Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
  • Register
  • Login
  • Language
    • English
    • Deutsch
    • Język Polski
    • Español (España)
    • Italiano
    • Français (Canada)
    • Čeština
    • Français (France)
    • Hrvatski
    • Srpski
    • Українська
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Forthcoming
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Ethics
  • Announcements
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Submissions
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
  • Register
  • Login
  • Language:
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Język Polski
  • Español (España)
  • Italiano
  • Français (Canada)
  • Čeština
  • Français (France)
  • Hrvatski
  • Srpski
  • Українська

Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting

Bridging Disclosure Gaps: The Role of Institutional Investors in Contingent Liabilities Reporting by Indian Listed Companies
  • Home
  • /
  • Bridging Disclosure Gaps: The Role of Institutional Investors in Contingent Liabilities Reporting by Indian Listed Companies
  1. Home /
  2. Archives /
  3. Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025) /
  4. Articles

Bridging Disclosure Gaps: The Role of Institutional Investors in Contingent Liabilities Reporting by Indian Listed Companies

Authors

  • Srikanth Potharla ICFAI Business School, IFHE, Hyderabad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3176-9675

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2025.004

Keywords

contingent liabilities disclosure, institutional ownership, agency theory, emerging markets, corporate transparency

Abstract

This study addresses an underexplored aspect of disclosure literature by examining how institutional investor heterogeneity – specifically foreign institutional investors (FII) and domestic institutional investors (DII) – influences contingent liabilities disclosure (CLD) in India. Drawing on agency, stakeholder, and resource dependence theories, this research analyzes how institutional investors reduce information asymmetry and enhance corporate transparency. Using data from 430 listed Indian firms spanning 5,483 firm-year observations (2006–2023), regression analysis is employed to assess the differential impacts of FII and DII on CLD, while controlling for firm-specific and sectoral variables. The results demonstrate that institutional ownership significantly enhances CLD, with FII exerting a notably stronger influence compared to DII. Larger firms exhibit higher disclosure levels due to increased scrutiny, whereas growth-oriented firms tend to limit disclosure strategically to protect competitive advantages. Sectoral analysis reveals stricter compliance in Basic Materials and Consumer Non-Cyclicals industries, with comparatively lower disclosure in the Financial and Technology sectors. The study contributes theoretically by highlighting institutional investors' multifaceted roles as governance agents, stakeholder representatives, and crucial capital providers. These findings offer timely insights for regulators and corporate leaders seeking to improve transparency standards and attract global investment through enhanced disclosure policies.

References

Alshirah, M., & Alshira’h, A. (2024). The impact of corporate ownership structure on corporate risk disclosure: Evidence from an emerging economy. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 34(2), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2023-0007.

Baazaoui, H. (2020). For a new method of calculating the disclosure index. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 9(2), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2020.005.

Borochin, P., Wang, X., & Wei, S. (2024). Can long-term institutional owners improve market efficiency in parsing complex legal disputes? International Review of Economics & Finance, 96, 103690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.103690.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992.

Dyreng, S.D., Hanlon, M., & Maydew, E.L. (2019). When does tax avoidance result in tax uncertainty? The Accounting Review, 94(2), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52198.

Fama, E.F. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1086/260866.

Fidiana, F. (2024). Media pressure and carbon disclosure of Indonesian greenest firms. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 13(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2024.001.

Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited.” Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0066.

Gross, A.D. (2022). Does mandatory disclosure affect recognition of contingent liabilities? Evidence from FIN 48. Journal of Corporate Accounting Finance, 34(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22581.

Hillman, A.J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196729.

Hillman, A.J., Withers, M.C., & Collins, B.J. (2009). Resource Dependence Theory: A Review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469.

Hsu, C.-H., Lai, S.-C., & Li, H.-C. (2016). Institutional ownership and information transparency: Role of technology intensities and industries. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2015.06.001.

Jensen, M.C., & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agencycosts and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405x(76)90026-x.

Khlif, H., Ahmed, K., & Souissi, M. (2016). Ownership structure and voluntary disclosure: A synthesis of empirical studies. Australian Journal of Management, 42(3), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896216641475.

Lin, Y., Mao, Y., & Wang, Z. (2018). Institutional Ownership, Peer Pressure, and Voluntary Disclosures. The Accounting Review, 93(4), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51945.

Liu, G., & Sun, J. (2010). Ultimate ownership structure and corporate disclosure quality: evidence from China. Managerial Finance, 36(5), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074351011039409.

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105.

Nagata, K., & Nguyen, P. (2017). Ownership structure and disclosure quality: Evidence from management forecasts revisions in Japan. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36(6), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2017.09.003.

Okpala, O.P., & Iredele, O.O. (2018). Corporate social and environmental disclosures andmarket value of listed firms in Nigeria. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 7(3), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.12775/CJFA.2018.013.

Pfeffer, J. (1972). Merger as a Response to Organizational Interdependence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 382. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392151.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Shiri, M.M., Salehi, M., & Radbon, A. (2016). A Study of Impact of Ownership Structureand Disclosure Quality on Information Asymmetry in Iran. Vikalpa: The Journal forDecision Makers, 41(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090915620876.

Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1997). A Survey of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x.

Zhou, T., & Wang, X. (2013). Institutional ownership, risk disclosure, and potential benefits: From the perspective of internal control and firm risk. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 7(4), 535–560. https://doi.org/10.3868/s070-002-013-0023-8.

Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting

Downloads

  • PDF

Published

2025-06-30

How to Cite

1.
POTHARLA, Srikanth. Bridging Disclosure Gaps: The Role of Institutional Investors in Contingent Liabilities Reporting by Indian Listed Companies. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting. Online. 30 June 2025. Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 71-86. [Accessed 13 November 2025]. DOI 10.12775/CJFA.2025.004.
  • ISO 690
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
Download Citation
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Srikanth Potharla

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Stats

Number of views and downloads: 48
Number of citations: 0

Search

Search

Browse

  • Browse Author Index
  • Issue archive

User

User

Current Issue

  • Atom logo
  • RSS2 logo
  • RSS1 logo

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors
  • For Librarians

Newsletter

Subscribe Unsubscribe

Language

  • English
  • Deutsch
  • Język Polski
  • Español (España)
  • Italiano
  • Français (Canada)
  • Čeština
  • Français (France)
  • Hrvatski
  • Srpski
  • Українська

Tags

Search using one of provided tags:

contingent liabilities disclosure, institutional ownership, agency theory, emerging markets, corporate transparency

cross_check

The journal content is indexed in CrossCheck, the CrossRef initiative to prevent scholarly and professional plagiarism

Up

Akademicka Platforma Czasopism

Najlepsze czasopisma naukowe i akademickie w jednym miejscu

apcz.umk.pl

Partners

  • Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
  • Akademickie Towarzystwo Andragogiczne
  • Fundacja Copernicus na rzecz Rozwoju Badań Naukowych
  • Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk
  • Instytut Kultur Śródziemnomorskich i Orientalnych PAN
  • Instytut Tomistyczny
  • Karmelitański Instytut Duchowości w Krakowie
  • Ministerstwo Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych w Krośnie
  • Państwowa Akademia Nauk Stosowanych we Włocławku
  • Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa im. Stanisława Pigonia w Krośnie
  • Polska Fundacja Przemysłu Kosmicznego
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne
  • Polskie Towarzystwo Ludoznawcze
  • Towarzystwo Miłośników Torunia
  • Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu
  • Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Uniwersytet Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
  • Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika
  • Uniwersytet w Białymstoku
  • Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Wojewódzka Biblioteka Publiczna - Książnica Kopernikańska
  • Wyższe Seminarium Duchowne w Pelplinie / Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne „Bernardinum" w Pelplinie

© 2021- Nicolaus Copernicus University Accessibility statement Shop