Search results

This study aims to examine constituents’ political participation in the establishment of an Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF).

Based on a literature review, three hypotheses regarding political participation in global accounting standard-setting are constructed: regional disparity, professional dominance and financialization. These hypotheses are tested through a content and narrative analysis of the comment letters on the establishment of the ASAF.

Consistent with the regional-disparity hypothesis, neither Anglo–Saxon nor European Union countries were active advocates or positive supporters of ASAF’s establishment. However, no evidence supporting the professional and financialization hypotheses was found. Narrative analysis suggests a divergence of opinion among vested-interest groups in the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), emerging nations and other groups, rather than the traditional conflicts between Anglo–Saxon and European countries. This suggests the possibility of a future-destabilizing factor in global standard-setting.

By discussing the IASB’s organizational and strategic changes and the constituents’ responses, this study describes the IASB’s organizational dynamics: how various stakeholders react to each other. Although prior studies primarily focused on comment letters regarding the contents of an accounting standard or the standard itself, this study examines such letters considering the size and composition of, and membership in, the ASAF, an organization within the IFRS Foundation (IFRSF). Therefore, the study reflects constituents’ opinions regarding their participation in the IFRSF/IASB more directly.

The last four decades have seen the rise of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) as the core locus of transnational accounting regulation. Initial steps of associational cooperation were superseded by establishing a standard setting organization that heavily draws on consultation procedures. The purpose of this paper is to focus on recent changes in governance and accountability of IASB in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Emphasis is given to the organizational configuration, the ambivalence of consultation procedures and reactions to mounting criticism after the crisis. The paper proposes that IASB is the heart of a new transnational regulatory constellation in accounting.

The material and analysis presented in the paper derives from an extensive review of official reports, consultation documents and related responses and a range of additional information available on IASB's web page.

The paper analyzes how IASB uses legitimation strategies to defend its position as a transnational standard setter. From analysis of recent changes, the paper reveals a growing reliance on – and domination through – consultation procedures. The paper also shows the IASB’S swift action to counter substantial criticism emerging with the financial crisis.

By highlighting developments surrounding IASB, its governance structure and the emphasis on consultation, the paper establishes the importance for public policy of further study and debate the operation of IASB. It could also contribute to re-politicize accounting regulation at the transnational level.

IASB is an integral player in global financial governance processes and is only recently receiving substantial academic accounting research. This paper seeks to provide an introduction and critical account of the organization's development.

Since the withdrawal of IFRIC 3 in 2005, there has been a regulatory freeze in accounting for emission rights that contrasts with the international momentum of climate-related financial disclosures. This paper explores how different narratives and institutional dynamics explain the failure to produce guidance on accounting for emission rights.

This paper mobilises the notion of field-configuring events to examine a sequence of six events between 2003 and 2016, including four public consultations and two dialogues between standard setters. The paper presents a qualitative analysis of documents produced in this space that investigates how different practices and narratives configured the field's positions, agenda, and meaning systems.

Accounting for emission rights was gradually decoupled from climate change and carbon markets, relegated to the research pipeline, and forgotten. The obstacles that the IASB and EFRAG found in presenting themselves as central in the recurring events, the excess of representations, and the increasingly technical and abstract debates eroded the 2003 momentum for regulation, making the different initiatives to revitalise the project vulnerable and open to scrutiny. Lukes (2021) refers to nondecision-making to express that some issues are suffocated before they are expressed.

The regulation of accounting for emission rights, an area that has received scant attention in the literature, provides some insights into the different narrative mechanisms that, materialising in specific times and spaces, draw regulatory attention to particular accounting issues, which are problematised and, eventually, forgotten. This study also illustrates that identifying interests is problematic as actors shift from alternative positions over a long period. The case examined also raises some doubts about the previous effectiveness of international standard setters in dealing with matters of connectivity between the environment and finance, as is the case for accounting for emissions rights.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the influences on the due process of standard-setting with reference to the legitimacy of the financial reporting “soft law” that is International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

This study uses a literature review to analyse the governance structures, due process steps, staffing and funding of IFRS standard-setting activities. The study also uses descriptive statistics to analyse constituent participation during the development of two IFRS standards. The mean, median and standard deviation are used as measures of location and dispersion when analysing constituent participation.

IFRS governance structures are dominated by G20 countries. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) depends on international accounting firms, the European Commission and the G8 countries for its financial viability. Well-resourced national standard-setters, major international companies, international accounting firms and educational institutions are able to second their staff to the IASB thereby providing them with direct lobbying opportunities. The IFRS due process procedures provide opportunities for participation but actual participation is dominated by constituents from Europe with African and South American constituents the least active.

IFRS are required or permitted in over 100 countries. The IASB, with no legal or formal mandate, is performing a task normally reserved for national standard-setters. The legitimacy of IFRS is questionable if the standard-setting due process is perceived as invalid.

The global financial crisis exposed weaknesses in the IFRS due process when the IASB amended IAS 39 without following the due process. African and South American standard-setters should take note that their lack of participation in IFRS standard-setting, coupled with the influence of powerful stakeholders on IFRS standard-setting, could result in standards not relevant for their regions.

The debate on whether global accounting standards are appropriate for use within the US regulatory environment has not yet ended. Nearly four years after the release of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) much awaited report on the issue, the position of the regulator is still unclear, and the US accounting community is uncertain about the potential for accounting change. This paper aims to examine the documented reasons for the absence of direction and clarity on this issue.

Using the theoretical and empirical contributions of prior research on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), this study explores the potential for US adoption of IFRS by examining the main arguments forwarded by the Office of the Chief Accountant of the SEC and the International Accounting Standards Board’s response to the issues raised and by capturing the opinions of 22 graduate and 32 undergraduate students as surrogates for future practicing accountants. The student data were collected from homework submissions to an essay on US accounting convergence with IFRS.

From the analysis, the authors make four observations. First, the deliberations over IFRS adoption in the USA are not sufficiently grounded on principles of recognition, measurement and disclosure. Second, the evidence does not support the notion that IFRS is of inferior quality to current US generally accepted accounting principles. Third, the problem areas stem from the apparent divergence of the objectives ascribed to financial statements, the independence and public accountability of the global standard setter and standards that are connected with the regulation of the finance and insurance industries. The final observation is the political process of managing change in the standard setting/adoption process in the USA.

This paper provides a comprehensive appraisal and a change management perspective to the ongoing IFRS debate in the USA by soliciting and documenting the opinions of future practicing accountants.

The purpose of this study is to examine the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)’s response to criticism and political pressure at the time of the global financial crisis through the lens of legitimacy theory.

This study constructs a thick description about a causal mechanism between social crisis and organizational change using a process-tracing approach that combines a historical narrative and a theoretical consideration.

The IASB faced criticism of its accounting standards for financial instruments and its governance structure during the financial crisis. This criticism represented the crises of pragmatic and cultural legitimacy. Facing these legitimacy crises, the IASB adopted such legitimation strategies as normalization and restructuring to repair its legitimacy. Additionally, in these repairing processes, the IASB, as a bonus, became institutionally embedded itself in the global political arena and succeeded to strengthen its legitimacy.

The study suggests that the financial crisis had a significant impact on the standardization of transnational accounting. Indeed, the crisis was an important turning point of the IASB’s work on revising its accounting standards to reduce complexity and altering its Constitution. Moreover, the authors bridge the gaps in the literature on accounting and legitimacy by examining how the IASB used particular legitimacy repair strategies when facing its legitimacy crises

This paper explores how the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has dealt with the emerging issue of accounting for cryptocurrencies by investigating its constituents' expectations and the motivations underlying its regulatory response.

The theoretical lens of regulatory space is used to analyse the four-year debate around cryptocurrency holdings and informs the extensive thematic analysis of public documents, meetings recordings and comment letters on the topic.

Facing national standard setters' initiatives to regulate accounting for cryptocurrency, the IASB defended its position in the regulatory space through an agenda decision based on ewct 2xisting standards, which was finalised by the International Financial Reporting Standards Interpretation Committee (IFRS IC) despite criticism from constituents and Board members.

The paper provides insights into the IASB approach to a regulatory vacuum regarding a new class of items, which derive from a new and rapidly-evolving technology. Disruptive technology impacts the contested arena of accounting regulation, in which the constituents ask for new solutions and the IASB tries to resist such pressures, while defending its position.

The paper sheds light on the growing importance of agenda decisions in the IFRS environment and on the limits of the IASB long regulatory process in the circumstance of emerging accounting issues deriving from rapidly-evolving technology.

This investigation is timely and relevant as it considers the regulatory issues arising from disruptive technological innovations (i.e. cryptocurrency), shedding light on the limits of regulatory processes in times of technological change.