Skip to main content
Log in

Operational elements of Narrative Disclosure Information (NDI) in a geographical context

  • S.I.: BALCOR-2017
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on the quality of narrative information of annual financial reports has long been dominated by a lack of tools that permit an objective analysis of qualitative disclosure. This study is focused on accounting disclosure research and proposes a comprehensive index that uses Key Performance Indicators to enhance understanding of the quality of narrative information during the period of 2002–2007, using a sample of European (EU) and USA (US) firms operating in that context. We use previous research of Garefalakis et al. (Corp Ownersh Control 13(4):317–334, 2016) to underscore the relation between the Management Commentary Index and the Weighted Management Commentary Index with several explanatory variables that put emphasis on firms’ attributes regarding their volumes in total assets, their book values, as well as the use of corporate governance indicators, etc. in a regional level. Our results show that the US firms with the mandatory requirements do not provide a greater amount of disclosure information in their reporting than their counterparts in Europe (i.e. firms located in Western and Northern Europe). The proposed approach seeks to enhance understanding of the quality of companies’ narrative information disclosure and reveals a critical path to analyze the link between corporate governance and firms’ performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Big Four Companies are the four largest Audit firms worldwide, offering a variety of services specified in audit, taxation, insurance services, consulting and other services, e.g. Ernst & Young, PwC, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and KPMG.

  2. Thomson Reuters® ASSET4 ESG used in this study in order to get Economical Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) research data, to evaluate corporate performance through financial disclosure. The ESG database contains information on over 7000+ companies, including all aspects of companies’ sustainability performance.

References

  • Alabdullah, T. Y., Yahya, S., & Ramayah, T. (2014). Corporate governance development: New or old concept. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(7), 312–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Akra, M., & Hutchinson, P. (2013). Family firm disclosure and accounting regulation reform in the Middle East: The case of Jordan. Research in Accounting Regulation, 25(1), 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amar Beattie, V., Mcinnes, W., & Fearnley, S. (2004). A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: A comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum, 28(3), 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amar, W. B. & Boujenoui, A. (2006) Factors explaining corporate governance disclosure quality: Canadian evidence. Paper presented at the Illinois International Accounting Symposium, 7–9 June, University of Hawai, Honolulu, Hawaii.

  • Antle, R. (1982). The auditor as an economic agent. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 503–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., Collins, D., & LaFond, R. (2006). The effects of corporate governance on firm’s credit ratings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1), 203–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiman, S. (1990). Agency research in managerial accounting: A second look. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 341–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannier, C. E., & Hirsch, C. W. (2010). The economic function of credit rating agencies—What does the watchlist tell us? Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(12), 3037–3049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassen, A. & Kovacs, A. (2008) Environmental, social and governance key performance indicators from a capital market perspective. Retrieved September 8, 2013 from http://www.zfwu.de/fileadmin/pdf/2_2008/9_2_01_Hauptbeitrag_Bassen%20mit%20Korreferat_Schiereck.pdf.

  • Beretta, S., & Bozzolan, S. (2004). A framework for the analysis of firm risk communication. The International Journal of Accounting, 39, 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York: Mac-Millan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boot, A. W., Milbourn, T. T., & Schmeits, A. (2006). Credit ratings as coordination mechanisms. Review of Financial Studies, 19(1), 81–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozzolan, S., Trombetta, M., & Beretta, S. E. (2008). Forward-looking disclosures, financial verifiability and analysts’ forecasts: A study of cross-listed European firms. European Accounting Review, 18(3), 435–473. Retrieved October, 2008 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1290569.

  • Cadbury Report. (1992). The financial aspects of corporate governance. Retrieved September 1, 2013 from http://www.ecgi.org/codes/code.php?code_id=132.

  • Chen, C. M., & Delmas, M. (2011). Measuring corporate social responsibility: An efficiency perspective. Production and Operations Management, 20(6), 789–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, P. M., Kao, J. L., & Richardson, G. D. (1999). Evidence that management discussion and analysis (MD&A) is a part of a firm’s overall disclosure package. Contemporary Accounting Research, 16, 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craswell, A. T., & Taylor, S. L. (1992). Discretionary disclosure of reserves by oil and gas companies: An economic analysis. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 19(2), 295–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowther, D. & Aras, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility. Retrieved September 1, 2013 from http://www.mdos.si/Files/defining-corporate-social-responsibility.pdf.

  • Dassen, R. J. M. (1995). Audit quality: An empirical study of the attributes and determinants of audit quality perceptions. Doctoral Dissertation, Maastricht University, Maastricht.

  • DeAngelo, L. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3, 183–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedman, E., & Kausar, A. (2012). The impact of voluntary audit on credit ratings: Evidence from UK private firms. Accounting and Business Research, 42(4), 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. (1985). The structure of corporate ownership: Cause and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93(6), 1155–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devalle, A., Rizzato, F., & Busso, D. (2016). Disclosure indexes and compliance with mandatory disclosure—The case of intangible assets in the Italian market. Advances in Accounting, 35(C), 8–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, A., & Zingales, L. (2003). Private benefits of control: An international comparison. Journal of Finance, 59(2), 537–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F36386947_Beyond_the_Business_Case_for_Corporate_Sustainability%2Ffile%2F9c960518139fb7c7e5.pdf&ei=PlKBUsu0CqiV4wTfuYGACA&usg=AFQjCNGyBRfC9_nZgTXc1s8rHshogZ_p2w&bvm=bv.56146854,d.bGE.

  • Eccles, R., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance. Harvard Business School, Working paper 12-35.

  • Egels-Zanden, N. & Sandberg, J. (2009). Distinctions in descriptive and instrumental stakeholder theory: A challenge for empirical research. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from http://www.fek.handels.gu.se/digitalAssets/1456/1456743_distinctions-in-descriptive-and-instrumental-stakeholder-theory.pdf.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppel, J. (1999). Sustainable development and environment: A renewed effort in the OECD. Retrieved September 1, 2013 from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1010052116045.

  • Ertuna, O., & Ertuna, B. (2009). Global perspectives on corporate governance and CSR. Surrey: Gower Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Feijóo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2012). Measuring quality of sustainability reports and assurance statements: Characteristics of the high quality reporting companies. International Journal of Society Systems Science, 4(1), 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, A. (2010). How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(6), 355–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forker, J. (1992). Corporate governance and disclosure quality. Accounting and Business Research, 22(86), 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J., Khurana, I., & Pereira, R. (2003). The role of accounting auditing in corporate governance and the development of financial markets around the world. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 10, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funcke, N. (2013). The role of credit ratings in the auditor’s going-concern opinion decision. Working Paper.

  • Garefalakis, A., Dimitras, A., Floros, C., & Lemonakis, C. (2016). How narrative reporting changed the business world: Providing a new measurement tool. Corporate Ownership and Control, 13(4), 317–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and environmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosures. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 8(2), 47–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove, H., Patelli, L., Victoravich, L. M., & Xu, P. T. (2011). Corporate governance and performance in the wake of the financial crisis: Evidence from US commercial banks. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5), 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00882.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grushina, S. V. (2011). Evolution of a design for communication: The case of the global reporting initiative sustainability reporting guidelines. Dissertation, Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, New Jersey.

  • Gul, F. A., & Leung, S. (2004). Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23, 351–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, C. & Von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish Companies. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from http://19-659-fall-2011.wiki.uml.edu/file/view/The%20Global%20Reporting%20Initiative%20and%20Corporate%20Sustainability%20Reporting%20in%20Swedish%20Companies.pdf.

  • Hohnen, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility an implementation guide for business. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder-Webb, L., & Cohen, J. R. (2007). The association between disclosure, distress, and failure. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9254-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, J., Predescu, M., & White, A. (2004). The relationship between credit default swap spreads, bond yields, and credit rating announcements. Journal of Banking & Finance, 28(11), 2789–2811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, V., Khurana, I., & Reynolds, J. (2002). Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4), 637–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (1999). Evaluating corporate environmental reporting. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F233729158_Evaluating_corporate_environmental_reporting%2Ffile%2Fd912f50af50043a8af.pdf&ei=qM2DUvelE_Su7AbwkIDQCg&usg=AFQjCNEYLMFS-q3ZPBlQ9r-b9aN2o7hxmw&bvm=bv.56343320,d.ZGU.

  • Kolk, A. (2008). Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals reporting practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2010). Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3), 182–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2006). What works in securities laws? The Journal of Finance, 61(1), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemonakis, C., Sariannidis, N., & Garefalakis, A. (2018). Visualizing operational effects of ERP systems through graphical representations: Current trends and perspectives. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2851-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray, A. J. (1995). Factors influencing voluntary annual report disclosures by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., & Zimmerman, J. (1993). Financial performance surrounding CEO turnover. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 16, 273–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, K., & Mirza, A. (1991). Corporate social disclosure: A note on a test of agency theory. British Accounting Review, 23, 211–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norden, L., & Weber, M. (2004). Informational efficiency of credit default swap and stock markets: The impact of credit rating announcements. Journal of Banking & Finance, 28(11), 2813–2843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 3, pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A. (2004). Proprietary costs and determinants of voluntary segment disclosure: Evidence from Italian listed companies. European Accounting Review, 13(2), 319–340. Retrieved July 26, 2018 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=554504.

  • Quick, R. (2008). Voluntary sustainability reporting practices in Germany: A study on reporting quality. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from http://www.otoc.pt/downloads/files/1219660131_7-35.pdf.

  • Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 461–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (2010). Corporate governance and accountability (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spathis, C. (2003). Audit qualification, firm litigation, and financial information: An empirical analysis in greece. International Journal of Auditing, 7(1), 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spathis, C., Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2004). A multicriteria discrimination approach to model qualified audit reports. Operational Research: Αn International Journal, 4(3), 347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spathis, C., & Tsipouridou, M. (2012). Audit opinion, audit firm and financial information in a IFRS context, Contributions to Accounting Research I, Studies in Honour of Emeritus Professor George Kafoussis (pp. 410–428). Athina: Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standard & Poor’s. (2012). Credit ratings definitions and frequently asked questions. Retrieved September 10, 2014 from http://www.standardandpoors.com.

  • Starbuck, W. H., Greve, A., & Hedberg, B. T. (1978). Responding to crisis. Journal of Business Administration, 9, 111–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., McKechnie, P. I., & Puffer, S. M. (1983). The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(4), 582–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R., & Callahan, A. (1987). The stigma of bankruptcy. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 405–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilling, M. (2004). Refinements to legitimacy theory in social and environmental accounting. Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://www.flinders.edu.au/sabs/business-files/research/papers/2004/04-6.pdf.

  • Tsalavoutas, I., & Evans, L. (2010). Transition to IFRS in Greece: Financial statement effects and auditor size. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(8), 814–842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vo, D. H., & Nguyen, T. M. (2014). The impact of corporate governance on firm performance: Empirical study in Vietnam. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 6(6), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volpin, P. (2002). Governance with poor investment protection: Evidence from top executive turnover in Italy. Journal of Financial Economics, 64, 61–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Kosnik, R. D. (1993). Corporate raiders and their disciplinary role in the market for corporate control. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 671–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. & Thomsen, M. (2012). The case for corporate responsibility reporting: Valuing and communicating the intangibles. Retrieved September 16, 2013 from http://www.one-report.com/wp_request.html.

  • Watts, R., & Zimmerman, J. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (1980). Organizational decline: A neglected topic in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 5, 577–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zingales, L. (1998). Corporate governance, the new Palgrave dictionary of economics and the law. Retrieved September 15, 2013 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=46906 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.46906.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christos Lemonakis.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Regressions results: Regional #1

Variable

ALL

ALL_US

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

C

0.168151

0.0001**

0.144841

0.0000**

0.114720

0.2257

0.110387

0.0075**

LAW_COCI

− 0.009751

0.0535*

0.004958

0.1891

    

ROA

− 0.090791

0.0000**

− 0.056458

0.0000**

− 0.048716

0.0337*

− 0.051765

0.0071**

LN_TA

0.012660

0.0000**

0.006578

0.0000**

0.014492

0.0000**

0.008302

0.0000**

NOSH

6.79E−10

0.0000**

4.48E−10

0.1438

7.09E−10

0.0000**

3.79E−10

0.1225

TBV

− 1.53E−06

0.8552

4.77E−06

0.3337

0.000468

0.1660

0.000397

0.0921

ASS_TURN

0.009236

0.0000**

0.000583

0.5029

0.011025

0.0002**

0.001298

0.4322

CGBFDP0014

0.023420

0.0000**

0.012128

0.0199*

0.023378

0.0000**

0.007781

0.1170

CGBFDP018

0.000343

0.0631

0.000192

0.0028**

− 9.53E−05

0.7706

− 0.000102

0.1292

ECSLO05S

0.000362

0.0004**

0.000226

0.0117*

0.000295

0.0006**

0.000143

0.0353*

CGBSDP061

0.014179

0.0003**

0.005610

0.1227

0.039356

0.0007**

0.028695

0.0096**

CGBSDP060

− 1.57E−05

0.9746

− 0.000432

0.1438

8.43E−05

0.9345

0.000691

0.0217*

CGBFDP028

0.000242

0.0000**

0.000152

0.0000**

0.000345

0.0000**

0.000151

0.0009**

CGVSDP029

0.085042

0.0000**

0.043995

0.0000**

0.071315

0.0000**

0.038875

0.0000**

WC01801

2.17E−10

0.7762

− 6.89E−10

0.1472

− 1.03E−11

0.9816

− 5.68E−10

0.0694

R2

0.339131

 

0.292345

 

0.323655

 

0.298918

 

F-statistic

5.547.514

 

4.466.021

 

2.860.579

 

2.548.720

 

Prob (F-statistic)

0.000000

 

0.000000

 

0.000000

 

0.000000

 
  1. **Statistical significance at 1%; *statistical significance at 5%

1.2 Regional #2

Variable

ALL_EUROPEAN

P_IFRS_USA

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

C

0.213320

0.0000**

0.203671

0.0000**

0.145419

0.3888

0.104085

0.1581

LAW_COCI

0.002389

0.6482

0.005115

0.2543

    

ROA

− 0.105755

0.0000**

− 0.053593

0.0006**

− 0.087650

0.0009**

− 0.043499

0.1898

LN_TA

0.009941

0.0000**

0.003874

0.0000**

0.013668

0.0144*

0.007671

0.0100*

NOSH

8.02E−10

0.7730

1.26E−09

0.4188

8.31E−10

0.4868

− 3.64E−10

0.6878

TBV

− 2.05E−07

0.9790

5.44E−06

0.2163

− 0.000266

0.6339

3.22E−05

0.9568

ASS_TURN

0.004468

0.0412*

− 0.001008

0.5677

0.013608

0.0019**

0.001538

0.6021

CGBFDP0014

0.014897

0.0044**

0.014645

0.0204*

0.025800

0.0000**

0.011795

0.2377

CGBFDP018

0.000486

0.0003**

0.000260

0.0000**

− 0.000117

0.7849

− 7.92E−05

0.4397

ECSLO05S

0.000505

0.0019**

0.000376

0.0046**

0.000234

0.0320*

4.79E−05

0.5898

CGBSDP061

0.008034

0.1009

− 0.000280

0.9254

0.051349

0.0000**

0.042853

0.0000**

CGBSDP060

0.000211

0.5235

− 0.000502

0.1739

− 0.001070

0.4068

0.000611

0.0302*

CGBFDP028

7.31E−05

0.4161

0.000117

0.0047**

0.000370

0.0000**

0.000145

0.0635

CGVSDP029

0.093370

0.0000**

0.046617

0.0000**

0.091354

0.0000**

0.052546

0.0000**

WC01801

1.08E−09

0.2108

5.47E−11

0.9216

− 2.83E−10

0.1816

− 7.20E−10

0.0048**

R2

0.379343

 

0.294780

 

0.247747

 

0.181543

 

F-statistic

3.084.935

 

2.109.789

 

1.176.841

 

7.926.081

 

Prob (F-statistic)

0.000000

 

0.000000

 

0.000000

 

0.000000

 
  1. **Statistical significance at 1%; *statistical significance at 5%

1.3 Regional #3—A_IFRS_USA

Variable

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

C

0.121386

0.0001**

0.141886

0.0001**

LAW_COCI

    

ROA

− 0.004273

0.8775

− 0.053795

0.0173*

LN_TA

0.014009

0.0000**

0.008338

0.0000**

NOSH

7.83E−10

0.0000**

5.48E−10

0.0000**

TBV

0.000820

0.0028**

0.000609

0.0000**

ASS_TURN

0.006562

0.0035**

0.000280

0.8775

CGBFDP0014

0.020524

0.0000**

0.003990

0.0375*

CGBFDP018

− 3.50E−05

0.0877

− 8.83E−05

0.0016**

ECSLO05S

0.000372

0.0008**

0.000243

0.0017**

CGBSDP061

0.002329

0.7753

− 0.006805

0.0000**

CGBSDP060

0.002451

0.0027**

0.001364

0.0120*

CGBFDP028

0.000349

0.0000**

0.000171

0.0029**

CGVSDP029

0.059828

0.0002**

0.030889

0.0063**

WC01801

5.92E−10

0.0055**

− 2.76E−11

0.9112

R2

0.437271

 

0.451526

 

F-statistic

2.730.049

 

2.892.313

 

Prob (F-statistic)

0.000000

 

0.000000

 
  1. **Statistical significance at 1%; *statistical significance at 5%

1.4 Regional #4

Variable

P_IFRS_EUROPEAN

A_IFRS_EUROPEAN

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

MA.CO.I.

MA.CO.I.w

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

Coefficient

Prob

Coefficient

Prob.

C

0.152062

0.0019**

0.202489

0.0000**

0.231146

0.0000**

0.194831

0.0000**

LAW_COCI

0.006287

0.5231

0.003855

0.6084

0.004860

0.0000**

0.010322

0.0000**

ROA

− 0.042445

0.1582

− 0.059040

0.2260

− 0.108625

0.0000**

− 0.047563

0.0003**

LN_TA

0.014061

0.0000**

0.004537

0.0006**

0.006906

0.0000**

0.003127

0.0000**

NOSH

− 1.68E−09

0.2229

2.28E−10

0.7952

8.54E−09

0.0000**

5.44E−09

0.0000**

TBV

8.42E−06

0.0000**

1.08E−05

0.0000**

− 1.78E−05

0.0000**

− 3.04E−06

0.0458*

ASS_TURN

0.001786

0.4142

0.001793

0.0021**

0.005823

0.0030**

− 0.004062

0.0886

CGBFDP0014

0.014744

0.0000**

0.023479

0.0186*

0.014679

0.1649

0.010574

0.1042

CGBFDP018

0.000374

0.1049

0.000222

0.0004**

0.000652

0.0000**

0.000333

0.0000**

ECSLO05S

0.000176

0.2654

0.000113

0.5542

0.000734

0.0000**

0.000525

0.0000**

CGBSDP061

0.005056

0.4812

− 0.001260

0.8186

0.009026

0.0606

− 0.001763

0.3300

CGBSDP060

− 0.000194

0.6686

− 0.001221

0.0000**

0.001261

0.0000**

0.000639

0.0003**

CGBFDP028

0.000129

0.5008

− 2.19E−05

0.5705

− 9.68E−06

0.8983

0.000131

0.0000**

CGVSDP029

0.088361

0.0000**

0.041881

0.0000**

0.087647

0.0000**

0.043560

0.0000**

WC01801

2.53E−10

0.5166

− 4.44E−10

0.0456*

6.35E−09

0.0000**

3.95E−09

0.0000**

R2

0.269353

 

0.128893

 

0.499899

 

0.500660

 

F-statistic

1.048.348

 

4.207.737

 

3.061.263

 

3.070.592

 

Prob(F-statistic)

0.000000

 

0.000000

 

0.000000

 

0.000000

 
  1. **Statistical significance at 1%; *statistical significance at 5%

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garefalakis, A., Sariannidis, N. & Lemonakis, C. Operational elements of Narrative Disclosure Information (NDI) in a geographical context. Ann Oper Res 294, 123–149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3075-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-3075-9

Keywords

Navigation