IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jaarpp/jaar-07-2016-0068.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does graphical reporting improve risk disclosure? Evidence from European banks

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Jones
  • Andrea Melis
  • Silvia Gaia
  • Simone Aresu

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the voluntary disclosure of risk-related issues, with a focus on credit risk, in graphical reporting for listed banks in the major European economies. It aims to understand if banks portray credit risk-related information in graphs accurately and whether these graphs provide incremental, rather than replicative, information. It also investigates whether credit risk-related graphs provide a fair representation of risk performance or a more favourable impression than is warranted. Design/methodology/approach - A graphical accuracy index was constructed. Incremental information was measured. A multi-level linear model investigated whether credit risk affects the quantity and quality of graphical credit risk disclosure. Findings - Banks used credit risk graphs to provide incremental information. They were also selective, with riskier banks less likely to use risk graphs. Banks were accurate in their graphical reporting, particularly those with high levels of credit risk. These findings can be explained within an impression management perspective taking human cognitive biases into account. Preparers of risk graphs seem to prefer selective omission over obfuscation via inaccuracy. This probably reflects the fact that individuals, and by implication annual report’s users, generally judge the provision of inaccurate information more harshly than the omission of unfavourable information. Research limitations/implications - This study provides theoretical insights by pointing out the limitations of a purely economics-based agency theory approach to impression management. Practical implications - The study suggests annual reports’ readers need to be careful about subtle forms of impression management, such as those exploiting their cognitive bias. Regulatory and professional bodies should develop guidelines to ensure neutral and comparable graphical disclosure. Originality/value - This study provides a substantive alternative to the predominant economic perspective on impression management in corporate reporting, by incorporating a psychological perspective taking human cognitive biases into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Jones & Andrea Melis & Silvia Gaia & Simone Aresu, 2018. "Does graphical reporting improve risk disclosure? Evidence from European banks," Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 19(1), pages 161-180, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jaarpp:jaar-07-2016-0068
    DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-07-2016-0068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAAR-07-2016-0068/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JAAR-07-2016-0068/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/JAAR-07-2016-0068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Acheampong, Albert & Elshandidy, Tamer, 2021. "Does soft information determine credit risk? Text-based evidence from European banks," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).

    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:eme:jaarpp:jaar-07-2016-0068. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.