Usefulness of Integrated Reporting for businesses and their stakeholders

Introduction:
Integrated Reporting has emerged in reaction to the requirement for obligatory reporting
standards that reflect the evolving business scenario wherein non-financial and intangible assets
are becoming the main important predictors of long-term value production for many
organizations (Beck et al., 2017). As a result, requests for reform in the way organizations
disclose and convey their value creation narratives have evolved (Mio et al., 2016). Integrated
Reporting can be viewed as either another reporting standard or a different process to satisfy the
increased compliance needs (Velte and Stawinoga, 2017). This study aims at critically evaluating
the effectiveness and usefulness of integrated reporting to organizations and stakeholders.

Analysis:
Morros, (2016) stated that integrated reporting recognizes the value of the company's
stakeholders as well as its capacity for value development. Short-term value creation metrics
may not always be concrete or financial in nature, but can present themselves in intangible
and non-financial ways like client satisfaction, repute, brand recognition, and awareness of the
brand. Adams, (2017) specified that integrated reporting assist in understanding and integrating
different drivers and sources through the business plan, providing long-term utility to enhance
strategy creation, decision-making, and executions. Improves the way businesses prepare for,
and reflect on their business narrative. Simnett and Huggins, (2015) determined that many firms
utilize Integrated Reporting as a tool to provide a clear, comprehensive, integrated narrative
about how value is built inside their organizations. Integrated Reporting assists firms in
conceiving holistically and systemically about their strategies and objectives, making informed
initiatives, addressing major threats and opportunities for enhance investor and stakeholder trust,
and maintaining the profit margin.

Adams, (2017) examined that value creation is aided by integrated reporting and more
specifically integrated thinking, a key idea of IR that focuses on breaking down internal
boundaries between people and departments so that the organization as a whole can completely
comprehend the fundamental elements of a business. De Villiers et al. (2017) claimed that
integrated thinking encompasses management, strategies, operating model, as well as threats and
opportunities in the relating to business trends and concerns. Camilleri, (2018) indicated that
organizations around the world may utilize IR to increase understanding and awareness in their
processes. Using Integrated Reporting, trust in the business is built by disclosing what delivers
value in a most straightforward way. Velte and Stawinoga, (2017) accentuated that integrated
thinking also enables an organization to evaluate the various resources utilized as well as the
interactions on which it relies, placing it in a position to make choices that will help
in maintaining its survival and resiliency over time.

Integrated Reporting aids in disintegrating internal barriers and ensures that Information flows
continuously between various sections of the business and to encourage more innovative cross-
functional thinking (Lai et al., 2018). Although in small firms, in which there are fewer
employees, Integrated reporting assists in breaking down internal barriers and ensuring that
Information flows easily and completely between various sections of the company to encourage
more innovative cross-functional collaborative thinking (Simnett and Huggins, 2015). Even in
small firms, where there are fewer people, Silos can form spontaneously because individuals do
not have the option to pause and share the burden. Particular attention should be paid to how one
thinks and share knowledge. Adopting an Integrated Reporting strategy can undoubtedly provide
opportunities for improvement, dissemination of information and a shared perception of
value creation within the business (Eccles and Serafeim, 2017).

Saggi and Jain, (2018) reported that integrating Reporting assists businesses in contemplating
value creation over a longer time horizon by providing a greater knowledge of how value is
produced and sustained, providing the essential insights to act. Serafeim, (2015) clarified that
integrated reporting provides potential opportunities to build or improve procedures and systems
for discovering, monitoring, and evaluating critical data in multiple capitals. Flower, (2015)
clarified that defining goals and priorities, monitoring opportunities and threats, conducting
investment and project assessments, and alignment of performance to objectives with applicable
performance metrics are all significant areas for promoting value development. Lai et al. (2016)
examined that the IR strategy is more than just adding additional report; rather the adaptability of
integrated reporting implies that it may be utilized to think well beyond limits of short-term
financial results.  It could act as a framework for simplifying and integrating numerous reports
and interactions, and also concentrating on long-term value management.
Barth et al. (2016) determined that the growing predicted future cash flows promote the
relationship among integrated report excellence and business value. In the long run, the
management practices indicated in integrated reporting can support the creation of more stable
and sustainable enterprises. Dumay et al. (2016) highlighted that integrated Reporting backed by
integrated thinking, offers the required insights across a wider data sets while looking forward,
relying on the organization's business plan as per its external environment. Briem and Wald,
(2018) accentuated that integrated reporting would also encourage non-financial data and third-
party verification and will promote sustainable development as an integrated component of
company discussions, such as during Annual Meetings.

Conclusion:
In an unpredictable world, there is a growing demand for knowledge, openness, and
accountability. This seems to be true for capital providers and stakeholders and who want to have
a holistic perspective of a business and comprehend how it will produce value in short, medium,
and long term. Integrated reporting promotes the dissemination of this kind of information and
compels businesses to uncover sustainability data, financial, non-financial information in a single
report. The primary principle of the integrated reporting model is that all types of businesses
must offer stakeholders continuous information access on value-creation factors. Integrated
thinking considers the interdependence and interconnection of a variety of variables that impact
an organization's ability to generate income over time, such as how business organizations
transform its business strategy and model to react to its surrounding environment and the threats
and opportunities it confronts. Companies must have a tighter grip on integrated reporting rules
and sources of information while distributing resources and generating financial information for
external exposure. Companies must evaluate if integrated reporting provides genuine advantages
to all parties (stakeholders) in order to validate its extensive use.
References:
Adams, C.A., 2017. Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation
process. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

Adams, C.A., 2017. Understanding integrated reporting: the concise guide to integrated

thinking and the future of corporate reporting. Routledge.

Barth, M.E., Cahan, S.F., Chen, L. and Venter, E.R., 2016. The economic consequences
associated with integrated report quality: early evidence from a mandatory
setting. University of Pretoria, unpublished working paper, pp.1-45.

Beck, C., Dumay, J. and Frost, G., 2017. In pursuit of a ‘single source of truth’: from threatened
legitimacy to integrated reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), pp.191-205.

Briem, C.R. and Wald, A., 2018. Implementing third-party assurance in integrated reporting:
Companies’ motivation and auditors’ role. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal.

Camilleri, M.A., 2018. Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-
financial capitals in corporate disclosures. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal.

De Villiers, C., Hsiao, P.C.K. and Maroun, W., 2017. Developing a conceptual model of
influences around integrated reporting, new insights and directions for future
research. Meditari Accountancy Research.

Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J. and Demartini, P., 2016, September. Integrated reporting: A
structured literature review. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 166-185). No
longer published by Elsevier.

Eccles, R.G. and Serafeim, G., 2017. Corporate and integrated reporting: A functional
perspective (pp. 156-171). Routledge.

Flower, J., 2015. The international integrated reporting council: a story of failure. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 27, pp.1-17.
Lai, A., Melloni, G. and Stacchezzini, R., 2016. Corporate sustainable development: is
‘integrated reporting’a legitimation strategy?. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 25(3), pp.165-177.

Lai, A., Melloni, G. and Stacchezzini, R., 2018. Integrated reporting and narrative
accountability: The role of preparers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.

Mio, C., Marco, F. and Pauluzzo, R., 2016. Internal application of IR principles: Generali's
internal integrated reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, pp.204-218.

Morros, J., 2016. The integrated reporting: A presentation of the current state of art and aspects
of integrated reporting that need further development. Intangible Capital, 12(1), pp.336-
356.

Saggi, M.K. and Jain, S., 2018. A survey towards an integration of big data analytics to big
insights for value-creation. Information Processing & Management, 54(5), pp.758-790.

Serafeim, G., 2015. Integrated reporting and investor clientele. Journal of Applied Corporate
Finance, 27(2), pp.34-51.

Simnett, R. and Huggins, A.L., 2015. Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research add
value?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal.

Simnett, R. and Huggins, A.L., 2015. Integrated reporting and assurance: where can research add
value?. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal.

Velte, P. and Stawinoga, M., 2017. Integrated reporting: The current state of empirical research,
limitations and future research implications. Journal of Management Control, 28(3),
pp.275-320.

Velte, P. and Stawinoga, M., 2017. Integrated reporting: The current state of empirical research,
limitations and future research implications. Journal of Management Control, 28(3),
pp.275-320.
Impact that accounting rules for intangible assets have on the usefulness of financial statements
Introduction:
IAS 38 defines the criteria for recognising and valuing intangible assets, and also the data that
should be disclosed regarding them (Agyei-Mensah, 2019). An intangible asset is a recognised
non-monetary item that has no physical form (Zambon, 2017). Whenever an asset can be
separated or has a legal or contractual foundation, it is recognizable (Stevanović and Rastić,
2019). Separable assets can be traded, exchanged, and licensed, and so on. Software programs,
trademarks, copyrights, licenses, cinematography, patents, and import limits are some of the
examples of intangible assets (AASB, 2015). Goodwill acquired as a result of a corporate merger
is accounted for under IFRS 3 and that is not addressed by IAS 38. Internally generated goodwill
is defined by IAS 38; since it is not a tangible asset, it is not recognized as an asset or commodity
(Carvalho et al. 2016). This study aims to critically discuss the influence of accounting rules for
intangible assets on the usefulness of financial statements.

Analysis:
Kumari and Mishra, (2020) stated that decrements in intangible assets appear on the statement of
cash flows in the same manner that increases do. This proportion diminishes the overall cash
flow from investment operations. Even though the corporation borrowed money to buy the
intangible asset, the rise is still reported in the cash flow from the investment part. Furthermore,
Basu, (2017) specified that an intangible asset with an indeterminate life span is not amortized
but is regularly tested for impairment on yearly basis. Whenever an intangible asset is sold, the
profits or losses on sale are recorded in the income statement. It entails contrasting the asset's net
book value to its capacity to generate cash. Consequently, Carvalho et al. (2016) determined that
the cost of creating an intangible asset might be difficult to distinguish from the cost of
maintaining or upgrading the entity’s or its processes. Intangible assets like internally produced
brand and publishing titles have increased in value, mastheads, client lists, and relevant are not
considered.

Ivanov and Mayorova, (2015) examined that intangible assets are a significant source of
significant and powerful strategic edge for firms, and also an important component of giving
value to the customer and stakeholders/shareholders. Meeh-Bunse et al. (2021) assessed that IAS
38 requires entities to identify an intangible asset, whether it is self-created or acquired (at cost).
Milijić, (2020) reported that according to IAS 38, the fundamental features of an intangible asset
are: non-monetary origin, lack of physical substance as well as identifiability. However, it is
indicated that resources utilized during acquisition, maintenance, or enhancement of intangible
assets including technical or scientific knowledge, layout and adoption of new frameworks, and
licenses may not necessarily entail an asset. 

Gogan et al. (2016) found that intellectual capitals, which in fact are intangible assets tend to
have an enormous impact on financial reporting processes. Intellectual capital investments are
increasing and have attained a greater standard. In certain rich economies, they have indeed
surpassed dedicated financial and physical capital expenses. Ginesti et al. (2018) analyzed that
despite the significant boom despite the economic importance of IC investment to enterprises
and overall to economy, their reporting representation in a statement of financial position
remains restricted. According to Rosin (2016), in case of the United States, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) accounting regulations successfully put forward numerous
factors that often restrict the validity of IC investments under financial statements, which
includes the difficulty of controlling and measuring them, as well as the complexity in evaluating
future cash flows and the associated greater degree of improbability. 

A company possesses an asset when it has the potential to derive future economic advantages
from the underlying resource while also restricting competitors' accessibility to all those rewards
(Kryscynski et al., 2021). In this regard, various problems emerge in the context of Intellectual
capital, like the preservation of employees' experience and competencies. For instance, if a
business invests in staff training and development, competitors are more likely to take advantage
of this, when the qualified professionals switch employers (Abualoush et al., 2018). As an
outcome, these Intellectual capital investments would be unable to be amortized caused by a
lacking in certainty regarding the contractual relationship between both the corporation and its
staff (Zambon, 2017).

Maaloul and Zeghal, (2015) clarified that an organization may acquire commodities that fit in
with the category of assets but may not include them in its financial statements. Bell, (2018)
indicated that an essential accounting standard recognition requirement (FASB, SFAC), poses
another accounting complication with the IC. Cheng et al. (2018) assessed as the
actual acquisition price is frequently determined during in the transaction, the asset is purchased
individually (SAFS 142) and exists in monetary terms or even other financial assets, and so the
expenditure can be accurately quantified. Anantharaman, (2015) examined that it might also be
conveniently met in the context of business arrangement (SFAS 141), where the asset cost is
comparable to the fair value of the asset at the point of the business acquisition.

When the market price is established concerning an open marketplace, the fair market value may
be determined accurately (Di Maio et al., 2017). Moreover, in the context of internally originated
assets such as patents, trademarks, software, the outcomes of R&D activities, the validity of
measurements criterion creates significant challenges (Davcik et al., 2021). As per FASB
standards, R&D expenses must be recognized as an expense when are actually incurred (SFAS
2), excluding computer software development costs, which could be capitalized (SFAS 86) (Lev,
2019). The capitalization of these expenditures is dependent on the successful completion of
technology viability tests. In this perspective, the expenditures required to determine a product's
technological viability are termed Research and Developement under SFAS 2 and recorded as
cost when incurred. In contrast, the expenditures incurred after demonstrating feasibility in
technology and prior to the product's wide release are capitalized (Curtis et al., 2016).

Conclusion:
This study aimed at critically assessing the impact of accounting rules for intangible assets on the
usefulness of financial statements. Financial advantages derived from intangible assets would
include revenue from the sale of products or services, cost savings, and other benefits generated
from the entity's usage of the assets. For instance, applying intellectual property in a
manufacturing process may result in lower prospective manufacturing costs rather than higher
potential earnings. The fair market value of intangible assets basically reflects the views of
participants in the market at the date of acquisition regarding the likelihood that the asset's
anticipated cash inflows would stream to the business.
References:
AASB, C.A.S., 2015. Intangible Assets.

Abualoush, S., Masa’deh, R.E., Bataineh, K. and Alrowwad, A., 2018. The role of knowledge
management process and intellectual capital as intermediary variables between
knowledge management infrastructure and organization performance. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 13, pp.279-309.

Agyei-Mensah, B.K., 2019. IAS-38 disclosure compliance and corporate governance: evidence
from an emerging market. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business
in Society.

Basu, A., 2017. Impairment of Intangible Assets-An Effort to Convergence. International

Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 7(5), pp.210-214.

Carvalho, C., Rodrigues, A.M. and Ferreira, C., 2016. The recognition of goodwill and other
intangible assets in business combinations–The Portuguese case. Australian Accounting
Review, 26(1), pp.4-20.

Carvalho, C., Rodrigues, A.M. and Ferreira, C., 2016. The recognition of goodwill and other
intangible assets in business combinations–The Portuguese case. Australian Accounting
Review, 26(1), pp.4-20.

Curtis, A., McVay, S. and Toynbee, S., 2016. Aggregate R&D expenditures and firm-level
profitability of R&D. Working Paper, University of Washington.

Davcik, N.S., Cardinali, S., Sharma, P. and Cedrola, E., 2021. Exploring the role of international
R&D activities in the impact of technological and marketing capabilities on SMEs’
performance. Journal of Business Research, 128, pp.650-660.

Di Maio, F., Rem, P.C., Baldé, K. and Polder, M., 2017. Measuring resource efficiency and
circular economy: A market value approach. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 122, pp.163-171.
Ginesti, G., Caldarelli, A. and Zampella, A., 2018. Exploring the impact of intellectual capital on
company reputation and performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital.

Gogan, L.M., Artene, A., Sarca, I. and Draghici, A., 2016. The impact of intellectual capital on
organizational performance. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 221, pp.194-202.

Ivanov, G. and Mayorova, E., 2015. Intangible assets and competitive advantage in retail: case
study from Russia. Asian Social Science, 11(12), p.38.

Kryscynski, D., Coff, R. and Campbell, B., 2021. Charting a path between firm‐specific
incentives and human capital‐based competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 42(2), pp.386-412.

Kumari, P. and Mishra, C.S., 2020. Value relevance of aggregated and disaggregated earnings in
India: Significance of intangible intensity. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing
and Taxation, 39, p.100321.

Lev, B., 2019. Ending the accounting-for-intangibles status quo. European Accounting

Review, 28(4), pp.713-736.

Meeh-Bunse, G., Luer, K. and Litfin, T., 2021, June. The consistent feature: brand equity
accounting–a current view from the perspective of IFRS and marketing. In Proceedings
of FEB Zagreb International Odyssey Conference on Economics and Business (Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp. 91-105). University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics and Business.

Milijić, A., 2020, September. TREATMENT OF INTANGIBLE ASSET ACCORDING TO

INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTING REGULATION. In CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS DRAFT (p. 85).

Rosin, M., 2016. Will We Ever Close the Gap: A Look into the International Convergence of
Accounting Standards. Mich. Bus. & Entrepreneurial L. Rev., 6, p.127.

Stevanović, T. and Rastić, A., 2019. Accounting treatment of brand as an intangible asset of
enterprises. Ekonomski pogledi, 21(2), pp.65-78.
Zambon, S., 2017. Intangibles and intellectual capital: an overview of the reporting issues and
some measurement models. The economic importance of intangible assets, pp.153-183.

Zambon, S., 2017. Intangibles and intellectual capital: an overview of the reporting issues and
some measurement models. The economic importance of intangible assets, pp.153-183.
Improvements brought about by the implementation of IFRS 16
Introduction:
IFRS 16 outlines how IFRS reporters should recognize, quantify, report, and declare leases
(Pham, 2020). The standard establishes a single lessee model of accounting that mandates lessees
to record liabilities and assets for either the lease term is below one year or underlying asset that
is less than a year has a low value (Raoli, 2021). Leaseholders continue classifying leases as
financial or operational, with IFRS 16's approach to lessor accounting staying virtually
unchanged from that of its predecessors IAS 17(Montinaro, 2018). Implementing IFRS 16
necessitates substantial judgments and accounting policy decisions that could have an influence
on the assessment, measurement, and recognition of assets and liabilities (Stancheva-Todorova
and Velinova-Sokolova, 2019). Even though tax implications are typically the main factor when
a business decides whether it should buy or lease assets, and when a lessor bids a lease
agreement, IFRS 16 continues to treat lessee accounting on the pre-tax basis (Morales-Díaz and
Zamora-Ramírez, 2018). The aim of this study is to critically discuss the significance of
implementing IFRS16.

Analysis:
Maglio et al. (2018) stated that for companies, leasing plays a significant role in their operations.
IFRS16 can certainly enhance the value of accounting statements produced by companies
reporting off-balance-sheet leasing agreements will be improved.. Magli et al. (2018) specified
that the financial statements' comparability will be improved. By implementing the IFRS 16, a
transparent image of the organization is portrayed with higher asset and liability recognition
within the balance sheet. Apart from that, Alqaisi, (2020) clarified that upon these bases,
stakeholders or investors can provide a qualitative assessment of a company's position and
financial performance. This is because a complete representation of a tenant's assets is managed
and is used for his activity. Furthermore, Giner and Pardo (2018) investigated how to increase
comparability by recognising assets and liabilities among all leases, assessing them equally, and
recognising only obtained responsibilities and privileges arising from the lease.
Bohušová, (2015) assessed that most lease transactions are now off-balance and, as per the
present standard IAS 17, does not need a great deal of work. More than simply transferring
operating leases to the new lease model for displaying assets and liabilities would be required
under the set of standards. Maynard, J., (2017) determined that the IFRS16 can undoubtedly
assist in reducing the need for analysts and investors for making modifications and adjustments
to account balances on the balance sheet and income statement of the lessee. Furthermore, Lloyd,
(2016) that IFRS16 allows businesses to disclose non-GAAP lease information. IFRS 16 creates
a broad collection of information than IAS 17, providing more insight into a company's
activities. Establish a fairer playing field by enabling all market players with comprehensive
information regarding leases. Uyen, (2016) specified that when utilizing the IFRS 16, the
company's assets and liabilities originating from leases will be measured more correctly than
estimations provided by only more competent analysts and investors when utilizing IAS 17.

According to Morales Daz and Zamora Ramrez (2018), IFRS 16 is expected to enhance capital
allocation by enabling both shareholders and enterprises to make proper investment and credit
decisions. Spnberger and Rista (2020) assessed that the IASB predicts whenever a company's
systems are updated to have enough information required by IFRS 16; the expenditures would be
only somewhat higher than those spent when adopting IAS 17. Magli et al. (2018) identified that
apart from discount rates, which are necessary for all leases while implementing IFRS 16, the
data needed to apply IFRS 16 is equivalent to the information needed for applying IAS 17. Van
Hijfte, 2020) analyzed that report-wise consultancy utilized the Anaplan platform to design a
solution to meet IFRS 16 criteria. 

The IFRS16 is intended to simply interact with current financial convergence tools and ERP
databases, allowing businesses to swiftly load the model according to their company's structure
and lease data and deliver outputs for statutory reporting (Hladika and Valenta, 2018). The
platform includes all conventional financial indicators, allowing users to instantly evaluate
financial measurements (like transition alternatives and the present value of alternative lease
schedule and payment) at aggregated or individual levels (Stancheva-Todorova and Velinova-
Sokolova, 2019). It incorporates automated validation processes and workflows to continue
providing reliable auditable controls and data. It analyses massive amounts of data in real-time,
offering customers’ immediate insight into how to handle and govern leases in the future. When
the first report using IFRS 16 is published, an abnormal return will be generated. This actually is
due to a shift in the manner operating leases are accounted for, which affects both the income
statement and balance sheet (de Faria Olivo et al., 2022).

Rey et al. (2020) highlighted that accounting processes for IFRS16 contributed to the emergence
and assessment of assets linked to contracts by using the logic of amortized right of Use, as well
as calculating the depreciation, rate of interest, and financial obligations evaluated using the
specified discount rate. Statements, (2016) assessed that the prepayment and accrual
management for the tracking the periodic cost competence also has been expanded, just for the
sake of local Principle. Ball, (2016) analyzed that in the context of IFRS 16, there is a strong
focus on businesses being appropriately equipped for the modifications and any repercussions
they could have, not just on business models, but also on accounting operations, and the industry
as a whole. Notably, while lessor accounting under IFRS 16 stays substantially identical, the
lessor may have an influence on lease products and business models when customers' business
demands and behavior shift.

Conclusion:
When reporting financial accounts, almost every firm that uses rents or leases to access assets
must adhere to IFRS 16. IFRS 16 encourages organizations to make up a transformation within
their business processes in a range of areas, with not just accounting and finance, but perhaps
also technology, purchasing, taxes, administration, legal, management, corporate, property
investment, and even human resources. The International accounting standards board recognizes
that the lease standard modification will increase openness in lease accounting. The new
standard's fundamental change is that all leases will indeed be integrated onto businesses' balance
sheets, improving the visibility of firms' financial status. The International Financial Reporting
Standards (IFRS) eliminate away with the distinction between operational and finance leases for
lessees, instead of classifying all leases as financial liabilities. However, the International
accounting standards board anticipates that IFRS 16 specifically excludes from its applicability a
range of service contracts that may have been classified as leases under IAS 17 (Such as supply
contracts).
References:
Alqaisi, Y.W.A., 2020. IFRS 16 leases.

Ball, R., 2016. IFRS–10 years later. Accounting and Business Research, 46(5), pp.545-571.

Bohušová, H., 2015. Is capitalization of operating lease way to increase of comparability of

financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS and US GAAP. Acta Universitatis
Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63(2), pp.507-514.

de Faria Olivo, R.L., Ricciardi, R., Sales, G.A.W. and da Silva, F.L., 2022. Impacts of the
Adoption of IFRS 16 for Companies with Intensive Use of Mobile Assets. American
Academic Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 85(1),
pp.116-143.

Giner, B. and Pardo, F., 2018. The value relevance of operating lease liabilities: Economic
effects of IFRS 16. Australian Accounting Review, 28(4), pp.496-511.

Hladika, M. and Valenta, I., 2018. Analysis of the effects of applying the new IFRS 16 Leases on
the financial statements. Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings,
pp.255-263.

Lloyd, S., 2016. A new lease of life. Investor Perspectives, pp.1-16.

Magli, F., Nobolo, A. and Ogliari, M., 2018. The effects on financial leverage and performance:
The IFRS 16. International Business Research, 11(8), pp.76-89.

Maglio, R., Rapone, V. and Rey, A., 2018. Capitalisation of operating lease and its impact on
firm’s financial ratios: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Ownership &
Control, 15(3-1), pp.152-162.

Maynard, J., 2017. Financial accounting, reporting, and analysis. Oxford University Press.

Montinaro, E., 2018. A Shift in lease accounting: the study of the transition from IAS 17 to IFRS
16.
Morales Díaz, J. and Zamora Ramírez, C., 2018. IFRS 16 (leases) implementation: Impact of
entities’ decisions on financial statements. Aestimatio: The IEB International Journal of
Finance, 17, 60-97.

Pham, T.T.A., 2020. The impact of IFRS 16 on financial analysts' forecast: empirical evidence
from european companies.

Raoli, E., 2021. Lease Accounting Framework and the Development of International Accounting
Standards. In IFRS 16 and Corporate Financial Performance in Italy (pp. 7-37).
Springer, Cham.

Rey, A., Maglio, R. and Rapone, V., 2020. Lobbying during IASB and FASB convergence due
processes: Evidence from the IFRS 16 project on leases. Journal of International
Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 41, p.100348.

Spånberger, J. and Rista, M., 2020. Implications of IFRS 16 adoption: Evidence from Swedish
publicly listed firms.

Sreseli, N., Kharabadze, E. and Sreseli, R., 2016. IFRS 16–challenges and some general aspects
of new lease standard.

Stancheva-Todorova, E. and Velinova-Sokolova, N., 2019. IFRS 16 Leases and Its Impact on
Company’s Financial Reporting, Financial Ratios and Performance Metrics. Economic
Alternatives, 1(2019), pp.44-62.

Stancheva-Todorova, E. and Velinova-Sokolova, N., 2019. IFRS 16 Leases and Its Impact on
Company’s Financial Reporting, Financial Ratios and Performance Metrics. Economic
Alternatives, 1(2019), pp.44-62.

Statements, F., 2016. Business Overview.

Uyen, H.N.T., 2016. Accounting for leases–does the new standard improve issuing useful
information to investors and analysts? (Doctoral dissertation, Vietnamese-German
University).
Van Hijfte, S., 2020. Blockchain and Industry Use Cases. In Decoding Blockchain for
Business (pp. 55-87). Apress, Berkeley, CA.