Biological asset disclosure under MFRS 141: Longitudinal evidence from Malaysian publicly listed plantation companies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol11iss2pp437-454Abstract
Background and Purpose: Biological asset disclosure remains a significant reporting issue due to challenges in measurement, judgment, and financial reporting comparability. This study provides longitudinal evidence on the disclosure of biological assets among 41 Malaysian listed plantation companies, comparising over a 13-year period from 2010 to 2022. It investigates whether the adoption and subsequent amendments of IAS 41 have led to improvements in corporate disclosure.
Methodology: Data were manually collected using a disclosure index developed from the IAS 41 and Malaysia Financial Reporting Standards (MFRS)141 requirements. The disclosure items include asset types, nature of business activities, measurement and evaluation methods, production cycles and risk-related information associated with biological assets. Each disclosure item was assessed using a binary scoring approach (1 = disclosed; 0 = not disclosed). The study comprised 533 firm-year observations from 41 Malaysian publicly listed plantation companies. Descriptive statistics and One-Way ANOVA were employed to analyse the disclosure level across four regulatory stages: pre-convergence, introduction, amendment, and post-implementation.
Findings: The findings indicate a progressive and statistically significant increase in biological asset disclosures over time, although full compliance remains limited due to measurement complexity, cost considerations and valuation challenges. One-way ANOVA results confirmed significant differences in disclosure levels across the four regulatory stages, with the post-implementation period exhibiting the highest level of disclosure. The results highlight persistent gaps in disclosure practices and suggest that regulatory enforcement plays a critical role in enhancing reporting transparency and comparability in emerging market contexts.
Contributions: This study provides important implications for regulators, standard setters and practitioners in improving the quality and consistency of biological asset reporting.
Keywords: IAS 41, MFRS 141, disclosure, biological asset, fair value measurement, plantation company.
Cite as: Mohamed, N. N., Mohamed Adnan, S., Ahmad Mohamed, A. M., & Fitria, Y. (2026). Biological asset disclosure under MFRS 141: Longitudinal evidence from Malaysian publicly listed plantation companies. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 11(2), 437-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol11iss2pp437-454
References
Abdullah, M., & Minhat, M. (2019). Convergence with IFRS in Malaysia. In M. Tsamenyi & S. Uddin (Eds.), The Routledge companion to accounting in emerging economies (pp. 123–140). Routledge.
Abidin, A. F. Z., Hashim, H. A., & Ariff, A. M. (2017). Ethical commitments and financial performance: Evidence from publicly listed companies in Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 53–95. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2017.22.2.3
Aliana, S. (2014). The compliance of fair value measurement in the preparation of financial statements: A study on IAS 41 [Unpublished Master thesis]. Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Argilés, J. M., & Slof, E. J. (2001). New opportunities for farm accounting. European Accounting Review, 10(2), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180126640
Aryanto, Y. H. (2011). Theoretical failure of IAS 41. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1808413
Barth, M. E., & Israeli, D. (2013). Disentangling mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2–3), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.11.002
Bezares, F. G., Przychodzen, W., & Przychodzen, J. (2017). Bridging the gap: How sustainable development can help companies create shareholder value and improve financial performance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12135
Bohušová, H., Hanzelková, H., & Svoboda, P. (2012). Reporting of biological assets in agricultural accounting and the possibilities of their valuation. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(5), 1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201866051443
Bozollon, E., Tavares, M. F., & Lima, R. (2015). Accounting treatment of biological assets and agricultural products. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 19(3), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-92722015/administracao.v19n3p340-356
Campos-Llerena, P., Arias-Pérez, M., Toscano-Morales, C., & Barreno-Córdova, C. (2025). Biological assets in agricultural accounting: A systematic review of IAS 41. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(7), Article 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18070380
Drisko, W. J., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis pocket guide to social work research methods. Oxford University Press.
Duwu, M. I., Daat, S. C., & Andriati, H. N. (2018). Pengaruh biological asset intensity, ukuran perusahaan, konsentrasi kepemilikan, jenis KAP, dan profitabilitas terhadap biological asset disclosure. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Daerah, 13(2), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.52062/jakd.v13i2.1436
Elad, C. (2004). Fair value accounting in the agricultural sector: Some implications for international accounting harmonization. European Accounting Review, 13(4), 621–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000216839
Elad, C., & Herbohn, K. (2011). Implementing fair value accounting in the agricultural sector. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
Feleagă, L., Feleagă, N., & Răileanu, V. (2012). Theoretical considerations about implementation of IAS 41 in Romania. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 2(2), 31–45.
Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1-3), 405-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(01)00018-0
Herbohn, J., & Herbohn, K. (2006). IAS 41: What are the implications for reporting forest assets? Small-Scale Forestry, 5(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-006-0009-1
Ika, S. R., Susetyo, R., Pribadi, A., Dwiwinarno, T., & Widagdo, A. K. (2022.). Factors influencing biological asset disclosures in agricultural companies in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1114(1), Article 012074. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012074
Jamil, S. N., Ismail, S., & Arif, A. M. (2019). Application of MFRS 141: Insights from financial statements of companies in Malaysia. Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.46754/umtjur.v1i2.67
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Lazar, J., & Huang, C. C. (2012). Financial reporting standard of Malaysia. McGraw-Hill Education.
Lopes, P., & Gonçalves, R. (2018). Firm-specific determinants of agricultural financial reporting: The case of biological assets in Portugal. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 37(4), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.07.001
Malaysian Palm Oil Council. (2024). Navigating Malaysian palm oil downstream industries: Analysis of 2023 and prospects for 2024. MPOC. https://www.mpoc.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Palm-Pulse-Issue-12-2024-Mobile.pdf
Marsh, T., & Fischer, M. (2013). Accounting for agricultural products: US versus IFRS GAAP. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 11(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v11i2.7620
Masuku, M., & Abeysekera, I. (2013). The disclosure of biological assets in annual reports of listed farming companies: The case of South Africa. Agricultural Finance Review, 73(2), 225–240.
Miranda, H. D., Mojica, L. E., Madamba, J. A. B., & Zapata, N. (2017). Accounting practices and IAS/PAS 41 compliance of cattle farms. Journal of Global Business and Trade, 13(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.20294/jgbt.2017.13.1.55
Mohamed, N. N., Mohamed Adnan, S., Sulong, F., Alias, N., & Khalid, F. M. (2026). Panel dataset on biological asset disclosure items in Malaysian plantation companies. Data in Brief, 46(1), Article 112645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112645
Mohamed, N. N., & Mohamed, N. (2026). Assessment of accounting methods practiced by Malaysian public listed companies in agriculture sector. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(1), 1056-1066. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2026.10100083
Nikmah, N., Taufik, M., & Ilyas, F. (2022). Intensity, profitability and disclosure of biological assets. Jurnal Akuntansi, 12(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.33369/j.akuntansi.12.1.51-62
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2009). A practical guide to accounting for agricultural assets. PwC.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2011). IAS 41 agriculture: The fair value of standing timber. PwC.
Phang, S. Y., & Mahzan, N. (2017). The responses of Malaysian public listed companies to IFRS convergence. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 6(1), 1–20.
Salehuddin, M. N., Noor, S. M., & Zain, A. R. (2021). Measuring fair value of biological assets in Malaysia: Challenges and implications. International Journal of Business Management and Technology, 5(2), 341–347.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson.
Sharif, S. P., & Lai, M. (2015). The effects of corporate disclosure practices on firm performance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 12(4), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2015.2
Shi, W., Connelly, B. L., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2017). External corporate governance and financial fraud. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1268–1286. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2560
Tan, L. T. (2010). Financial accounting and reporting in Malaysia (Vol. 2). Wolters Kluwer.
Theiss, V., Utzig, M. J. S., Varela, P. S., & Beuren, I. M. (2014). Biological asset disclosure practices. Registro Contábil, 5(3), 41–58.
Ulfa, O. A., Nasrizal, N., Susilatri, S., & Kurnia, P. (2022). Factors influencing biological asset disclosure. CURRENT: Jurnal Kajian Akuntansi dan Bisnis Terkini, 3(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.31258/current.3.1.83-100
White, M. D., & Marsh, E. E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology. Library Trends, 55(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0053
