Search results

This paper aims to examine the association between perceived firm risk and two reporting mechanisms: risk disclosure and earnings smoothing in the UK context.

This study juxtaposes three competing views, the “null”, the “divergence” and the “convergence” hypotheses, and empirically investigates whether risk disclosure and earnings smoothing affect firm perceived risk for a sample of large UK firms with rich and poor information environments. This study also uses the global financial crisis as an external shock on overall risk in the economy to investigate when and how managers use these two reporting mechanisms to shape the firm perceived risk.

This paper documents that risk disclosures have no significant effect on investors’ risk perceptions, consistent with risk disclosures containing boilerplate and generic statements about firm risk. This paper also finds that earnings smoothing reduces investors’ risk perceptions, reflecting investors’ interpretations about future firm performance. Additional tests reveal that earnings smoothing is not associated with perceived firm risk for firms with rich information environments and expanded risk disclosures. Furthermore, reporting smooth earnings decreases perceived firm risk following the global financial crisis. These findings are robust to alternative specifications and measures of earnings smoothing as well as post-filing perceived firm risk.

This study does not distinguish between the garbling role and the informational role of earnings smoothing. The risk disclosure measurement used in this study, developed based on UK annual reports, may limit the generalizability of findings to other countries.

The findings suggest that managers should revise their risk disclosure strategies to provide in-depth details on firm risk. Investors might require information and thorough assessment to evaluate investment risks when firms provide generic risk disclosures and smoothed earnings by consulting sources like financial intermediaries. Regulators should keep an eye on firms reporting boilerplate risk disclosures and on how smoothing earnings impacts the firm perceived risk following economic turmoil, to guide interventions that promote market stability.

The findings provide new insights into when and how managers use their financial reporting discretion to make firms appear less risky and, therefore, influence investors’ risk perceptions.

This paper explores how risks are managed in project practice beyond formalized risk management processes by applying the lens of actuality research to project risk management.

The paper follows a qualitative multimethod research approach utilizing literature review, interviews, observations and document analysis. The paper is based on three case studies and one interview study in project organizations facing green transition challenges.

Little work exists to reveal how risk management is actually done by project practitioners, and why. Few studies report on contextual variation and consider confounding factors beyond a “one size fits all” formalized explicit risk management process, despite ample evidence that risks are managed outside the formal process. The study documents that informal and/or implicit risk management activities add significantly more value.

The paper contributes a literature review of research into the actuality of project risk management, a sense-making framework of how risks are managed in practice beyond the formal, explicit risk-management process by including informal and/or implicit risk management activities, an empirical study of risk-management practice highlighting that informal and/or implicit risk-management activities dominate in practice, a discussion of why risks are managed outside formalized, explicit process and a research agenda to enable the design of impactful project risk-management practices.

Stirred by scant regard for market phases in portfolio performance assessments, the current paper investigates the active versus passive investment strategies under the bull and bear market conditions in emerging markets focusing on South Africa as a case study.

Methodologically, the measures of Jensen's alpha and Treynor index are applied to the monthly returns of 20 funds from January 2010 to June 2022.

The results are enlightening; though they contradict developed market evidence, they are consistent with emerging market trends. The findings show that actively managed funds outperform the market benchmark and passive investing style under bear and normal market conditions. Passive investment strategy outperforms both market benchmark and actively investing style under bull market conditions.

In the face of improved market efficiency, increased liquidity and recent technological impact, the findings of this study have practical application. The study outcomes should inform and update global investors, especially asset managers interested in emerging markets; however, the limitations of the study should also be considered.

While limited studies consider market conditions when comparing and contrasting the performance of passive versus active investing, such consideration is lacking in emerging markets. The current study corrects this literature imbalance.

The growing business complexity has caused many risks (e.g. operational, financial, reputational, cybersecurity, regulatory and compliance) that threaten companies' sustainability and have received attention from regulators, investors, and businesses. The authors present a model for assessing and reporting corporate risk by examining the indicators underlying corporate risk reporting.

A thorough review of the literature and semi-structured interviews with experts were conducted and the fuzzy Delphi technique was used to obtain consensus and screening of risks. The relationships between these risk indicators were recognized, weighted and prioritized by employing a hybrid Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Model (DEMATEL) method integrated with Analytic Network Process (ANP) (DEMATEL-ANP [DANP]) approach. Finally, using the Iranian setting of corporate risk reporting, a model was developed to calculate the risk-reporting scores.

The results indicate that risk disclosure quality is more important than risk disclosures' textual properties and quantity. According to the experts, reporting the key risks that the company faces, management's approach to dealing with these risks and quantifying their impact are more important than the other indicators. The results also show that risk reporting in Iran lacks quantitative and specific information, and most risk disclosures are sticky.

The data have been prepared and analyzed according to the unique Iranian reporting environment, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

The results of this research can be used by the regulators of the Stock Exchange Organizations (SEO) to evaluate corporate risk reports and rank companies. Results are also relevant to investors and policymakers to identify companies with poor risk disclosure and to take necessary measures to improve their reporting practices.

This paper contributes to the social and governance literature by presenting the importance of risk reporting in corporate disclosures.

The unique Iranian setting of corporate risk reporting furthers the understanding of risk reporting and thus provides education, policy, practice and research implications for other emerging economies like Iran. Many prior studies focus mainly on the quality of risk disclosure, and other aspects of corporate risk disclosure presented in the study have remained largely overlooked. The corporate risk reporting attributes identified in the study are relevant to the rise of non-financial risks, the textual and qualitative nature of risk reporting and textual risk disclosures.

This study investigates the relationships between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) controversies and insolvency risk in the insurance sector. Drawing from legitimacy and stakeholder theories, the authors explore the impact of ESG controversies on insurers’ insolvency risk and the moderating effect of ESG practices on this relationship.

This study utilises a dataset comprising 120 stock insurance firms spanning from 2011 to 2022. The authors employed system-GMM estimations to control for potential endogeneity and conducted several robustness checks.

ESG controversy positively influences insurers’ insolvency risk, with ESG practices mitigating these positive effects. The Governance (G) component of ESG practices plays a key role in counteracting the effects of ESG controversies on insurance companies’ insolvency risk.

This is the first study to investigate the direct relationship between ESG controversies and insolvency risk in the insurance industry. It underscores the critical influence of stakeholders’ perceptions of the company’s legitimacy, which is determined by the number of ESG controversies undertaken by the insurer company, on its insolvency risk. Additionally, by examining the three components of ESG practices individually, the authors offer insights into how managers can gain a competitive edge, particularly by utilising governance practices as safeguards against the adverse effects of ESG controversies on their financial risk.