Exploring the quality of corporate environmental reporting: Surveying Preparers’ and Users’ Perceptions

Akrum Helfaya (Corresponding Author), Mark Whittington, Chandana Alawattage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Purpose – This paper provides 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 show 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 – 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. Focusing on the three dimensions of reporting quality- content, credibility and communication- it also offers a high level resolution of meaning of CER quality.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)163-193
Number of pages31
JournalAccounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Environmental reporting
Questionnaire
Credibility
Politicians
Design methodology
Communication
Inclusion
Disclosure
Assurance
User expectations

Keywords

  • environmental reporting
  • reporting quality
  • content analysis
  • disclosure index
  • multidimensional quality model
  • CSR
  • Disclosure index
  • INDUSTRY
  • Multidimensional quality model
  • COST
  • IMPACT
  • OIL
  • ACCOUNTING RESEARCH
  • ASSURANCE
  • Environmental reporting
  • IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
  • Reporting quality
  • DISCLOSURE QUALITY
  • Content analysis
  • SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Accounting
  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Exploring the quality of corporate environmental reporting : Surveying Preparers’ and Users’ Perceptions. / Helfaya, Akrum (Corresponding Author); Whittington, Mark; Alawattage, Chandana.

In: Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 21.01.2019, p. 163-193.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a7218d4ab87e484f88fe82e0f453d534,
title = "Exploring the quality of corporate environmental reporting: Surveying Preparers’ and Users’ Perceptions",
abstract = "Purpose – This paper provides 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 show 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 – 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. Focusing on the three dimensions of reporting quality- content, credibility and communication- it also offers a high level resolution of meaning of CER quality.",
keywords = "environmental reporting, reporting quality, content analysis, disclosure index, multidimensional quality model, CSR, Disclosure index, INDUSTRY, Multidimensional quality model, COST, IMPACT, OIL, ACCOUNTING RESEARCH, ASSURANCE, Environmental reporting, IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT, Reporting quality, DISCLOSURE QUALITY, Content analysis, SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS",
author = "Akrum Helfaya and Mark Whittington and Chandana Alawattage",
note = "The authors would like to thank the editor (Professor Lee Parker) and the anonymous reviewers of the journal for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions on earlier versions of the paper. The first author also acknowledges the financial support of Damanhour University, Egypt.",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2023",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "163--193",
journal = "Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal",
issn = "0951-3574",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the quality of corporate environmental reporting

T2 - Surveying Preparers’ and Users’ Perceptions

AU - Helfaya, Akrum

AU - Whittington, Mark

AU - Alawattage, Chandana

N1 - The authors would like to thank the editor (Professor Lee Parker) and the anonymous reviewers of the journal for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions on earlier versions of the paper. The first author also acknowledges the financial support of Damanhour University, Egypt.

PY - 2019/1/21

Y1 - 2019/1/21

N2 - Purpose – This paper provides 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 show 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 – 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. Focusing on the three dimensions of reporting quality- content, credibility and communication- it also offers a high level resolution of meaning of CER quality.

AB - Purpose – This paper provides 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 show 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 – 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. Focusing on the three dimensions of reporting quality- content, credibility and communication- it also offers a high level resolution of meaning of CER quality.

KW - environmental reporting

KW - reporting quality

KW - content analysis

KW - disclosure index

KW - multidimensional quality model

KW - CSR

KW - Disclosure index

KW - INDUSTRY

KW - Multidimensional quality model

KW - COST

KW - IMPACT

KW - OIL

KW - ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

KW - ASSURANCE

KW - Environmental reporting

KW - IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

KW - Reporting quality

KW - DISCLOSURE QUALITY

KW - Content analysis

KW - SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058859215&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/exploring-quality-corporate-environmental-reporting

U2 - 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2023

DO - 10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2023

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 163

EP - 193

JO - Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

JF - Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

SN - 0951-3574

IS - 1

ER -