Search results

The purpose of this paper is to assess the changes in segment reporting practices of German listed firms under the new segment reporting standard IFRS 8.

The authors compare hand-collected segment disclosures of German firms in the first IFRS 8 year with those reported in the last IAS 14R year.

The authors do not find substantial changes in the segment disclosures of German firms under IFRS 8. While the number of reportable segments slightly increased, the amount of information disclosed for each reportable segment decreased. The same applies to geographic areas reported as secondary segments under IAS 14R compared to entity-wide disclosures under IFRS 8. Furthermore, even though more country-specific information was provided, many firms still disclosed only broad geographic areas.

Future research should extend the analysis to consider more than one year of data following IFRS 8’s adoption and to examine the impact of the standard on smaller firms. Moreover, investigating economic benefits for investors and other financial statement users following IFRS 8’s adoption could be an avenue for future research.

The findings indicate that the International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) expectations regarding changes in segment reporting practices under IFRS 8 have only partially been met. The results also reveal some cases of segment reporting practice where compliance is at least questionable. Both findings are of interest to standard-setters and regulators.

The paper provides new insights into the effects of IFRS 8’s adoption in Germany and thus contributes to the post-implementation review of IFRS 8 carried out by the IASB in 2012/2013. The study sheds light on the consequences of applying the “management approach” to segment reporting, thereby contributing to the theoretical discussion on the adequacy of the different concepts for disclosing segment information.

Classification schemes make things happen. The Australian Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which derives its classification system from the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), legislates for adjustments to support the inclusion of people with disability. This study explores how students with disability enrolled in a university experience the systems intended to facilitate their studying “on the same basis” as students without disability.

Through an online questionnaire and interviews comprising open and closed questions made available to students registered with the disability services unit of a university and follow-up interviews with a small number of students, students’ views of their own disability and effects on their participation in learning were gathered, alongside reports of their experiences of seeking support in their learning. Interview data and responses to open-ended questions were analysed using a priori and emergent coding.

The findings demonstrate that students are aware of the workings of the classification scheme and that most accept them. However, some students put themselves outside of the scheme, often as a way to exercise autonomy or to assert their “ability”, while others are excluded from it by the decisions of academic staff. Thus, the principles of fairness and equity enshrined in legislation and policy are weakened.

Through the voices of students with disability, it is apparent that, even though a student's classification according to the DDA and associated university policy remains constant, the outcomes of the workings of the scheme may reveal inconsistencies, emerging from the complexity of bureaucracy, processes and the exercises of power.