Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThis 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.Design/methodology/approachThis 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.FindingsThe 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.Research limitations/implicationsFuture 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.Practical implicationsCompanies have to establish relevant reporting processes, systems and formats to fulfil the increasing number of reporting requirements.Originality/valueThis 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.

We examine the costs and benefits of proactive financial reporting enforcement by the U.K. Financial Reporting Review Panel. Enforcement scrutiny is selective and varies by sector and over time, yet can be anticipated by auditors and companies. We find evidence that increased enforcement intensity leads to temporary increases in audit fees and more conservative accruals. However, cross-sectional analysis across market segments reveals that audit fees increase primarily in the less-regulated AIM segment, and especially those AIM companies with a higher likelihood of financial distress and less stringent governance. On the contrary, less reliable operating asset-related accruals are more conservative in the Main segment and, in particular, those Main companies with stronger incentives for higher financial reporting quality. Overall, our study indicates that financial reporting enforcement generates costs and benefits, but not always for the same companies.

Using the transition of U.S. firms from annual reporting to semi-annual reporting and then to quarterly reporting over the period 1950–1970, we provide evidence on the effects of increased reporting frequency on firms' investment decisions. Estimates from difference-in-differences specifications indicate that increased reporting frequency is associated with an economically large decline in investments. Additional analyses reveal that the decline in investments is most consistent with frequent financial reporting inducing myopic management behavior. Our evidence informs the recent controversial debate about eliminating quarterly reporting for U.S. corporations.

This paper discusses the empirical literature on the economic consequences of disclosure and financial reporting regulation, drawing on U.S. and international evidence. Given the policy relevance of research on regulation, we highlight the challenges with (1) quantifying regulatory costs and benefits, (2) measuring disclosure and reporting outcomes, and (3) drawing causal inferences from regulatory studies. Next, we discuss empirical studies that link disclosure and reporting activities to firm-specific and market-wide economic outcomes. Understanding these links is important when evaluating regulation. We then synthesize the empirical evidence on the economic effects of disclosure regulation and reporting standards, including the evidence on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption. Several important conclusions emerge. We generally lack evidence on market-wide effects and externalities from regulation, yet such evidence is central to the economic justification of regulation. Moreover, evidence on causal effects of disclosure and reporting regulation is still relatively rare. We also lack evidence on the real effects of such regulation. These limitations provide many research opportunities. We conclude with several specific suggestions for future research.

Purpose This study aims to examine the impacts of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and financial reporting quality (FRQ) on investment efficiency. Design/methodology/approach Several econometric models have been applied to estimate the impacts of ESG disclosure and FRQ on investment efficiency, using the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a sample in 2010–2019. Estimations considered subsamples of underinvestment, overinvestment and low and high FRQ values. Findings Empirical results show a positive relationship between ESG disclosure, FRQ and investment efficiency, and that this relationship is more important in the underinvestment and high FRQ sub-samples. Results suggest that ESG disclosure improves transparency, mitigates information asymmetry and enhances investment efficiency. Research limitations/implications The findings could help UAE regulators incorporate ESG information into reporting and implement effective mechanisms to increase the extent of ESG information to improve investment efficiency. This study only examined UAE traded companies. Future research should investigate other factors influencing investment efficiency and conduct comparative studies across Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Social implications This study reveals the significant positive impact of ESG disclosure and FRQ on investment efficiency. These findings will help companies optimize their ESG information disclosure, improve the quality of their financial reports and comply with ESG standards. The study aims to develop knowledge that will not only benefit companies regarding the potential impact of ESG disclosure but also help national and international society create a better social environment and reduce climate change. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the relationship between ESG disclosure, FRQ and corporate investment efficiency. The research contributes to understanding the financial impacts of ESG disclosure and FRQ and supports regulators’ efforts to enforce ESG disclosure and improve FRQ.

We propose a new measure of accounting reporting complexity (ARC) based on the count of accounting items (XBRL tags) disclosed in 10-K filings. The preparation and disclosure of more accounting items is complicated because it requires greater knowledge of authoritative accounting standards. This aspect of complexity can increase the likelihood of mistakes, incorrect application of GAAP, and can ultimately lead to less credible financial reports. Consistently, we find that ARC is associated with a greater likelihood of misstatements and material weakness disclosures, longer audit delay, and higher audit fees. In comparison to commonly used measures of operating and linguistic complexity, the associations between ARC and these outcomes are more consistent, exhibit greater explanatory power, and have stronger economic significance. These and additional validation and robustness tests suggest that ARC more completely reflects accounting complexity. In addition, ARC exhibits several advantageous properties, including across- and within-firm variation, availability for the universe of SEC filers, and a direct connection to accounting, inherent in its derivation from detailed accounting disclosures. Finally, because it relies on a comprehensive set of detailed accounting data, ARC broadly captures accounting complexity, while, at the same time, it can be disaggregated into account-specific measures of complexity.

This study examines whether the mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the European Union (EU) in 2005 reduces the cost of equity capital. Using a sample of 6,456 firm-year observations of 1,084 EU firms during the 1995 to 2006 period, I find evidence that, on average, the IFRS mandate significantly reduces the cost of equity for mandatory adopters by 47 basis points. I also find that this reduction is present only in countries with strong legal enforcement, and that increased disclosure and enhanced information comparability are two mechanisms behind the cost of equity reduction. Taken together, these findings suggest that while mandatory IFRS adoption significantly lowers firms' cost of equity, the effects depend on the strength of the countries' legal enforcement.

This paper explores one organisation's journey into non-financial reporting, initially motivated by a crisis in public confidence that threatened the organisation's legitimacy to the present with the organisation embracing integrated reporting. The organisation's journey is framed through a legitimation lens and is illustrated by aligning internal reflections with external outputs guided by predominant paradigms of good practice, such as the GRI guidelines and more recently integrated reporting (IR). We find that the organisation's relationship with external guidelines has evolved from pragmatic adoption as a means of seeking external legitimation to the present position where those that prepare external reports are informed by the organisation's strategic positioning and not constrained by the promulgation of voluntary guidelines. From the case study, we suggest that the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) may face two hurdles: First, organisations may define social norms based on a broader definition of stakeholders than the definition currently published by the IIRC. The second hurdle is to convince report preparers that adopting integrated reporting (IR) will positively impact on capital flows.

This study examines whether socially responsible firms behave differently from other firms in their financial reporting. Specifically, we question whether firms that exhibit corporate social responsibility (CSR) also behave in a responsible manner to constrain earnings management, thereby delivering more transparent and reliable financial information to investors as compared to firms that do not meet the same social criteria. We find that socially responsible firms are less likely (1) to manage earnings through discretionary accruals, (2) to manipulate real operating activities, and (3) to be the subject of SEC investigations, as evidenced by Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases against top executives. Our results are robust to (1) controlling for various incentives for CSR and earnings management, (2) considering various CSR dimensions and components, and (3) using alternative proxies for CSR and accruals quality. To the extent that we control for the potential effects of reputation and financial performance, our findings suggest that ethical concerns are likely to drive managers to produce high-quality financial reports.