Corporate annual reports are viewed through the lens of researchers of these documents. The aims are to obtain insight into how researchers view annual reports; to ascertain how the different ways of seeing the annual report relate to each other; and to draw out the gaps in this diverse research in a continuing attempt to understand its role and purpose. Selective examination of a decade of corporate annual report research (1990‐2000) reveals how researchers have sought to find visibility and meaning. Few studies address the document as a whole, in terms of the integration of the messages between the various parts of the report. Explanation of the changing structure and content of annual reports remains divided, largely because of the differing perspectives of researchers. They have revealed diversity in the ways of seeing the annual report and a tension in understanding its overall purpose and role.

This study investigated the extent and content of environmental information disclosure provided in the annual reports of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), and tested whether there were any relationships between the amount of environmental disclosure and a number of company characteristics used in previous studies conducted in more developed countries. By using a simple sampling method, 75 listed companies were selected for inclusion in the study based on their 2007 annual reports. The findings indicate that 62 companies (83%) provided environmental information in their annual reports. Companies in the resources industry group made the most disclosure of environmental information, while the least disclosure was made by companies in the agricultural and food industries group. The most common location of environmental reporting in annual reports was under the topic of corporate governance. The most common themes of disclosures were environmental policy, environmental activities, and waste management. There was a positive relationship between the amount of environmental disclosures and size of company.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.Abstract Considerable research has sought to establish the use of impression management in corporate annual reports (CARS), especially in depicting the reporting organisation in as favourable a light as possible. Whether there is a useful outcome from the perspective of influencing those being managed has not been addressed. Based on the evidence that impression management mainly occurs in the front half, an experiment was conducted to examine whether readers' perceptions of a company's performance differed depending on their assigned reading. Four similar groups rated the performance of an organisation in terms of several dimensions after completing their reading task, but no significant differences were found. Respondents in three groups approximate what may be termed "sophisticated users", perhaps not easily impressed by the front half. The fourth group, homogeneous at university level but without the same financial background, ranked financial performance higher. Implications are drawn about the effectiveness of impression management.

General purpose financial reporting by Australian government entities is claimed to be in the public interest, providing users with information to monitor use of government resources and to make resource allocation decisions. This study argues that these claims to economic usefulness cannot be discharged by the financial reporting procedures. The requirements of the government accounting standard are analysed, the suitability of its neo‐classical economic foundations questioned, and the translation of economic concepts into accounting practice criticised. The inclusion and valuation of public heritage assets and stewardship lands in statements of financial position are shown to require a subjective estimate of the future economic benefits of such assets, whilst ignoring the social, institutional and legal environment. The paper concludes that accounting’s use of the economic concept of value is inadequate and unreliable. Application of the government accounting standard will result in information which reflects neither the financial nor the economic position of the reporting entity.

Neo‐classical economic theory provides the framework for general purpose financial reports prepared by Australian government departments and their agencies. These reports, which include a statement of financial position (financial worth) and an operating statement (an estimate of the return on the investment), have an economic rationale: the information is intended to guide the allocation of scarce government resources. All government assets, including those held for their cultural, historical or environmental values (heritage assets) are to be valued utilizing the neo‐classical theory of value. Argues that the accounting exercise is flawed. Measurement of value‐in‐use or value‐in‐exchange of heritage assets is inherently subjective, ignoring institutional conditions and non‐use values. The accounting approach fails to measure either the service value or economic benefits of governmental heritage assets. Consequently, the information generated is inconsistent with the economic rationale and the valuation process may prejudice any assessment of the performance of entities responsible for these assets. There is a strong case for either widening the concept of value to include non‐use values or abandoning the measurement of heritage assets.