Abstract This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate regulatory treatment of non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI). It proposes an avenue for regulators to keep regulatory arbitrage under control and preserve sufficient space for efficient financial innovation at the same time. We argue for a normative approach to supervision that can overcome the proverbial race between hare and hedgehog in financial regulation and demonstrate how such an approach can be implemented in practice. We first show that regulators should primarily analyse the allocation of tail risk inherent in NBFI. Our paper proposes to apply regulatory burdens equivalent to prudential banking regulation if the respective transactional structures become only viable through indirect or direct access to (ad hoc) public backstops. Second, we use insights from the scholarship on regulatory networks as communities of interpretation to demonstrate how regulators can retrieve the information on transactional innovations and their risk-allocating characteristics that they need to make the pivotal determination. We suggest in particular how supervisors should structure their relationships with semi-public gatekeepers such as lawyers, auditors and consultants to keep abreast of the risk-allocating features of evolving transactional structures. Finally, this paper uses the example of credit funds as non-bank entities economically engaged in credit intermediation to illustrate the merits of the proposed normative framework and to highlight that multipolar regulatory dialogues are needed to shed light on the specific risk-allocating characteristics of recent contractual innovations.
{"title":"Detecting Tail Risks to Preclude Regulatory Arbitrage","authors":"M. Thiemann, Tobias Tröger","doi":"10.1515/ael-2019-0059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0059","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper contributes to the debate on the adequate regulatory treatment of non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI). It proposes an avenue for regulators to keep regulatory arbitrage under control and preserve sufficient space for efficient financial innovation at the same time. We argue for a normative approach to supervision that can overcome the proverbial race between hare and hedgehog in financial regulation and demonstrate how such an approach can be implemented in practice. We first show that regulators should primarily analyse the allocation of tail risk inherent in NBFI. Our paper proposes to apply regulatory burdens equivalent to prudential banking regulation if the respective transactional structures become only viable through indirect or direct access to (ad hoc) public backstops. Second, we use insights from the scholarship on regulatory networks as communities of interpretation to demonstrate how regulators can retrieve the information on transactional innovations and their risk-allocating characteristics that they need to make the pivotal determination. We suggest in particular how supervisors should structure their relationships with semi-public gatekeepers such as lawyers, auditors and consultants to keep abreast of the risk-allocating features of evolving transactional structures. Finally, this paper uses the example of credit funds as non-bank entities economically engaged in credit intermediation to illustrate the merits of the proposed normative framework and to highlight that multipolar regulatory dialogues are needed to shed light on the specific risk-allocating characteristics of recent contractual innovations.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"1 1","pages":"233 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89487110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Calls are repeatedly made on corporations to respond to the challenges facing the planet from a sustainable development perspective and governments take solace in the idea that corporations' transparency on their corporate activity in relation to sustainability through voluntary reporting is adequately addressing the problem. In practice, however, reporting is failing to deliver truly sustainable results. The article considers the following questions: how does the varied reporting landscape in the field of non-financial reporting impede the objectives of fostering corporations' sustainable practices and which initiative, among the options available, may best meet the sustainability objectives after a decluttering of the landscape takes place? The article argues that the varied corporate reporting landscape constitutes a key obstacle to fostering sustainable corporate behaviour, insofar as the flexible and please all approach followed in the context of corporate sustainability reporting offers little to no real incentive to companies to behave more sustainably and ultimately pleases none in the long run. The case made is that “less is more” in non-financial reporting initiatives and hence the article calls for a revision of key aspects of the European Non-Financial Reporting Directive, which, as is argued, is more likely to achieve the furtherance of sustainable corporate behaviour. Although the different reporting requirements offer the benefits of focussing on different corporate goals and activities, targeting different audiences and allowing for a level of flexibility that respects the individual risks to sustainability associated with each industry, the end result is a landscape that lacks overall consistency and comparability of measurements and accountabilities, making accountability more, rather than less, difficult to achieve. The article acknowledges the existence of several variances relating to the notion of sustainability per se, which continues to remain a contested concept and variances between companies and industries in relation to how each is operating sustainably or unsustainably respectively. Such variances have so far inhibited the legislator from easily outlining through tailored legislation the individual risks to global sustainability in an all-encompassing manner. The end product is a chaotic system of financial reporting, CSR reporting, non-financial reporting and integrated reporting and little progress to increase comparability and credibility in order for companies to be held accountable and to behave in ways that do not harm the planet. A “clean up” of the varied initiatives in the terrain of non-financial reporting is recommended.
{"title":"Why “Less is More” in Non-Financial Reporting Initiatives: Concrete Steps Towards Supporting Sustainability","authors":"G. Tsagas, C. Villiers","doi":"10.1515/ael-2018-0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2018-0045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Calls are repeatedly made on corporations to respond to the challenges facing the planet from a sustainable development perspective and governments take solace in the idea that corporations' transparency on their corporate activity in relation to sustainability through voluntary reporting is adequately addressing the problem. In practice, however, reporting is failing to deliver truly sustainable results. The article considers the following questions: how does the varied reporting landscape in the field of non-financial reporting impede the objectives of fostering corporations' sustainable practices and which initiative, among the options available, may best meet the sustainability objectives after a decluttering of the landscape takes place? The article argues that the varied corporate reporting landscape constitutes a key obstacle to fostering sustainable corporate behaviour, insofar as the flexible and please all approach followed in the context of corporate sustainability reporting offers little to no real incentive to companies to behave more sustainably and ultimately pleases none in the long run. The case made is that “less is more” in non-financial reporting initiatives and hence the article calls for a revision of key aspects of the European Non-Financial Reporting Directive, which, as is argued, is more likely to achieve the furtherance of sustainable corporate behaviour. Although the different reporting requirements offer the benefits of focussing on different corporate goals and activities, targeting different audiences and allowing for a level of flexibility that respects the individual risks to sustainability associated with each industry, the end result is a landscape that lacks overall consistency and comparability of measurements and accountabilities, making accountability more, rather than less, difficult to achieve. The article acknowledges the existence of several variances relating to the notion of sustainability per se, which continues to remain a contested concept and variances between companies and industries in relation to how each is operating sustainably or unsustainably respectively. Such variances have so far inhibited the legislator from easily outlining through tailored legislation the individual risks to global sustainability in an all-encompassing manner. The end product is a chaotic system of financial reporting, CSR reporting, non-financial reporting and integrated reporting and little progress to increase comparability and credibility in order for companies to be held accountable and to behave in ways that do not harm the planet. A “clean up” of the varied initiatives in the terrain of non-financial reporting is recommended.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83931744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Accounting and management practice as well as accounting research would benefit by shifting more of the scholarly attention towards external matters – solving problems of practice – while retaining its emphasis on rigor and validity of research claims.
{"title":"Accounting Research and Problem Solving","authors":"S. Sunder","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3617980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3617980","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Accounting and management practice as well as accounting research would benefit by shifting more of the scholarly attention towards external matters – solving problems of practice – while retaining its emphasis on rigor and validity of research claims.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"1 1","pages":"271 - 275"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83632586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper focusing on the interpretations issued by different Portuguese courts concerning the application of the accrual principle established in the Corporate Income Tax Code. This paper uses a database of the Portuguese tax courts’ decisions and employs a case law-based research methodology to address the following question: under which circumstances the principle of justice may affect the strict application of the accrual principle? After collecting twenty-four legal decisions related to the application of the accrual principle outlined in tax law, this paper summarises eleven, grouping them according to the different issues under dispute. This analysis also includes the confrontation of the assumptions used by the tax authority and the claims of the taxpayers, identifying and discussing the legal arguments to override the strict application of the accrual principle. The main conclusion is that Portuguese courts may summon the principle of justice in taxation when taxpayers violate the accrual principle, in order to prevent unfair corrections to taxable income performed in tax audits. This paper found that the tax authority typically demands a rigid use of the accrual principle while the taxpayers often argue for a more flexible application. This last perspective has been adopted by the tax courts in certain circumstances, in particular when taxable income transfer was not motivated by tax avoidance.
{"title":"The Accrual Accounting Principle and its Implications for Portuguese Tax Courts Decisions","authors":"Daniel G. Taborda, J. Sousa","doi":"10.1515/ael-2019-0030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0030","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper focusing on the interpretations issued by different Portuguese courts concerning the application of the accrual principle established in the Corporate Income Tax Code. This paper uses a database of the Portuguese tax courts’ decisions and employs a case law-based research methodology to address the following question: under which circumstances the principle of justice may affect the strict application of the accrual principle? After collecting twenty-four legal decisions related to the application of the accrual principle outlined in tax law, this paper summarises eleven, grouping them according to the different issues under dispute. This analysis also includes the confrontation of the assumptions used by the tax authority and the claims of the taxpayers, identifying and discussing the legal arguments to override the strict application of the accrual principle. The main conclusion is that Portuguese courts may summon the principle of justice in taxation when taxpayers violate the accrual principle, in order to prevent unfair corrections to taxable income performed in tax audits. This paper found that the tax authority typically demands a rigid use of the accrual principle while the taxpayers often argue for a more flexible application. This last perspective has been adopted by the tax courts in certain circumstances, in particular when taxable income transfer was not motivated by tax avoidance.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"72 1","pages":"539 - 562"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82826567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract CSR practices and reporting vary across countries and companies. Accouting studies using institutional theory show that even where there are coercive pressures to converge, local practices and traditions are other types of pressures that play a role in maintaining divergence. Similarly, legal studies indicate that harmonisation attempts made by the European Union are usually challenged by States attempting to maintain the status quo of the local context, and this may also apply to CSR reporting harmonization. This research investigates whether or not the institutional pressure toward non-financial reporting harmonization represented by the Directive/2014/95/EU led to convergent behaviours between Member States, at least at the transposition stage. Transposition laws in Member States where CSR has historically played a limited role (i. e. Romania and Bulgaria) are compared with those issued by countries where CSR traditions are much more well developed (France, Belgium and the UK). The analysis focuses on how both mandatory and discretionary requirements have been transposed at a national level. The transposition outcome is analysed in the face of economic-, government- and society-related factors of each country and results show that on several occasions, divergence is catalysed by differences in national business systems. This is aligned with the results of previous studies (e. g. Jamali and Neville, 2011), which argue that historical, cultural, economic and political local contexts mould the CSR conceptualisation existing in a given country, and therefore the convergence of different CSR practices is only apparent.
{"title":"A Country-Comparative Analysis of the Transposition of the EU Non-Financial Directive: An Institutional Approach","authors":"Selena Aureli, F. Salvatori, Elisabetta Magnaghi","doi":"10.1515/ael-2018-0047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2018-0047","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract CSR practices and reporting vary across countries and companies. Accouting studies using institutional theory show that even where there are coercive pressures to converge, local practices and traditions are other types of pressures that play a role in maintaining divergence. Similarly, legal studies indicate that harmonisation attempts made by the European Union are usually challenged by States attempting to maintain the status quo of the local context, and this may also apply to CSR reporting harmonization. This research investigates whether or not the institutional pressure toward non-financial reporting harmonization represented by the Directive/2014/95/EU led to convergent behaviours between Member States, at least at the transposition stage. Transposition laws in Member States where CSR has historically played a limited role (i. e. Romania and Bulgaria) are compared with those issued by countries where CSR traditions are much more well developed (France, Belgium and the UK). The analysis focuses on how both mandatory and discretionary requirements have been transposed at a national level. The transposition outcome is analysed in the face of economic-, government- and society-related factors of each country and results show that on several occasions, divergence is catalysed by differences in national business systems. This is aligned with the results of previous studies (e. g. Jamali and Neville, 2011), which argue that historical, cultural, economic and political local contexts mould the CSR conceptualisation existing in a given country, and therefore the convergence of different CSR practices is only apparent.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"218 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79754794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Inspired by the principles of sustainable finance and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting, the European Union Directive 95/2014 on non-financial disclosure recognized that metrics and more transparency would foster internal debates, ensuring proper governance and helping to promote dialogue between management, the board and stakeholders, including civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although significant academic attention has been paid to the -limited- space that the third sector had in the definition of the content of the Directive, not enough has been said on the way in which the Directive and ESG reporting can be leveraged by non-financial actors and what are the consequences of embracing accounting, non-financial reporting and corporate governance as tools for campaigning. This paper tries to fill the gap and asks some direct questions: are the Directive and the EU approach to sustainable finance opening spaces of engagement and confrontation that contribute to a true transition into a socially and environmentally sustainable future? Is the encounter between the financial realm and civil society a real win-win in the best interest of future generations and the planet? After presenting the background of the Directive and the three main opportunities that the ESG framework presents for civil society engagement, we conclude with a critical reflection on what is lost when civil society sits around the same table as financial institutions, uses their vocabulary and accepts that the conversation can only happen around those social and environmental causes that are financially material.
{"title":"The Financialization of Civil Society Activism: Sustainable Finance, Non-Financial Disclosure and the Shrinking Space for Engagement","authors":"Davide Cerrato, Tomaso Ferrando","doi":"10.1515/ael-2019-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Inspired by the principles of sustainable finance and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting, the European Union Directive 95/2014 on non-financial disclosure recognized that metrics and more transparency would foster internal debates, ensuring proper governance and helping to promote dialogue between management, the board and stakeholders, including civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Although significant academic attention has been paid to the -limited- space that the third sector had in the definition of the content of the Directive, not enough has been said on the way in which the Directive and ESG reporting can be leveraged by non-financial actors and what are the consequences of embracing accounting, non-financial reporting and corporate governance as tools for campaigning. This paper tries to fill the gap and asks some direct questions: are the Directive and the EU approach to sustainable finance opening spaces of engagement and confrontation that contribute to a true transition into a socially and environmentally sustainable future? Is the encounter between the financial realm and civil society a real win-win in the best interest of future generations and the planet? After presenting the background of the Directive and the three main opportunities that the ESG framework presents for civil society engagement, we conclude with a critical reflection on what is lost when civil society sits around the same table as financial institutions, uses their vocabulary and accepts that the conversation can only happen around those social and environmental causes that are financially material.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81828129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract According to the Cadbury Committee (1992) classical definition, corporate governance is ‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled.’ In the Cadbury Report and in other mainstream corporate governance codes, ‘system’ refers only to the ‘financial aspects of corporate governance’, that is, shareholder value and emphasis on the board’s and the management’s accountability to providers of financial capital only. During the last few years however, sustainability has been included through ‘integrated reporting’ in corporate governance codes especially in Africa (South Africa) and Asia (Malaysia, Philippines). For example, the South African King reports on corporate governance connect the use of integrated reporting to report on an organisation’s corporate governance practices and economic-social-environmental triple-bottom-line performance. The leading normative framework for integrated reporting, the International Integrated Reporting Council’s International Framework, is based on an idea of ‘shared value creation’ by providers of the ‘six capitals’ (financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, societal and environmental capitals). As such integrated reporting represents a stakeholder management model already integrated – at least on the text level – in many corporate governance codes, just enlarging the concept of capital providers from shareholders only to other internal stakeholders, and the goal of capital efficiency and profit maximisation from financial capital only to other five forms of internal capital provisions. It is also a new step in the development of social and environmental accounting and reporting, rooting from the 1970s and sustainability reporting from the 1990s. The concept of a ‘business model’ represents the way how an organisation creates value, comprising all its activities, its relationships with stakeholders and its tangible and intangible assets and liabilities, and finally the boards responsibilities, as for the board, ‘corporate governance’ and sustaining and developing the company’s business model are essentially the same thing. In the end of the day, it is a question what kind of ‘business model’ integrated reporting based corporate governance really reflects, and how it possible varies from shareholder-centred business model. The purpose of this paper is to test (1) what kind of stakeholder model, if any, integrated reporting and especially International Framework represents, (2) what is the impact, if any, of integrated reporting to material corporate governance in the codes it is included in, and (3) if yes, does an integrated view and especially the ‘integrated thinking’ behind International Framework represent a genuine sustainable value creation driven business model based on the boundaries of the planet and social foundation for the humanity, or is it only a view to encourage organisations to take care of the profits of the specific capital providers.
{"title":"Integrated Reporting and Sustainable Corporate Governance from European Perspective","authors":"Jukka Mähönen","doi":"10.1515/ael-2018-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2018-0048","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract According to the Cadbury Committee (1992) classical definition, corporate governance is ‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled.’ In the Cadbury Report and in other mainstream corporate governance codes, ‘system’ refers only to the ‘financial aspects of corporate governance’, that is, shareholder value and emphasis on the board’s and the management’s accountability to providers of financial capital only. During the last few years however, sustainability has been included through ‘integrated reporting’ in corporate governance codes especially in Africa (South Africa) and Asia (Malaysia, Philippines). For example, the South African King reports on corporate governance connect the use of integrated reporting to report on an organisation’s corporate governance practices and economic-social-environmental triple-bottom-line performance. The leading normative framework for integrated reporting, the International Integrated Reporting Council’s International Framework, is based on an idea of ‘shared value creation’ by providers of the ‘six capitals’ (financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, societal and environmental capitals). As such integrated reporting represents a stakeholder management model already integrated – at least on the text level – in many corporate governance codes, just enlarging the concept of capital providers from shareholders only to other internal stakeholders, and the goal of capital efficiency and profit maximisation from financial capital only to other five forms of internal capital provisions. It is also a new step in the development of social and environmental accounting and reporting, rooting from the 1970s and sustainability reporting from the 1990s. The concept of a ‘business model’ represents the way how an organisation creates value, comprising all its activities, its relationships with stakeholders and its tangible and intangible assets and liabilities, and finally the boards responsibilities, as for the board, ‘corporate governance’ and sustaining and developing the company’s business model are essentially the same thing. In the end of the day, it is a question what kind of ‘business model’ integrated reporting based corporate governance really reflects, and how it possible varies from shareholder-centred business model. The purpose of this paper is to test (1) what kind of stakeholder model, if any, integrated reporting and especially International Framework represents, (2) what is the impact, if any, of integrated reporting to material corporate governance in the codes it is included in, and (3) if yes, does an integrated view and especially the ‘integrated thinking’ behind International Framework represent a genuine sustainable value creation driven business model based on the boundaries of the planet and social foundation for the humanity, or is it only a view to encourage organisations to take care of the profits of the specific capital providers.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79964128","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract There is a broad call to integrate planetary boundaries and life-cycle based reporting into accounting theory and reporting standards. Although many practitioners back this call, including insurers, shareholders with a long-term orientation, and company law specialists who suggest that the inclusion of long-term stakeholder interests is necessary to counter both corporate and systemic risks, it remains unanswered. We argue that dominant assumptions about the status and architecture of corporations in corporate governance theory stand at the centre of this unanswered call in accounting theory and practice. As the status of the public corporation is interpreted as a nexus of contracts and its architecture as a restricted dyadic relation between ‘principals’ and ‘agents’, the object and audience for corporate reports are restricted to a very specific set of actors, interests and time-horizons. We argue that this conceptual setup unduly restricts notions of accountability and is connected to a specific notion of political economy. A broadening of reporting standards needs, therefore, to be accompanied by a critical assessment of the assumed object and audience of reporting in corporate governance theory.
{"title":"Planetary Boundaries and Corporate Reporting: The Role of the Conceptual Basis of the Corporation","authors":"J. Veldman, André Jansson","doi":"10.1515/ael-2018-0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2018-0037","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is a broad call to integrate planetary boundaries and life-cycle based reporting into accounting theory and reporting standards. Although many practitioners back this call, including insurers, shareholders with a long-term orientation, and company law specialists who suggest that the inclusion of long-term stakeholder interests is necessary to counter both corporate and systemic risks, it remains unanswered. We argue that dominant assumptions about the status and architecture of corporations in corporate governance theory stand at the centre of this unanswered call in accounting theory and practice. As the status of the public corporation is interpreted as a nexus of contracts and its architecture as a restricted dyadic relation between ‘principals’ and ‘agents’, the object and audience for corporate reports are restricted to a very specific set of actors, interests and time-horizons. We argue that this conceptual setup unduly restricts notions of accountability and is connected to a specific notion of political economy. A broadening of reporting standards needs, therefore, to be accompanied by a critical assessment of the assumed object and audience of reporting in corporate governance theory.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91101343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to enhance our understanding of the notions and conceptual foundations of assurance in the standard setting arena. This will facilitate an informed discussion of the challenges and the role of assurance within an increasingly complex and fragmented corporate reporting regulatory landscape. The study draws on relevant literature on sustainability assurance and an analysis of how the assurance concept has been framed by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) through the construction of standards. The analysis highlights that the fragility of the conceptual foundations of assurance, broad-based nature of standards and diversity in practice contribute to the persistent challenges of sustainability assurance. This paper makes an important contribution to the discussions and contemporary debates on the regulation of and through assurance as well as the complex newer concept of integrated assurance. It further contributes to a more informed policy discussion as to how it can(not) strengthen the role of non-financial reporting as an agent of change to encourage more sustainable companies.
{"title":"The Challenges of Assurance on Non-financial Reporting","authors":"Amanda Ling Li Sonnerfeldt, C. Pontoppidan","doi":"10.1515/ael-2018-0050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2018-0050","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this paper is to enhance our understanding of the notions and conceptual foundations of assurance in the standard setting arena. This will facilitate an informed discussion of the challenges and the role of assurance within an increasingly complex and fragmented corporate reporting regulatory landscape. The study draws on relevant literature on sustainability assurance and an analysis of how the assurance concept has been framed by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) through the construction of standards. The analysis highlights that the fragility of the conceptual foundations of assurance, broad-based nature of standards and diversity in practice contribute to the persistent challenges of sustainability assurance. This paper makes an important contribution to the discussions and contemporary debates on the regulation of and through assurance as well as the complex newer concept of integrated assurance. It further contributes to a more informed policy discussion as to how it can(not) strengthen the role of non-financial reporting as an agent of change to encourage more sustainable companies.","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"99 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73224653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The ‘Who’ and ‘How’ in Learning From Sovereign Debt Crises","authors":"Odette Lienau","doi":"10.1515/ael-2019-0044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2019-0044","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43657,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Economics and Law-A Convivium","volume":"352 1","pages":"21 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2020-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89272310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：