Search results

The main objective of the study was to compare Business Responsibility and Sustainability Report (BRSR) norms with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards, so as to establish whether BRSR norms match the global standards and best practices or not. Additionally, an effort was made to ascertain and highlight areas where BRSR norms are more comprehensive, just match, or require further refinement to be at par with the GRI standards. The study highlights the similarities and dissimilarities between the internationally accepted GRI standards and the BRSR framework; thereby suggesting areas of improvement for the BRSR framework.

Scrutinised all the 36 standards of the Global reporting initiative and BRSR format and guidelines of the Securities Exchange Board of India. The Content Analysis Technique was used to ascertain the percentages of similarities between the two frameworks.

The content analysis found that there are 52.30% similarities between BRSR norms and GRI standards. Further, this study shows the factors that led to the dissimilarities between BRSR and GRI standards. This study found 18 areas where BRSR is more informative than GRI, and 7 areas where BRSR could be further refined.

This study contributes to research in the sustainability reporting framework to be adopted by Indian listed companies. There are a few Indian listed companies who are already reporting as per the GRI framework and might perceive the BRSR as a separate reporting altogether. But as found in this study, more than half of the BRSR framework is similar to the GRI framework; thus, half the work is almost done. As such this study helps Indian firms in developing an understanding of the BRSR and puts in perspective its standing among global sustainability reporting standards. This study shall help institutional investors, rating agencies, and external assurers to better visualize an Indian entity, by referring to its Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting.

Integrated reporting enhances the meaningfulness of non-financial information, but whether this enhancement is progressive or regressive from a sustainability perspective is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of the Integrated Reporting (<IR>) Framework on the disclosure of financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information in integrated reports.

Using a disclosure index constructed from the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 Guidelines and UN Sustainable Development Goals, the authors content analysed integrated reports of 40 companies from the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Pilot Programme Business Network published between 2015 and 2017. The content analysis distinguished between financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information.

The extent of sustainability-related disclosures in integrated reports remained more or less constant over the study period. Impact-material disclosures were more prominent than financial material ones. Impact-material disclosures mainly related to environmental aspects, while labour practices-related disclosures were predominantly financially material. The balance between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures varied based on factors such as industry environmental sensitivity and country-specific characteristics, such as the country’s legal system and development status.

The paper presents a unique disclosure index to distinguish between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures. Researchers can use this disclosure index to critically examine the nature of sustainability-related disclosure in corporate reports.

This study offers an in-depth understanding of the influence of non-financial reporting frameworks, such as the <IR> Framework that uses a financial materiality perspective, on sustainability reporting. The findings reveal that the practical implementation of the <IR> Framework resulted in sustainability reporting outcomes that deviated from theoretical expectations. Exploring the materiality concept that underscores sustainability-related disclosures by companies using the <IR> Framework is useful for predicting the effects of adopting the Sustainability Disclosure Standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, which also emphasises financial materiality.

Despite an emphasis on financial materiality in the <IR> Framework, companies continue to offer substantial impact-material information, implying the potential for companies to balance both financial and broader societal concerns in their reporting.

While prior research has delved into the practices of regulated integrated reporting, especially in the unique context of South Africa, this study focuses on voluntary adoption, attributing observed practices to intrinsic company motivations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to explicitly explore the nature of materiality in sustainability-related disclosure. The research also introduces a nuanced understanding of contextual factors influencing sustainability reporting.

This study examines how assurors make sense of sustainability assurance (SA) work and how interactions with assurance team members and clients shape assurors’ sensemaking and their actual SA work.

To obtain detailed accounts of how SA work occurs on the ground, this study explores three SA engagements by interviewing the main actors involved, both at the client firms and at their Big Four assurance providers.

Individual assurors’ (i.e. partners and other team members) sensemaking of SA work results in the crafting of their logics of action (LoAs), that is, their meanings about the objectives of SA work and how to conduct it. Without organizational socialization, team members may not arrive at shared meanings and deviate from the team-wide assurance approach. To fulfill their objectives for SA work, assurors may engage in socialization with clients or assume a temporary role. Yet, the role negotiations taking place in the shadows of the scope negotiations determine their default role during the engagement.

Two options are available to help SA statement users gauge the relevance of SA work: either displaying the SA work performed or making it more uniform.

This study theoretically grounds how assurors make sense of SA work and documents how (the lack of) professional socialization, organizational socialization and socialization of frequent interaction partners at the client shape actual SA work. Thereby, it unravels the SA work concealed behind SA statements.

This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.

The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.

Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.

Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.

The purpose of this study is to examine accountants’ application of principles-based accounting standards to a lawsuit contingency recognition scenario and the potential role that accounting work experience plays in mitigating accountants’ aggressive financial reporting.

This study presents a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with accounting experience (measured as high vs low) and contingency type (asset vs liability) as independent variables and accountants’ lawsuit contingency conservatism likelihood judgments and US$ recognition recommendations as the dependent variables.

Consistent with expectations, findings indicate that more experienced accountants are more likely to recognize liabilities and items that decrease income and less likely to recognize assets and items that increase income than their less experienced counterparts. Accountants also recommended recognizing lower (higher) mean US$ amounts for assets (liabilities), as expected. Supplemental analyses show a significant moderated-mediated effect whereby the interactive effect of contingency type and accounting experience on individuals’ US$ recognition recommendations is partially mediated through the nature of the conservatism judgment.

The finding that less experienced accountants report more aggressively than more experienced accountants when applying a principles-based standard supports the call for using judgment frameworks in imprecise standard settings and suggests that firms may want to ensure that accountants with adequate work experience are on hand as U.S. generally accepted accounting principles become more principles-based over time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the impact of accounting work experience on the application of principles-based accounting standards and the mitigation of aggressive financial reporting. Our supplemental analyses also identify the nature of the conservatism judgment as a mediating mechanism which partially explains more experienced accountants’ US$ asset and liability recognition recommendations.

This paper aims to investigate whether the two dominant financial reporting regimes, US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are associated with audit pricing and audit report lags.

In 2007, the US SEC eliminated the requirement for foreign registrants to reconcile their financial statements to US GAAP from IFRS. In this post-reconciliation setting in the USA, the authors use panel ordinary least square regressions to examine a sample of foreign firms cross-listed in the USA reporting under IFRS and US domestic firms reporting under US GAAP during the fiscal year 2007–2019.

The authors find that the firms reporting under IFRS have longer audit report lags than firms reporting under US GAAP. In addition, the authors find that firms reporting under IFRS pay higher audit fees than their US GAAP counterparts. The results are robust after controlling for the firm- and country-specific characteristics as well as using propensity-score matching.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide empirical evidence that the differences between the two reporting regimes are associated with auditor behavior, possibly through additional audit efforts and audit complexity associated with auditing the principle-based IFRS relative to the rule-based US GAAP.

This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).

A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB.

There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion.

The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

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 aims to assess if the voluntary reporting of adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA), a widely used non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) measure, has effects on information asymmetry and value relevance and how the adjustments to GAAP earnings made to derive it contribute to these effects. This study focuses on firms from two countries with contrasting institutional settings, Canada and France.

Relying on multivariate analyses and using Heckman’s procedure to address the sample self-selection issue, this study first estimates the likelihood of a firm to report adjusted EBITDA. Then, this study examines if adjusted EBITDA, as well as the adjustments made to GAAP earnings to derive adjusted EBITDA (adjustments), affect a firm’s information asymmetry and its value. These adjustments are essentially GAAP-grounded items that are discarded by management to derive non-GAAP adjusted EBITDA. The dependent variables are share price volatility, as a proxy for information asymmetry, alongside market-to-book and stock market return as indicators of value.

In terms of the used sample, results suggest that Canadian firms are much more likely to report adjusted EBITDA than French firms. Chief executive officer (CEO) attributes (CEO power) appears to increase such likelihood. Moreover, for both Canadian and French firms, adjusted EBITDA is associated with reduced stock market volatility, an indication of lower information asymmetry, as well as higher market-to-book and returns, suggesting value relevance. The results also indicate that investors view the adjustments to GAAP earnings made by management to derive adjusted EBITDA as not value relevant (similar to noise). The GAAP-grounded elements that management discard to derive adjusted EBITDA actually increase information asymmetry.

This study adds to prior research on the interface between a CEO attributes and governance and non-GAAP reporting. This study also provides evidence that, despite very different institutional settings, non-GAAP reporting conveys relevant information to capital markets’ participants in both France and Canada. Hence, a country’s institutional setting may have a differential impact on the disclosure choice but not on the resulting value relevance of such disclosure. Finally, this study extends the non-GAAP literature by examining the value relevance of a widely used yet under-researched measure, adjusted EBITDA.

This study aims to examine the impact of firm-level corporate social responsibility (CSR) governance characteristics on the extent, quality and comprehensiveness of CSR reporting of Pakistani listed enterprises.

This study used content analysis of corporate annual reports and stand-alone CSR reports available on corporate websites in 2021 to identify CSR-related governance features and to calculate CSR reporting scores. Multivariate regression is used to test relationships. In addition, the analysis tested the moderating role of profitability in these relationships.

Firm-level CSR governance characteristics contribute to the extent, quality and comprehensiveness of CSR reporting in a developing country. Further, results confirm that profitability moderates the relationship between CSR governance and the extent and comprehensiveness of CSR reporting.

This study employed cross-sectional data and focused on a single developing country. Future studies might include a cross-national sample and longitudinal data to demonstrate the broader relevance of these findings. The outcomes of this study are restricted to CSR disclosures based on CSR reports and annual reports. Future research may examine additional corporate communication channels, such as websites and social media platforms.

This research validates the important role of CSR governance mechanisms as a driver of comprehensive CSR reporting. Business leaders and policymakers can facilitate improved corporate reporting by requiring companies to implement CSR-related governance mechanisms.

This is the first study to test the influence of firm-level CSR governance mechanisms in promoting the quantity, quality and comprehensiveness of CSR reporting in a developing country.