The rise and fall of the UK operating and financial review

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the controversial repeal of legislation requiring UK companies to disclose an Operating and Financial Review (OFR). After a lengthy period of consultation and the preparation of a reporting standard, legislation was passed in March 2005 requiring UK listed companies to disclose a separate statement of management commentary, an OFR. In November 2005 the Chancellor unexpectedly and controversially announced the repeal of the OFR during a speech to the largest business lobbying group in the UK.

Design/methodology/approach

The analysis draws upon internal, private governmental documents prepared by the Treasury ministry to brief the Chancellor, publicly disclosed as a result of a legal challenge against the repeal decision.

Findings

The paper describes how Treasury officials were motivated to seek deregulatory opportunities in order to gain political support for their head, Prime Minister-in-waiting, Gordon Brown. The analysis reveals how the repeal of the OFR was identified as an example of corporate deregulation, and how this perception proved to be misplaced following the reaction to the repeal decision which led to the government reinstating many OFR requirements in an enhanced Business Review in 2006.

Originality/value

The paper draws on the conception of “3-D” power to analyse how a political ideology prevalent in the pre-financial crisis environment came to influence accounting technology with unexpected consequences. Using data rarely disclosed in the public domain, it illuminates the “black boxed” processes underlying regulatory decision making. The paper details how the Treasury were politically motivated to influence corporate reporting policy in the absence of concerted political lobbying, and why this episode of government intervention led to an unanticipated regulatory outcome.

Citation

Rowbottom, N. and Schroeder, M.A.S. (2014), "The rise and fall of the UK operating and financial review", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 655-685. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2012-1107