Search results

This chapter outlines incorporation of voluntary environmental accounting standards into national law as evidenced by the Scandinavian experience. In illustrating such hardening of soft law approaches it highlights difficulties national authorities face when attempting to regulate globalised commercial entities with extra-territorial activities. Adoption at national level of these standards into legally binding obligations illustrates convergence of global governance standards even where there is no central authority or designed codification.

Doctrinal legal research and literature review. To illustrate the incorporation of voluntary standards at a national level, Scandinavian examples (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland) were chosen – frequently upheld as best practice in requiring the reporting of environmental information financial reports.

The research shows that the most proactive national authorities in this regard are endorsing certain voluntary standards and rewarding their use with reduced regulatory burden. I first outline certain voluntary environmental standards and then illustrate adoption of these standards into legally binding frameworks.

The main limitation was difficulty in finding English language versions of some national regulations.

This chapter seeks to illustrate a normativisation of soft law frameworks into legally binding national obligations. Viewed through the phenomenon of Global Administrative Law it would seem evident that national authorities are willing to adopt various international voluntary standards to regulate the increasingly globalised actions of companies.

Voluntary standards and the various reporting methods of non-financial information is an extremely broad regulatory sphere with decentralised regulation and parallel regulatory frameworks. This chapter, in illustrating the convergence of environmental governance standards through normativisation of previously voluntary standards, will assist the reader in attaining an overview of the extent of this regulatory convergence.

This paper contributes to risk management research with reference to disclosure of risk specific information within the oil and gas industry. This paper provides empirical evidence regarding voluntary and mandatory disclosure behaviour from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective.

A longitudinal empirical study examines probabilistic reserve quantum reporting of UK companies, over a time-period spanning voluntary and mandatory disclosure. The researchers analyse disclosure behaviour under voluntary and mandatory time spans using a logistical regression approach to measure determinants of risk reporting. Form of regulation is considered as the fundamental driver for disclosure whilst controlling for other relevant variables. Implications for developing international regulation are presented with suggestions for further research.

Mandatory reporting is not seen as a significant influence to disclosure. Degree of risk, quality of audit firms, level of stock exchange and organisational visibility each impact on disclosure. The findings indicate that a mandatory disclosure approach is ineffective, partially explained by mimetic and normative forces and a balancing of agency-related costs and benefits. There is an inverse relationship between level of risk and risk reporting.

Generalisation of the findings is limited due to the specific context of the extractive industry.

The paper seeks to inform the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) on-going consideration of risk reporting and also its extractive industries deliberations.

The paper provides original insight into the area of risk management with particular focus on risk specificity and quantitative metrics for risk profiling not previously tested. The paper introduces risk profiling as a variable in risk disclosure.

Prior to the adoption of an IFRS based reporting framework in Malaysia, no binding standard governing goodwill had ever been implemented. After several decades in which a laissez faire approach to the problem represented the dominant paradigm, the highly prescriptive and technical provisions of FRS 136 – Impairment of Assets represent a very substantial variation from past practice. This in turn gives rise to questions about the extent to which Malaysian companies and their auditors have fared during the process of transition to a complex new reporting regime and in consequence to the quality and consistency of reports produced pursuant to that new regime. Thus, FRS 136 presents an opportunity to interrogate the level of compliance and disclosure quality exhibited by first‐time reporting entities – and by extension, yield insights into the implications of and challenges associated with transition to new and complex reporting regimes. Focussing specifically on compliance and disclosure quality relating to the highly detailed requirements set out in FRS 136, this paper finds evidence that the quality of the responses by large listed Malaysian firms has indeed been mixed, with many firms producing financial reports that have failed to meet the mark of the new standard. While the move by MASB to adopt IFRSs is a reflection of Malaysia’s commitment to align with global accounting standards in order to achieve harmonization with international practice, these findings suggest that continued improvement will be required by Malaysian companies and their auditors before Malaysian practice is truly aligned to the international standard.

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 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.

For over thirty years, one of the most overt forms of employer opposition to unionization has been anti-union campaigns conducted by union avoidance consultants. As a result, both union and employer associations have attempted to influence the provisions of the LMRDA that cover consultant activities. This article provides the first comprehensive historical analysis of the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements covering employers and consultants. The first section examines consultant reporting policy from the late 1950s to the late 1970s, a period when unions filed relatively few complaints and the DOL initiated few investigations, but the consultant industry expanded significantly. Section two examines developments in the 1980s – the period of greatest congressional and judicial activity on consultant reporting since the 1950s. The final section looks at post-1980s events and examines why organized labor has persisted with its campaign to reform government policy on consultant reporting, despite its inability to make progress on the issue over the past four decades.

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.

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 study aims to examine the levels of interim financial reporting (IR) disclosure by listed firms in the Asia-Pacific region and factors influencing these disclosure levels.

Drawing on a sample of 700 interim reports issued in 2012 by the top 100 listed firms in seven Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam), the author constructed a disclosure index consisting of disclosure items commonly required across the sample countries. Using this index, the study measures the extent to which listed firms in the Asia-Pacific Region comply with IR disclosure requirements. The study performs ordinary least square regression to investigate the influence of the four country-level factors including international financial reporting standard (IFRS) adoption, audit review, reporting frequency and reporting lag.

This research documents that IR disclosure varies significantly across the region. The IR disclosure levels are positively associated with IFRS adoption, audit review and mandatory of quarterly reporting, but negatively associated with reporting lag.

IR regulation varies across the Asia-Pacific region, but there is no existing research on the country-level factors influencing IR disclosure practices. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first paper providing some insights into IR disclosure levels by listed firms in the region. It also contributes to the disclosure literature by providing empirical evidence on the country-level factors influencing these disclosure levels. Deriving from the findings, the authors offer recommendations for regulators, investors and listed firms on the issue of reviewing the regulation, using information and preparing IR.