Navigating Accounting for Digital Assets: The Mediating Role of Regulatory Clarity in Enhancing Financial Reporting Quality in Malaysia

Navigating Accounting for Digital Assets: The Mediating Role of Regulatory Clarity in Enhancing Financial Reporting Quality in Malaysia

Siti Sakinah Azizan., Marzlin Marzuki., Muslimah Mohd Jamil., Roshidah Safeei

Faculty of Accountancy, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah Branch Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000317

Received: 04 September 2025; Accepted: 14 September 2025; Published: 09 October 2025

ABSTRACT

The emergence of digital resources in the form of cryptocurrencies has presented major challenges to financial reporting particularly in emerging economies like Malaysia where regulatory structures are still developing. One of the key problems is the lack of standardized accounting treatments, which contributes to inconsistencies in recognition, measurement, and disclosure, compromising the quality of financial reporting and stakeholder confidence. This study aims to develop a conceptual framework to examine the relationship between accounting for digital assets and financial reporting quality, with regulatory clarity as the mediating variable. The study utilizes a narrative review approach and draws conclusions based on the results of 22 peer-reviewed articles acquired through the Scopus database, guided by the Institutional Theory, and backed by the Decision-Usefulness Theory. Several themes identified in the review are the benefits of IFRS alignment, issues that exist in classification and measurement of digital assets, and the importance of transparent and effective regulatory frameworks to enhance transparency and comparability. Studies have indicated that the absence of regulatory transparency can increase reporting disparities and decrease the usefulness of financial disclosures. Nonetheless, companies are in a better position to generate quality, transparent and credible reporting, which has enforceable and clearly defined rules. Theoretically, this study extends Institutional Theory to the evolving domain of digital asset reporting. Practically, it calls on Malaysian regulators and standard-setters to issue comprehensive guidance for digital assets. The proposed framework not only provides a foundation for future empirical research but also supports Malaysia’s strategic objective of becoming a regional leader in digital finance through strengthened financial reporting standards and practices.

Keywords: Digital Assets, Financial Reporting Quality, Regulatory Clarity, Institutional Theory, Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of various digital assets such as cryptocurrencies, tokenized assets and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has completely transformed the accounting process on a global scale. This trend is becoming increasingly popular in Malaysia, with financial institutions, fintechs, and investors becoming increasingly involved with digital assets. Although Malaysia has continued working towards harmonising its financial reporting system with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the question remains how accounting of the digital assets is supposed to be done. These assets mostly vary in accounting standards in form, substance and volatility therefore challenging established accounting standards. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze the effect of regulatory clarity on the setting of uniform and quality financial reporting standards of digital assets in Malaysia (Muniady and Ali, 2012; Hla and Md Isa, 2015).

The problems associated with the accounting of digital assets, such as the lack of clear instructions in current accounting systems within financial frameworks like MFRS and IFRS have been addressed in several studies. According to Yee, Heong, and Chin (2020), the problems with the digital asset classification that are present in the existing standards include inconsistent accounting treatment by the existing standards. Moreover, according to Angeline et al. (2021), the valuation and the quality of reporting of such assets are preconditioned by the impact of not only the degree of technological development but also the support of the regulations. Given that international bodies like the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) and Financial Accounting Standard Board(FASB) are reviewing accounting frameworks, local researchers and policymakers are assessing how these changes affect financial reporting practices in the region. Implementation of integrated reporting in Malaysia will be the emerging demand of transparency, accountability and governance to the stakeholders and this is particularly the areas that are prone to swift technological change (Mohammed et al., 2020).

Despite the continuous expansion in the body of research, the gap in the literature concerning the role of regulatory clarity as one of the mediating variables in the correlation between the accounting treatment of digital assets and the quality of financial reporting remains significant. The inconsistency of standards and vague interpretation has spawned questions of relevancy, comparability and reliability of financial disclosed information (Zaini and Musa, 2021). Accordingly, the provided paper aims at proposing a theoretical framework with regulatory transparency as a mediating variable, demonstrating how policy coherence may lead to an improved decision utility of digital asset reporting. This will promote theoretical discussions and facilitate the process of transforming Malaysia into a transparent and uniform reporting system.

This study is significant in several respects. First, it supports policy formulation by providing regulators such as Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and the Malaysian Accounting Standards Board (MASB) with a conceptual framework to guide the development of future accounting standards and guidelines. Second, it enhances conceptual clarity in digital asset reporting, enabling accounting professionals to address the associated technological and ethical challenges. Finally, the study contributes to investor confidence and capital market development by promoting high-quality financial reporting. These outcomes align with Malaysia’s national agenda to establish the country as a digital financial hub in Southeast Asia (Madah Marzuki et al., 2021).

This paper builds on Decision-Usefulness Theory emphasizing relevance and reliability of information presented to financial statements users. It is also consistent with Institutional Theory, which describes the effects of regulatory and normative pressures on behaviors and practices in an organization. Such theoretical frameworks provide reason to believe that regulatory clarity plays a mediating role and a determinant of reporting quality. To demonstrate this, a conceptual framework linking the accounting treatment of digital assets, regulatory clarity and quality of financial reporting is described in this paper.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In the following section, the literature review of the development of digital asset accounting and regulation in Malaysia and resultant development of the conceptual framework and theoretical rationale is presented. The policy implications, practice implications and research implications are addressed in the concluding sections. The paper concludes by proposing that regulators, academia, and practitioners engage in collective activities to scale up the accounting framework of digital assets in Malaysia.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the past two decades, Malaysia’s financial reporting has undergone significant changes, largely driven by convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) through the MASB.

This standardization has improved transparency, comparability, and investor confidence to the extent that Malaysian companies report their financial data using a globally recognized reporting framework (Hla et al., 2021). Despite these advancements, digital assets due to their volatility, technological complexity, and novelty pose significant challenges for accounting standard-setters, as they are difficult to account for under existing frameworks. Although disclosure and valuation reliability have increased following the implementation of Financial Reporting Standards (FRS) (Sidik et al., 2019), there is still uncertainty regarding the recognition, measurement, and classification of digital assets. Such a lack of transparency in regulation poses a threat to accuracy and undermines stakeholder trust, making regulatory clarity acutely important. Against this background, three major themes can be observed in the literature: accounting treatment of digital assets, regulatory clarity (as the mediating factor), and implications of financial reporting quality. 

Accounting treatment of digital assets

The accounting of digital assets remains controversial across much of the world, with no common framework to suit its unique properties. Even though in most jurisdictions, including Malaysia, digital assets are commonly classified as intangible assets in IAS 38, this classification often fails to capture the economic substance of such tokens, especially of those that have an investment or utility purpose (Yermack, 2017; Prochazka, 2018). In Malaysia, current studies highlight the poor suitability of the existing frameworks in tackling measurement and recognition of these non-physical and highly volatile assets (Yee et al., 2020; Sidik et al., 2019). Even with regulatory agency frameworks (e.g. the Securities Commission and Bank Negara Malaysia) giving guidance on the digital currencies and tokens, there is a lack of relationship between regulatory definitions and accounting practices (Sanad, 2024). These gaps have been recognized by standard setters around the world, including the IASB (2022), FASB (2023), and European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) (2020), but have not been properly addressed with comprehensive standards to date, with accountants relying on ad hoc interpretations. Lack of a good and consistent accounting model is a risk to investors, auditors and other stakeholders in Malaysia and beyond (CPA Canada, 2019).

Regulatory clarity

Regulatory clarity has played a central role in mediating the relationship between the accounting of digital assets and the quality of financial reporting. Uncertainty in standards can lead to discretionary interpretations by accountants, resulting in inconsistent recognition, measurement, and disclosure across firms (Prochazka, 2018). Despite Malaysia’s alignment with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), specific guidance on digital assets remains absent (Muniandy and Ali, 2012; Hla et al., 2021). This gap is particularly challenging for Islamic financial institutions, where Shariah compliance introduces additional complexities in classifying digital instruments (Madah Marzuki et al., 2021; Sanad, 2024). Effective regulation should be timely, specific, and enforceable to ensure consistent application. Clear standards not only reduce ambiguity in disclosure but also improve comparability and accuracy (Hla et al., 2021; IASB, 2022). Given ongoing uncertainty in the classification and measurement of digital assets, Malaysia requires a robust regulatory framework to reduce misreporting risks and enhance stakeholder confidence in financial reporting.

Financial reporting quality

Financial reporting quality (FRQ) is a core element in the provision of information on financial statements that is relevant, reliable and decision useful. FRS implementation in accordance with IFRS has already led to the improvement of the disclosure regime and investor confidence in Malaysia (Sidik et al., 2019; Muniandy and Ali, 2012). However, digital assets present unique risks to FRQ due to their volatility, novelty, and regulatory uncertainty. Studies indicate that firms supported by clear regulatory frameworks and robust accounting practices produce higher-quality financial statements (Al-Qadasi et al., 2022; Hla et al., 2021). Moreover, effective governance mechanisms and strong audit oversight are additional drivers of improved FRQ (Nahar & Mohamad, 2023). Since institutional investors are increasingly requiring fair value and the disclosure of digital asset in a timely manner, Malaysia needs to consolidate its regulatory frameworks and empower accounting professionals to meet these requirements (Angeline et al., 2021; CPA Canada, 2019). This will not only build FRQ, but will also build investor confidence, market discipline, and financial reporting ecosystem integrity.

This review highlights three key themes emerging from literature: the challenges in accounting for digital assets, the critical role of regulatory clarity, and its implications for financial reporting quality. While Malaysia has made significant progress in aligning its financial reporting with global standards, the absence of clear guidelines on digital asset reporting has led to uncertainty, inconsistency, and diminished stakeholder confidence. Regulatory clarity thus emerges as a central moderating factor that bridges digital asset accounting and high-quality financial reporting. However, existing research has not fully conceptualized this mediating role within the Malaysian context. This gap highlights the need for a theoretical framework proposed in this study, which integrates digital asset accounting, regulatory clarity, and financial reporting quality.

METHODOLOGY

Research design – narrative review methodology

This study adopts a narrative review approach, which is well suited for conceptual research aimed at synthesizing diverse sources of literature into a coherent theoretical framework. Contrary to systematic reviews which emphasize empirical testing, narrative reviews offer greater flexibility in exploring conceptual relationships, particularly in emerging areas such as digital asset accounting. This method enables the integration of a broad body of literature to examine the mediating role of regulatory clarity in the relationship between digital asset accounting practices and financial reporting quality. It is especially valuable in contexts where scholarly consensus remains limited, such as the accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and other blockchain-based assets in Malaysia (Greenhalgh et al., 2018).

Key steps in conducting a narrative review

This review followed a systematic but flexible review process by identifying, selecting, and synthesizing thematically the peer-reviewed journal articles that met the criteria. The Scopus database was chosen as the sole data source because the database covers a wide range of quality journals and indexes them in multiple areas of accounting, economics, and business. The review process included multiple steps:(i) clear research aim formulation to investigate the mediating role of regulatory clarity, (ii) search strategy formulation based on clear keywords and Boolean operators, (iii) eligibility screening based on inclusion/exclusion criteria (publication date (2021-2025), English language, and relevance to managing digital assets reporting in Malaysia or other jurisdictions of the ASEAN region), and (iv) integrative thematic analysis of the emerging themes and concepts.

Fig.1. Key steps in conducting narrative review

Data collection and review strategy

The literature search was conducted using the following search string in the Scopus database:

(“accounting” OR “financial reporting” OR “bookkeeping” OR “audit”) AND (“digital assets” OR “cryptocurrency” OR “virtual currency” OR “digital currency”) AND (“Malaysia” OR “Malaysian” OR “Southeast Asia” OR “ASEAN”) AND (“regulation” OR “compliance” OR “standards” OR “guidelines”) AND (“valuation” OR “measurement” OR “recognition” OR “reporting”)

This query generated about 58 peer-reviewed articles on the topics of digital asset accounting and financial reporting. Upon the use of the inclusion criteria, 22 articles were selected to be reviewed in detail. This analysis used an integrative thematic approach, which enabled the identification of common concepts, contradictions, and the formation of emerging perspectives. Among the central themes were (1) digital asset accounting, (2) regulatory provisions in Malaysia and overseas jurisdictions, (3) the quality of financial reporting and (4) investor perception and valuation practices. These themes were then charted to find gaps and inform the formulation of conceptual framework.

Key findings from the narrative review

The key findings of the narrative review are summarized in the table below:

Table 1. Key findings from narrative review

Narrative summary of key findings

The narrative review reveals several key insights into the role of regulatory clarity in enhancing the quality of financial reporting of digital assets in Malaysia. First, the adoption and transition of Malaysia’s financial reporting system to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) have significantly improved the transparency, credibility, and comparability of financial statements (Muniandy and Ali, 2012; Hla and Md Isa, 2015). Despite this progress, accounting regulations remain ambiguous regarding cryptocurrencies and other digital assets. Absence of local guidance leads to inconsistencies in recognition, measurement, and disclosure practices, creating challenges for both preparers and auditors (Yee, Heong, and Chin, 2020; Angeline et al., 2021).Regulatory clarity emerges as a critical mediating factor in addressing these issues, ensuring that financial statements faithfully reflect the economic substance of digital transactions while minimizing the risks of misstatement and non-compliance (Mohammed et al., 2020).

Moreover, Malaysia’s adoption of integrated reporting, which combines financial and non-financial disclosures, has been identified as a strategic move toward greater transparency and value-based reporting (Mohammed et al., 2020). However, the potential of integrated reporting in the context of digital assets remains underexplored, particularly regarding consistent valuation and stakeholder accountability. While governance reforms in Malaysia have yielded progress, research suggests the need for stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure reporting quality, especially in relation to volatile and complex assets such as digital tokens (Nahar & Mohamad, 2023). Furthermore, Malaysian Islamic financial institutions face significant barriers when applying IFRS 9, especially regarding the fair value measurement and recognition of Shariah-compliant digital instruments, indicating a need for customized regulatory interpretations (Madah Marzuki et al., 2021).

The ongoing challenge of valuing digital assets due to their high volatility underscores persistent concerns about the credibility of financial reporting and disclosure quality (Sanad, 2024). However, research confirms that high-quality financial disclosure attracts institutional investors, who tend to favor environments with strong governance structures and transparent reporting practices (Al-Qadasi et al., 2022; Hla et al., 2021). This highlights the importance of regulatory clarity in enhancing reporting quality, fostering market credibility, and encouraging long-term investment in digital asset ecosystems.

Thematic analysis reveals five central concerns regarding digital asset reporting in Malaysia. First, persistent challenges in accounting classification have led to inconsistent practices in recognition and measurement, as differing interpretations prevail across firms (Hla et al., 2021). Second, the absence of a dedicated standard for digital assets contributes to ambiguity in financial reporting, particularly given divergent guidance from key regulators such as the Securities Commission and Bank Negara Malaysia (Madah Marzuki et al., 2021). Third, research indicates that an open regulatory and disclosure framework positively influences investor confidence and is associated with improved firm valuation performance (Al-Qadasi et al., 2022). Fourth, Shariah compliance imposes constraints on Islamic financial institutions in valuing volatile digital assets, highlighting the need for advanced, Shariah-compatible reporting models (Sanad, 2024). Finally, companies with strong institutional governance and transparent disclosure practices are more likely to comply with IFRS and local regulatory standards, suggesting that robust internal controls contribute to higher financial reporting quality (Sidik et al., 2019).

Theoretical Framework Development

This study is primarily grounded in Institutional Theory, which posits that organizational practices, including financial reporting, are shaped by social norms, regulatory requirements, and pressures from institutional environments (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This viewpoint applies specifically to digital assets as Malaysian companies deal with compliance against international reporting standards, local regulatory modifications, and auditor, regulator, and investor pressures. In this context, regulatory clarity functions as a mediating mechanism that normalizes acceptable practices in accounting for digital assets, thereby influencing the consistency, transparency, and quality of financial reporting (Scott, 2014). Since the regulation of digital assets in Malaysia is at an early developmental phase, the Institutional Theory can be applied to describe how the coercive (regulatory requirements), mimetic (following the existing leaders), and normative (professional norms) forces may be employed to shape conformity in reporting practices among the companies.

In addition, Decision-Usefulness Theory provides a stakeholder-oriented perspective by emphasizing that financial information must be relevant, reliable, and comparable to make sound decisions. Whereas the Institutional Theory describes the influence of regulatory pressures on reporting behavior, the Decision-Usefulness Theory focuses on the ultimate objective: making financial reporting on digital assets generate information that is useful to investors, regulators, and other stakeholders. These two views reinforce the theoretical basis by connecting institutional forces behind reporting practices and the quality of information delivered to the users.

Based on these insights, this study proposes a conceptual framework in which accounting for digital assets (independent variable) influences financial reporting quality (dependent variable), with regulatory clarity as the mediating variable. Key institutional actors such as the Malaysian Accounting Standards Board (MASB), Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), and the Securities Commission (SC) play a critical role in shaping reporting practices through the development of rules, guidelines, and enforcement mechanisms (Yee et al., 2020; Angeline et al., 2021). In the absence of clear regulation, firms may resort to mimetic isomorphism such as imitating early adopters or rely on professional norms when making reporting decisions (Mohammed et al., 2020; Nahar and Mohamad, 2023). However, clear and enforceable standards reduce discretion, minimize inconsistencies, and enhance comparability, predictability, and investor confidence in financial reporting.

Practically, the proposed theoretical framework provides a systematic approach for policymakers, regulators, and practitioners to strengthen Malaysia’s financial reporting system in the context of digital assets. Enhanced regulatory clarity can reduce uncertainty in accounting treatments, institutionalize best practices, and bolster stakeholder confidence. In turn, this supports audit preparedness, promotes market discipline, and improves cross-border comparability. Furthermore, by aligning local standards with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and incorporating specific guidance on digital assets, Malaysia can enhance the legitimacy, transparency, and global credibility of its financial reporting. Overall, the framework not only structures the understanding of digital asset accounting but also offers actionable guidance for improving financial reporting quality through robust institutional and regulatory frameworks.

Fig. 2. Theoretical Framework

Proposition Development

Accounting for digital assets and financial reporting quality

The rapid integration of digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, has challenged conventional accounting practices and led to inconsistencies in recognition, measurement, and disclosure. In Malaysia, where digital asset transactions remain in their early stages and are largely unregulated, companies face difficulties in appropriately incorporating these assets into existing financial reporting frameworks (Yee et al., 2020; Angeline et al., 2021). Relevance, faithful representation, and comparability are fundamental characteristics of high-quality financial reporting; thus, the inadequate accounting treatment of digital assets undermines these qualities. As more organizations engage in digital asset transactions, the overall quality of financial reporting may either improve or deteriorate depending on how these assets are identified, measured, and disclosed. Research indicates that well-defined accounting policies and reliable fair value measurements can enhance transparency, enabling stakeholders to better assess a company’s financial position and performance (Shaari, 2024). In the absence of standardized guidance, however, financial reports risk becoming fragmented and potentially misleading. Therefore, achieving high-quality financial reporting in the digital era necessitates the proper and consistent accounting treatment of digital assets. Given the importance of accurate recognition, measurement, and disclosure of digital assets for financial reporting quality, the following proposition is advanced:

Proposition 1: Accounting for digital assets is positively associated with financial reporting quality.

The mediating role of regulatory clarity

While the accounting for digital assets has the potential to enhance financial reporting quality, the extent of this improvement is contingent upon regulatory clarity, which plays a critical mediating role. Regulatory clarity refers to the availability of specific, enforceable, and timely guidelines that direct firms in the recognition, measurement, and disclosure of digital assets. Malaysia’s alignment with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has provided a solid foundation for improved financial reporting practices (Muniandy & Ali, 2012; Hla & Md Isa, 2015). However, uncertainties regarding the classification of digital assets under existing standards have led to inconsistent accounting treatments across firms. Regulatory clarity addresses this issue by promoting uniformity, reducing ambiguity, and guiding organizations toward consistent and reliable reporting practices (Madah Marzuki et al., 2021). Furthermore, clear regulations help prevent misstatements, enhance auditability, and strengthen investor trust. Prior studies indicate that when regulatory bodies issue detailed guidance, firms are more likely to adopt accurate and transparent methods for valuing, recognizing, and disclosing complex assets (Mohammed et al., 2020; Nahar & Mohamad, 2023). Therefore, regulatory clarity functions as a key mediating mechanism enabling the translation of sound digital asset accounting into tangible improvements in financial reporting quality. Based on this analysis, the following proposition is advanced:

Proposition 2: Regulatory clarity mediates the relationship between accounting for digital assets and financial reporting quality.

The moderating role of governance quality

Regulatory clarity is essential for institutionalizing coherent financial reporting practices; however, its effectiveness may depend on internal corporate governance mechanisms. A key indicator of adherence to regulatory standards with integrity is governance quality, as reflected in board independence, audit committee effectiveness, and the strength of internal controls. In Malaysia, despite two decades of regulatory reforms aimed at strengthening governance frameworks, significant variations in board oversight and compliance culture persist across firms (Nahar & Mohamad, 2023). Strong governance practices enhance the impact of regulatory clarity by ensuring that accounting standards for digital assets are interpreted and applied consistently and appropriately (Mohammed et al., 2020). Conversely, weak governance can hinder the translation of regulatory intent into practice, leading to inconsistent, incomplete, or opportunistic reporting. Thus, governance quality serves as a moderating factor that influences the strength and direction of the relationship between regulatory clarity and financial reporting quality. Organizations with high-quality governance are better positioned to achieve transparency, ensure compliance, and minimize reporting risks in the context of evolving digital asset regulations. Based on these insights, the following proposition is advanced:

Proposition 3: Governance quality moderates the relationship between regulatory clarity and financial reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

This study examines the relationship between the recognition of digital assets and financial reporting quality in Malaysia, with a focus on the mediating role of regulatory clarity. The findings indicate that while the adoption of international standards such as the IFRS has enhanced transparency and comparability in Malaysia’s financial reporting environment, the lack of specific guidance on accounting for digital assets has resulted in inconsistencies in recognition, measurement, and disclosure across firms. Regulatory clarity was identified as a key factor in bridging this gap, enabling firms to institutionalize consistent accounting practices and thereby enhance financial reporting quality and stakeholder trust. Theoretically, this study contributes to Institutional Theory by demonstrating how coercive (regulatory) and normative pressures influence organizational behavior in emerging areas of financial reporting. Decision-Usefulness Theory further supports this framework by emphasizing the importance of relevance and reliability in financial information for user decision-making. Practically, the proposed model provides policymakers, regulators, and practitioners with a structured approach to developing enforceable and transparent reporting standards for digital assets. However, as a conceptual study, it is limited by its reliance on secondary data and lacks empirical validation. Future research should test the framework empirically across diverse industries, examine sector-specific regulatory challenges including those in Islamic finance and fintech and assess the implications of evolving international standards for Malaysia’s capacity to institutionalize high-quality digital asset reporting. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality of this paper. The authors also wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Kedah State Research Committee, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Kedah, for the generous financial support provided under the Tabung Penyelidikan Am.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Qadasi, A. A., Al-Jaifi, H. A. A., Al-Rassas, A. H., & Al-Qublani, A. A. (2022). The financial reporting systems quality (FRSQ) and institutional investors: The case of an emerging market. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1)
2. Angeline, Y. K. H., Chin, W. S., Teoh Teng Tenk, M., & Saleh, Z. (2021). Accounting treatments for cryptocurrencies in Malaysia: The hierarchical component model approach. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 14(1), 63–92.
3. Crumbley, D. L., Ariail, D. L., & Khayati, A. (2024). How should cryptocurrencies be defined and reported? An exploratory study of accounting professor opinions. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(1), 3.
4. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
5. Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931.
6. Hla, D. T., & Md Isa, A. H. B. (2015). Globalisation of financial reporting standard of listed companies in ASEAN two: Malaysia and Singapore. International Journal of Business and Society, 16(1), 1–14.
7. Hla, D. T., Cheuk, S., Isa, A. H. M., & Jakpar, S. (2021). Constructing a financial reporting disclosure quality model of listed firms in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society, 22(3), 1237–1256.
8. Juma’h, A., &Albizri, A. (2025). Factors affecting voluntary crypto asset reporting in financial statements: Management discretion and long-term financing. Journal of Decision Systems, 34(1), 1–20.
9. Luo, Y., & Yu, S. (2024). Financial reporting for cryptocurrency. Review of Accounting Studies, 29(2), 1707–1740.
10. Madah Marzuki, M., Abdul Rahman, A. R., Marzuki, A., & Wan Abdullah, W. A. (2021). Issues and challenges of IFRS 9 in Malaysian Islamic financial institutions: Recognition criteria perspective. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 12(2), 236–255.
11. Mohammed, N. F., Kassim, C. F. C., Sutainim, N. A., &Amirrudin, M. S. (2020). Accountability through integrated reporting: The awareness and challenges in Malaysia. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 8(2), 190–198.
12. Muniandy, B., & Ali, M. J. (2012). Development of financial reporting environment in Malaysia. Research in Accounting Regulation, 24(2), 115–125.
13. Nahar, H. S., & Mohamad, M. (2023). On the 20th governance reform anniversary: Revisiting corporate governance and transparency nexus after two decades of change in Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(1), 134–155.
14. Sanad, Z. (2024). Insights into financial reporting practices in the metaverse: Evidence from Islamic financial institutions in Bahrain. Journal of Islamic Marketing.
15. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
16. Shaari, H. (2024). Value relevance of fair value measurement on investment property: Malaysian evidence. International Journal of Business and Society, 25(2), 321–338.
17. Sidik, M. H. J., Rahim, R. A., & Jalaludin, F. W. (2019). Financial statement effects of FRS adoption in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 7(9), 98–112.
18. Sori, Z. M., Mohamad, S., Ahmad, A. A. Y., & Osman, M. N. H. (2024). The accounting treatment of cryptocurrencies: The perspective of current accounting standards. International Journal of Economics and Management, 18(2), 45–58.
19. Yee, T. S., Heong, A. Y. K., & Chin, W. S. (2020). Accounting treatment of cryptocurrency: A Malaysian context. Management and Accounting Review, 19(2), 111–128.
20. Yermack, D. (2017). Corporate governance and blockchains. Review of Finance, 21(1), 7–31.
21. Yusuf, M. F. M., Rauf, D. M., Hamid, A., Sultraeni, W., &Garusu, I. A. (2024). Managing digital finance: The role of cryptocurrency in financial reporting. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(5), 112–123.
22. Zaini, M., & Musa, M. (2021). Regulatory evolution and governance quality in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Accounting Perspectives, 14(1), 76–89.