Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical evidence regarding the classification of European countries based on accounting quality metrics. The authors investigate whether the grouping of countries based on accounting quality levels differs from other classifications based on accounting practices or country-specific factors identified in previous studies.

The authors run panel data regressions for 2.078 European listed companies using value relevance and earnings smoothing metrics. The authors also apply cluster analysis to classify the countries.

The results suggest that the adoption of a common set of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) did not lead to a similar level of accounting quality of financial information. The authors identified three clusters of countries that are not coincident with previous classifications.

The results show that the adoption of different accounting practices allowed in IFRS does not necessarily influence accounting quality.

The results suggest that the way regulators decided to incorporate IFRS into national accounting systems is one issue that may be relevant in explaining the three clusters.

The paper provides empirical evidence that supports two theoretical assertions. The first is that a classification depends entirely on the characteristics used to represent the countries being classified. The second is that the adoption of a single set of accounting standards does not determine similar accounting practices and does not lead to similar levels of accounting quality.

Organizational scholars increasingly appreciate the role of categories as bases of order or “cognitive infrastructures” in markets. Yet they construe categories as disciplinary devices. They understand category formation, implementation, and revision as the purview of professionals. And they tie those processes to notions of institutional development that sharply distinguish settled from unsettled or disordered eras. We challenge these conceptions through a historical study of how manufacturers, associations, and cost accountants broke from the disciplinary functions of accounting categories underlying mass production to create new categorical schemes devoted to learning, innovation, and improvement. Reformers reconfigured the uses of categories in markets, mobilizing classifications to spark reflection, experimentation, and improvement among firms by perturbing taken-for-granted assumptions. They also redesigned the practices of producing, implementing, and revising categories. Manufacturers themselves produced and routinely revised classifications through collective deliberation, while accountants served as their consultants, rather than autonomous authorities who monopolized category formation and implementation. In so doing, reformers forged foundations for upgrading markets and fostering competition based on innovation and improvement in a variety of industries. Based on these findings, we extend existing research beyond categorical imperatives to highlight how categories also serve as cognitive infrastructures for learning, discovery, and innovation in markets.

This paper investigates the financial disclosure practices of corporate annual reports published in Asian countries including Bangladesh, Indonesian, Malaysia and the Middle East countries including Bahrain, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The purpose of the study is to measure the financial disclosure diversity in these countries, with a view to developing a classification of their similarities and differences in respect to their compliance with International Accounting Standards (IAS). Annual reports of 126 public companies liisted on the countries' stock exchanges are the central data source, supplemented with other relevant information about financial disclosure practices in each country. A disclosure checklist adopted from all IASs and summarised in 306 individual items of financial disclosures is used as a means of extending an understanding of financial reporting in these countries. Results show the relative degree of conformity with IASs for each of the countries included in this study.

Culture has important influence on accounting and disclosure practices. This paper furthers this cultural research and accounting classification schemes in general. To examine the relationship between culture and accounting models, hypothesized cultural pairings of countries within Asia are constructed and tested by rank‐wise comparisons of observed accounting and reporting practices with all possible pairs. The analysis provides confirmation of relationships for two of the six hypothesized pairs using three approaches. There appears to be a high correspondence in the accounting practices within certain pairs of Asian countries sharing common cultural origins. Further, through exploratory Q‐factor analysis and cluster analysis, groupings of countries within Asia are identified, on the basis of observed accounting practices. This again provides evidence that the cultural diversity of Asia may contribute to differences in accounting and reporting practices. A limited interpretation of the resultant groupings is provided.

Management has considerable discretion over how to present and announce earnings components that are either unusual or infrequent, but not both (hereafter referred to as special items). In this study, we study the independent and joint effects of the accounting presentation format of, and the level of announcement prominence given to income-decreasing special items on investors’ judgments about the persistence of declining earnings.

Our study uses a 3 (format) × 2 (prominence) between-subjects design. In the experiment, participants act as proxies for nonprofessional investors to assess the persistence of a hypothetical firm’s declining earnings and make investment decisions.

Our results suggest that investors’ judgments are influenced by accounting presentation format and the level of announcement prominence. With respect to format, both classification and disaggregation affect investors’ assessment of earnings persistence. In addition, the degree of prominence given to an income-decreasing special item, albeit self-serving and not audited, introduces additional influence beyond that of accounting presentation format. In particular, we find that announcement prominence has a greater effect when the special item is aggregated with other operating expenses than when the special item is presented under the two other alternatives.

Our study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that presentation format and announcement prominence both have significant impact on investors’ judgments and decisions, and that their effects are interactive. Our results also indicate that future research can possibly gain better insight if it considers the accounting attributes of the special items in addition to their economic attributes.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the profile of accounting research in the two academic accounting research journals in South Africa (Meditari Accountancy Research and SA Journal of Accounting Research) during the ten‐year period from 2000 to 2009.

The archival research method is applied, which analyses existing data (in this case the articles published in the South African (SA) accounting research journals) to come to research conclusions. The research method used to analyse the related articles in the SA accounting research journals is based on various international studies. The following dimensions are assessed: authorship; research field; the nature of the research; and research methods. Authorship is classified by institution, and the top seven authors by relative contribution are also identified. Both empirical and theoretical work are classified separately in different research methods.

These different dimensions provide a broad‐based review of the current profile of accounting research in South Africa.

Other refereed academic articles in the field of accounting have been published in non‐accounting specific SAPSE‐approved journals. These articles are also excluded from the scope of this research since the journals in which they are published have not been established by accounting academics specifically.

The motivation for doing this research is to identify the current profile of accounting research in South Africa that could be used as a basis for future research‐related development.

Knowledge of the profile of accounting research in South Africa could provide opportunities for scholars to expand identified research areas and explore methods that are currently under‐developed in the South African accountancy research field. The paper also acknowledges the contributions by the most prolific authors in the identified journals.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the drawbacks of current social and environmental accounting methods and to present a classification for developing a new accounting model.

The various social and environmental accounting methods are classified and discussed on the basis of various criteria such as the types of accounting principles and the content and information units utilized.

Current social and environmental accounting methods utilize different criteria, measurement units and principles, a fact that makes the information provided ambiguous and problematic for a reliable business‐society dialogue under a common and understandable context. A new classification is presented based on specific criteria in the prospect of developing a new accounting model.

The proposed new classification aiming to develop a new accounting model is a theoretical proposition which should be validated and tested in practice with a series of case studies before it can be recommended as an alternative to current accounting methods.

The paper attempts to highlight the drawbacks of the current social and environmental accounting methods and proposes a new classification for the development of a new accounting model.

Sullivan suggests that the alternative audit approaches adopted by accounting firms be expressed in terms of “structure” and “judgement”, with a division provided by the degree to which auditor judgement is replaced by structured quantitative algorithms. Cushing and Loebbecke attempt to operationalise this division by examining the guidance provided to practising auditors by their firms. Kinne extends this study by classifying accounting firms as “structured”, “intermediate” or “unstructured” in terms of their audit methodologies. Provides a test of Kinney’s classification by examining the tolerance of accounting firms to accounting policy choices which have an income effect in their clients’ financial statements. Argues that those firms with a structured audit approach will manage audit risk through a greater reliance on mechanistic procedures, resulting in a greater tolerance of income manipulation. The results are confirmatory for the period under study, but evidence is provided to suggest that audit firms have subsequently become less diversified in their approach.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the performance of accounting researchers in winning competitive Australian Research Council (ARC) grants, when compared with researchers from the medical, engineering and law professions, during a period of heightened questioning of accounting methods, bounded by the end of the dot.com boom in 2001 and the global financial crisis in 2008. Protection and expansion of a profession's core knowledge through effective research is regarded as a hallmark of ongoing professional recognition and success in winning ARC grants is one indicator of the strength of this research. Reasons for the absolute and relative performance of accounting researchers in winning ARC grants are explored.

ARC statistics for the 2000‐2008 period were analysed, along with additional data from the relevant professional associations and the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

The results indicate that Australian accounting researchers are performing poorly in absolute and relative terms when compared with their professional peers. Some evidence exists that accounting research cultures seem to flourish in only a handful of universities, and that accounting academics are overloaded with teaching to the detriment of research.

The study adds to the growing interest in the value added by accounting research to the accounting profession, the corporate sector and society at large. While the publishing record of Australian accounting researchers appears healthy, when compared with their accounting peers overseas, they perform poorly in winning competitive grants relative to researchers from other professions. This may be a timely wakeup call to the accounting profession that the social acceptance of accounting knowledge should not be taken for granted.

When decision makers encounter new assurance services that can be customized for individual clients, they must include them in their pre-existing categorization of assurance, a cognitive task known as postclassification. This paper draws upon three literatures (classification research in accounting, theory of assurance, and cognitive psychology) in order to suggest how this task might be modeled and studied empirically, using the example of SysTrust™. The role of a necessary condition for successful postclassification called the category use effect (Ross, 2000), in which decision makers are reminded of pre-existing categories when they learn to use new categories, is explained.