Accounting - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemEnhancing the Interface between Standard-setters and Academic Research(WILEY, 2021-09)Abstract This article points to gaps between academic research and the needs of accounting standard‐setters. In part it attributes those gaps to the academic literature seeming to be inaccessible and oriented to ideas apparently unrelated to the policy‐making issues facing standard‐setters. As a means of partially reducing that perceived inaccessibility, the paper provides a way for standard‐setters to identify and classify the various forms of academic accounting research so that they can evaluate their usefulness. Two prominent strands of research (agency theory/costly contracting and value relevance) are, as illustrations, analysed so that standard‐setters can see how they might approach those strands. The paper suggests a users’ needs/demand driven approach to improving understanding, rather than a supply (by academics) driven approach. Finally, the paper explains how the performance metrics faced by academics can be inconsistent with the readiness expressed by standard‐setters to have academics assist them. The paper provides a suggestion as to how there could be some alignment of academic performance metrics and standard‐setters’ needs.
-
ItemRestatement of CSR Reports: Frequency, Magnitude, and Determinants*(WILEY, 2021-09)ABSTRACT We provide the first direct analysis of the magnitude of unreliable quantitative information disclosed in corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. CSR report reliability is of particular interest to fund managers for investment decisions as well as to policymakers for regulating and monitoring purposes. However, surprisingly little is known about CSR reporting reliability despite concerns raised in the prior literature. We examine how often CSR reports for the Global Fortune 250 (G250) are restated, the magnitude of restatements, and factors associated with restatements during the period 2006 to 2013. During this sample period, the occurrence of restatements increased monotonically, with 39% of G250 CSR reports including one or more line‐item restatements. The magnitude of the line‐item restatements is quite high, with a median restatement of about 10%. We also find evidence of bias in the revised items toward overstatement. We find that restatements occur more frequently in firms that have reported a high level of social performance and that have environmental targets. The occurrence of restatement is also positively associated with firms residing in strong law countries and having their CSR reports audited. Our analysis of reporting bias indicates a negative association between use of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines and the likelihood of an overstatement. We also find a positive association between having the CSR report audited and the likelihood of revisions associated with overstatements. Together, our exploratory results indicate that CSR information may be unreliable and firms that face pressure to perform well have more restatements. However, our evidence is consistent with the restatements resulting from improvements in information systems over time rather than intentional bias. Our findings will help investors and fund managers better judge the reliability of CSR disclosures, and inform regulators and standard setters on ways to enhance the reliability of CSR reporting. Finally, we contribute to the audit literature examining sustainability assurance.