Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the Quality of Non-financial Risk-Related Disclosure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mandatory Non-financial Risk-Related Disclosure

  • 683 Accesses

Abstract

In the chapter we introduce the main research question of the book, namely, RQ: Does quality mandatory NF risk disclosure affect investors’ decisions? The answer to the research question requires a context in which to carry out the research (we justified the choice of Italy in the previous section), the analytical framework for NF risk-related disclosure to employ and an adequate methodology to measure quality NF risk disclosure. As for the framework for the mandatory NF risk disclosure, we focus on the NF risk disclosure categories as provided by the EU Directive implemented by the Legislative Decree 254/2016, preceded by a brief illustration of the other main existing frameworks of NF risk disclosure. As for the methodology, we focus on the most widely used method to measure narrative disclosure, the content analysis, focusing on the main approach that can be followed by researchers to content analyse corporate documents, that is, mechanistic and interpretive content analysis, also presenting the main empirical studies employing automated and manual content analysis. The last sections of the chapter are devoted to the concept of quality of disclosure and how it can be operationalized, to end with the self-constructed quality disclosure index used in our research to measure the mandatory NF risk-related information disclosure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Krippendorff (2004), content analysis as a research methodology has its early origins in the ‘inquisitional pursuits by the Church in the seventeenth century’, when the Church became worried about the spread of non-religious printed matter after the invention of the printing press and thus began the pursuit of analysing texts to ensure they were in keeping with the doctrines of the Church (Dovring 2008). At the end of the nineteenth century, the proliferation of newspapers reignited interest in content analysis as methodology to analyse the social content of newspaper (Weber 2008) conducted content analysis research using newspapers as a source until such time as other forms of mass media, such as radio, became prominent (Krippendorff 2004).

  2. 2.

    It is important here to make a distinction between the reliability and validity. According to Krippendorff (2008, p. 350), reliability ‘is the extent to which data can be trusted to represent the phenomena of interest rather than spurious ones’. Validity, on the other hand, occurs when ‘a measuring instrument … measures what it purports to measure’ (Janis 2008, p. 359).

  3. 3.

    Coverage is the percentage of environmental topics (sub-items) disclosed by the company out of the total number of topics disclosed within the index. Dispersion measures the concentration of the items disclosed. Depth depends on the type of measures used to disclose the environmental information. These measures range from no disclosure (score = 0; minimum score) to general narrative disclosure (score = 1 score) to benchmarking disclosure (score = 4; maximum score) to reflect the usefulness of disclosed information.

  4. 4.

    The term objectivity refers to an empiricist notion of objectivity where judgemental criteria are derived from the inherent ‘internal’ qualities of the disclosure contents. Subjectivity, on the other hand, relates to the instances where the judgemental criteria emanating from an ‘external’ framework or theory are superimposed on the disclosure contents.

References

  • Abraham, S., & Cox, P. (2007). Analysing the determinants of narrative risk information in UK FTSE 100 annual reports. The British Accounting Review, 39(3), 227–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, S., & Shrives, P. J. (2014). Improving the relevance of risk factor disclosure in corporate annual reports. The British Accounting Review, 46(1), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A. (2004). The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 17(5), 731–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Hadi, A., Hasan, M. M., & Habib, A. (2016). Risk committee, firm life cycle, and market risk disclosures. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24(2), 145–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Tuwaijri, S., Christensen, T., & Hughes, K. (2004). The relations among environmental disclosure, environmental performance, and economic performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 447–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASX Corporate Governance Council (ASX CGC). (2014). Corporate governance principles and recommendations (3rd ed.). Sydney: ASX Corporate Governance Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barakat, A., & Hussainey, K. (2013). Bank governance, regulation, supervision, and risk reporting: Evidence from operational risk disclosures in European banks. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 254–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, V., McInnes, B., & Fearnley, S. (2004). A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: A comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum, 28(3), 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A., Campbell, D., & Shrives, P. (2010). Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British-German context. The British Accounting Review, 42, 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Amar, W., & Chelli. (2018). What drives voluntary corporate water disclosures? The effect of country-level institutions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1609–1622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta, S., & Bozzolan, S. (2004). A framework for the analysis of firm risk communication. The International Journal of Accounting, 39(3), 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beretta, S., & Bozzolan, S. (2008). Quality versus quantity: The case of forward-looking disclosure. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 23(3), 333–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, T. (2012). Risk reporting practices of Indian companies in the SENSEX. Asia Pacific Journal of Risk and Insurance, 6(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2007). Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: A framework and empirical evidence from Italy and the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(2), 269–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, E. H. (1984). Content analysis of annual reports for corporate strategy and risk. Interfaces, 14, 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bravo, F. (2017). Are risk disclosures an effective tool to increase firm value? Managerial and Decision Economics, 28, 1116–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabedo, J. D., & Tirado, J. M. (2004). The disclosure of risk in financial statements. Accounting Forum, 28(2), 181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (2000). Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction? Corporate social disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc corporate reports, 1969–1997. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 80–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caputo, F., Leopizzi, R., Pizzi, S., & Milone, V. (2020). The non-financial reporting harmonization in Europe: Evolutionary pathways related to the transposition of the Directive 95/2014/EU within the Italian context. Sustainability, 12(1), 92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C., Roberts, R., & Patten, D. (2010). The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 431–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, C. H., Laine, M., Roberts, R. W., & Rodrigue, M. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinquini, L., Passetti, E., Tenucci, A., & Frey, M. (2012). Analyzing intellectual capital information in sustainability reports: Some empirical evidence. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13(4), 531–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2018). Enterprise risk management—Applying enterprise risk management to environmental, social and governance-related risks. New York: The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comyns, B. (2016). Determinants of GHG reporting: An analysis of global oil and gas companies. Journal of Business Ethics 136, 349–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comyns, B., & Figge, F. (2015). Greenhouse gas reporting quality in the oil and gas industry: A longitudinal study using the typology of ‘search’, ‘experience’ and ‘credence’ information. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(3), 403–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Velthoven, B. V. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? The European Accounting Review, 14(1), 3–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, E. P., & Williams, C. C. (2010). Should corporate social reporting be voluntary or mandatory? Evidence from the banking sector in France and the United States. Corporate Governance, 10, 512–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico, E., Coluccia, D., Fontana, S., & Solimene, S. (2016). Factors influencing corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25, 178–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca, F., & Phat, H. (2019). Informativeness assessment of risk and risk-management disclosure in corporate reporting: An empirical analysis of Italian large listed firms. Financial Reporting, 2, 9–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deumes, R., & Knechel, W. R. (2008). Economic incentives for voluntary reporting on internal risk management and control systems. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(1), 35–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diouf, D., & Boiral, O. (2017). The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 643–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobler, M. (2008). Incentives for risk reporting –a discretionary disclosure and cheap talk approach. The International Journal of Accounting, 43, 184–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobler, M., Lajili, K., & Zéghal, D. (2011). Attributes of corporate risk disclosure: An international investigation in the manufacturing sector. Journal of International Accounting Research, 10(2), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, L. R., & Gámez, L. C. N. (2014). Corporate reporting on risks: Evidence from Spanish companies. Revista de Contabilidad, 17(2), 116–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovring, K. (2008). Quantitative semantics in 18th century Sweden. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 4–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2014a). A review and critique of content analysis as a methodology for inquiring into IC disclosure. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 264–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2014b). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 121–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., & Cai, L. (2015). Using content analysis as a research methodology for investigating intellectual capital disclosure: A critique. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(1), 121–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., & Hossain, M. D. A. (2019). Sustainability risk disclosure practices of listed companies in Australia. Australian Accounting Review, 29(2), 343–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumay, J., Frost, G., & Beck, C. (2015). Material legitimacy. Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 11(1), 2–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Haj, M., Rayson, P., Walker, M., Young, S., & Simaki, V. (2019). In search of meaning: Lessons, resources and next steps for computational analysis of financial discourse. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 46(3–4), 265–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshandidy, T., Fraser, I., & Hussainey, K. (2013). Aggregated, voluntary, and mandatory risk reporting incentives: Evidence from FTSE all-share. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 320–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshandidy, T., Fraser, I., & Hussainey, K. (2015). What drives mandatory and voluntary risk reporting variations across Germany, UK, and US? The British Accounting Review, 47(4), 376–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshandidy, T., Shrives, P. J., Bamber, M., & Abraham, S. (2018). Risk reporting: A review of the literature and implications for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40, 54–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union. (2014). Directive as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, 2014/95/EU. Accessed March 25, 2019, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN/

  • Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). G4 guidelines–reporting principles and standard disclosures. Accessed January 12, 2020, from www.globalreporting.org

  • Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Methodological themes: Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8(2), 78–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulenko, M. (2018). Mandatory CSR reporting—Literature review and future developments in Germany. Nachhaltigkeits Management Forum, 26, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J., & Petty, R. (2000). Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(3), 241–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K., & Miles, S. (2004). Assessing quality assessment of corporate social reporting: UK perspectives. Accounting Forum, 28, 61–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, O. (2018). The impact of voluntary environmental disclosure on firm value: Does organizational visibility play a mediation role? Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 1569–1582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P., & Palepu, K. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 405–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P., Hutton, A., & Palepu, K. (1999). Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(3), 485–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfaya, A., & Kotb, A. (2016). Environmental reporting quality: An analysis of global creditability initiatives. In M. Erdogdu, T. Arun, & I. Ahmad (Eds.), Handbook of research on green economic development initiatives and strategies (pp. 628–657). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfaya, A., & Moussa, T. (2017). Do board’s corporate social responsibility strategy and orientation influence environmental sustainability disclosure? UK evidence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1061–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfaya, A., & Whittington, M. (2019). Does designing environmental sustainability disclosure quality measures make a difference? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 525–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfaya, A., Whittington, M., & Alawattage, C. (2019). Exploring the quality of corporate environmental reporting: Surveying preparers’ and users’ perceptions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 163–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D. (2007). Social reporting and new governance regulation: The prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 453–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P., & Short, H. (2009). Risk disclosures on the second-tier markets of the London Stock Exchange. Accounting and Finance, 49(4), 753–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, J., Coy, D., & Howard, D. (2002). The information gap in annual reports. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 4, 501–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, O.-K., Hu, D., & Lu, H. (2016). The benefits of specific risk-factor disclosures. Review of Accounting Studies, 21, 1005–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICAEW. (1997). Financial reporting of risk: Proposals for a statement of business risk. London: Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imhoff, E. (1992). The relation between perceived accounting quality and economic characteristics of the firm. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 11(2), 97–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). (2013). The International <IR> framework, London. Retrieved from https://integratedreporting.org/resource/international-ir-framework/

  • Janis, I. (2008). The problem of validating content analysis. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 358–366). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jizi, M. (2017). The influence of board composition on sustainable development disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 640–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalu, J., Buang, A., & Aliagha, G. (2016). Determinants of voluntary carbon disclosure in the corporate real estate sector of Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Management, 182, 519–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konishi, N., & Ali, M. M. (2007). Risk reporting of Japanese companies and its association with corporate characteristics. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 4(3), 263–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K., & Bock, M. A. (2008). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2008). Testing the reliability of content analysis data. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 350–357). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Torre, M., Sabelfeld, S., Blomkvist, M., Tarquinio, L., & Dumay, J. (2018). Harmonising non-financial reporting regulation in Europe: Practical forces and projections for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 26(4), 598–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajili, K., & Zeghal, D. (2005). A content analysis of risk management disclosure in Canadian annual reports. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 22(2), 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.-H. (2017). Does size matter? Evaluating corporate environmental disclosure in the Australian mining and metal industry: A combined approach of quantity and quality measurement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopizzi, R., Iazzi, A., Venturelli, A., & Principale, S. (2020). Nonfinancial risk disclosure: The ‘state of the art’ of Italian companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lev, B., & Zarowin, P. (1999). The boundaries of the financial reporting and how to extend them. Journal of Accounting Research, 2, 353–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, F. (2010). The information content of forward-looking statements in corporate filings-A Naïve Bayesian machine learning approach. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(5), 1049–1102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liesen, A., Hoepner, A., Patten, D., & Figge, F. (2015). Does stakeholder pressure influence corporate GHG emissions reporting? Empirical evidence from Europe. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(7), 1017–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsley, P. M., & Lawrence, M. J. (2007). Risk reporting by the largest UK companies: Reliability and lack of obfuscation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(4), 620–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsley, P. M., & Shrives, P. J. (2005). Examining risk reporting in UK public companies. The Journal of Risk Finance, 6(4), 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsley, P., & Shrives, P. (2006). Risk reporting: A study of risk disclosure in the annual reports of UK companies. The British Accounting Review, 38(4), 387–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsley, P. M., Shrives, P. J., & Crumpton, M. (2006). Risk disclosure: An exploratory study of UK and Canadian banks. Journal of Banking Regulation, 7(3–4), 268–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lokuwaduge, C. S. D. S., & Heenetigala, K. (2017). Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 438–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malafronte, I., Porzio, C., & Starita, M. G. (2016). The nature and determinants of disclosure practices in the insurance industry: Evidence from European insurers. International Review of Financial Analysis, 45, 367–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manes Rossi, F., Nicolò, G., & Levy Orelli, R. (2017). Reshaping risk disclosure through integrated reporting: Evidence from Italian early adopters. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(10), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A., & Weetman, P. (2007). Modelling transparency in disclosure: The case of foreign exchange risk management. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 34(5–-6), 705–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazumder, M. M. M., & Hossain, D. M. (2018). Research on corporate risk reporting: Current trends and future avenues. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(1), 29–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, X., Zeng, S., Shi, J., Qi, G., & Zhang, Z. (2014). The relationship between corporate environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical study in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 145, 357–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 33, 59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miihkinen, A. (2012). What drives the quality of firm risk disclosure? The International Journal of Accounting, 47(4), 437–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M., & Adler, R. (1999). Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mion, G., & Loza Adaui, C. R. (2019). Mandatory nonfinancial disclosure and its consequences on the sustainability reporting quality of Italian and German companies. Sustainability, 11(17), 4612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokhtar, E. S., & Mellett, H. (2013). Competition, corporate governance, ownership structure and risk reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(9), 838–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neri, L., & Russo, A. (2013). Risk disclosures in the annual reports of Italian listed companies. Financial Reporting, 3–4, 141–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ntim, C. G., Lindop, S., & Thomas, D. A. (2013). Corporate governance and risk reporting in South Africa: A study of corporate risk disclosures in the pre- and post-2007/2008 global financial crisis period. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 363–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, J., Lima Rodrigues, L., & Craig, R. (2011). Risk-related disclosures by non-finance companies: Portuguese practices and disclosure characteristics. Managerial Auditing Journal, 26(9), 817–839.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, D., & Zhao, N. (2014). Standalone CSR reporting by U.S. retail companies. Accounting Forum, 38(2), 132–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radu, C., & Francoeur, C. (2017). Does innovation drive environmental disclosure? A new insight into sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 893–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reverte, C. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure ratings by Spanish listed firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., Weetman, P., & Gordon, P. (2008). International financial reporting. A comparative approach (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P. (1998). Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt. The Accounting Review, 73(4), 459–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., & Taffler, R. (2000). The chairman’s statement: A content analysis of discretionary narrative disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 624–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G., Tower, G., & Neilson, J. (2010). Corporate communication of financial risk. Accounting and Finance, 50(2), 417–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toms, J. (2002). Firm resources, quality signals, and the determinants of corporate environmental reputation: Some UK evidence. The British Accounting Review, 34, 257–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truant, E., Corazza, L., & Scagnelli, D. S. (2017). Sustainability and risk disclosure: An exploratory study on sustainability reports. Sustainability, 9(636), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues reflections on quantification in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquiza, F., Abed, M., & Trombetta, M. (2009). Disclosure indices design: Does it make a deference? Spanish Accounting Review, 12(2), 253–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Staden, C., & Hooks, J. (2007). A comprehensive comparison of corporate environmental reporting and responsiveness. The British Accounting Review, 39, 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, S., De Luca, F., & Phat, H. (2020). Do investors value companies mandatory nonfinancial risk disclosure? An empirical analysis of the Italian context after the EU Directive. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2497.

  • Venturelli, A., Caputo, F., Cosma, S., Leopizzi, R., & Pizzi, S. (2017). Directive 2014/95/EU: Are Italian Companies Already Compliant? Sustainability, 9(8), 1385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2008). Towards a sociology of the press: An early proposal for content analysis. In K. Krippendorff & M. A. Bock (Eds.), The content analysis reader (pp. 9–11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilmshurst, T., & Frost, G. (2000). Corporate environmental reporting: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(1), 10–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, F. O., Rasid, S. Z. A., Basiruddin, R., Zamil, N. A. M., & Vakilbashi, A. (2016). Risk disclosure practices among Malaysian listed firms. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(3), 1092–1096.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration and Law, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Stefania Veltri

Authors
  1. Stefania Veltri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Veltri, S. (2020). Measuring the Quality of Non-financial Risk-Related Disclosure. In: Mandatory Non-financial Risk-Related Disclosure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47921-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation