Search

Purpose. This paper investigates the effect of cross-reporting quality transfer: the association between the merits of the financial auditor and the quality of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting. Specifically, we examine whether the effect of Big Four financial audits on the CSR reporting quality of Chinese listed firms differs from that of non-Big Four firms. Design/methodology/approach. This paper uses archival data and regression analysis from a sample (5257 firm-year observations) of A-share listed firms on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges from 2009 to 2018. Findings. The analysis shows that when a company's financial auditor is a Big Four firm, the quality of CSR reports is higher than when it is audited by non-Big Four auditor, which in turn can be explained by differences in cross-reporting quality transfer between Big Four and non-Big Four firms. Moreover, this effect is more pronounced in non-stateowned enterprises (NSOEs) than in state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and among firms residing in high-pressure legal environments as opposed to low-pressure regions. Originality. This study extends the literature on the quality of CSR reporting based on the type of financial reporting audit provider, thus bridging the gap between financial audit and sustainability reporting practice and elucidating the cross-reporting quality transfer effect. Practical implications. The paper's findings shed light on the impact that Big Four firms have on the quality of CSR reports through financial audits, thus confirming the cross-reporting quality transfer effect in China. These findings might appeal to political decision-makers, authorities and companies given the notable contribution of CSR disclosure to the decision-making processes of stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper provides an analysis of semi-subsistence farming in Ukraine during the period 2008–2018, with a special focus on policy towards peasant households, and its feasibility. Ukraine currently has several strategic documents that set the vectors for regulating the development of the industry. The current policy on the strategic development of agriculture, rural areas, and support for farming is found to be chaotic and inconsistent. The paper confirms the thesis regarding the low economic efficiency of natural farming, and given the specific weight of households in the production of certain types of food, emphasises that public costs for ensuring the country's food security are thus fairly high. The overall identified trends in the Ukrainian countryside are a) the reduction of land size, naturalisation of economic activity and reduction of market activity (farms, as a rule, keep cattle, poultry and bees, although the safety and quality of livestock products produced in such farms is rather dubious); and b) the enlargement of individual peasant households and their focus on commodity production of agricultural products (mainly crops), with the simultaneous distortion of reported production volumes and, accordingly, tax evasion. Thus, private peasant households (PPHs) appear as economic structures with a special status: on the one hand, they can be considered as full participants in the market of agri-food products (in terms of sales and production), but on the other hand they are not recognised as entrepreneurial structures. This has negative consequences for the local economy as a whole. PPHs are a legalised form of informal employment, an informal entrepreneurial activity. PPHs are, in our opinion, enjoying preferential status in comparison with that of farmers. Furthermore, existing measures (often patchy and haphazard) of political regulation only deepen the problematic functioning of semi-subsistence farms; and taking into account the peculiarities of tax regulation and the obligatory participation of household members in the pension system, in our opinion, they only intensify the crisis in the rural economy and related social problems. We find that PPHs in their present form (we stress the last four words) are manifestly untenable, and policy-wise are not feasible for Ukraine. The long-term strategy of reforming this crucial part of Ukraine's agriculture should not include new innovations, but be wisely tailored to Ukraine's conditions within the EU. PPHs ought to be accommodated within and be part and parcel of the tax system, and then be an element of future balanced and sustainable rural development. To achieve the latter aim, the recalibration of tax and legal regulations, underpinned by solid strategic policy, is desperately needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]