| Abstract: | While voluntary disclosure theory posits that profit-oriented companies voluntarily disclose information to increase their market value, this does not explain why a charity would report in accordance with a more comprehensive financial reporting framework than required. Using a unique financial reporting framework choice available in Australia, our study examines factors associated with large charities’ choice of a General Purpose Financial Statements (GPFS) reporting framework, which encompasses expansive financial reporting requirements, versus a Special Purpose Financial Statements (SPFS) reporting framework, where management, within limits, effectively chooses that subset of accounting standards applicable to that charity. For those preparing GPFS, we then examine the factors that determine those charities that report in accordance with the complete set of Australian Accounting Standards (Tier 1) versus Reduced Disclosure Requirements (Tier 2). Using manually collected data from 11,471 large-registered charities for 2014–2016, we find that the economic importance of the charity, its funding sources, and level of indebtedness are significant in explaining charities choosing a more comprehensive financial reporting framework. Further, we find a substantial increase in the proportion of large charities electing to disclose GPFS-Tier 2 over this three-year window. The choice of a large audit firm (Big 4 and mid-tier audit firms) is significantly associated with charities both lodging more comprehensive GPFS, and also reporting GPFS in accordance with the less onerous GPFS-Tier 2 framework. Our results provide insights into voluntary reporting choices made by charities and inform charities, accounting firms, and regulators of factors influencing charities’ choice of financial reporting frameworks. |
