Search results

The current study uses an advanced machine learning method and aims to investigate whether auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based as less risky. More specifically, this study aims to explore the association between principles-based accounting standards and audit pricing and between principles-based accounting standards and the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion.

The study uses an advanced machine-learning method to understand the role of principles-based accounting standards in predicting audit fees and going concern opinion. The study also uses multiple regression models defining audit fees and the probability of receiving going concern opinion. The analyses are complemented by additional tests such as economic significance, firm fixed effects, propensity score matching, entropy balancing, change analysis, yearly regression results and controlling for managerial risk-taking incentives and governance variables.

The paper provides empirical evidence that auditors charge less audit fees to clients whose financial statements are more principles-based. The finding suggests that auditors perceive financial statements that are principles-based less risky. The study also provides evidence that the probability of receiving a going-concern opinion reduces as firms rely more on principles-based standards. The finding further suggests that auditors discount the financial numbers supplied by the managers using rules-based standards. The study also reveals that the degree of reliance by a US firm on principles-based accounting standards has a negative impact on accounting conservatism, the risk of financial statement misstatement, accruals and the difficulty in predicting future earnings. This suggests potential mechanisms through which principles-based accounting standards influence auditors’ risk assessments.

The authors recognize the limitation of this study regarding the sample period. Prior studies compare rules vs principles-based standards by focusing on the differences between US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and international financial reporting standards (IFRS) or pre- and post-IFRS adoption, which raises questions about differences in cross-country settings and institutional environment and other confounding factors such as transition costs. This study addresses these issues by comparing rules vs principles-based standards within the US GAAP setting. However, this limits the sample period to the year 2006 because the measure of the relative extent to which a US firm is reliant upon principles-based standards is available until 2006.

The study has major public policy suggestions as it responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks such as climate change.

The study has major public policy suggestions because it demonstrates the value of principles-based standards. The study responds to the call by Jay Clayton and Mary Jo White, the former Chairs of the US SEC, to pursue high-quality, globally accepted accounting standards to ensure that investors continue to receive clear and reliable financial information as business transactions and investor needs continue to evolve globally. The study also recognizes the notable public policy implications, particularly in light of the current Chair of the IASB Andreas Barckow’s recent public statement, which emphasizes the importance of principles-based standards and their ability to address sustainability concerns, including emerging risks like climate change. The study fills the gap in the literature that auditors perceive principles-based financial statements as less risky and further expands the literature by providing empirical evidence that the likelihood of receiving a going concern opinion is increasing in the degree of rules-based standards.

This study aims to extend the current literature on International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) teaching by examining the argument by Hodgdon et al. (2013) that arranging accounting prescriptions into the level of concept, principle and rules is helpful to students in comprehending the complex set of accounting standards. Besides, the study aims to attest the argument that analogy is a useful tool in teaching, especially when dealing with complex knowledge or concepts.

The study used a 3 × 2 between-subjects design, which includes the independent variables of the three-step teaching method (concept-only, concept + principle and concept + principle + rules) and the presence or absence of analogy.

The findings support Hodgdon et al. (2013). However, the combination of Hodgdon et al.’s (2013) technique with analogy resulted in only better-perceived comprehension under the concept-only condition.

There are limitations to the use of analogy as an instructional tool. The reasoning behind an analogy is that it is produced from different fields in which the target and source topics have only some similarity in structure or function. This suggests a limited capacity in which the source topic can be used to fully explain a targeted topic, and thus caution needs to be exercised in the use of analogy as a teaching tool. Additionally, this study uses a perceived understanding of control in IFRS 15. While perceived understanding may likely result in actual comprehension, there is a possibility that this may not be the case. Finally, this study did not consider about how rule comprehensiveness is affected.

The findings of this study provide a useful combination of teaching tools to educators on how to deliver technical business subjects such as accounting effectively.

This paper aims to answer the call by Hodgdon et al. (2013) to verify the effectiveness of teaching IFRS via the three-step approach. In addition, this study extends the literature by examining whether an analogy could be used with the three-step approach to effectively improve students’ understanding of IFRS.

This study aims to investigate the perceived willingness to adopt and use Forensic Accounting and Investigation Standards (FAIS) in Forensic Accounting and Investigation (FAI) assignments. The study also analyses the usefulness of FAIS in achieving the principle of natural justice (PNJ) concerning fairness.

The respondents comprised 118 accounting professionals whose online survey responses were analyzed descriptively. This study also uses a 2 × 2 contingency analysis representing two levels of usefulness and fairness.

The results revealed that FAIS 410 received the highest mean rating while FAIS 240 received the lowest mean rating in willingness to adopt and use FAIS, and most of the standards were related to the PNJ concerning fairness. The study shows the accounting professionals’ readiness to adapt and flourish with the help of these Standards in FAI assignments.

The findings of this study will increase practitioners’ awareness of the usefulness and fairness of FAIS, which will enhance their understanding of the significance of implementing these newly developed standards to harmonize the investigative process in forensic audits. Additionally, the findings may encourage regulators, researchers, accounting bodies and their members to adopt and conduct further FAIS studies that can advance financial crime prevention, detection and investigation knowledge.

This paper substantially contributes to the literature as it is the first to examine the usefulness and fairness of “Forensic Accounting and Investigation Standards” in the context of forensic audits and investigations, which has not been previously explored.

This study aims to evaluate Islamic bank compliance with the accounting and auditing organisation for Islamic financial institutions (AAOIFI), assess the impact of multiple accounting standards in Islamic banking, examine the need for private accounting standards and assess international financial reporting standards (IFRS) compatibility with Islamic banking and analyse financial leasing accounting in Islamic banking compared to IFRS 16.

A combination of comparative theoretical analysis, physical examination, and semi-structured interviews has been used as a research methodology. These methods are interconnected and complement each other to provide a comprehensive approach to address the research questions.

Islamic banks in various countries show varying compliance with AAOIFI accounting standards. Some fully comply, while others adopt a hybrid approach combining AAOIFI and IFRS. Differences in accounting treatments can result in conflicts, asset inflation and financial statement discrepancies. Challenges and criticisms faced by AAOIFI standards include violating the matching principle and lacking faithful representation. Collaboration among academics, standards-setting bodies and organisers is crucial for guiding the reporting of Islamic financial statements.

The research identifies gaps in implementing Islamic accounting standards and proposes strategies to enhance compliance, improve performance and increase transparency in Islamic financial institutions. It highlights the importance of a harmonised and universally accepted accounting framework for Islamic banking, considering the compatibility between IFRS and Islamic principles.

Social implications have arisen regarding the global acceptance of Islamic finance, which leads to an increase in socially Islamic finance exchange.

This research examines the consequences of using multiple accounting standards in the Islamic banking industry and discusses the need for private accounting standards and compatibility with IFRS.

This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on formal stakeholder participation (or “lobbying”) in the early phase of the International Sustainability Standards Board’s (ISSB’s) standard-setting.

Drawing on a rational-choice framework, this paper conducts a content analysis of comment letters (CLs) submitted to the ISSB in response to its first two exposure drafts (published in 2022) to investigate stakeholder participation across different groups and jurisdictional origins. The analyses examine participation in terms of frequency (measured using the number of participating stakeholders) and intensity (measured using the length of CLs).

Preparers and users of sustainability reports emerge as the largest participating stakeholder groups, while the accounting/sustainability profession participates with high average intensity. Surprisingly, preparers do not outweigh users in terms of participation frequency and intensity; and large preparers outweigh smaller ones in terms of participation intensity but not participation frequency. Internationally, stakeholders from countries with a private financial accounting standard-setting system participate more frequently and intensively than others. In addition, country-level economic wealth and sustainability performance are positively associated with more participating stakeholders.

This study is of interest for organizations and stakeholders involved in or affected by standard-setting in the field of sustainability reporting. The finding of limited participation by investors and from developing countries suggests the ISSB take actions to enhance the voice of those stakeholders.

The imbalances in stakeholder participation that were found pose potential threats to an important aspect of the input legitimacy of the ISSB’s standard-setting process.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to explore stakeholder participation by means of CLs with the ISSB in terms of frequency and intensity.

Avoided emissions refer to greenhouse gas emission reductions that are a result of using a product or are emission removals due to a decision or an action. Although there is no uniform standard for calculating avoided emissions, market actors have started referring to avoided emissions as “Scope 4” emissions. By default, making a claim about Scope 4 emissions gives an appearance that this Scope of emissions is a natural extension of the existing and accepted Scope-based emissions accounting framework. The purpose of this study is to explore the implications of this assumed legitimacy.

Via a desktop review and interviews, we analyse extant Scope 4 company reporting, associated accounting methodologies and the practical implications of Scope 4 claims.

Upon examination of Scope 4 emissions and their relationship with Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions, we highlight a dynamic and interdependent relationship between quantification, commensuration and standardization in emissions accounting. We find that extant Scope 4 assessments do not fit the established framework for Scope-based emissions accounting. In line with literature on the territorializing nature of accounting, we call for caution about Scope 4 claims that are a distraction from the critical work of reducing absolute emissions.

We examine the implications of assumed alignment and borrowed legitimacy of Scope 4 with Scope-based accounting because Scope 4 is not an actual Scope, but a claim to a Scope. This is as an act of accounting territorialization.

This study investigated the visibility of carbon emissions allowances accounting in the financial reports of 32 clean development mechanism (CDM) projects in the UAE to uncover the obstacles to setting consistent standards for carbon emission accounting. As carbon emissions are monetized as credits, consistent accounting standards can aid decision-makers in the development of carbon emission mitigation strategies.

This study used a grounded theoretical framework for exploring the terms used in the policy documents of international accounting bodies regarding accounting standards and guidelines for carbon emission credits. Raw qualitative data were gathered, and an inductive approach was used by analyzing documents from various sources using the qualitative data text analysis software QDA Miner 6.

The findings showed that the financial statement reports of the corporations did not include disclosure of the carbon credit account. This omission was due to the lack of global standardization of carbon credit accounts and emission allowance recognition. This may hinder the production of a comprehensive report containing accurate and valuable financial information relevant to all stakeholders.

The study is among the first to use a grounded theoretical framework to investigate whether corporations are applying common standards and guidelines for carbon emissions accounting.

This paper aims to analyse the character and strength of the claims made in an emerging literature offering a sociology of financial reporting principles.

The analysis evaluates exemplary works in the literature against the characteristics of the paranoid style first identified by Richard Hofstadter: overheated claims of a far-reaching, malign and collusive machinery of influence; a reductive, rationalistic and dualistic reading of events; weak empirics; and weak theorisation.

A significant stream within the literature is coming to be constructed in the paranoid style. Paranoid stylistics, used as a diagnostic tool, alerts us here to distorted judgement.

Alternative ways of avoiding the dangers of paranoid-style readings are suggested, ranging from resisting the temptations towards such readings to a radical re-working of the epistemics of “socio-accounting”.

The danger of allowing the conclusions advanced in the literature to go unchallenged is that they may influence society’s attitude to accounting, public policy-making and scholars’ willingness to contribute to the crafting of reporting principles and standards.

Although paranoid style analysis has been widely used to examine narratives in other academic fields, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to apply it to scholarly accounting.

The purpose of this study is to identify the professional skills and competencies of accountants that support a successful implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The authors further investigate the extent to which professional accountants have developed these skills through professional training.

In the survey, Indonesian accountants were provided with a list of 47 skill items under nine categories of professional skills and were asked to rate the importance of each skill item and to indicate the level of priority given to the development of the skill items in the professional training they have undertaken. Their responses provide insights into the skills needed for applying IFRS and the adequacy of professional training in providing these skills.

The authors find that accounting judgement is considered to be the most necessary skill for applying IFRS. Likewise, the findings show that ethical skills and certain generic skills are also perceived to be necessary for adequate application of IFRS, while skills relating to cultural sensitivity are viewed as least important. The findings further demonstrate that professional training programmes need to emphasise the development of judgement and other relevant skills that are important skill categories for applying IFRS.

This study extends the literature on IFRS implementation through a specific focus on the professional skills required by accountants.

These findings have important policy implications for the standard-setters, regulators, auditors and to professional training providers across the world, such as professional accounting associations, accounting firms and educational institutions, for evaluating the content of the training and education programmes being delivered to accountants to prepare them with the relevant skills for applying IFRS.

This study is one of the first to examine the importance of various types of skills necessary for accountants in applying IFRS and the extent to which these skills have been developed through the professional accounting training provided.

An intractable effect of revenue and expense recognition based on tax regulation and accounting rules is unresolved and may be manageable only by reducing the value of deferred taxes. Therefore, in this study, the authors examined the relationship between the International Accounting Standard 12 (IAS 12) and deferred income taxes associated with tax and accounting rules.

The authors used a large sample of balanced data from 144 firms across 1992–2019. To mitigate the problem of superfluous results, the authors used the same number of firms and years for pre- and post-IAS 12 periods. The authors employed robust econometric estimations to establish the impact of IAS 12 on deferred tax.

The regression results show that deferred tax assets decreased significantly, whereas deferred tax liabilities increased significantly, in the post-IAS 12 period. These contrasting results imply that IAS 12 implementation has increased conservatism and prudence in financial reporting. However, the authors find that the increase in deferred tax assets post-IAS 12 is value destructive, suggesting that its implementation has unintended consequences. The results are robust to alternative measurements and econometric identification strategies.

While prior studies have explored topics such as deferred tax measurement and the impact of income and expense recognition, the authors specifically analyzed how IAS 12 affects deferred taxes and their effect on the market valuation. The authors find that certain accounting standards may not be relevant to the capital market.