Cited by 2Auditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceAccounting Theory and Financial ReportingCorporate Governance and Financial Management

Compliance with goodwill impairment disclosure and reasons provided by management: Evidence from South Africa

Louw, E., Hall, J. H., Brümmer, L. M.·2024·South African Journal of Accounting Research

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this article is to investigate compliance with the IFRS disclosure requirements regarding goodwill impairment testing in the South African setting, using JSE-listed firms as a sample. The article considers the explanatory strategies used by management to provide reasons for goodwill impairment.Motivation: Goodwill and its impairment are continually debated in accounting because of the nature of this intangible asset, and changes in the accounting standards regarding disclosure of goodwill and goodwill impairment.Design/Methodology/Approach: Panel least squares regressions and a cluster analysis were used to analyse JSE-listed firms for the period from 2006 to 2017.Main findings: The findings show that firms with material goodwill balances and an independent audit committee are associated with higher compliance with goodwill impairment disclosure. Firms that provided an excuse for impairing goodwill without taking responsibility for that impairment tended to have higher compliance regarding goodwill impairment disclosure than firms that did not provide any reason for goodwill impairment at all.Practical implications/Managerial impact: Managers exhibiting compliance with goodwill impairment disclosure standards are inclined to furnish more comprehensive elucidation regarding the underlying reasons for the initiation of goodwill impairment. Investors, in turn, might find it useful to study and question the reasons provided as part of the goodwill impairment disclosure recognizing its potential significance in their decision-making processes.Novelty/Contribution: The findings of the study provide evidence that aids understanding of goodwill impairments and the compliance with its disclosures, thereby enhancing knowledge of the effectiveness of the implementation of IFRS 3.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10291954.2023.2277560

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 2

Authors
Louw, E., Hall, J. H., & Brümmer, L. M.
Affiliations
University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Louw, E.
Venue
South African Journal of Accounting Research
Published
2024-01-23
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
91-112
ISSN
  • 1029-1954 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-3981
OpenAlex
W4391145380
Cited by
2
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • South African Journal of Accounting Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Financial Management
Keywords
goodwill impairment, disclosure compliance, IFRS 3, audit committee independence, intangible assets, South Africa, IFRS adoption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review