Search

This report shows that the IFRS Practice Statement 2 is helpful as it clarifies the concept of materiality. However, there is a significant need for enhanced educational programs targeting key stakeholders, including auditors.

Purpose This study aims to investigate how professional financial statement users use carbon accounting information in their decisions and whether this use is sensitive to changing the decision context from an investment to a donation. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 173 US professional financial statement users, the authors conduct an experiment that manipulates an investment or donation choice to evaluate how differing levels of carbon sequestration affect decision-making across contexts. Findings Carbon sequestration information affects users’ donation decisions but does not affect investment decisions. Variation in the reliability of the information and whether the information is linked to strategy do not affect users’ decision-making. Research limitations/implications This study is performed by an experiment and informs our understanding of the relevance to users of carbon sequestration disclosure. Results indicate that carbon sequestration disclosure has value for donation but not investment decisions. The authors interpret this as evidence of some value of this type of disclosure in professional financial statement users’ decision-making but not for a financially focused evaluation. Originality/value This paper provides unique insights into the effect of reporting carbon sequestration on decision-making. There has been significant research on the broader topic of corporate sustainability, and capital markets research indicates that the market values increased sustainability disclosure. This study extends the research by examining a specific component of carbon disclosure that is not currently widely reported and by the use of information for different types of evaluations. The results find evidence that the value of this type of carbon disclosure does not stem from a purely financial perspective but instead, from other nonpecuniary factors.

De VMM rapporteert maandelijks over de kwantitatieve toestand van de watersystemen onder haar bevoegdheid: de onbevaarbare waterlopen en het freatisch grondwater. Ook de meteorologische situatie wordt besproken aangezien deze een directe invloed heeft op de kwantitatieve toestand van het watersysteem. Bijzondere aandacht wordt besteed aan hydrologische extremen (overstromingen en droogtes) en afwijkingen (anomalieën) t.o.v. de historisch normale toestand. Waar mogelijk schatten we de verwachte evolutie van de indicatoren in. Het actueel risico op overstromingen of droogte wordt bepaald door een combinatie van het potentieel risico (of hoe abnormaal nat of droog de huidige situatie al is) en het acuut risico (of het effect van de verwachte neerslaghoeveelheden). Het actuele risico op overstromingen en droogte, en voorspellingen voor de korte termijn (48u) en lange termijn (10 dagen) worden continu opgevolgd en kunnen geraadpleegd worden op waterinfo.be.

We examine disclosure of going concern uncertainties by Australian companies. We begin by outlining the extant reporting framework applicable from accounting and auditing standards, and compare the approach to this issue taken across several different countries – Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. We then examine reporting of going concern uncertainties for a selection of 127 Australian companies reporting at 30 June 2020 that also receive modified audit reports highlighting going concern issues. Our results indicate substantial variation in the specific requirements of audit and accounting standards impacting going concern disclosure across jurisdictions, with relevant disclosure guidance for Australian entities primarily contained in auditing, rather than accounting, standards. Not surprisingly then, we also observe significant variation in management reporting practices. These results inform our understanding of existing disclosure requirements and highlight how regulatory reliance on auditor discussion of going concern issues likely results in relatively limited management disclosure. We suggest that additional guidance may be required from accounting standard setters and also regulators with respect to management discussion of going concern uncertainty.