Search results

This commissioned paper reviews literature outlining reasons for a perceived gap between academics and standard setters as policy makers. The aim of this paper is to emphasise how academics and standard setters can collaborate on accounting and audit research and assist standard setters to act in the public interest.

The approach is primarily a literature and document review of relevant issues, summarising New Zealand’s standard setting arrangements, providing examples of successful policy-changing research, and making recommendations on future research topics.

Despite the long-held views of a gap between academic researchers and standard setters, increasingly standard setters utilise research and request input from academics in their deliberations. Standard setters can increase the likelihood of relevant research by promoting critical issues for research and connecting their practitioner networks with academics. Academics can bridge the gap by selecting topics of mutual interest and by communicating their findings extensively and well.

Increasing collaboration should lead to better accounting and audit standards.

This paper highlights matters of concern in the New Zealand standard setting environment where there is a strategic objective to undertake research.

The objective of this paper is to critically examine the Canadian Accounting Standards Board's (AcSB) legitimacy management strategies directed toward financial statement users.

Suchman's legitimacy typology is used as a lens through which the AcSB's legitimacy management strategies directed toward users are analyzed. The data sources consist of documentary public information available for the overall Canadian standard‐setting process and for a sample of standard‐setting projects.

The results indicate that the AcSB devotes much more efforts to symbolic features and cultural accounts than to pragmatic concerns to ensure its legitimacy toward financial statement users. The legitimacy management strategies used mimic those in the USA and at the international level. Such an isomorphism contributes to the AcSB's cognitive legitimacy and overall cultural legitimacy.

Future research could assess a standard‐setting institution legitimacy management strategies directed to other audiences such as preparers, auditors, or other groups that fall under a broader public interest umbrella.

The results provide Canadian users with a general picture of the AcSB's efforts in their regard and invite them to be sceptical and critical about the so‐called user perspective in standard setting. It also provides standard setters with a legitimacy framework that they can use to identify areas for improvement to enhance users' view of their legitimacy and to help them better fulfil their mission statement.

This paper innovates by studying a standard‐setting institution legitimacy management strategies directed toward a specific audience, financial statement users.

As the comparability concept has recently garnered increased attention of policymakers and standard setters in the sustainability reporting (SR) arena, this paper aims to provide a reflexive viewpoint of this concept in this context.

To inform the authors’ viewpoint and disentangle the concept of comparability into different facets, the authors review policymakers’ and standard setters’ (including the Global reporting initiative) comparability principles, as well as relevant studies in the field. To provide insights into the different ways in which the comparability facets can be approached, the authors use multi-perspective reflexive practices and focus on the multiple purposes that reporting can serve. To empirically animate the authors’ reflection on the facets, the authors analyse the sustainability disclosures of two Italian banks over three years.

This study reveals that three facets form valuable starting points for extending the understanding of the meanings the comparability concept can carry in the SR arena. These facets are materiality and comparability, benchmarking/monitoring and comparability and operationalisation and comparability.

This study is intended to elicit policymakers’ and standard setters’ thoughts on the role of comparability and its complexities in SR.

By taking a critical and reflexive approach, the authors encourage policymakers and standard setters to reconsider the comparability principle, so it effectively embeds the accountability purpose of SR.

In this paper, the authors propose three facets for disentangling the concept of comparability.

IFAC, a Swiss‐registered non‐governmental organization, is emerging as an important international (auditing) standard setter amongst a powerful group of regulators, including the World Bank, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the European Commission (EC). The purpose of this paper is to focus on the changing governance and accountability structures within IFAC, the way such changes are shaping, or re‐shaping, its “public interest” commitments and the resulting strategic implications for processes of auditor regulation and public oversight in the global financial arena.

The material and analysis presented in the paper derives from an extensive review of official reports, consultation documents and related responses, a range of other information available on IFAC's web site (www.ifac.org) or those of other key regulatory players in the global financial arena.

The paper analyzes how IFAC is succeeding as an international standard setter with an established place in the global financial infrastructure. From analysis of the recent establishment of a Public Interest Oversight Board (PIOB) and the changing nature of representation on IFAC's Public Interest Activity Committees (PIACs), the paper reveals a growing reliance on governance by experts together with a growth in influence of the large, multinational accounting firms. Governance of auditors has become a matter of global importance and governance structures are being reconfigured.

By highlighting the changes that have taken place within IFAC's governance system, the paper establishes the importance for public policy of further study and debate concerning the nature and practical operation of such a system, particularly given IFAC's position within a complex but developing global governance arena.

IFAC is becoming an integral player in global financial governance processes and yet has not been subject to any substantial academic accounting research. This paper seeks to rectify this by focusing on the structures and processes underpinning both the development of IFAC's International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and its own global strategy for advancement.

Achieving statutory backing of accounting standards was one significant issue for New Zealand standard setters going into the 1990s. Now, with statutory compliance status of accounting standards in full force since 1994, new and equally significant issues face us as we head into the new millennium.

The purpose of this paper is to examine China’s stop-start adoption of fair value accounting (FVA) into its national accounting standards. The paper analyzes how FVA standards promoted by transnational organizations were eventually adopted in China despite its conservative accounting traditions.

The study uses archival records and an analytic framework adapted from the studies of social movements to identify the institutional factors that differ between China’ first unsuccessful attempt to adopt FVA and its second successful attempt.

Shared interests of elite national and international groups, creation of social infrastructure, marshaling of key resources, and specific actions to frame FVA standards are found to be crucial factors supporting FVA reform in China.

The study helps advance our understanding of dissemination of international accounting regulations in non-Western societies. The findings can help accounting standard setters to avoid costly failures.

The study provides a structured analysis of the propagation of global accounting regulations. It exposes the factors in the failure and success of FVA adoption in China.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the implications of the paradoxical situation in which standard setters are placed when standardising human practice. Contrary to standards, human practices are ambiguous, heterogeneous, and highly context dependent; in contrast, standards are unambiguous and apply across cases.

The paper is primarily theoretical and its analysis is based on conceptual content and extent analysis. For the purpose of illustration, the paper draws on the example of organic agricultural standards.

The author shows how illusion creation is innate in the practice of standardisation and therefore the risk of creating untrustworthy standards is prevalent for standard setters.

The paper provides a new understanding of standards and demonstrates the need to research standardization processes in depth and bring in a much more critical perspective to this prevalent but largely invisible practice.

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.