When Are Firms Truly Comparable? A Systematic Literature Review of Firm Heterogeneity, Peer Selection, and Accounting Information Quality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70142/jbl.v2i2.74Keywords:
Firm Heterogeneity, Peer Selection, Financial Statement Comparability, Accounting Information Quality, Industry Classification, Accounting ChoiceAbstract
This study examines when firms can be considered truly comparable by systematically reviewing the literature on firm heterogeneity, peer selection, industry classification, and accounting information quality. Using a qualitative systematic literature review, the study synthesizes prior theoretical and empirical evidence to identify recurring relationships and methodological challenges in measuring firm comparability. The findings indicate that industry membership alone is insufficient to establish meaningful comparability because firms within the same industry may differ substantially in business models, economic characteristics, product markets, and financial structures. Peer selection therefore represents a critical mechanism linking firm heterogeneity to comparability and the quality of accounting information. The review further finds that comparability is purpose-dependent and can be better assessed by combining industry classification with firm-specific, investor-based, product-market, and financial-statement similarity measures. Overall, true comparability exists when firm similarities are sufficiently aligned with the economic dimension and analytical purpose of the comparison.
References
Bhojraj, S., Lee, C. M. C., & Oler, D. (2003). What’s my line? A comparison of industry classification schemes for capital market research. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 745–774. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-679X.2003.00121.x
Blankespoor, E., deHaan, E., & Marinovic, I. (2020). Disclosure processing costs, investors' information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 70(2–3), 101344.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2020.101344
Bradley, D., Gokkaya, S., & Liu, X. (2017). Before an analyst becomes an analyst: Does industry experience matter? The Journal of Finance, 72(2), 751–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12464
Brown, L. D., Call, A. C., Clement, M. B., & Sharp, N. Y. (2015). Inside the "black box" of sell-side financial analysts. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(1), 1–47.
Brown, S. V., Ma, G., & Tucker, J. W. (2023). Financial statement similarity. Contemporary Accounting Research, 40(4), 2577–2615.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12885
Chen, A., & Gong, J. J. (2019). Accounting comparability, financial reporting quality, and the pricing of accruals. Advances in Accounting, 45, 100415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2019.03.003
Chun, H., Kim, J.-W., Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2008). Creative destruction and firm-specific performance heterogeneity. Journal of Financial Economics, 89(1), 109–135.
Cohen, L., & Lou, D. (2012). Complicated firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 104(2), 383–400.
Colas, B., & Brousseau, C. (2025). Industry classification misfits: Identification, consequences and guidance. Review of Accounting Studies, 30, 3295–3343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-025-09886-4
De Franco, G., Kothari, S. P., & Verdi, R. S. (2011). The benefits of financial statement comparability. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(4), 895–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00415.x
Dechow, P. M., & Dichev, I. D. (2002). The quality of accruals and earnings: The role of accrual estimation errors. The Accounting Review, 77(Supplement), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2002.77.s-1.35
Dechow, P. M., Ge, W., Larson, C. R., & Sloan, R. G. (2011). Predicting material accounting misstatements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 17–82.
Dierynck, B., & Verriest, A. J. M. (2020). Financial reporting quality and peer group selection. Management Accounting Research, 47, 100675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2019.100675
Durnev, A., Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2004). Value-enhancing capital budgeting and firm-specific stock return variation. The Journal of Finance, 59(1), 65–105.
Ecker, F., Francis, J., Olsson, P., & Schipper, K. (2013). Estimation sample selection for discretionary accruals models. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2–3), 190–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.07.001
Hoberg, G., & Phillips, G. (2016). Text-based network industries and endogenous product differentiation. Journal of Political Economy, 124(5), 1423–1465.
https://doi.org/10.1086/688176
Hoitash, R., Hoitash, U., Kurt, A. C., & Verdi, R. S. (2023). A measure of financial statement benchmarking. The Accounting Review, 98(6), 253–281.
https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0585
Hrazdil, K., & Scott, T. (2013). The role of industry classification in estimating discretionary accruals. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 40(1), 15–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-011-0268-6
Hrazdil, K., Trottier, K., & Zhang, R. (2014). An intra- and inter-industry evaluation of three classification schemes common in capital market research. Applied Economics, 46(17), 2021–2033.
Hui, K. W., Nelson, K. K., & Yeung, P. E. (2016). On the persistence and pricing of industry-wide and firm-specific earnings, cash flows, and accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 185–202.
Irawan, D., Prabowo, H., Kuncoro, E.A., Thoha, N. (2022). Operational Resilience as a Key Determinant of Corporate Sustainable Longevity in the Indonesian Jamu Industry. MDPI Journals Vol.14 No.11.
Jones, K. L., Krishnan, G. V., & Melendrez, K. D. (2008). Do models of discretionary accruals detect actual cases of fraudulent and restated earnings? An empirical analysis. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(2), 499–531.
Kadan, O., Madureira, L., Wang, R., & Zach, T. (2012). Analysts' industry expertise. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54(2–3), 95–120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2012.05.002
Kothari, S. P., Leone, A. J., & Wasley, C. E. (2005). Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), 163–197.
Krishnan, J., & Press, E. (2003). The North American industry classification system and its implications for accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 685–717.
Kumandang, C., Hendriyeni, N.S., 2021. Do awarded companies have fewer earnings management practices?. 1st Edition ISBN9781003196013: CRC Press.
Lee, C. M. C., Ma, P., & Wang, C. C. Y. (2015). Search-based peer firms: Aggregating investor perceptions through internet co-searches. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(2), 410–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2015.02.003
Muhammad Rizal, & Eri Kusnanto. (2021). Exploring The Challenges Of Implementing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Journal of Business, Finance, and Economics (JBFE), 2(1).
Owens, E. L., Wu, J. S., & Zimmerman, J. (2017). Idiosyncratic shocks to firm underlying economics and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review, 92(2), 183–219.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Piotroski, J. D., & Roulstone, D. T. (2004). The influence of analysts, institutional investors, and insiders on the incorporation of market, industry, and firm-specific information into stock prices. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1119–1151.
Ross, J., Ziebart, D., & Meder, A. (2019). A new measure of firm-group accounting closeness. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 52(4), 1137–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-018-0739-0
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
