Search results

Over the last decade, international accounting harmonization and convergence and the increasing adoption of IFRS as national standards have become dominant topics in international accounting research (Alp & Ustundag, 2009; Ashbaugh & Pincus, 2001; Cairns, Massoudi, Taplin, & Tarca, 2011; Christensen et al., 2007; Daske, 2006; Daske & Gebhardt, 2006; Daske et al., 2008; Ding et al., 2007; Gastón, García, Jarne, & Laínez Gadea, 2010; Haverals, 2007; Hellmann, Perera, & Patel, 2010; Lantto & Sahlström, 2008; Othman & Zeghal, 2006; Peng & van der Laan Smith, 2010; Schleicher, Tahoun, & Walker, 2010; Tyrrall et al., 2007). In this move toward convergence, the politics associated with IAS setting by the IASB has become an important and controversial topic in international accounting research. Although previous studies have aimed to examine political issues and stakeholder's perception toward the standard-setting process of the IASB (Alali & Cao, 2010; Chiapello & Medjad, 2009; de Lange & Howieson, 2006), no study has critically examined the complexity of factors influencing attitudes and public opinion toward this standard-setting process. Given that attitudes are likely to guide behavior and lead stakeholders to either advance the work of the IASB or create obstacles, it is timely and relevant to analyze attitudes toward this issue. A recent study has provided evidence that stakeholders’ acceptance of IFRS and preparers’ overall perception of IFRS may influence compliance and the quality of financial reports (Navarro-García & Bastida, 2010). As such, it is the objective of this chapter to provide insights into determinants of attitudes toward the IASB's standard setting and critically examine the influence of power structures and perceived legitimacy on individual attitudes and public opinion.¹ Specifically, this study examines German attitudes toward the promotion of professional judgment by the IASB since the adoption of IFRS in the EU in 2005.

The monographs and reviews on audit judgment and decision-making research published over the years have strengthened this strand of research in auditing by providing insights and suggesting avenues for future research. However, no such comprehensive reviews have been published so far for the research undertaken in the domain of accounting judgment. This chapter reviews the accounting judgment and decision-making research published during 1972–2010 in the five top-tier accounting journals. It evaluates the characteristics and significance of these studies, their theoretical and methodological strengths and weaknesses, and suggests avenues for future research. The insights into accounting judgment and decision-making research provided in this chapter may be useful for improving the research method, theory development, and hypotheses' formulation stages of future studies. The analysis presented in this chapter may also provide the necessary impetus to strengthen this strand of research in accounting in the future.

The globalization of the world's economies has inevitably brought with it moves to establish a single set of financial reporting standards. Prima facie, the formulation and promulgation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is concealed behind reified icons of “relevance.” This chapter adds a new dimension to the international accounting debate by discussing themes of regulation, public and private interests, from a critical perspective. Specifically, this chapter examines the reasons for the willingness to accept IFRS in Fiji. A critical conception of “relevance” and “accountability” is developed to demonstrate how the needs of private interests' are met in adopting the IFRS. This study demonstrates that in this process of convergence, the influence of these private interests – multinational enterprises and large international accounting firms – can lead to a transfer of economic resources in their favor, wherein the public interests are usually ignored. The study offers suggestions on how public interest might be best served within the current financial reporting system and how, in principle, the needs to report both globally and locally can be reconciled.

This study extends prior cross-cultural research by examining the effects of both cultural and noncultural factors on the judgments of professional accountants. It examines the extent and the cause of differences in judgments of professional accountants in Australia and Fiji when interpreting and applying selected International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). A comparative study between these two countries, which have both adopted IFRS, provides empirical evidence that IFRS are not interpreted and applied consistently. It supports the views that: (a) both national culture and organizational culture (Big 4 and non-Big 4 firm affiliations) have a significant effect on the manner in which professional accountants in a country interpret uncertainty expressions contained in IFRS; and (b) national culture and organizational culture interact to influence the judgments of professional accountants. Further, the results of the effects of noncultural factors on the judgments of professional accountants in Australia and Fiji show that the professional accountants' perceived level of task complexity has a significant effect on their judgments. An important implication of this study is that the adoption of IFRS in different countries alone may not result in uniformity in financial reporting as IFRS may not be consistently applied by those countries because of differences in cultural as well as noncultural factors.

Parmod Chand, PhD (Macquarie) is a senior lecturer in the Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. He has also held teaching positions at the University of the South Pacific, Fiji. He has published in a variety of professional and refereed journals, including the European Accounting Review, Advances in Accounting, Incorporating Advances in International Accounting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, and Australian Accounting Review. He is also involved in various consulting activities for the professional body in Fiji.

This chapter examines the literature surrounding stakeholder theory. Section 2.2 outlines the nature of what is a stakeholder, whereas Section 2.3 overviews the literature on social accounting and reporting and details how it served as an antecedent to the specific literature on stakeholder management. Section 2.4 covers the mainstream literature on stakeholder management by examining the three distinct categories of stakeholder literature as outlined by Donaldson and Preston (1995): (1) descriptive; (2) instrumental; and (3) normative. The normative category includes a discussion on how the theory's fundamental aspects have been rejected outright by some authors, as a basis for a theory of the firm, due to the perceived paradox in relation to the firm's multi-fiduciary duty beyond the shareholder. Section 2.5 summarises the literature to date and outlines its main limitations, including the primary emphasis on seeking to normatively ground the theory. Section 2.6 then provides the conclusions with a table summarising the research objectives and outcomes.