The purpose of this paper is to respond to calls in the literature to examine personality variables which may provide sharper insights into accountants’ judgments in…
The purpose of this paper is to respond to calls in the literature to examine personality variables which may provide sharper insights into accountants’ judgments in applying principles-based International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). This paper contributes to the literature on the global convergence of financial reporting by examining the influence of an important personality variable, construal of self, on Chinese accountants’ aggressive financial reporting judgments.
A between-subjects quasi-experiment was applied. In total, 122 Chinese professional accountants were categorized as either independents or interdependents, on the basis of their scores on construal of self scales. Subjects made their consolidation reporting judgments in the manipulated situations based on the financial performance of the investee entity, which refers to the situation where the investee entity makes a significant profit or a significant loss in the reporting period.
Compared to interdependent accountants, independent accountants used the flexibility allowed in the principles-based standards to make more aggressive consolidation reporting judgments. Also, adoption of IFRS may not necessarily ensure consistent judgments even within China.
This paper provides empirical evidence of the importance of construal of self in examining accountants’ aggressive judgments. The authors suggest that it may be premature to assume that adoption of IFRS will lead to comparable financial reporting. The findings are relevant to researchers who are interested in examining personality and cultural influences on accountants’ judgments both within and across countries. Companies and organizations may incorporate appropriate strategies to recruit and train independent and interdependent accountants, particularly by addressing the influence of construal of self on aggressive financial reporting judgments.
The paper extends the literature by examining the impact of politics, conflicts and compromises resulting from external pressures (gaiatsu, 外圧) and internal pressures …
The paper extends the literature by examining the impact of politics, conflicts and compromises resulting from external pressures (gaiatsu, 外圧) and internal pressures (naiatsu, 内圧) on the convergence and globalization of accounting and accountability in Japan.
Using Japan as a case study, it is examined how and why the stimulus for significant accounting reforms arises, how the government manages and reacts to the powerful forces of gaiatsu and how it balances naiatsu among key stakeholders.
The ongoing changes in accounting regulations in Japan are neither the result of an unmediated response to gaiatsu nor the outcome of naiatsu. Rather, Japanese accounting changes are the consequence of complex external interactions and internal compromises. Specifically, Japan demonstrates a repetitive pattern of conflict management, which alters the domestic power balance based on naiatsu, and forces the Japanese government to make compromises to policy changes initiated by gaiatsu.
The findings have implications for the development of accounting and accountability, the globalized business world and international accounting research because they challenge claims made by global standards setters that international standards such as International Financial Reporting Standards are superior, are built on so-called “best practices” and are relevant to all countries.
Invoking the concepts of gaiatsu and naiatsu is a critical approach to understanding Japan's convergence toward economic liberalism and Anglo-American models of accounting and accountability.
Over the last decade, international accounting harmonization and convergence with the increasing adoption of IFRS as national accounting standards have become dominant…
Over the last decade, international accounting harmonization and convergence with the increasing adoption of IFRS as national accounting standards have become dominant topics in international accounting research (Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Chand & Patel, 2008; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske & Gebhardt, 2006; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Hellmann et al., 2010; Lantto & Sahlström, 2008; Larson & Kenny, 2011; Peng & van der Laan Smith, 2010; Rezaee et al., 2010; Tyrrall et al., 2007). Given that the primary goal of international convergence is enhancing comparability of financial statements across countries, the influence of accountants’ professional judgment in the interpretation and application of accounting standards has increasingly been recognized as an important and controversial topic. Indeed, a growing number of studies have analyzed the influence of culture on standard setting (Bloom & Naciri, 1989; Ding et al., 2005; Schultz & Lopez, 2001), auditor independence (Agacer & Doupnik, 1991; Hwang et al., 2008; Patel & Psaros, 2000), and accountants’ values and judgments (Doupnik & Riccio, 2006; Doupnik & Richter, 2003, 2004; Patel, 2003). Although prior research has provided evidence that culture influences accountants’ exercise of professional judgments, these studies have largely focused on demonstrating differences between accountants from very distinct cultures or accounting systems. For example, Chand (2008) as well as Doupnik and Richter (2004) examined differences in the judgment of professional accountants with regard to the interpretation and application of uncertainty expressions by comparing Australian and Fijian and German and American accountants, respectively. Moreover, recent research on professional accountants’ judgments (Chand, 2008; Doupnik & Riccio, 2006; Doupnik & Richter, 2003) has largely focused on providing evidence that accountants from different accounting clusters significantly differ in their exercise of professional judgment. Indeed, researchers have often based their country selections on theoretical models of accounting clusters such as Gray's (1988) framework of accounting values or Nobes’ (1983) international accounting classification, predominantly to show differences between the Anglo-American accounting model and the Continental European accounting model.
This research monograph critically examines convergence with the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Germany by taking into account the influence of political, legal, economic, social, cultural, and historical factors on accounting principles and practices. This study makes a contribution by examining issues in the convergence process that may create constraints in achieving global comparability and, importantly, may challenge the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) main objective: “to develop, in the public interest, a single set of high-quality, understandable, enforceable and globally accepted financial reporting standards based on clearly articulated principles” (IFRS Foundation, 2011a, Preface to IFRS).1 Specifically, this research monograph examines convergence in Germany by analyzing the development of German accounting and examining issues and attitudes concerning the application of professional judgment, which has increasingly been recognized as an important and controversial topic in international accounting (Barth, Landsman, & Rendleman, 2000; Chand & White, 2006; Dechow, Myers, & Shakespeare, 2010; Patel, 2006; Theile, 2003).
Over the last decade, the accounting convergence process with the development and adoption of IFRS as national standards has become the focus of governments, professionals, and researchers. In 2005, the EU (including Germany) and Australia adopted IFRS. A survey by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (2010) reported that 89 countries have adopted or intend to adopt IFRS for all their domestic listed companies. Currently, more than 100 jurisdictions require or permit the use of IFRS, with countries such as Canada, Brazil, and Argentina being the most recent adopters (IFRS Foundation, 2011b). This growing number of countries implementing IFRS and their experiences and emerging challenges have further raised researchers' interest in this controversial topic (Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Atwood et al., 2011; Byard et al., 2011; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Hail et al., 2010a, 2010b; Kvaal & Nobes, 2010; McAnally et al., 2010; Mechelli, 2009; Niskanen, Kinnunen, & Kasanen, 2000; Stolowy, Haller, & Klockhaus, 2001; Tyrrall et al., 2007). However, these studies have concentrated on the development and application of specific accounting standards and practices and/or cross-national and cross-cultural issues concerning adaptation, implementation, and evaluation of IFRS. Moreover, an increasing number of studies have been devoted to classifications of accounting models and categorization of accounting standards, principles, and values (Chanchani & Willett, 2004; D'Arcy, 2000, 2001; Doupnik & Richter, 2004; Doupnik & Salter, 1993; Gray, 1988; Kamla, Gallhofer, & Haslam, 2006; Nair & Frank, 1980; Patel, 2003, 2007; Perera & Mathews, 1990; Salter & Doupnik, 1992). However, very few studies have critically examined the historical development of accounting practices and issues related to convergence in its socioeconomic context and, importantly, we are not aware of any study that has rigorously examined the institutionalization of Anglo-American accounting practices as international practice with an emphasis on power and legitimacy in the move toward convergence of accounting standards.
International harmonization of accounting standards and the move toward convergence have revived an increasing interest in the influence of culture in accounting and…
International harmonization of accounting standards and the move toward convergence have revived an increasing interest in the influence of culture in accounting and auditing. The growing number of countries adopting IFRS and the increasing acceptance of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) has further raised researchers’ attention. For example, more than 100 countries require or permit the use of IFRS, with more countries, such as Canada, India, and Korea, planning to adopt IFRS by 2011 (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, 2007; IASB, 2007a, 2007b). This move toward convergence is driven largely on assumptions and assertions based on enhancing international comparability of accounting and auditing information.
This study is an empirical examination of Australian auditors' interpretation of selected key uncertainty expressions such as virtual certainty, expected, reasonable…
This study is an empirical examination of Australian auditors' interpretation of selected key uncertainty expressions such as virtual certainty, expected, reasonable assurance and possible, contained in Australian accounting and auditing standards. The results showed three major findings. First, auditors demonstrated a reasonably high degree of variability in the interpretation of uncertainty expressions. In view of the proliferation of uncertainty expressions within international and Australian accounting and auditing standards, this lack of consistency in interpretation of uncertainty expressions raises some serious concerns. Second, compared with the less experienced auditors, the more experienced auditors demonstrated greater variability in their interpretations of uncertainty expressions. Third, contrary to expectations, this study did not find any difference in judgements between auditors in big‐five and non‐big‐five firms. In aggregate, the findings of the study have implications for standard setting.
We have considered both the de jure and de facto aspects of comparability in financial reporting. Generally, the findings presented in this monograph show that there is a lack of both de jure and de facto comparability in financial reporting across countries. We have considered the de jure aspect of comparability in financial reporting by identifying the ways in which IFRS are adopted and enforced in the South Pacific region and also investigated the relationship between country-specific characteristics and the selection of the appropriate approach for adoption. An examination of the convergence process in the South Pacific region provides evidence that countries use different approaches in their adoption of IFRS. We have broadly identified five different approaches for convergence and harmonization of accounting standards, ranging from adoption of IFRS in their entirety to the lack of reference to IFRS, that is, no convergence or harmonization.