The Nature and Rationale of a Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting by Islamic Banks

Islamic banks have to abide by the revealed doctrines in Islam in conducting their business and financial transactions. They employ in-house religious advisers—often referred to as Shari'a Supervisory Board (SSB)—who issue a special report to inform users of financial statements whether or not the bank has adhered to the Islamic principles. Recently, a private standard-setting body—the Financial Accounting Organization for Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions (FAOIBFI)—has been set up to externally regulate the financial reporting by Islamic banks. The FAOIBFI has published two statements on the objectives and concepts of financial reporting to act as a framework in setting accounting standards for Islamic banks. This paper examines the FAOIBFI's approach for developing objectives and concepts of financial accounting and investigates its need for such a theoretical framework. It is argued that the FAOIBFI's objectives and concepts would not be useful in mandating accounting standards on issues that are affected by religious ruling. This does not necessarily mean that such a framework may not be useful in legitimating the FAOIBFI's role and in setting accounting standards for issues that are not governed by revealed moral doctrines although it will be subject to similar limitations to those found by other standard-setting bodies in utilising and applying their framework. However, it implies that the more the FAOIBFI sets accounting standards that incorporate religious ruling, the less it would tend to find its own objectives and concepts useful. The ambiguities that may arise from different interpretations of the religious rules will require resolutions primarily by reference to religious rather than accounting authority.     

Rethinking Accounting,Accountability, and Accounting Regulation: Concerns about the Proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board*

This paper expands on a letter recently submitted by a group of Canadian business academics to the Independent Review Committee on Standard Setting in Canada (IRCSSC) in response to the committee's proposed Canadian Sustainability Standards Board. We highlight sections of the IRCSSC's Consultation Paper that we find problematic and draw on accounting and other research to explain why it fails to live up to its potential. Chief among the problems we identify is that the IRCSSC appears to be wedded to the same narrow, investor-based focus promoted by the International Sustainability Standard Board. We also draw attention to the rushed nature of the process, its exclusion of lay experts, the IRCSSC's ambiguous use of the term public interest, and its inattention to alternative understandings of value and the environment (including the people within it). Finally, we problematize the IRCSSC's sidestepping of the issues of power, culture, and conflict; its neglect of monitoring and enforcement; and its surprising disregard of the Global Reporting Initiative. Along with a number of suggestions for improving the process and its outcome, this paper also contributes to ongoing debates on standard setting and the question of whether accounting is currently equipped to provide the necessary tools for sustainability reporting.     

Ambiguous but tethered: An accounting basis for sustainability reporting

Sustainability reporting continues to become more widespread, despite ambiguities underlying the concept that may lead to varied interpretations and wider scope for “managing public perceptions” (e.g., Cho et al., 2010, Neu et al., 1998). An examination of the current form it takes using the GRI suggests a trade-off between principles and rules, with reduced emphasis on normative principles and a rather simplistic pursuit of “objective” measurement largely adapting to traditional accounting goals. While exploratory in nature, the paper suggests the need for “alignment” through an emphasis on principles based on normative stakeholder theory (Reed, 1999, Reed, 2002) that can draw from accounting without usurping the stakeholder goals underlying sustainability. This normative approach adds to the discourse on sustainability accounting by envisaging a wider and more localized perspective on firm accountability that could potentially stimulate the innovative endeavors of the corporation in the pursuit of wider wealth creation.     

The Role of Corporate Sustainability and Its Consistency on Firm Financial Performance: Canadian Evidence*

This paper investigates the impact of corporate sustainability and the consistency of corporate sustainability efforts on firm financial performance in Canada. Using data on 266 Canadian companies over the 2007–2017 period, we find a significantly positive association between corporate sustainability performance and firm financial performance. In addition, we find that companies that perform consistently well on sustainability (i.e., consistent performers) achieve better financial performance compared to inconsistent performers. Thus, far from their being net costs/expenses, our results indicate that corporate sustainability performance and consistency in sustainability performance both provide net benefits and significantly impact financial performance positively, implying that corporate sustainability not only helps address the needs of the current and future generations but also has a positive effect on the corporate bottom line. Taken together, our results suggest that not only does corporate sustainability have a positive effect on firm performance, but better financial performance may be achieved through a committed—rather than a “tokenism”—approach to corporate sustainability.     

A Tale of Two Stories: Sustainability and the Quarterly Earnings Call

One of the challenges companies claim to face in making sustainability a core part of their strategy and operations is that the market does not care about sustainability, either in general or because the time frames in which it matters are too long. The response of investors who say they care about sustainability—and their numbers are large and growing—is that companies do a poor job in providing them with the information they need to take sustainability into account in their investment decisions. Whatever the merits of each view, the fact remains that an effective conversation about sustainability requires the participation of both sides of the market. There are two main mechanisms for companies to communicate to the market as a way of starting this conversation: mandated reporting and quarterly conference calls. In this paper, the authors argue that neither companies nor investors can be seen as taking sustainability seriously unless it is integrated into the quarterly earnings call. Until that happens, the core business and sustainability are two separate worlds, each of which has its own narrator telling a different story to a different audience. The authors illustrate their argument using the case of SAP, the German software company. SAP was the first company to host an “ESG Investor Briefing,” a conference call for analysts and investors held on July 30, 2013 in which the company discussed both its sustainability performance and its contribution to the firm's financial performance. The narrative of this call was very similar to the narrative of the company's first “integrated report,” which was issued in 2012 and presented the company's sustainability initiatives in the context of its operating and financial performance. Nevertheless, the content and main focus of the “ESG Briefing” were very different from that of most quarterly earnings conferences, and so were the audiences. Whereas the quarterly call was attended mainly by sell side analysts—and the words “sustainability” or “sustainable” failed to receive a single mention—the ESG briefing was delivered to an investor audience made up almost entirely of the “buy side.”     

A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis

Accounting rules affect fundamental areas of social interaction encompassing groups that have diverse and conflicting interests regarding financial reporting. In the absence of a coherent social choice theory, concepts of legitimacy can be used to assess the acceptance of accounting standard-setting processes and their resulting norms. In this paper, we analyze the standard-setting process in Europe. Accounting rules in Europe are developed in a two-stage process involving both private standard-setting and public rule-making. From a structural perspective, the European Union (EU) is well positioned to develop legitimate accounting procedures. However, the original purpose and the ensuing legitimacy of its control mechanism are jeopardized when EU structures are used and sometimes abused for policy formation and the creation of EU-IFRS.     

Regulatory networks for accounting and auditing standards: A social network analysis of Canadian and international standard-setting

Rose and Miller [Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205] note that governmentality is exercised through “centers of calculation” embedded in “networks of rule;” we focus on the “networks of rule” and use social network analysis to document the linked organizations, both domestic and international, that affect the creation of accounting and auditing standards in Canada. The network is defined as the set of regulatory bodies and other organizations that have the right to appoint (or approve the appointment of) members of another organization’s standard-setting body. The network consists of 61 organizations, sharing 131 interlocks. These organizations are clustered into four groups centered on, respectively, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Securities Administrators, International Federation of Accountants and the IOSCO/World Bank. The analysis identifies the boundaries of these clusters and the key organizations that maintain the cohesion of the network. The conclusion identifies research opportunities opened by this perspective on accounting and auditing regulation.     

Materiality in Corporate Governance: The Statement of Significant Audiences and Materiality

Materiality is an elusive, but fundamentally important concept in corporate reporting of all kinds—not only in traditional financial reporting, but in sustainability and integrated reporting as well. In the end, materiality is entity‐specific and based on judgment. Moreover, it is a judgment that should ultimately be made by a company's board of directors, which makes materiality as much a governance as a reporting issue. Whether a given ESG issue is material is in large part a function of the corporate stakeholders, or “audiences,” that the company's board of directors deems to be “significant”—that is, important to the company's ability to create value over the short, medium, and long term. The identification of such audiences—together with the time frames the board uses to evaluate the impact of the company's decisions on these audiences—provides the basis for determining the sustainability issues that corporate management must focus on for performance and reporting purposes. To help ensure that decisions about materiality receive the attention they deserve, the authors propose that corporate boards articulate their views in an annual “Statement of Significant Audiences and Materiality.” Contrary to the prevailing belief that the fiduciary duty of the board is to place shareholders’ interests first, nothing precludes corporate boards from issuing such a statement. Recent research, including the compilation of legal memos on fiduciary duty and nonfinancial reporting for all G20 countries, makes it clear that the board's fiduciary duty is to “the corporation itself.” In exercising this duty, directors have full discretion, under the business judgment rule and other authorities, to decide which audiences, along with the company's shareholders, should be deemed significant.     

Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals

Not surprisingly, the recent accounting scandals look different when viewed from the perspectives of the political/regulatory process and of the market for corporate governance and financial reporting. We do not have the opportunity to observe a world in which either market or political/regulatory processes operate independently, and the events are recent and not well researched, so untangling their separate effects is somewhat conjectural. This paper offers conjectures on issues such as: What caused the scandalous behavior? Why was there such a rash of accounting scandals at one time? Who killed Arthur Andersen—the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the market? Did fraudulent accounting kill Enron, or just keep it alive for too long? What is the social cost of financial reporting fraud? Does the United States in fact operate a “principles‐based” or a “rules‐based” accounting system? Was there market failure? Or was there regulatory failure? Or both? Was the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act a political and regulatory overreaction? Does the United States follow an ineffective regulatory model?     

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.     

Goode Food Trucks Inc.*

This fictional case centers around a young Dutch couple who emigrated to Canmore, Alberta. Upon arriving, Saul and Rens opened two successful food trucks and are now looking to promote each truck's main chef to truck manager. They plan to offer a performance bonus based on the net income of each truck and have requested a local accounting student to advise them on the new bonus structure. Goode Food Trucks Inc. presents an opportunity for students to demonstrate technical competence in managerial accounting (rate methods, period cost allocation, and data visualization); strategy and governance (employee performance incentives); and financial reporting (reporting needs) while incorporating enabling competencies (communicating and adding value). The case and teaching notes were adapted from principles used to train and evaluate Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) candidates and tailored to an appropriate level for undergraduate learners. MBA instructors may also use this case to apply multiple concepts in a defined context, thus enhancing a course's “real-life” applicability.     

Sorting and comparing: Standard-setting and “ethical” categories

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) describes its public interest function as “…developing standards that result in accounting for similar transactions and circumstances in a like manner and different transactions and circumstances…in a different manner (Facts about FASB).” This statement implies that rule-makers possess an expertise that makes analogizing transactions or circumstances to other transactions or circumstances unproblematic. In this paper we utilize two instances of standard-setting, SFAS 123R and SFAS 143, to demonstrate from FASB's analogic reasoning in these cases that similarity and dissimilarity are not so easily ascertained. A judgment about similarity invariably involves ignoring some perspectives of similarity that would lead to substantially different conclusions about the appropriate accounting. We also illustrate via the two examples the inherent value judgments that underlie the conclusions reached by FASB and how these value judgments raise questions about the ethics of the current standard-setting process.     

If Only We Had Listened to Ross Skinner!*

Ross Skinner built his intimate knowledge of the intricacies of the art of accounting through a very long and rich career as an “accounting philosopher". This allowed him to both observe, and be part of, the formalization of today's GAAP. The duration and timing of Skinner's career also allowed him to experience directly the gradual evolution of our accounting model from an approach based largely on principles to one based increasingly on rules. The objective of this paper is to look behind accounting figures, which are the product of varying combinations of rules and judgment, and to discuss some recent events that have rocked the auditing and accounting profession. Our comments are presented in the context of views expressed by Skinner in his 1995 “Judgment in Jeopardy” article. Skinner had a keen interest in accounting history. Therefore, we begin our paper by referring to Paciol's notion of “venture accounting". We use this notion to introduce our discussion of financial reporting, which has become an important instrument of resource allocation and a challenge for professional judgment. This leads us to describe some of the ideas Skinner presented in his article on accounting judgment as “visionary". Had we listened to him, perhaps we could have avoided some of the costly changes and additions recently imposed on our governance system, such as the creation of the Canadian Public Accountability Board and the tightening of several laws and regulations.     

The standard-setters’ toolkit: can principles prevail over bright lines?

We study lease accounting in an international panel data set to examine how accounting outcomes vary with two features of accounting standards: the emphasis on using professional judgement to apply principles, and the presence or absence of bright-line tests. We study four countries—Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US—and companies in two lease-intensive industries—retail and transportation. Our primary study period spans the time when Australia and the UK switched from domestic to international accounting standards, and in one test, we also consider Canada’s transition to international standards. We find that neither an explicit requirement to apply a principle nor omitting bright-line tests materially increases the use of capital lease treatment among these firms. Overall, we conclude that this financial reporting outcome is relatively insensitive to these standard-setting tools.     

The SEC and Improving Sustainability Reporting

In this discussion that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, the former Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission explores recent developments in corporate sustainability reporting with three Directors—two past and one current—of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance (or “CorpFin”). The consensus of the panelists was that investors want companies to provide more and better disclosure of their ESG exposures, particularly climate change, and their plans to manage those exposures. According to the current director of CorpFin, the most common demand expressed in the thousands of “comment letters” elicited by the SEC's recent concept release was for more and better sustainability information. And among the many issues cited by investors in those letters, including economic inequality, corruption, indigenous rights, and community relations, the subject of greatest interest by far was climate change. While none of the panelists claimed to see private‐sector demand for SEC action and a new set of mandatory requirements, all seemed to agree that many companies would welcome the establishment of voluntary guidelines and standards for providing ESG information—and that the guidelines recently developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board are a promising model. For companies in each of 79 different industries, the SASB has identified a specific set of “material” concerns along with metrics or KPIs that can be used to evaluate corporate performance in responding to those concerns. Perhaps the most important advantage of this approach is that, by limiting such reporting to material exposures (and so adhering to a principle that has long informed SEC requirements), the SASB guidelines should significantly increase the relevance and value to investors—while possibly holding down the costs—of the sustainability reports that large companies in the U.S. and abroad have been producing for decades. But, as the former SEC Chair also notes in closing, the adoption of such guidelines by companies should be viewed as just a first step toward improving disclosure. To help companies develop the most useful and cost‐effective disclosure practices, investors themselves will have to become more active in communicating their own demands and preferences for information.     

Forces Leading to the Adoption of Accrual Accounting by the Canadian Federal Government: An Institutional Perspective*/ LES FORCES AYANT MENÉ L'ADMINISTRATION FÉDÉRALE CANADIENNE À ADOPTER LA COMPTABILITÉ D'EXERCICE: UNE PERSPECTIVE INSTITUTIONNELLE

In 1995, the federal government of Canada announced that it would adopt full accrual accounting. The change was fully implemented at the department level in 2001 and for government‐wide financial reporting in 2003. Using the perspective of institutional theory, we examine several factors that had the potential to influence the federal government's decision to adopt full accrual accounting, including two royal commissions, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, credit markets, and the practices of other national governments. We find that the decision to change to accrual accounting can be largely attributed to coercive and normative influences of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (supported by the normative influence of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Public Sector Accounting Board) and mimetic isomorphism with other members of the federal government's organizational field.     

A management control system to support corporate sustainability strategies

This paper outlines a management accounting system, based upon cost variance analysis, which supports the pursuit of environmental and traditional financial goals within a decentralized organization. The framework decomposes inefficiencies into two parts. The first consists of what might be considered a natural outcome of pursuing the traditional economic goal of efficiency through cost-minimization, a “waste” variance. The second part consists of sustainability gains that produce societal benefit but may be incongruent with short-term economic goals, a “sustainability” variance. While elimination of waste variances can be encouraged using a traditional performance evaluation and reward structure, elimination of sustainability variances requires re-design of performance evaluation tools and reward structures. We demonstrate that differing production functions across operational units within organizations can impact the relative magnitude of the two variances. The failure to recognize and incorporate these differences can lead to inefficient allocation of resources and/or only partial fulfillment of the strategic environmental goals of the organization.     

Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability,transparency and sustainability

Concern for the natural environment has not occupied a prominent role in accounting scholarship and practice. This paper attempts to redress this omission by investigating the implications for accounting of placing the environment at the centre of the analysis. The paper introduces the principles of this “deep green” position and explores how accounting might articulate them. Whilst there may be no place for what we currently consider to be conventional financial accounting in any “green utopia” the paper does not attempt to operationalise, within a non-green world, certain of the principles of the green position. Emphasis is placed on an accounting's potential for contribution to accountability and transparency in participative democracy, the potential for non-financial accounts of the biosphere and, perhaps most contentiously, the use of current accounting techniques for the operationalisation of an accounting for sustainability.     

Proposed Changes in Lease Accounting and Private Business Bankers' Credit Decisions*

This study contributes to the debate on lease accounting currently ongoing at the international level and to future discussions at the Canadian level for private enterprise standards following a potential revision of lease accounting in international financial reporting standards (IFRS). A user perspective is adopted to examine private business bankers' preferences on the issue of capitalizing all noncancelable lease contracts, including operating leases, as suggested by the G4+1. While bankers use both capital and operating lease information, they give significantly more consideration to the former when analyzing private business loan requests. Accordingly, operating lease information receives less attention than capital lease information in the credit‐granting decision process. In addition, private business bankers consider a number of aspects of the current lease accounting standard to be inadequate and are in favor of the principles governing the approach suggested by the G4+1. They feel that the capitalization of operating leases would improve their ability to evaluate lessees' long‐term financial commitments and increase their estimates of the risks involved in providing financing to lessees. This study also demonstrates that the capitalization of operating leases would have a significant impact on key financial indicators of a sample of Canadian private companies. Bankers perceive that these realistic changes in financial indicators would affect their assessment of borrowers' capital structure/solvency, liquidity, ability to repay, and risk rating. From a cost‐benefit perspective, the findings provide standard‐setters with an indication of the benefits of the G4+1 proposals to users.     

For the sake of serving the broader community: Sea piloting compared with auditing

Discussions concerning ethics and the auditing profession tend to end up in two different standpoints: create stronger regulations or increase individual morals. In this article we will argue for a third standpoint that emphasizes the importance of belonging to a community, to a broader society.The problem, as we see it, has to do with the separation of the aims of the auditing profession from those of the broader community that it is intended to serve. This is the result of the development of global auditing companies and standard-setting bodies that use bureaucratic control, regulatory frameworks, fragmentation and a codification of knowledge. Applying limited notions of community or virtue ethics on collectives like professions is of little help here since it tends to create self-justificatory professions disconnected from the broader society [Neu D, T’aerien R. Remembering the past: ethics and the Canadian Chartered Accounting profession, 1911–1925. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 2000;11(2):193–212].In our argumentation for a wider mission on serving the broader community we use the concepts “occupational community” and “organization” [van Maanen J, Barley SR. Occupational communities: cultures and controls in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 1984;6:287–365] together with the term “for-the-sake-of”. Actions taken “for-the-sake-of” has a point or meaning that is wider than what is good for the individual or limited community. We compare the auditing profession with the traditional sea piloting profession in Sweden, which is characterized by a strong occupational community and members who strive to act “for-the-sake-of” serving the broader society by facilitating safe sea travel. We wind up by discussing the possibilities the state, market and community have in encouraging acts “for-the-sake-of” serving the broader community.