You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Sustainability
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

2 August 2024

Reporting Corporate Risk: An Empirical Inquiry into Listed Entities in the Saudi Capital Market

and
1
Accounting Department, University of Hafr Al-Batin, Hafr Al Batin 39524, Saudi Arabia
2
Accounting Department, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2024, 16(15), 6619;https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156619
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

A capital market with greater transparency provides more accurate metrics for measuring corporate performance, which can be utilized to inform market participants’ decisions. Informed risk is crucial to corporate reporting transparency. This empirical study explores the extent to which firms in the Saudi capital market disclose risk information, whether financial or non-financial. A risk disclosure index (RDI) is constructed based on a rigorous literature review of previous studies, considering suggested items related to corporate risk that must be disclosed. The sample comprises 50 corporations, with five companies representing the energy sector, three representing the utility sector, and forty-two representing the materials sector. The findings reveal moderate financial risk disclosure (sample mean 56%) and low non-financial risk disclosure (sample mean 33%) in the Saudi capital market. In the energy sector, the disclosed financial and non-financial risks comprise 57% and 37%, respectively; in the utility sector, these proportions are 56% and 31%, while in the materials sector, they are 54% and 33%, respectively. Regulators should prioritize high-quality, transparent, and comparable risk information disclosure to attract direct foreign investment. To improve their risk disclosure, managers of firms can also employ the RDI to examine the extent of risk their companies face. This study is limited to the annual and board reports of companies in the three sectors.

1. Introduction

Giant corporations play a crucial role in the corporate economy [1,2,3]. When management is separate from proprietors [4,5,6], corporate accounting, specifically “financial accounting”, serves to apprise “shareholders” by influencing internal corporate affairs [4,7,8]. The distinction between ownership and corporate control poses a challenge to corporate reporting [9]. Debates are ongoing regarding what a corporation entails and how it should report its outlook, matters, performance, and financial situation to stakeholders [4,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Despite concerted efforts spanning over a century by accounting researchers, academics, organizations, and other professional bodies to conceptualize corporate reporting [7,13], no single theory has been accepted as “the accounting theory” [4,8,10,13,14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33].
In 1936, the American Accounting Association (AAA) conceptualized corporate accounting to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the contents of financial statements [34,35]. After forming several committees and setting various standards, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) established the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 1973. Since then, the FASB has been developing a conceptual framework to temporarily serve as a guide for the standard-setting process until a theory for corporate reporting is developed and widely accepted [23,36,37].
Professionally, corporate reporting has evolved to address users’ increasing needs for information regarding corporations. The practical unfeasibility of capturing economic realities within corporate financial statements has rationalized the growth in demand for modeling corporate reporting [38]. Corporate reporting has expanded to include, for example, the triple-bottom-line [39,40,41,42], intellectual capital [43,44,45,46], corporate social responsibility [47], and business and corporate sustainability [48,49]. Such comprehensive corporate reporting highlights users’ need for information regarding corporate reports, which financial statements lack.
In 1991, the AICPA formed The Special Committee on Financial Reporting, commonly known as the Jenkins Committee and officially known as Improving Business Reporting—A Customer Focus [5,50,51,52], to respond to the growing emphasis on business reporting as a model for corporate reporting [51,52]. The Jenkins Committee aimed to develop a business report that was not limited to “traditional financial metrics” by including “non-financial performance or key performance indicators” [34].
Non-financial reporting includes operating performance measures, which are considered vital supplemental information that helps forecast key value drivers evaluating profitability, growth, and risk [53,54]. It also includes future financial performance [55], which forecasts future profitability [56], stock returns [57], and earnings [55]. Therefore, reporting non-financial information is essential for investors’ decision-making [58,59,60,61,62,63]. Moreover, disclosed non-financial information predicts financial fraud and customer satisfaction while providing better insights into the value creation of a firm [64,65,66].
The Jenkins Committee report consisted of 10 elements, one of which was concerned opportunities and risks, including those resulting from key trends [51]. Considering that the international economy has become more competitive and complicated, risk management is crucial to the durability and success of an enterprise [67]. This is particularly true for the increasing number of firms that operate globally and encounter diverse “degrees of business, economic, and political risks” [68].
A capital market with greater transparency provides more accurate metrics for measuring corporate performance. In such a market, investors are provided with more information for decision-making [69]. Reported risk is key to financial reporting transparency [68]. Financial crises highlighted that corporations’ risk is not transparently described by either financial statements or other obligatory disclosures [70]. The quality of risk disclosure signifies managers’ confidence in their ability to manage risks and the processes they undergo to improve risk disclosure quality; it also assists them in effectively making informed risk-management decisions [67].
Empirical evidence from the Saudi capital market suggests that disclosure of non-financial information is low [8,71], as is the disclosure of risk [14]. Examining the annual report of the sampled corporations, Habtoor et al. [72] affirmed that non-financial institutions in Saudi Arabia disclose a moderate level of corporate risk, and the quality of the content therein is low [72].
Whether corporate risk is disclosed or not is an empirical concern. This study contributes to the accounting literature by empirically exploring the extent to which firms listed in the Saudi capital market disclose financial and non-financial information related to corporate risk. According to Ochoa-Pachas [73] (p. 2), “Descriptive investigations are the beginning of quantitative studies” that “allow describing, characterizing the phenomenon or facts to be studied”. A comprehensive index for risk disclosure is constructed to examine publicly traded corporations. The index is a composite of the following three sources: recommendations from the Jenkins model; principles and recommendations issued by the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Corporate Governance Council (CGC), and the DIRECTIVE 2014/95/EU; and previous suggestions on measuring and reporting corporate risk.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the related literature on non-financial risk disclosure. Section 3 describes the research method, including the development of the NFRDI. Section 4 presents the results, and finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions, draws implications along with limitations, and avenues for future research.

2. Literature Review

Several factors impact corporate reporting. For example, imposing corporate taxes led to the need for reporting annual financial information, which allowed stakeholders to access more comprehensive financial information about corporations; this development occurred progressively “in the first three decades of the twentieth century” [5].
Additionally, “accounting scandals” and the global financial crisis underscored the importance of disclosing corporate risk [74,75] while creating a demand for such disclosure. Incidents involving Maxwell, Equitable Life, Enron, WorldCom, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Madoff in the late 20th and early 21st centuries eroded the trust of investors and regulators [76]. Other regions of the world also experienced large-scale corporate scandals, such as the Wirecard scandal in the German market. The Saudi capital market witnessed several fraudulent activities attributed to failures in accounting and auditing [77]. Consequently, Bishah Agriculture Development Corporation and two high-profile telecommunication companies—Mohammad Al Mojil Group (MMG) and Etihad Etisalat (Mobily)—were banned from trading their shares [78,79].
In response, and possibly as a remedy, regulators emphasized the importance of communication to overcome distrust and rebuild stakeholders’ confidence [26,75,80]. Since then, reporting risk and disclosing related matters have attracted the attention of researchers. Risk has been viewed as the “uncertainty related to…gain or loss” [81].
Financial literature differentiates between risk and uncertainty. While the former is defined as a “set of outcomes arising from a decision that can be assigned”, probabilistically, uncertainties arise “when probabilities cannot be assigned to the set of outcomes” [82]. Risk disclosure refers to any reported information about any “opportunity”, likelihood, “hazard, danger, harm, threat, or exposure” that has affected the company in the past or will affect it “in the future” [82]. While this definition is suitable for analyzing risk [72], this study differentiates between ‘“good” and “bad” “risks” and “uncertainties”’ [82]. Generally, a business encounters uncertainty and inevitable risk regardless of whether it is financial or otherwise; it can be related to the business itself or to changes in economic conditions inversely impacting the price of business securities [80,83]. Stakeholders, particularly shareholders and debtholders, must be aware of the risk associated with corporations in which they have invested their wealth and savings.
Appropriately communicating risk builds awareness among stakeholders about possible critical changes [74]. Disclosing risk may mitigate agency costs. Ideally, reporting risk should reduce agency conflicts by providing external stakeholders with the information necessary to understand the firms’ risk exposures, better assess the prospects of the entity, enhance confidence, and build trust in the firm’s executive management [84].
The accounting literature suggests that risk disclosure augments investors’ ability to confidently make informed investment decisions, thereby affecting capital flows into organizations depending on their effectiveness in handling financial risk during crises, such as between 2007 and 2008 [76]. Understanding the risks that firms face is crucial for efficiently allocating capital to reduce its cost as a consequence of reporting risk associated with a listed corporation [85]. Reporting risk contributes to continuous investment and capital accumulation by stabilizing the investment environment [76].
In their current format, annual reports do not comprehensively discuss the risks firms encounter or the plans formulated to mitigate these risks [83]. Empirical studies reveal that risk disclosure is low and, consequently, risk reporting is inadequate [86]. This is particularly true regarding the disclosure of non-financial risks because both firms and regulators virtually always consider and pay more attention to financial risk disclosure, “which has been subject to various regulations” [87]. This may be because risk, by nature, can be classified into two types: financial risk, which is “retrospective” and whose financial outcomes and effects are measurable, and non-financial risk, which is “more forward-looking and hard to measure, often being presented in a narrative form” [88].
National GAAP and formal codes of best practice in global corporate governance have increased requirements for narrative risk disclosure in annual reports. Firms in the EU and Australia are mandated to disclose risk-related information [78,80,89]. The Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations issued by the ASX under the CGC state that “[a] listed entity should disclose whether it has any material exposure to environmental or social risks and, if it does, how it manages or intends to manage those risks” [90]. Additionally, DIRECTIVE 2014/95/EU reports that “the European Parliament acknowledged the importance of businesses divulging information on sustainability such as social and environmental factors, with a view to identifying sustainability risks and increasing investor and consumer trust”. Although developed countries, such as the United States, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, and Finland, “mandate” financial risk disclosures, concentrating on the market risk of derivatives, for instance. FAS 119, FAS 133, IAS 32, and IAS 39, other forms of risk are voluntarily disclosed [91]. Meanwhile, some countries may lack such requirements. In Malaysia, there is no particular risk disclosure guidance except for financial risk; thus, non-financial risk reporting is inadequate [87]. Investment in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) stock markets is considered highly risky because of extensive volatility [92].
A few studies have investigated the presence and magnitude of corporate risk disclosure in GCC countries. Hassan [93] explored the disclosure of corporate risk in the United Arab Emirates. Abdallah et al. [94] also included GCC countries in studying corporate risk disclosure. However, there is a lack of in-depth research on the extent to which firms in the Saudi capital market disclose information about corporate risk [95]. Few studies have examined the level of corporate risk disclosure in Saudi Arabia, four of which have restricted their samples to financial institutions [96,97,98,99]. Habtoor et al. [72] linked corporate risk disclosure practices with firm-specific characteristics between 2008 and 2011; they also investigated the impact of corporate ownership structure on corporate risk disclosure during the same period. Ibrahim et al. [100] linked corporate governance with risk disclosure between 2012 and 2015. Alsheikh et al. [101] explored the effect of firm size and mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on the degree of risk disclosure in Saudi Arabia between 2015 and 2017. All these studies examined only corporations’ annual reports; none of them assessed risk disclosure using a constructed corporate social responsibility index for Saudi firms grounded in Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards [95].
Previous studies that have used some form of a risk disclosure index have considered only non-financial risks [76,87,88] or both financial and non-financial items [75,82,102].
This study investigates the extent to which non-financial institutions in the Saudi capital market disclose risk information. Unlike some prior studies that have restricted their sources of collected data to the annual reports of sampled corporations, this study examines data from diverse sources, namely, firms’ annual and board reports.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Constructing the Risk Disclosure Index (RDI)

An RDI has been developed to measure the magnitude of risk disclosure in corporate reporting. This index draws on previous studies, including those by Jamil et al. [87], Ibrahim et al. [102], Habtoor et al. [72], Abdallah et al. [103], Ntim et al. [104], Miihkinen [105] Rajab and Schachler [76], Tan et al. [106], and Linsley and Shrives [82]. Furthermore, the fourth edition of the ASX CGC and Jenkins Committee’s report is utilized in constructing the RDI [51,90].
Table 1 and Table 2 present the list of RDI categories, the items as they appeared in prior studies, references from the literature, and new items from the fourth edition of the ASX CGC [90] and the Jenkins Committee’s report [51]. For clarity, the selected categories were divided into subcategories, enhancing the likelihood that sample corporations would be considered to have disclosed relevant risk information.
Table 1. Financial risk disclosure index suggested in prior studies.
Table 2. Non-financial risk disclosure index suggested in prior studies.
Items suggested in prior studies were not further divided. It is sufficient to disclose some of the examples to demonstrate that such reporting is considered risk-related disclosure. For example, under the category of “strategy risk”, there is an item labelled “industry sources (customers)”. Examples listed under this item include changes in demand, clients’ requirements, and customers’ preferences. Another item under the same category, labelled “GDP growth/market demand/aggregate demand”, consists of aggregated examples. Importantly, the item labelled “performance measurement” under “strategy risk” is defined as employees’ performance measurement to avoid confusion with firms’ performance measurement.
Table 3 summarizes the items listed in the developed RDI, comprising two main categories: financial and non-financial risk disclosure, which include 13 and 126 items, respectively.
Table 3. Summary of categories in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 4 depicts the modification of the items listed in Table 1 and Table 2, as suggested in this study. Such modifications are not arbitrary, as the accounting literature has already recommended them. Table 4 presents specific studies for all proposed amendments. Such modifications ought to be viewed as imprudent for the developed RDI.
Table 4. Modified items and sources of suggested modifications.
Table 5 and Table 6 present the final list of the financial and non-financial RDI to be used in examining firms’ reports.
Table 5. Final list for financial RDI.
Table 6. Final list for non-financial RDI.

3.2. Sampled Corporate Reports

The sample was comprised of 50 companies from three major sectors in 2019, two years after the adoption of IFRS in Saudi Arabia. The sectors include energy (five companies), utility (three companies), and material (forty-two companies). The market capitalization of the sampled corporation represents 85.51% of the aggregate Saudi market capitalization in 2019, as illustrated in Table 7.
Table 7. Market capitalization of each sector in 2019.

3.3. Coding Procedure

The RDI was used to examine firms’ annual and board of directors’ reports published on the Tadawul website [107]. To measure the extent of risk disclosure in the Saudi capital market, content analysis was employed to categorize each disclosure by risk type, either financial or non-financial. Specifically, a coding sheet containing all RDI elements was developed to examine whether corporations listed in the Saudi capital market disclosed such elements in their reports. The total number of disclosed risks was then calculated to yield a score for each group of items for each corporation. Therefore, each sampled corporation had several scores corresponding to the groups of items in the RDI. Finally, a global score was calculated for each corporation, reflecting its overall level of risk disclosure associated with its operations and strategies.
In examining financial instruments risk as a financial item, firms must explicitly report each item in numerical figures for it to be considered as a disclosure. For example, Aldrees Corporation communicated the accounting policies for cumulative changes in fair value; however, the reclassification of instruments item under the financial instruments category is not considered a disclosure. Table 8 presents examples of firms that reported information about accounting policy items that did not qualify as risk disclosures in Saudi corporate reports.
Table 8. Examples of accounting policy items not deemed as disclosure.

4. Research Findings

This section details the research findings, starting with background data and descriptive statistics of the sampled companies. Next, financial risk disclosure scores of companies are presented by sectors and categories, followed by non-financial risk disclosure scores.
Table 9 provides detailed information about the sample, including corporations’ names, trading names, establishment dates, dates of public trading in Tadawul, and figures regarding total assets, net income, and capitalization for the sampling year. It is revealed that the highest mean of total assets and net income for companies in the material sector are SR 14,479,716,632.79 (standard deviation of SR 49,524,857,654.14) and SR 288,922,850.10 (standard deviation of SR 1,402,585,357.15), respectively. However, the mean capital in this sector is the lowest compared to other sectors, at SR 12,901,501,559.73 (standard deviation of SR 43,793,988,925.26).
Table 9. Background data and descriptive statistics.
Regarding capitalization, the energy sector exhibits the highest mean of SR 1,417,828,932,000 (standard deviation of SR 3,148,488,851,467). However, the net income of the energy sector ranks second, with a mean of SR 127,929,893 (standard deviation of SR 168,030,910). Assets in the energy sector are the lowest, with a mean of SR 411,464,693 (standard deviation of SR 634,046,089).
The utility sector consistently ranks second in terms of assets and capitalization, with means of SR 1,000,113,862.67 (standard deviation of SR 965,863,854.67) and SR 28,855,342,313 (standard deviation of SR 47,985,897,707.77), respectively. However, the utility sector has the lowest net income compared to other sectors, with a mean of SR 78,494,736.33 (standard deviation of 71,416,305.50).
The data source was the Tadawul website [107]. Descriptive statistics were calculated by the authors.

4.1. Financial Risk Disclosure

Table 10 reveals that financial risk disclosure scores vary among companies, ranging from a minimum of 31% to a maximum of 92%. ARAMCO, SABIC, and SIPCHEM have disclosed the highest levels (92%) of financial risk exposure. Companies that disclosed more than 75% of the items are ADVANCED and BCI, with a risk disclosure proportion of 85%, while Saudi Electricity Co. and TASNEE come second at 77%. However, QACCO, ALKATHIRI, and NGC disclosed the lowest levels of financial risk exposure at 31%, disclosing risk for only four items.
Table 10. Financial risk disclosure ratios: companies and sectors.
The sample mean (56%) reveals a moderate level of financial risk disclosure in the Saudi capital market. Disclosed financial risks in the energy, utility, and material sectors amounted to 57%, 56%, and 54%, respectively.
Table 11 demonstrates that “other financial risk”, at 74%, is the most common category for financial RDI among the sampled companies. It is followed by “economic risk” disclosure at 64%. Apparently, all companies disclosed risks related to liquidity, credit, and currency. This is likely a consequence of the mandatory adoption of IFRS in Saudi Arabia since 2017 [107]. Alsheikh et al. [101] documented a positive relationship between IFRS adoption and liquidity, credit, and market risk disclosure.
Table 11. Financial risk disclosure by categories.
Furthermore, corporations that disclosed risk for all items under the “other financial risks” category represent 40% of the sample, as illustrated in Table 12. However, the derivatives hedging category had the lowest level of disclosure, with only 20% of the sample representation; 74% of the sample did not disclose risks about any item under this category (see Table 12). The high percentage of companies not using derivatives may be attributed to Shariah compliance, which prohibits “riba” (usury) to Muslims. Corporations striving for compliance with Shariah rules abstain from using currency derivatives to avoid “riba” and thereby safeguard customers from the adverse effects [108].
Table 12. Percentages of companies disclosing all or no items under “Other Financial Risks” and “Derivatives Hedging” categories.

4.2. Non-Financial Risk Disclosure

Table 13 illustrates divergent non-financial risk disclosure scores among companies. They range from a minimum of 9% to a maximum of 69%. ARAMCO disclosed the highest levels of non-financial risk exposure at 69%, followed by SABIC at 63%. FIBCO disclosed around half of the risk items, at 50%. However, all remaining firms, representing 94% of the sample, disclosed less than 50% of their non-financial risks.
Table 13. Non-financial risk disclosure ratios (by companies and sectors).
Moreover, SARCO and AWPT disclosed the least, at 9% and 15%, respectively. Both firms did not disclose any items from the 6th and 12th categories. The recent listing of AWPT on the Saudi capital market may contribute to its low level of disclosure. Furthermore, AWPT had the lowest capital in the sample, which was zero.
The sample mean of 33% in Table 13 indicates a low non-financial risk disclosure in the Saudi capital market. The energy, utility, and material sectors reported 37%, 31%, and 33% of non-financial risk items, respectively. Only two companies—ARAMCO from the energy sector and SABIC from the materials sector—reported disclosure for more than 50% of the considered items, at 71% and 65% levels, respectively; this seems to have ultimately affected their sectors’ overall disclosure ratios.
As shown in Table 13, ARAMCO, SABIC, Saudi Electricity Co., and YANSAB had the highest risk disclosure rates at 71%, 65%, 50%, and 50%, respectively. This indicates a positive correlation between firm size and corporate risk disclosure in the Saudi capital market. All remaining firms, representing 92% of the sample, disclosed less than 50% of their non-financial risk.

4.2.1. Non-Financial Risk Disclosure by Categories

Regarding the categories, the results indicate that the most common category for non-financial RDI among sample companies is “accounting policies”, at 71%. Within this category, companies’ disclosure ratios range between 92% and 54%, with only three companies having ratios under 50%. Moreover, under this category, all sample corporations reported disclosure regarding the risk management policy (general) item. The items “use of estimates judgements”, “inventory evaluation”, and “foreign currency translation” were disclosed by 49 out of the 50 corporations. The high level of disclosure in this category is attributed to the mandatory IFRS adoption requirements in Saudi Arabia [105].
General risk and segment information categories are the second- and third-most disclosed categories, at 65% and 64%, respectively. The most disclosed items are related to business major, geographical major, and geographical concentration segments, with 92% of the sample disclosing related risks (Table 14).
Table 14. Non-financial risk disclosure by categories.
Counterintuitively, no company disclosed information about the eight items under the different categories listed in Table 15.
Table 15. Items undisclosed by any of the sample companies.
Interestingly, even though the category “environmental risks (related to transition to a lower-carbon economy)” had a disclosure ratio of 2%, primarily driven by ARAMCO and SABIC’s disclosures on related items, other companies did not disclose any items under this category. In the utility sector, Saudi Electricity Co. and AWPT did not disclose risks about any item under the “environmental risk” and “climate change” categories. This is partially attributed to the nature of their operations. Despite the considerable effect of these companies’ operations on other sample companies, they chose not to disclose.

4.2.2. Non-Financial Risk Disclosure by Sectors and Companies

While financial risk is moderately disclosed in the Saudi capital market, non-financial risk disclosure remains notably low, possibly because firms and regulators pay more attention to the former.
The sample mean (35%) indicates low-risk disclosure in the Saudi capital market (Table 16). The energy, utility, and material sectors reported disclosure rates of only 39%, 33%, and 35%, respectively, for the considered risk items. Only two companies—ARAMCO from the energy sector and SABIC from the materials sector—achieved disclosure rates higher than 50% for non-financial risk within their respective sectors. However, even the highest ratio of non-financial disclosure does not reach 35% overall. This suggests that these two companies ultimately affect the final ratio in the sample. Despite AWPT disclosing only 11% of its non-financial risks, the disclosures from the other two companies did not reach even 45%.
Table 16. Sectors’ ratio of financial, non-financial, and aggregate risk disclosure.

5. Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations

This study empirically explores the extent to which firms in the Saudi capital market disclose financial and non-financial risk-related information. An index comprising 13 financial and 126 non-financial risk-related items, totaling 139 items, was used to understand the presence of such disclosures in the annual corporate reports of corporations listed in the Saudi capital market. The findings reveal a moderate level of financial risk disclosure, with a sample mean of 56%. Specifically, the energy, utility, and material sectors disclosed financial risks at rates of 57%, 56%, and 54%, respectively. The most common category for financial RDI was “Other financial risks”, reported by 74% of the sample companies, followed by disclosures in the “Economic Risks” category at 64%. Notably, all companies disclosed risks related to liquidity, credit, and currency.
In contrast, non-financial risk was found to be low, with a sample mean of 33%. The energy, utility, and material sectors reported non-financial risk items at rates of 39%, 33%, and 35%, respectively. Only two companies—ARAMCO from the energy sector and SABIC from the materials sector—achieved disclosure rates higher than 50% for non-financial risks within their respective sectors. However, even the highest ratio of disclosure did not reach 35% overall.
To attract direct foreign investment, it is recommended that regulators prioritize having high-quality, transparent, and comparable risk information disclosures. Regulatory bodies, both within and outside Saudi Arabia, can utilize the index developed in this study to identify critical items related to financial and non-financial risks that listed corporations should disclose. Additionally, managers can use this index to assess and improve their firms’ risk disclosure practices.
This study is limited by its focus on three sectors—energy, utility, and material—comprising 50 companies. Furthermore, it only examines annual and board reports, excluding interim reports and information available on companies’ official websites. Future research could expand the sample to include the entire Saudi capital market and investigate different time periods to track improvements in disclosure practices over time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.A.-S. and K.R.A.-A.; Methodology, S.A.A.-S. Data Collection: S.A.A.-S.; Formal Analysis, S.A.A.-S. and K.R.A.-A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.A.A.-S.; Rewriting: K.R.A.-A.; Review and Editing: S.A.A.-S. and K.R.A.-A.; Visualization, S.A.A.-S. and K.R.A.-A.; Supervision, K.R.A.-A. Funding the Editing Services and the Publication: S.A.A.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data collected from public sources. https://www.saudiexchange.sa/wps/portal/tadawul/home/ (accessed on 2 June 2024).

Acknowledgments

The second author is grateful to Case Western Reserve University for granting him access to required resources through the KSL Alumni Online Library, which greatly helped in the completion of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this manuscript.

References

  1. Kaysen, C. The social significance of the modern corporation. Am. Econ. Rev. 1957, 47, 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lee, K.; Kim, B.Y.; Park, Y.Y.; Sanidas, E. Big businesses and economic growth: Identifying a binding constraint for growth with country panel analysis. J. Comp. Econ. 2013, 41, 561–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Meeks, G.; Whittington, G. Giant companies in the United Kingdom 1948-69. Econ. J. 1975, 85, 824–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al-Adeem, K.R. A need for theorizing corporation: An accounting perspective. Int. J. Acc. Res. 2017, 5, 166. [Google Scholar]
  5. Munter, P.; Robinson, T. Financial reporting in the twentieth century: Where have we been, and where are we going? J. Corp. Acc. Financ. 1999, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Suojanen, W.W. Accounting theory and the large corporation. Acc. Rev. 1954, 29, 391–398. [Google Scholar]
  7. Macc, A.M.A.; Al-Adeem, K.R. A defense on accounting discretion: An empirical inquiry based on users’ awareness. Financ. Mark. Inst. Risks 2022, 6, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Alshiban, R.F.; Al-Adeem, K.R. Empirically investigating the disclosure of nonfinancial information: A content study on corporations listed in the Saudi capital market. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Berle, A.A.; Means, G.C. The Modern Corporation and Private Property; MacMillan: New York, NY, USA, 1932. [Google Scholar]
  10. Al-Adeem, K.R. Properly identified imaginary needs, an inaccurately proposed methodology: The case of Rochester school of accountancy’s positive accounting methodology. Acc. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2021, 20, 607–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Al-Adeem, K.R. Revisiting the role of accounting from ancient to contemporary times: An attempt to evaluate the role of corporate accounting. Strat. Acc. Manag. 2022, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  12. Al-Adeem, K.R. Reconceptualizing the management–auditor relationship by applying the general partnership contract to challenge independence: Ideals versus reality. J. Acc. Bus. Manag. 2022, 29, 155–193. [Google Scholar]
  13. Al-Adeem, K.R.; Fogarty, T.J. Accounting Theory: A Neglected Topic in Academic Accounting Research; LAP Lambert Academic Publishing AG & Co. KG.: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. AL-Hazzani, M.; Al-Adeem, K.R. Do Corporations’ Annual Reports Address Shareholders as Proprietors? Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Audit. Acc. Stud. 2020, 2, 175–192. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hunt, B. The Timid Corporation: Why Business Is Terrified of Taking Risk; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  16. Merino, B.D. An analysis of the development of accounting knowledge: A pragmatic approach. Acc. Organ. Soc. 1993, 18, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Previts, G.J.; Merino, B.D. A History of Accountancy in the United States; Ohio State University Press: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  18. Al-Adeem, K.R. Role of doctoral education in shaping minds and thinking: Reflection on my doctoral education at Case Western Reserve University. Int. J. Crit. Acc. 2017, 9, 494–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Al-Adeem, K.R. Critique and an Extension of Nohora García’s Understanding Mattessich and Ijiri: A Study of Accounting Thought. Int. J. Acc. Financ. Rep. 2019, 9, 420–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Al-Adeem, K.R. Contributions of gulf Cooperation Council for Accounting and Auditing Organization’s (GCCAAO) attempts unifying accounting practices and standards in enriching accounting thought: Analysis and evaluation. J. Account. Thought 2017, 21, 533–566. [Google Scholar]
  21. Al-Adeem, K.R. Book Review of: Understanding Mattessich and Ijiri: A Study of Accounting Thought; European Accounting Association, EAA Newsletter: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://mailchi.mp/f9c88eb16bd9/eaa-newsletter-march-2019-2#Have%20you%20read (accessed on 15 July 2022).
  22. Al-Adeem, K.R. Who decides what is publishable? Empirical study on the influence of a journal’s editorial board on the observed paradigm shift in US academic accounting research. N. Am Acc. Stud. 2019, 2, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  23. Brearey, D.; Adeem, K.R. Thinking beyond the black box: Sterling shows accountants the way toward relevance. J. Financ. Acc. 2019, 25, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  24. Beaver, W. Review of the book Accounting Theory: An Information Content Perspective by John A. Christensen & Joel S. Demski. Eur. Acc. Rev. 2002, 11, 631–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Belkaoui, A.R. Accounting Theory, 5th ed.; Thomson Learning: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bravo, F. Are risk disclosures an effective tool to increase firm value? Manag. Decis. Econ. 2017, 38, 1116–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Coetsee, D. The role of accounting theory in the development of accounting principles. Meditari Acc. Res. 2010, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gaffikin, M.J.R. The methodology of early accounting theorists. J. Acc. Financ. Bus. Stud. 1987, 23, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. García, N. Understanding Mattessich and Ijiri: A Study of Accounting Thought; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ijiri, Y. The Foundations of Accounting Measurement: A Mathematical, Economic, and Behavioral; Prentic-Hall Inc.: Englewood, NJ, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  31. King, T.A. More than A Numbers Game: A Brief History of Accounting; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, T.A. Financial accounting theory. In The Routledge Companion to Accounting Theory; Edwards, J.R., Walker, S.P., Eds.; Routledge-Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2009; pp. 139–161. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chatfield, M. A History of Accounting Thought, Rev. ed.; R.E. Krieger Publishing, Co.: Huntington, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  34. Previts, G.J.; Flesher, D.L. Financial accounting and reporting in the United States of America–1820 to 2010. In The Routledge Companion to Financial Accounting Theory; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; Volume 39. [Google Scholar]
  35. American Accounting Association. American Accounting Association. A Tentative Statement of Accounting Principles underlying Corporate Finance Statements. In Accounting and Reporting Standards for Corporate Financial Statements and Preceding Statements and Supplements; American Accounting Association: Sarasota, FL, USA, 1936; pp. 59–64. [Google Scholar]
  36. Alhomaid, I. Accounting Theory; Al Obaikan Library, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kieso, D.E.; Weygandt, J.J.; Warfield, T.D. Intermediate Accounting, 11th ed.; J. Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  38. White, G.I.; Sondhi, A.A.; Fried, D. The Analysis and the Use of Financial Statements, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  39. Norman, W.; MacDonald, C. Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line”. Bus. Eth. Quarterly 2004, 14, 243–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It Add Up? Henriques, A., Richardson, J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  41. Adams, C.; Frost, G.; Webber, W. Triple bottom line: A review of the literature. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It Add Up? Henriques, A., Richardson, J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2004; pp. 17–25. [Google Scholar]
  42. Milne, M.J.; Gray, R. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J. Bus. Eth. 2013, 118, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Guthrie, J. The management, measurement and the reporting of intellectual capital. J. Intellect. Cap. 2001, 2, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guthrie, J.; Petty, R.; Johanson, U. Sunrise in the knowledge economy: Managing, measuring and reporting intellectual capital. Acc. Audit. Acc. J. 2001, 14, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mouritsen, J.; Bukh, P.N.; Marr, B. Reporting on intellectual capital: Why, what and how? Meas. Bus. Excell. 2004, 8, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Petty, R.; Guthrie, J. Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and management. J. Intellect. Cap. 2000, 1, 155–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rupley, K.H.; Brown, D.; Marshall, S. Evolution of corporate reporting: From stand-alone corporate social responsibility reporting to integrated reporting. Res. Acc. Regul. 2017, 29, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Christofi, A.; Christofi, P.; Sisaye, S. Corporate sustainability: Historical development and reporting practices. Manag. Res. Rev. 2012, 35, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Herzig, C.; Schaltegger, S. Corporate sustainability reporting. An overview. In Sustainability Accounting and Reporting; Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., Burritt, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 21, pp. 301–324. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nusbaum, E.E.; Weiss, J. AICPA/Special committee on financial reporting. J. Corp. Acc. Financ. 1993, 5, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. AICPA. Jenkins Committee’s Report. 1994. Available online: https://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/FRC/AccountingFinancialReporting/DownloadableDocuments/Jenkins%20Committee%20Report.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2021).
  52. Noll, D.J.; Weygandt, J. Business reporting: What comes next? It’s time to enhance the current financial reporting model. J. Acc. 1997. Available online: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/1997/feb/busin.html (accessed on 7 April 2024).
  53. Amir, E.; Lev, B. Value-relevance of nonfinancial information: The wireless communications industry. J. Acc. Econ. 1996, 22, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Laitinen, E.K. Nonfinancial factors as predictors of value creation: Finnish evidence. Rev. Acc. Financ. 2004, 3, 84–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Banker, R.D.; Mashruwala, R. The moderating role of competition in the relationship between nonfinancial measures and future financial performance. Contemp. Acc. Res. 2007, 24, 763–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chatterji, A.; Levine, D. Breaking down the wall of codes: Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2006, 48, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Luft, J. Nonfinancial information and accounting: A reconsideration of benefits and challenges. Acc. Horiz. 2009, 23, 307–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Arvidsson, S. Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual report. J. Intellect. Cap. 2011, 12, 277–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bruntland, G. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. In The World Commission on Environment and Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ernst and Young. Is Your Non-Financial Performance Revealing the True Value of Your Business to Investors? Tomorrow´s Investment Rules 2017; EY: UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/assurance/is-your-nonfinancial-performance-revealing-the-true-value-of-your-business (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  61. Hirschey, M.; Richardson, V.J.; Scholz, S. Value relevance of nonfinancial information: The case of patent data. Rev. Quant. Financ. Acc. 2001, 17, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Landau, A.; Rochell, J.; Klein, C.; Zwergel, B. Integrated reporting of environmental, social, and governance and financial data: Does the market value integrated reports? Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 1750–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Naveed, M.; Ali, S.; Iqbal, K.; Sohail, M.K. Role of financial and non-financial information in determining individual investor investment decision: A signaling perspective. S. Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2020, 9, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brazel, J.F.; Jones, K.L.; Zimbelman, M.F. Using nonfinancial measures to assess fraud risk. J. Acc. Res. 2009, 47, 1135–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. I Ittner, C.D.; Larcker, D.F. Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. J. Acc. Res. 1998, 36, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nielsen, C.; Roslender, R. Enhancing financial reporting: The contribution of business models. Br. Acc. Rev. 2015, 47, 262–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lobo, G.J.; Siqueira, W.Z.; Tam, K.; Zhou, J. Does SEC FRR No. 48 disclosure communicate risk management effectiveness? J. Acc. Publ. Policy 2019, 38, 106696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kang, H.; Gray, S.J. Country-specific risks and geographic disclosure aggregation: Voluntary disclosure behaviour by British multinationals. Br. Acc. Rev. 2019, 51, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wyld, D.C. Is transparency critical for firm and national competitiveness? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2009, 23, 94–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Badia, M.; Barth, M.E.; Duro, M.; Ormazabal, G. Firm risk and disclosures about dispersion of asset values: Evidence from oil and gas reserves. Acc. Rev. 2020, 95, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abdulhaq, A.; Muhamed, N. Extent of corporate social responsibility disclosure and its determinants: Evidence from kingdom of Saudi Arabia. South East Asia journal of contemporary business. Econ. Law 2015, 7, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
  72. Habtoor, O.S.; Ahmad, N.; Mohamad, N.R.; Che Haat, M.H. Linking corporate risk disclosure practices with firm-specific characteristics in Saudi Arabia. Gadjah Mada Int. J. Bus. 2017, 19, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ochoa-Pachas, J. Descriptive studies are quantitative and can carry hypotheses. Acad. Lett. 2021, 2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Elshandidy, T.; Shrives, P.J.; Bamber, M.; Abraham, S. Risk reporting: A review of the literature and implications for future research ✩. J. Acc. Lit. 2018, 40, 54–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Probohudono, A.N.; Tower, G.; Rusmin, R. Risk disclosure during the global financial crisis. Soc. Responsib. J. 2013, 9, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rajab, B.; Schachler, M.H. Corporate risk disclosure by UK firms: Trends and determinants. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 5, 224–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zerban, A.M. Enron of Saudi Arabia: Corporate accounting and auditing failures. Open J. Acc. 2017, 7, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Al-Adeem, K.R. Sustaining mutual and market interests in the auditor and corporate client relationship. Presented at the Mid-Atlantic Region Meeting of the American Accounting Association, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA, 23–25 April 2015; pp. 36–53. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rashad, M.; Al-Sayegh, H. MIDEAST MONEY-Saudi Firms Tighten Controls in Wake of Mobily Scandal. Reuters, 5 April 2015. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/article/business/mideast-money-saudi-firms-tighten-controls-in-wake-of-mobily-scandal-idUSL6N0WR2KS/ (accessed on 18 April 2021).
  80. Leopizzi, R.; Iazzi, A.; Venturelli, A.; Principale, S. Nonfinancial risk disclosure: The “state of the art” of Italian companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Solomon, J.F.; Solomon, A.; Norton, S.D.; Joseph, N.L. A conceptual framework for corporate risk disclosure emerging from the agenda for corporate governance reform. Br. Acc. Rev. 2000, 32, 447–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Linsley, P.M.; Shrives, P.J. Risk reporting: A study of risk disclosure in the annual reports of UK companies. Br. Acc. Rev. 2006, 38, 387–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Amran, A.; Bin, A.M.R.; Hassan, B.C.H.M. Risk reporting an exploratory study on risk management disclosure in Malaysian annual reports. Manag. Audit. J. 2009, 24, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Linsmeier, T.J.; Thornton, D.B.; Venkatachalam, M.; Welker, M. The effect of mandated market risk disclosures on trading volume sensitivity to interest rate, exchange rate, and commodity price movements. Acc. Rev. 2002, 77, 343–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Heinle, M.S.; Smith, K.C. A theory of risk disclosure. Rev. Acc. Stud. 2017, 22, 1459–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tirado-Beltrán, J.M.; Cabedo, D.; Muñoz Ramírez, D.E. Risk Disclosure and Cost of Equity: ABayesian Approach. In The Need for Carbon Risk Disclosure; Investor Group on Climate Change: Sydney, Australia, 2020; Chapter 2. Available online: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Carbonriskdisclosure45/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/Carbonriskdisclosure45/c02.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2023).
  87. Jamil, A.; Hassan, M.S.; Salleh, N.M.; Yaakob, R. Non-financial risk disclosure: From narratives to an index based on Delphi technique. Asian J. Acc. Gov. 2020, 14, 123–139. [Google Scholar]
  88. Veltri, S.; De Luca, F.; Phan, H.T.P. Do investors value companies’ mandatory nonfinancial risk disclosure? An empirical analysis of the Italian context after the EU Directive. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 2226–2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dumay, J.; Hossain, M.A. Sustainability risk disclosure practices of listed companies in Australia. Aust. Acc. Rev. 2019, 29, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. ASX Corporate Governance Council (ASX CGC). Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, 4th ed.; ASX Corporate Governance Council: Sydney, Australia, 2019; Available online: https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-fourth-edn.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2021).
  91. Moumen, N.; Othman, H.B.; Hussainey, K. The value relevance of risk disclosure in annual reports: Evidence from MENA emerging markets. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2015, 34, 177–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Al-Hadi, A.; Hasan, M.M.; Habib, A. Risk committee, firm life cycle, and market risk disclosures. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2016, 24, 145–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hassan, M.K. UAE corporation-specific characteristics and level of risk disclosure. Manag. Audit. J. 2009, 24, 668–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Abdallah, A.A.N.; Hassan, M.K.; McClelland, P.L. Islamic financial institutions, corporate governance, and corporate risk disclosure in Gulf Cooperation Council countries. J. Multinatl. Financ. Manag. 2015, 31, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Issa, A. The factors influencing corporate social responsibility disclosure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2017, 11, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  96. Al-Maghzom, A.; Hussainey, K.; Aly, D. The level of risk disclosure in listed banks: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Corp. Ownersh. Control 2016, 14, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Al-Maghzom, A.; Hussainey, K.; Aly, D.A. Corporate governance and risk disclosure: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Corp. Ownersh. Control 2016, 13, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hemrit, W. Difference between the determinants of operational risk reporting in Islamic and conventional banks: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. J. Oper. Risk 2020, 15, 49–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Qadiri, H.; Alsughayer, S. Credit risk and disclosure behavior in the bank industry: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Acc. Financ. Rep. 2021, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ibrahim, A.; Habbash, M.; Hussainey, K. Corporate governance and risk disclosure: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Acc. Audit. Perform. Eval. 2019, 15, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Alsheikh, A.; Hassan, M.S.; Mohd-Saleh, N.; Abdullah, M.H.; Alsheikh, W. Firm’s size, mandatory adoption of IFRS and corporate risk disclosure among listed non-financial firms in Saudi Arabia. Asian Acad. Manag. J. Acc. Financ. 2021, 17, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ibrahim, A.E.A.; Hussainey, K. Developing the narrative risk disclosure measurement. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2019, 64, 126–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Abdullah, M.; Abdul Shukor, Z.; Mohamed, Z.M.; Ahmad, A. Risk management disclosure: A study on the effect of voluntary risk management disclosure toward firm value. J. Appl. Acc. Res. 2015, 16, 400–432. [Google Scholar]
  104. Ntim, C.G.; Lindop, S.; Thomas, D.A. Corporate governance and risk reporting in South Africa: A study of corporate risk disclosures in the pre-and post-2007/2008 global financial crisis periods. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2013, 30, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Miihkinen, A. What drives quality of firm risk disclosure?: The impact of a national disclosure standard and reporting incentives under IFRS. Int. J. Acc. 2012, 47, 437–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tan, Y.; Zeng, C.C.; Elshandidy, T. Risk disclosure, international orientation, and share price informativeness: Evidence from China. J. Int. Acc. Audit. 2017, 29, 81–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Saudi Organization for Chartered and Professional Accountants (SOCBA). Transition to International Standards (Accounting and Auditing). Available online: https://socpa.org.sa/SOCPA/files/d1/d120821e-7dbf-4a73-8fed-f82d786ca38b.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2024).
  108. Abdul-Rahim, R.; Abd Wahab, A.; Hudaib, M. The effects of foreign currency exposure and Sharī’ah-compliant status on financial hedging strategy. Int. J. Islam. Middle East Financ. Manag. 2023, 16, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Impact of Green Work–Life Balance and Green Human Resource Management Practices on Corporate Sustainability Performance and Employee Retention: Mediation of Green Innovation and Organisational Culture
Previous
The Carbon Emissions from Public Buildings in China: A Systematic Analysis of Evolution and Spillover Effects
Next