviews, content analysis of annual reports and triangulation with other data sources. Results are discussed regarding institutional theory, legitimacy theory and diffusion of innovation theory.

The study suggests that motivations for adopting IR change over time and participation in the IR-PP helps Eni acquire a comprehensive and substantial integrated view of value creation over time, makes integrated culture a key factor for strategic business sustainability and confirms the readiness of early adopters to comply with the non-financial Directive (NFD).

This study, among the few longitudinal case studies, provides organisations, regulators and academics with insights into the motivations driving the successful adoption and implementation of IR and the NFD. The results may help companies consider one of the tools currently deemed to bring sustainability into action and participation in pilot groups.

This study highlights the influence of non-financial sustainability reporting and firm reputation (FR) on the China Stock Exchange. The study is based on the components of sustainability reporting that influence FR.

A simple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model is initially run to test the hypotheses. Advanced econometric methods are used to detect the presence of heteroskedasticity. The study utilizes fixed-effect, two-stage least squares (2SLS) and two-step generalized method of moments (GMM) regression models to address endogeneity issues.

Findings suggest that NFSR has a negative influence on FR. Conversely, environmental, social and governance (ESG) sustainability reporting exhibited positive associations with a FR in fixed-effect, 2SLS and GMM results.

This study has limitations, and data collection is restricted to the period from January 2018 to June 2023, limiting the scope of findings due to data constraints. Brand equity measurement is considered only one aspect of a company's activities, and other methods can also be considered for measuring brand equity. Another limitation is a standardized method for measuring NFSR. While this study used the Arianpoor and Salehi (2021) model to measure sustainability reporting in the Chinese market, future research could explore different methods.

The findings of this study have important practical implications for corporate management, highlighting reputation challenges and the strategic importance of sustainability. Managers are encouraged to use NFSR strategically to enhance their reputation and corporate strategy.

The social implications highlight ownership and regulatory structures, promoting enhanced sustainability reporting in China's business culture. This insight informs policymakers, businesses and stakeholders regarding the importance of sustainability reporting, guiding decisions on corporate reputation and sustainability regulations.

The research indicates the importance of context-specific sustainability reporting for enhancing reputation. It provides insights into sustainability's impact on a company's reputation, promoting responsible practices for a sustainable global economy. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first research that utilizes the NFSR frameworks and a sample of firms in China to discuss sustainability reporting with different guidelines.

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.

This paper aims to shed light on the relationship between audit committee attributes and integrated reporting quality (IRQ).

Data on a sample of 360 European firms selected from the STOXX Europe 600 index between 2010 and 2021 were used to test the model based on multiple regression for panel data to analyze the effect of audit committee attributes on IRQ. This paper considers generalized least squares (GLS) estimation for panel data models.

The findings of this study confirm expectations concerning the impact of audit committee attributes on the IRQ. Indeed, audit committee independence and meetings have a significant positive impact on IRQ. However, no significant association is found between financial expertise and IRQ.

The findings of this paper have significant implications for policymakers, who, through proper legislation, should encourage the formation of larger audit committees and ones with a higher percentage of independent members. They should also establish a minimum number of audit committee meetings per year. These regulations, which aim to increase the efficacy of audit committees’ supervisory and monitoring tasks, would promote corporate transparency and improve IRQ.

This study supports the existing literature. First, it expands the scientific debate on IRQ. Second, unlike previous studies, which used more subjective methods to measure the degree of integrated reporting (IR), this study relied on the CGVS variable from the DataStream ASSET 4 Database. Third, the research is novel because it indicates the crucial role of internal assurance mechanisms in wide managerial reporting practices in European companies. The sample consisted of European firms only, whereas previous studies used a global sample. Finally, this study is based on recent data (2010–2021), while other studies covered the period between 2008 and 2013.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure has gained momentum in corporate reporting. Addressing a research gap on the subject, this paper aims to explore the theories involved in ESG disclosure studies, thereby shedding light on the dominant theoretical approaches and emerging perspectives that inform this type of disclosure.

A systematic review of 142 selected accounting studies published up to June 2023 devoted to ESG – and corporate social responsibility (CSR) – disclosure was conducted. The theories underlying these studies were examined through a descriptive performance analysis complemented by a systematic qualitative text analysis using RStudio and QDA Miner software tools.

The study reveals that five dominant theories stand out among the overall 32 found: stakeholder theory first, followed by legitimacy, institutional, agency and signaling theories. Theories are often combined into an integrated theoretical framework. The findings also show an array of minor constructs – many of them unconventional – that offer fresh perspectives for studying ESG disclosure, such as upper echelons, stakeholder salience, cognitive cost and reputation theories, among others.

This paper provides an original literature contribution by offering a comprehensive overview of the mainstream and niche theoretical perspectives underpinning accounting studies focused on ESG disclosure, with a nuanced scope of discussion on the use of ESG/CSR terms.

Information infrastructures can enable or constrain how companies pursue their visions of sustainability reporting and help address the urgent need to understand how corporate activity affects sustainability outcomes and how socio-ecological challenges affect corporate activity. The paper examines the relationship between sustainability reporting information infrastructures and sustainability reporting practice.

The paper mobilises a socio-technical perspective and the conception of infrastructure, the socio-technical arrangement of technical artifacts and social routines, to engage with a qualitative dataset comprised of interview and documentary evidence on the development and construction of sustainability reporting information.

The results detail how sustainability reporting information infrastructures are used by companies and depict the difficulties faced in generating reliable sustainability data. The findings illustrate the challenges and measures undertaken by entities to embed automation and integration, and to enhance sustainability data quality. The findings provide insight into how infrastructures constrain and support sustainability reporting practices.

The paper explains how infrastructures shape sustainability reporting practices, and how infrastructures are shaped by regulatory demands and costs. Companies have developed “uneven” infrastructures supporting legislative requirements, whilst infrastructures supporting non-legislative sustainability reporting remain underdeveloped. Consequently, infrastructures supporting specific legislation have developed along unitary pathways and are often poorly integrated with infrastructures supporting other sustainability reporting areas. Infrastructures developed around legislative requirements are not necessarily constrained by financial reporting norms and do not preclude specific sustainability reporting visions. On the contrary, due to regulation, infrastructure supporting disclosures that offer an “inside out” perspective on sustainability reporting is often comparatively well developed.

New public management (NPM) has transformed the public sector auditing context, although in quite different ways. Further, investigations into NPM’s impact on public sector auditors and audit institutions have been largely unconnected, with the exception of the critical examination of performance audits. We investigate the question of how public sector auditors’ roles and activities have changed as a result of NPM and later reforms.

We examine and synthesise public sector audit research examining reforms since the year 2000. The research presented considers changes to external and internal public sector audits as well as the development of public sector audit institutions – known as supreme audit institutions (SAIs).

Considerable changes have occurred. Many were influenced by NPM, but others have evolved from the eco-system of accounting, auditing and public sector management. External auditors have responded to an increase in demand for accountability. Additional management and governance techniques have been introduced from the private sector, such as internal auditing and audit committees. NPM has also led to conflicting trends, particularly when governments introduced competition to public sector auditing by contracting out but then chose to centralise to improve accountability. There is also greater international influence now through bodies like the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) and similar regional bodies.

NPM reforms and the eco-system have impacted public sector auditing. Sustainability reporting is emerging as an area requiring more auditing attention; auditors also need to continue to develop better ways to communicate with citizens. Further, research into auditing in non-Western nations and emerging technologies is also required, especially where it provides learnings around more valuable audit practices. Empirical evidence is required of the strengths and weaknesses of SAIs’ structural variety.

The study aims to investigate market reactions associated with the JUST 100 rankings published by JUST Capital, a non-profit organization, as well as differences in financial reporting quality and performance between selected firms and their industry peers.

This study uses a sample of 431 firms selected as the 100 America’s Most Just Companies between 2016 and 2020 by JUST Capital. This study performs both an event study to determine whether the rankings are useful to investors and cross-sectional regression analyses on the characteristics of selected firms compared to their peers.

This study finds that investors react positively to selected firms around the time of the release of the JUST 100 rankings, suggesting that the rankings are decision-useful. This study also finds that selected firms exhibit higher accounting quality and financial performance than their peers.

Rankings may not be free from bias because of JUST Capital’s ownership of an exchange-traded fund.

The findings validate the rankings as well as the methodology used by JUST Capital, as they show market participants value firms that engage in socially responsible actions through their commitment to positively impact five key stakeholder groups: employees, customers, communities, environment and shareholders.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that shows the importance of the JUST 100 rankings for investment decisions. Considering the growing push for companies to disclose environmental, social and governance (ESG) activities, this study provides evidence to support ESG disclosure regulations.