Conceptual shifts in accounting: Transplanting the notion of boundary from financial to non-financial reporting

IF 2.3 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Financial Reporting Pub Date : 2018-02-01 DOI:10.3280/FR2018-001005
Laura Girella, Mario Abela, E. Ferrari
{"title":"Conceptual shifts in accounting: Transplanting the notion of boundary from financial to non-financial reporting","authors":"Laura Girella, Mario Abela, E. Ferrari","doi":"10.3280/FR2018-001005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1998 Miller, in his paper titled \"The margins of accounting\" observed that \"By looking at the margins of accounting, we can understand how this influential body of expertise is formed and transformed\" (Miller, 1998: 618). Drawing on this analogy, the boundaries of reporting and the ways these are defined and re-defined, as a consequence of the relationships organisations form with other entities from time to time, and their substantive nature provide insights about the business and its business model. Accordingly, an examination of reporting boundaries helps to better understand and appreciate the objective of an organisation, the logic that underlies its business model and how that is ‘reflected’ and communicated through the reporting entity’s financial statements - which may or may not align with the boundaries of the ‘organisation’. Despite the relevance of reporting boundaries as a critical aspect of the accounting discipline, it remains a relatively unexplored area in the literature. Accordingly, the aim of this work is to offer an initial overview on how the boundaries of reporting have (not) changed in response to the broadening scope of reporting to address both financial and ‘non-financial’ information (e.g. sustainability, governance and intangibles) and attempts to promote greater integration between both sets of information (IIRC, 2013). In particular, the analysis draws on the interpretative schemes of Zambon (1996) and Zambon and Zan (2000) and is combined with the concept of ‘transplantation’. The manner in which reporting boundaries are defined for both financial and non-financial reporting is investigated and compared. This comparison enables similarities and differences between the definition of the ‘reporting boundary’ to be problematised and explored for both financial and non-financial reporting.","PeriodicalId":42044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Financial Reporting","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Financial Reporting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/FR2018-001005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In 1998 Miller, in his paper titled "The margins of accounting" observed that "By looking at the margins of accounting, we can understand how this influential body of expertise is formed and transformed" (Miller, 1998: 618). Drawing on this analogy, the boundaries of reporting and the ways these are defined and re-defined, as a consequence of the relationships organisations form with other entities from time to time, and their substantive nature provide insights about the business and its business model. Accordingly, an examination of reporting boundaries helps to better understand and appreciate the objective of an organisation, the logic that underlies its business model and how that is ‘reflected’ and communicated through the reporting entity’s financial statements - which may or may not align with the boundaries of the ‘organisation’. Despite the relevance of reporting boundaries as a critical aspect of the accounting discipline, it remains a relatively unexplored area in the literature. Accordingly, the aim of this work is to offer an initial overview on how the boundaries of reporting have (not) changed in response to the broadening scope of reporting to address both financial and ‘non-financial’ information (e.g. sustainability, governance and intangibles) and attempts to promote greater integration between both sets of information (IIRC, 2013). In particular, the analysis draws on the interpretative schemes of Zambon (1996) and Zambon and Zan (2000) and is combined with the concept of ‘transplantation’. The manner in which reporting boundaries are defined for both financial and non-financial reporting is investigated and compared. This comparison enables similarities and differences between the definition of the ‘reporting boundary’ to be problematised and explored for both financial and non-financial reporting.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
会计概念的转变:将财务报告的边界概念移植到非财务报告
1998年,米勒在他题为“会计的边际”的论文中观察到,“通过观察会计的边际,我们可以理解这个有影响力的专业知识是如何形成和转化的”(米勒,1998:618)。根据这个类比,报告的边界以及定义和重新定义这些边界的方式,作为组织与其他实体不时形成的关系的结果,以及它们的实质性性质,提供了对业务及其业务模式的见解。因此,对报告边界的检查有助于更好地理解和欣赏组织的目标,其商业模式背后的逻辑,以及如何通过报告实体的财务报表“反映”和沟通——这些报表可能与“组织”的边界一致,也可能不一致。尽管报告边界的相关性作为会计学科的一个关键方面,它仍然是一个相对未开发的领域在文献中。因此,本工作的目的是初步概述报告的边界如何(未)改变,以应对报告范围的扩大,以解决财务和“非财务”信息(例如可持续性,治理和无形资产),并试图促进两组信息之间的更大整合(IIRC, 2013)。特别是,该分析借鉴了Zambon(1996)和Zambon and Zan(2000)的解释方案,并结合了“移植”的概念。对财务报告和非财务报告界定界限的方式进行调查和比较。这种比较使得“报告边界”定义之间的异同可以在财务报告和非财务报告中被质疑和探索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Financial Reporting
Journal of Financial Reporting BUSINESS, FINANCE-
自引率
6.70%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
The Value of Investors Being in a Deliberative Mindset When Reading News Later Revealed to Be Fake Editorial Policy Covers and Front Matter Structural Equation Modeling in Archival Capital Markets Research: An Empirical Application to Disclosure and Cost of Capital Goodwill Impairment after M&A: Acquisition-Level Evidence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1