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 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.

The development of successful Sustainable Development Goals realization cannot be divorced from regulations governing sustainability information. Therefore, limited research on the regulatory environment regarding sustainability reporting in the Malaysian context requires further examination to ascertain the current framework. This study aims to critically assess the Malaysian Companies Act 2016 and Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance (MCCG) to examine the regulatory environment regarding the sustainability reporting framework. The examination is done to determine the extent of support provided under the Malaysian regulatory environment for the said practice.

A doctrinal methodology that relies on the extant literature, statutory instruments and case laws complemented by content analysis is adopted to explore the current regulatory environment regarding sustainability reporting.

The findings indicate that the Companies Act 2016 has already paved the way for the integration of corporate sustainability through the Business Review Report (BRR). However, the application is voluntary and hence could lead to inconsistent implementation. The MCCG has introduced the integrated reporting practice, but the application is limited to large companies on “apply and report” approach. This practice is voluntary to other types of companies, which diminishes the importance of sustainability reporting and gives rise to doubt about its efficiency in addressing sustainability in the long term. The current framework for sustainability reporting cannot be considered satisfactory, given the significance of sustainable development to the Malaysian economy and society, due to a lack of appropriate legal obligations.

This study is presently amongst the available legal literature on sustainability reporting practice in Malaysia, adding to its originality. This paper hopes to stimulate discussion among academicians on incorporating sustainability principles in the Companies Act 2016 and expanding directors’ duties.

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.

Non-financial reporting (NFR) is viewed as a major step towards organisational transparency and accountability. While the number of non-financial reports published every year has been growing exponentially over the last two decades, their quality and effectiveness in managing environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance have been questioned. Addressing these concerns, several jurisdictions, including EU Member States, introduced mandatory NFR regimes. However, the evidence on whether such regulation truly translates into enhanced ESG performance remains scarce. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by investigating the impact of the EU’s Directive 2014/95/EU (Non-financial Reporting Directive, NFRD) on the ESG scores of Polish companies.

Drawing upon institutional and strategic perspectives on legitimacy theory, the authors test the relationship between the introduction of the NFRD and the ESG scores derived from the Refinitiv database, using a sample of all those companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange whose disclosure allows for measuring ESG performance (yielding 171 firm-year observations from 43 companies).

This study’s findings show an improvement of ESG performance following the introduction of the NFRD. The difference-in-differences approach indicates that the improvement is larger for companies that are subject to the legislation when it comes to overall ESG performance, particularly for environmental and social performance. Nonetheless, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no significant effect is found for performance in the governance dimension.

This study investigates the role of transnational mandatory reporting regulation in the first years of its enactment. The evidence offers insights into the effects of disclosure legislation in the context of an underdeveloped institutional environment.

This study aims to investigate the role of institutional and stakeholder interaction in the development of integrated reporting policy by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). It helps advance the theory of integrated reporting and offers insights into its fundamental concepts and relevant issues.

A flexible pattern-matching qualitative research approach is used and an analytical framework of integrated reporting historical foundations and conceptual background is developed. An IIRC case analysis is conducted by using a chronological content analysis of the International Integrated Reporting Framework and related initiatives and publications for integrated reporting policy pronouncements.

Institutional and stakeholder pressures within both the organization’s macro and micro contexts have played an effective role in transforming corporate reporting practices. In an integrated reporting context, institutional forces of normative and mimetic isomorphism seem to have more influence on organizations than coercive pressures, where stakeholder pressures with limited official power derive influence from their legitimacy while urgency is evidently implied. Findings indicate that integrated reporting policy has emerged analogously with the institutional environment and stakeholders’ expectations. The distinct nature of integrated reporting has caused a paradigm shift from silo thinking of wealth creation to integrated thinking of value creation.

This is an exploratory study that does not consider different prominent integrated reporting models. It has important implications for policymakers in articulating the integration of financial and nonfinancial metrics for reporting overall corporate performance. It can help academics build on integrated reporting foundations for conducting future research and assist practitioners in operationalizing integrated reporting policy into practice. Moreover, it has potential prospects for international business in developing integrated reporting policies and strategies aimed at creating mutual value in specific international contexts.

Integrated reporting represents a new internationally developing reporting trend with distinct reporting features and foundations for value creation. The study provides considerable addition to emerging research into the growing awareness of integrated reporting policy, develops a conceptual model of institutional and stakeholder interaction and theorizes on such interplay, identifies the potential influences under which integrated reporting is likely to occur and offers key insights into integrated reporting policy. Hence, it contributes to the ongoing global challenge of promoting the reporting transition to integrated reporting and its perceived future endorsement.

Following the United Kingdom's (UK) withdrawal from the European Union (EU), there is uncertainty in the financial services industry on equivalence of regulatory regimes. This also affects the insurance industry. As of now, it is not clear if the UK’s supervisory regime (“Solvency UK”) will be classified as equivalent to the European Solvency II supervisory regime. After no equivalence decision was taken during the Brexit transition period and there are efforts by the UK in the form of the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill to adapt Solvency II more to the characteristics of the national insurance market, the uncertainties are intensified. Although Solvency II non-equivalence would have a significant impact on insurance groups operating in both the UK and the EU, there has been no detailed analysis of whether these initiatives could have an impact on a future Solvency II equivalence decision. The purpose of this paper is to address and close this research gap with a literature review and a subsequent equivalence mapping and discussion.

Based on the literature review methodology, this paper draws on academic sources as well as publications from governments and regulators, articles from consultancies and subject matter experts and uses this literature to provide an overview of the current state of research on equivalence in the wider financial services industry, but specifically on Solvency II equivalence, the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Based on this literature review, the paper also forms the basis for an innovative and forward-looking Solvency II equivalence mapping and discussion.

Several articles state that differences between Solvency II and Solvency UK could harm a future Solvency II equivalence decision. The UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill are two initiatives that support the objective of aligning the Solvency II supervisory regime more closely with the circumstances of the UK insurance market. Although both initiatives contribute to the fact that Solvency UK differs in parts from Solvency II, based on the literature review and the subsequent equivalence mapping and discussion, there are currently no reforms that should harm future Solvency II equivalence decisions.

This paper provides a previously non-existent overview of equivalence in the wider financial services industry, but specifically on Solvency II equivalence, the UK Solvency II Review and the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and brings them together in an innovative equivalence discussion. It thus presents the current state of knowledge on Solvency II after Brexit and develops it further around a mapping against the equivalence criteria. As non-equivalence could have significant implications for insurance groups operating in both the UK and the EU, this paper is a useful and practical study that provides a previously non-existent equivalence mapping and discussion based on current initiatives and publications. It thus closes the research gap identified and reduces uncertainties in the insurance industry and can be used as a blueprint for detailed and forward-looking equivalence mappings and discussions for the wider financial services industry.

This article investigates the quality of stakeholder engagement (SE) process disclosure in the context of non-financial reporting (NFR) introduced by Directive 2014/95/EU (NFRD). SE implies the involvement of the subjects interested in the organization's activity, according to the principle of inclusiveness and the key concepts of the stakeholder theory (ST).

The authors conducted a content analysis on 75 non-financial statements (NFSs) published by companies listed on the Italian Stock Exchange in 2018 and 2021 to evaluate the evolutionary profiles of SE quality through the years.

The average level of SE is not significantly high. The research showed an overall poor quality of disclosure concerning stakeholders' key expectations and issues to be addressed and answered. Furthermore, a certain variability emerged in the quality of the disclosure between the various reports, and no significant improvements in SE quality were noted from 2018 to 2021.

The conclusions provide a replicable method for the analysis of SE quality in NFSs and the development of new standpoints in the ongoing debate on the implications of mandatory legislative frameworks for NFR. Content analyses intrinsically present margins of subjectivity. The sample was limited to a subset of NFS from Italy; hence, the results could be country specific.

This work suggests some possible ways of improvement of SE practices by companies.

Original assessment model based on eight variables identified from the academic literature and the most common international sustainability reporting standards. These variables were stakeholder identification, stakeholder selection process, degree of involvement, SE approach, dialogue channels, SE results, different points of view and integration of the SE process.