Search results

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.

Current conditions have intensified the need for health systems to engage in the difficult task of priority setting. As the search for a “magic bullet” is replaced by an appreciation for the interplay between evidence, interests, culture, and outcomes, progress in relation to these dimensions requires assessment of achievements to date and identification of areas where knowledge and practice require attention most urgently. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

An international survey was administered to experts in the area of priority setting. The survey consisted of open-ended questions focusing on notable achievements, policy and practice challenges, and areas for future research in the discipline of priority setting. It was administered online between February and March of 2015.

“Decision-making frameworks” and “Engagement” were the two most frequently mentioned notable achievements. “Priority setting in practice” and “Awareness and education” were the two most frequently mentioned policy and practical challenges. “Priority setting in practice” and “Engagement” were the two most frequently mentioned areas in need of future research.

Sampling bias toward more developed countries. Future study could use findings to create a more concise version to distribute more broadly.

Globally, these findings could be used as a platform for discussion and decision making related to policy, practice, and research in this area.

Whilst this study reaffirmed the continued importance of many longstanding themes in the priority setting literature, it is possible to also discern clear shifts in emphasis as the discipline progresses in response to new challenges.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and evaluate the internationalisation of Australian auditing standards by analysing the submissions to the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board's (AUASB) strategic directions paper (SDP) and comparing the proposed and approved strategic directions frameworks of the AUASB.

A content analysis of the submissions to the SDP is conducted to identify the extent of support, and arguments for and against the proposed strategic directions. This study attempts to find a link, if any, between the proposed strategic directions, the views expressed by the stakeholders, and the final set of strategic directions issued by Australia's Financial Reporting Council.

Overall, the final set of strategic directions released in April 2005 are consistent with the views expressed in the submissions, which support minimal divergence from International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and using the ISAs as the base for developing Australian auditing standards. Major changes from the SDP include a requirement for the AUASB to undertake research and monitor auditing standards issued by national standard setters. However, the AUASB is no longer obliged to contribute to the international standard arena and need only have regard to any program initiated by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

The findings of this study provide an insight into the future of Australia's role in the international arena and increase awareness of stakeholders' views on the international harmonisation of auditing standards.

While there have been several studies examining the international harmonisation of accounting standards, there is comparatively little research on the international harmonisation of auditing standards. This paper attempts to address this void, in part, and contribute to the literature on the convergence of auditing standards with ISAs.

Purpose/Aim: Over the last quarter of a century, several voluntary frameworks and non-financial reporting standards have been developed by various initiatives and organisations. Especially after the 2008 financial crisis, which deepened into values crises, the need for evaluating social, environmental, and economic consequences and herein for non-financial disclosures accrued. This chapter aims to outline the current state in the ecosystem for non-financial reporting and its projected future developments and suggests further developments in this field. Since financial institutions played a negative role in the crises and will be important in future responsible investing, the authors also addressed some financial institutions’ specific non-financial issues.

Method: In search of an answer to our questions about whether existing non-financial reporting pronouncements meet (various) stakeholders’ expectations and whether international pronouncements are needed, we rely on triangulation. We start with the identification of phenomena of non-financial reporting. Description of phenomena is further on supplemented with a literate overview. Based on a review of prior research and study of the current framework’s pros and cons, we present a possible path of further development in non-financial reporting. Making that mixed-methodological approach is used (i.e. deductive and inductive reasoning).

Results/Findings: The authors deduce that there has been a substantial increase in demand for non-financial information, social responsibility ratings and other non-financial information services on behalf of preparers, users of such reports and the public. The authors particularly highlight the shortcomings that currently exist and outline the characteristics that future international non-financial reporting frameworks would have to meet with the awareness that such framework or standards will have their advantages and disadvantages. As seen by the authors, the main problem is how to achieve political consensus and then general acceptance by users.

Originality/Significance: The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation has become active in the field of non-financial reporting and started a project to become an internationally recognised standard-setter. However, with many mandatory or voluntary initiatives being started in this field, IFRS Foundation will need to address many challenges and ambiguities to become a leading organisation in non-financial reporting. Therefore, the research question is whether a new board, comparable to the International Accounting Standards Board, with the straightforward task of setting non-financial reporting standards would be needed in the future.

This chapter presents an approach for teaching divergent and evolving auditing standards in an introductory auditing course. The existence of divergent and continually evolving auditing standards can be challenging for students and for auditing educators. In addition to two separate sets of standards in the United States for the audits of public companies (issuers) and nonpublic companies (nonissuers), auditors also need to be aware of the growing prominence of international standards. In addition to providing background information on standard-setting bodies and divergent auditing standards, and suggestions for simplifying the process of guiding students to an understanding of these standards, this chapter provides figures that can be used for demonstration in class, along with a series of brief internet-based research exercises. The exercises and examples provided may help auditing educators to facilitate students’ understanding and mastery of the fundamental elements of the domestic and international auditing standard-setting forces and activities that impact, directly or indirectly, auditing practice in the United States and abroad.

This paper investigates the factors influencing the future of the IASB, using as the point of departure, a review of its historical progression towards becoming the global accounting standard‐setting authority. It concludes that the IASB is an organisation vulnerable to (1) political lobbying of influential institutions, (2) US accounting authorities decision makers, (3) potential accounting scandals, and (4) cultural differences resulting in the misapplication of its standards around the world. Such factors should be borne in mind when charting the next steps for the IASB and in evaluating the comparability and quality of accounts produced under IFRSs around the world.

The purpose of this paper is to add to the literature on accounting change in explaining a decade-long effort by the FASB and IASB to develop a set of global accounting standards accepted by markets worldwide. This research studies the effort as one of “convergence” in accounting standards and aims to bring theoretical and empirical clarity as to how we can conceptualize the notion of convergence.

Through a longitudinal study of 23 key FASB-IASB projects undertaken between 2002 and 2011, this paper analyzes processes of accounting change using a blend of institutional theory and political economy. A process perspective provides a method to unfold variants of accounting change by identifying patterns that help us to understand the conditions for and characteristics of convergence.

The author highlights specific variants of accounting change observed during the convergence effort – direct emulation, difference reduction and progressive redesign – as analogous to institutional processes. Where direct emulation and difference reduction reflect institutional processes of imitation and editing or translation, respectively, the author shows how progressive redesign of accounting standards goes beyond these classical categorizations to encompass the notion of “institutional co-construction” (Djelic, 2008).

A longer (shorter) period of study and a greater (lesser) number of projects could be argued for a more comprehensive (more detailed) study; however, limiting the period and project to the terms of the formal convergence program allows for forces driving this particular process to be isolated and their effects extrapolated to broader thinking on accounting and global regulation.

This research informs the global standard-setting community of the evolution of convergence and the factors which impact that evolution by revealing the influence of various institutions, actors and events over time. In particular, the author identifies the impact of the competitive and cooperative conditions under which the FASB-IASB convergence effort operated and reveal how these conditions were influenced by the macro-level economic and political developments occurring over the period.

Accounting and water industry experts are developing general‐purpose water accounting (GPWA) to report information about water and rights to water. The system has the potential to affect water policies, pricing and management, and investment and other decisions that are affected by GPWA report users' understanding of water risks faced by an entity. It may also affect financial returns to accounting and auditing firms and firms in water industries. In this paper the authors aim to examine the roles of the accounting profession, water industries and other stakeholders in governing GPWA. Recognising that the fate of GPWA depends partly upon regulatory power and economics, they seek to apply regulatory theories that explain financial accounting standards development to speculate about the national and international future of GPWA.

Official documents, internal Water Accounting Standards Board documents and unstructured interviews underpin the authors' analysis.

The authors speculate about the benefits that might accrue to various stakeholder groups from capturing the GPWA standard‐setting process. They also suggest that internationally, water industries may dominate early GPWA standards development in the public interest and that regulatory capture by accounting or water industry professionals will not necessarily conflict with public interest benefits.

Accounting for water can affect allocations of environmental, economic, social and other resources; also, accounting and water industry professional standing and revenues. In this paper the authors identify factors influencing GPWA standards and standard‐setting institutional arrangements, and thereby these resource allocations. The paper generates an awareness of GPWA's emergence and practical implications.

This is an early study to investigate water accounting standard‐setting regulatory influences and their impact.