Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Rapporteringskløften: En empirisk undersøgelse af forskellen imellem virksomheders og kapitalmarkedets prioritering af supplerende informationer

Contents:

Author Info

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    I de senere år har der været megen omtale af behovet for offentliggørelsen af supplerende oplysninger fx igennem årsrapporten, supplerende rapporteringsformer eller ad andre kommunikationsveje. Danmark bliver ofte nævnt som foregangsland i denne henseende, bl.a. pga. Videnskabsministeriets videnregnskabsprojekt fra 1997 til 2002. En række undersøgelser har vist en klar tendens til en stigende mængde af strategisk information i årsrapporter og børsprospekter i Danmark. Indeværende studium tager udgangspunkt i en sammenligning mellem årsrapporter og analytiker rapporter for ad den vej at bidrage til den forskning som beskæftiger sig med udviklingen af rapporterings- og kommunikationspraksisser. Der træffes en afgørende beslutning om kun at fokusere på proaktive analytikerrapporter. Derved bliver undersøgelsens resultater afgørende stærkere end tidligere studier der ikke tager højde for denne finesse. Undersøgelsen understøtter ’cost of disclosure’ teorien, og konkluderer, at virksomhedens rapportering spiller en vigtig rolle i at legitimisere virksomhedens eksistens. Mængden af informationer i analytikernes proaktive rapporter relaterer sig imidlertid til ressourcerne til rådighed for analytiker-services. Analytikerne er tilsyneladende ikke interesserede i information om bæredygtighed, intellektuel kapital og corporate governance, men lægger større vægt på segment information, muligheder og kritiske succes faktorer end årsrapporterne gør det. En anden vigtig konklusion af denne analyse er, at mens analytikere og porteføljeforvaltere gang på gang understreger behovet for sammenlignelige faktorer i deres søgen efter pålidelighed, så viser det sig imidlertid, at disse samme aktører er endnu dårligere til at producere sådanne faktorer end de virksomheder de selv ufortøvet kritiserer.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.hha.dk/afl/wp/man/M_2005_01.pdf
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Helle Vinbaek Stenholt)
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Business Studies in its series Management Accounting Research Group Working Papers with number M-2005-01.

    as in new window
    Length: 20 pages
    Date of creation: 26 Apr 2005
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:hhb:aarbma:2005-001

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: The Aarhus School of Business, Fuglesangs Allé 4, DK-8210 Aarhus V, Denmark
    Fax: + 45 86 15 19 43
    Web page: http://www.asb.dk/about/departments/bs.aspx
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: No keywords;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhb:aarbma:2005-001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Helle Vinbaek Stenholt).

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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