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.

This paper explores how the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has dealt with the emerging issue of accounting for cryptocurrencies by investigating its constituents' expectations and the motivations underlying its regulatory response.

The theoretical lens of regulatory space is used to analyse the four-year debate around cryptocurrency holdings and informs the extensive thematic analysis of public documents, meetings recordings and comment letters on the topic.

Facing national standard setters' initiatives to regulate accounting for cryptocurrency, the IASB defended its position in the regulatory space through an agenda decision based on ewct 2xisting standards, which was finalised by the International Financial Reporting Standards Interpretation Committee (IFRS IC) despite criticism from constituents and Board members.

The paper provides insights into the IASB approach to a regulatory vacuum regarding a new class of items, which derive from a new and rapidly-evolving technology. Disruptive technology impacts the contested arena of accounting regulation, in which the constituents ask for new solutions and the IASB tries to resist such pressures, while defending its position.

The paper sheds light on the growing importance of agenda decisions in the IFRS environment and on the limits of the IASB long regulatory process in the circumstance of emerging accounting issues deriving from rapidly-evolving technology.

This investigation is timely and relevant as it considers the regulatory issues arising from disruptive technological innovations (i.e. cryptocurrency), shedding light on the limits of regulatory processes in times of technological change.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how “New Deal” regulatory initiatives, primarily the Securities Acts and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), changed US auditors’ professional knowledge conception, culminating in the 1938 expansion of the Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAP), the first US body to set accounting principles.

The paper combines Halliday’s (1985) knowledge mandates with Hancher and Moran’s (1989) regulatory space to attain a theory-based understanding of auditors’ changing knowledge conceptions amid regulatory pressure. It draws on a range of primary and secondary sources to examine the period from 1929 to 1938.

Following the stock market crash, the newly created SEC aimed to engage auditors as a means to regulate companies’ accounting practices based on a set of codified principles. While entailing increased status, this new role conflicted with the auditors’ knowledge conception, which was based on professional judgment and personal integrity. Pressure from the SEC and academics eventually made auditors agree to a codification of their professional knowledge and create the CAP as a cooperative regulatory solution.

The paper explores the role of auditors’ knowledge conceptions in the emergence of today’s standard setting. It is suggested that auditors’ incomplete control of their professional knowledge made standard setting a form of co-regulation, located between the actors occupying the regulatory space of accounting.

This paper aims to examine the multiplicity of corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards, explaining its nature, dynamics and implications for multinational enterprises (MNEs) and international business (IB), especially in the context of CSR and global value chain (GVC) governance.

This paper leverages insights from the literature in political science, policy, regulation, governance and IB; from the own earlier work; and from an inventory of CSR standards across a range of sectors and products.

This analysis’ more nuanced approach to CSR standard multiplicity helps distinguish the different categories of standards; uncovers the existence of different types of standard multiplicity; and highlights complex trends in their evolution over time, discussing implications for the various firms targeted by, or involved in, these initiatives, and for CSR and GVC governance research.

This paper opens many avenues for future research on CSR multiplicity and its consequences; on lead firms governing GVCs from an IB perspective; and on institutional and market complexity.

By providing overviews and classifications, this paper helps clarify CSR standards as “new regulators” and “instruments” for actors in business, society and government.

This paper contributes by filling gaps in different existing literatures concerning standard multiplicity. It also specifically adds a new perspective to the IB literature, which thus far has not fully incorporated the complexity and dynamics of CSR standard multiplicity in examining GVCs and MNE strategy and policy.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the comment letters (CLs) in the standard-setting process of audits of less complex entities (LCEs). The objective is to gain insight into the overall picture of the CLs and to report on areas where comment providers agree or disagree with IAASB's Part 10.

A content analysis of 60 comment letter (CLs) was conducted to investigate the suggested additional Part 10 on audits of groups' financial statements in the proposed ISA for LCEs. Hence, this study examines three specific topics: (1) the views related to the use of the International Standard on Auditing (ISA) for LCEs for group audits in which component auditors are involved, (2) the proposed group-specific qualitative characteristics to describe the scope of group audits and, finally, (3) insights into the content of the proposed Part 10 and related conforming amendments. The Gioia method is used to provide a holistic approach to concept development of the arguments about the new Part 10.

The CLs stated that, while the proposed Part 10 has some weak points, it still provides a solid and practical structure within which to undertake an LCE group audit and a promising basis for further development. For instance, when discussing the improvements, the CLs stated that Part 10 should allow for more auditor judgment when determining when the involvement of component auditors renders a group audit complex. In addition, the CLs asserted that professional judgment should be engaged when considering the qualitative characteristics and the complexity of the group.

This study contributes to the very scarce research about the ISA for LCEs and the role of lobbying in shaping the audit standard-setting process.

The objective of this paper is to extend the debate on audit quality in the less complex entity (LCE) context by analyzing comment letters submitted to the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). The IAASB has drafted a new, stand-alone standard for audits of LCEs’ financial statements.

The Gioia method is utilized to conduct the qualitative analysis. This enables the material to shine and provide a comprehensive picture of the important aspects of the comment letters about the International Standard on Auditing (ISA) for LCEs. A content analysis of the 145 comment letters is conducted to identify the extent of the support for and the arguments against the new, stand-alone draft standard for audits of LCEs’ financial statements. In addition, this study considers how the comment letters describe the respondents’ views on audit quality in relation to the new standard. Finally, the tone of the comment letters and audit quality arguments is investigated.

The findings provide a useful framework of the most frequently used arguments supporting and opposing the ISA for LCEs. Within the themes identified, a wide variety of issues and concerns are discussed. The results reveal that the arguments in the comment letters are contradictory. For instance, when discussing audit quality, those interest groups that perceived many positive opportunities in the adoption of the ISA for LCEs thought that the audit quality would increase. Conversely, those interest groups that were skeptical about the success of the ISA for LCEs argued that the audit quality could be compromised by the general prejudice that the ISA for LCEs might be perceived as a lower-quality audit with fewer procedures.

This paper is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first to examine the content of comment letters in the context of a new, stand-alone standard for audits of LCEs. The international audience can utilize the results in the context of the widely discussed issue of reducing LCEs’ auditing obligations. This study aims to contribute to the two streams of accounting literature concerning audit quality and political lobbying.

This paper aims to investigate the current state of knowledge in key reporting aspects in relation to sustainability reporting in general and to reflect on their relevance to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in particular. In doing so, the major gaps in that knowledge are identified, and the paper proceeds to suggest further research avenues.

The authors conduct a review of papers published in leading journals concerning sustainability reporting to analyse the progress in the literature regarding three important reporting topics: materiality, comparability and assurance.

The review conducted in this study shows that there is still work to be done to ensure high-quality and consistent sustainability reporting. Key takeaways from the review of the extant literature are as follows: there is ongoing debate about the nature of sustainability reporting materiality, and single versus double materiality. Clearer guidance and better contextualisation are seen as essential for comparability, and, as GRI suggests, there is an important link to materiality that needs to be considered. Finally, assurance has not been mandatory under the GRI, but the current development at EU level might lead to the GRI principles being incorporated in the primary assurance standards.

In this paper, the authors review and synthesise the previous literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

The authors extract some takeaways from the literature on materiality, comparability and assurance that will all be key challenges for GRI in the future.

This paper provides an updated review of the literature on GRI reporting dealing with three key reporting aspects.

This study sheds light on the prediction of success using cutoff scores for student grades adopted for a required Physics pathway course for study in a health professions program at King Saud University in Saudi Arabia. Data on course grade and GPA for approximately 10,000 students enrolled in this course between 2008–2014, were analyzed. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine cutoffs for course grades using ranges of GPA. This procedure has promise as a new method for quantitatively arriving at cutoff scores using an external criterion requiring less human judgment than most existing standard setting methods. The cutoff scores produced show that GPAs of students who complete the Physics course yield successive performance tiers that are lower than expected. In addition, the correlation between GPA and course grade for Physics is only 0.63 and therefore only 39% of the variation in GPA explains course grade. As a result of the findings of the study, the decision was made to maintain the existing standards thereby requiring higher grades in the Physics course for students seeking to enter a health professions course of study.

ﻧﺗﻟا ﺎﮭﺗردﻗو ﺔﯾدﺣﻟا تﺎﺟردﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ ءوﺿﻟا ﺔﯾﻟﺎﺣﻟا ﺔﺳاردﻟا طﻠﺳﺗ ﻲﻓ ﺔﺑﻠطﻟا حﺎﺟﻧ ﻰﻠﻋ ﺔﯾؤﺑﻲﻟوﻻا ءﺎﯾزﯾﻔﻟا ررﻘﻣ زﯾﻓ)145( ، دﻌﯾ يذﻟاوﻠﻋ ﺎﯾﺳﺎﺳا ﺎﺑﻠطﺗﻣكﻠﻣﻟا ﺔﻌﻣﺎﺟ ﻲﻓ ﺔﯾﺣﺻﻟا تﺎﺻﺻﺧﺗﻟا ﺔﺑﻠط ﻰ ﺔﻘﻠﻌﺗﻣﻟا تﺎﻧﺎﯾﺑﻟا ﻊﻣﺟ مﺗ دﻘﻓ ﺔﯾﻠﻋو ،ﺔﯾدوﻌﺳﻟا ﺔﯾﺑرﻌﻟا ﺔﻛﻠﻣﻣﻟﺎﺑ دوﻌﺳ نﻣ برﺎﻘﯾ ﺎﻣﻟ ررﻘﻣﻟا اذھ تﺎﺟردﺑ10000 ماوﻋﻻا نﯾﺑ ررﻘﻣﻟا اذﮭﺑ اوﻘﺣﺗﻟا نﯾذﻠﻟا ﺔﺑﻠطﻟا نﻣ2008 - 2014 .ﺔﯾﻣﻛارﺗﻟا مﮭﺗﻻدﻌﻣو ،م ﺗﻟو مادﺧﺗﺳا مﺗ دﻘﻓ ،تﺎﻧﺎﯾﺑﻟا هذھ لﯾﻠﺣ تﺎﯾﻠﻣﻌﻟا لﯾﻐﺷﺗ ﺔﯾﺻﺎﺧ ﻰﻧﺣﻧﻣReceiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) تﺎﺟردﻟا دﯾدﺣﺗﻟ نﻣ دﺣﻟاو ﺔﯾدﺣﻟا تﺎﺟردﻟا ﻰﻟا لوﺻوﻠﻟ ﺔﺛﯾدﺣﻟا ﺔﯾﻣﻛﻟا قرطﻟا نﻣ ﺔﻘﯾرطﻟا هذھ دﻌﺗ ثﯾﺣ ،ﺔﯾﻣﻛارﺗﻟا تﻻدﻌﻣﻟا نﻣ ﺔﻔﻠﺗﺧﻣ تﺎﻗﺎطﻧﻟ ﺔﯾدﺣﻟارﯾﺛﺄﺗﻟا .يرﺷﺑﻟا نﻣﺿ نﺎﻛ ررﻘﻣﻟا اذھ زﺎﺗﺟا نﻣﻟ ﺔﯾﻣﻛارﺗﻟا تﻻدﻌﻣﻟا نا ﻰﻟا ترﺎﺷا دﻗ ﺎﮭﯾﻠﻋ لوﺻﺣﻟا مﺗ ﻲﺗﻟا ﮫﯾدﺣﻟا تﺎﺟردﻟا نﺎﻓ ﺔﯾﻠﻋو تﻐﻠﺑ ﺔﺑﻠطﻟا تﺎﺟردو ﺔﯾﻣﻛارﺗﻟا تﻻدﻌﻣﻟا نﯾﺑ ﺔﯾطﺎﺑﺗرﻻا ﺔﻗﻼﻌﻟا نا ﺎﻣﻛ ،ﻊﻗوﺗﻣﻟا نﻣ لﻗا تﺎﻗﺎطﻧ0.63 ﻲﻧﻌﯾ ﺎﻣﻣ ، نا 39% نﻣتﺎﻧﯾﺎﺑﺗﻟا ﺔﯾﻣھا نﯾﺑﺗﯾ ﺞﺋﺎﺗﻧ نﻣ ﺔﯾﻠﻋ لوﺻﺣﻟا مﺗ ﺎﻣﻟ ﺎﻘﻓوو .رﻘﻣﻟا كﻟذ ﻲﻓ مﮭﺗﺎﺟرد رﯾﺳﻔﺗ ﻲﻓ مﮭﺳﺗ نا نﻛﻣﯾ ﺔﺑﻠطﻠﻟ ﺔﯾﻣﻛارﺗﻟا تﻻدﻌﻣﻟا ﻲﻓﺔظﻓﺎﺣﻣﻟا ﻰﻠﻋ ررﻘﻣﻟا رﯾﯾﺎﻌﻣﺔﯾﻟﺎﺣﻟا ﻊﻣدﯾﻛﺄﺗ لوﺻﺣﺔﺑﻠطﻟا تﺎﺻﺻﺧﺗﻟﺎﺑ قﺎﺣﺗﻟﻼﻟ نﯾﺑﻏارﻟاﺔﯾﺣﺻﻟا تﺎﺟرد ﻰﻠﻋﺔﻌﻔﺗرﻣ .ءﺎﯾزﯾﻔﻟا ررﻘﻣ ﻲﻓ

In 2000, Cañibano et al. published a literature review entitled “Accounting for Intangibles: A Literature Review”. This paper revisits the conclusions drawn in that paper. We also discuss the intervening developments in scholarly research, standard setting and practice over the past 20+ years to outline the future challenges for research into accounting for intangibles.

We conducted a literature review to identify past developments and link the findings to current accounting standard-setting developments to inform our view of the future.

Current intangibles accounting practices are conservative and unlikely to change. Accounting standard setters are more interested in how companies report and disclose the value of intangibles rather than changing how they are determined. Standard setters are also interested in accounting for new forms of digital assets and reporting economic, social, governance and sustainability issues and how these link to financial outcomes. The IFRS has released complementary sustainability accounting standards for disclosing value creation in response to the latter. Therefore, the topic of intangibles stretches beyond merely how intangibles create value but how they are also part of a firm’s overall risk and value creation profile.

There is much room academically, practically, and from a social perspective to influence the future of accounting for intangibles. Accounting standard setters and alternative standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and European Union non-financial and sustainability reporting directives, are competing complementary initiatives.

Our results reveal a window of opportunity for accounting scholars to research and influence how intangibles and other non-financial and sustainability accounting will progress based on current developments.

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards are amongst the most widely adopted instruments for supporting firms in becoming more accountable, firms who adopt them frequently fail to comply. In this context, the purpose of this study is to explore to what extent CSR standards are designed for accountability. In the analysis, this paper investigates design characteristics related to accountability across different standard types, namely, principle-based, reporting, certification and process standards.

This study reviews the design characteristics of 50 CSR standards in a systematic and comparative fashion. This paper combines qualitative deductive coding with exploratory quantitative analyses methods to elucidate structural variance and patterns of accountability-related design characteristics across the sample.

This study finds that the prevalence of design characteristics aimed at fostering accountability varies significantly between different types of standards. This paper identifies three factors related to the specific purpose of any given standard that explain this structural variation in design characteristics, namely, implementability, comparability and measurability.

Non-compliance limits the effectiveness and legitimacy of CSR standards. The systematic exploration of patterns and structural variation in design characteristics that promote accountability may provide valuable clues for the design of more effective CSR standards in the future.

Better understanding the role of design characteristics of CSR standards is critical to ensure they contribute to greater corporate accountability.

This study strives to expand the current understanding of the design characteristics of CSR standards beyond individual cases through a systematic exploration of accountability-related design characteristics across a larger sample.