Accounting report
Afsaneh Bahiraei; Seyed Ali Hosseini; Parisasadat behbahaninia
Abstract
Sustainability reporting, as one of the modern instruments for enhancing transparency, accountability, and organizational legitimacy, has gained increasing prominence within financial and economic systems. Due to its pivotal role in resource allocation, risk management, and its indirect influence on ...
Read More
Sustainability reporting, as one of the modern instruments for enhancing transparency, accountability, and organizational legitimacy, has gained increasing prominence within financial and economic systems. Due to its pivotal role in resource allocation, risk management, and its indirect influence on economic, social, and environmental development, the banking industry requires a coherent and sector-specific sustainability reporting framework more than other industries. However, existing frameworks do not fully align with the specific nature, functions, and regulatory requirements of banks. The aim of this study is to develop a sustainability reporting framework tailored to the Iranian banking industry and to explain its core dimensions in the form of a strategic roadmap. This study adopts a mixed-methods approach. In the qualitative phase, grounded theory was employed, and data were collected through 14 semi-structured interviews with academic experts, banking managers, and professional auditors to identify the dimensions and components of sustainability reporting. The validity of the qualitative findings was confirmed using the classical Delphi method. In the quantitative phase, with the participation of 30 board members and bank managers, the relative importance of the dimensions was determined using the interpretive ranking method. The results indicate that sustainability reporting in the Iranian banking industry is structured around five main dimensions: governance, economic, social, environmental, and compliance and risk. These dimensions are articulated through ten components and fifty conceptual propositions. Among them, the governance dimension was identified as the most central component, playing a fundamental role in enhancing transparency, strengthening stakeholder trust, and improving banks’ organizational legitimacy.IntroductionSustainability reporting is increasingly recognized as a key tool for transparency and accountability beyond traditional financial reporting. Existing frameworks often face implementation challenges and may not address industry-specific needs. In the banking sector, effective sustainability reporting is critical due to its central role in capital allocation and reducing information asymmetry. Institutional gaps, high disclosure costs, and limited guidance hinder consistent reporting. Therefore, tailored reporting mechanisms are needed to enhance transparency, meet stakeholder expectations, and support sustainable investment decisions. This study explores these challenges and proposes a framework for improving sustainability disclosure in banks.Literature ReviewSustainability originates from the broader concept of sustainable development, emphasizing the balance between current resource use and the needs of future generations. Initially focused on environmental aspects, sustainability reporting has expanded to include social and economic dimensions. Existing frameworks provide guidelines for non-financial reporting, yet they often lack balance across different sustainability indicators. Voluntary disclosure may lead to selective reporting, misrepresentation, and reduced transparency. Differences between industries further challenge the uniform application of these frameworks, particularly in sectors with unique operational characteristics. In banking, non-financial disclosures such as governance, risk management, and social performance are crucial due to the sector’s role in capital allocation. Institutional gaps and the absence of industry-specific standards hinder effective sustainability reporting in banks. Integrated reporting that combines financial and non-financial information can improve transparency and stakeholder confidence. Tailored reporting frameworks are essential to address sector-specific challenges and enhance sustainability practices. This study focuses on examining the effectiveness and implementation of sustainability reporting in the banking industry.MethodologhyThis study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative analyses to examine sustainability reporting in the banking industry. The qualitative phase utilizes grounded theory, with semi-structured interviews and three-stage coding to identify key sustainability reporting criteria. Thirteen experts, including academics, banking managers, and auditors, participated until theoretical saturation was reached. The Delphi technique was then applied to validate and achieve consensus on the identified criteria, linking qualitative insights to the quantitative phase. In the quantitative stage, thirty bank managers and board members completed structured rating and pairwise comparison surveys using fuzzy linguistic scales. These data were analyzed to rank and weight the main components of sustainability reporting. Overall, the methodology integrates grounded theory, Delphi validation, and fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making to develop a robust theoretical framework for banking sustainability reporting.ResultThis study develops a tailored sustainability reporting framework for the Iranian banking industry using an integrated mixed-methods approach that combines grounded theory, Delphi validation, and interpretive ranking analysis. Through fourteen expert interviews, five overarching categories, ten core components, and fifty-two thematic propositions were identified, forming the foundational structure of the proposed framework. The Delphi process subsequently validated fifty themes, thereby reinforcing the coherence, relevance, and reliability of the extracted conceptual model. These components span human-resource capabilities, competitive and governance-related practices, social responsibility commitments, intergenerational environmental stewardship, and professional ethical obligations. In the quantitative phase, senior banking managers evaluated the relative influence of the framework’s components through structured pairwise comparisons. Results revealed that governance disclosure practices constitute the most influential and central axis of the proposed sustainability reporting framework. This includes transparent reporting of board activities, executive appointment and tenure criteria, remuneration mechanisms, and governance performance indicators. Strengthening disclosure in this dimension enhances organizational legitimacy, reinforces stakeholder trust, and improves the transparency of banking operations. Overall, the study presents a comprehensive and sector-specific framework that serves as a strategic roadmap for regulators, policymakers, and banks seeking to institutionalize sustainability reporting practices aligned with industry needs.DiscussionThis study develops a framework for sustainability reporting in the Iranian banking sector, highlighting governance as a core dimension. Detailed disclosure of board activities, remuneration policies, and decision-making processes enhances stakeholder trust and supports informed decisions. Historically, non-financial governance information was reported symbolically, limiting transparency and accountability. The findings indicate that improved disclosure practices can strengthen internal controls and demonstrate the independence of bank boards. Governance-focused sustainability reporting also differentiates banks from competitors by signaling higher responsibility toward social, economic, and environmental interests. Implementing structured monitoring mechanisms and annual evaluation checklists can incentivize broader voluntary disclosures. Overall, the study emphasizes that robust governance reporting is essential for enhancing stakeholder confidence and promoting sustainable banking practices.The study confirms that tailored sustainability reporting frameworks are crucial for the banking sector. Enhanced governance disclosure enables banks to build trust, improve transparency, and support stakeholder decision-making. Regulatory adjustments and policy interventions are necessary to encourage comprehensive voluntary reporting. Proper implementation can strengthen banks’ competitive positions while contributing to overall sustainable development. Ultimately, banks that prioritize sustainability reporting play a key role in guiding society toward broader sustainable outcomes.
Accounting report
Seyed Ali Hosseini; Shima Ahmadi; Hossein Seilsepoor
Abstract
Given the significance of sustainability reporting, there has been a notable increase in studies in this field. However, due to shortcomings in initial studies, it is not feasible to make decisions based solely on their findings. This research provides a comprehensive examination of the impact of corporate ...
Read More
Given the significance of sustainability reporting, there has been a notable increase in studies in this field. However, due to shortcomings in initial studies, it is not feasible to make decisions based solely on their findings. This research provides a comprehensive examination of the impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, based on the results of previous studies. Ownership structure, board of directors, management characteristics, corporate governance performance, and the quality of internal controls are identified as influential factors. While the research literature has reached a consensus on the impact of some factors, it has encountered contradictory findings regarding others.IntroductionIn recent years, the issue of sustainability has garnered global attention, becoming a central focus for many accounting researchers. International organizations have published sustainability reporting standards, and many stock exchanges worldwide now consider sustainability reporting a prerequisite for listing. Companies publish sustainability reports for various reasons, including transparency with stakeholders (Kuo et al., 2016), reputation (De Grosbois & Fennell, 2022), legal compliance (Harjoto et al., 2020), or alignment with emerging trends (Busco et al., 2019).However, due to the voluntary nature of sustainability reporting in many countries, concerns about the quantity and quality of this information persist. Since management often decides whether to publish sustainability reports, when to publish them, the publication platform, and the content and scope of the reports, voluntary disclosure, and impression management strategies provide significant opportunities for managers to obscure poor sustainability performance. Therefore, mechanisms are necessary to ensure that the information provided in sustainability reports is of high quality.Corporate governance mechanisms, such as ownership structure, ownership concentration, audit quality, and board composition and quality, play a critical role in reducing opportunistic behaviors by controlling and monitoring executive managers. Given the importance of corporate governance mechanisms for sustainability reporting, there has been a recent surge in studies exploring this relationship.However, early studies in this field are often limited by shortcomings such as researcher bias, small sample sizes, differences in legal frameworks, and contradictory findings. These limitations hinder the ability to make reliable decisions based on their results, highlighting the need for more comprehensive research. Accordingly, this study provides a systematic review of the impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, synthesizing findings from prior research.The main research questions are as follows:What are the most frequent keywords in the field of sustainability reporting over time?What are the most frequent keywords in the field of the relationship between corporate governance structures and sustainability reporting over time?which corporate governance mechanisms influence the adoption, quantity, and quality of sustainability reporting?MethodologyThis study is applied research and follows an interpretive paradigm. Aligned with this paradigm, a qualitative research methodology was chosen, incorporating systematic review and content analysis for data collection, as well as bibliometric analysis to identify trends in sustainability reporting research and leading authors in the field.The research sample comprises 47 international and 32 national articles published between 2013 and September 2023. Domestic studies were selected through keyword searches on the websites of journals approved by the Ministry of Science, while international studies were sourced from the ScienceDirect database. To enhance search sensitivity and comprehensiveness, various keywords, the "OR" operator, and truncations of selected keywords were employed in ScienceDirect. Both quantitative and qualitative research articles were reviewed. Following the example of other literature reviews (Han & Cohen, 2013:8), books and editorial notes were excluded, with only peer-reviewed articles considered. The latest version of the PRISMA checklist (2020) was used to guide the development of the review protocol.To identify hot research topics in sustainability reporting, research topics exploring the relationship between corporate governance structures and sustainability reporting, and the most prominent authors in the field, bibliographic analysis, and VOSviewer software were utilized.Results and DiscussionExamining the hot topics in sustainability reporting has revealed that corporate governance structures have been among the most significant areas of focus in recent years. Bibliographic analysis indicates that mechanisms such as the board of directors, assurance, and risk management have been key topics of interest for authors.A review of past studies shows that factors such as ownership structure, board of directors, management characteristics, gender diversity, corporate governance performance, assurance, monitoring and accountability, corporate risk, and internal control quality significantly affect the adoption, quantity, and quality of sustainability reports. For example, ownership structure encompasses institutional ownership, internal ownership, foreign ownership, ownership concentration, the relative power of minority shareholders, shareholder identity similarity, state ownership, capital market acceptance, family ownership, fund ownership, and ownership by other companies. Similar detailed categorizations exist for other factors.Most studies have focused on the influence of corporate governance mechanisms on the adoption of sustainability reporting, while fewer have examined their impact on report quality. There is a consensus among researchers on the impact of certain governance mechanisms, such as board size and independence, sustainability committees, managerial compensation, and gender diversity, on sustainability reporting. However, regarding the influence of other factors, the research literature contains contradictory findings. Additionally, for some factors, such as the number of managers, managers’ religious attitudes, and audit fees, the limited number of studies makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Information on measurement indicators based on sample studies is also provided, aiding researchers in measurement purposes.Given the widespread impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, governments, and regulators should implement initiatives to influence board structures and other corporate governance mechanisms. The findings suggest that investors seeking to maximize their returns should invest in companies with strong corporate governance structures. This study enhances the understanding of managers, regulators, and stakeholders regarding the role of corporate governance in sustainability reporting and provides valuable insights for regulators and policymakers concerned about achieving sustainability reporting goals.By summarizing the impact of corporate governance structures on sustainability reporting, this study identifies gaps in the research literature and mechanisms requiring further investigation. Additionally, juxtaposing findings from domestic and international studies, it highlights cultural differences in the effects of corporate governance mechanisms. Analyzing the findings of this study while considering its limitations is crucial. Existing studies in the research sample employed various measures to assess the quality and extent of sustainability reporting. The documentation reviewed as sustainability reports also varies. For instance, some researchers analyzed sustainability reports, while others examined information provided on company websites. Domestic researchers, due to the lack of sustainability reports published by companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange, have relied on analyzing board reports and financial statements to assess the extent and quality of sustainability reporting. Since measurement procedures affect the results obtained and, consequently, the findings of this study, these limitations must be considered when interpreting the results. ConclusionThe analysis of contradictory findings can be explained by considering management motives, organizational maturity levels, organizational structure, and institutional factors affecting the organization, such as industry type, country of operation, and regulations. Therefore, using standardized measures for companies operating in diverse institutional contexts is unlikely to be effective.
Seyed Ali Hosseini; Zahra Masoumi Bilondi
Abstract
The recent welcome of companies to capital increases from revaluations has highlighted the role of experts, and increasing trust on the work of experts has led to concerns about audit quality. The aim of this study is to identify the challenges and barriers to using expertise services in auditing and ...
Read More
The recent welcome of companies to capital increases from revaluations has highlighted the role of experts, and increasing trust on the work of experts has led to concerns about audit quality. The aim of this study is to identify the challenges and barriers to using expertise services in auditing and ways to improve it. The research is qualitative and the data were collected through interviews with 17 auditors and Official Experts of Justice official and analyzed by theme analysis.According to the research findings, weakness of supervision, Lack of expert independence , limitations, structural inefficiency, reluctance of the auditor, non-compliance with the auditor's professional ethics, economic environment and communication problems and coordination of challenges and barriers to using expertise services were identified and rules and regulations improvement, strengthening infrastructure and promoting and developing expertise services, strategies to improve the use of expert services were identified. The results of the research can be useful in order to achieve effective use of experts in the audit process and as a result higher audit quality.
Seyed Ali Hosseini; Afsaneh Bahiraei
Abstract
Voluntary disclosure is a surplus information on the legal requirement that includes financial and non-financial information for the more clarity of the company's processes. Voluntary disclosure as a kind of informed mechanism may be associated with different processes in the company. As a result, companies, ...
Read More
Voluntary disclosure is a surplus information on the legal requirement that includes financial and non-financial information for the more clarity of the company's processes. Voluntary disclosure as a kind of informed mechanism may be associated with different processes in the company. As a result, companies, based on the composition of their board of directors, make decisions about the voluntary disclosure of information and may vary according to the type of political and non-political directors. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of political connection on the information voluntary disclosure in companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange. In this regard, numbers of 124 companies were selected for the period from 2012 to 2017. To measure voluntary disclosure, the Botosan (1997) checklist and for measuring political connections, political cost index from Faccio (2006) has been used. The panel data approach was also used to test the research hypotheses. The results showed that political connection has a negative and significant effect on the voluntary disclosure of information. In fact, companies that have more political connection are more inclined to voluntarily disclose information.
M. A. Aghaee; S. Ali Hoseini
Volume 1, Issue 4 , January 2004, , Pages 25-46
Abstract
This study examines the predictability of accounting profit of the firms accepted at the Tehran Stock Exchange by adjusted Random Walk with past changes of Economic Leading Indicators.
In random walk model, actual profit numbers of past years are independent variables. This model is based on assumption ...
Read More
This study examines the predictability of accounting profit of the firms accepted at the Tehran Stock Exchange by adjusted Random Walk with past changes of Economic Leading Indicators.
In random walk model, actual profit numbers of past years are independent variables. This model is based on assumption that behavior of accounting profit is a random Process.
Since the economic lead indicators produce accurate signals about future changes of target variables (e.g. accounting profit and stock price of firms), adjustment of actual profit by proportion of change of this indicators in profit forecasting models like random walk model, can produce better forecasting.
The result suggests that adjusted random walk model by proportion of change of two lead indicators, broad money supply and aggregate loans paid to governmental and non-governmental sectors by banking system of Iran including the three-year lag, can produce better forecasting.
