A General Approach for Financial Quantification of Climate Change Risk for Enterprises

Climate change is a major risk for the global economy. Increased frequency of climatic events coupled with unsustainable economic development without considering environmental & social aspects has resulted in runaway climatic impacts. It became evident for all stakeholders to work in unison; which led to formation of Task force on climate-related financial disclosures (TCFD). Financial quantification of climate risk is a new area to be explored & could be an effective measure to tackle climate change. This chapter provides a general approach for financial quantification of climate change risk for businesses to understand & prioritize climate action. Though the approach is limited to the manufacturing sector, it can be used with some modifications for other sectors. It will help find impacts that climate change could pose to supply chain using various tools & evaluation of its usefulness. As 'Climate Action' is part of Sustainable Development Goals; it will be useful to understand how integrating TCFD could help enterprises tackle climate change by localizing SDG-13 into their businesses.

A General Approach for Financial Quantification of Climate Change Risk for Enterprises

Climate change is a major risk for the global economy. Increased frequency of climatic events coupled with unsustainable economic development without considering environmental & social aspects has resulted in runaway climatic impacts. It became evident for all stakeholders to work in unison; which led to formation of Task force on climate-related financial disclosures (TCFD). Financial quantification of climate risk is a new area to be explored & could be an effective measure to tackle climate change. This chapter provides a general approach for financial quantification of climate change risk for businesses to understand & prioritize climate action. Though the approach is limited to the manufacturing sector, it can be used with some modifications for other sectors. It will help find impacts that climate change could pose to supply chain using various tools & evaluation of its usefulness. As 'Climate Action' is part of Sustainable Development Goals; it will be useful to understand how integrating TCFD could help enterprises tackle climate change by localizing SDG-13 into their businesses.

Development of Integrated Reporting in Poland

Organizational reporting is the most important tool of communication between an enterpriseand its stakeholders. However, it is not a static tool but continues to develop and adapt to ongoingeconomic and social changes. Formerly covering only financial information; currently, it is supplementedby a wide range of non-financial information relating to all aspects of the business. The evolution ofreporting is particularly fostered by the rapid development of the concepts of corporate socialresponsibility and sustainable development, as well as the progressing changes in the information needsof stakeholders. Enterprises are increasingly publishing voluntary reports concerning the social,environmental, and employment aspects of their business in addition to reports required by law. Thisresults in the multiplication of reports and duplication of content, which has a negative impact on thereports' usefulness. The solution to this problem may be integrated reporting, which integrates andinterconnects financial and non-financial disclosures. A milestone for the development of integratedreporting was the elaboration of integrated reporting guidelines by the International Integrated ReportingCouncil (IIRC) in December 2013. The aim of the paper is to present the development of integratedreporting in Poland in 2014-2020 on the example of public companies listed on the Warsaw StockExchange. The quality of reports was assessed from the point of view of compliance with IIRC guidelines,as well as their usefulness for stakeholders. Content analysis of corporate publications and comparativeanalysis was used for this purpose.

Quantification of ESG Regulations: A Cross-Country Benchmarking Analysis

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria mean investment in economic choices which, without interference with the environment, are intended to promote long-term economic and social well-being. Due to high environmental and social awareness, customers expect companies to devote time and efforts to such sustainable practices. This attitude has led to an overall rise in ESG disclosures and reporting instruments globally with a focus on influence of ESG disclosures on financial performance of companies. Many European countries have already introduced mandatory disclosure of non-financial information. This transition from voluntary to mandatory motivated other countries to adopt mandatory ESG disclosure practices for sustainable development. The practice of reporting non-financial disclosures has been rising due to several reasons, such as increasing visibility, informing customers, avoiding the risk associated with firm performance and achieving sustainability. Countries in the early stages of ESG disclosure need to understand the benchmark practices used by countries with a well-developed ESG system. For preparing the ESG disclosure index and benchmarking based on disclosure score, this study considers a set of developed and developing countries with their ESG disclosures. On the basis of ESG disclosures, the countries have been classified into four different categories. We found Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom, Belgium and France, to have high ESG scores and have been classified as Countries with Well-Developed ESG Framework. Germany, Italy, USA, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Brazil and South Africa have medium to high ESG scores and fall under the category Rapidly improving ESG framework. While Singapore, India, China, Philippines, Malaysia and Argentina are categorized as countries with ESG framework at developing stage, Russia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria and Vietnam are classified as Countries with early-stage framework due to low ESG scores.

Accountability disclosure of SOEs: comparing hybrid and private European news agencies

Purpose This paper aims to explore the financial and non-financial accountability disclosure patterns of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), as hybrid organizations. Design/methodology/approach Adopting the hybridity concept and resorting to stakeholder theory, this paper works on a comparison between the accountability disclosure patterns of hybrid and private organizations operating in the same industry. European national news agencies are selected as units of analysis and an extensive web content analysis is performed on three categories of information. Findings SOEs are found to disclose a broader spectrum of information than private organizations, and differences between them have been found. Nevertheless, both financial and non-financial disclosures are underdeveloped in the two organizational types. Research limitations/implications This paper illustrates how hybridity explains SOEs’ accountability disclosure patterns. Results could not be complemented through information on disclosure through alternative channels. Future studies are encouraged to perform simultaneous comparisons among hybrid, public and private organizations, as well as considering industry specifics. Practical implications As web accountability disclosure helps to address the demands of distant stakeholders, efforts are needed to enhance SOEs’ web accountability disclosures and not to undermine democratic accountability relationships. Originality/value This paper contributes to the ongoing debate on the accountability mechanisms and style of SOEs. Using a framework for hybrid organizations provides an understanding of how SOEs, as hybrid organizations, disclose information for accountability. In turn, this allows, and then promotes, the investigation of social phenomena by conceiving hybridity as a standalone institutional space.

SEC’s disclosure effectiveness initiative reshapes MD&A disclosure requirements

Purpose This article examines rule amendments issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission in November 2020, as part of the SEC’s ongoing “disclosure effectiveness initiative”, that revise in significant respects the requirements for financial disclosures presented in SEC filings as Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Design/methodology/approach This article provides an in-depth analysis of the rule amendments in the context of contrasting perspectives expressed by the SEC, individual SEC Commissioners who dissented from adoption of the amendments, and market participants regarding the merits of the SEC’s movement away from prescriptive disclosure requirements towards a more principles-based approach to disclosure. Findings Although the SEC’s rules have long reflected a mix of principles-based and prescriptive disclosure elements, the principles-based emphasis in this latest stage of the SEC’s disclosure modernization project accords the managements of filing companies greater latitude to determine whether financial information is material to investors and how such information should be presented. Originality/value This article provides expert guidance on a major new SEC disclosure development from an experienced securities lawyer.

Historical trends in health care-related financial holdings among members of Congress

Background Revelations that some members of Congress, including members of key health care committees, hold substantial personal investments in the health care industry have raised concerns about lawmakers’ financial conflicts of interest (COI) and their potential impact on health care legislation and oversight. Aims 1) To assess historical trends in both the number of legislators holding health care-related assets and the value and composition of those assets. 2) To compare the financial holdings of members of health care-focused committees and subcommittees to those of other members of the House and Senate. Methods We analyzed 11 years of personal financial disclosures by all members of the House and Senate. For each year, we calculated the percentage of members holding a health care-related asset (overall, by party, and by committee); the total value of all assets and health care-related assets held; the mean and median values of assets held per member; and the share of asset values attributable to 9 health asset categories. Findings During the study period, over a third of all members of Congress held health care-related assets. These assets were often substantial, with a median total value per member of over $43,000. Members of health care-focused committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate did not hold health care-related assets at a higher rate than other members of their respective chambers. Conclusions These findings suggest that lawmakers’ health care-related COI warrant the same level of attention that has been paid to the COI of other actors in the health care system.

Financial Statement Complexity and Bank Lending

Recent evidence suggests that investors struggle to process complex financial disclosures. Relative to equity and public debt investors, banks have unique advantages in acquiring information and can impose contractual terms to mitigate information frictions. We investigate whether financial statement complexity is associated with firms' reliance on bank financing and the terms of bank loans. We focus on two aspects of complexity, the length of financial reports and the complexity of financial reporting rules. We document that both aspects of complexity are positively associated with firms' reliance on bank financing (i.e., level of debt and new financing). This result is consistent with banks' superior information processing capabilities. Next, we document that banks ameliorate information frictions using loan contractual terms that depend on the source of complexity. Overall, banks are an attractive source of financing for firms with complex disclosures, but banks also increase screening and monitoring for relatively complex borrowers.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures: Evidence From Canada

This paper investigates non-GAAP financial measures voluntarily reported by Canadian companies listed on Toronto stock exchange (TSX) and Toronto Ventures Exchange (TSXV) for the year 2017. Non-GAAP measures are those that do not adhere to the requirements of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and are used to communicate those aspects of firms’ operations which the firms see as relevant for the users of financial statements. This study is an exploratory research which describes current firm practices in reporting non-GAAP financial measures among three industry groups, namely Real Estate, Blockchain/Cryptocurrency and Cannabis firms. This paper also assesses the quality of non-GAAP financial disclosures in accordance with the regulatory guidance. The study is motivated by recent regulatory proposals issued by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), under the National Instrument NI 52-112 and by the Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) pertaining to reporting non-GAAP performance measures. The main contribution of this study is a detailed content analysis of a sample of Canadian firms. My analysis of hand collected data from the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) indicates a plethora of reported “non-GAAP financial measures” disclosed by companies. The analysis also indicates that firms are falling short on parameters such as understandability, comparability, standardization, consistency and persistence of non-GAAP financial measures which are essential under the existing guidelines, and that regulation of non-GAAP financial measures would be beneficial. The study’s findings may be relevant to regulators for formulating guidance on reporting non-GAAP measures and identifies areas of potential future studies in the area of non-GAAP financial measures. Keywords: Non-GAAP financial measures, Non-GAAP earnings, Pro forma earnings, Non-IFRS measures, Street earnings, Core earnings, Adjusted earnings and NI 52-112.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures: Evidence From Canada

This paper investigates non-GAAP financial measures voluntarily reported by Canadian companies listed on Toronto stock exchange (TSX) and Toronto Ventures Exchange (TSXV) for the year 2017. Non-GAAP measures are those that do not adhere to the requirements of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and are used to communicate those aspects of firms’ operations which the firms see as relevant for the users of financial statements. This study is an exploratory research which describes current firm practices in reporting non-GAAP financial measures among three industry groups, namely Real Estate, Blockchain/Cryptocurrency and Cannabis firms. This paper also assesses the quality of non-GAAP financial disclosures in accordance with the regulatory guidance. The study is motivated by recent regulatory proposals issued by the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), under the National Instrument NI 52-112 and by the Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) pertaining to reporting non-GAAP performance measures. The main contribution of this study is a detailed content analysis of a sample of Canadian firms. My analysis of hand collected data from the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) indicates a plethora of reported “non-GAAP financial measures” disclosed by companies. The analysis also indicates that firms are falling short on parameters such as understandability, comparability, standardization, consistency and persistence of non-GAAP financial measures which are essential under the existing guidelines, and that regulation of non-GAAP financial measures would be beneficial. The study’s findings may be relevant to regulators for formulating guidance on reporting non-GAAP measures and identifies areas of potential future studies in the area of non-GAAP financial measures. Keywords: Non-GAAP financial measures, Non-GAAP earnings, Pro forma earnings, Non-IFRS measures, Street earnings, Core earnings, Adjusted earnings and NI 52-112.