Differences in Disclosure Needs of Major Users of Financial Statements

Benjamin, James J.; Stanga, Keith G.

doi:10.1080/00014788.1977.9728702

Cited by 80 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These corporate failures have often been attributed to poor accountability, corporate governance, disclosure and transparency practices (Branco and Rodrigues, 2008, Chen and Roberts, 2010, Fifka, 2013Ntim, 2012aNtim, , b, 2013a. Not surprisingly, there has been increasing interest in the issue of corporate governance, accountability, disclosure and transparency in recent years (Aljifri, 2008, Aljifri et al, 2014, Benjamin and Stanga, 1977, Cooke, 1989a, Inchausti, 1997, Wang and Hussainey, 2013.…”

Section: Second the Libyan Legal System Developed From A Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corporate boards, ownership structures and corporate disclosures

Alnabsha

Abdou

Ntim

et al. 2018

JAAR

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This paper investigates the effect of corporate board attributes, ownership structure and firm-level characteristics on both corporate mandatory and voluntary disclosure behaviour in annual reports of Libyan firms.Design/methodology/approach: Multivariate regression techniques are used to estimate the effect of corporate board and ownership structures on mandatory and voluntary disclosures of a sample of Libyan firms between 2006 and 2010.Findings: First, we find that board size, board composition, the frequency of board meetings and the presence of an audit committee have an impact on the level of corporate disclosure. Second, this study finds an evidence that director ownership, foreign ownership, government ownership and institutional ownership have a non-linear effect on the level of corporate disclosure. Finally, we find that firm age, liquidity, listing status, industry type and auditor type are positively associated with the level of corporate disclosure.Limitation: Future research could investigate disclosure practices using other channels of corporate disclosure, such as corporate websites. Useful insights may be offered also by future studies by conducting in-depth interviews with corporate managers, directors and owners regarding these issues.Implication: Investors may also rely on such corporate governance characteristics to shape expectations about voluntary and/or mandatory information disclosure. Originality/value: Existing disclosure studies have mainly examined governance and voluntary disclosure relationship in non-listed firms. Our study, therefore, extends, as well as contributes to the existing literature by the examining the governance-disclosure nexus relating to both mandatory and voluntary disclosures in both listed and non-listed firms.

show abstract

Section: Second the Libyan Legal System Developed From A Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, a number of studies have been conducted, which have aimed at providing an understanding of the factors influencing corporate disclosure practices (Benjamin and Stanga, 1977, Cooke, 1989a, b, Ho and Shun, 2001, Inchausti, 1997Al-Bassam et al,. 2017;Al-Bassam and Ntim, 2017).…”

Section: Second the Libyan Legal System Developed From A Combinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate boards, ownership structures and corporate disclosures

Alnabsha

Abdou

Ntim

et al. 2018

JAAR

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For each item they were asked to decide whether the item should or should not be disclosed. For items that should be disclosed, the stakeholder panel were asked to rank the item's importance based on the 'Likert-type' rating scale shown in Firth, 1979;McNally, Eng & Hasseldine, 1982;Firer and Meth, 1986;Tong, idam & Wah, 1990) or zero to four (Barrett, 1977;Benjamin and Stanga, 1977; or members of the panel to add any intellectual capital items they felt hould be included in the annual reports. The panel was also asked to assign a weighing by the stakeholder panel then dividing the total by 14 to btain a mean score.…”

Section: Conducting the Stakeholder Consultation Exercisementioning

confidence: 99%

Intellectual capital reporting by the New Zealand local government sector

Schneider¹,

Samkin²

2008

Jnl of Intellectual Capital

120

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to assess the extent and quality of intellectual capital disclosures (ICDs) in the annual reports of the New Zealand local government sector. Design/methodology/approach -This paper makes use of an ICD index constructed through a participatory stakeholder consultation process to develop a disclosure index which measures the extent and quality intellectual capital reporting in the 2004/2005 annual reports of 82 local government authorities in New Zealand. The final index comprised 26 items divided into three categories: internal, external and human capital. Findings -The results indicate that the reporting of intellectual capital by local government authorities is varied. The most reported items were joint ventures/business collaborations and management processes, while the least reported items were intellectual property and licensing agreements. The most reported category of intellectual capital was internal capital, followed by external capital. Human capital was the least reported category. Research limitations/implications -There are a number of limitations associated with this study. First the research covered only one year (2004/2005) which makes it difficult to draw any trend conclusions. Second, differing legal reporting requirements may make it difficult to compare findings of this research with findings of research conducted in other jurisdictions. The final limitation of this study is its exploratory nature of this research and the use of a disclosure index to measure disclosure levels. Practical implications -The results in this paper indicate that local authorities are disclosing some aspects of intellectual capital in their annual reports. However, there is no consistent reporting framework and many areas of ICDs do not meet stakeholder expectations. Originality/value -This paper is unique in that it is the first study to make use of an ICD index to examine intellectual capital reporting by local government authorities.

show abstract

“…Content analyses of website disclosures (Jose and Lee, 2007) and surveys of stock market participants have tended to conclude that CSDs are of moderate relative importance (Belkaoui, 1984;Benjamin and Stanga, 1977;Chenall and Juchau, 1977;Firth, 1979;Epstein and Freedman, 1994) while other ranking studies undertake surveys of potential users to indicate their needs and demands for social information (e.g., Buzby and Falk, 1979;Belkaoui, 1980;Dierkes and Antal, 1985). These studies find CSD to be of importance to users, and, in some cases, at least equally important as financial items of disclosure.…”

Section: Prior Studies Of the Determinants Of Csdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetric Response: Explaining Corporate Social Disclosure by Multi-National Firms in Environmentally Sensitive Industries

Toms

Hasseldine

2008

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The paper examines the determinants of corporate social disclosure (CSD) using a sample drawn from environmentally sensitive industries. It extends the traditional literature in two respects. First, it is international in scope, examining the accounting disclosure responses of multi-national companies to the pressures implied by the nature and scope of their operations. Second, variables measuring political risk and social development are developed so that these pressures can be measured, thereby introducing new dimensions to the literature. In common with previous studies, financial risk, size and other control variables are included. The relationships are tested econometrically utilising regression techniques not previously applied in the CSD literature but nonetheless more generally appropriate when using count dependent variables. Our results suggest that managers feel an unequal sense of responsibility to different constituencies and their disclosure priorities are determined by stock market accountability, lobbying power of their domestic audience and the political risk of their activities rather than the impact of their activities in countries of operation.

show abstract

Differences in Disclosure Needs of Major Users of Financial Statements

Cited by 80 publications

References 0 publications

Corporate boards, ownership structures and corporate disclosures

Corporate boards, ownership structures and corporate disclosures

Intellectual capital reporting by the New Zealand local government sector

Asymmetric Response: Explaining Corporate Social Disclosure by Multi-National Firms in Environmentally Sensitive Industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About