Purpose This paper aims to investigate the impact of corporate governance (CG) mechanisms on real (REM), accrual-based earnings management (AEM) and REM/AEM interaction in Jordan following the 2009 Jordanian CG Code (JCGC). Design/methodology/approach The study used a sample of 108 Jordanian public firms covering 2010-2014. Hypotheses are tested using pooled OLS-regression models. Findings The authors find that both institutional and managerial ownership constrain the use of REM and AEM. In contrast, both independent directors and large shareholders are found to exaggerate such practices, and CEO-duality is found to exaggerate REM only. However, foreign ownership does not appear to have a significant impact. They further find that managers use REM and AEM jointly to obtain the greatest earnings impact. Practical implications The findings have important implications for policymakers, regulators, audit professionals and investors in their attempts to constrain earnings management (EM) practices and improve financial reporting quality in Jordan. Originality/value The authors believe this to be the first Jordanian study examining the relationship between CG mechanisms and both REM and AEM following the introduction of the 2009 JCGC, as well as the first in Jordan and the Middle East to examine board characteristics and REM. Moreover, it is the first to test for the potential substitution of REM and AEM since the 2009 JCGC enactment. As such, the findings draw attention to EM practices and the role of monitoring mechanisms in Jordan.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a multidimensional model for assessing the quality of corporate environmental reporting (CER) incorporating both preparer- and user-based views. Design/methodology/approach As opposed to frequently used researcher-chosen proxies, the authors used an online questionnaire asking preparers and users how they assess the quality of a company’s environmental report. Findings The analysis of the responses of 177 users and 86 preparers shows that quantity was not perceived as the most significant element in determining quality. Besides quantity, the respondents also perceived information types, measures used, themes disclosed, adopting reporting guidelines, inclusion of assurance statement and the use of visual tools as significant dimensions/features of reporting quality. Research limitations/implications The online questionnaire has some limitations, especially in terms of researcher being absent to clarify meanings and, hence, possibilities that respondents may misinterpret the questionnaire elements. Practical implications Considering that robust, reliable measurement of reporting quality is difficult, preparers, standard setters and policy makers need multidimensional quality models that incorporate both users’ perceptions of quality and preparers’ pragmatic understanding of the quality delivery process. These will make the preparers informed of whether their disclosure may be falling short of users’ expectations. Originality/value Amid, increasing complexity of CER, the research contributes to the growing body of literature on assessing the quality of CER by developing a less subjective, multidimensional, preparer–user-based quality model. This innovative quality model goes beyond the traditional quality models, subjective author-based quality measures. Focussing on the three dimensions of reporting quality – content, credibility and communication – it also offers a high-level resolution of meaning of CER quality.

No abstract

Assessing the quality of information disclosed by companies is a complex task. Accounting studies usually rely on analysing the content of corporate reports using measures to obtain a proxy for the information reported by companies. However, there is no consensus about the best design for these measures. The objective of the current paper is to investigate if there are significant differences in the results generated from seven alternative measures for assessing the quality of FTSE100 environmental sustainability reporting. Seven measures/indices have been used to assess disclosure quality. The three unidimensional measures include two “quantity measures” and one “scope measure” that measure the volume and width/coverage of information, respectively. Three compound measures are adopted from the literature, and the final measure is a multidimensional quality model, based on the results of a questionnaire ascertaining the perceptions of 86 preparers and 177 users of annual report (AR) and/stand‐alone corporate responsibility report (CRR). Although the results of the empirical analysis indicate that the measures are significantly correlated, the choice of a specific method can result in the very different ranking of companies. The evidence presented indicates that the choice of measure is of key importance.

Managing information security is a challenge. Traditional checklist approaches to meeting standards may well provide compliance, but do not guarantee to provide security assurance. The same might be said for audit. The complexity of IT relationships must be acknowledged and explicitly managed by recognising the implications of the self-interest of each party involved. We show how tensions between these parties can lead to a misalignment of the goals of security and what needs to be done to ensure this does not happen.