Final Dissertation

Dissertation
Student Name Ja Htu Aung
Degree BA (Hons) Accounting
Dissertation Supervisor Wendy Mason Burdon
Dissertation Title An Analysis of Changes on Segmental
Reporting after IFRS 8 Has Become
Effective
Date April 2015
Keywords IFRS 8, IAS 14, FRS 108, FRS 14,
Segmental Reporting

i
Declarations
I declare the following:-
(1) that the material contained in this dissertation is the end result of
my own work and that due acknowledgement has been given in
the bibliography and references to ALL sources be they printed,
electronic or personal.
(2) the Word Count of this Dissertation is ...................................
(3) that unless this dissertation has been confirmed as confidential, I
agree to an entire electronic copy or sections of the dissertation to
being placed on Blackboard, if deemed appropriate, to allow future
students the opportunity to see examples of past dissertations. I
understand that if displayed on Blackboard it would be made
available for no longer than five years and that students would be
able to print off copies or download. The authorship would remain
anonymous.
(4) I agree to my dissertation being submitted to a plagiarism
detection service, where it will be stored in a database and
compared against work submitted from this or any other School or
from other institutions using the service. In the event of the
service detecting a high degree of similarity between content
within the service this will be reported back to my supervisor and
second marker, who may decide to undertake further investigation
which may ultimately lead to disciplinary actions, should instances
of plagiarism be detected.
(5) I have read the University Policy Statement on Ethics in Research
and Consultancy and the Policy for Informed Consent in Research
and Consultancy and I declare that ethical issues have been
considered and taken into account in this research.
(6) I have read the University Policy Statement on Data Protection in
Research and Consultancy and I declare that the data collected
for use in this dissertation has been properly safeguarded and will
be destroyed once the dissertation or subsequent research activity
has been concluded. I acknowledge that it is my responsibility to
destroy the information with due regard to confidentiality.
SIGNED: ..........................................................
DATE: ................................................................

ii
Abstract
Student Name JA HTU AUNG
Degree BA (HONS) ACCOUNTING
Dissertation Supervisor WENDY MASON BURDON
Dissertation Title AN ANALYSIS OF CHANGES ON
SEGMENTAL REPORTING AFTER IFRS 8
HAS BECOME EFFECTIVE
Date APRIL 2015
Keywords IFRS 8, IAS 14, FRS 108, FRS 14,
SEGMENTAL REPORTING
The study gave emphasis to the International Financial Reporting Standard
IFRS 8(Operating Segments) and the former standard IAS 14, which was
superseded by the IFRS 8. The purpose of the study is to analyse the changes
on disclosures in segmental reporting after the new standard IFRS 8 has
become effective. Some of the issues developed from applying IFRS 8 will also
be further analysed.
According to the personal interest, sample companies are collected from
Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX). IFRS is applied as a local version which is
known as Singapore Financial Reporting Standard (SFRS) by SGX listed
companies (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2014). Hence, the IFRS 8 published by
the IASB in converging with US GAAP is established as FRS 108 and the
preceding standard IAS 14 is recognised as FRS 14 locally.
Despite the local implementation, the material(s) of both the FRS 14 and its
superseded standard FRS 108 are identical to IAS 14 and IFRS 8 in overall
aspects (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012). For the above stated facts, the study
on pre and post implementation review of IFRS 8 has been approached by
examining on SGX 60 companies which are in full consistency with IFRS.
The key findings are that under IFRS 8, Singapore companies have less
disclosed their business segments and geographic segments due to one of the
mandatory stages of IFRS 8 called aggregation of segments which allows

iii
companies to combine the segments if they meet the specified requirements.
However, the decreasing changes are not sizeable amount while comparing to
the decline on the line items disclosed per segments under IFRS 8.
Considerably, number of companies reporting segment assets, liabilities and
capital expenditures has dropped dramatically in 2010 when IFRS has become
effective. Last but not least, the Chief Operating DecisionMaker (CODM) has
been voluntarily identified by many of the SGX companies.
Keywords: IFRS 8, IAS 14, FRS 108, FRS 14, Segmental Reporting

iv
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Wendy Mason Burdon for her
excellent guidance and kindness throughout the research procedure. Without
her support, guidance and useful feedbacks, this dissertation would never get to
be done.
Furthermore, I would also like to thank my friend, Emily Ramsden, who has
always helped me whenever I found difficulties and encouraged me. Last but
not least, I am thankful for the excellent service within the Library where I
always worked for my dissertation.

v
Contents
Dissertation .........................................................................................................................1
Declarations......................................................................................................................... i
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................iv
Contents..............................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1
1.1 IFRS 8 (Operating Segments)..................................................................................1
1.2 Research Objective................................................................................................2
1.3 Explanation on the Subject Choice..........................................................................2
1.4 Explanation on the approach to the chosen objective..............................................3
1.5 Limitations of the study .........................................................................................4
1.6 Structure of the paper...........................................................................................4
Chapter 2 Literature Review..................................................................................................6
2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................6
2.2 Agency Theory............................................................................................................6
2.3 Review on IFRS 8.........................................................................................................7
2.4 Review on IFRS 8 in Earlier 2013...................................................................................9
2.5 Review on Segmental Reporting.................................................................................10
2.6 Review on the Number of Segments and Line Items per Segment................................12
2.7 Review on Aggregation of segments...........................................................................13
2.8 Review on Identification of the CODM........................................................................14
Chapter 3 Methodology......................................................................................................15
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................15
3.2 Research objectives...................................................................................................15
3.3 Data Collection .........................................................................................................16
3.4 Limitations................................................................................................................16
Figure 1 Sample Companies.........................................................................................17
3.5 Data Extraction and Analysing the Results ..................................................................18
3.7 Ethical Concerns........................................................................................................19
Chapter 4 Analysis and Findings ..........................................................................................20
4.1 Analysis on the Number of Reportable Segments........................................................20
Figure 2 Number of segments comparison....................................................................22
4.2 Items Disclosed per Segment.....................................................................................23
4.2 Items Disclosed per Segment (continued)...................................................................24

vi
Figure 3 (continued)....................................................................................................25
Figure 3 (continued)....................................................................................................26
Figure 4 Items disclosed under Secondary Reporting Format.........................................27
4.3 Average Number of Line Items per Segment............................................................28
Figure 5 Average number of line items per segment......................................................29
4.4 Analysis on Chief Operating Decision Maker of SGX 60.............................................29
Figure 5 Chief Operating Decision Maker of SGX 60.......................................................30
Chapter 5 Conclusion..........................................................................................................31
5.1 Results Overview.......................................................................................................31
5.2 The Current Findingsin Consideration of Previous Literatures and Applied Theory........31
5.3 The Current Findingsin Consideration of Previous Literatures and Applied Theory........33
5.3 Limitations and Future Research................................................................................33
References.........................................................................................................................35
Reflective statement..........................................................................................................42
Acronyms...........................................................................................................................44
Appendices........................................................................................................................45
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................45
Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................46

1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 IFRS 8 (Operating Segments)
Segmental reporting is mandatory for company whose securities are traded
publicly or those which are in the procedure to be publicised (IASPlus, 2007).
The segmental reporting disclosed within the annual report of an enterprise
must provide users of financial statements with the nature of the economic
background in which that company operates and the fiscal effects of business
transactions where it has engaged/involved (UNIT, 2009).
IFRS 8, operating segments was issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB) in conjunction with the US Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB) in 2006, November (Veron, 2007). The standard has
substituted its former standard IAS 14 for the purpose of better harmonisation
between IFRSs and US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008).This new standard IFRS 8 is defined as one
of entity’s constituents, which comprises trade activities such as incurring
revenues and expenses. The transactions of Income and expenditure incurred
within one entity but different components are also recognised as operating
segments (Ernst and Young, 2013).
Under the new standard, companies must report its business or geographic
unique segments which are qualified to disclose in annual reports by giving
descriptive details such as financial information of those segments or
aggregated segments operated within their firms (Iasplus, n.d.).
Business segments are related to products and services of companies while the
geographic segments are the segments of different regions in which they
operate and their major customers are located (Iasplus, n.d.).
The results of those operating segments of an entity are evaluated
systematically by its Chief Operating Decision Maker (CODM) for the purpose of
deciding the allocation of the resources toward the segments and evaluating the
functioning of those segments. Separate financial reporting is also presented
within entity’s operating segments (Deloitte , n.d.).

2
The constraints and specifications of segmental reporting according to the US
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS 131) is largely equivalent
to the IFRS 8 with only slight dissimilarities (IFRS , 2006).
A number of criticisms have been derived over the new standard. According to
the review studied by the staffs of IASB in 2013, the major issues upon IFRS 8
are that relying on the management perception before identifying the operating
segments, the usage of measurement which are not within the IFRS 8 standard
and last but not least the absence of providing information about the CODM
who make decision about the line items to disclosed within the segmental
reporting.
1.2 ResearchObjective
The main purpose of the study is to examine on how the replacement of IFRS 8
over IAS 14 has impacted on the disclosures of companies registered on
Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX). This present research targets in achieving a
better understanding on the nature of segmental reporting and how the new
standard have affected on the disclosures which provide useful information to
users.
1.3 Explanation on the SubjectChoice
A few considerations have been taken into account before collecting data from
the SGX listed companies. The previous research papers on IFRS 8 in
particular have tested mostly on European companies including UK FTSE
companies which adopted IFRS. Hence, the limitation issue has arisen while
selecting companies to examine at first as the rest of the companies world-wide
have adopted different standards such as US GAAP etc. in preparing their
annual reports.
Therefore, the current research will be assessing on Singapore firms, one of the
Asian companies which applied IFRS locally for some favourable reasons.
Firstly, in addition to the personal interest, the Singapore annual reports have
found to be very efficient in approaching the purpose of this study because the
publicly established reports are written in full English for the understanding of
users worldwide. Secondly, the Singapore reports are also rewarded annually
for their excellent accounting statements in order to motivate the preparers for a
better performance in presenting the annual report (Singapore Corporate
Awards , 2014). Therefore, the disclosures are professionally well-established

3
with full detailed information and broader scope which will benefit the users
such as investors and stakeholders.
In Singapore, financial reports are prepared according to its own local version
called SFRS. Thus, the IFRS 8 is known as FRS 108 and the former standard,
IAS 14 is adopted as FRS 14 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008). However, the
SFRS is largely aligned with IFRS in many aspects and thus the material
features of FRS 108 and the early standard FRS 14 in particular are considered
to be fully consistent with IFRS 8 and IAS 14 respectively
( PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012).
Last but not least, the topic and SGX listed companies are chosen as there is
no such research that has been studied on this particular area of segmental
reporting previously except from Wilkins and Khoo (2012). Although the paper
was on segmental reporting the research goals were different (see IFRS, 2013).
For above stated reasons, the study on pre and post implementation review of
IFRS 8 has been approached by examining on SGX companies which are in full
consistency with the IFRS
1.4 Explanation on the approachto the chosen objective
According to the (Deloitte , n.d.) , the IFRS 8 was established by November
2006 after its Exposure Draft has been delivered; effective for annual
accounting periods beginning on 1 January 2009 and onwards. Under these
circumstances, the main objective will be obtained by comparing the annual
reports of SGX companies as at 31st December 2010 against those stated
before the effective date; 31st December 2008.
Based on the main objective, three research questions have been derived in
order to know the impact of IFRS 8 on segment disclosures. Numerical data on
the segment numbers, items disclosed under each segments such as business
and geographic segments and the CODM identification by SGX chosen
companies will be collected to compare and analyse the annual reports under
the two different years to answer the three research questions. The final
objective of the study will be attained from these numerical data analysis.
Furthermore, issues arisen in IAS 14 and IFRS 8 will be further examined.

4
1.5 Limitations of the study
Initially, the study obtained 100 SGX companies as others researchers such as
Crawford et al. have also studied approximately 100 companies. Due to a
number of limitations the final companies which will be testing are 60 and
further explanations of limitations upon the selections of companies will be
discussed in the next section, methodology.
1.6 Structureof the paper
The dissertation is structured in the following way. In the first chapter, the
overview of IFRS 8 will be discovered by giving detail information on the
background of it and highlighting on the purposes of the study and how will the
research aims will be achieved.
Followed by the introduction chapter, the literature review on IFRS 8 and
segmental reporting will be explored in order to support the research questions.
Theory associating with the segmental reporting will be also explained in terms
of its relevance to research topic. Last but not least, the current literature has
also reviewed on the issues arising on IFRS 8. However, this literature has not
revised upon the local standard FRS 108 particularly due to the standard being
identical to the original standard IFRS 8 in overall standard’s perspectives as
stated earlier (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008).
Next chapter will be presenting on the methods which have been used to collect
and analyse the data to answer the research questions. Prior to explaining the
data collection methods, where the raw data have been obtained from, have
stated with providing limitations experienced throughout the procedure.
Consequently, the final step of the methodology which is the explanation of how
the data will be analysed and derived to the results will be explained in details.
Ethical concerns upon the current research have also included verifying the
study follows the university ethic guidelines.
The last chapter is about the analysis and findings which has derived from the
previous work. The statistics results such as the number of segments disclosed
and items per segments disclosed etc. will be explored by linking between each
variable. The relevant theory as stated above in the literature section will be
linked back to the final complete results.

5
Last but not least, the partial of this research paper will be summarised by
bringing key aspects of the literature which have been discussed in the above
section in comparison with the complete research findings. This piece of
summarising will bring a connection to the methods that have applied to analyse
the research questions. Self-recommendation has been made on the previous
authors’ work by justifying their limitations within their studies and further
contradictions against them have also been made by the current findings.
Therefore, this present reflective understanding on IFRS 8 has developed the
study area with further information and the connection between the current
dissertation and the former studies has also been clearly identified.

6
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the areas in alignment with the
research goal of the current study which is whether the companies’ segmental
disclosures listed on SGX (Singapore Stock Exchange) have reformed after the
new standard IFRS 8 (adopted as FRS 108 locally) has taken place.
2.2 Agency Theory
The supporting and underpinning theory behind the segmental reporting will be
also explained in details. Based on the conception of agency theory, there is
always asymmetric information between the principal and agent. The
asymmetric information derived from the knowledge gap between the perfectly
exposed company’s information which give reliable data or facts and that of
information which are not completely reliable (Eisenhardt, 1989).
In this study of segmental reporting, the principals are investors or shareholders
and the agents are those people in charge for management such as companies’
managers. Managers operate within the business and hence also known as
internal users while the shareholders are the external users who do not have
direct access to the information relating to the business they are invested in
(Quinn and Jones, 1995).
Therefore, one question has derived over the relationship between the principal-
agent: how the shareholders can assure that the decisions made by
management are in line with their interests?
Because the two individuals have their own different strategies in pursuing the
business target. For example, the stakeholders focus on raising profits for high
returns while the management’s goal is to add value on the companies along
with the wealth maximisation for their own. The value managers have created
may not be parallel to the value that the shareholders are expecting for (Douma
and Schreuder, 2008; Eisenhardt, 1989; Jensen and Meckling, 1994).
The answer to the above question is the financial reporting which is an essential
and compulsory tool for all the shareholders and investors.
According to Aitken et al. (1997), Consolidated information which is a
component of financial reporting alone does not help the investors much to see

7
the risks and the return or the information about the business components,
especially when the profits obtained from business segments are not consistent
to each other. Therefore segment reporting is used to reduce the asymmetric
information between the investors and the company management by providing
detail financial statement of each segment (Yoo & Semenenko, 2012).
Essentially the sole purpose of segment reporting is to help the investors to
understand the company as a whole by breaking down the information to the
level where it is easy to access and understand (Troberg et al. 2010). Therefore,
segment reporting can be seen as a way to solve principal-agent problem.
2.3 Review on IFRS 8
Regarding the study objective, analysis such as the issues and usefulness of
the new IFRS 8 will be presented in this section of literature review. Firstly, one
of the key components of the new standard called the management approach
will be critically examined as there are many judgements made upon the
potential issues which can derive from it (IFRS, 2013).
It is obligatory under IFRS 8 that companies report its segments related
information on business and geographic sectors if they meet specified criteria
(Deloitte , n.d.). Consequently, a company’s segmental reporting regarding the
business operations must be measured and identified through the
“management approach”. Thus, segmental reports are required to describe in
alignment with the internal management scheme revised frequently by the Chief
Operating Decision Maker (CODM) according to IFRS 8
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2008; Farías & Rodríguez, 2014).
Numerous criticisms have derived over the approach through management’s
insight and (Sukhraj, 2007b; Veron, 2007a) mentioned that the new innovated
approach could be a failure and inefficient (as cited in Crawford et al. 2013).
Report prepared by the PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008) have further pointed
the pitfall of management approach by stating that information which are
prepared thoroughly by CODM or management team will not be supported by
external audit or some robust processes.
In addition, the two papers prepared by Crawford et al. 2010 and Crawford et al.
2012 have also done much research on the problematic issues of the segment
disclosures under IFRS 8. However, this judgement on management approach
could be argued by the result findings of interview prepared by Crawford et al.

8
(2012). Because 20 participants out of 11 assumed that the recent
management approach of IFRS 8 is considerably more beneficial with extra
reliable information than the former approach of IAS 14 which measured the
segment reporting by using IFRS- compliant business information.
Moreover, the survey work done by CFA UK, 2012 also have in common with
the Crawford’s survey outcome which states that IFRS 8 has equipped the
analysts and users with greater knowledge about companies. However, from
the self-perspective view, this empirical result seems to solely rely on the
preparers’ judgment but not on the users’ point of view (as cited in Tarca &
Pitman, 2013). Correspondingly, the further analysis enhanced from the
continuing comment letters by the European Commission, 2007 has proven that
the exposure draft (ED) 8 of FRS 8 has supported predominantly by the
preparers (Crawford et al. 2010).
Along with the management control, the results of the entity’s operating
segments are evaluated systematically by its Chief Operating Decision Maker
(CODM) for the purpose of deciding the allocation of the resources toward the
segments and evaluating its functioning (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007).
Separate financial reporting is presented within entity’s operating segment
(Deloitte, n.d.).
Previous reports by ESMA, 2011 and AASB, 2013 have reviewed on particular
area such as CODM identification, which is one of the stages in applying IFRS 8;
the CODM must revise the results of the operating segments within the lines
called product and geographic on a regular basis(Ernst & Young, 2009).
The disclosing number of segments and further proper information could be
reduced for applying this step. As a result, the purposes targeted within the
principle could not be fully achieved. Furthermore, the outdated approach
through management could be complicated and difficult to apply in reality as it is
based on the rules set by the CODM rather than principal-based (Herrmann &
Thomas, 2000).
However, this Herrmann and Thomas’s study seems to have a gap within their
literature as there are two inconsistent statements made upon the management
approach strategy. Because they have also concluded by stating the segmental
reporting has become more reliable and efficient due to its consistency and

9
better accurateness under the CODM’s management (as cited in Crawford et al.
2010).
Sukhraj (2007a) has also criticised on the CODM for not being allocated and
recognised specifically but selecting from the range of random directors such as
financial directors and board directors. However, the shortcoming of CODM
information is likely to be included in future annual reports due to several
criticisms raised over it.
All of the above authors have commented that in the real world, the criticisms
have arisen on the identity of CODM who are making decisions over segment
reporting.
Despite the growing condemnations, the post-implementation review by (IASB,
2013) have drawn conclusion by giving credit on the new standard, IFRS 8 that
the advantages obtained from adopting the IFRS 8 has a greater impact on
disclosures (Deloitte, n.d.).
2.4 Review on IFRS 8 in Earlier 2013
In earlier 2013, the comment and review on IFRS 8 have been limited due to
the standard havig been revised only after it is adopted globally. Hence, only a
short-time frame was available to criticise the complete standard before 2013 as
the IFRS 8 has become effective on 1 January 2009 (see Crawford et al. 2012;
H. Mardini, 2012; Mardini, Crawford, & Power, 2012).So with just around 2
years straight after the IFRS 8 has been applied by entities worldwide, a few
responses on the impact of implementing the new standard have been made by
some organisations and authors such as European Securities and Markets
Authority (2011), Veron (2007), Crawford et al. (2010) and European
Commission (2007). Most of the authors who did their research before 2013
have also judged on the similar issues such as the management approach and
the recognition of CODM which derived under the implementation of IFRS 8
regardless of the time frame of reviewing.
Although most of the authors have focused on the identical areas, a few of the
literatures of IFRS 8 were published prior the standard becoming effective, for
example: Veron (2007); European Commission (2007). As a result, those past
studies’ findings seem to have made little comment on overcoming with the
controversial problems and lack of proof based on empirical data. Therefore,

10
regardless of the contents that have covered relevant and useful areas, they
have concluded only on particular aspect among the several potential issues of
the standard and thus incomplete in nature. Noticeably, Veron (2007) has given
a bold definite statement by summarising due to the downsides of the IFRS 8; it
should not be adopted urgently by the European companies.
2.5 Review on SegmentalReporting
Secondly, the literature will be reviewing on all the standards of segmental
reporting from the past to the current respectively in specific with the standards’
issues.
Segmental reporting is one of the most important compulsory financial
disclosures for the users of annual reports (Brown, 1997). The rationale behind
segmental reporting is that the mandatory consolidated statements disclosed
within the entities’ annual reports are not abundantly adequate as it lacks in
providing complete useful financial information to the external and internal users.
Therefore, business related information has been separated into individual
segments and hence called segmental reporting (Roberts, 2010).
A number of benefits and drawbacks have arisen upon segmental reporting due
to different judgments made by previous researchers. Numerous authors have
studied on how the data of segment plays a significant role for decisions over
investment and stock market (see Hope et. al., 2008; Epstein and Palepu, 1999;
Berger & Hann, 2003; McKinnon & Dalimunthe, 1993; Herrmann & Thomas,
2000; ESMA, 2011).
However, different evidences have been presented concerning the above
statement. Such as previous study of Epstein and Palepu, 1999 showed by the
results obtained from the contemplation of 140 financial experts such as “sell-
side analysts” (as cited in Berger & Hann, 2003) and the other authors,
McKinnon & Dalimunthe, 1993 have given a bold argumentative statement of
that the history of the company performance can be recognised under the
segment reporting sector and thus users must view them for future predictions
of the enterprise. For example, a large-cap bank normally issues the segments
report on its discrete financial services such as retail banking, corporate
banking, etc. Essentially, the discrete fiscal information has much influence on
the liquidity of a large-cap company as they are essential for the users of annual

11
reports to acknowledge whether they should invest in that particular company or
not (Berger & Hann, 2003).
In addition to those indications, (Berger & Hann, 2003; Balakrishnan et al. 1990)
have also further analysed on whether the improvement in accuracy of
predictions on an enterprise’s income and trades history has associated with
the accessibility of segmental reporting. The result obtained by them appear to
be consistent with those of above authors’, which is segment reporting matters
for a variety of users and analysts to some major extent. Though these authors
have done much research on the benefits of segmental reporting, they seem to
have ignored the downsides.
Nichols et al. 2013; Emmanuel et al. 1999; Parker and Sauer 2009; Edwards
and Smith, 1996 have largely centred on the issue about segmental reporting
being contentious. Such as, concerns have derived from the criticisms of the
new standard, IFRS 8 including the application of management control scheme
and the non-IFRS measurement usage, the possibility in reducing number of
reported segments on the geographic sector, and elimination of disclosing the
line items such as segment liabilities (Crawford et al. 2012; Crawford et al. 2010;
Nichols et al. 2012).
Not only is the current standard of segmental reporting IFRS 8 problematic but
also the very original standard of segment reporting, Statement of Standard
Accounting Practice (SSAP) 25 had certain issues regarding to its disclosures
which are mandatory for companies Edwards & Smith (1996) (as cited in
Crawford, Helliar & Power, n.d.). Further concerns derived under SSAP 25 were
about not complying with segment disclosures geographically (Edwards & Smith,
1996; Rennie & Emmanuel, 1992).
On the other hand, (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski, 2006; Crawford et al.
2010) stated concerns derived from the issues within companies’ disclosures
under the previous standard IAS 14. Further critics are made on the segments
aggregation (Nichols and Street, 2007); and the segment disclosures’ quality
and quantity (Street and Nichols, 2002).
However, these above concerns appear to be momentary as the ground-
breaking standard IFRS 8 has evolved in 2009.

12
2.6 Review on the Number of Segments and Line Items per
Segment
Last but not least, the literature on how the IFRS 8 has affected the primary and
secondary disclosures of segmental reporting such as business and geographic
segments reporting will be reviewed. Business segment is a unique part of the
whole business that has a distinct product or service. It also has unique risks
and returns. Geographical segment is based on unique economic environment
that produces products or services. Different geographical segment has
different risks and returns (Iasplus, n.d.).
Both IAS 14 and IFRS 8 require a business to report relevant information such
as business and geographic segments separated from their business as a
whole. The formats of reporting those two segments are divided into segments
disclosing of primary and secondary (Ernst and Young, 2009).
Numerous researchers have studied over the changes upon the number of
segments and line items per segments reported within the primary and
secondary disclosures when IFRS 8 has become effective by collecting data
and preparing survey (see Crawford et al. 2012; Mardini et al. 2012; Nichols et
al. 2012; Kang and Gray, 2012; Bugeja et al. 2012; He, He and Evans, 2012;
Heem and Valenza, 2012).
Based on those previous findings of (Mardini et al. 2012; Nichols et al. 2012), it
is likely to be that the segment numbers of business and geographic sectors
disclosed have not changed since IAS 14 although separate segments can be
merged together if they meet the specified requirements under IFRS 8
(Pricewaterhousecoopers, 2008). The study of (Bugeja et al. 2012) upon the
1,617 Australian listed firms also has similar outcomes with them, resulting in 79%
of segments quantities remaining constant.
On the other hand, numerous companies have also experienced an upturn on
the segment numbers according to the post implementation review prepared by
the (IFRS, 2013; Moldovan, 2014; IASB, 2013a; ESMA, 2011; AASB, 2013).
Parallel to these findings on the review of implementing IFRS 8 is the Crawford
et al. 2012 as 150 sample companies taken from FTSE 100 and 250 disclosed
increase segment amounts, resulting an average growth of 0.26 under IFRS 8.

13
Although most researchers analysed the number of segments changes based
on the secondary sources, primary data method seems to be used by only a
few researchers including Crawford et al. 2012. Moreover, there is absence of
supporting reasons behind the increase segment numbers by most of the
studies comprising Crawford et al. 2012.
In fact, a decline in the mean numbers of business or geographic segments
reported is considered to be relatively small comparing to the increase overall
(Tarca & Pitman, 2013). However, the results can still be varied based on the
individual companies disclosing them.
While there is an escalating result on segment numbers under IFRS 8, the line
items disclosed for each segment called business and geographic reporting has
decreased comparing to those disclosed under IAS 14 (Weissenberger and
Franzen, 2012a; Crawford et al. 2012; He et al. 2012; Nicholas et al.2012).
Mardini et al. 2012 have an opposing result to them although the difference
within the increase and decrease is not sizeable or significant.
Despite the total line items disclosed under both reporting formats have
undergone a decline, He et al, 2012 has stated that companies disclose more
items such as intersegment revenue, interest expense and revenue and
income tax rather than segment assets, liabilities and capital expenditure(as
cited in IASB, 2013).
Furthermore, in accordance with the review prepared by the member of IASB in
2013, the declining line items under each segment reporting is likely to be
caused by the management approach which is to report to the CODM in
advance before disclosing those line items.
2.7 Review on Aggregation of segments
IFRS 8 has allowed the combination of segments to form into one category if
they have met certain specified criteria (IASB, 2012).
Based on this action, (ESMA, 2011; Backhuis and Camfferman, 2012) have
discussed about the segments aggregating process under IFRS 8 (as cited in
IFRS, 2013). According to the review on several study papers prepared by
(ESMA, 2011), the opinion of those researchers who analyse upon the
segment aggregation can be observed that minimising the segments into one
group can result in the absence of providing essential information to users.

14
However, these are just a prediction made by those forecasters who seem to
have ignored proof to the statement. The finding by the (CFA UK, 2012) also
have a common to the ESMA report as most of the analysts tend to favour the
disaggregation rather than aggregation of segments as they personally think to
be more efficient. Last but not least, (KPMG, 2010) have also judged upon the
absence of explanation details about the aggregated segments by companies’
disclosure.
2.8 Review on Identification of the CODM
Stemming from the issues arisen upon the absence of providing who the CODM
is, a number of analysts have carried out by taking sample companies to
examine how many companies have been identifying the identity behind the
CODM (see Nicholas et al. 2012; ESMA, 2011; KPMG, 2010; Kang and Gary,
2012; Crawford et al. 2012).
Among those analyses, the sample companies performed by the (Crawford et al.
2012; Kang and Gray, 2012) have the most number of companies which
identified the person who is in charge as CODM, resulting 69% and 82%
respectively.
Followed by this, the 36% European sample companies analysed by Nicholas
et al. in 2012 have also identified the CODM. Furthermore, it has been
observed by (KPMG, 2010) that 33% of chosen firms have given the detail
information about the CODM. Undoubtedly, CODM duty is given the most to the
management team followed by it are the CEO (Kang and Gary, 2012; Nicholas
et al. 2012).

15
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter justifies how and where the relevant data have been collected to
examine the research objectives.
As mentioned in the earlier chapters, IFRS 8 superseded the former standard
IAS 14R and hence the segmental reporting has been adjusted and changed
under the new principles of IFRS 8 (Deloitte, n.d.). Through the segmental
reporting, the changes on structure within the company and the past
performance are measurable (Botosan and Harris, 2000). Therefore, the
alteration of this essential segmental reporting can be a very sensitive case
because of its importance in making decisions for investing to stakeholders.
Stemming from the literature studied in earlier sections on the new
management approach of IFRS 8, (Nichols et al. 2013; Crawford et al. 2012;
Parker and Sauer, 2009; Pricewaterhosuecoopers, 2007) stated that the
business or geographic segments reported is expected to develop under the
control of management by the CODM. However, the CODM is not always
identified and therefore concerns have been arisen.
Although the impact of IFRS 8 on disclosures for UK has been investigated as it
plays a major role (Crawford et al. 2012), none of the research paper has
completed on how the Singapore companies have affected from the IFRS 8.
3.2 Researchobjectives
Subsequently, the following four questions will be analysed:
RQ 1: Have the numbers of reported segments changed after IFRS has
become effective?
RQ 2: How many SGX listed companies have changed their reportable number
of segments after the new standard is introduced?
RQ 3: Have the line items within the segmental disclosures changed after IFRS
8 has taken place over IAS 14?
RQ 4: Have the CODM been recognised under the segmental reporting?
These objectives have been chosen based on the completed present literatures
for the following reasons. Firstly, there is lack of evidences from world-wide
companies on the implementation of IFRS 8, especially from Singapore which
implemented IFRS locally (Section 1.2). Secondly, are expectations and

16
statements made by various authors about the changes on the quantities of
segments and line items as the management approach occupied also
applicable to Singapore companies (Section 2.4)? The last reason is to see
whether the controversial issues of not identifying who is the CODM that is
making the decisions about segment reporting has been cleared to Singapore
companies (Section 2.6).
3.3 Data Collection
In order to answer the above research questions, numerical or quantitative data
such as number of business and geographic segments, number of companies
disclosing the line items which are compulsory under IAS 14 for each of the
primary and secondary reporting format. Last but not least the data of number
of companies identifying the CODM will also be collected. All of these raw data
have hand-collected from secondary sources such as annual reports published
within the SGX for two different years of 2008 and 2010 which are the years
that IAS 14 was still in use and IFRS 8 has become active respectively.
The reason for favouring the quantitative approach is because the key research
areas are the number of segments and number of line items per segment which
can be simply and effectively analysed by the measurement of statistics (Horn,
2009).From the stage of analysing the raw data, a precise statistics research
answers will be obtained.
3.4 Limitations
The SGX has divided its listing into two different sections known as the
mainboard and catalist listings. The previous authors (Kajuter and Nienhaus ,
2012; Pisano and Landriana, 2012; Mardini et al. 2012 ; Crawford et al. 2012)
have selected approximately 100-150 companies whilst analysing the IFRS 8
versus IAS 14R. Therefore, this current study has also chosen the top 100
companies from a mixture of diverse listings established publicly on SGX.
However, according to (Walliman, 2004), the further limitations can be
encountered while collecting data using secondary sources. Firstly, as it is a
tough job to research and access relevant data which have been recorded in
the past, these 100 companies have to be selected again from the various
sectors as some categories of businesses are inconsistent with other remaining
types of firms. For example, the companies under banking sector will not be
considered due to more complex additional information reported on segment
disclosures (e.g. Prather-Kinsey & Meek, 2004; Street et al. 2000).

17
Consequently, collecting segmental info from the banking firms has been limited
by lack of harmonisation. Numerous reliable sectors such as food products; oil,
gas and consumable fuels; hotels, restaurants and leisure sectors; technology
products etc. have selected to analyse.
Secondly, authenticating the relevant resources which have been obtained for
current study is very challenging and time consuming. Although top 100
companies are picked from these sectors, (9) enterprises from them are
excluded because they registered on SGX later than 2008, which is the year
that IAS 14R was still in use. Moreover, further (20) companies are also
eliminated because they are incorporated within overseas (SGX, n.d.). Lastly,
(11) more companies are withdrawn at the end after collecting the raw data of
them because the data within those disclosures are listed in contentious and
unclear format and mixed language (see Figure 1).
Due to this fact, about 40 companies are disqualified in approaching to answer
the research questions. Finally, the numbers of companies which have
remained to analyse are 60 (Appendix 1).
Although, there are some limitations experienced from using secondary data
sources, the weighing of limitation for primary sourcing method seems to
exceed the secondary one as it involves man power and more ethical related
issues which can have more boundaries. Hence, although primary method was
in favour of using in the first place, it has been abstained due to lack of
participants in primary survey.
Figure 1 Sample Companies
Figure 1 Final Sample
CompaniesSelectionProcess No.of companies
Initial selectionofTop SGXcompanies 100
Less:
RegisteredonSGX later than 2008 -9
Incorporated withinother countries -20
Usage of inconsistentformat and mixedlanguage -11
Final Sample 60
Note: This figure shows the sample companies selection process.

18
3.5 Data Extraction and Analysingthe Results
As the overall research objectives are abstracted from the outcomes of applying
the cutting-edge standard, IFRS 8 in disclosures, the answers to them will be
achieved by comparing the 60 SGX listed companies’ segmental reporting
under IFRS8 and IAS 14. IAS 14 became effective in 1998 and lasted till the
IFRS 8 has replaced it in the 1st January 2009 (Iasplus, n.d.).
Therefore, the data from the SGX 60 annual reports published in the year 2008
and 2009 will be hand-collected each. Although, there are accessible data
sources on its own SGX main website and Bloomberg financial website, the
current data have been selected manually as they are not financial related data
such as dividend and revenue and thus not accessible through those financial
websites.
To answer the first research question (Section 3.2), the data of business and
geographic segments of companies have extracted from segmental information
disclosed within the annual reports of the two different years. Excel software is
used to analyse and test the result by using those obtained data from a total of
142 annual reports. This software has been chosen for several reasons. Firstly,
it is capable of restoring large amount of data collected in a spreadsheet.
Secondly, many useful functions and formulas such as mean (average) etc.
have been provided to present the summarisation of cluttered data.
Lastly, the data analysis of the IFRS 8 versus IAS 14 can be completed without
hassles as it allows flexible filtering and searching tools to find and examine
vast information quickly. The raw data will be keyed in into the excel
spreadsheets. And mostly the Excel by Microsoft has chosen for its easier
accessibility than other software like SPSS.
After transferring the raw data in the chosen Excel spreadsheets, they are
stored securely and analysed. Computations are carried out by using excel
generated formula such as mean formula etc.
For the second research question (see Section 3.2), each of the companies
which made changes to their segments reported are keyed in to the created
excel spreadsheet. In order to obtain the data of increased and decreased total
number of companies, record of the companies which have either inclined or
declined in their segments numbers disclosed have also collected in columns.
The final result for this question has obtained by using the Excel summary
formula to get those total companies affected by IFRS 8. The following two

19
research questions have also obtained by applying those similar method
routines or formulas to the relevant collected raw data. In these ways, the
analysis stage of the study will be effectively accomplished by the advantages
of Excel as the variables which are stored within the tables can be easily linked
together in relationships (Horn, 2009). The final complete results and
comparisons of the numerical data are also presented by creating table by
Excel.
3.6 Reliability of Secondary Data
The whole analysis and results are based on the secondary data obtained from
the original annual reports prepared by the Singapore companies. According to
the SGX, the annual reports are the final and official work disclosed by the
companies registered on the SGX. Therefore, the data currently obtained are
trustworthy and genuine. Although the numerical data are difficult to be precise
and consistent in nature as stated in the (sagepub, 2007), this statement mostly
applies to financial data. As the whole analysis have been relied on the non-
financial data such as the number of segments, and line items disclosed per
segments, the secondary data in this particular research paper is reliable and
reputable.
3.7 Ethical Concerns
The whole procedures and objectives of the research are carried out and
achieved by obtaining numerical data from annual reports which are publicised
in Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) and secondary research format. Therefore,
no human participants will be involved in this current study. According to
Singapore Companies Act which has revised in 2006 , further usage of
companies’ annual reports are lawful as the reports are meant for external
users such as investors and shareholders to learn about the company prior to
investing (Singapore Statutes Online, n.d.). A copy of ethical issues form will be
included for future reference (Appendix 2).

20
Chapter 4 Analysis and Findings
4.1 Analysis on the Number of Reportable Segments
Figure 2 illustrates the average number of segments. This figure has divided
into two sectors called SGX mainboard and SGX catalist which is also known as
the secondary listing (SGX, n.d.). SGX mainboard involved 38 firms and the
catalist listing included 22 firms (see Appendix 1). Firstly, the average number
of business segments for the mainboard has decreased by 0.05 under the
disclosure standard of FRS 1081 (IFRS 8) as it dropped from 2.97 segments in
2008 to 2.92 segments in 2010. However, the average numbers of segments for
the 22 firms under SGX catalist has remained constant since 2008, the year
FRS 142 (IAS 14) was still active. Therefore, the overall 60 SGX companies’
business segments have experienced a slight decrease of 0.03 under FRS 108.
Following the results from the (Section 1 and Section 2), the results for the
number for the number of companies reporting a change in the number of
segments have been derived.
Remarkably, total number of companies which encountered a decrease is 12
out of 60 while 13 companies have experienced an increase number of
segments although the mean number of segments for total 60 firms has
reached a decline of 0.03.
The reason behind these uncommon figures of decreased segments while the
total numbers of companies which have experienced an increase are more than
those companies decrease is because the companies have disclosed lesser
segments of more than one under FRS 108. For example, a company has
disclosed 5 business segments in 2008 and the segments reduced to 2 in 2010
and this cause the total mean number of segments to be declined more.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the earlier literatures, the reason of fewer
segments reporting could be due to the aggregation among them.
Furthermore, both the geographic segments by location of customers and
assets have declined from 2008 to 2010 correspondingly as business segments
(Section 1.2).
1 FRS 108 is a local version of IFRS 8 which is identical to IFRS 8 in all material aspects (PwC,2012).
2 FRS 14 is a local version of IAS 14 which is identical to IAS 14 in all material aspects (PwC,2012).

21
The mean number of geographical segments by customers’ locations for both
SGX mainboard and catalist has a slight fall from 4.37 to 4.29 and from 3.73 to
3.41 respectively and a total difference mean number of 0.20 have resulted
from it.
Likewise to the business segments, the number of companies which
encountered an increase in the geographic segments by where the customers
are located is more than a decrease regardless of a decline in the mean
number of geographic segments disclosed (Section 2.2). Out of 60 firms 35
firms have not made a change on their geographic segments based on
customer’s regions.
Last but not least, the geographic segments depending on the companies’
assets’ location have the most decline mean number among the other
segments, resulting a difference in the mean of 0.29 (Section 1.3).
Reasonably, there is more decrease number of companies in total than
increase as the mean number of segments has decreased under FRS 108
(Section 2.3). The total number of companies dropping its segments number is
16 while a total of 8 companies have increased their segment numbers. 36
companies do not make a change on their segment disclosures hence both of
the segments reported before and after IFRS 8 remain unchanged since 2008.
As is observed from the above given statistics, the overall segments operated
within the business have reduced under the new standard IFRS 8 (FRS 108).
Therefore, the final outcomes based on the SGX 60 companies for the number
of segments reported have an opposing result figures from those literature
findings stated above as most of the researchers’ have an increased number of
segments disclosed within their chosen companies (Section 2.6). However
(ESMA, 2011; IASB, 2013) have also mentioned about those European
companies experienced a decline in their operating segment numbers. In
addition to this, ESMA has stated the business or geographic segments have
reduced due to the alteration of structure within the business.
For instance, changes involve activities such as acquisitions, withholding or
disposal and organisation structure amendment regarding to internal operating
(ESMA, 2011).

22
To conclude, the numbers of segments within the segment disclosures have
changed as they decreased under IFRS 8.
Figure 2 Number of segments comparison
Section (1) Comparison of number of segments provided under IAS 14(FRS
14) and IFRS 8(FRS 108)
SGX
Mainboard
SGX
Catalist
Total Sample
Section 1.1: Business/products& services
IAS 14(FRS 14) (2008) 2.97 3.36 3.17
IFRS 8 (FRS 108) (2010) 2.92 3.36 3.14
Difference in the mean -0.05 0.00 -0.03
Section1.2: Geographic by location of
customers
IAS 14 (FRS 14) (2008) 4.37 3.73 4.05
IFRS 8 (FRS 108) (2010) 4.29 3.41 3.85
Difference in the mean -0.08 -0.32 -0.20
Section1.3: Geographic by location of assets
IAS 14 (FRS 14) (2008) 3.79 2.27 3.03
IFRS 8 (FRS 108) (2010) 3.39 2.09 2.74
Difference in the mean -0.39 -0.18 -0.29
Section(2)
Numberof companiesreporting a change in the number of segments
SGX Mainboard SGX Catalist Total
Sample
Section2.1: Business/products& services
Numberof Companies 38 22 60
Increase 6 7 13
Decrease 7 5 12
No Change 25 10 35
Section2.2: Geographicby locationof
customers
Increase 7 6 13
Decrease 8 4 12
No Change 23 12 35
Section2.3: Geographicby locationof assets
Increase 5 3 8

23
Note: This figure illustrates descriptive information about the number of segments. The
statistics data are collected from 60 SGX companies for 2008 and 2010. Section 1
displays the mean number of segments for SGX mainboard, SGX catalist and total
SGX 60 companies. Section 2 illustrates the number of companies which have
increased, decreased and not changed the segments which they disclosed since 2008
to 2010.
4.2 Items Disclosed per Segment
Figure 3 represents a list of items reported under primary reporting format.
These line items are acquired from line items which are obligatory under IAS 14
in order to measure how many line items have been omitted under the new
disclosure standard.
Mostly, business segments information is disclosed as primary reporting.
However, there are also some companies whose geographic segments are
reported by using primary format while the business segments are disclosed
under secondary reporting format (mca.gov, n.d.).
For instance, if the company risks and returns are mostly dependent and based
on what it produces and offers such as products or services, the business
segments information are reported by using primary reporting format while its
geographic segments are reported in secondary disclosure format.
Inversely, if the risks and returns are highly affected by where those products or
services are sold or operated such as geographical regions, those geographic
based segments are reported by using primary reporting format while the
business based segments are reported under the format of secondary reporting
(Altaf, 2014).
Regardless of more than half of the SGX 60 companies disclosed identical
business and geographic segments without making a change since IAS 14 to
IFRS 8 (Figure 2 of Section 2), some of the line items disclosed under business
and geographic segments have changed when IFRS 8 superseded IAS 14 for
SGX 60 companies (See Figure 3; Figure 4).
According to Figure 3 of section 1, it is remarkable that approximately half of 32
SGX mainboard companies (17) which disclosed capital expenditure in 2008
have excluded it from disclosing in 2010, leaving a percentage of 45% from
Decrease 12 4 16
No Change 21 15 36

24
84%. There is only a slight decrease in the number of SGX mainboard
companies disclosing the depreciation line when IFRS 8 is occupied as it
dropped from 35 to 31 in 2010. Followed by this item, segment results of
continued operations and discontinued operations, total assets and liabilities
have also reduced by a difference in the percentage of 29%, 2%, 20% and 29%
correspondingly.
Last but not least, it can be learnt that all the 38 SGX mainboard sample
companies have disclosed line items such as revenue obtained from customers
and inter-segment revenue in both years despite the standard has changed
from IAS 14 to IFRS 8.
Figure 3 Items disclosed under primary reporting format
Note: This section illustrates the line items included by SGX mainboard companies
under primary reporting format.
4.2 Items Disclosed per Segment(continued)
Further analysis of SGX 22 catalist companies has presented (Section 2 of
Figure 3). Unlike SGX mainboard, items such as revenue by customers and
inter-segment revenue have slightly changed in the number of companies
disclosing those two line items. As can be seen in the table, all the percentages
of companies disclosing the line items under primary reporting format have
Section1: Primary/operating segmentdisclosures
SGX Mainboard
Primary/operating segmentdisclosures(perIAS
14R)
Pre IFRS 8 (FRS108) PostIFRS 8
(FRS108)
No. of Companies % No. of
Companies
%
Revenue fromexternal customers 31 82 31 82
Inter-segmentrevenue 26 68 26 68
Segmental result– continuingoperations 32 84 21 55
Segmental result– discontinuedoperations 2 5 1 3
Total assets 36 95 28 74
Total liabilities 35 92 24 63
Capital Expenditure (PPE& intangible Assets) 32 84 17 45
Depreciationand amortisation 35 92 31 82

25
decreased except the inter-segment revenue as it has noticeably increased
from 45% to 68% under IFRS 8 while the rest of the items have decreased.
Interestingly, there is no item such as segment result from discontinued
operations have disclosed since after one company have included that line
under IAS 14.
As is observed, the numbers of companies reporting line items such as total
assets and liabilities, capital expenditures have dropped by approximately half
the number of those companies which reported them in 2008. These current
findings are in parallel with those previous findings by (Weissenberger and
Franzen, 2012a; Crawford et al. 2012; He et al. 2012; Nicholas et al.2012), who
have also resulted a decline in those above line items (See Section 2.6).
Figure 3 (continued)
Note: This section illustrates the line items included by SGX catalist companies under
primary reporting format.
The complete findings of the SGX 60 companies on line items disclosed under
primary segment reporting have presented in beneath table (Section 3).
According to overall results the line items disclosed under IAS 14 have
decreased in overall when IFRS 8 has superseded IAS 14 except for the only
Section2 : Primary/operating segment
disclosures
SGX Catalist
Primary/operating segmentdisclosures(per
IAS 14R)
Pre IFRS 8
(FRS108)
PostIFRS 8
(FRS108)
No. of
Companies
% No. of
Companies
%
Capital Expenditure (PPE& Intangible Assets) 20 91 13 59

26
unique outstanding increase figure of the inter-segment revenue line.
Interestingly, this particular line item has included by more of the SGX 60
companies and has a total percentage of 68% companies reporting it in 2010.
Undoubtedly, along with other researchers’ findings, the line items which are
most effected for overall sample companies are assets, liabilities and capital
expenditure.
Therefore, according to figure 3 of section 1 to 3, it can be observed that SGX
60 companies have less disclosed the line items which they have included
under FRS 14 in 2010. Inter-segment revenue has the outstanding figure as
more companies are including it in 2010 while the rest items are either no
longer reported or less disclosed.
Figure 3 (continued)
Note: This section illustrates the line items included by SGX total 60 companies under
primary reporting format.
This figure is the continuous part of segment information statement called
secondary reporting. It has been discovered that there is a dramatic drop in
disclosing capital expenditure and carrying amount of segment assets
according to the data results of SGX 60 companies. Two-third of the companies
has excluded those items in their secondary reporting format in 2010 after IAS
14 was replaced, leaving a total companies’ percentage of 20% and 18%
Section3 : Primary/operating segment
disclosures
Total Sample
Primary/operating segmentdisclosures(per
IAS 14R)
Pre IFRS 8
(FRS108)
PostIFRS 8
(FRS108)
No. of
Companies
% No. of
Companies
%
Capital Expenditure (PPE& intangible Assets) 52 87 30 50

27
respectively in 2010 (Figure 4 of Section 3). As shown in section 3, 78% of
companies have included the item called revenue obtained from external
customers. This figure has decreased for sizeable amount when compare to
those percentage of companies reporting it under IAS 14 in 2008 (93%).
These results are in aligned with the findings of Crawford et al. (2012). Crawford
et al. have further stated that the cause in a decline in those line items may
impact negatively upon the segment disclosures as less information has been
provided for the principals or shareholders.
Figure 4 Items disclosed under Secondary Reporting Format
Section1: Secondary/entity-wide disclosures
SGX
Mainboard
Pre IFRS 8 (FRS108) PostIFRS 8 (FRS
108)
Secondary/entity-wide disclosures(perIAS
14R)
No. of Companies % No. of
Companies
%
SegmentRevenue (external revenue) 36 95 32 84
Capital expenditure (locationofassets) 27 71 8 21
Carrying amount of segmentassets 31 82 7 18
Note: This section illustrates the line items included by SGX mainboard companies
under secondary reporting format.
Note: This section illustrates the line items included by SGX catalist companies under
secondary reporting format.
Section2: Secondary/entity-wide
disclosures
SGX Catalist
Pre IFRS 8
(FRS108)
PostIFRS 8
(FRS108)
Secondary/entity-wide disclosures(per
IAS 14R)
No. of
Companies
% No. of
Companies
%

28
Note: This section illustrates the line items included by SGX total 60 companies under
secondary reporting format.
4.3 Average Number of Line Items per Segment
This figure has derived from the results which are obtained from the above
analysis and findings of the line items disclosed per segment. The disclosure of
business segments which is mostly disclosed by primary reporting format as the
chosen SGX companies’ business risks and returns are largely based on the
products and services they offered to the customers has more number of line
items reported than those geographic segments for both years ( 352>145;
269>66). Although the total segment line items by business sectors under both
IAS 14 and IFRS 8 have exceeded those disclosed under geographic segments,
the line items for business segments have reduced in 2010 when IFRS 8
become active. Therefore, the average number of total line items for business
segments under IFRS 8 has reduced to 4.5 from 5.9.
Not only the business segments’ line items disclosed are affected but also those
reported under geographic segments have decreased dramatically from a total
number of 145 to 66, leaving an average number of 1.1 in 2010.
Section3 : Secondary/entity-wide
disclosures
Total Sample
Pre IFRS 8
( FRS 108)
PostIFRS 8
( FRS 108)
Secondary/entity-wide disclosures(per
IAS 14R)
No. of
Companies
% No. of
Companies
%

29
In accordance with the overall measurement results of line items per segments
(Figure 3; Figure 4), it has been very clear that SGX companies’ line items have
changed negatively as it dropped after IFRS 8 has taken place over IAS 14.
Figure 5 Average number of line items per segment
Note: This figure shows the total segment line items disclosed under business
segments reporting and geographic segments reporting. The average number of line
items per segments has also identified.
4.4 Analysis on Chief Operating Decision Maker of SGX 60
From this figure it can be seen that 36 numbers of companies out of 60 have
voluntarily included about the information of whom is the person making a
decision relating to segment disclosures or who the CODM is. This gives a total
percentage of 60 out of 100%. The current study results of SGX 60 companies
are parallel to the findings of (Crawford et al. 2012; Kang and Gray, 2012) as
more than half of the total companies have given detailed information about the
CODM. It has been evidenced that most of the companies’ management team
(17%) have the position of CODM, followed by the CEO (7%). This current
result is parallel to (Kang and Gary, 2013) whose study is based on 189
Australian listed companies. The rest of the roles such as managing and
executive directors, executives committee and board of directors are the least
common CODM resulting 3%, 8% and 5% respectively. Noticeably, 40% of
SGX 60 companies do not give the specific detail about the CODM. Therefore,
in accordance with the CODM identification issues stated earlier in the literature,
the SGX listed companies have not been completely clear to the judgement
made and thus a chance of being contentious in the future. This could be a
reason due to the CODM is not obligatory to identify under IFRS 8 (Crawford et
al. 2010).
2008 (IAS 14(FRS 14)) 2010 (IFRS 8 (FRS108))
Business
segments
Geographic
segments
Business
segments
Geographic
Segments
Total segmentline items
disclosed
352 145 269 66
Mean (total segment
items/60)
5.9 2.4 4.5 1.1

30
Figure 5 Chief Operating Decision Maker of SGX 60
Note:Thistable showsthe numberandpercentage of the companiesinrelationtoCODM
identification
CODM Identification No. of Companies Percentage (%)
Identifiedthe CODM 36 60%
ManagementTeam 17 28%
ChiefExecutive Officer(CEO) 7 12%
Managing Directors 2 3%
Executive Directors 2 3%
ExecutivesCommittee 5 8%
Board of Directors 3 5%
CODM not stated 24 40%
Total companies 60 100%

31
Chapter 5 Conclusion
5.1 Results Overview
Finally, this research paper has accomplished to answer the research questions
which are prepared in earlier to evaluate whether the new IFRS 8 has caused
changes to the segmental disclosures of Singapore firms.
The complete final results as a whole prove that segment disclosures of SGX
companies have changed after IFRS 8 (FRS 108) has superseded the old
standard IAS 14 (FRS 14). Based on the overall findings, IFRS 8 have impact
on the areas such as number of segments and line items per segment. Other
amendments or new steps which applied under the principles of the new IFRS 8
are also reasons supporting segment disclosures to be different from the
previous former version. For instance, applying the new stage of IFRS 8 such
as the management approach has affected those numbers of segments and line
items per segments disclosed under Singapore companies’ segmental reporting.
Stemming from the management approach, the process with CODM who made
decision or managed about the segment reporting has also been judged by
numerous forecasters and users as the annual reports in general do not give
the detail information on it (Nichols et al. 2012). Along with others research on
various sample companies upon the analysis of CODM identification, some of
the Singapore selected firms have also not provided about who the CODM is.
However, there are also some SGX companies which have voluntarily disclosed
the CODM details.
5.2 The CurrentFindingsin Consideration of Previous
Literatures and Applied Theory
Most of the current findings are in parallel with the previous research findings.
However, there are also certain results obtained by SGX 60 companies which
are not consistent with those past results. One of the most uncommon findings
on SGX companies is about the decrease in the number of segments after the
introduction of IFRS 8 as many of the previous studies’ findings on it has
increasing results (Crawford et al. 2012; Kang and Gary, 2012; Nichols et al.
2012). Yet, this present findings of decrease in the number of segments by SGX
companies are comparable to the previous results obtained from the study on
Finnish companies by Saariluoma (2013).

32
Although the number of business and geographic segments of SGX 60
companies have a declining figures, it was found that the number of total
companies which have increased segment figures are more than those
companies which have suffered a decrease. The possible reasons behind this is
that under IFRS 8 segments are allowed to aggregate each other if they met the
segments aggregation requirements (PricewaterhouseCoppers, 2008) and
therefore combining two or more segments can result a decline in the number of
segments. As a result, literatures have stated that principals or shareholders of
segmental reporting will not be able to obtain the complete essential information
of the segments operated within the companies they are investing in (ESMA,
2011).
From the judgment made from the above reviewed literatures, SGX companies
have a slight negative impact by applying the ground-breaking standard IFRS 8
as they disclosed lesser numbers of their operating segments.
The next findings to the research question of whether the line items disclosed
have changed under IFRS 8 or not have common results with the other
research findings. Under IFRS 8, Singapore companies are disclosing lesser
line items in both of their business and geographic segment disclosures and this
particular finding is in line with findings by (Weissenberger and Franzen, 2012a;
Crawford et al. 2012; He et al. 2012; Nichols et al.2012). The line items
disclosed for business segment have only decrease in sizeable amount, leaving
a difference in the mean number of 1.4.
Noticeably, the line items disclosed for geographic segment reporting in 2010
have fallen more than half of those disclosed in 2008 and the most affected line
items for Singapore selected firms are capital expenditure, total assets, total
liabilities and carrying amount of assets as they dropped dramatically. As is
observed from the literatures above, most of the companies reviewed on the
paper prepared for the meeting with IASB for post implementation of IFRS 8
has also have a significant decrease in those line items (IASB, 2013) .
Last but not least, the findings for whether CODM have identified by the
Singapore companies or not is also largely comparable with those research
findings which have reviewed in the earlier section. In line with the findings by
(Nichols et al. 2012; Kang and Gary, 2012; Crawford et al. 2012), 36 Singapore

33
companies have also included about who the CODM is and the management
team is the most common CODM.
To conclude, the overall findings of Singapore companies on the changes on
disclosures after IFRS 8 are mostly comparable with the results from the
previous studies by numerous authors except for the findings on number of
segments.
5.3 The CurrentFindingsin Consideration of Previous
Literatures and Applied Theory
According to the agency theory, the segmental reporting is a useful and
essential tool for a better relationship between the shareholders and the
managers who control the business.
However, as mentioned earlier in section 2.2, the whole idea of management
cannot be fully in line with the principals or shareholders’ idea. Therefore, the
findings of SGX companies adopting the management approach and applying
the CODM step as mandatory under the principle of IFRS 8 could be a potential
issue for principal-agent relationship as they cannot be always agreed on the
idea and plan of each other (Meek, Roberts & Gray, 1995). However, as the
idea of accounting disclosure have been derived from the agency theory and
therefore all the Singapore companies have disclosed their Segment related
information which will allow the users to know the nature of the companies they
are investing in, the segmental disclosure regardless of using the IAS 14 or
IFRS 8 will be an essential disclosure for both users and preparers (Meek,
Roberts & Gray, 1995).
.
5.3 Limitations and Future Research
From the targeted findings presented, this present particular research area of
segmental reporting on SGX companies can be further explored in the future.
Although, most of the previous researches on IFRS 8 segmental reporting have
done on approximately 100-250 companies (Crawford et al. 2012; H. Mardini,
2012 etc.), the sample size for this current research are relatively smaller than
those past studies for some provided limitations in earlier section (Section 3.4).
Therefore, future research is required to examine on more firms including those
companies which are incorporated within other countries as long as they
disclosed their segmental reporting under IFRS 8 or FRS 108.
In this way, the results on the number of segments could also have similar
outcomes to other past studies like (Crawford et al. 2012) which have examined

34
on 100 companies. In addition, although this study have analysed on the
changes on features of segmental reporting after IFRS 8 has taken place, it has
omitted from analysing on whether the segment reporting are related to the
characteristics of entity. Moreover, as the current findings are not based on the
individual opinion within the related firms such as preparers and users and
hence further research could be also analysed by using qualitative method
which results are based on surveys. From this research option, how the
Singapore users and preparers of annual reports have personally thought about
on the new standard, IFRS 8 can be measured.
Last but not least, the reason of why the SGX companies have chosen to
change the standard in accordance with the IFRS will be also an interesting
area to consider in the future.
In conclusion, there are many further abundant research options available in
relation to the changes on segment disclosures after IFRS 8.

35
References
AASB,. (2013). IFRS 8 Post-implementation Review: Reflecting on the IASB Report
and Feedback Statement. Retrieved from
http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content102/c3/M133_7.2_Reflecting_on_IASB_
IFRS8_RFS.pdf
Altaf, N. (2014). Impact Of Segment Reporting On Stock Market Performance.
Journal Of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 3(6), 64-70.
Aleksanyana, M., & Danboltb, J. (2015). Segment Reporting: Is IFRS 8 Really
Better?. Forthcoming In Accounting In Europe, A Journal Of The European
Accounting Association.. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2180894
Berger, P., & Hann, R. (2003). The Impact of SFAS No. 131 on Information and
Monitoring. Journal Of Accounting Research, 41(2), 163-223. doi:10.1111/1475-
679x.00100
Bugeja, M., Czernkowski, R., & Moran, D. (2012, August). Did IFRS 8 Increase
Segment Disclosure?.
Crawford, L., Extance, H., Helliar, C., & Power, D. (2012). Operating segments:
The usefulness of IFRS 8. Edinburgh: ICAS. Retrieved from
http://icas.org.uk/crawford.pdf
Crawford, L., Ferguson, J., Helliar, C., & Power, D. (2014). Control over
accounting standards within the European Union: The political controversy
surrounding the adoption of IFRS 8. Critical Perspectives On Accounting, 25(4-5),
304-318. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2013.03.001
Crawford, L., Helliar, C., & Power, D. (2010). Politics or Accounting Principles:
Why was IFRS 8 so controversial?. ICAEW.
Crawford, L., Helliar, C., & Power, D. (n.d.). IFRS8: Stakeholder perceptions of the
introduction of a controversial standard. Retrieved from
http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/accountingfinance/eufi
n2010/EUFIN%20-%20Crawford%20-%20Helliar%20-%20Power.pdf
Douma, S. W., & Schreuder, H. (2008). Economic approaches to organizations.
Pearson Education.

36
Deloitte . (n.d.). IFRS 8 — Operating Segments. From IAS Plus :
http://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ifrs/ifrs8
EDWARDS, P., & SMITH, R. (1996). COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE AND
VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURES: THE CASE OF SEGMENTAL REPORTING. The
British Accounting Review, 28(2), 155-172. doi:10.1006/bare.1996.0012
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy Of
Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003
EMMANUEL, C., GARROD, N., McCALLUM, C., & RENNIE, E. (1999). THE
IMPACT OF SSAP 25 AND THE 10% MATERIALITY RULE ON SEGMENT
DISCLOSURE IN THE UK. The British Accounting Review, 31(2), 127
149.doi:10.1006/bare.1998.0090
Ernst and Young,. (2009). IFRS 8 Operating segments- Implementation guidance.
Retrieved from
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/IFRS_8_Operating_segments_Impleme
ntation_guidance/$FILE/IFRS_8_Operating_Segments_IG.pdf
Ernst and Young,. (2013). IFRS 8 Operating segments- Implementation guidance.
Retrieved from
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/IFRS_8_Operating_segments_Impleme
ntation_guidance/$FILE/IFRS_8_Operating_Segments_IG.pdf
European Commission (2007), Endorsement of IFRS 8 Operating Segments: Analysis
of potential effects – Report, Brussels, September.
European Securities and Markets Authority,. (2011). Review of European enforcers
on the implementation of IFRS 8 “Operating Segments. Retrieved from
http://www.esma.europa.eu/system/files/2011_372.pdf
Farías, P., & Rodríguez, R. (2014). Segment disclosures under IFRS 8’s
management approach: has segment reporting improved?. Spanish Journal Of
Finance And Accounting / Revista Española De Financiación Y Contabilidad, 1-17.

37
doi:10.1080/02102412.2014.987445
He, R., He, L., & Evans, E. (2012). The impact of AASB 8 on segment disclosure
practices and analysts’ information environment. Working paper, Macquarie
University.
Heem, G. and P. Valenza (2012). An analysis of segment disclosures under IAS 14
and IFRS 8. Working paper, University of Nice and EDHEC.
Hemm, G., & Valenza, P. D. (2010). An analysis of segment disclosures under IAS
14 and IFRS 8. Working Paper, Erişim Tarihi: 15.02. 2010, http://proquest. umi.
com/pqdweb.
Herrmann, D., & Thomas, W. (2000). A model of forecast precision using segment
disclosures: implications for SFAS no. 131. Journal Of International Accounting,
Auditing And Taxation, 9(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/s1061-9518(00)00022-7
Hope, O., Kang, T., Thomas, W., & Vasvari, F. (2008). The effects of SFAS 131
geographic segment disclosures by US multinational companies on the valuation of
foreign earnings. J Int Bus Stud, 40(3), 421-443. doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.72
Horn, R. (2009). Researching and writing dissertations. London: Chartered Institute
of Personnel and Development.
IASB,. (2012). IFRS 8 Operating Segments—aggregation of operating segments.
Retrieved from http://www.ifrs.org/Current-Projects/IASB-Projects/Aggregation-of-
operating-segments/Documents/101211AP10A%20-%20CL%20analysis%20-
%20IFRS%208%20Aggregation%20of%20operating%20segments.pdf
Iasplus.com,. (n.d.). IAS 14 Segment Reporting (Superseded). Retrieved 13 April
2015, from http://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias14
Iasplus.com,. Post-implementation review” IFRS 8. Retrieved 20 March 2015, from
http://www.iasplus.com/en/projects/pir/ifrs-8-pir
IFRS,. (2013). Post-implementation review of IFRS 8. Retrieved from
http://www.ifrs.org/IFRS-Research/Research-impact/Documents/6C%20-%20Post-
implementation%20review.pdf
IFRS . (2006, November 30). IASB issues convergence standard on segment
reporting. From IFRS : http://www.ifrs.org/news/press-releases/Pages/iasb-issues-

38
convergence-standard-on-segment-reporting.aspx
IFRS,. (2013). Post-implementation Review: IFRS 8 Operating Segments. Retrieved
from http://www.ifrs.org/Current-Projects/IASB-Projects/PIR/IFRS-
8/Documents/PIR-IFRS-8-Operating-Segments-July-2013.pdf
In Proceedings of the American Accounting Association Annual Meeting,
Washington (pp. 4-8).
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1994). Self-interest, altruism, incentives, and
agency theory. Journal of applied corporate finance, 7(2), 40-45.
Jermakowicz, E., & Gornik-Tomaszewski, S. (2006). Implementing IFRS from the
perspective of EU publicly traded companies. Journal Of International Accounting,
Auditing And Taxation, 15(2), 170-196. doi:10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2006.08.003
Kang, H., & Gray, S. J. (2013). Segment reporting practices in Australia: Has IFRS
8 made a difference?. Australian Accounting Review, 23(3), 232-243.
Kang, H., & Gray, S. J. (2013). Segment reporting practices in Australia: Has IFRS
8 made a difference?. Australian Accounting Review, 23(3), 232-243.
Kajuter, P., & Nienhaus, M. (2012). Value relevance of segment reporting—
Evidence from German companies. Working paper, University of Munster.
Kpmg,. (2010). The Application of IFRS: Segment Reporting. Retrieved from
https://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/ILine-of-
Business-publications/Documents/The-Application-of-IFRS-Segment-reporting-
Executive-Summary-16-july-2010.pdf
Mardini, G. H. (2012). The impact of IFRS 8 on segmental reporting by Jordanian
Listed Companies. Retrieved from
http://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/portal/files/1253086/mardini_phd_2012.pdf
Mardini, G. H., Crawford, L., & Power, D. M. (2012). The impact of IFRS 8 on
disclosure practices of Jordanian listed companies. Journal of Accounting in
Emerging Economies, 2(1), 67-90.
Mardini, G., Crawford, L., & Power, D. (2012). The impact of IFRS 8 on disclosure
practices of Jordanian listed companies. J Acc In Emerging Economies, 2(1), 67-90.
doi:10.1108/20421161211196139

39
mca.gov,. (2013). Accounting Standard (AS) 17: Segment Reporting. Retrieved from
http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/notification/pdf/AS_17.pdf
McKinnon, J., & Dalimunthe, L. (1993). Voluntary Disclosure of Segment
Information by Australian Diversified Companies. Accounting & Finance, 33(1),
33-50. doi:10.1111/j.1467-629x.1993.tb00192.x
Moldovan, R. (2014). Post-Implementation Reviews for IASB and FASB Standards:
A Comparison of the Process and Findings for the Operating Segments Standards.
Accounting In Europe, 11(1), 113-137. doi:10.1080/17449480.2014.901588
Meek, G. K., Roberts, C. B., & Gray, S. J. (1995). Factors influencing voluntary annual
report disclosures by US, UK and continental European multinational corporations. Journal
of international business studies, 555-572.
Nichols, N. B., Street, D. L., & Cereola, S. J. (2012). An analysis of the impact of
adopting IFRS 8 on the segment disclosures of European blue chip companies.
Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 21(2), 79-105.
Nichols, N., & Street, D. (2007). The relationship between competition and business
segment reporting decisions under the management approach of IAS 14 Revised.
Journal Of International Accounting, Auditing And Taxation, 16(1), 51-68.
doi:10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2007.01.002
Nichols, N., Street, D., & Cereola, S. (2012). An analysis of the impact of adopting
IFRS 8 on the segment disclosures of European blue chip companies. Journal of
International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 21(2), 79-105.
doi:10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2012.07.001
Nichols, N., Street, D., & Tarca, A. (2013). The Impact of Segment Reporting
Under the IFRS 8 and SFAS 131 Management Approach: A Research Review. J Int
Financ Manage Account, 24(3), 261-312. doi:10.1111/jifm.12012
Parker, C., & Sauer, D. (2009). Understanding Segment Information, Vol. 80(11).
Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/47154098/understanding-
segment-information
PricewaterhouseCoopers,. (2008). A practical guide to segment reporting. Retrieved
from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ifrs-reporting/pdf/segment-reporting.pdf
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2012). A Practical Guide to New Singapore Financial

40
Reporting Standards for 2012. From PwC: http://www.pwc.com/sg/en/illustrative-
annual-report-2012/assets/iar_practical_guide_2012.pdf
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2014, October). IFRS adoption by Country. From PwC:
www.pwc.com/en_US/us/issues/ifrs-reporting/publications/assets/pwc-ifrs-by-
country-2014.pdf
Pisano, S., & Landriani, L. (2012). The determinants of segment disclosure: an
empirical analysis on Italian listed companies. Financial Reporting.
PwC. (2012). A Practical Guide to New Singapore Financial Reporting Standards
for 2012. From PwC : http://www.pwc.com/sg/en/illustrative-annual-report-
2012/assets/iar_practical_guide_2012.pdf
Prather-Kinsey, J., & Meek, G. K. (2004). The effect of revised IAS 14 on segment
reporting by IAS companies. European Accounting Review, 13(2), 213-234.
PricewaterhouseCoopers,. (2008). Singapore Financial Reporting Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/sg/en/illustrative-annual-report-
2008/assets/pocketguide200808.pdf
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2008, September). A practical guide to Segment
Reporting . From pwc: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ifrs-reporting/pdf/segment-
reporting.pdf
Quinn, D. and Jones, T. (1995). AN AGENT MORALITY VIEW OF BUSINESS
POLICY. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp.22-42.
Rennie, E., & Emmanuel, C. (1992). Segmental Disclosure Practice: Thirteen Years
On. Accounting And Business Research, 22(86), 151-159.
doi:10.1080/00014788.1992.9729430
Roberts, C. B. (2010). Segment reporting. Comparative International Accounting.
From
http://ebooks.narotama.ac.id/files/Comparative%20International%20Accounting%2
0(10th%20Edition)/Chapter%2019%20%20Segment%20Reporting.pdf
Sagepub,. (2007). Evaluating Information: Validity, Reliability, Accuracy,
Triangulation. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-
data/17810_5052_Pierce_Ch07.pdf

41
Street, D. L., Nichols, N. B., & Gray, S. J. (2000). Segment disclosures under SFAS
No. 131: Has business segment reporting improved?. Accounting Horizons, 14(3),
259-285.
Sgx.com,. (2015). Singapore Exchange Ltd | SGX. Retrieved 14 April 2015, from
http://www.sgx.com/
Singapore Statutes Online,. (n.d.). Singapore Statutes Online - 50 - Companies Act.
Retrieved 16 April 2015, from http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
Singapore Corporate Awards . (2014). Best Annual Report . From Singapore
Corporate Awards : http://www.scawards.com.sg/scawards_ar.html
Saariluoma, S. (2013). The Effects of IFRS 8 on Segment Disclosure - Evidence
from Finnish Listed Companies. Retrieved from
http://epub.lib.aalto.fi/en/ethesis/pdf/13471/hse_ethesis_13471.pdf
Sukhraj (2007a), ‘A standard that nobody likes’, Accountancy Age, April p7.
Tarca, A., & Pitman, A. (2013). Post-implementation review of IFRS 8. Retrieved
from http://www.ifrs.org/IFRS-Research/Research-
impact/Documents/6B%20Post%20implementation%20review.pdf
UNIT, S. (2009, July). Adoption of IFRS by Central Government briefing note by
the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit. From Parliment:
www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/IFRSbriefing.pdf
Valenza, P., & Heem, G. (2012). An Analysis of Segment Disclosures Under IAS
14 and IFRS 8. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1615430
Veron, N. (2007). EU Adoption of the IFRS 8 standard on operating segments. Note
for the ECON Committee of the European Parliament.
Wilkins, T., & Khoo, E. (2012). IFRS Segment Disclosures and Internal Capital
Market Efficiency: Is There Any Improvement?. Working paper (National University
of Singapore, Singapore, 2012).
Walliman, N. (2004). Your undergraduate dissertation. London: SAGE.
Weissenberger, B., & Franzen, N. (2012). The Impact of IFRS 8 on Segment
Reporting in Germany: Have New Rules Overstepped the Mark?. Working paper

42
(Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany, 2012a)

43
Reflective statement
As this dissertation is my very first one that I have ever written, the whole tasks
have been very challenging for me but yet I have gained a lot of experience and
knowledge through the process. Therefore, I believe this piece of work will still
be lacking in some of the areas though I have tried my best. As I have chosen
the specific area that I am personally interested in- which is the Segmental
reporting of Singapore companies, the whole procedures have really kept me
with great interests.
However, there are also some challenging parts for me like Literature reviews
and the data analysing. As the literature reviews needs a huge amount of
knowledge by reading numerous articles in order to compare and critically
produce statements of understanding, I personally found it tough. But the basic
knowledge that I have learnt from the advice of my supervisor, Wendy and
ESAP language class have equipped me with a better capability to get the work
to be done. Next, the data collecting and analysing is a challenging part as I am
practically testing on my research questions. Due to my inexperience, I made
several mistakes in collecting and analysing my data at first and I had to
encourage myself many times till I got the correct results. Therefore, it needed
quite a large amount of time for me to accomplish. From this part, I have studied
the nature of segmental disclosures from 174 total of different annual reports
listed on SGX in two separate years.
Despite the time consuming and some difficulties I have experienced, I am
really thankful to have this opportunity to analyse the data and do research on
my own interests area. Because to be a good accountant, I believe that one
would have to be very familiar with the annual reports in real world.
I believe that from this dissertation, I have gained a lot knowledge which I can
apply in the future of my career. Overall, despite all the difficulties I finally have
accomplished with the very kind help of my supervisor and I am very pleased
with my piece of hard work.

44
Acronyms
AASB – Australian Accounting Standards Board
CODM – Chief Operating Decision Maker
ED – Exposure Draft
ESMA – European Securities and Market Authority
IAS – International Accounting Standards
IASC – International Accounting Standards Committee
IFRS – International Financial Reporting Standards
IASB – International Accounting Standards Board
SFRS – Singapore Financial Reporting Standards
SSAP – Statements of Standard Accounting Practice
SGX – Singapore Stock Exchange

45
Appendices
Appendix 1
SAMPLE COMPANIES
SGX MAINBOARD SGX CATALIST
ASL MARINE HOLDINGS LTD. AA group holdingsltd
FIRST RESOURCES LIMITED ASIATRAVEL.COM HOLDINGS LTD
QAF LIMITED SELECT GROUP LIMITED
LOW KENG HUAT (SINGAPORE) LIMITED HOSEN GROUP LTD. (DISCONTINUED)
CHINA SUNSINE CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD. ADVANCED SYSTEMS AUTOMATION
LIMITED
ADDVALUE TECHNOLOGIES LTD COLEX HOLDINGS LIMITED
ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED EMS ENERGY LIMITED
ABR HOLDINGS LIMITED SITRA HOLDINGS (INTERNATIONAL)
LIMITED
ABTERRA LTD (Dis) CRAFT PRINT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED.
ACHIEVA LIMITED (Dis) FUJI OFFSET PLATES MANUFACTURING
LTD
ADVANCED INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING CORP.
LTD.
ALBEDO LIMITED
AMARA HOLDINGS LIMITED INTERNATIONAL PRESS SOFTCOM LIMITED
SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED ITE ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD
ANNAIK LIMITED MEGACHEM LIMITED
VICOM LTD PROGEN HOLDINGS LTD
BBR HOLDINGS (S) LTD SOON LIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED
ASIA ENTERPRISES HOLDING LIMITED TSH CORPORATION LIMITED
YHI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED TMC EDUCATION CORPORATION LTD.
WILMAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VASHION GROUP LTD.
VENTURE CORPORATION LIMITED ADVENTUS HOLDINGS LIMITED
UNITED ENVIROTECH LTD. KLW HOLDINGS LIMITED
TYE SOON LIMITED LINAIR TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
TECKWAH INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD
STAMFORD TYRES CORPORATION LIMITED
STAMFORD LAND CORPORATION LTD
SOUTHERN PACKAGING GROUP LIMITED
SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGS LIMITED
SERIAL SYSTEM LTD
CWT LIMITED
CHIP ENG SENG CORPORATION LTD.
ENGRO CORPORATION LIMITED
HOTEL ROYAL LIMITED
RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS LIMITED
CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (FAR EAST) LIMITED.
DYNAMIC COLOURS LIMITED
PETRA FOODS LIMITED
PNE INDUSTRIES LTD
HOTEL PROPERTIES LIMITED

46
Appendix 2
Faculty of Business and Law
StudentResearch EthicalIssues Form
Student Name: JA HTU AUNG
Programme of Study BA (HONS) ACCOUNTING
Title of Research Project: IFRS 8 (Operating Segments)
Start Date of Research Project: 25 October 2014
Supervisor WENDY MASON BURDON
Comments
Brief description of the proposed
research methods including (if
relevant) how human participants will
be selected and involved.
Quantitative data will be collected from Singapore companies
which are listed on Singapore stock exchange. Data are available
through the companies’ annual reports.
No human participants will be involved.

47
How will informed consent of
research participants be
acquired?
(If appropriate attach draft informed
consent form)
N/A
Research will be formed through collecting data which are
available through annual reports on the internet.
Will the research involve an
organization(s)?
(If appropriate attach draft
organisational consent form)
No
How will research data be
collected, securely stored and
anonymity protected (where this
is required)
Research will be formed through collecting data which are
available through annual reports on the internet.
How will data be destroyed after
the end of the project? (Where
data is not to be destroyed
please give reasons)
N/A
Any other ethical issues
anticipated?
No
Student Signature (indicating that the research will be conducted in conformity with the above and agreeing
that any significant change in the research project will be notified and a further “Project Amendment’ Form
submitted).
Date: ………………………………Student Signature:…………………………………………….
Supervisor:
I confirm that I have read this form and I believe the proposed research will not breach University policies.
Date:……………………………… Signature:………………………………………….

48
Please Note:
The appropriate completion of this form is a critical component of the University Policy
on Ethical Issues in Research and Consultancy. If further advice is required, please
contact the Faculty Research Ethics Committee through
bl.ethics.administrator@northumbria.ac.uk in the first instance.

Final Dissertation

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Final Dissertation

Ähnlich wie Final Dissertation (20)

Final Dissertation