Financial Reporting in Europe: Future Challenges

Abstract

A roundtable at the 11th workshop of the European Financial Reporting Research Group (EUFIN) on Friday 4 September 2015 in Paris brought together leading participants in the development and enforcement of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the use of IFRS financial statements to debate the future challenges in European financial reporting. The panellists were Philippe Danjou, a board member of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), Roxana Damianov, team leader for corporate reporting at the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and Jacques de Greling, senior equity analyst at Natixis, vice-chairman of the European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies (EFFAS) financial accounting commission, member of the IASB's capital markets advisory group and member of the user panel of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). The panel was chaired by David Cairns. None of the panellists presented formal papers but instead spoke and debated freely about a range of current and future challenges. Not surprisingly, they focussed on the challenges arising from the use of IFRS in the consolidated financial statements by EU companies listed on EU regulated markets rather than the challenges that might arise from the use of EU or national requirements in non-IFRS financial statements.

This paper provides a synthesis of the panel discussions in the context of the European Commission's evaluation of the International Accounting Standards (IAS) Regulation, the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation's (IFRSF) review of its own and the IASB's structure and effectiveness, and the ongoing work of the IASB and ESMA.     

IFRS Developments in the USA and EU,and Some Implications for Australia

There have been several developments recently, both in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), which will have consequences in Australia. The two major developments in the US are the decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to drop the reconciliation requirement for foreign registrants that adopt International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the serious consideration that the SEC is currently giving to allow US publicly traded companies to adopt IFRS. The developments in the EU involve its ever‐lengthening endorsement process and the increasing pressure being brought on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its oversight body, the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF) trustees, to alter their composition and the character of their operations. At the same time, there has been the FASB's appeal to the EU to accept IFRS without any endorsement process. The developments in the US have been lauded by the IASB and in Europe. They represent an impressive vote of confidence in the IASB and in the efforts being made by national standard setters and securities market regulators around the world. The US has already taken a long stride towards joining the more than 110 countries and other jurisdictions that have committed themselves to allow or require the use of IFRS for some or all reporting entities.     

Interpreting the European Union’s IFRS Endorsement Criteria: The Case of IFRS 9

EU Regulation requires that any international accounting standards (International Financial Reporting Standards, IFRS) and interpretations (IFRIC) pronounced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) meet three sets of criteria before they become binding for EU-based companies: a ‘true and fair view’ criterion, a list of qualitative criteria, and a ‘European public good’ criterion. During the endorsement process, EU institutions evaluate each standard or interpretation’s compliance with these three criteria. Nevertheless, despite plenty of past endorsement decisions, there is still disagreement about a unanimous interpretation of the criteria in the literature. In this study, we interpret all three criteria against the background of European accounting law and academic accounting research. Then, the paper illustrates for the case of the new IFRS 9 standard on accounting for financial instruments how these criteria can be applied in the endorsement practice. We conclude that the standard cannot reasonably be rejected on grounds of the IAS Regulation. We also explain that the vagueness of the endorsement criteria and the inherent discretion in the eventual endorsement decision help maintain the EU’s political influence on the IASB’s standard-setting ex ante.     

The temporal nature of legitimation: the case of IFRS8

Legitimation can operate on an episodic or continual basis [Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610]. We examine the temporal legitimation of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)’s actions during the adoption and review of International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 8 ‘Operating Segments’. We conceptualise the controversy surrounding IFRS8 as an episode when the IASB sought segmental reporting convergence with the US standard, Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 131. Interpreting evidence from 15 (20) semi-structured interviews undertaken in 2009 (2011), before (after) entities reported under IFRS8, reveals its adoption precipitated an episodic legitimacy threat from selected audiences to the actions of the IASB. We discuss the IASB's attempt to influence legitimation for this episode through commitment to a post-implementation review [IFRS Foundation. (2011). Post implementation reviews: Plan for developing the framework for conducting post-implementation reviews. IASB Board meeting February 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from http://www.ifrs.org/NR/rdonlyres/3E1502E4-F1E8-4907-838B-FFB20C7268ED/0/PIR02111st2ndb04obs.pdf] of IFRS8. Interpreting legitimacy concerns across diverse audiences about specific actions of the IASB (the introduction of IFRS8) enables us to draw conclusions about the resilience of the IASB as a standard setting organisation, in itself.     

The Political and Unstable Nature of the IASB's 'Stable Platform': Post-Convergence Australian Experience

On 31 March 2004, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) established the 'stable platform' of new and revised standards applicable from 1 January 2005. We review the major changes made by the IASB to its stable platform of standards to illustrate how politics and lobbying influence the standard-setting process. Furthermore, Australian experience since International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption is used to illustrate the impact and extent of these and other changes within the local environment. Continuous changes to IFRS undoubtedly complicate the convergence process, particularly when they are largely indicative of political considerations rather than conceptual underpinnings.     

Have Canada,Japan and Switzerland Adopted IFRS?

Although many countries have passed laws to require the use of ‘IFRS as issued by the IASB’ for certain types of financial reporting, that is not the typical approach to adoption of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) in major developed countries. This paper uses Australia and Pakistan as examples of minor and major adjustments to the content of IFRS. Then it uses Canada as an example of restricted scope of mandatory application of IFRS. This is compared to extensive voluntary adoption in Switzerland and increasing voluntary adoption in Japan. The paper asks what ‘adoption’ means in the context of Canada, Japan and Switzerland. Finally, the paper looks at how companies in many countries limit the potential value of international comparability by not affirming compliance with ‘IFRS as issued by the IASB’ even when they achieve it.     

IFRS in the United States: If,When and How

This paper provides an overview of the convergence efforts of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Standards Board. It begins with their 2002 Memorandum of Understanding and traces developments up to the December 2011 announcement by the IASB Chair that convergence has come to a close, and it is now time to incorporate IFRS into the US financial reporting system. The paper then assesses approaches being considered by the SEC for incorporating IFRS into the US financial reporting model. The conclusion calls on the SEC to ‘make a decision’ and set a date for US adoption of IFRS. Otherwise, the SEC effectively will have abandoned its goal of a single set of high quality global accounting standards.     

An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards

The debate over the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by United States issuers, or its convergence with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP) has been going on for several years now. However, as of this writing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has still not taken a definitive position on the issue. This is in part due to issues involving the cost of adoption, independence concerns relating to the IFRS promulgation body, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the debate over which type of accounting standards is superior for financial reporting: IFRS, which are said to be “principles-based,” or U.S. GAAP, which are said to be “rules-based.” In this paper we examined the views of two stakeholders in the U.S. financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms and Chief Financial Officers in the Fortune 1000. We elicited their perceptions involving ten situations where specific rules are incorporated in U.S. GAAP. We asked if the elimination of the specific rule would be likely to better achieve the “qualitative characteristics of useful financial information” as defined by the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting adopted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) in 2010 (FASB 2010) and the similar document adopted by the IASB at the same time (IASB 2010). We found that in eight of the ten situations both groups preferred the rules-based accounting regime (the current U.S. GAAP rules) over a principles-based approach.     

LARGE ACCOUNTING FIRMS’ SURVEY REVEALS EMERGENCE OF “TWO STANDARD” SYSTEM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Convergence with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is receiving great attention. In 2005, all listed companies domiciled in the European Union (EU) will be required to prepare consolidated accounts based on IFRS. Individual EU member states are, however, permitted to decide whether IFRS will be required or allowed for non-listed companies or for listed companies’ individual accounts. Based primarily on data collected by the six largest international accounting firms during their most recent convergence survey, this paper examines each of the 15 EU member states’ convergence plans and their perceived barriers to convergence.The findings indicate that most EU members do not plan to converge national GAAP with IFRS, thereby highlighting the great significance of the large firms’ concerns regarding emergence of a “two-standard” system in the EU. The survey indicates the majority of EU countries will continue to require or allow national GAAP for individual accounts. While Belgium is considering requiring IFRS for all consolidated accounts, other EU countries have decided to allow or are considering allowing non-listed companies to prepare IFRS consolidated accounts.In most EU countries, the link between financial accounting and tax accounting represents a major barrier to convergence. Other frequently cited barriers include disagreement with certain IFRS and the complicated nature of certain IFRS. International requirements for financial instruments are viewed as particularly problematic.     

Commentary: Has Australia (or Any Other Jurisdiction) ‘Adopted’ IFRS?1

This paper replies to a statement made in this journal that ‘Australia definitely adopts IFRSs’. We analyse and compare the several methods that jurisdictions can use to implement International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). These include adopting the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) process of setting standards, as well as various forms of standard‐by‐standard implementation. We conclude that the Australian method of implementation is different in major ways from those used in such countries as Israel and South Africa, which involve adopting the IASB's process. By contrast, Australia follows a multi‐step process of enrolling each new standard into a category still entitled ‘Australian Accounting Standards’. To refer to the Australian method as ‘adoption’ of IFRS might therefore mislead, even though Australian companies eventually comply with IFRS.     

The Impact of IFRS Adoption on Foreign Direct Investments: Insights for Emerging Countries

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption research supports the arguments of an increase in the credibility of corporate financial information. We investigate the association between IFRS adoption and foreign direct investments (FDI) inflows. The aim is to analyse several characteristics of the adoption process specific to European emerging countries. Our results indicate that the countries adopting IFRS are more likely to benefit from a higher increase in FDI inflows than the non-adopters. Additional tests reveal that the impact is driven by the adoption level related both to listed and unlisted companies. IFRS adoption by unlisted companies has a lower impact on FDI inflows, as compared to IFRS adoption by listed companies. Furthermore, difference-in-difference analysis illustrates a higher increase of FDI inflows after adopting IFRS in the case of non-European Union (EU) countries as compared to EU countries.     

Financial reporting for sustainable development: Critical insights into IFRS implementation in the European Union

By adopting a political economy perspective to accounting, this paper provides an overall post-implementation assessment of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption relative to the European Union’s (EU’s) fundamental goal of sustainable development. The paper questions the consistency of the International Accounting Standards Board’s business view with the EU’s and provides some critical insights into the potential long-run effects of IFRS on the European economy and society. Therefore, it raises several doubts about unquestioned accounting standardization at a global level and makes some suggestions for future policymaking and research.     

Implementing IFRS from the perspective of EU publicly traded companies

This study examines implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by European Union (EU) companies. All listed EU companies are required to prepare their consolidated financial statements in accordance with IFRS for years beginning on or after January 1, 2005 (Regulation (EC) 1606/2002). The paper provides insight into the IFRS adoption process based on a questionnaire sent to EU-listed companies in 2004. The 112 responses received indicate: (1) a majority of respondents have adopted IFRS for more than just consolidation purposes; (2) the process is costly, complex, and burdensome; (3) companies do not expect to lower their cost of capital by implementing IFRS; (4) the more comprehensive the approach to conversion, the more respondents tend to agree with the benefits and costs of the transition; (5) companies expect increased volatility in financial results; (6) the complexity of IFRS as well as the lack of implementation guidance and uniform interpretation are key challenges in convergence; and (7) a majority of respondents would not adopt IFRS if not required by the EU Regulation. The results of our questionnaire were confirmed by several personal interviews with finance and accounting executives of EU publicly traded companies.     

International financial reporting standards — credible and reliable? An overview

The study discusses how IFRS's objective of the harmonization of accounting standards and improvement of quality of financial reporting may have been negatively affected due to public authorities' influences in the European Union (EU), the U.S., the U.K. and China. In addition, we discuss issues related to the inconsistent interpretations and implementations of IFRS as principle-based accounting standards. Moreover, we discuss how the funding system of the IASB may (or may not) have affected its independence. The review of relevant literature and discussion is critical to IFRS adoption/convergence efforts in the U.S.     

Convergence with IFRS in an expanding Europe: progress and obstacles identified by large accounting firms’ survey

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) acquired greater legitimacy and stature when the European Union (EU) decided to require all listed companies to prepare consolidated accounts based on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) beginning in 2005. This study examines the progress and perceived impediments to convergence in 17 European countries directly affected by the EU's decision. These include: (1) the 10 new EU member countries, (2) EU candidate countries, (3) European Economic Area (EEA) countries, and (4) Switzerland. We utilize data collected by the six largest international accounting firms during their 2002 convergence survey. Additionally, we analyze subsequent events and studies.While all surveyed countries will either require or effectively allow listed companies to prepare consolidated financial statements in accordance with IFRS by 2005, few are expected to require IFRS for non-listed companies. This suggests the development of a “two-standard” system. The two most significant impediments to convergence identified by the survey appear to be the complicated nature of particular IFRS (including financial instruments) and the tax-orientation of many national accounting systems. Other barriers to convergence include underdeveloped national capital markets, insufficient guidance on first-time application of IFRS, and limited experience with certain types of transactions (e.g. pensions).     

La crisis del concepto prudencia a causa del tránsito de las normas nacionales austriacas de información financiera a las normas internacionales

As a member of the European Union (EU), Austrian nation has gradually incorporated International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Normas Internacionales de Información Financiera (NIIF) in spanish, to its accounting and Disclosure of Financial Information processes in replacement of Local National Standards called Unternehmensgesetzbuch (UGB). During this process of convergence, prudence principle has been in crisis within IFRS conceptual frame because it has been changed by fair value principle. That is way this paper presents the basic principles of national Austrian, UGB, compared with those of the IFRS to analyze, first, the reasons why prudence concept went into crisis and, secondly, if fair value principle is right to replace it.     

The academic community’s participation in global accounting standard-setting

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are now used in more than 100 countries. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is considering a “Work Plan” to allow or require US corporations to use IFRS. Considering the rising importance of IFRS, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the SEC, the European Union (EU), and others have called for broader stakeholder participation in the global accounting standard-setting process. Academicians are seen as one group that has the potential to have a strong positive influence in the shaping of accounting standards.This study investigates the academic community’s participation in the IASB’s standard-setting process through the submission of comment letters for 79 issues. For 55 IASB issues, 90 academics and academic organizations (5.8% of all respondents) provided 153 responses (2.7% of total responses). For 24 Draft Interpretations issued by the IASB’s International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC), just 17 academics and academic organizations (4.9% of respondents) provided 20 responses (1.9%).Overall, Anglo country writers dominated, with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States together providing a majority of writers and responses. Non-Anglo EU countries provided about a quarter of the writers and responses. While academic interest increased for a few issues, usually discussion papers and substantive issues, the overall response rate remained low. Possible reasons for low participation rates are discussed, as well as some changes that may increase academic engagement with the IASB’s standard-setting process.     

Post-Implementation Reviews for IASB and FASB Standards: A Comparison of the Process and Findings for the Operating Segments Standards

Abstract

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) have recently completed post-implementation reviews (PIRs) for their converged standards on operating segments IFRS 8 and SFAS 131. The two accounting bodies use PIRs as an additional standard assessment mechanism. This paper (1) provides an overview of the main differences and similarities between the two PIR processes and (2) compares the findings of the PIRs on the operating segment standards supplemented with insights from a survey of the segment information notes of a sample of STOXX Europe 600 companies. The IASB and the FAF set the specific PIR objectives and conduct the information gathering phase differently. For the IFRS 8 and SFAS 131 PIRs, these differences meant that the FAF focused more narrowly on how SFAS 131 performs compared to the previous standard, while the IASB is aimed to more broadly assess constituents' views on whether IFRS 8 works well in practice. Comparing the PIR findings for the operating segments standards is warranted given that the standards are converged and that the standard setters re-expressed their commitment to keep them substantially converged. Uniform PIR processes could have eased the cooperation in maintaining convergence. Given the different scope of the reviews, standard setters will need to find a common ground on how to proceed and which issues to address further.     

Financial reporting transformation: the experience of Turkey

From the viewpoint of a developing country which is in need of foreign capital and foreign investments to finance its economic growth, the need for high quality financial information has vital importance. The need for IFRS in Turkey was brought up by the same reasons as a developing country and as an emerging market. With the internationalization of capital markets and the increased volume of international investments, companies functioning in Turkey needed to provide high quality financial information to access financial resources. Furthermore, internationally accepted and reliable financial information is also needed for the overseas customers of the domestic companies. Another reason facilitating the need for IFRS is Turkey's candidation for European Union membership.This paper attempts to explain the development process of accounting standards around the world and its practical results in a developing country: Turkey. Within this context, brief information is given about the structure of International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and adoption process of IFRS in Turkey. During this adoption process, Turkey encounters several complications such as complex structure of the international standards, potential knowledge shortfalls, and difficulties in application and enforcement issues. This paper explores these difficulties and shares the Turkish experience from a viewpoint of a regulator and an academician, and discusses the proper and consistent way implementing a “Principle Based” IFRS in Turkey.     

A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) establishes accounting standards now used in some form in over 100 countries. Diverse geographical participation in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) standard-setting is seen as desirable as it may improve the consistency of IFRS applications, reduce criticism of regional over-influence, and promote the legitimacy of the IASB. This study investigates country participation and the regional and institutional factors that influence the geographic diversity of comment letters (CLs) in the IASB's standard-setting process. Using CLs regarding 57 IASB issues from 2001 through 2008, we find that countries with EU membership, G4+1 membership, donations to the IASB, and larger equity market development are associated with larger numbers of CLs and CL writers. Analysis of a subsample of more developed countries finds some evidence that countries with more historic divergence in accounting standards from IFRS also have more CL writers. In most countries, one of several major stakeholder interest groups, such as professional accountancy bodies, accounting standard-setters, and public accounting firms, send at least half of the CLs. While response levels for most countries vary greatly depending upon the nature or topic of an IASB issue, overall response levels remain low at just over 100 responses per issue and did not increase over time. While geographic diversity and response rates are greater than its predecessor the International Accounting Standards Committee, they are lower than those of many national standard-setters, possibly raising due process and legitimacy issues for the IASB.