Pub Date : 2022-07-08DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2091466
Luís Cracel Viana, J. Moreira, Paulo Alves
ABSTRACT This paper studies the adequacy of financial and non-financial disclosures in the government’s consolidated annual report for political accountability of public-private partnerships (PPPs). The empirical evidence from the comparative study shows that neither the UK nor Portugal complies with the information needs of the parliament because several disclosures deemed necessary for the functioning of the political accountability relationship are missing. Furthermore, in the case of Portugal, resource dependence and coercive institutional pressures related to the financial bailout during the sovereign debt crisis justify the increase in the level of disclosures. Such evidence also suggests that a comprehensive external reporting framework for PPPs in their post-procurement phase should be devised. The results present novel evidence concerning public sector accounting comparative studies by focusing on specific transactions and may have important implications for policymakers regarding the design of the disclosures deemed necessary.
{"title":"Disclosure of Information and Transparency in Public-private Partnerships: a Comparative Study Between Portugal and the UK","authors":"Luís Cracel Viana, J. Moreira, Paulo Alves","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2091466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2091466","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper studies the adequacy of financial and non-financial disclosures in the government’s consolidated annual report for political accountability of public-private partnerships (PPPs). The empirical evidence from the comparative study shows that neither the UK nor Portugal complies with the information needs of the parliament because several disclosures deemed necessary for the functioning of the political accountability relationship are missing. Furthermore, in the case of Portugal, resource dependence and coercive institutional pressures related to the financial bailout during the sovereign debt crisis justify the increase in the level of disclosures. Such evidence also suggests that a comprehensive external reporting framework for PPPs in their post-procurement phase should be devised. The results present novel evidence concerning public sector accounting comparative studies by focusing on specific transactions and may have important implications for policymakers regarding the design of the disclosures deemed necessary.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43722682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-20DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2049327
Annika Brasch, B. Eierle, Robin Jarvis
ABSTRACT Following calls for further research, this study evaluates the determinants and motives behind private companies’ decision to capitalise development costs by using mixed methods. While prior literature and expert interviews indicate initially that private firms may be motivated opportunistically, subsequent archival analyses show that development costs are capitalised to meet benchmarks and ameliorate poor profitability. Additionally, interview evidence emphasises that debt covenant violation avoidance and increasing merger and acquisition (M&A) values are important drivers for capitalisation, whereas management compensation schemes do not seem to influence their accounting policy. Moreover, findings imply a negative association between firm size and the capitalisation of development costs. Expert interview evidence indicates that smaller companies are more likely to have financing needs, suggesting that capitalisation is employed to signal future economic benefits to investors. Conversely, the motivation for larger companies which are more likely to expense may be grounded on risk avoidance from future impairments.
{"title":"Capitalising or Expensing Development Costs? – Mixed Methods Evidence on the Determinants and Motives of the Accounting Policy in the context of UK Private Companies","authors":"Annika Brasch, B. Eierle, Robin Jarvis","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2049327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2049327","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Following calls for further research, this study evaluates the determinants and motives behind private companies’ decision to capitalise development costs by using mixed methods. While prior literature and expert interviews indicate initially that private firms may be motivated opportunistically, subsequent archival analyses show that development costs are capitalised to meet benchmarks and ameliorate poor profitability. Additionally, interview evidence emphasises that debt covenant violation avoidance and increasing merger and acquisition (M&A) values are important drivers for capitalisation, whereas management compensation schemes do not seem to influence their accounting policy. Moreover, findings imply a negative association between firm size and the capitalisation of development costs. Expert interview evidence indicates that smaller companies are more likely to have financing needs, suggesting that capitalisation is employed to signal future economic benefits to investors. Conversely, the motivation for larger companies which are more likely to expense may be grounded on risk avoidance from future impairments.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60430011","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2065645
Ries Breijer, René P. Orij
Abstract This study explores the impact of the implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU on the comparability of non-financial information across listed European firms, focusing on the usage of non-financial reporting (NFR) frameworks – those developed by the SASB, IIRC, OECD, EFFAS, GRI, UNGC, ISO, AA, and FEE. Using computer-aided text-analysis software (MAXQDA 2022), we analysed the annual reports and stand-alone non-financial (sustainability) reports from listed firms in the STOXX Europe 600 Index covering 2012–2020. The results showed that the implementation of the Directive led to an increase in the use of investor-oriented NFR frameworks (e.g. that of the SASB); frameworks oriented towards a wide range of stakeholders (e.g. GRI) are predominantly used by voluntary adopters. Furthermore, although disclosures by resisters (mandatory adopters) indicate a stronger focus on investors, the disclosure of non-financial information exacerbated information asymmetry for resisters, whereas NFR mitigated information asymmetry for voluntary adopters.
{"title":"The Comparability of Non-Financial Information: An Exploration of the Impact of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD, 2014/95/EU)","authors":"Ries Breijer, René P. Orij","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2065645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2065645","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study explores the impact of the implementation of Directive 2014/95/EU on the comparability of non-financial information across listed European firms, focusing on the usage of non-financial reporting (NFR) frameworks – those developed by the SASB, IIRC, OECD, EFFAS, GRI, UNGC, ISO, AA, and FEE. Using computer-aided text-analysis software (MAXQDA 2022), we analysed the annual reports and stand-alone non-financial (sustainability) reports from listed firms in the STOXX Europe 600 Index covering 2012–2020. The results showed that the implementation of the Directive led to an increase in the use of investor-oriented NFR frameworks (e.g. that of the SASB); frameworks oriented towards a wide range of stakeholders (e.g. GRI) are predominantly used by voluntary adopters. Furthermore, although disclosures by resisters (mandatory adopters) indicate a stronger focus on investors, the disclosure of non-financial information exacerbated information asymmetry for resisters, whereas NFR mitigated information asymmetry for voluntary adopters.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48924385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-25DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2046283
Cristiano Feliciano, R. Quick
ABSTRACT Innovative information technology (IT) could help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of audits. Accordingly, we investigate the future importance, and current auditor expertise, regarding 18 technologies identified from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with Big 4 audit technology experts. We then surveyed German auditors and received 433 usable responses. Respondents perceive most of the analyzed IT as relevant in the next three to five years. Online meeting solutions and data mining have the highest importance rating. By contrast, self-assessed current personal knowledge of most IT is low. Complementary regression analyses reveal that female auditors and Big 4 auditors perceive IT as more important, and younger auditors and Big 4 auditors assess their own knowledge as higher. Comparing importance and knowledge ratings, we find a serious importance-knowledge gap for all considered IT. Intensive educational efforts seem to be essential in order to close this gap.
{"title":"Innovative Information Technology in Auditing: Auditors’ Perceptions of Future Importance and Current Auditor Expertise","authors":"Cristiano Feliciano, R. Quick","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2046283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2046283","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Innovative information technology (IT) could help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of audits. Accordingly, we investigate the future importance, and current auditor expertise, regarding 18 technologies identified from a comprehensive literature review and interviews with Big 4 audit technology experts. We then surveyed German auditors and received 433 usable responses. Respondents perceive most of the analyzed IT as relevant in the next three to five years. Online meeting solutions and data mining have the highest importance rating. By contrast, self-assessed current personal knowledge of most IT is low. Complementary regression analyses reveal that female auditors and Big 4 auditors perceive IT as more important, and younger auditors and Big 4 auditors assess their own knowledge as higher. Comparing importance and knowledge ratings, we find a serious importance-knowledge gap for all considered IT. Intensive educational efforts seem to be essential in order to close this gap.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44536018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-21DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2060753
Md Khokan Bepari, A. Mollik, S. Nahar, Mohammad N. Islam
ABSTRACT We examine firm-specific factors (firm life cycle, firm size, complexity, litigation risks, intangible intensity), audit-specific factors (audit firm, audit fee, non-audit fee) and auditor-specific factors (auditor’s experience, specialization, gender and accounting degree), as determinants of the number of KAMs, account-level KAMs (ALKAMs), and entity-level KAMs (ELKAMs) for a sample of Australian firms. Our findings suggest that KAMs’ disclosure varies based on client firm-specific characteristics, audit firm-specific characteristics and audit partners’ characteristics. We find that firms’ life cycle, size, complexity, intangible intensity, audit firm identity, audit fees, auditors’ specialization, experience, gender and accounting degree affect the number and types of KAMs’ disclosure. Our findings negate the concern of stereotyping in KAMs disclosures and suggest that KAMs’ disclosure varies based on many contextual factors. Our findings have important implications for audit firms, corporate boards, investors and regulators.
{"title":"Determinants of Accounts Level and Entity Level Key Audit Matters: Further Evidence","authors":"Md Khokan Bepari, A. Mollik, S. Nahar, Mohammad N. Islam","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2060753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2060753","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We examine firm-specific factors (firm life cycle, firm size, complexity, litigation risks, intangible intensity), audit-specific factors (audit firm, audit fee, non-audit fee) and auditor-specific factors (auditor’s experience, specialization, gender and accounting degree), as determinants of the number of KAMs, account-level KAMs (ALKAMs), and entity-level KAMs (ELKAMs) for a sample of Australian firms. Our findings suggest that KAMs’ disclosure varies based on client firm-specific characteristics, audit firm-specific characteristics and audit partners’ characteristics. We find that firms’ life cycle, size, complexity, intangible intensity, audit firm identity, audit fees, auditors’ specialization, experience, gender and accounting degree affect the number and types of KAMs’ disclosure. Our findings negate the concern of stereotyping in KAMs disclosures and suggest that KAMs’ disclosure varies based on many contextual factors. Our findings have important implications for audit firms, corporate boards, investors and regulators.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44077506","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-12DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2046282
David Delgado-Vaquero, José Morales-Díaz, Constancio Zamora-Ramírez
Abstract Under the IFRS 16 capitalization model for lessees, entities should measure both the lease liability and the ‘right of use’ (the lease asset) by discounting future lease payments over the lease term. For the most part, entities are using the Incremental Borrowing Rate (IBR) to perform said discounting. IFRS 16 establishes that the IBR must consider the underlying leased asset as collateral, and therefore the yield to be used should reflect a Loss Given Default (LGD) which may vary according to the estimated recovery rate of the asset, be it machinery, real estate, vehicles, etc. The previous literature has shown that the use of discount rates in IFRS is inconsistent across firms, and also that it is arbitrary. Through an empirical analysis using information from European quoted entities, we find that most companies do not disclose IBR details, thus affecting financial statement comparability. None of them disclose how the IBR is adjusted in order to reflect the LGD. Furthermore, there is a lack of accounting and finance literature analyzing this aspect. Within this context, we propose a model that is able to adjust the standard IBR (obtained from unsecured bonds/loans yields) in order to reflect a recovery rate in line with IFRS principles. The proposed model uses Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) quoted information as a basis for introducing the adjustment to the standard IBR. More precisely, it analyzes the change in the CDS spread in response to changes in the recovery rate, and applies this change to the initial IBR.
{"title":"IFRS 16 Incremental Borrowing Rate: Comparability Issues and a Methodology Proposal for Loss Given Default Adjustment","authors":"David Delgado-Vaquero, José Morales-Díaz, Constancio Zamora-Ramírez","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2046282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2046282","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Under the IFRS 16 capitalization model for lessees, entities should measure both the lease liability and the ‘right of use’ (the lease asset) by discounting future lease payments over the lease term. For the most part, entities are using the Incremental Borrowing Rate (IBR) to perform said discounting. IFRS 16 establishes that the IBR must consider the underlying leased asset as collateral, and therefore the yield to be used should reflect a Loss Given Default (LGD) which may vary according to the estimated recovery rate of the asset, be it machinery, real estate, vehicles, etc. The previous literature has shown that the use of discount rates in IFRS is inconsistent across firms, and also that it is arbitrary. Through an empirical analysis using information from European quoted entities, we find that most companies do not disclose IBR details, thus affecting financial statement comparability. None of them disclose how the IBR is adjusted in order to reflect the LGD. Furthermore, there is a lack of accounting and finance literature analyzing this aspect. Within this context, we propose a model that is able to adjust the standard IBR (obtained from unsecured bonds/loans yields) in order to reflect a recovery rate in line with IFRS principles. The proposed model uses Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) quoted information as a basis for introducing the adjustment to the standard IBR. More precisely, it analyzes the change in the CDS spread in response to changes in the recovery rate, and applies this change to the initial IBR.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48072572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-12DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2060752
N. Setia, S. Abhayawansa, M. Joshi
ABSTRACT We investigate whether the Integrated Reporting () Framework is suitable as an overarching framework to enable organisations to engage with and report on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The investigation is carried out through a thematic analysis of different stakeholders’ opinions expressed in the 359 responses received by The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) for its 2013 Consultation Draft and the 114 survey responses received for the 2020 Consultation Draft. Based on our findings, we argue that for it to be an ‘umbrella’ framework for non-financial reporting (inclusive of reporting on the SDGs), the < IR > Framework should: (1) encourage engagement with secondary stakeholders whose interests are reflected in the SDGs; (2) use terminology, language and concepts consistent with the sustainability discourse; (3) facilitate explanation of value created for the society and present and future generations; and (4) provide specific guidance to incorporate sustainable development impacts, risks and opportunities.
{"title":"In Search of a Wider Corporate Reporting Framework: A Critical Evaluation of the International Integrated Reporting Framework","authors":"N. Setia, S. Abhayawansa, M. Joshi","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2060752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2060752","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We investigate whether the Integrated Reporting () Framework is suitable as an overarching framework to enable organisations to engage with and report on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The investigation is carried out through a thematic analysis of different stakeholders’ opinions expressed in the 359 responses received by The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) for its 2013 Consultation Draft and the 114 survey responses received for the 2020 Consultation Draft. Based on our findings, we argue that for it to be an ‘umbrella’ framework for non-financial reporting (inclusive of reporting on the SDGs), the < IR > Framework should: (1) encourage engagement with secondary stakeholders whose interests are reflected in the SDGs; (2) use terminology, language and concepts consistent with the sustainability discourse; (3) facilitate explanation of value created for the society and present and future generations; and (4) provide specific guidance to incorporate sustainable development impacts, risks and opportunities.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60430018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-04DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281
R. Larson, Mark Myring, Raf Orens
ABSTRACT This paper investigates drivers of US lobbying on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) before, during, and after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) active consideration to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Examining comment letters (CLs) for 148 IASB proposals from 2001 through 2014 finds that while a variety of US stakeholders lobbied, the response rates are low. CL writing in total and by preparers significantly increased during the peak of SEC interest (2007–2010), but afterwards significantly decreased. US writers focus more on key issues rather than responding to proposals earlier in the IASB’s due process. US writers lobbied more about topics also on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)’s agenda and larger US preparers were more likely to write CLs and write them more frequently than smaller preparers. Overall, response rates are associated with the likelihood that US stakeholders would need to comply with IFRS.
{"title":"US comment Letter Writing to the IASB and Evolving SEC Views on the Use of IFRS","authors":"R. Larson, Mark Myring, Raf Orens","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2046281","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper investigates drivers of US lobbying on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) before, during, and after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) active consideration to adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Examining comment letters (CLs) for 148 IASB proposals from 2001 through 2014 finds that while a variety of US stakeholders lobbied, the response rates are low. CL writing in total and by preparers significantly increased during the peak of SEC interest (2007–2010), but afterwards significantly decreased. US writers focus more on key issues rather than responding to proposals earlier in the IASB’s due process. US writers lobbied more about topics also on the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)’s agenda and larger US preparers were more likely to write CLs and write them more frequently than smaller preparers. Overall, response rates are associated with the likelihood that US stakeholders would need to comply with IFRS.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44978658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2021.2018474
V. Dragomir, M. Dumitru, L. Feleagă
ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the predictors of non-financial reporting (NFR) quality by state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The predictors under consideration are the quality of the corporate governance system (assessed through a comprehensive index), state ownership concentration, industry sector characteristics, and company size. Our cross-sectional sample consists of data for 63 state-controlled enterprises in Romania for the financial year 2018. The data were collected by hand, using two new instruments: a content analysis scale for NFR according to the European Directive 2014/95/EU and a corporate governance index for SOEs. We classify Romanian SOEs into two clusters: ‘high disclosure – good governance’ and ‘low disclosure – poor governance,’ for which we present the particularities of NFR and corporate governance. In line with agency theory and stakeholder theory, we show that the NFR quality score is positively correlated with the corporate governance score, company size, environmental impact, monopolistic position, and the state’s strategic interest, but negatively correlated with state ownership concentration. Our results also indicate that an increase in the state’s blockholding will negatively affect the quality of the corporate governance system, and will ultimately decrease the quality of the company’s non-financial disclosures. We conclude that the quality of the governance system is a mediating variable between the state’s ownership concentration and the quality of NFR. Our results are helpful to professionals and policymakers in understanding the path toward the material harmonization of reporting practices at a European level for SOEs and private entities alike.
{"title":"The Predictors of Non-Financial Reporting Quality in Romanian State-Owned Enterprises","authors":"V. Dragomir, M. Dumitru, L. Feleagă","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2021.2018474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2021.2018474","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the predictors of non-financial reporting (NFR) quality by state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The predictors under consideration are the quality of the corporate governance system (assessed through a comprehensive index), state ownership concentration, industry sector characteristics, and company size. Our cross-sectional sample consists of data for 63 state-controlled enterprises in Romania for the financial year 2018. The data were collected by hand, using two new instruments: a content analysis scale for NFR according to the European Directive 2014/95/EU and a corporate governance index for SOEs. We classify Romanian SOEs into two clusters: ‘high disclosure – good governance’ and ‘low disclosure – poor governance,’ for which we present the particularities of NFR and corporate governance. In line with agency theory and stakeholder theory, we show that the NFR quality score is positively correlated with the corporate governance score, company size, environmental impact, monopolistic position, and the state’s strategic interest, but negatively correlated with state ownership concentration. Our results also indicate that an increase in the state’s blockholding will negatively affect the quality of the corporate governance system, and will ultimately decrease the quality of the company’s non-financial disclosures. We conclude that the quality of the governance system is a mediating variable between the state’s ownership concentration and the quality of NFR. Our results are helpful to professionals and policymakers in understanding the path toward the material harmonization of reporting practices at a European level for SOEs and private entities alike.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45649188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2022.2026000
Silvia Panfilo, Joanna Krasodomska
ABSTRACT Climate change is a key issue faced by the contemporary world. Through the lens of neoinstitutionalism and the normativity concept, this study examines whether cultural, regulative, and normative dimensions affect the quality of climate change risk disclosures. This paper uses a sample of 653 European companies and measures the quality of their disclosures based on Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) ratings. The results show that the quality of such disclosures is associated with cultural and normative dimensions, but substantive legitimacy is found to be influenced by all the examined institutional factors. The interactions between the examined cultural and normative dimensions are shown to be (not) important for firms that operated in weaker (stronger) regulative contexts prior to Directive 2014/95/EU. This study provides a better understanding of the challenges related to climate change reporting and the role of institutional differences in the process of achieving normativity in cross-national contexts such as that of the European Union.
{"title":"Climate Change Risk Disclosure in Europe: The Role of Cultural-Cognitive, Regulative, and Normative Factors","authors":"Silvia Panfilo, Joanna Krasodomska","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2022.2026000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2022.2026000","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Climate change is a key issue faced by the contemporary world. Through the lens of neoinstitutionalism and the normativity concept, this study examines whether cultural, regulative, and normative dimensions affect the quality of climate change risk disclosures. This paper uses a sample of 653 European companies and measures the quality of their disclosures based on Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) ratings. The results show that the quality of such disclosures is associated with cultural and normative dimensions, but substantive legitimacy is found to be influenced by all the examined institutional factors. The interactions between the examined cultural and normative dimensions are shown to be (not) important for firms that operated in weaker (stronger) regulative contexts prior to Directive 2014/95/EU. This study provides a better understanding of the challenges related to climate change reporting and the role of institutional differences in the process of achieving normativity in cross-national contexts such as that of the European Union.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48969659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：