量か質か？マレーシア新サステナビリティ基準下における統合開示の質

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a testable, theory-integrated framework of disclosure quality with six propositions for empirical work on ISSB adoption in emerging markets.

🏢実務担当者:Offers a five-dimension checklist (completeness, connectivity, balance, forward-looking, timeliness) to assess and improve sustainability reporting quality beyond mere compliance.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests that mandatory standards need complementary measures—reporting capability building and assurance requirements—to move firms from symbolic to substantive disclosure.

The adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Sustainability Disclosure Standards, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, through Malaysia’s National Sustainability Reporting Framework (NSRF) requires companies listed on Bursa Malaysia, in phases from 2025, to report sustainability-related financial information alongside their financial statements. Yet disclosure among Malaysian listed companies remains uneven, compliance-driven and limited in depth. Enforcement actions over late or inaccurate financial reports continue, and regulators have deferred mandatory assurance after a review found the first reporting cohort’s disclosures still needed improvement. This conceptual paper shifts attention from how much companies disclose to how well they disclose. Using a theory synthesis approach supported by an integrative review of disclosure literature and Malaysian regulatory documents, it integrates agency, signalling, legitimacy, stakeholder and institutional theories to develop a framework of integrated disclosure quality. The construct joins financial reporting quality and sustainability-related disclosure quality through five dimensions: completeness and materiality, connectivity, balance and neutrality, forward-looking orientation, and timeliness and reliability. The framework proposes that regulatory pressure, board governance effectiveness, and stakeholder and investor pressure shape disclosure quality; that organisational reporting capability determines whether regulatory pressure produces substantive or symbolic disclosure; and that external assurance strengthens the link between disclosure quality and transparency outcomes. Six propositions guide future empirical testing. The paper reconceptualises disclosure as an integrated, quality-based construct, maps each theory to the dimensions it explains, and shows why mandatory standards alone may not deliver transparency. It offers practical insights for regulators, boards, preparers, auditors and investors during the NSRF transition.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.68050/jams.2026.892first seen 2026-11-05 05:25:52 · last seen 2026-11-06 05:02:59