Search results

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.

The purpose of this study is to situate information and communications technology (ICT) “transparency reports” within the theoretical framework of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. The self-denominated transparency report serves a dual purpose of highlighting an ICT company’s socially responsible behavior while also holding government agencies accountable for surveillance and requests for user data. Drawing on legitimacy theory, neo-institutional theory and stakeholder theory, this exploratory study examines how ICT companies are implementing industry-specific voluntary disclosures as a form of CSR.

A content analysis of ICT voluntary nonfinancial reporting (N = 88) was used to identify motivating principles, the company positioning to stakeholders, the relevant publics and intended audience of these disclosures and the communication strategy used to engage primary stakeholders.

Key findings suggest that most ICT companies used transparency reporting to engage consumers/users as their primary stakeholders and most used a stakeholder information strategy. A majority of ICT companies signaled value-driven motives in their transparency reports while also positioning the company to stakeholders as a protector of user data and advocate for consumer rights.

This study enriches the literature on CSR communication strategies and reporting practices by extending it to an underdeveloped topic of study: novel voluntary disclosures as CSR activities of prominent ICT companies (i.e. “Big Tech”). These polyphonic reports reflect varied motives, varied positioning and varied stakeholders. For market-leading companies, transparency reporting can serve to legitimize existing market power. And for midsize and emerging companies, transparency reporting can be used to signal adherence to industry norms – set by market-leading companies.

This paper aims to examine the existence of a transparency gap between voluntary external sustainability reporting and internal sustainability performance of an organisation arising from the operationalisation of transparency as an instrumental tool.

This study combined an analysis of a firm’s sustainability report (secondary data) with a qualitative case study data (primary data comprising interviews, meetings and internal documents) to understand how the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) sustainability reporting guidelines are applied in practice.

By comparing what is reported with a range of primary case study data, this study finds evidence of transparency gaps, particularly in terms of the quality of measurement of sustainability performance, the materiality of issues covered and the completeness of the report. This study posits that voluntary disclosures following the GRI guidelines (transparency technique) shape the external expression of acceptable corporate behaviour (transparency norm) that is nevertheless at odds with actual behaviour or performance.

The findings indicate the importance of mandatory sustainability reporting requirements that facilitate accountability to all key stakeholders and that are externally assured and enforced. Such requirements might take the form of standards that put boundaries on judgement and address material sustainable development impacts and that are accompanied by implementation guidance. Non-financial assurance practices must be developed to cover adherence to reporting principles and processes.

Transparency gaps that result from voluntary disclosure guidelines or standards being used to imply a transparency norm may undermine accountability for the impacts of the organisation and hinder alignment of business models and corporate strategies with sustainable development.

The paper contributes to a theoretical understanding of transparency as a form of self-regulation and has implications for the further development of sustainability reporting standards.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the transparency reports published by the Big-4 public accounting firms in the UK, Germany and Denmark to understand the determinants of their content within the networks of big accounting firms.

The study draws on a qualitative research approach, in which the content of transparency reports is analyzed and semi-structured interviews are conducted with key people from the Big-4 firms who are responsible for developing the transparency reports.

The findings show that the content of transparency reports is inconsistent and the transparency reporting practice is not uniform within the Big-4 networks. Differences were found in the way in which the transparency reporting practices are coordinated globally by the respective central governing bodies of the Big-4. The content of the transparency reports is particularly influenced by the national institutional environment in which the Big-4 member firms operate, thus leading them to introduce practice variation and resulting in cross-national differences.

The study results have important implications for standard setters, regulators and practitioners, as the research provides insights into the variation taking place within the common regulatory frame.

This is the first study to analyze how transparency reporting practices are developed within the networks of Big-4 firms, thereby influencing the content of transparency reports.

The purpose of this study is to compare the information disclosed by leading Australian audit firms in their first-time audit firm transparency reports. Australia has mandated the preparation and release of transparency reports by audit firms in 2013 to provide better information to stakeholders about audit firms, their governance and their internal governance systems. These reports promote increased transparency regarding issues which are believed to contribute to audit quality.

The paper takes the form of an archival analysis where the authors summarise the governance and other information for the 21 leading Australian audit firms as disclosed in their first-time 2013 transparency reports.

The authors find that audit firms meet the minimum transparency report disclosure requirements, but have different approaches to governance in the areas which may impact audit quality. These areas include: the internal quality control systems, independence practices, continuing education and partners’ remuneration structures. The authors identify specific areas where transparency reports may give rise to future research opportunities.

Australia is one of the first countries to require audit firms to publish transparency reports, and this is the first study to examine these reports. By summarising transparency report disclosures, we present a comprehensive picture of how Australian leading audit firms govern and oversee their business activities. This is useful to transparency report preparers, report users and regulators.

This study analyzed the explicitness, the salience of ethics and the transparency of messages in firms' social reports based on their significance to strategic corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication.

Drawing on institutional theory, this content analysis investigated 750 social reports from 125 firms for a ten-year period in liberal market economies (LMEs: US, UK), coordinated market economies (CMEs: Germany, Japan) and state-led market economies (SLMEs: France, South Korea).

First, firms in CMEs showed the highest level of transparency, and in all market economies, an overall trend of increase in the level of transparency was found. Second, firms in SLMEs communicated their CSR activities least explicitly. Third, firms in CMEs showed the lowest salience of ethics.

Useful theoretical as well as practical implications are provided in relation to the institutional perspective to CSR, and cross-national CSR communication.

The present study aims to examine the relationship between corporate governance factors and financial reporting transparency pre and post of ISIS.

A multivariate regression model was used to test the hypotheses for this purpose. The research hypotheses were tested on a sample of 35 companies listed on the Iraqi Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2018 using a multivariate regression model based on panel data technique.

The results indicate a negative and significant correlation between the board independence, audit committee independence, management team stability and remuneration of the board of directors and financial reporting transparency. In contrast, there is a positive and significant correlation between the board expertise, audit committee expertise and managerial ownership, with financial reporting transparency. Moreover, ISIS has had a direct and significant impact on the correlation between the board of directors’ independence and remuneration with financial reporting transparency. The present study also tested research models using additional methods (such as feasible generalised least squares, ordinary least squares, random effects and T + 1) to obtain better results. The results of these different methods were entirely in line with the main results of the research.

The political and economic instability resulting from the entry of ISIS into Iraq has created severe problems for society’s economic, political, security and performance dimensions. Macroeconomic uncertainty driven by terrorist activities can negatively affect managers’ perceptions of firms’ future performance and result in poor judgments and estimations, significantly impacting business units' financial reporting transparency. Because no study has examined the relationship between corporate governance and financial reporting transparency on the Iraq stock exchange before and after the presence of ISIS, this study examines such a relationship. Although the economic and political situation in Iraq may not be identical to that in other nations, much of the experience in Iraq is anticipated to apply to other countries in the region.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how corporate social responsibility (CSR) transparency claims are propagating a belief in a modern panopticon for ensuring responsible corporate behavior. Corporations use transparency claims to cultivate the impression of full disclosure. The paper aims to explore why people believe transparency ensures responsible behavior from corporations as well as the negative effects of this pseudo‐panopticon.

The paper explores transparency in relation to CSR, CSR reporting, the internet, and activism and describes how their confluence produces pseudo‐panopticon.

The paper finds that the pseudo‐panopticon allows corporations to claim transparency in CSR communication and for stakeholders to accept that claim. The reality is that a minority of activist stakeholders bear the burden of ensuring true transparency by questioning disclosure.

Transparency should be seen as a process, and it fails if activists cannot create public awareness of CSR shortcomings. The challenge is to find ways to make transparency as a process work in a world where apathy and self‐deception, in part facilitated by the pseudo‐panopticon, work against the process.

The paper builds on the process view of transparency by developing its implications for CSR communication. The result is a novel approach to CSR reporting and transparency that contributes to other critical voices concerned about the value and effects of CSR communication.

This purpose of this paper is to investigate the current level of transparency based on the customised transparency matrix (TM) amongst the top listed property companies in Malaysia, based on capital market value. Furthermore, this paper discusses the concept of transparency from the perspective of Malaysian property markets.

Data for this research were collected from the top 30 property companies in Malaysia through their annual reports and corporate websites. The indicator of transparency was developed based on various literature surveys and other research findings. Using the developed indicators, the study analysed the transparency attributes from TM of the top 30 listed property companies in Malaysia.

In terms of transparency levels and widely implemented transparency elements, the findings revealed that Malaysian property companies were within a “good level” range.

The research is based on a study of the top 30 listed property companies in Malaysia based on market capital values as at 30th June 2010.

This paper examines the transparency level of property companies in Malaysia based on each company's current annual report. The findings provide some insights and guidelines for the industry as well as academics on the transparency level particularly in Malaysian property business.

The purpose of this paper is to report the impact of the Chinese capital market split equity (SE) reform in 2005 on the corporate financial transparency of Chinese listed companies.

Using an International Financial Reporting Standards‐based checklist, the paper investigates whether the post‐reform 2005 annual reports of reformed companies improved transparency compared to pre‐reform 2004 reports. The transparency of the reformed companies was also compared to a control group of companies unreformed on December 31, 2005.

Results indicate that the SE reform increased corporate disclosures. Reformed companies had higher mandatory and voluntary disclosures in their post‐reform 2005 annual reports compared to their pre‐reform 2004 annual reports. In addition, the improvement in mandatory and voluntary disclosures for reformed companies is greater than that of the unreformed control group.

The SE reform provides a unique natural experimental setting in which to examine the impact of the SE reform, with its associated change in ownership structure and corporate governance, on corporate disclosure.

The results of this paper suggest that the SE reform has had a positive effect on corporate financial transparency in China, thereby indicating the positive response to regulation in this emerging market. Further, the results suggest that as the proportion of government ownership falls, management has increased incentive to voluntarily supply additional information to the market.

The SE reform is unique to China and this paper is the first to report on financial reporting disclosure implications of this reform.