Search results

To investigate, compare and document the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure to sustainability disclosure during a transition from a voluntary to mandated “comply or explain” sustainability reporting regime. And to empirically test if, during the regime transition period, changes in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure is a significant determinant of changes in the magnitude (extent) of intellectual capital disclosure.

Content analysis of 1,744 annual reports drawn from 436 Singapore listed firms spanning a four-year observation window (i.e. April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018). The magnitude (number of sentences) and extent (number of items) of (1) intellectual capital disclosure measured using a 38-item index; (2) sustainability disclosure of a 105-item index; and (3) 15-item index to measure the magnitude and extent of joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure.

The average magnitude and extent of sustainability and the joint sustainability/intellectual capital disclosure increased whilst the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure increased when regulatory discussion of a change to mandated sustainability reporting emerged. However, in the annual period the mandated sustainability reporting became effective while the average magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure declined. Regression tests indicate a significant (insignificant) association between the change in the magnitude (extent) of sustainability disclosure and intellectual capital disclosure.

From a research perspective, the analysis implies researchers investigating the consequences of mandated sustainability disclosure should consider impact on alternative non-financial disclosure themes and develop theoretical frameworks to derive why and how management may shift non-financial reporting strategies and practices.

For regulators, findings suggest there may be a need to weigh spillover costs of reductions in transparency related to intellectual capital. For investors, declines in the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure following a transition to mandated sustainability reporting may limit future firm valuation particularly of heavy intangible asset-oriented firms.

Initial study empirically investigating the impact of the transition from a voluntary to mandated sustainability reporting regime on the magnitude and extent of intellectual capital disclosure.

This paper investigates the market response to the poor quality of reporting on the first mandated set of conflict minerals disclosures in the US setting. The authors examine the reaction for both filing firms at their filing date and non-filing companies at the filing deadline.

The authors use standard market model methods to capture investor response and test for differences across reactions using comparisons of means and regression models. The authors also code reports for a sub-sample of firms and test for the relation between disclosure and market reactions.

The authors document a significant negative reaction for both filing and non-filing firms, with the latter group suffering a more negative reaction than the filers. The authors also find more extensive disclosure is associated with less negative market reactions. Finally, the authors provide evidence supporting the argument that the more pronounced reaction for the non-filers is due to concerns with incremental implementation costs for these firms.

The results extend prior research into investor perceptions of exposures to social and political costs. The findings suggest that investors view both poor quality disclosure and lack of response to mandated requirements as increasing such exposures.

The negative market response could be expected to exert additional pressures on companies to better assess and report on conflict mineral exposures in their supply chains.

The findings suggest investors pay attention to the corporate response to mandated social disclosure requirements, an important finding as mandates for similar types of disclosure appear to be in the offing.

This study is the first to extend the social and political cost exposure literature to analysis of mandated social disclosures.

Motivated by the enactment of non-financial reporting regulations by the European Parliament, this paper aims to investigate the impact of European Union (EU) directive 2014/95/EU on the quantity of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures by the S&P Europe 350 index firms. This study also investigates whether the implementation of the non-financial information (NFI) reporting regulations influences the association between ESG disclosures and firms’ earnings risk.

To measure the impact of mandatory regulations on the quantity of ESG disclosures, this study estimates the average treatment effects using a propensity weighted sample. Then this study uses the difference-in-differences method to estimate the differences in the association between ESG disclosures and earning risk before and after implementation of the EU directive.

The results show a significant positive impact of the EU directive on the quantity of ESG disclosures for the sample European public-interest entities, which indicates that the mandatory NFI reporting requirements could boost the availability of increasingly demanded ESG related information. The enhanced association between the ESG disclosures and firms’ earnings risk during the post-directive period reveals that mandating NFI reporting also increases the quality of ESG disclosures.

Using the legitimacy and decision-usefulness theories, this study provides novel evidence concerning the impact of the EU directive on the quantity and quality of ESG disclosures.

This paper aims to study companies’ strategic responses to regulative institutional pressures on sustainability reporting. Particularly, it investigates the role of multiple stakeholder demands in shaping corporate responses to Law 11/2018 that transposes the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive in Spain.

Informed by Oliver’s framework, the study analyzes the 2018 non-financial information of Spanish listed companies mandated to report under Law 11/2018 to explore the relationship between adopting a particular strategic response and companies’ stakeholder configuration.

Companies facing multiple stakeholder pressures tend to use a compromise strategy favoring the disclosure of relevant topics to a specific stakeholder type. Specifically, environmentalists are the most influential stakeholder in determining the coverage of sustainability topics to the detriment of other stakeholders when companies suffer from regulatory pressures.

The study contributes to disentangling the factors determining how companies respond to sustainability reporting regulation. Future research could perform longitudinal and large multinational analyses to study the evolutionary process of corporate responses.

The study is relevant to managers and policymakers as it highlights that sustainability reporting regulation should promote the coverage of relevant topics to less influential stakeholders.

The study explores the extent to which current sustainability reporting regulation can increase transparency on sustainability issues for all stakeholders.

In contrast to previous literature exploring the extent to which firms comply with regulation, the study considers that companies can respond more actively to mandatory sustainability reporting requirements.

In February 2010, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an interpretive release clarifying the information that registrants should disclose about climate change in their annual filings. Based on the industries the European Union targeted for its cap-and-trade carbon trading mechanism, this study investigates climate change disclosures for Fortune 500 firms operating in these same sectors. Using an equal-weighting scheme for content analysis of Form 10-Ks from 136 firms, we completed a comparative analysis on the extensiveness of climate change disclosures for the pre- and post-periods surrounding the SEC pronouncement. We observed a statistically significant increase in the disclosure of information related to climate change in 2010 compared to 2008, but no similar effect when comparing 2010–2009 reporting. There was a significant disclosure increase in 2009 compared to 2008. We conclude – based on a hypothesized anticipation of the SEC actually mandating climate change information in filings – that firms augmented their disclosures during 2009 in advance of the official guidance being published. This is a rather significant outcome given the historical lack of environmental disclosure subsequent to previous SEC mandates.

This study reviews research that examines economic and behavioural consequences of CSR reporting regulations. Specifically, the authors evaluate the impact of CSR reporting regulations on (1) reporting quality, (2) capital-markets and (3) firm behaviour.

The authors first describe the stated objectives and enforcement level of CSR reporting regulations around the world. Second, the authors review over 130 archival studies in accounting, finance, economics, law and management that examine consequences of the regulations.

The stated objectives and enforcement of CSR reporting regulations vary considerably across countries. Empirical research finds no significant changes in reporting quality and generally concludes that CSR reporting continues to be ceremonial rather than substantive after the regulations – consistent with corporate legitimation and “greenwashing” views. In contrast, growing evidence shows both positive and negative capital-market and real effects of the regulations. Overall, the findings from this review indicate that, on balance, there remains a significant number of questions on the net effects of CSR reporting regulations.

The authors offer a comprehensive review of the literature examining consequences of CSR reporting regulations. The authors identify apparent tensions in studies assessing different outcomes after the regulations: between symbolic reporting and positive capital-market outcomes; between profitability and CSR; and between CSR and the welfare of non-shareholder groups. Additionally, we highlight differences in the scope and stated objectives of CSR regulations across countries, with the regulations often reflecting socio-economic development and national interests of implementing countries. Collectively, our review indicates that institutional details are crucial when considering the design or consequences of CSR reporting regulations and/or standards.

Motivated by legitimacy theory, this paper aims to examine comprehensively corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure in Southeast Asian (Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN]) countries with the aim of disentangling whether such disclosures are the result of a proactive stance or a reaction to regulations.

After a content analysis of CSR stand-alone reports that relies on the Global Reporting Initiative as the basis for comparison, a multivariate analysis is carried out while controlling for firm-specific incentives and industry, country and year fixed effects.

The paper finds that CSR disclosure increased across the entire ASEAN. Although this increase cannot be directly ascribed to the introduction of regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia, the latter may have impacted choices of disclosure media. In countries where reporting requirements have become mandated, mandatory reporters show low levels, and voluntary reporters high levels, of CSR disclosure. The paper also finds that the attainment of CSR awards is related to disclosure. Additional analyses reveal a substitution effect between voluntary and mandatory incentives in countries with high levels of law enforcement.

The evidence suggests that the introduction of regulations can be effective in improving the level and breadth of CSR reporting only in the presence of institutions that ensure the enforcement of the disclosure regulations.

The evidence suggests that organizations are reluctant to report on issues such as child labor, human rights and corruption. Organizations opportunistically employ related disclosure strategies that deviate from the underlying CSR performance.

The paper analyzes not only the level and breadth of CSR disclosure but also the motivation for its use across the still under-investigated ASEAN area, thus allowing an examination of the influence of institutional incentives above and beyond the firm-specific factors that drive CSR activities.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of ownership structure, board attributes and eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) on annual financial reporting timeliness of non-financial companies listed on Borsa Istanbul (BIST).

To conduct the analyses, the authors used two samples. The main sample consists of 187 companies, while the subsample includes 54 companies in the BIST 100 index. The data set covers the 2010–2018 period. To investigate the influence of ownership structure, board attributes and XBRL on timeliness, panel regression and univariate analyses were used. To explore the factors associated with the likelihood of late filing, panel logistic regression analyses were employed.

The findings provide evidence that companies that have a high level of institutional ownership and women board membership file earlier. In line with prior studies, profitable companies file their accounts faster. Highly leveraged companies are late reporters. Further, XBRL has a positive influence on the filing of financial reports for the BIST 100 companies due to technological agility. Finally, companies that have less institutional ownership and that get qualified audit opinions are more subject to late filing.

The authors acknowledge that this study has certain limitations. First, the results may not be generalized to the entire BIST population due to the exclusion of financial companies from the samples. Future research may explore the financial reporting timeliness of these companies. Second, the study did not investigate the relationship between timeliness and the information content in financial statements and the market reactions they arouse. Third, this study is trying to find out early evidence on the mandatory adoption of XBRL filings, which cover only three-year period due to the recent implementation of this regulatory practice. Thus, it needs further elaboration after the accumulation of data in the forthcoming years by the expansion of the sample beyond the 2016–2018 period. As companies would have more time to become familiar with XBRL, a more reliable conclusion may be drawn. Further, the study particularly focuses on the effect of XBRL adoption on the timeliness among filers. XBRL could also influence investors, auditors and other stakeholders. Future research could investigate the influence of XBRL on different stakeholders to produce more insightful implications.

This study offers several implications for managers, regulators and policy makers. First, companies that do not make timely financial reporting may find it more difficult to attract long-term capital by means of institutional investors. Since these investors view timely reporting as an ideal ingredient in corporate governance, it may have a positive impact on company reputation and corporate sustainability. The results also provide insights for regulatory authorities, policy makers and auditors on the causes of the reporting lag, thereby increasing their awareness and helping them in their decision-making process since improvements in timely availability and accessibility of financial information reduce information asymmetry for users and increase market efficiency. Additionally, companies that reduce their filing timeframe will be able to compare their results with other companies. However, the XBRL mandate could be much more burdensome to smaller firms. This may stem from the fact that larger firms may tend to use the in-house approach for XBRL and can afford more advanced financial reporting systems with automated coding algorithms attached to streamline their XBRL filings, whereas smaller firms are more likely to use the outsourcing approach due to the difference in the level of resources available for XBRL preparation. This finding also lends support to recent concerns that new technology creates an unleveled benefit in reporting efficiency for large companies, but not for small ones (e.g. Blankespoor et al., 2014). This benefit may change the dynamics of the financial market and information environment, leading to further segmentation of the capital markets. The positive effects of XBRL adoption may accrue over time due to the potential benefits of learning curve experience since the XBRL mandate will help companies automate their reporting process and information processing, thereby strengthening internal control over financial reporting (Deloitte, 2013; Du et al., 2013; Li, 2017). Companies may also efficiently incorporate auditor-proposed adjustments by cross-referencing impacted accounts and prepare revised versions of the financial reports, which are automatically rendered in various formats for auditors to assess (Wu and Vasarhelyi, 2004). Finally, investors and other users of financial information benefit from having quicker access to data, since this allows them to make more timely and reliable decisions, leading to greater benefits.

This paper contributes to the literature on the impact of adopting XBRL on the timeliness of financial reporting in emerging markets. Second, this study extends the literature and provides evidence on determinants of timeliness, covering both ownership structure and board attributes besides firm-specific characteristics. Hence, it provides valuable insights for companies, investors, auditing firms and policy makers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how university employees’ and students’ understandings of Title IX may affect both students’ disclosure of victimization and perpetration and employees’ reporting to Title IX coordinators.

Study 1 surveyed 114 university employees about their knowledge of Title IX and what it requires of them. Study 2 surveyed 845 students to determine their knowledge of and opinions about Title IX mandatory reporting requirements, their beliefs regarding rape myths and feminism, and their sexual victimization history.

In general, faculty/staff members thought they were required to report sexual violence to Title IX coordinators and agreed with the reporting requirement. The majority (78.9 percent) of faculty/staff members said they would report a sexual assault disclosed by a student to the Title IX coordinator. Most students believed faculty/staff members were required to report sexual violence and reported high agreement with the reporting requirement. More than a third of students (36.3 to 36.9 percent) were unsure whether they would tell a faculty member about sexual assault (their own or that of a third party), and about a fifth (16.7 to 22.8 percent) were not willing to disclose.

These results underscore the importance of trainings to encourage both student disclosure and reporting by mandated reporters of sexual violence on college campuses.