Application of MFRS 141: Insights from Financial Statements of Companies in Malaysia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46754/umtjur.v1i2.67Keywords:
biological assets, environmental accounting, green reporting, MFRS 141Abstract
This study examined biological asset information that has been reported by companies in Malaysia and the methods of valuation used in reporting the biological assets. It aimed to provide useful information to the regulators about the application of MFRS 141, the accounting standards for agriculture, in corporate reporting. This study employed the data derived from the 2016 annual reports of plantation companies listed on Bursa Malaysia. Descriptive analysis was used to examine the biological asset information that has been reported and the characteristics of the companies such as age, size, and leverage. The results of this study showed that most of the plantation companies believed that fair value and historical cost could be the best way to measure their biological assets. The findings of this study provide input towards identifying the gap in corporate reporting practices and the challenges faced by companies in the application of MFRS 141. The findings are expected to contribute to the regulatory improvement towards increasing the full adoption of MFRS 141 by companies in Malaysia.
References
Barth, M., Beaver W. H. & Landsman, W. R. (1996). Value-relevance of banks’ fair value disclosures under SFAS No 107. Accounting Review. 71 (4), 513-537.
Brito, E. D, Ribeiro, M. D. S, Martins, V. A. & Lemes, S. (2014). Fari value application to biological assets and agricultureal produce in livestock farming. Custos e Agronegocio, 10(1), 190-211.
Clavano M. J. (2014). Factors that influence the valuation of biological assets and compliance with IAS 41/PAS 41 mandatory disclosures by selected agricultural companies in Davao Region. Melbourne Conference 2014. Melbourne: Australia.
Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis in organization studies: research themes, data sources, and methodology refinement. Organization Research Method, 10, 5-34.
Elad, C., & Herbohn, K. (2011). Implementing the fair value accounting in the agricultural sector . The Institute of Chartered Accountant of Scotland. Retrieved 7 July 2017 from https://www.icas.com
Gongales, R., & Lopes, P. (2014). Accounting in Agriculture: Disclosure Practices of Listed Firms. Working paper for School of Economics and Management, University of Porto. ISSN:0870-8541.
Muhammad, K., & Ghani, E. K (2013). A fair value model for bearer biological assets in promoting corporate governance: a proposal. Journal of Agriculture Studies, 2(1):16-26.
Kclim. (2009). Accounting Crash Course. Retrieved 5 August 2017 from http://www.accountingcrashcourse.com.
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2009). A practical guide to accounting for agricultural assets. Retrieved 30 July 2017 from https://www.pwc.com
Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2011). Building for the Future Annual Report 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2017 from www.pwc.co.uk/annualreport.
Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2016). Research Method for Business Students 7th Edition. Pearson: England.
Scott, D, Wingard, C., & Biljon, M V. (2015). Challenges with the financial reporting of biological assets by public entities in South Africa. South African Journal of Economics and Management Sciences. 19(1), 139- 149.
Silva, J. D, Rezende, A. J., & Braunbeck, G. (2016). Judgement of the relevance of fair value in biological assets: A experimental analysis on the market perception versus the academic perception. Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirao Preto. Retrieved 10 July 2017 from https://papers.ssrn.com
Thurrun Bhakir, M. I. (2010). Applying IAS 41 in Malaysia. Accountants Today, 32-39.
Qing-wan, T., Peng, G., & Gang, F. (2013). Research of information disclosure of biological assets of agricultural listed companies in China. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4 (11), 12-24.
