Accounting information is subject to two different influences: market pressures and pressure from regulatory bodies. This paper provides an empirical analysis of the influence of both these forces on information disclosure by Spanish firms. To test hypotheses concerning the influence of regulation, annual reports of three different years for 49 companies have been analysed. Given that new Spanish accounting rules have been in force since 1990, annual accounts of a sample of quoted companies have been analysed for the period 1989-1991. In order to consider the influence of positive accounting theory, several characteristics relating to company attributes were selected and tested empirically for the sample of 49 companies. The information disclosed by the sample companies was measured through an information index, based on a list of 50 items of information, and it was regressed on the variables related to company characteristics. The influence of regulation was analysed through a panel data analysis including time effects. The results suggest that time as a surrogate for regulation explains the level of information disclosure, although it does not influence the amount of voluntary information disclosed. However, several firm characteristics were also found to influence the level of disclosure, namely size, auditing and stock exchange.

We investigate whether accounting systems recognise bad news more promptly in earnings than good news, where news is proxied by changes in share price. The analysis is based on a sample of firm/years drawn from France, Germany, and the UK during 1990 to 1998. These three countries are the originators of three distinct legal traditions. Previous studies have argued that asymmetric recognition, one manifestation of conservative accounting, is sensitive to legal background and history. We find that in all three countries the contemporaneous association between earnings and returns is much stronger for bad news (i.e. when price changes are negative) than for good news, and although the results are strongest for the UK, and then France, the inter-country differences are not statistically significant. The stronger reaction to bad news is more pronounced for firms with relatively low capitalisation. We also find that the relative persistence of profits and losses are consistent with asymmetric recognition in France and the UK, but not in Germany, and that the more timely recognition of bad news is maintained even when we control for earnings persistence. When we extend the model to include price changes from previous periods, we see that the stronger reaction to bad news decays over time. The results from this model also suggest that 'pervasive' conservatism, unrelated to news, is observed in Germany and France, but the UK results are consistent with optimism. Although asymmetric recognition is generally strongest in the UK and weakest in Germany, and this broadly conforms to our expectations, the differences are less clear than the results from earlier periods. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2001.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the progress and future prospects of two relatively “new” institutions in this field: the European Commission (EC), together with the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation. Design/methodology/approach This paper reflexively analyses the recent events that characterise the European Union (EU) regulatory standard-setting landscape in the sustainability field. It is mainly based on publicly available documents. Findings After analysing the different routes followed to enter the field, this paper shows how the EC/EFRAG takes a wider view than the IFRS Foundation on certain key reporting aspects, that is, target audience, materiality and reporting boundary. As for the reporting scope, although it seems that the IFRS Foundation has a more restrictive vision, it is working to broaden it. Practical implications This paper provides some ideas about the potential cooperation between the two institutions. This paper also highlights some potential problems stemming not only from their intrinsic characteristics but also from the routes they have taken to enter the field. Social implications By envisioning how the EU sustainability reporting standard-setting landscape might evolve, this paper sheds light on how companies might need to approach sustainability reporting to adapt to the new institutional demands. Suggestions for collaboration between the two institutions could help them reach common ground and, thus, prevent misunderstandings for companies and stakeholders. Originality/value The reflections and takeaways benefit from the authors’ first-hand information, as both are involved in the EU process. The authors could, therefore, feed into further discussions on the developments and challenges facing the EU in this domain.

No abstract