Search results

The purpose of this study is to present the evidence of the association between financial statement comparability and corporate financial distress.

This is an empirical study, and this study uses multiple regression analysis to evaluate hypothesis.

The authors find a significant decrease in the probability of financial distress as accounting comparability increases. Findings of this study suggest that distressed firms tend to produce financial statements that compare poorly to those of peer firms; the effectiveness of predicting financial distress with accounting ratios may be conditional on comparability with peers; and financial statement comparability may be predictive of financial distress.

First, this study only used publicly available financial data, which may not be representative of all countries and could differ because of differences in accounting practices. Second, although this study found a connection between accounting comparability and financial distress, it cannot prove a causal relationship, as other factors that were not controlled for may also have an impact. Third, this study used various measures of financial distress, but other measures could lead to different results. Finally, this study did not include all relevant variables, such as industry-specific factors and macroeconomic conditions, which could influence the relationship between accounting comparability and financial distress.

For investors and financial analysts, the results imply that accounting comparability can serve as a useful signal for identifying companies that are more likely to remain financially stable in the long run. Thus, they may prefer to invest in or recommend highly comparable firms over their less comparable counterparts. For auditors, this study underscores the importance of promoting and enforcing accounting standards that improve comparability, as this can help mitigate the risk of financial distress among their clients. Regulators may also consider the implications of the study’s findings when designing policies and guidelines related to financial reporting and disclosure.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study investigating the association between financial statement comparability and corporate financial distress of the US firms. This study uses large, comprehensive and multi-year data. Furthermore, this is the only study that presents the evidence of negative association between comparability and firm financial distress.

The present study investigates the impact of accounting comparability on chief executive officer (CEO) incentive plans and the moderating role of board independence for companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).

The information about 177 companies in 2014–2021 was examined. In this study, equity-based compensation and cash-based compensation were used as the CEO incentive plans. The equity-based compensation was calculated through the ownership of the CEO shares.

The results suggest that the higher accounting comparability increases not only CEO equity-based compensation, but also cash-based compensation. Board independence also strengthens the relationship between accounting comparability and CEO compensation. Hypothesis testing based on robustness checks confirmed these results.

The paper is pioneering, to the authors' knowledge, in identifying how board independence moderates the impact of accounting comparability on CEO compensation. The findings provide insights into economic consequences to the firm related to accounting comparability and board monitoring. The results have important practical implications for international investors to evaluate accounting comparability, corporate governance mechanisms and CEO incentives.

As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.

To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.

This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.

This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.

By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.

In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.

The present study investigated the impact of earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty on accounting comparability in an emerging economy and the moderating role of COVID-19 pandemic for the companies listed on Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE).

The data about 181 companies during 2014–2021 were examined. In this study, accounting comparability was predicted for the firms' accounting systems and the coefficient estimates were calculated. The present study used the coefficient of variation of sales to capture sales volatility as the primary environmental uncertainty measure.

The results showed that both the earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty have a significant negative effect on accounting comparability, and that COVID-19 significantly increases the negative impact of earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty on accounting comparability. The hypothesis testing based on robust, GLS, GMM, GLM, OLS regressions and t+1 test confirmed these results.

The present study aimed to develop knowledge-providing benefits for companies about the accounting comparability and managing more efficient decisions. The present findings help investors to understand and evaluate the performance of firms more accurately especially in earnings volatility and environmental uncertainty conditions and in the wake of a pandemic crisis such as COVID-19.

This paper aims to investigate the relation between audit firms’ switch to limited liability partnership (LLP) from limited liability company (LLC) and client firms’ earnings comparability. If LLP auditors, who have a higher liability exposure than LLC auditors, are more consistent in implementing generally accepted accounting principles and executing firm-wide audit methodologies, client firms’ earnings comparability will increase.

Using data from China, the authors examine whether client firm-pairs of LLP auditors have higher earnings comparability than client firm-pairs of LLC auditors. The authors also perform cross-sectional tests to shed light on the mechanisms through which auditors’ litigation exposure affects client firms’ comparability.

The authors find that firm-pairs in which both firms are audited by LLP auditors exhibit higher earnings comparability than other firm-pairs. This result is stronger when client firms are audited by the same auditor, when client firms are audited by the top 10 auditors and when the auditors are less dependent on the client firms. The authors also document that firm-pairs in which both firms are audited by LLP auditors have lower average analyst earnings forecast error and forecast dispersion.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to examine the relation between auditor’s litigation exposure and client firms’ earnings comparability. It also extends the literature on audit firm organizational form and audit quality.

This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues.

The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance.

The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards.

In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.

This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

This paper aims to explore the moderating role of state ownership variables on the relationship between market concentration (MC) and financial statement comparability (FSC) in Vietnam.

This study uses data from the financial statements of 475 nonfinancial listed companies for the period from 2010 to 2019. This study uses both the system generalized method of moments and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to consider the correlation and causal–effect relationships of the variables in the model.

The results show that MC has a positive relationship with FSC, and MC tends to exert a stronger impact on FSC for firms with higher state ownership. In addition, this study suggests that some combinations help improve FSC. This study has important implications for investors, managers and especially state-owned organizations when market power becomes fierce.

This study contributes to the literature on the comparability of financial statements in the context of developing countries that have not fully adopted International Financial Reporting Standards. Furthermore, this study applies the fsQCA method to complement the linear regression method.

The purpose of this study is to provide a harmonisation framework for the diverse accounting practices by extractive industries.

The study takes a three-stage approach. The first involves a comprehensive literature review of the historical evolution of accounting regulations by extractive industries. The second involves constructing an accounting practice index for extractive industries. The third involves constructing a harmonisation framework.

The accounting practice index provides empirical evidence of the wide diversity of accounting practices by extractive industries. Analysis of the literature review addresses the several attempts by accounting and regulatory bodies to standardise the diverse practices of accounting by extractive industries and reasons for the lack of successful standardisations. The authors extract lessons from these previous attempts and propose a harmonisation framework.

The proposed harmonisation framework can be used to align together the diverse accounting practices by extractive industries and enhance comparability and consistency of accounting figures and statements produced by these industries. Harmonising the diverse accounting practices is crucial for investment decision-making.

The harmonisation framework is the first of its kind that could enhance the comparability of accounts of extractive industries’ firms and be used to harmonise diverse accounting practices by other industries.

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.

García and Cox (2013) have clarified that there is an urgent need for comparative studies of city/capital of culture (COC) events. With the ambition to foster exchange and learning, knowledge production concerning cultural initiatives requires to think beyond the individual case study of a singular event. Simultaneously, the two scholars observe comparability and context-sensitivity between events as a major issue in these particular canons of research.

Drawing upon the research experience of the project, this article experiments with a novel reading of city/capital of culture events.

Beyond the singularity of a case study but with attention to context-sensitivities, the article proposes a relational reading practice to study the culture-led event framework. The author illustrates the proposed approach with material collected in ethnographic fieldwork in the cities of Donostia/San Sebastián, European COC 2016, and Hull, UK COC 2017.

By using one case study as a metaphorical pair of glasses framing the investigative perspective on the other, an analytical relationship between two COC events is established, fostering a broader prism of analysis and connected learning.