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.     

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.     

A geographic analysis of constituents’ formal participation in the process of international accounting standard setting: Do we have a level playing field?

As a private organization, input legitimacy, being achieved when inputs received reflect the opinions of all stakeholders involved, is a key issue for the IASB’s acceptance as global standard setter. To study this input legitimacy, this paper examines the evolution of constituent participation in international accounting standard setting in terms of geographic diversity over the period 1995–2007 and examines whether biases (due to differences in institutional regimes) or unequal access (due to differences in participation costs) are present in this process. Based on an analysis of 7442 comment letters we observe an increase in participation over time. However, we also find distortions in the geographic representation of constituents, due to differences in the institutional regimes of countries and due to differences in participation costs, proxied by the level of familiarity with the accounting values embedded in IFRS, with the system of private standard setting, and with the English language. These geographic biases in constituent participation might induce criticism in relation to the input legitimacy of the international accounting standard setting process.     

An Anatomy of an IFRIC Interpretation

Abstract

This article provides an anatomy of an International Financial Reporting Interpretation Committee (IFRIC) Interpretation. That is, it describes the IFRIC's current operating procedures. It also describes the IFRIC's outputs from its inception in March 2002 to March 2007. During this period the IFRIC produced 14 Final Interpretations, 20 Draft interpretations and 120 “rejection notices” (i.e., issues that were considered by IFRIC but not included on the agenda). Reasons for the agenda rejections are summarized in the paper.     

The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users

The interests of users of financial statements are, in theory, paramount to accounting standard-setters. However, there is a dearth of research into users' participation in, and influence on, the process of setting accounting standards. The enhanced status now accorded to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) offers the opportunity to examine these issues in a new regulatory context. This study reports the results of a questionnaire survey of the perceptions of, and participation in, the IASB process of a sample of UK investment management firms. The findings suggest that these firms' participation is not as low as is often inferred from the public record of comment letters. In particular, a considerable number of firms participate through representative report user organisations such as the Investment Management Association. Other findings suggest that the major factor inhibiting investment firms from participating is the cost of lobbying, not complacency that the IASB is ‘on their side’ and will naturally safeguard their interests. Moreover, the respondents consider the accounting profession and the European and US accounting standard-setters to be the dominant interest groups in the IASB standard-setting process.     

On the IASB’s construction of legitimacy – the case of the agenda consultation project

As an expertise-based private standard-setter, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) needs to work continuously to maintain its position as the uncontested rule-making authority of financial reporting in the international regulatory arena. The present paper analyses how the IASB constructs legitimacy in interaction with its constituents. We focus on the specific case of the IASB’s agenda consultation in 2011/2012 as this project was explicitly introduced by the IASB to promote its legitimacy. We carry out a comprehensive study of the agenda consultation that takes into account all board meetings, comment letters and public board activities. We show that the consultation activities in this project were used by the IASB to pronounce its user (investor) orientation, which, however, might be formal rather than substantial, and to integrate a loyal circle of constituents further. It is also shown that the IASB increasingly tried to portray agenda-setting (and standard-setting) as an objective and evidence-based procedure that resonates with constituents’ demands, although it might in fact enlarge the discretionary leeway of IASB (and staff) members.     

Issues affecting the development of an international accounting standard on financial instruments

While the global convergence of accounting standards is making steady progress, certain issues stand out as challenges. A major area where an international accounting standard has not gained universal acceptance is that of financial instruments. The European Union's refusal to adopt all of International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39, Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement, highlights that fact. The International Accounting Standards Board continues to address financial instruments in efforts to remedy this situation. Thus, it is important to better understand issues affecting the development of an international financial instruments accounting standard. The purpose of this study is to find out what issues are important to respondents in their comment letters regarding the Financial Instruments Discussion Paper (FIDP), and whether stakeholder groups differ in positions and the reasons given to support their views. The FIDP represented a major step toward approval of IAS 39 and proposed fair value accounting for all financial instruments. Over 1500 pages of comment letters were generated by the 168 respondents, who represented over 20 countries and several different stakeholder groups. While most respondents disagreed with the FIDP, differences in support and the specific issues used to support those positions were found by stakeholder interest group (accounting profession, regulators, standard-setters, financial analysts, and preparers) and by stakeholder nationality.     

A content analysis of the comment letters to the FASB and IASB: Accounting for contingencies

In this study, we read and analyze 369 comment letters written in response to the IASB's Exposure Draft (ED) of Proposed Amendments to IAS 37 and the FASB's Exposure Draft of Proposed Amendments to FASB Statement No. 5. We also examine how responses to the IASB ED are affected by whether or not the use of IFRS is mandated or permitted by the respondent's country. Although responses were overwhelmingly unfavorable to both EDs, more support was shown for the IASB's proposal to eliminate the probability recognition criterion than for the FASB's proposal to amend the U.S. GAAP disclosure rules. Users responding to the FASB ED provided significantly more intense support than corporate preparers, financial preparers, and legal practitioners. Significantly more respondents to the IASB ED were from countries required or permitted to use IFRS than from countries required to report under their national GAAP. In addition, constituents required or permitted to use IFRS were significantly more likely to express an unfavorable response to the ED and to cite relevance to support their position.     

IASB's independence in the due process: an examination of interest groups’ influence on the development of IFRS 9

This mixed-method study examines whether and how the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) was influenced by interest groups during the development of the expected credit loss (ECL) model for IFRS 9 Financial Instruments. Content analysis of 327 comment letters revealed that the IASB was influenced. However, Fisher's exact test and chi-square goodness-of-fit test showed that, to a greater extent, the influence was not significant. Furthermore, qualitative analyses of the arguments put forward by interest groups showed that as a result of interest groups’ inputs, accounting requirements for the ECL model were made more operational, less complex and potentially productive of more comparable financial information.     

Formal Participation in the EFRAG’s Consultation Processes: The Role of European National Standard-Setters

While the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) considers European national standard-setters (NSSs) as close partners that play a vital role in its legitimacy, empirical evidence on EFRAG’s consultation processes and the involvement of NSSs therein remains scarce. We use a multi-issue/multi-period approach to investigate the formal participation in EFRAG’s consultation processes. By examining 2,102 comment letters submitted to EFRAG in the 2002–2015 period, we find that NSSs typically outweigh other stakeholder groups in terms of level of participation across stages of the consultation process and project topics. Although NSSs’ level of participation is rather stable over time, it significantly varies across European countries. We also provide a recent classification of European NSSs and show that NSSs’ level of participation varies by their institutional status and is the highest for private NSSs. Our findings have implications for aspects of the legitimacy of both EFRAG and NSSs and shed light on the role of intermediaries in international accounting standard-setting.     

Corporate Lobbying in Private Accounting Standard Setting: Does the IASB have to Reckon with National Differences?

This paper explores whether the attitude of preparers towards lobbying to a private accounting standard setter is different depending on the regulatory background of the preparers' home country. Prior literature examined the preparers' incentives and characteristics as drivers to participate in the due process of international accounting standard setting, but it did not investigate the impact of the preparers' national regulatory background on participation. As a result of the acceptance of the International Financial Reporting Standards promulgated by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in different countries, preparers who are traditionally accustomed with an accounting standard setting process initiated by governments with few opportunities for formal participation, are now able to participate in a private accounting standard setting process characterised by several possibilities for participation. Comparing survey evidence of Belgian preparers with existing survey evidence of UK preparers, we notice that the participation methods used, the perception on the effectiveness of the participation methods and the reasons for non-participation differ across both groups of preparers. This finding suggests that the national regulatory background of the preparers may affect the behaviour of preparers in their decision to participate in private accounting standard setting.     

On the ‘Disclosure Initiative – Principles of Disclosure’: The EAA Financial Reporting Standards Committee’s View

Abstract

This paper summarises the contents of a comment letter produced by a working group of 12 academics in response to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Discussion Paper on principles of disclosure. The comment letter was submitted by the Financial Reporting Standards Committee (FRSC) of the European Accounting Association (EAA). The work includes reviews of relevant academic literature of areas related to the various questions posed by the IASB in the Discussion Paper, including the ‘disclosure problem’ and the objective of the project, the suggested principles of effective communication, the roles of the primary financial statements and notes, the location of information and the use of performance measures. The paper also discusses the disclosure of accounting policies, the objectives of centralised disclosure, and the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board staff’s approach to disclosure.     

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.     

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).     

Inside the Black Box of IASB Standard Setting: Evidence from Board Meeting Audio Playbacks on the Amendment of IAS 19 (2011)

We provide evidence on the little researched internal sphere of private IASB standard setting, more specifically, on the dynamic of board discussions and the respective impact of exogenous input such as comment letters, the array of arguments evoked in IASB debates, individual board member contribution and board-staff relations. We conduct a content analysis of audio recordings of 14 IASB meetings on the amendment of IAS 19 Employee Benefits (2011) between November 2008 and February 2010. Our main findings comprise the argument-based handling of comment letters not being conditioned by the political or economic importance of the senders, the gatekeeper role of staff members in channelling exogenous input and their equal role in board discussions and the dominant reference to conceptual arguments there. We also point to the heterogeneous involvement of board members, their different attribution to key issues and to further observations regarding the meeting governance, board’s discussion culture and etiquette. Our paper adds to the literature on private IASB standard setting, pension accounting and group decision making.

Data: All data are available from the public sources identified in this paper     

Evaluating National Capacity for Direct Participation in International Accounting Harmonization: France as a Test Case

This article evaluates national capacity for direct participation in international accounting harmonization through its principal current formal institutional forum, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), with France as a test case. The objective is to derive propositions by which individual nation states, their indigenous accounting professions and other significant elements of their institutional framework might: (a) evaluate their present national capacity to contribute to international accounting harmonization; and (b) address policy issues relevant to development and deployment of capacity for effective engagement. The objective of the framework of analysis employed is to infer essential or desirable attributes for direct participation in international accounting harmonization by reference to the observed attributes of the initial IASB appointments. The likelihood and sustainability of direct French participation in the process is then assessed in relation to those attributes.     

Extractive industries accounting and economic consequences: Past,present and future

Accounting for the extractive industries has been a contested issue for decades as a result of a choice of different methods of costing available and the economic impacts of these methods on companies’ financial results. When the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) embarked on its extractive industries project in 1998, it attempted to create uniform accounting practices. An archival study of constituent responses to the IASB's Issues Paper revealed that the economic consequences argument was relied upon again to argue for retaining choice. The IASB's international accounting standard, IFRS 6, issued in 2004, once again permitted choice between methods, illustrating the effectiveness of the economic consequences argument in perpetuating past practice.     

Agenda Entrance Complexity in International Accounting Standard Setting: The Case of IFRS for SMEs

Features of rational decision making (such as agenda entrance criteria and statement of jurisdiction) barely conceal the complexity of international accounting standard setting. In 2003, when the International Financial Reporting Standard for Small and Medium‐sized Entities (IFRS for SMEs) project achieved agenda entrance, the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) jurisdiction was to develop, ‘a single set of … accounting standards … to help participants in the world's capital markets’. Drawing on interviewees' recollections and other material, this study of how the project achieved agenda entrance finds within‐IASB opposition to the project, arguing it was outside the IASB's jurisdiction that dissolved with the realisation that the IASB's jurisdiction would be changed to encompass the project.     

Bridging the divides of online reporting

This paper looks at the possibilities of improving online reporting by closing the ‘digital divide’ through a ‘digitalised revolution’ and by narrowing the ‘accounting divide’ through the sharing of power and the expansion of membership in the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Paradoxically, whilst the IASB may have contributed to the ‘accounting divide’ it may very well possess the potential to close it and thus improve online reporting. The potential to bridge the ‘accounting divide’ rests with the greater participation by developing country members to exert influence and ownership of the accounting standards setting process.     

国际财务报告准则关于金融工具分类变化预期对我国企业的影响分析

2009年7月,国际会计准则理事会发布征求意见稿<金融工具:分类和计量>,旨在降低金融工具确认和计量原则的复杂性,避免会计准则内在的不一致.并在此基础上修订<国际会计准则第39号--金融工具:确认和计量>(IAS39)中关于分类和计量的有关要求.本文通过手工搜集13家上市银行(剔除中小板上市的宁波银行)2006年至2009年的年报和半年报数据,并按照新倡导的两分类方法进行数据调整,进而比较了不同分类下预期对企业财务信息的影响及两分类下所提供会计信息的质量问题,并根据前文的理论分析和实证结果对金融工具两分类及两分类后的相关问题提出了建议.