Search results

This paper documents the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 34 literature, primarily in the areas of (1) accountability and improved reporting, (2) government-wide financial statements and accrual accounting and (3) infrastructure asset capitalization and the modified approach. The paper also evaluates the state of the research, recognizes implications for practice and standard setting, identifies knowledge gaps and proposes avenues for future research.

The authors identified the articles in this narrative review by searching Google Scholar and EBSCO for the years 2000 through 2023, using the keywords GASB 34, government-wide financial statements, government fund statements, infrastructure assets and modified approach.

This review finds that GASB 34 requirements improved accountability and reporting, but GASB can still make improvements. The addition of the MD&A section requirement improved readability but placed a burden on preparers. Analysis of government-wide statement research indicates that the accrual-based Statement of Net Assets provides value in credit decisions, while the accrual-based Statement of Activities does not. The research on infrastructure accounting requirements shows limited adoption of the modified approach and some comparability issues with choices involving capitalization thresholds, baselines and asset management systems (AMSs). Based on this review, the authors also present suggestions to further this line of research.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first article that reviews over 20 years of GASB 34 related literature. The review and suggestions for future research are timely as GASB is in the process of reexamining some of GASB 34's requirements.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of the implementation of the critical audit matters (CAMs) disclosure requirement and the subsequent relationship between CAM disclosures and audit report lag, as well as audit fees in the USA.

This study used difference-in-differences analyses to investigate the impact that the implementation of the requirement for auditors to report CAMs on their audit report has on the audit process. It also used levels regression models to examine the relationship that CAM disclosures have with audit report lag and audit fees.

This study found that the implementation of the CAM disclosure requirement in the USA reduced audit report lag while not significantly affecting audit fees. This suggests that the CAM disclosure requirement may increase the cooperation between auditors and managers and improve the efficiency of the audit process.

This study’s results are informative for assessing the economic impact of requiring CAM disclosures, which should be of importance to regulators, auditors and accounting researchers.

This study used different approaches to investigate two aspects of the CAM disclosure requirement – the effect of the implementation of the disclosure requirement and the subsequent effects related to CAM reporting outcomes. Unlike many previous studies investigating CAM disclosures, which relied on experiments and questionnaires, this study used actual CAM disclosure data in the USA to investigate the impact on audit report lag and audit fees.

This paper aims to examine the perspectives of auditors, regulators and financial report preparers on the effects of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting on audit effort, fees, quality and report transparency.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (13 Audit Partners, 5 Chief Financial Officers and 3 regulators) and thematically analysed the interviews. They use the frame of “Paradox of Transparency” to explain the findings.

Auditors perceive that the overall quality control of their audits has improved both in the planning and execution stages, and such improvement can mostly be attributed to the coercive pressures from professional bodies and regulators. Nevertheless, audit fee remains unchanged. Auditors disclose industry generic items and descriptions of KAMs, sometimes masking the real problem areas of the clients. Even after improving the performative audit quality, transparency of audit reporting has not improved. Issues that warrant going concern qualifications or audit report modifications are now reported as KAMs. Hence, KAMs reporting might make the audit report less transparent.

Localised audit environments and institutions affect the transparency of KAMs reporting. Without attention to corporate governance and auditors’ independence issues, paradoxically, performative improvement in audit quality (due to the KAMs reporting requirement) does not enhance the transparency of audit reports.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide field-level evidence in Bangladesh and other developing countries about the perceptions of auditors, financial report preparers and regulators on the effects of KAMs reporting on audit efforts, fees, quality and report transparency.

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.

Today’s financial reporting inherits its origin in money, numbers and accounting dated back 7,000 years in Mesopotamia. The Italian Luca Pacioli, “first person to publish a work on double-entry bookkeeping”¹ is regarded as the father of accounting and bookkeeping. In USA, SEC issued its first Accounting Series Release which appeared to be Commission’s views on auditing and accounting, later, in 1982 has become known as Financial Reporting Releases. Today more than 100 countries permit publicly held companies to use International Financial Reporting Standards. This meteoric rise for use of financial reporting was due to a worldwide demand from regulators, lenders, trade partners, businesses, investors and policy makers. “The Companies Act of 1994 mandates requirement for financial reporting by all companies in Bangladesh.”² Banks’ reporting formats and disclosures in Bangladesh based on BAS 30 is similar to the requirements of the Companies Act of 1994. The research depicts how the two banking institutions of Bangladesh – Islami Bank Bangladesh Limited (IBBL) and Grameen Bank having two philosophical objectives – uniquely present their results of operation under a uniform financial reporting system and how they differ in their financial operations.

This study aims to assess the extent of the mandatory and voluntary Shariah compliance disclosure in the Shariah Committee Report of Islamic financial institutions (IFIs) in Malaysia. The study highlights the accountability and transparency of the Shariah Committee members to provide full disclosure of relevant Shariah compliance information to the stakeholders.

The study adopts content analysis to quantify and code the number of sentences in the Shariah Committee Report disclosed in the 2016 annual report of 47 IFIs in Malaysia. The extent of Shariah compliance disclosure in the Shariah Committee Report is measured based on the Standard (S) and Guidance (G) items outlined in the Shariah Governance Framework (SGF) as well as the Financial Reporting for Islamic Banking Institutions and takaful operators guidelines issued by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) as the reference.

The findings indicate that majority of IFIs complied with the minimum mandatory disclosure requirement based on the Standard (S) items in the Shariah Committee Report as required by the SGF. Highest information on the purpose of Shariah Committee engagement and scope of work performed is disclosed to the stakeholders in almost all IFIs. Only two prominent full-fledged Islamic bank and Islamic banking business in development financial institutions have shown highest accountability to go beyond the minimum disclosure requirement. This includes disclosing higher voluntary information on Shariah governance processes in the Shariah Committee Report of these two IFIs.

This study adopts the SGF (Bank Negara Malaysia, 2010), Financial Reporting for Islamic Banking Institutions (Bank Negara Malaysia, 2016) and Financial Reporting for Takaful Operators (Bank Negara Malaysia, 2015) as the reference to develop the measurement of Shariah compliance disclosure in the Shariah Committee Report. These guidelines issued by BNM are still effective during the period of study, i.e. the year 2016.

The findings contribute towards the relevance for BNM as the regulator to enhance the current disclosure requirement in the Shariah Committee Report as stated in the SGF especially in Islamic windows and takaful operators. The main argument of this paper is that the more information being disclosed in the Shariah Committee Report will lead to better Shariah assurances. The issuance of Shariah Governance Policy Document in 2019 is expected to enhance the credibility, accountability and transparency of the Shariah Committee members concerning their oversight responsibility towards Shariah matters in IFIs’ business operations.

After five years since the issuance of the SGF in 2010, further study on the extent of mandatory and voluntary Shariah compliance disclosure is important to highlight the accountability and transparency on the implementation of the Shariah governance across various types of IFIs in Malaysia.

This paper aims to examine the effect of corporate integrity and external assurance on Sustainability Reporting Quality (SRQ) of Malaysian public listed companies.

The study uses a longitudinal sample of 2,463 firm-year observations of non-financial firms listed on the main board of Bursa Malaysia from 2015 to 2019. The study employed panel regression that is, Fixed Effect (FE) Robust Standard Error estimation technique to test its hypotheses.

The panel regression results reveal that corporate integrity and external assurance positively and significantly influence the quality of sustainability reporting. Though the positive association shows an improvement in the SRQ of the sampled firms, it needs an improvement as the disclosure is more general and qualitative than quantitative. The present improvement in SRQ might result from some regulatory changes like the Sustainability Practice Note 9 Updates of Bursa Malaysia 2017 and the Revised MCCG Principle A to C within the same period.

The study adopts a purely quantitative approach and call for a qualitative investigation in the area in the future.

The study has policy implication for the government and regulators to strengthen compliance with the sustainability reporting guide and the Practice Note 9 Updates. It also has implication for corporate integrity and external assurance for companies, to enhance SRQ and achieve sustainable development.

The study bridged literature gaps by offering new insights and empirical evidence on the role of corporate integrity in SRQ, which has received no empirical attention in the Malaysian context.

The purpose of this study is to analyse historical events to argue the improbable prospect of radical accounting reform in corporate financial reporting (CFR) due to the absence of abstract accounting knowledge as part of accountancy professionalisation (AP).

A historical database of CFR and AP events in the UK is categorised and analysed to observe the evolution of accounting in CFR from the perspective of the sociology of professions relating to abstract knowledge in professionalisation.

CFR has always been a statutory function in the UK dependent on arbitrary accounting rules rather than expert measurements based on abstract accounting knowledge. Accounting rules have evolved as part of AP and currently form part of the statutory regulation of CFR. The accountancy profession has eschewed abstract accounting knowledge in a mutually beneficial and uncompetitive relationship with the law profession in CFR.

The study is limited to the history of CFR and AP in the UK and its findings are contrary to the sociology of professions regarding abstract knowledge, consistent with the accountancy profession’s 19th-century experience of court-related services, and indicative of normative accounting research’s redundancy.

Regarding CFR and AP in the UK, the accountancy profession is an expert subordinate branch of the law profession and has no incentive to alter the status quo of statutory accounting rule compliance prevailing over abstract accounting knowledge-based expertise in CFR.

The study questions the optimism of prior research of accounting in CFR that suggests the possibility of radical reform using abstract knowledge.