| Abstract: | The primary aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that, when making written submissions to the accounting standard setting bodies, lobbyists place the same level of importance, on: 1) the ASRB Release 100 accounting standard evaluative criteria, 2) differential reporting, 3) the ‘relevance’ of the proposed financial reporting disclosures, and 4) the ‘reliability’ of those disclosures to general purpose financial statement users. The secondary aim was to determine if these qualitative factors are afforded different levels of importance by different lobbying groups, viz., public practitioners, corporate accountants, government accountants, and academics/individuals. The responses to a survey of formal lobbyists were examined using a proportional odds model which utilises the ordinal nature of the responses and employs an analysis of deviance between responses. The results showed that the sampled lobbyists, as a whole, considered the four qualitative factors of ‘evaluative criteria’, ‘differential reporting’, ‘relevance’, and ‘reliability’ of financial information, to be of equal importance to their lobbying position. In addition, the ranking in importance was not consistent across the different lobbying groups. That is, company and government accountants rated the ‘reliability’ of the proposed reporting disclosures as the most important factor influencing the nature of their lobbying submissions, while the public practitioner and academic groups perceived the ‘relevance’ of the proposed disclosures as the most important. Testing the effects of the financial reporting issues underlying each of these four factors on the relative importance of those factors, revealed 1) a concern by all lobbyists that the thrust of an Exposure Draft matches the lobbyists' views on the ‘relevance’ of the disclosures proposed, and 2) a desire by all lobbyists that the proposed financial reports faithfully represent the underlying transactions of the entity. |
