An analysis of the qualitative characteristics of management commentary reporting by New Zealand companies

The narrative section of annual reports has considerable value to its user groups, such as financial analysts and investors (Tiexiera, 2004; Barlett and Chandler, 1997, IASB, 2006). This narrative section including chairpersons’/presidents’ statement contains twice the quantity of information than the financial statements section (Smith and Taffler, 2000). However, the abundance of information does not necessarily enhance the quality of such information (IASB, 2006). This issue of qualitative characteristics has been long foregone by researchers. This issue has attracted the attention of IASB (2006). Following the dearth in research in regard to qualitative characteristics of reporting this paper explores whether investors’ required qualitative characteristics as outlined by the IASB (2006) have been satisfied in management commentary section of New Zealand companies’ annual reports. Our result suggests that the principal stakeholders’, that is, investors’ qualitative characteristics requirements have been partially met in this section of annual reports. The qualitative characteristic of ‘relevance’ and ‘supportability’ have been satisfied in more annual reports compared to that of ‘balance’ and ‘comparability.’

Teacher reporting questionnaire : Queensland Government Schools

This instrument was used in the project entitled Teachers Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Towards Evidence-based Reform of Law, Policy and Practice (ARC DP0664847)

Teacher reporting questionnaire : Queensland Non-Government Schools

This instrument was used in the project named Teachers Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Towards Evidence-based Reform of Law, Policy and Practice (ARC DP0664847)

Teacher reporting questionnaire : New South Wales Non-Government Schools

This instrument was used in the project named Teachers Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Towards Evidence-based Reform of Law, Policy and Practice (ARC DP0664847)

Recommendations for the reporting of foot and ankle models

Multiple marker sets and models are currently available for assessing foot and ankle kinematics in gait. Despite the presence of such a wide variety of models, the reporting of methodological designs remains inconsistent and lacks clearly defined standards. This review highlights the variability found when reporting biomechanical model parameters, methodological design, and model reliability. Further, the review clearly demonstrates the need for a consensus of what methodological considerations to report in manuscripts, which focus on the topic of foot and ankle biomechanics. We propose five minimum reporting standards, that we believe will ensure the transparency of methods and begin to allow the community to move towards standard modelling practice. The strict adherence to these standards should ultimately improve the interpretation and clinical useability of foot and ankle marker sets and their corresponding models.

Assessing financial reporting comparability across institutional settings : the case of pension accounting

The drive for comparability of financial information is to enable users to distinguish similarities and differences in economic activities for an entity over time and between entities so that their resource allocation decisions are facilitated. With the increased globalisation of economic activities, the enhanced international comparability of financial statements is often used as an argument to advance the convergence of local accounting standards to international financial reporting standards (IFRS). Differences in the underlying economic substance of transactions between jurisdictions plus accounting standards allowing alternative treatments may render this expectation of increased comparability unrealistic. Motivated by observations that, as a construct, comparability is under-researched and not well understood, we develop a comparability framework that distinguishes between four types of comparability. In applying this comparability framework to pension accounting in the Australian and USA contexts, we highlight a dilemma: while regulators seek to increase the likelihood that similar events are accounted for similarly, an unintended consequence may be that preparers are forced to apply similar accounting treatment to events that are, in substance, different.

Environmental reporting and its relation to corporate environmental performance

This study examines how both the level and the nature of environmental information voluntarily disclosed by Australian firms relate to their underlying environmental performance. Disclosure is scored using an index developed by Clarkson et al. (2008) based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines and the environmental performance measure is based on emission data available from the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI). The sample consists of 51 firms that reported to the NPI in both 2002 and 2006. The findings are as follows. First, descriptive statistics indicate that while there was modest improvement in disclosure between 2002 and 2006, the highest disclosure score obtained was just slightly in excess of 50% of the maximum available based on the GRI Guidelines. Second, the results consistently indicate that not only do firms with a higher pollution propensity disclose more environmental information; they also rely on disclosures that the GRI views as inherently more objective and verifiable. Taken together, these results suggest that concerns regarding the reliability of voluntary environmental disclosures in the Australian context remain valid and thereby potentially signal a need for both enhanced mandatory reporting requirements and improved enforcement. In this regard, our study also informs regulatory policy on mandatory disclosures of environmental performance.

Exploring the contested role of mandatory reporting laws in the identification of severe child abuse and neglect

Significant numbers of children are severely abused and neglected by parents and caregivers. Infants and very young children are the most vulnerable and are unable to seek help. To identify these situations and enable child protection and the provision of appropriate assistance, many jurisdictions have enacted ‘mandatory reporting laws’ requiring designated professionals such as doctors, nurses, police and teachers to report suspected cases of severe child abuse and neglect. Other jurisdictions have not adopted this legislative approach, at least partly motivated by a concern that the laws produce dramatic increases in unwarranted reports, which, it is argued, lead to investigations which infringe on people’s privacy, cause trauma to innocent parents and families, and divert scarce government resources from deserving cases. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which opposition to mandatory reporting laws is valid based on the claim that the laws produce ‘overreporting’. The first part of this paper revisits the original mandatory reporting laws, discusses their development into various current forms, explains their relationship with policy and common law reporting obligations, and situates them in the context of their place in modern child protection systems. This part of the paper shows that in general, contemporary reporting laws have expanded far beyond their original conceptualisation, but that there is also now a deeper understanding of the nature, incidence, timing and effects of different types of severe maltreatment, an awareness that the real incidence of maltreatment is far higher than that officially recorded, and that there is strong evidence showing the majority of identified cases of severe maltreatment are the result of reports by mandated reporters. The second part of this paper discusses the apparent effect of mandatory reporting laws on ‘overreporting’ by referring to Australian government data about reporting patterns and outcomes, with a particular focus on New South Wales. It will be seen that raw descriptive data about report numbers and outcomes appear to show that reporting laws produce both desirable consequences (identification of severe cases) and problematic consequences (increased numbers of unsubstantiated reports). Yet, to explore the extent to which the data supports the overreporting claim, and because numbers of unsubstantiated reports alone cannot demonstrate overreporting, this part of the paper asks further questions of the data. Who makes reports, about which maltreatment types, and what are the outcomes of those reports? What is the nature of these reports; for example, to what extent are multiple numbers of reports made about the same child? What meaning can be attached to an ‘unsubstantiated’ report, and can such reports be used to show flaws in reporting effectiveness and problems in reporting laws? It will be suggested that available evidence from Australia is not sufficiently detailed or strong to demonstrate the overreporting claim. However, it is also apparent that, whether adopting an approach based on public health and or other principles, much better evidence about reporting needs to be collected and analyzed. As well, more nuanced research needs to be conducted to identify what can reasonably be said to constitute ‘overreports’, and efforts must be made to minimize unsatisfactory reporting practice, informed by the relevant jurisdiction’s context and aims. It is also concluded that, depending on the jurisdiction, the available data may provide useful indicators of positive, negative and unanticipated effects of specific components of the laws, and of the strengths, weaknesses and needs of the child protection system.

XBRL : the future of financial reporting and a catalyst for capital market development

There has never been a better time to strengthen financial reporting in Fiji. With increased interest shown by prospective companies in capital market participation, the pressing problems in the public sector reporting and accountability and global emphasis on the increasing need to strengthen the corporate governance structure, this is perhaps the opportune time to consider the potential of XBRL.

Environmental reporting in the Australian mining industry : complying with regulation or meeting international best practice?

It is nearly 10 years since the introduction of s 299(1)(f) Corporations Act , which requires the disclosure of information regarding a company's environmental performance within its annual report. This provision has generated considerable debate in the years since its introduction, fundamentally between proponents of either a voluntary or mandatory environmental reporting framework. This study examines the adequacy of the current regulatory framework. The environmental reporting practices of 24 listed companies in the resources industries are assessed relative to a standard set by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. These Guidelines are argued to represent "international best practice" in environmental reporting and a "scorecard" approach is used to score the quality of disclosure according to this voluntary benchmark. Larger companies in the sample tend to report environmental information over and above the level required by legislation. Some, but not all companies present a stand-alone environmental/sustainability report. However, smaller companies provide minimal information in compliance with s 299(1)(f) . The findings indicate that "international best practice" environmental reporting is unlikely to be achieved by Australian companies under the current regulatory framework. In the current regulatory environment that scrutinises s 299(1)(f) , this article provides some preliminary evidence of the quality of disclosures generated in the Australian market.

Were regulatory changes in reporting "abnormal items" justified? : evidence of intra-period classificatory earnings management practices in Australia

Purpose Managers generally have discretion in determining how components of earnings are presented in financial statements in distinguishing between ‘normal’ earnings and items classified as unusual, special, significant, exceptional or abnormal. Prior research has found that such intra-period classificatory choice is used as a form of earnings management. Prior to 2001, Australian accounting standards mandated that unusually large items of revenue and expense be classified as ‘abnormal items’ for financial reporting, but this classification was removed from accounting standards from 2001. This move by the regulators was partly in response to concerns that the abnormal classification was being used opportunistically to manage reported pre-abnormal earnings. This study extends the earnings management literature by examining the reporting of abnormal items for evidence of intra-period classificatory earnings management in the unique Australian setting. Design/methodology/approach This study investigates associations between reporting of abnormal items and incentives in the form of analyst following and the earnings benchmarks of analysts’ forecasts, earnings levels, and earnings changes, for a sample of Australian top-500 firms for the seven-year period from 1994 to 2000. Findings The findings suggest there are systematic differences between firms reporting abnormal items and those with no abnormal items. Results show evidence that, on average, firms shifted expense items from pre-abnormal earnings to bottom line net income through reclassification as abnormal losses. Originality/value These findings suggest that the standard setters were justified in removing the ‘abnormal’ classification from the accounting standard. However, it cannot be assumed that all firms acted opportunistically in the classification of items as abnormal. With the removal of the standardised classification of items outside normal operations as ‘abnormal’, firms lost the opportunity to use such disclosures as a signalling device, with the consequential effect of limiting the scope of effectively communicating information about the nature of items presented in financial reports.

Comments on the Australian Accounting Research Foundation's Legislation Policy Discussion Paper NO.4 (A framework for financial reporting by incorporated associations)

The Australian Accounting Research Foundation (AARF) recently issued Legislative Policy Discussion Paper No.4 which proposes a framework for financial reporting by Australian incorporated associations.This paper comments on both the merits and deficiencies of the proposal. In particular it notes that the proposal simply advocates that the application of differential reporting, accounting standards, and the conceptual framework be imposed on incorporated associations by amended statutes. It is noted that in light of long experience in the corporate sector, he espoused benefits of such a move may not eventuate. Further, concern is expressed that the proposal is a blank cheque one because of the inadequacy of existing relevant accounting standards and the proposal to introduce new relevant standards. Another major defect in the proposal is that it emanates from accountants who acknowledge in their conceptual framework, the need for external reports to report on performance through both financial and non-financial reporting methods. Despite that acknowledgment, the standard set of external reports prepared by accountants do not measure performance as defined in their own conceptual framework (SAC 2) and in their auditing pronouncements (AUP 33), and they have restricted their domain to financial reporting (SAC 2). Accordingly the proposal appears to be seriously deficient and it is suggested that it be rejected and a new proposal be prepared by a multi-party group free from vested interests.

Understanding teachers' reporting of child sexual abuse : measurement methods matter

The present study considered factors influencing teachers' reporting of child sexual abuse (CSA). Conducted in three Australian jurisdictions with different reporting laws and policies, the study focused on teachers' actual past and anticipated future reporting of CSA. A sample of 470 teachers within randomly selected rural and urban schools was surveyed, to identify training and experience; knowledge of reporting legislation and policy; attitudes; and reporting practices. Factors influencing actual past reporting and anticipated future reporting were identified using logistic regression modelling. This is the first study to simultaneously examine the effect of important influences in reporting practice using both retrospective and prospective approaches across jurisdictions with different reporting laws. Teachers who have actually reported CSA in the past are more likely have higher levels of policy knowledge, and hold more positive attitudes towards reporting CSA along three specific dimensions: commitment to the reporting role; confidence in the system's effective response to their reporting; and they are more likely to be able to override their concerns about the consequences of their reporting. Teachers indicating intention to report hypothetical scenarios are more likely to hold reasonable grounds for suspecting CSA, to recognise that significant harm has been caused to the child, to know that their school policy requires a report, and to be able to override their concerns about the consequences of their reporting.

Does the protection of vulnerable children require a system of mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect? [An issues paper for the New Zealand Government Green Paper for vulnerable children]

In this Issues Paper, I raise some key points relevant for any government which is considering its child protection and family welfare policy. In particular, I will raise questions about whether a form of legislative reporting duty is required, and if so, what consequences this has for child protection. The context of child maltreatment - and each form of maltreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and neglect - is extremely complex, and the overarching question of how to deal with these phenomena involve challenging normative, economic and practical questions. There are no easy or perfect solutions. Nor, often, is there the amount and quality of evidence available on which public policy approaches should be devised. However, from the best evidence about the history of this context, from research conducted in this field, and from the best evidence available about the nature, incidence and effects of different subtypes of maltreatment, some observations can be made which may help to inform deliberations. I outline 10 key issues related to mandatory reporting legislation while being mindful of the New Zealand context. My view, based on both research evidence and a concern to protect and promote children’s interests, and society’s interests, is that reporting laws in some form are necessary and can contribute substantially to child protection and enhancing family and community health and wellbeing. However, they are only one necessary part of a sound child protection system, being a method of tertiary and secondary prevention, and primary prevention efforts must also be prioritised. Moreover, it is essential that if a legislative reporting duty is enacted, it must be designed carefully and implemented soundly, and it must be integrated within a properly resourced child protection and family welfare system.

Teachers’ detecting and reporting child abuse and neglect : research into the determinants of complex professional behavior

Child abuse and neglect is prevalent and entails significant costs to children, families and society. Teachers are responsible for significant proportions of official notifications to statutory child protection agencies. Hence, their accurate and appropriate reporting is crucial for well-functioning child protection systems. Approximately one-quarter of Australian teachers indicate never detecting a case of child maltreatment across their careers, while a further 13-15% admit to not reporting suspected cases in some circumstances. The detection and reporting of child abuse and neglect are complex decision-making behaviors, influenced by: the nature of the maltreatment itself; the characteristics of the teacher; the school environment; and the broader legislative and policy environment. In this chapter, the authors provide a background to teachers’ involvement in detecting and reporting child abuse and neglect, and an overview of the role of teachers is provided. Results are presented from three Australian studies that examine the unique contributions of: case; teacher; and contextual characteristics to detection and reporting behaviors. The authors conclude by highlighting the key implications for enhancing teacher training in child abuse and neglect, and outline future research directions.