This paper assesses factors associated with firms' adoption of a new Canadian accounting standard promulgated in 1990, which requires disclosure of future removal and site restoration costs. Empirical analysis shows that adoption of the new standard by mining and oil and gas companies was influenced by a variety of factors and that disclosure of provisions for future removal and site restoration costs is valuation-relevant. More specifically, firms with a strong environmental commitment and in better financial health and those with less inherent uncertainty regarding future removal and site restoration costs were more likely to voluntarily adopt the new standard early. In addition, firms that adopted the new standard by the mandatory adoption date were more likely to have been audited by a Big 6 audit firm and to have raised capital during the year. Valuation analysis based on Ohlson (1995) suggests that disclosure of the provisions is valuation-relevant as it may enable capital markets to proxy for future removal and site restoration liabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1995. Exposure Draft: Proposed Statement of Position: Environmental Remediation Liabilities. New York: AICPA.
2.
AmirE.ZivA.. 1997a. “Economic Consequences of Alternative Adoption Rules for New Accounting Standards.”Contemporary Accounting Research14 (Fall): 543–568.
3.
AmirE.ZivA.. 1997b. “Recognition, Disclosure, or Delay: Timing the Adoption of SFAS No. 106.” Journal of Accounting Research35 (Spring): 61–81.
4.
BarthM.McNicholsM.. 1994. “Estimation and Market Valuation of Environmental Liabilities Relating to Superfund Sites.”Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement): 177–209.
5.
BarthM.McNicholsM.WilsonG.. 1997. “Factors Influencing Firms' Disclosures about Environmental Liabilities.”Review of Accounting Studies2: 35–64.
6.
BlacconiereW.NorthcutW. D.. 1997. “Environmental Information and Market Reactions to Environmental Legislation.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance12: 149–178.
7.
CampbellK.SefcikS.SoderstromN.. 1996. “Site Hazard, Settlement Activity, and Superfund Liability Valuation.”Working paper, University of Washington (May).
8.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). 1992. Decommissioning and Reclamation Guidelines for Small Crude Oil and Natural Gas Sites in Western Canada. Calgary, Alberta: CAPP.
9.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1988. Accounting and Financial Reporting by Junior Mining Companies. Toronto, Ontario: CICA.
10.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1989. Property, Plant and Equipment: Exposure Draft. Toronto, Ontario: CICA (May).
11.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1990a. Capital Assets: Re-Exposure Draft. Toronto, Ontario: CICA (January).
12.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1990b. Public Record: Capital Assets (Originally Property, Plant and Equipment), Vols. 1 and 2. Toronto, Ontario: CICA.
13.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1993. Environmental Costs and Liabilities: Accounting and Financial Reporting Issues. Toronto, Ontario. CICA.
14.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1994. Environmental Reporting in Canada: A Survey of 1993 Reports. Toronto, Ontario: CICA.
15.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 1998. CICA Handbook. Toronto, Ontario: CICA.
16.
DarroughM. H.StoughtonN. M.. 1990. “Financial Disclosure Policy in an Entry Game.”Journal of Accounting and Economics12: 219–243.
17.
FeasbyG.JonesR. K.. 1994. “Report of Results of a Workshop on Mine Reclamation: Toronto, Ontario, March 10–11, 1994.”Workshop hosted by the IGWG-Industry Task Force on Mine Reclamation. August.
18.
FekratM. A.InclanC.PetroniD.. 1996. “Corporate Environmental Disclosures: Competitive Disclosure Hypothesis Using 1991 Annual Reports Data.”International Journal of Accounting31 (2): 175–195.
19.
FelthamG. A.XieJ. Z.. 1992. “Voluntary Financial Disclosure in an Entry Game with Continua of Types.”Contemporary Accounting Research9 (Fall): 46–80.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). 1996. Accounting for Certain Liabilities Related to Closure or Removal of Long-Lived Assets—Exposure Draft. Norwalk, Conn.: FASB.
FreedmanM.WasleyC.. 1990. “The Association between Environmental Performance and Environmental Disclosure in Annual Reports and 10-Ks.” In Advances in Public Interest Accounting. Vol. 3, 181–193, NeimarkM.. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
25.
GibbinsM.RichardsonA.WaterhouseJ.. 1992. The Management of Financial Disclosure: Theory and Perspectives. Research Monograph No. 20. Vancouver, B.C.: Canadian Certified General Accountants' Research Foundation.
26.
HardeG.OwenD.. 1992. “Current Trends in the Reporting of Green Issues in the Annual Reports of United Kingdom Companies.” In Green Reporting, OwenD.. New York: Chapman & Hall, 166–200.
27.
HealyP.1985. “The Impact of Bonus Schemes on the Selection of Accounting Principles.”Journal of Accounting and Economics7: 85–107.
28.
KingR.PownallG.WaymireG.. 1990. “Expectations Adjustment via Timely Management Forecasts: Review, Synthesis, and Suggestions for Future Research.”Journal of Accounting Literature9: 113–144.
29.
LiY.RichardsonG.ThorntonD.. 1997. “Corporate Disclosure of Environmental Liability Information: Theory and Evidence.”Contemporary Accounting Research14 (Fall): 435–474.
30.
LittleP.MuoghaluM.RobisonH. D.. 1995. “Hazardous Waste Lawsuits, Financial Disclosure, and Investors' Interests.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance10: 383–398.
31.
MendenhallW.ReinmuthJ.. 1982. Statistics for Management and Econometrics, 4th ed.Boston: Duxbury Press.
32.
Mining Act of Ontario (Revised Statutes). 1996. Toronto, Ontario: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
33.
Mining Association of Canada. 1997. Mining in Canada: Facts and Figures. Ottawa, Ontario: Mining Association of Canada.
34.
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Province of British Columbia. 1994. “Reclamation Security in British Columbia: Interim Report of the Reclamation Security Policy Committee.” July.
35.
MooreD. J.1991. “At the Drawing Board.”CA Magazine (March): 54–56.
36.
OhlsonJ.1995. “Earnings, Book Values, and Dividends in Security Valuation.”Contemporary Accounting Research11 (Spring): 661–687.
37.
PressE.WeintropJ.. 1990. “Accounting-Based Constraints in Public and Private Debt Agreements.”Journal of Accounting and Economics12: 65–95.
38.
Price Waterhouse. 1995. Price Waterhouse Survey: Accounting Policies and Practices of Selected Mining Companies. Canada: Price Waterhouse.
39.
ShaneP.1995. “An Examination of Shareholder Wealth Effects of Environmental Regulation.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance10: 485–520.
40.
SimunicD.SteinM.. 1996. “The Impact of Litigation Risk on Audit Pricing: A Review of the Economics and the Evidence.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory15 (Supplement): 119–134.
41.
SkinnerD. J.1994. “Why Firms Voluntarily Disclose Bad News.”Journal of Accounting Research32(1): 38–60.
42.
ThorntonD.MooreG.. 1993. “Auditor Choice and Audit Fee Determinants.”Journal of Business. Finance & Accounting (April): 333–349.
43.
Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE). 1990. Toronto Stock Exchange Review. Toronto, Ontario: TSE (December).
