Search results

The purpose of this paper is to open a debate on the interrelationship between categorisation, labelling, disclosure and enforcement. The extant literature on the accounting reporting environment explores the provision of both mandated and voluntary disclosures. Often disclosure is defined in a less than rigorous manner, mislabelled, misclassified and uses a strict dichotomy that limits information fineness.

The authors advance a non-dichotomous continuum of disclosure from voluntary and innovative at one end of the spectrum, to mandatory at the other, that helps reduce mislabelling and miscategorisation.

Firms’ voluntary disclosures cannot be properly interpreted without reviewing their interrelationship with mandatory disclosures and vice versa. Definitions of voluntary disclosure that have been used in empirical studies are examined, including the mislabelling and misclassification of voluntary disclosures and the authors provide examples of truly voluntary and innovative disclosures by companies.

This paper constructs, and provides evidence consistent with, a reporting continuum rather than the dichotomous disclosure measure that dominates decades of prior literature.

This study aims to offer empirical evidence on how integrated thinking affects the integrated reporting (IR) practice and how integrated thinking originates from board and management involvement, cross-functional integration and integral link between capitals and strategies.

This study is cross-sectional and uses a mixed-method approach. The empirical data for the quantitative approach were collected from the 129 public companies listed on Colombo Stock Exchange in Sri Lanka. The personale responsible for preparing the annual report are selected as the respondents of this study. This study used partial least square modelling to test the hypotheses. The quantitative approach results are triangulated across a qualitative research approach in semi-structural interviews with ten responsible officers of integrated reporting practices.

The central finding of this study is the significant positive relationship between integrated thinking and integrated reporting practice. The qualitative results supported the quantitative findings and show that board and management involvement, cross-functional integration and integral link between capital and strategy enhance the integrated reporting practice. Top management and board management have positive beliefs about the integrated reporting practice; they initiate, encourage, influence, involve and support it. Furthermore, all company departments are involved with the integrated reporting led by the finance department and practice good coordination, communication and collaboration between departments. Moreover, it also evidenced their concern about the linkage between capital and strategy and how they do it in their organisation when practising integrated reporting.

The firms which intend to practice or enhance integrated reporting will be benefited from this study. Hence, this research assists in constructing IT through the direct role of the board and senior leadership, breaking down silos to diffuse IR throughout structures and processes, and concentrating on strategies while managing their capitals and relationships over the long term.

This study provides the initial quantitative empirical evidence on the impact of integrated thinking on integrated reporting practice. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to operationalise both integrated thinking and integrated reporting based on a questionnaire that developed and tested both constructs as higher-order reflective formative and on the relationship between integrated thinking and integrated reporting. The mixed-method approach to examine the relationship between integrated thinking and integrated reporting provides additional insights into the existing literature.

Since the withdrawal of IFRIC 3 in 2005, there has been a regulatory freeze in accounting for emission rights that contrasts with the international momentum of climate-related financial disclosures. This paper explores how different narratives and institutional dynamics explain the failure to produce guidance on accounting for emission rights.

This paper mobilises the notion of field-configuring events to examine a sequence of six events between 2003 and 2016, including four public consultations and two dialogues between standard setters. The paper presents a qualitative analysis of documents produced in this space that investigates how different practices and narratives configured the field's positions, agenda, and meaning systems.

Accounting for emission rights was gradually decoupled from climate change and carbon markets, relegated to the research pipeline, and forgotten. The obstacles that the IASB and EFRAG found in presenting themselves as central in the recurring events, the excess of representations, and the increasingly technical and abstract debates eroded the 2003 momentum for regulation, making the different initiatives to revitalise the project vulnerable and open to scrutiny. Lukes (2021) refers to nondecision-making to express that some issues are suffocated before they are expressed.

The regulation of accounting for emission rights, an area that has received scant attention in the literature, provides some insights into the different narrative mechanisms that, materialising in specific times and spaces, draw regulatory attention to particular accounting issues, which are problematised and, eventually, forgotten. This study also illustrates that identifying interests is problematic as actors shift from alternative positions over a long period. The case examined also raises some doubts about the previous effectiveness of international standard setters in dealing with matters of connectivity between the environment and finance, as is the case for accounting for emissions rights.

This paper investigates how stockist brand equity is created in the unorganized pharma retail sector in emerging markets despite the absence of any proactive brand-building efforts by distribution firms (stockists). In addition, this study also aims to unravel the sources of stockist brand equity.

Drawing from grounded theory, a qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews was conducted, and a theoretical saturation approach was used for this purpose. The retailer–stockist (business-to-business [B2B]) relationship in the Indian pharmaceutical market context was used as the study context.

The findings show that in the absence of any brand-building activities, stockists’ sales representatives play an important role in creating stockist brand awareness. In addition, word of mouth from other retailers also plays a minor role. Rational and emotional brand associations which are strong, favorable and unique are created 1) directly by the services provided by stockists, which includes product availability, deliverability, accuracy in billing and batch numbers, credit facilities and discounts, handling issues such as product expiry, and 2) indirectly by the services provided by stockists’ sales representatives which includes their frequency of visits, proactive customer orientation rather than sales orientation, fulfilling commitments and relationship with retailers. The strength of the retailer–stockist (B2B) relationship also depends on retailer-driven factors and other external factors discussed in this study.

Strong stockist brand equity helps build trust and loyalty with pharmacies, ensuring a consistent and timely supply of medicinal products, which will benefit their end consumers or society.

This study identifies the antecedents determining the strength of the retailer–stockist (B2B) relationship, a precursor for establishing retailer-based stockist brand equity in the unorganized sector. This study also highlights the consequences of establishing strong retailer-based stockist brand equity.