Search results

This paper aims to investigate whether managers use impression management through the presentation of non-financial information in an integrated reporting setting.

The authors performed an experiment with experienced professional controllers and part-time students enrolled in the executive master’s degree in finance and control at universities in the Netherlands. In this experiment, we manipulated the financial performance to test if managers present non-financial information differently based on the firm’s financial performance.

This study found that impression management is not applied by including or excluding non-financial key performance indicators (KPIs) in the integrated report, but by using more prominent presentation forms for positive non-financial performance and non-prominent ones for negative non-financial performance. However, the use of impression management through the presentation form decreased when the firms’ financial performance was positive. In that instance, this study noted that managers statistically significantly more often decided to present poor non-financial performance in a prominent presentation format in comparison to managers who were not aware of the financial performance.

A limitation of this paper is that the authors focused on only two impression management strategies: opportunistic/under-reporting and the presentation form. This analysis shows that the use of impression management mainly seems to occur through the presentation format. Future research could investigate other impression management strategies in an integrated reporting setting.

The results of this study are of importance for users of integrated reports, because it will provide more insight into whether firms are truly transparent in their integrated reports. Furthermore, the theoretical implication of this study is relevant to regulatory authorities, because it sheds light on the different forms of impression management used in integrated reporting and the influence of positively or negatively performing KPIs on the decisions of preparers of integrated reports.

Therefore, in this study, the authors add to prior literature by investigating the concept of impression management in an integrated reporting setting. More specifically, the authors perform an experiment and focus on different forms of impression management (the presentation format and under-reporting) through non-financial KPIs in an integrated reporting setting and link it to firm financial performance.

The paper aims to examine if corporate characteristics, general contextual factors and the internal context differentiate the quality and quantity of the disclosed non-financial Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The study is based on content analysis of the disclosures provided by large public interest entities operating in Poland after the introduction of the Directive 2014/95/EU. The quality of the KPIs disclosures is measured with the disclosure index. Regression analysis and selected statistical tests are used to examine the influence of the selected factors on the differences in the index value and corporate disclosure choices as regards the KPIs.

The study findings indicate that the sample companies provide a variety of non-financial KPIs in a manner that makes their effective comparison difficult. The research confirms that mainly industry, ecologists and the reporting standard determine the significant differences in the quality of the KPIs disclosures and the quantity of presented KPIs.

The paper adds to the understanding of the differences in the quality of KPIs presentation and the choice of disclosed KPIs.

The paper includes suggestions on how to change corporate practice with regard to the non-financial KPIs disclosures.

We shed additional light on the importance of internal contextual factors such as the reporting standard and the reporters' experience in providing non-financial KPIs disclosures.

The debate about whether corporate reports should focus on numbers or narrative is long-standing. The recent push for business model information to be included in corporate reports has revitalised the debate. Many scholars suggest this constitutes a move towards narrative-based reporting. This study aims to investigate the debate and draws a comparison with the juxtaposition of the narrative and rational paradigms. This study also investigates how accountingisation influences the way business model information is presented in corporate reports.

This study analyses data from the financial and non-financial reports from 86 globally listed companies. This study first uses content analysis to code the data. This study then uses a partial least squares-structural equation model to test how accountingisation influences how firms report their business model information.

This study finds that accountingisation and a rational paradigm shape how companies present information about their business model in their financial and non-financial reports. This suggests that the dominance of quantitative measures in accounting affects even the presentation of narrative-based information. Despite the much-touted shift towards qualitative reporting, this study argues that companies find it difficult to cast off the yoke of a traditional numbers-based mindset.

This paper contributes to the debate on numbers- versus narrative-based corporate reporting and the workings of narrative and rational paradigms. In it, this study lays out theoretical and empirical findings of accountingisation. This study also makes a case for freeing corporate reports from the shackles of an accountingisation mindset.

This study provides new insights into how companies report information about their business models and the influence of narrative and rational paradigms on financial and non-financial reporting.

The purpose of this study is to test the determinant of financial report quality and its consequences to the company values.

This research is using a quantitative approach and testing a theory by formulating some hypotheses. The sample of this study is 85 go public companies listed in the Indonesia Stock Exchange, for a 5-year observation period from 2016 to 2020. Hence, it has a total of 425 observations. Data were analyzed using path analysis.

The results found that innate factors from financial reporting quality (FRQ) consists of dynamic factors (operation cycle and sales volatility) as well as static factors (firm’s size, FS). These factors help to achieve FRQ and are able to provide a positive response to the market. On the other hand, static factors (firm’s age, FA) and institution risk factors (leverage) are not able to produce FRQ. Thus, it cannot be considered as an economic decision maker for an investor.

Research implications include theoretical and practical implications. Theoretical implications prove that the valuation of clean surplus theory, which shows the market value of the company, is reflected in the components of the financial statements. This study also uses more than one quality of financial reporting. The practical implication of the research is that the research results are expected to provide information for the company’s management, to fulfill quality financial reporting and so that the market or investors will respond positively to these conditions. In addition, quality financial reporting information provides benefits for investors and capital market analysts (consisting of investors, brokers and market securities analysts) in determining investment decisions. The Financial Services Authority is also able to improve the implementation of corporate governance practices in Indonesia, through reform of the framework supervision of the financial services sector.

This research examines the determinants of FRQ and its consequences on firm’s value (FV). Innate factors proxies from FRQ include dynamic factors (operation cycle and sales volatility), static factors (FS and FA) and institution risk factors (leverage). A follow-up study on the value of the company because it shows the magnitude of the market response (financial statement users) on the quality of financial reporting, which is reflected in FV, the originality of this research is that the object of research is carried out in developing countries, specifically in Indonesia, because most of the previous research was carried out in developed countries.

This paper aims to investigate the effect of voluntary non-financial reporting on the evaluation of audit risk from the auditors’ viewpoint in a post-crisis period. Furthermore, this paper analyses whether auditors perceive that voluntary non-financial reporting impacts audit risk differently for old clients as compared with new clients.

This study is conducted on a sample of Italian audit firms through a paper-based questionnaire. Both Big4 and non-Big4 audit firms have been included in the sample.

Results show that integrated reporting is perceived to be the most relevant reporting method and intellectual capital statement the least relevant. Surprisingly, empirical findings over the sample period show that auditors do not perceive statistically significant differences between old and new clients.

Auditors can identify opportunities to adapt their assessment model to include voluntary non-financial report information. Moreover, they can use different assessment models regarding the research variables in the case of new and old clients.

Empirical findings highlight the growing role of voluntary non-financial reporting in the auditors’ perception of their client’s audit risk. All the observed voluntary non-financial reporting forms, except for intellectual capital, are considered as relevant by auditors in the evaluation of their client’s audit risk when compared to an indifference point. In addition, findings reveal that female auditors perceive a reduced gap in the relevance between integrated reports and intellectual capital reports compared to their counterparts.

The concept of materiality is becoming increasingly important for sustainability performance measurement and reporting. It is widely agreed upon that materiality matters, in the sense that companies should identify, prioritize and disclose information on sustainability issues that are considered material. There is, however, a tension at the heart of this consensus, owing to parallel approaches to materiality being used in practice. This paper aims to shed light on how and why the parallel uses of the materiality concept may cause confusion and how this tension could be resolved.

This paper takes as point of departure the tension between two approaches to materiality: based on the Global Reporting Initiative definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are important to stakeholders and that have significant impacts and based on the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are financially material, i.e. likely to influence the financial performance of the company. This paper discusses the nature and consequences of the tensions between how the two definitions of materiality in sustainability reporting are used in practice, with a particular emphasis on users of information in financial markets. This paper provides empirical insight on these users’ perspectives through a survey (n = 30) and qualitative interviews (n = 6) of financial market professionals.

This study reveals tensions between different approaches to materiality in practice and how this may lead users of sustainability reports to draw unjustified conclusions on the basis of materiality assessments. Specifically, this paper demonstrates the perceived shortcomings in information availability and information quality from the perspectives of different stakeholders in financial markets with different information needs.

The users of sustainability reporting information require clarity in the communication of materiality in non-financial reports. This paper addresses how such clarity can be pursued.

Clarity about materiality in non-financial reporting is important both for investors that pursue financial return on green investments and for society at large, which relies on information about real sustainability impacts.

This paper furthers the understanding of how different materiality concepts may be problematic and how recent and ongoing developments may mitigate the risks of conflating uses of the concept.

Credit relevance of financial reporting can be influenced by change in financial reporting framework. This study aims to examine the effect of mandatory international financial reporting standards (IFRS) adoption on credit relevance quality of financial reporting of deposit money banks (DMBs) in Nigeria.

This study uses difference-in-differences (D-in-D) design for its modelling. Panel data regression analysis based on the D-in-D model is used in analysing the data collected from secondary sources.

The findings of this study are that based on the D-in-D approach, there is a significant and positive effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on credit relevance quality of financial reporting of DMBs in Nigeria, and that there is also a significant difference in the credit relevance quality of financial reporting of mandatory adopting banks in the post-mandatory IFRS adoption period compared to pre-mandatory IFRS adoption period.

To the best of this study's review, there is inadequacy of literature within the credit relevance research in Nigeria. In the light of this, this study intends to fill the gap.

This study is specifically important to regulatory authorities, both primary and secondary regulators. Specifically, this study has implications in the regulatory roles of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRC). However, the study recommends that regulatory authorities should encourage DMBs to avail their financial reports annually to credit rating agencies (local and international) for proper evaluation for subsequent ratings.

The peculiarities in this study, that is the utilisation of the D-in-D design and the use of credit relevance metric as the dependent variable, made this study important and novel to push the frontier of existing knowledge.

This paper outlines the development of the principle of materiality in the European accounting framework, from the Modernization Directive (2003/51/EC) to the NFI Directive (2014/95/EU) and on to the proposals for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR) Directive (2021/0104 (COD)). The authors highlight how the requirements for corporate reporting in terms of sustainability matters have changed, underlining the main issues that require further attention by practitioners, researchers and legislators.

This paper is based upon a historic analysis of European Union (EU) regulations in the field of non-financial and sustainability reporting and how these have changed over time. A conceptual comparison of different reporting concepts is presented, and changes in their relevance to the EU accounting framework are discussed as part of the historic analysis. Implications from corporate practice are derived from previous empirical findings from the EU Commission's consultations.

The proposed change from non-financial to sustainability reporting within the EU affects more than simply the terminology used. It implies that a different understanding is needed of both the purposes of company reporting on sustainability matters and the aims of carrying out such reporting. This change was driven by the need and desire to appropriately interpret the principle of materiality set forth in the NFI Directive. However, the recent redefinition in the shift within the EU Commission's proposals presents considerable challenges–and costs–in practice.

Future research on the conceptualization and operationalization of ecological and social materiality, as well as on the use of this information by different stakeholder groups, is necessary in order to (a) help companies that are applying the reporting requirements in practice, (b) support the increased harmonization of the reports published by these companies and (c) fully assess the costs and benefits associated with the increase in reporting requirements for these companies.

Companies have to establish relevant reporting processes, systems and formats to fulfil the increasing number of reporting requirements.

This paper outlines the historic development of the principle of materiality regarding mandatory non-financial or sustainability reporting within the EU. It outlines a shift in rationales and political priorities as well as in implications for European companies that need to fulfil the reporting requirements. In consequence, it describes appropriate interpretations of this principle of materiality under current and upcoming legislation, enabling users to apply this principle more effectively.

Research dealing with non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations is progressively expanding. This paper systematizes the existing literature with the aim of understanding how research is developing and identifying the gaps in need of further investigation.

A structured literature review was conducted by rigorously following the steps defined in previous studies. The structured nature of the literature review paves the way for a solid understanding and critical analysis of the state of the art of research on non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations.

The critical analysis of the literature shows that most existing studies have focused on sustainability reporting in higher education institutions, local governments and state-owned enterprises, while remaining silent on the healthcare sector. Additional theoretical and empirical approaches should feed future research. Several areas deserve further investigations that might impactfully affect public sector organizations, standard setters, practitioners and scholars.

This paper offers a comprehensive review of the literature on different reporting formats that public sector organizations adopt to report various dimensions of their performance to both internal and external stakeholders. The structured literature review enables the identification of future directions for the literature in this field.

The purpose of this study is to establish the relationship between corporate governance attributes (board expertise, board independence and board role performance), internal audit quality and financial reporting quality using evidence from Uganda's financial institutions.

This study research design is cross sectional and correlational. The study used a questionnaire survey of Chief Finance Officers, Senior Accountants and Internal audit managers of financial institutions in Uganda. Data were analyzed with the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Results indicate that board expertise and board role performance are significantly associated with financial reporting quality. Also, internal audit quality is significantly associated with financial reporting quality. Board independence is not a significant predictor of financial reporting quality.

This paper provides insights of what matters for financial reporting quality in Uganda's financial reporting quality. It uses the qualitative characteristics of financial statements to measure financial reporting quality. This paper focuses mainly on the conceptual framework developed by the International Accounting Standards Board.