Search results

The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the amendments to International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 and the introduction of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 9 enhanced the readability, and thus the quality and usefulness of risk disclosure information.

Readability analyses are performed on companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) from 2005 to 2021. The sample period includes the period when companies disclosed information according to IAS 39 (2005–2017) and IFRS 9 (2018–2021).

The results of the analyses show risk disclosures for JSE-listed companies to be complex and difficult to understand. Furthermore, risk disclosures have become longer and less readable with the introduction of amendments to IAS 39 and the introduction of IFRS 9.

This study uses readability measures as a proxy for the complexity and usefulness of risk disclosures. The amount of utility a user of financial statements derives could be dependent on other factors such as the quality of disclosure, individual user background and perceptions.

The results have valuable implications for the various stakeholders that make use of the information contained in financial statements. Stakeholders such as regulators and standard setters should carefully assess how accounting standards change to ensure that one of the key objectives of the IASB, namely, to provide information that is relevant, reliable and understandable, is met.

The results of this study contribute to the discourse on the usefulness of companies’ risk disclosures. Though, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to compare the readability of risk disclosures from an emerging market perspective, the results can be applied to other countries using IFRS to assess the readability of risk disclosures.

The paper identifies the types of risks disclosed by Italian organisations using integrated reporting (IR). This paper aims to understand the level and features of risk disclosure with the adoption of IR.

The authors use risk classifications already provided in the literature to develop a content analysis of Italian organisations’ integrated reports published.

The content analysis reveals that most of the Italian organisations incorporate many types of risk disclosure into their integrated reports. Organisations use this alternative form of reporting to communicate risk differently from how they disclose risks in traditional annual financial reporting. That is, the study finds that the organisations use their integrated reports to disclose a broader group of risks, related to the environment and society, and do so using narrative and visual representation.

The paper contributes to a narrow stream of research investigating risk disclosure provided through IR, contributing to the understanding of the role of IR in representing an organisational risk.

Risk information provides information to enable stakeholders to make informed decisions about a company. Corporate communications should be readable and unbiased so as not to hamper disclosure usefulness. This study assesses whether risk disclosures in the integrated reports are readable and unbiased.

The readability and narrative tone of South African listed companies' risk and risk management disclosures as disclosed in their integrated reports are analysed using automated software for the Top 40 JSE listed companies from 2015 to 2019.

The results show that risk and risk management disclosures are unreadable and lack any improvement in readability during the period. Additionally, these disclosures are biased toward narrative tones signalling communality and certainty.

The study adds to the literature on the readability of corporate reports, by focussing on the readability and narrative tone of risk and risk management disclosures during a period of increased scrutiny over the content of such disclosures. Also, by analysing risk disclosure and risk management disclosure separately, and by performing trend analysis to determine whether requirement changes related to content (specifically King IV) affect readability and narrative tones.

This rich descriptive study examines auditors' client risk assessment (i.e. “key audit matters”/critical audit matters) disclosures in expanded audit reports of 328 Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. The study compares auditor-identified client risks with corporate risk disclosures identified in audit committee reports, in terms of number and type of risks. The research also compares variation in auditor-identified client risks between individual Big 4 audit firms. In addition, the study examines auditor ranking of their client risks disclosed.

The study manually content analyses disclosures in audit reports and audit committee reports of a sample of 328 FTSE-350 companies with 2015 year-ends.

Audit committees identify more risks than auditors (23% more risks). However, auditor-identified client risks and audit-committee-identified risks are similar (80% similar), as are auditor-identified client risks between the individual Big 4 audit firms. Only ten (3%) audit reports rank the importance of auditor-identified client risks.

Sample is restricted to one year, one jurisdiction, large-listed companies and companies audited by Big 4 auditors.

The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

The paper mobilises institutional theory to interpret the findings. The findings suggest that auditor-identified client risks in expanded audit reports may demonstrate mimetic behaviour in terms of similarity with audit-committee-identified risks and similarity between individual Big 4 audit firms. The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

This paper aims to explore the reporting challenges and related organisational mechanisms of change associated with disclosing corporate risks within integrated reports.

This paper adopts a Latourian performative approach to explore the organisational mechanisms of change in terms of networks of actors, both “human” and “non-human”, involved in the preparation of risk-related disclosure. Empirical evidence is collected by means of in-depth interviews with the preparers of an integrated reporting pioneer company.

Preparing disclosure on corporate risks in the context of integrated reporting demands close interaction among several actors. When disclosure shifts from listing key risks to providing information on how these risks are managed or connect with corporate strategy and value creation, departments not usually involved in corporate reporting play an active role and external stakeholders offer pertinent insights, benchmarks and feedback. Integrated reporting and risk management frameworks are the “non-human” actors that facilitate the engagement of diverse “human” actors.

Preparers should be aware that risk disclosure within integrated reports requires collaboration among (“human”) actors belonging to different departments and the engagement of external stakeholders. Preparers should consider the frameworks of integrated reporting and risk management as facilitators of cross-departmental discussions and dialogue, rather than mere contributors of guidelines and recommendations.

This study enriches the scant literature on organisational mechanisms of change made in response to integrated reporting challenges, showing subsequent advancements in the organisational process underlying the preparation of risk disclosure.

This paper aims to evaluate non-financial reporting (NFR) frameworks insofar as risk reporting is concerned. This is facilitated through analysis of the adequacy of climate- and pandemic-related risk reporting in three industries that are both significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and are at risk from climate change. The pervasiveness of pandemic and climate-change risks have been highlighted in 2020, the hottest year on record and the year the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Stakeholders might reasonably expect reporting on these risks to have prepared them for the consequences.

The current debate on the “complexity” of sustainability and NFR frameworks/standards is critically analysed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and calls to “build back better”. Context is provided through analysis of risk reporting by the ten largest airlines and the five largest companies in each of the hotel and cruise industries.

Risk reporting on two significant issues, pandemics and climate change, is woefully inadequate. While very little consideration has been given to pandemic risks, disclosures on climate-related risks focus predominantly on “risks” of increased regulation rather than physical risks, indicating a short-term focus. The disclosures are dispersed across different corporate reporting media and fail to appreciate the long-term consequences or offer solutions. Mindful that a conceptual framework for NFR must address this, the authors propose a new definition of materiality and recommend that sustainable development risks and opportunities be placed at the core of a future framework for connected/integrated reporting.

For sustainable development risks to be perceived as “real” by managers, further research is needed to determine the nature and extent of key sustainable development risks and the most effective mitigation strategies.

This paper highlights the importance of recognising the complexity of the issues facing organisations, society and the planet and addressing them by encouraging robust consideration of the interdependencies in evolving approaches to corporate reporting.

This study contributes to the current debate on the future of corporate reporting in light of two significant interconnected crises that threaten business and society – the pandemic and climate change. It provides evidence to support a long-term oriented and holistic approach to risk management and reporting.

The purpose of this paper to analyze the risk reporting practices and its determinants of commercial banks during the period of the adoption of the Basel II Accord in Portugal.

The paper conducts a content analysis of the risk and risk management sections included in the management reports and the notes of the annual reports of Portuguese commercial banks, for the years 2007, 2010 and 2013.

Findings show that theoretical frameworks underpinned in agency and legitimacy theories continue to provide valid explanations for risk reporting by Portuguese banks. More specifically, findings indicate that agency costs, public visibility and reputation are crucial drivers of risk reporting. Findings also indicate that younger banks with lower risk management skills use risk reporting either as an informational process or as a channel to manage organizational legitimacy.

The content analysis does not allow readily for in-depth qualitative inquiry. The coding instrument is subject to coder bias. Information about risk can be provided in sources other than annual reports. Additionally, not all banks disclose information on corporate governance-related variables that could also influence risk reporting.

The current research setting has never been studied hitherto. In this sense, this study seems to be of great relevance given the scarcity of literature on the subject in Portugal.

The objective of the present study is to examine the value relevance of accounting information presented by Brazilian banks.

The studied sample derived from Brazil’s Stock Exchange, B3, under the banking segment, resulting in a group of 24 publicly listed companies, whose data ranged from 2017 to 2019. The study was conducted using the disclosure index, made with the intent of evaluating the disclosure adherence of a company to the reporting standard. In this case, Comitê de Pronunciamentos Contábeis (CPC) 40, financial instruments: recognition, evaluation and disclosure, Instrumentos Financeiros: Evidenciação, Brazil’s interpretation of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 7.

The results show that for the sample and period, the disclosure index cannot be used as an explanatory variable for the market evaluation of financial institutions.

While other studies have presented a similar approach to the value-relevance theme, the present work is original as it develops the methodology on financial institutions, and even more so on the financial institutions of a developing country.

Framed within global policy debates over the need for private financial flows to align with the capital requirements of the Paris Agreement, this paper examines UK asset managers in their approaches to disclosing and managing climate risk. This paper identifies and evaluates climate risk management practices among this under-researched investor group in their capacity to address fundamental behavioural obstacles to low-carbon investment.

This paper takes an inductive approach to document analysis, applying content and thematic analysis to the annual disclosures of the 28 largest UK asset managers (by assets under management), including the investment management arms of insurance and pension companies.

The main takeaway from this research is that today’s climate risk management strategies hold potential to effectively address traditionally climate risk-averse investor behaviour and investment processes in the UK asset management context. However, this research finds that the use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investment strategies to mitigate climate risks is a “grey area” in which climate risk management practices are undefined within broad sustainability and responsible investment agendas. In doing so, this paper invites further research into the extent to which climate risks are considered in ESG investment.

This paper contributes to research in sustainable finance and behavioural finance, by identifying the latest climate risk management techniques used among UK-headquartered asset managers and uniquely evaluating these in their capacity to address barriers to low-carbon investment arising from organisational behaviours and processes.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how non-professional investors (NPIs) with varying levels of financial sophistication interpret and perceive corporate disclosures and management credibility, specifically risk factors, when those disclosures are presented in readable and less-readable formats.

The paper uses an online experiment to test hypotheses related to the effects of financial sophistication (measured) and readability (manipulated) on NPIs’ equity valuations and perceptions of management credibility (competence and trustworthiness).

Increased readability appears to counteract less-sophisticated NPIs’ conservatism in equity valuations, such that they are not statistically significantly different from more-sophisticated NPIs’ equity valuations. Further, less-sophisticated NPIs judge management as less competent when disclosures are less readable, while more-sophisticated NPIs judge management as more competent when disclosures are less readable.

The paper has important implications for the SEC’s regulations related to plain English requirements for risk factor and other corporate disclosures. Financial sophistication varies among NPIs, and readability appears to influence these individuals in different ways.

The SEC’s Concept Release (April 13, 2016) acknowledges the need to update and improve risk factor disclosure regulations. This study provides evidence that contributes to those decisions.

The paper extends the research on processing fluency, by examining readability of disclosures with a consistent tone (negative). The NPIs surveyed are directly representative of the population of interest for risk factor disclosure regulations.