Private firm accounting: the European reporting environment, data and research perspectives

Figures & data

Table 1. Private firms in the European Union by size.

Number of Firms (2018) by Size						Proportion with Sales Information
Country	Big	Medium	Small	Total	% Small	Big	Medium	Small	Total
Austria	479	2342	30,005	32,826	91.41%	52.82%	24.64%	12.70%	14.14%
Belgium	701	2321	31,683	34,705	91.29%	84.31%	40.50%	10.19%	13.72%
Bulgaria	106	754	57,101	57,961	98.52%	98.11%	99.47%	97.68%	97.70%
Croatia	48	180	9535	9763	97.66%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Cyprus	18	50	127	195	65.13%	94.44%	96.00%	88.98%	91.28%
Czech Republic	158	1106	41,576	42,840	97.05%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Denmark	365	1420	33,061	34,846	94.88%	57.81%	12.25%	13.53%	13.94%
Estonia	54	317	20,569	20,940	98.23%	96.30%	97.48%	95.39%	95.43%
Finland	327	1117	34,823	36,267	96.02%	98.78%	97.31%	87.41%	87.82%
France	1529	5914	81,408	88,851	91.62%	98.69%	85.64%	74.97%	76.09%
Germany	3081	13,329	88,222	104,632	84.32%	61.41%	22.61%	28.91%	29.06%
Greece	357	1258	2463	4078	60.40%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Hungary	100	342	35,491	35,933	98.77%	97.00%	96.49%	73.40%	73.68%
Iceland	54	230	8123	8407	96.62%	98.15%	96.96%	95.56%	95.61%
Ireland	287	1206	36,307	37,800	96.05%	82.23%	38.14%	4.19%	5.87%
Italy	4428	23,301	304,342	332,071	91.65%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Latvia	33	232	17,564	17,829	98.51%	93.94%	95.69%	77.94%	78.20%
Lithuania	48	256	2023	2327	86.94%	100.00%	99.22%	98.27%	98.41%
Luxembourg	125	359	5397	5881	91.77%	52.00%	30.36%	20.72%	21.97%
Malta	19	77	496	592	83.78%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Netherlands	388	772	25,760	26,920	95.69%	53.09%	6.61%	0.16%	1.11%
Norway	1062	2655	65,095	68,812	94.60%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Poland	575	2551	64,562	67,688	95.38%	96.70%	96.32%	75.89%	76.83%
Portugal	380	2673	132,717	135,770	97.75%	98.42%	97.72%	88.70%	88.90%
Romania	216	1444	148,609	150,269	98.90%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Slovakia	108	563	37,539	38,210	98.24%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
Slovenia	68	450	12,934	13,452	96.15%	98.53%	98.00%	86.58%	87.02%
Spain	2330	10,096	80,279	92,705	86.60%	95.88%	96.04%	90.50%	91.24%
Sweden	256	635	19,541	20,432	95.64%	95.70%	94.33%	83.71%	84.19%
Switzerland	84	33	8	125	6.40%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%	100.00%
United Kingdom	3373	13,352	781,803	798,528	97.91%	83.40%	39.95%	3.63%	4.58%
Total	21,157	91,335	2,209,163	2,321,655	95.15%	87.24%	71.57%	52.56%	53.63%

Notes: The table shows the number of private firms of the European Economic Area as reported in Bureau van Dijk’s database Amadeus accessed through the Wharton Research Data Service (WRDS) for the year 2018. The data represents the universe of independent private firms (independence indicator A+, A, A–, B+, B, B–, or ‘–’, i.e. no subsidiaries of business groups). We keep only firm-years with 12 months and with reporting practice being equal to ‘consolidated data’ or ‘unconsolidated data’. If both consolidated and unconsolidated data is available, consolidated data is used. We only consider firms with non-missing and non-negative total assets, and only include non-financial firms (Item ussic_core_code > 900 and ussic_core_code > 599 & ussic_core_code < 680 deleted). Liechtenstein is not included in the Table as no firm fulfils the selection criteria. ‘Small’ firms do not exceed the limit of EUR 8 million total assets and ‘Medium’ firms do not exceed the limit of EUR 20 million total assets. If a firm exceeds these limits, it is classified as a ‘Large’ firm.

Figure 1. Comparison in data coverage – Orbis versus Amadeus. Note: This figure shows the number of firms of the European Economic Area as reported in the Amadeus database (dashed line) and the Orbis database (solid line) between 2001 and 2017 (Download: 3 September 2020). The data represents the universe of unconsolidated financial statements accessed through the Wharton Research Data Service (WRDS). In the Orbis database, we require the consolidation code (conscode) to be ‘U1’ or ‘U2’ and in the Amadeus database, we require the reporting basis (repbas) to be ‘Unconsolidated Data’. We only consider firms with non-missing and non-negative total assets.

Table 2. Yearly average of new firms – Amadeus and World Bank.

	Amadeus: Main Data Source	New Firms	World Bank: Data Source	New Firms	Percent
Country (1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Austria	Creditreform Austria	10,041	Wirtschaftskammer (WKO)	3635	276.20%
Belgium	National Bank of Belgium	20,649	Direction Générale Statistique – Statistics Belgium*	23,077	89.48%
Bulgaria	Creditreform Bulgaria	33,640	Registry Agency of Bulgaria	46,261	72.72%
Croatia	Creditreform Croatia	8171	Croatia Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Justice	13,095	62.40%
Cyprus	Infocredit Group	2497	Department of Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver	13,305	18.76%
Czech Republic	Bisnode	20,618	Czech Statistical Office	26,235	78.59%
Denmark	Experian	18,165	Danish Business Authority	28,199	64.42%
Estonia	Creditinfo Eesti	12,790	Ministry of Justice	15,946	80.21%
Finland	Suomen Asiakastieto	11,844	Finnish Patent and Registration Office	13,096	90.43%
France	Ellisphere	91,026	National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies	177,704	51.22%
Germany	Creditreform Germany	63,234	Federal Statistical Office	70,009	90.32%
Greece	ICAP	493	General Secretariat of Government	5915	8.33%
Hungary	Ceginformacio.hu Kft.	20,998	Hungarian Central Statistical Office	25,058	83.80%
Iceland	Creditinfo Lanstraust hf.	1962	Internal Revenue, Main Office Reykjavík	2252	87.13%
Ireland	Vistra	13,775	Register of Enterprises of the Internal Service	18,761	73.42%
Italy	Cerved	68,159	Unioncamere	96,848	70.38%
Latvia	Creditreform Latvia	8941	The Register of Enterprises of the Republic of Latvia	12,453	71.80%
Liechtenstein	Worldbox	268	Office of Economic Affairs	62	430.05%
Lithuania	Creditreform Lietuva	5943	State Enterprise Centre of Registers	7,529	78.93%
Luxembourg	Creditreform Luxembourg	6574	Luxembourg Business Registers	6376	103.09%
Malta	Creditinfo Malta	2158	Malta Business Registry	4242	50.88%
Netherlands	Lexis Nexis	42,937	Chamber of Commerce	64,869	66.19%
Norway	Experian	22,365	The Bronnoysund Register Center	27,467	81.43%
Poland	InfoCredit	33,091	Ministry of Economic Development	34,904	94.81%
Portugal	Informa	26,059	Instituto dos Registos e do Notariado	34,314	75.94%
Romania	Chamber of Commerce & Industry of Romania	56,145	Ministry of Justice	72,739	77.19%
Slovakia	Bisnode	15,540	Ministry of Economy	17,397	89.33%
Slovenia	Coface	4038	Public Legal Records and Related Services**	5304	76.13%
Spain	Informa	42,672	Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE)	93,702	45.54%
Sweden	UC AB	38,112	Swedish Companies Registration Office (SCRO)	44,274	86.08%
Switzerland	CRIF Teledata AG	22,480	Swiss Federal Commercial Registry	24,729	90.91%
United Kingdom	Vistra	308,158	Companies House	596,207	51.69%

Notes: The table provides summary information on the coverage of private firms in Bureau van Dijk’s database Amadeus. In column (3), New Firms is the average number of newly registered firms as reported in Amadeus accessed through the Wharton Research Data Service (WRDS) interface between 2012 and 2018 (2019 World Bank Data is not available). We use the year of incorporation (dateinc_year) to identify when a firm registered, do not include consolidated statements, and only include limited liability firms (if ‘type’ includes the strings ‘Limited’ or ‘limited’ but not ‘Unlimited’ or ‘unlimited’). In column (5), New Firms is the average number of newly businesses registered (limited liability corporations) as registered by the World Bank's Entrepreneurship Survey and database (Indicator Code IC.BUS.NREG) between 2011 and 2018. In column (6), Percent indicates the coverage of New Firms in Amadeus relative to the World Bank.

*Full Source Name: Direction Générale Statistique – Statistics Belgium, Service Public Fédéral Economie Direction Generale Statistique et Information Economique.

**Full Source Name: Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Public Legal Records and Related Services (AJPES).

Table 3. Private firms in the European Union as reported in Amadeus.

Country	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Austria	22,590	24,558	26,913	29,285	31,697	34,442	32,826	26,354
Belgium	22,126	23,563	25,063	26,864	29,408	33,418	34,705	30,228
Bulgaria	34,761	37,951	41,322	45,478	50,492	56,211	57,961	58,047
Croatia	5026	5669	6479	7580	8884	10,485	9763	4729
Cyprus	85	123	120	133	257	299	195	30
Czech Republic	25,407	28,540	31,125	33,862	38,939	43,673	42,840	33,981
Denmark				15,125	28,714	34,147	34,846	29,744
Estonia	12,989	14,088	15,575	16,928	18,517	20,233	20,940	20,930
Finland	22,807	24,831	27,871	30,333	32,214	34,986	36,267	34,650
France	86,187	89,648	87,742	90,151	94,671	111,504	88,851	60,287
Germany	80,921	77,932	77,853	82,383	88,976	105,677	104,632	75,580
Greece	4115	4039	4061	3960	3932	4109	4078	3392
Hungary	37,396	41,400	43,822	46,493	49,668	53,260	35,933	19,183
Iceland	5585	5957	6384	6859	7487	8122	8407	8325
Ireland	29,308	31,784	34,426	37,590	39,887	40,885	37,800	32,344
Italy	214,879	230,859	250,308	272,022	296,517	325,279	332,071	298,201
Latvia	11,065	12,514	14,242	16,078	17,906	19,627	17,829	14,010
Lithuania	1317	1556	1643	1666	1972	2173	2327	1991
Luxembourg	1825	1943	2260	4151	5319	5837	5881	5245
Malta	697	770	840	879	925	972	592	151
Netherlands	18,347	19,901	21,936	24,107	26,712	29,005	26,920	15,002
Norway	35,966	40,685	46,023	51,876	58,792	66,171	68,812	61,110
Poland	24,575	26,921	29,893	32,363	29,444	68,078	67,688	60,012
Portugal	95,817	101,897	107,727	114,345	121,199	130,169	135,770	133,474
Romania	94,373	107,993	116,317	123,628	132,923	145,999	150,269	152,435
Slovakia	23,031	25,622	29,386	30,677	32,934	36,106	38,210	38,008
Slovenia	10,067	10,693	11,485	12,221	12,530	13,705	13,452	12,065
Spain	80,319	82,973	86,206	89,665	93,831	99,447	92,705	72,164
Sweden	13,108	14,485	15,967	17,466	19,362	21,550	20,432	13,316
Switzerland	118	118	120	121	123	126	125	117
United Kingdom	413,792	464,024	523,062	597,973	683,764	776,127	798,528	734,946
Total	1,428,599	1,553,037	1,686,171	1,862,262	2,057,996	2,331,822	2,321,655	2,050,051

Notes: The table shows the number of private firms of the European Economic Area as reported in Bureau van Dijk’s database Amadeus accessed through the Wharton Research Data Service (WRDS) for the years 2012–2019 (date of download: 30 April 2021). The data represents the universe of independent firms (independence indicator A+, A, A–, B+, B, B–, or ‘–’, i.e. no subsidiaries of business groups). We keep only firm-years with 12 months and with reporting practice being equal to ‘consolidated data’ or ‘unconsolidated data’. If both consolidated and unconsolidated data is available, consolidated data is used. We only consider firms with non-missing and non-negative total assets, and only include non-financial firms (Item ussic_core_code > 900 and ussic_core_code > 599 & ussic_core_code < 680 deleted). Liechtenstein is not included in the Table as no firm fulfils the selection criteria.

Table 4. Frequently used databases.

FAME (14)	Chaney et al. (2004), TAR; Collis et al. (2004), ABR; Ball and Shivakumar (2005), JAE; Clatworthy and Peel (2007), JBFA; Ball and Shivakumar (2008), JAE; Dedman and Lennox (2009), JAE; Lennox and Pittman (2011), TAR; Collis (2012), ABR; Dedman and Kausar (2012), ABR; Lennox and Li (2012), JAE; Clatworthy and Peel (2013), JAPP; Dedman et al. (2014), EAR; Kausar et al. (2016), JAE; Peel (2018), ABR
Amadeus (11)	Burgstahler et al. (2006), TAR; Tendeloo and Vanstraelen (2008), EAR; Peek et al. (2010), CAR; Beuselinck et al. (2015), RAST; Gassen and Fülbier (2015), JIAR; Bernard (2016), JAE; Kaya and Pronobis (2016), JAPP; Mafrolla and D’Amico (2017), JAPP; Bernard et al. (2018), JAE; Breuer et al. (2018), RFS; Bonacchi et al. (2019), RAST
Bel-First (7)	Van der Bauwhede and Willekens (2004), EAR; Beuselinck et al. (2008), EAR; Gaeremynck et al. (2008), EAR; Beuselinck et al. (2009), JBFA; Andries et al. (2017), EAR; Dekeyser et al. (2018), CAR; De Meyere et al. (2018), ABR; Raak et al. (2020), JBFA
SDC (6)	Teoh et al. (1998), JF; Fan (2007), TAR; Fortin and Pittman (2007), CAR; Allee and Wangerin (2018), RAST; Sletten et al. (2018), RAST; Chen (2019), JAR
Sageworks (4)	Minnis (2011), JAR; Hope et al. (2013), TAR; Hope et al. (2017), JAPP; Minnis and Sutherland (2017), JAR
Orbis (3)	Cascino and Gassen (2015), RAST; Downes et al. (2018), JAPP; Haga et al. (2018), JAPP
Hoppenstedt (3)	Szczesny and Valentincic (2013), JBFA; Bassemir (2018), ABR; Bassemir and Novotny-Farkas (2018), JBFA
National Bank of Belgium (3)	Aerts (2005), AOS; Gaeremynck and Willekens (2003), ABR; Carcello et al. (2009), TAR
2003 SSBF (3)*	Allee and Yohn (2009), TAR; Corten et al. (2015), ABR; Cassar et al. (2015), JAE

This table shows the databases used most frequently in the papers covered in the literature review. The table only includes databases that were used at least three times.

*Survey of Small Business Finance.

Figure 2. Publications over time. Note: This figure shows the cumulative number of publications covered in the literature review over time by our core list of 10 accounting journals. Studies from other journals that were identified via snowballing are not included.

Table

Panel A: Assets in mil EUR
Federal Gazette		Orbis & Amadeus	Orbis	Amadeus	Dafne*
Intangible assets	64,613	Intangible fixed assets	64,613	64,613	Intangible assets	64,613
Property, plant and equipment	57,630	Tangible fixed assets	57,630	101,175	Self-generated property rights	22,410
Lease assets	43,545	Other fixed assets	152,377	10,404	Goodwill	40,200
Investment property	496				Other intangible assets	2003
Equity-accounted investments	8434				Property, plant, and equipment	101,175
Other equity investments	1474				Property	19,924
Financial services receivables	78,692				Machines	12,613
Other financial assets	6521				Equipment	16,505
Other receivables	2608				Advanced payments	8274
Tax receivables	476				Other PPE	43,859
Deferred tax assets	10,131				Financial assets	10,404
					Shares	9908
					Real estate properties (IAS 40)	496
Noncurrent assets	274,620	Fixed Assets	274,620	176,192	Fixed Assets	176,192
Inventories	45,745	Stock	45,745	45,745	Inventory	45,745
Trade receivables	17,888	Debtors	17,888	17,888	Raw materials	5543
Financial services receivables	54,216	Other current assets	119,903	218,331	Unfinished goods	4382
Other financial assets	11,586	Cash & cash equivalent	46,018	28,938	Finished goods	30,553
Other receivables	6,203				Other inventory	5099
Tax receivables	1,879				Advanced payments	168
Marketable securities	17,080				Receivables	180,070
Cash, cash equivalents and time deposits	28,938				Trade receivables	17,888
Assets held for sale	0				Other receivables	162,182
					Marketable securities	17,080
					Cash and cash equivalents	28,938
Current assets	183,536	Current assets	183,536	281,964	Current assets	271,833
					Deferred assets	10,131
Total assets	458,156	Total assets	458,156	458,156	Total assets	458,156

*Translated from German.

Table

Panel B: Equity and Liabilities in mil EUR
Federal Gazette		Orbis & Amadeus	Orbis	Amadeus	Dafne*
Subscribed capital	1283	Capital	1283	1283	Share capital	1283
Capital reserve	14,551	Other shareholders funds	116,059	116,059	Participation rights	12,596
Retained earnings^1	91,105				Capital reserve	14,551
Other reserves^1	−2417				Net income	91,105
Equity attributable to Volkswagen AG hybrid capital investors	12,596				Minority shares	224
Equity attributable to Volkswagen AG shareholders and hybrid capital investors	117,117				Other income	−2417
Noncontrolling interests	225
Equity	117,342	Shareholders funds	117,342	117,342	Equity	117,342
Financial liabilities	101,126	Long term debt	101,126	142,682	Provisions for pensions	33,097
Other financial liabilities	3219	Other non-current liabilities	71,720	87,339	Provisions for taxes	4459
Other liabilities	6448	Provisions	53,976	82,309	Other provisions	44,753
Deferred tax liabilities	5030				Provisions	82,309
Provisions for pensions	33,097				Bonds	81,548
Provisions for taxes	3047				Loans	33,902
Other provisions	20,879				Prepayments	11,235
Noncurrent liabilities	172,846	Non-current liabilities	172,846	230,021	Trade payables	23,607
Put options and compensation rights granted to noncontrolling interest shareholders	1853	Loans	48,193	37,587	Liabilities to shareholders	1853
Financial liabilities	89,757	Creditors	23,607	23,607	Other liabilities	101,330
Trade payables	23,607	Other current liabilities	96,168	49,599	Liabilities	253,475
Tax payables	456				Deferred taxes	5030
Other financial liabilities	9416
Other liabilities	17,593
Provisions for taxes	1412
Other provisions	23,874
Current liabilities	167,968	Current liabilities	167,968	110,793
Total equity and liabilities	458,156	Total shareholders' funds & liabilities	458,156	458,156	Total equity and liabilities	458,156

*Translated from German.

Table

Panel C: Income Statement
Federal Gazette		Orbis & Amadeus	Orbis	Amadeus	Dafne*
		Operating revenue (Turnover)	243,725	247,480
Sales revenue	235,849	Sales	235,849	235,849	Sales	235,849
Cost of sales	−189,500	Costs of goods sold	167,806	189,500	Costs of goods sold	189,500
Gross result	46,350	Gross profit	75,919	57,980	Gross profit	46,349
Distribution expenses	−20,510	Other operating expenses	61,937	44,060	Distribution expenses	20,510
Administrative expenses	−8819				Administrative expenses	8819
Other operating income	11,631				Other operating income	11,631
Other operating expenses	−14,731				Other operating expenses	14,731
Operating result	13,920	Operating P/L [ = EBIT]	13,982	13,920	Operating result	13,920
Share of the result of equity-accounted investments	3369	Financial revenue	950	2701	Interest income	2277
Interest income	967	Financial expenses	−711	1574	Interest expenses	−1150
Interest expenses	−1547
Other financial result	−1066
Financial result	1723	Financial P/L	1661	1127	Financial result	1127
Earnings before tax	15,643	P/L before tax	15,643	15,047	P/L before tax	15,047
Income tax income/expense	−3489	Taxation	3490	3489	Income tax income/expense	3489
Current	−3533				Deferred	−44
Deferred	43				Current	3533
Earnings after tax	12,153	P/L after tax	12,153	11,558
		Extr. and other P/L	−1328		Profit transfers (Subsidiaries)	326
		P/L for period [ = Net income]	10,825	11,558	Net income	11,884
Other comprehensive income, net of tax	−2701
Total comprehensive income	9452

*Translated from German.

Chaney, P.K., Jeter, D.C., and Shivakumar, L., 2004. Self-selection of auditors and audit pricing in private firms. The Accounting Review, 79 (1), 51–72. doi:10.2308/accr.2004.79.1.51.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Collis, J., Jarvis, R., and Skerratt, L., 2004. The demand for the audit in Small companies in the UK. Accounting and Business Research, 34 (2), 87–100. doi:10.1080/00014788.2004.9729955.

 Google Scholar

Ball, R., and Shivakumar, L., 2005. Earnings quality in UK private firms: comparative loss recognition timeliness. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39 (1), 83–128. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.04.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clatworthy, M.A., and Peel, M.J., 2007. The effect of corporate status on external audit fees: evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 34 (1–2), 169–201. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5957.2006.00658.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ball, R., and Shivakumar, L., 2008. Earnings quality at initial public offerings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45 (2–3), 324–349. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.12.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dedman, E., and Lennox, C., 2009. Perceived competition, profitability and the withholding of information about sales and the cost of sales. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48 (2–3), 210–230. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.07.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lennox, C.S., and Pittman, J.A., 2011. Voluntary audits versus mandatory audits. The Accounting Review, 86 (5), 1655–1678. doi:10.2308/accr-10098.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Collis, J., 2012. Determinants of voluntary audit and voluntary full accounts in micro- and non- micro small companies in the UK. Accounting and Business Research, 42 (4), 441–468. doi:10.1080/00014788.2012.667969.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dedman, E., and Kausar, A., 2012. The impact of voluntary audit on credit ratings: evidence from UK private firms. Accounting and Business Research, 42 (4), 397–418. doi:10.1080/00014788.2012.653761.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lennox, C., and Li, B., 2012. The consequences of protecting audit partners’ personal assets from the threat of liability. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54 (2–3), 154–173. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.06.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clatworthy, M.A., and Peel, M.J., 2013. The impact of voluntary audit and governance characteristics on accounting errors in private companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32 (3), 1–25. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.02.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dedman, E., Kausar, A., and Lennox, C., 2014. The demand for audit in private firms: recent large-sample evidence from the UK. European Accounting Review, 23 (1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/09638180.2013.776298.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kausar, A., Shroff, N., and White, H., 2016. Real effects of the audit choice. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 62 (1), 157–181. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.10.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peel, M.J., 2018. The impact of filing micro-entity accounts and the disclosure of reporting accountants on credit scores: an exploratory study. Accounting and Business Research, 1–34. doi:10.1080/00014788.2018.1493374.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burgstahler, D.C., Hail, L., and Leuz, C., 2006. The importance of reporting incentives: earnings management in European private and public firms. The Accounting Review, 81 (5), 983–1016. doi:10.2308/accr.2006.81.5.983.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Tendeloo, B., and Vanstraelen, A., 2008. Earnings management and audit quality in Europe: evidence from the private client segment market. European Accounting Review, 17 (3), 447–469. doi:10.1080/09638180802016684.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peek, E., Cuijpers, R., and Buijink, W., 2010. Creditors’ and shareholders’ reporting demands in public versus private firms: evidence from Europe*: Creditors’ and shareholders’ reporting demands. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27 (1), 49–91. doi:10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01001.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beuselinck, C., Deloof, M., and Vanstraelen, A., 2015. Cross-jurisdictional income shifting and tax enforcement: evidence from public versus private multinationals. Review of Accounting Studies, 20 (2), 710–746. doi:10.1007/s11142-014-9310-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gassen, J., and Fülbier, R.U., 2015. Do creditors prefer smooth earnings? Evidence from European private firms. Journal of International Accounting Research, 14 (2), 151–180. doi:10.2308/jiar-51130.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bernard, D., 2016. Is the risk of product market predation a cost of disclosure? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 62 (2–3), 305–325. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2016.07.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaya, D., and Pronobis, P., 2016. The benefits of structured data across the information supply chain: Initial evidence on XBRL adoption and loan contracting of private firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 35 (4), 417–436. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.04.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mafrolla, E., and D’Amico, E., 2017. Borrowing capacity and earnings management: an analysis of private loans in private firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36 (4), 284–301. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2017.05.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bernard, D., Burgstahler, D., and Kaya, D., 2018. Size management by European private firms to minimize proprietary costs of disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 66 (1), 94–122. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.03.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Breuer, M., Hombach, K., and Müller, M.A., 2018. How does financial reporting regulation affect firms’ banking? The Review of Financial Studies, 31 (4), 1265–1297. doi:10.1093/rfs/hhx123.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bonacchi, M., Marra, A., and Zarowin, P., 2019. Organizational structure and earnings quality of private and public firms. Review of Accounting Studies, 24 (3), 1066–1113. doi:10.1007/s11142-019-09495-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van der Bauwhede, H., and Willekens, M., 2004. Evidence on (the lack of) audit-quality differentiation in the private client segment of the Belgian audit market. European Accounting Review, 13 (3), 501–522. doi:10.1080/0963818042000237106.

 Google Scholar

Beuselinck, C., Deloof, M., and Manigart, S., 2008. Private equity investments and disclosure policy. European Accounting Review, 17 (4), 607–639. doi:10.1080/09638180802327057.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gaeremynck, A., Van Der Meulen, S., and Willekens, M., 2008. Audit-firm portfolio characteristics and client financial reporting quality. European Accounting Review, 17 (2), 243–270. doi:10.1080/09638180701705932.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Beuselinck, C., Deloof, M., and Manigart, S., 2009. Private equity involvement and earnings quality. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36 (5–6), 587–615. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5957.2009.02147.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Andries, K., Cools, M., and Van Uytbergen, S., 2017. To shift or not to shift? Intertemporal income shifting as a response to the risk capital allowance introduction in Belgium. European Accounting Review, 26 (3), 531–559. doi:10.1080/09638180.2016.1202854.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dekeyser, S., Gaeremynck, A., and Willekens, M., 2018. Evidence of industry scale effects on audit hours, billing rates, and pricing: evidence of industry scale effects on audit hours, billing rates, and pricing. Contemporary Accounting Research. doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12460.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Meyere, M., Van der Bauwhede, H., and Van Cauwenberge, P., 2018. The impact of financial reporting quality on debt maturity: the case of private firms. Accounting and Business Research, 48 (7), 759–781. doi:10.1080/00014788.2018.1431103.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raak, J. van, Peek, E., Meuwissen, R., and Schelleman, C., 2020. The effect of audit market structure on audit quality and audit pricing in the private-client market. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 47 (3–4), 456–488. doi:10.1111/jbfa.12414.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Teoh, S.H., Welch, I., and Wong, T.J., 1998. Earnings management and the long-run market performance of initial public offerings. The Journal of Finance, 53 (6), 1935–1974. doi:10.1111/0022-1082.00079.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fan, Q., 2007. Earnings management and ownership retention for initial public offering firms: theory and evidence. The Accounting Review, 82 (1), 27–64. doi:10.2308/accr.2007.82.1.27.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fortin, S., and Pittman, J.A., 2007. The role of auditor choice in debt pricing in private firms. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24 (3), 859–896. doi:10.1506/car.24.3.8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Allee, K.D., and Wangerin, D.D., 2018. Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R). Review of Accounting Studies, 23 (4), 1629–1664. doi:10.1007/s11142-018-9472-0.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sletten, E., Ertimur, Y., Sunder, J., and Weber, J., 2018. When and why do IPO firms manage earnings? Review of Accounting Studies, 23 (3), 872–906. doi:10.1007/s11142-018-9445-3.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, C.-W., 2019. The disciplinary role of financial statements: evidence from mergers and acquisitions of privately held targets. Journal of Accounting Research. doi:10.1111/1475-679X.12256.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Minnis, M., 2011. The value of financial statement verification in debt financing: evidence from private U.S. firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 49 (2), 457–506. doi:10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00411.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hope, O.-K., Thomas, W.B., and Vyas, D., 2013. Financial reporting quality of U.S. private and public firms. The Accounting Review, 88 (5), 1715–1742. doi:10.2308/accr-50494.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hope, O.-K., Thomas, W.B., and Vyas, D., 2017. Stakeholder demand for accounting quality and economic usefulness of accounting in U.S. private firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 36 (1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2016.11.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Minnis, M., and Sutherland, A., 2017. Financial statements as monitoring mechanisms: evidence from small commercial loans. Journal of Accounting Research, 55 (1), 197–233. doi:10.1111/1475-679X.12127.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cascino, S., and Gassen, J., 2015. What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption? Review of Accounting Studies, 20 (1), 242–282. doi:10.1007/s11142-014-9296-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Downes, J.F., Flagmeier, V., and Godsell, D., 2018. Product market effects of IFRS adoption. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 37 (5), 376–401. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.09.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Haga, J., Höglund, H., and Sundvik, D., 2018. Stock market listing status and real earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 37 (5), 420–435. doi:10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.09.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Szczesny, A., and Valentincic, A., 2013. Asset write-offs in private firms – the case of German SMEs. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 40 (3–4), 285–317. doi:10.1111/jbfa.12017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bassemir, M., 2018. Why do private firms adopt IFRS? Accounting and Business Research, 48 (3), 237–263. doi:10.1080/00014788.2017.1357459.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bassemir, M., and Novotny-Farkas, Z., 2018. IFRS adoption, reporting incentives and financial reporting quality in private firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 45 (7–8), 759–796. doi:10.1111/jbfa.12315.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aerts, W., 2005. Picking up the pieces: impression management in the retrospective attributional framing of accounting outcomes. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30 (6), 493–517. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.07.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gaeremynck, A., and Willekens, M., 2003. The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment. Accounting and Business Research, 33 (1), 65–79. doi:10.1080/00014788.2003.9729632.

 Google Scholar

Carcello, J.V., Vanstraelen, A., and Willenborg, M., 2009. Rules rather than discretion in audit standards: going-concern opinions in Belgium. The Accounting Review, 84 (5), 1395–1428. doi:10.2308/accr.2009.84.5.1395.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Allee, K.D., and Yohn, T.L., 2009. The demand for financial statements in an unregulated environment: an examination of the production and use of financial statements by privately held small businesses. The Accounting Review, 84 (1), 1–25.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Corten, M., Steijvers, T., and Lybaert, N., 2015. The demand for auditor services in wholly family-owned private firms: the moderating role of generation. Accounting and Business Research, 45 (1), 1–26. doi:10.1080/00014788.2014.959462.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cassar, G., Ittner, C.D., and Cavalluzzo, K.S., 2015. Alternative information sources and information asymmetry reduction: evidence from small business debt. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 59 (2–3), 242–263. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.08.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability

Online application featuring the repository of studies used: https://trr266.de/pfirmacclit.