Search results

This study investigates how disclosure of the board of directors’ leadership and role in risk oversight (BODs oversight disclosure) influences investors’ judgments when information on risk exposures is disclosed. The theoretical lens through which we examine this issue involves negativity bias. Sixty-two stock market investors who engage in the evaluation and/or investment of stocks on a regular or professional basis participated in our study. Our results reveal that the addition of BODs oversight disclosure (positive information) does not carry significant weight on investor judgments (i.e., attractiveness and investment) when financial statement disclosures indicate a high level of operational and financial risk exposures (negative information). In contrast, under the condition of a low level of risk exposures, BODs oversight disclosure causes investors to assess higher risk in terms of worry, catastrophic potentials and unfamiliarity about risk information and, in turn, make less favorable investor judgments. Our findings add to the literature on negativity bias and contribute to the debate on the usefulness of disclosures about risk.

This study uses an experimental approach to examine how the perceptions and decisions of prospective nonprofessional investors are influenced by risk disclosures in the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). The between-subjects experiment used 157 MBA students as nonprofessional investors. The participants were given a firm's financial statements. In addition, the experimental group received the section on risk in the MD&A, whereas the control group did not receive any part of the MD&A. The participants were then asked to make several investment assessments and a final investment decision. The results show that the information included in the risk section of the MD&A has a significant negative effect on perceptions of the firm's future performance, a significant positive influence on perceptions of the stock's risk, and a marginally significant negative effect on the investment decision. The effect on the investment decision is mediated by respondents' perceptions of the firm's future performance and stock risk. By providing evidence on the effect of risk disclosures on nonprofessional investors' investment decision-making process, this study can help professional bodies and national market regulators understand how some market participants react to risk information provided under their regulations. In fact, the results indicate that there is little to be gained by firms voluntarily providing these risk disclosures. This would seem to support the fact that disclosure of risk information needs to be mandated by market regulators.

Private company investors operate in unique environments. Seed equity investors, which generally include venture capitalists and angel investors, often have the particularly unusual role of becoming involved in the oversight of the investee company. This continuing involvement with the investee firm introduces conflicting interests: the desire to maximize the profit from the investment, but also the desire to maintain a positive relationship with the entrepreneur(s) (consistent with the theory of upper echelons/strategic management). We discuss in detail this unusual investment context and the role that accounting disclosures can have in this environment. We predict that accounting disclosures can influence the tradeoff between the profit motive and the relationship motive. Using 64 experienced angel investors as participants in a realistic experimental setting, we find that disclosures indicating conservatively biased accounting choice and lower account risk (variance) lead to angels increasing the valuation of the target firm and forgoing higher profits. Increasing the valuation serves to foster the relationship with the entrepreneur(s). Our findings have implications for entrepreneurs making choices about discretionary disclosures and for standard setters; we also inform theory related to overcoming anchoring.

Using market-risk disclosures as an empirical context, and drawing on the diffusion of innovations (DOIs) model, this paper contributes new sociological perspectives to a theorization of compliance. We propose that stakeholder behaviors during accounting standard-setting discussion and adoption phases are motivated by social, political, and economic factors. These phases interrelate, and consequently, any analysis of managerial disclosure decisions benefit from considering them together, rather than in isolation, as is typical.

The authors use a mixed-methods design, including detailed analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 26), constituents’ comment letters (n = 106), annual report disclosures (FTSE 350: firm-year observations n = 1,131), technical meetings, and standard-setting documents.

Results suggest that constituents initially supported introduction of a set of mandatory market-risk disclosures, but implied costs of the proposed and subsequently approved requirements outweighed perceived benefits and efficiencies. This study elaborates on these issues, exploring how and why a financial reporting innovation that stakeholders deemed technically inefficient was diffused. Although the authors were told that compulsion (i.e., forced-selection) dominates disclosure decisions, some freedom of choice remains, as evidenced by greater than 40% non-compliance during the first year of adoption. Respondents indicate that theoretically, market-risk disclosure adoption decisions rest on assessment of the costs of disclosure (e.g., preparation and competition) versus non-disclosure (e.g., litigation and reputation). Second-phase adoption is more straightforward because the costs of disclosure decrease over time.

Although mixed-methods research offers several advantages, self-selection bias, issues with coding reliability, and interviewer/interviewee bias are possible. It is impossible to achieve a truly holistic understanding of standard-setting, and therefore the authors acknowledge that findings are not generalizable, though the risks were minimized.

Recognizing that disclosure choices are not made in political and social vacuums, this study suggests that sociological perspectives such as innovation-diffusion inform a theory of compliance.

This study investigates the reaction to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) 2010 interpretative guidance on climate risk disclosures. Issued on February 8, 2010, the release represents one of the few examples of authoritative requirements for environmental disclosure in filers’ 10-K reports. As such, we attempt to determine the effect of the new requirement on companies’ disclosures as well as how the market reacted to the guidance announcement. Based on a sample of 155 large companies drawn randomly from the Fortune 500, we find first, that, as expected, climate change disclosures increased significantly following the release, but overall, the information provision remained quite limited. We further find that, presumably as intended, companies from industries facing greater climate change exposures exhibited significantly larger increases in disclosure (controlling for prior levels of information provision). Finally, we document that the market reaction to the release of the SEC guidance was significantly positive and driven by more positive returns from firms in climate risk industries. We interpret these unexpected findings as potentially being due to investors believing the new requirements were less demanding than might have been anticipated or that they believe firms facing climate risks were in a better position to respond than other companies.

Risk reporting in financial reports has a positive impact on the company and its stakeholders. The purpose of this research is to present a literature review using the bibliometric method with the title we used is Risk Reporting, and the keywords are risk disclosure, risk reporting, stakeholders, and stakeholder theory. Data processing in this chapter uses Publish or Perish (PoP) software and Vos Viewers. This study uses the Google Scholar database. The researcher scanned the journal by using Scimagojr.com to view the journal quartile. Before the search was revised, there were 230 papers from 1991 to 2021 (30 years). Researchers will see the development of risk reporting from several sides, such as the country of origin of the researcher, the type of industry that reports risk, the research methods that have been used so far, and the analysis used for reporting risk.

The research objectives of this chapter are threefold. First, we explore what is the current status of corporate water accounting tools and methodologies. Second, we develop a framework for analyzing corporate water accounting and reporting. Third, we investigate what French CAC 40 companies account for and report in relations to the water challenge.

We collected annual and sustainability reports from all CAC 40 companies as well as their water Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) responses when available. We also collected all publically available corporate water accounting methodologies to assess the international water accounting field. We coded the data according to our designed framework via qualitative data analysis software.

Although water is seen as equally important to climate change (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), 2009), French multinationals have a very immature reporting on this topic. Most still do not report to the water disclosure questionnaire of CDP in 2014 and rely on basic figures such as global water consumption. We analyzed the multiple water accounting, reporting, and risk assessment frameworks that have mushroomed since 2000, and question the impact of this fragmented field on the maturity of the water performance reporting by French companies.

The developed framework for analysis of water reporting can be used for sustainability teaching at university level.

We developed the first comprehensive analytical framework for water corporate reporting assessment. Moreover, this research is the first comprehensive study of water reporting in Europe. We therefore contribute to extend our comprehension of corporate maturity in water stewardship and water performance reporting.

The aim of this chapter is to determine the need for water management and accounting.

This chapter first gives an overview of water-related business risks and exposes the need for sound corporate water management and accounting; it then critically examines water-related issues from an accountability perspective. Furthermore, it gives an overview of Australian Standardised Water Accounting (SWA) and General Purpose Water Accounting (GPWA) as possible practices to strengthen water disclosure.

The present study confirms the need for, and the importance of, transparent, high-quality, credible and comparable water disclosure. Water is considered a public good and involves a public interest and, consequently, public responsibility for its usage, management and protection. Following this line of reasoning, the chapter draws attention to the need for accountability to be ‘public’ or at least shared between crucial stakeholders (government – at national and international levels, water industries, communities, environmentalists, NGOs, etc.).

Company efforts are commonly focused on internal and self-referred operations. The different and conflicting uses that may be made of water, and the fact that water is geographically and temporally sensitive, necessitate a search for more flexible and more extended forms of accountability. An implication of these findings is the need and opportunity to switch focus from a single/private perspective to a more general/public one, with benefits for all the stakeholders.

This research enhances our understanding of water management and accounting and may serve as a sound base for future studies on this challenging topic.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze whether information asymmetry (ASYM) plays a mediating role in the relationship between corporate disclosure and cost of equity capital (COEC) in emerging markets such as Indonesia.

Design/Methodology/Approach: This study is a quantitative study using secondary data obtained from listed manufacturing firms from 2015 to 2017. Purposive sampling was used to select 105 firms. The design of this study was causality research, and the analysis was performed through ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and path analysis.

Findings: The results show that the level of disclosure for corporate social responsibility (CSR), intellectual capital, and enterprise risk management (ERM) reduces the COEC by suppressing ASYM. This finding confirms the argument that managers can reduce their companies’ COEC by reducing ASYM through increased disclosure. These results are controlled by earnings quality (EQL) because that is most relevant to the COEC, as well as corporate size, leverage, and differences in institutional factors.

Originality/Value: This research is based on the central assumption that disclosure enhances the level of information while EQL remains the focus for investors. This research is also the first to study CSR disclosure, intellectual capital disclosure, and ERM disclosure together as a proxy for disclosure. The findings confirm that managers can reduce their companies’ agency conflict by increasing their level of disclosure. Managers can also reduce the COEC by reducing ASYM through increased disclosure. This also implies that increasing the level of disclosure will be effective in reducing the COEC for companies in emerging markets, such as Indonesia.