Author
Listed:
- Laura Bini
- Stefan Schaper
- Lorenzo Simoni
- Francesco Giunta
- Christian Nielsen
Abstract
Recent regulatory initiatives, such as the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive and the UK Companies Act, require companies to mobilise the business model concept as a framework to disclose non-financial information in the annual report. These regulatory initiatives are based on a reflexive legal approach that avoids specifying what should be disclosed or articulating minimum disclosure requirements. In this context, this study investigates whether and to what extent preparers and users of non-financial information have a shared understanding of the business model concept and its role in reporting. An exploratory survey was conducted involving 35 users and 13 preparers, followed by 13 in-depth interviews, with both stages of research conducted from Searle's perspective of institutional reality. The findings present a somewhat divergent picture, indicating a lack of widespread consensus around a specific definition of a business model, its constitutive elements, and its reporting function. Thus, we conclude that the business model remains a concept under social construction in this domain and highlights areas of intervention. This study contributes to the existing literature by discussing how the absence of a common definition might hinder the otherwise positive effects of business model disclosure regulation from enhancing corporate transparency. Archival studies on business model reporting generally show low levels of disclosure, indicating poor informativeness. Our evidence adds to the accounting literature by considering the role of a shared view of the business model among market participants as a determinant of business model reporting quality and informativeness.
Suggested Citation
Laura Bini & Stefan Schaper & Lorenzo Simoni & Francesco Giunta & Christian Nielsen, 2023.
"Mandatory non-financial disclosure: is everybody on the same page about business model reporting?,"
Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(2), pages 198-222, April.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:accfor:v:47:y:2023:i:2:p:198-222
DOI: 10.1080/01559982.2023.2170036
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:47:y:2023:i:2:p:198-222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.