Search results

The aim of this chapter is to determine the need for water management and accounting.

This chapter first gives an overview of water-related business risks and exposes the need for sound corporate water management and accounting; it then critically examines water-related issues from an accountability perspective. Furthermore, it gives an overview of Australian Standardised Water Accounting (SWA) and General Purpose Water Accounting (GPWA) as possible practices to strengthen water disclosure.

The present study confirms the need for, and the importance of, transparent, high-quality, credible and comparable water disclosure. Water is considered a public good and involves a public interest and, consequently, public responsibility for its usage, management and protection. Following this line of reasoning, the chapter draws attention to the need for accountability to be ‘public’ or at least shared between crucial stakeholders (government – at national and international levels, water industries, communities, environmentalists, NGOs, etc.).

Company efforts are commonly focused on internal and self-referred operations. The different and conflicting uses that may be made of water, and the fact that water is geographically and temporally sensitive, necessitate a search for more flexible and more extended forms of accountability. An implication of these findings is the need and opportunity to switch focus from a single/private perspective to a more general/public one, with benefits for all the stakeholders.

This research enhances our understanding of water management and accounting and may serve as a sound base for future studies on this challenging topic.

This paper explores the relationship between foreign direct investments and financial reporting changes via financial development in 12 Latin American countries during the period from 1997 to 2010.

In order to control the possible endogeneity problem, the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimation technique has been conducted using country-level panel data obtained from the World Development Indicators website.

The empirical analyses provide evidence that international accounting standards have a significant effect on foreign direct investments. However, financial development associated with such standards reduces this positive effect. This is an important finding, suggesting that investors are likely to prefer portfolio to direct investments in Latin American financial markets that require or permit the use of international accounting standards.

The conclusions that have been drawn from this study are important for investors, creditors, and regulators. Although international accounting standards appear to affect foreign investments, there could be a lack of adaptation of these standards to specific economic environments due to cultural, educational, and economic factors. Therefore, firms, regulators, professional organizations, and accounting firms should make necessary arrangements so that the benefits of using these standards increase their costs.

The study contributes to the international accounting literature by examining the effects of international accounting standards and financial development on foreign direct investments in Latin America.

International bodies such as the European Union (EU), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are actively working toward the creation of business structures that will facilitate international trade and commerce.¹ Certain aspects of international business and trade – such as law, marketing, finance, and economics – have all, by methods such as treaties and bilateral agreements, transcended national boundaries and converged (Carlson, 1997, p. 357). There is an expectation within the international capital market that since accounting is an important source of business information, it should further transcend national boundaries, and practices should also converge (Carlson, 1997; Purvis, Gernon, & Diamond, 1991; Whittington, 2005). In the international accounting literature, this process has been denoted as “harmonization” or “convergence.”

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 study critically evaluates the theory of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) implementation in an attempt to provide directions for future research. Using the extensive structured review of literature using the Scopus database tool, the study reviewed 79 articles, and in particular the topic-related 57 articles were analysed. Nine journals contribute to 51% of articles (29 of 57 articles). In particular, the three journals published 15 articles: Critical Perspectives on Accounting (7), Accounting, Organizations and Society (4), and Journal of Applied Accounting Research (4). In total, 83% (47 of 57) of the articles were published 2009–2018. A total of 1,168 citations were found from 45 articles since 12 articles were without citations. The highest cited authors were Ball (2006) – 410 citations, Kothari, Ramanna, and Skinner (2010) – 135 citations, and Napier (1989) – 85 citations. In particular, five theories have been used widely: institutional theory (13), accounting theory (6), agency theory (3), positive accounting theory (3), and process theory (2). Future studies’ focus could be on theory implications in IFRS adoption/implementation studies in a country or a group of countries’ experience. Future studies could also focus on various theories rather depending on a single theory (i.e. institutional theory).

Purpose – Corporate governance requirements imposed internationally as part of the New International Financial Architecture (NIFA) include compliance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The appropriateness of applying IFRS in developing countries has long been controversial. Recently, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) extended its project on IFRS for Small and Medium Entities (SMEs) to include developing countries. This paper provides a history of the controversy over IFRS in developing countries and examines the SMEs project as it affects developing countries.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses an agenda-setting theoretical framework and document analysis to analyse IASB's published documents as part of its formal due process.

Findings – The controversies surrounding the application of IFRS in developing countries seem likely to continue. The public submission process may be ineffective and too late for those seeking to influence IFRS developments. The findings suggest that those seeking IFRS for developing countries may need to both devise an acceptable solution and obtain inside access to the standard-setting process to achieve this aim.

Research limitations – The research is limited to literature review and documentary analysis and therefore subject to the known limitations of published project documentation in accounting standard-setting.

Originality/value – Contributes to understanding of international accounting standard-setting, including why developing country issues seem likely to continue.

Using market-risk disclosures as an empirical context, and drawing on the diffusion of innovations (DOIs) model, this paper contributes new sociological perspectives to a theorization of compliance. We propose that stakeholder behaviors during accounting standard-setting discussion and adoption phases are motivated by social, political, and economic factors. These phases interrelate, and consequently, any analysis of managerial disclosure decisions benefit from considering them together, rather than in isolation, as is typical.

The authors use a mixed-methods design, including detailed analysis of semi-structured interviews (n = 26), constituents’ comment letters (n = 106), annual report disclosures (FTSE 350: firm-year observations n = 1,131), technical meetings, and standard-setting documents.

Results suggest that constituents initially supported introduction of a set of mandatory market-risk disclosures, but implied costs of the proposed and subsequently approved requirements outweighed perceived benefits and efficiencies. This study elaborates on these issues, exploring how and why a financial reporting innovation that stakeholders deemed technically inefficient was diffused. Although the authors were told that compulsion (i.e., forced-selection) dominates disclosure decisions, some freedom of choice remains, as evidenced by greater than 40% non-compliance during the first year of adoption. Respondents indicate that theoretically, market-risk disclosure adoption decisions rest on assessment of the costs of disclosure (e.g., preparation and competition) versus non-disclosure (e.g., litigation and reputation). Second-phase adoption is more straightforward because the costs of disclosure decrease over time.

Although mixed-methods research offers several advantages, self-selection bias, issues with coding reliability, and interviewer/interviewee bias are possible. It is impossible to achieve a truly holistic understanding of standard-setting, and therefore the authors acknowledge that findings are not generalizable, though the risks were minimized.

Recognizing that disclosure choices are not made in political and social vacuums, this study suggests that sociological perspectives such as innovation-diffusion inform a theory of compliance.