Search results

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.

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 offers insights into the conflicts and tensions within the Malaysian accounting profession and the power struggle therein to dominate the accounting standard setting process, within the context of a rapidly developing country. It shows how interest groups and parochial interests, along with issues of self‐protection, affected the process of standard setting, which was controlled by different interests over the period under study. At one time the profession dominated. But far from being a monolithic body, it was in turn split according to various interests: the Big Six behind the Malaysian Association of Certified Public Accountants (MACPA) and the smaller firms behind the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA). At other times big business prevailed. These conflicts and power struggles are revealed through an analysis of the case of the Goodwill Accounting Standard.

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.

Discussion about the actual nature of political action is unusual in the literature about the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Examines the treatment of politics in the US standard setting context and this analysis results in the conclusion that despite widespread recognition that standard setting is political, what this means is greatly underappreciated. Moving knowledge about financial accounting policy towards a more adequate realization of its political nature is furthered by a discussion of the roles of power, ideology and rhetoric.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to an understanding of how auditing standard setting is adapted to changing patterns of resistance at various stages of its development.

The research is conducted as a longitudinal single case study of the auditing standard‐setting activities of the Danish professional body 1970‐1978. The case is based on extensive interviews with members of the standard‐setting board at that time, supplemented with documentary studies.

The paper identifies and discusses five general measures to deal with the immanent resistance to auditing standard setting: alignment of interests, representation, due process, soft texts, and reference to ideology. It concludes by analyzing how these strategies are adapted to changing patterns of standard‐setting resistance at various stages.

The paper discusses auditing standard setting only. Although resistance to accounting standard setting may be dealt with in the same way, the patterns of resistance are most likely different and the adaptation strategies may therefore also be different.

Presenting insight into the processes of auditing standard setting, the paper is of interest to anyone involved in the process, either as developers or as users.

The paper supplements previous studies of standard setting by applying the Actor‐Network Theory approach to auditing standard setting, thereby outlining a new general framework for the study of standard setting.

The competence-based management approach has shed light on how firms represent open systems that link assets, strategic logic, and capabilities in order to create new competences. Nonetheless, we find that there are too few empirical studies that illustrate how competences are distributed within an industry. The following case study is based on an in-depth analysis of innovation and standards-formation in industrial automation. Two examples, the standard-setting community PROFIBUS and the field bus-related sensor consortium IO-Link are used to analyze partnership arrangements and competence-distribution patterns.

This study is based on qualitative interviews and it uses patent data to judge competences of a standard-setting community's partner firms. Referring to the empirical case of IO-Link, we show how the integrator firms’ competence-leveraging can be significantly affected by new technology approaches that reason a novel deployment of capabilities. It seems that the deployment of resources depends not only on industry segmentation, but also on the firms’ coordinated agenda concerning innovative, new functionality of a given standard. Our patent analysis also mirrors the variety of knowledge within a standard-setting community. Furthermore, we develop a concept of layered business systems, that is, a terminology of knowledge, organizational, and technology domains. Standard-setting communities bundle complementarity assets, they make their member firms create both proprietary and open technology, and they integrate knowledge across industry boundaries.

Accounting conventions, norms, and standards play an important role in modern society in various areas related to the measurement of economic performance, allocation of capital, regulation of commercial activity, and taxation. From a historical perspective, the emergence of accounting standards-setting bodies at national and international levels is a recent phenomenon, dating perhaps only to the early years of the twentieth century. Accounting standards setting as a whole has been influenced by several key factors, including the practices of commercial enterprises and professional accountants, rules and regulations created by law, and academic theories regarding the nature of assets and the measurement of business income. The purpose of this chapter is to trace the historical development of accounting standards setting in the United States during the first part of the twentieth century, until approximately 1939, which marked the creation of the Committee on Accounting Procedure of the American Institute of Accountants, which was most likely the first accounting standards-setting body in the industrial world. From 1900 to 1939, there were significant debates about the advisability and feasibility of uniform accounting standards and the manner in which such standards ought to be implemented. These debates formed the basis for subsequent national and international accounting standards-setting bodies and are worthy of detailed examination.

The aim of this paper is to provide critical reflections on the role of standard setters and the endeavours of various organisations to provide sustainability reporting standards.

The authors’ critical reflections are informed by the literature and websites of IASB, International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), global reporting initiative (GRI) and other relevant organisations. The authors use Bourdieu’s concept of field to support their analysis and critique.

The authors highlight how a disrupted standard-setting field will be a distraction from efforts to address real sustainability issues and concerns. Determining the “legitimate” sustainability reporting standards is likely to be an outcome of struggles between occupants in the sustainability standard-setting field. Accordingly, the shape of legitimate standards will be defined by those with power. The concern is the priority and the motive underpinning the endeavours of those with power. The authors propose that it is important for both the ISSB and GRI to serve the interest of a broad range of actors, including those who are not likely to have a say in sustainability reporting standard setting.

This paper contributes to sustainability reporting practice by putting forward a case for strengthening current sustainability reporting practices with appropriate changes to overcome some of the criticisms of the GRI.

The authors highlight that there is a much broader group of stakeholders who require sustainability information and that it is important that the sustainability reporting standards serve the information needs of all stakeholders and not just those of the dominant actors. However, the ISSB with its economic focus will inevitably focus on the concern of investors and market participants.

The originality in this paper is the use of Bourdieu’s concept of field to theoretically highlight how a new standard setter may disrupt the sustainability standard-setting field and act as a distraction from efforts to address sustainability issues and concerns that the world faces.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the influences on the due process of standard-setting with reference to the legitimacy of the financial reporting “soft law” that is International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

This study uses a literature review to analyse the governance structures, due process steps, staffing and funding of IFRS standard-setting activities. The study also uses descriptive statistics to analyse constituent participation during the development of two IFRS standards. The mean, median and standard deviation are used as measures of location and dispersion when analysing constituent participation.

IFRS governance structures are dominated by G20 countries. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) depends on international accounting firms, the European Commission and the G8 countries for its financial viability. Well-resourced national standard-setters, major international companies, international accounting firms and educational institutions are able to second their staff to the IASB thereby providing them with direct lobbying opportunities. The IFRS due process procedures provide opportunities for participation but actual participation is dominated by constituents from Europe with African and South American constituents the least active.

IFRS are required or permitted in over 100 countries. The IASB, with no legal or formal mandate, is performing a task normally reserved for national standard-setters. The legitimacy of IFRS is questionable if the standard-setting due process is perceived as invalid.

The global financial crisis exposed weaknesses in the IFRS due process when the IASB amended IAS 39 without following the due process. African and South American standard-setters should take note that their lack of participation in IFRS standard-setting, coupled with the influence of powerful stakeholders on IFRS standard-setting, could result in standards not relevant for their regions.