Pub Date : 2020-11-17DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655
Stephanie Jana, K. McMeeking
ABSTRACT Alternative performance measures (APMs) might be used to improve the information environment or strategically to mislead the market. The recently introduced European Securities and Markets Authority APM guidelines are intended to enhance corporate financial disclosures. We analyse the disclosure quality and determinants of all types of APMs in management reports of German listed firms for two financial periods. Although the quantity of APM disclosures is extensive, it differs across firms’ characteristics, and there is considerable room for improvement regarding disclosure quality. APM disclosure quality is positively associated with firm size and negatively associated with profitability. However, not all firms’ characteristics can be applied per se as universal determinants of APM disclosure quality, and a distinction must be made between different types of APMs. For example, high ownership concentration is negatively associated particularly with the quality of profitability APMs. Firms’ leverage is positively associated with the disclosure quality of non-profitability APMs.
{"title":"Alternative Performance Measures: Determinants of Disclosure Quality – Evidence from Germany","authors":"Stephanie Jana, K. McMeeking","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Alternative performance measures (APMs) might be used to improve the information environment or strategically to mislead the market. The recently introduced European Securities and Markets Authority APM guidelines are intended to enhance corporate financial disclosures. We analyse the disclosure quality and determinants of all types of APMs in management reports of German listed firms for two financial periods. Although the quantity of APM disclosures is extensive, it differs across firms’ characteristics, and there is considerable room for improvement regarding disclosure quality. APM disclosure quality is positively associated with firm size and negatively associated with profitability. However, not all firms’ characteristics can be applied per se as universal determinants of APM disclosure quality, and a distinction must be made between different types of APMs. For example, high ownership concentration is negatively associated particularly with the quality of profitability APMs. Firms’ leverage is positively associated with the disclosure quality of non-profitability APMs.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"18 1","pages":"102 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1829655","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48084785","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}
Pub Date : 2020-11-10DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056
Shuai Yuan
Abstract The 2006 EU Directive established an EU-wide system for public oversight of the audit profession. In the UK, since 2008 the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published inspection reports for major audit firms, which include overall quality ratings for the individual audit engagements of each audit firm under review. This study examines the FRC’s ratings, and measures their impact on audit fees and audit firm switching. A significant increase in audit fees is found when the audit firm has a higher proportion of engagements with deficient ratings, probably arising from the additional effort and resources needed to meet the FRC’s requirements. This impact is more concentrated among clients with Big 4 audit firms. However, there is no evidence that FRC ratings affect clients’ likelihood of switching audit firms, suggesting that inspection results may not signal audit quality, and thus do not affect clients’ audit firm appointment decisions. The results provide evidence that inspection ratings may increase audit costs, but may not be valuable in distinguishing audit quality, and thus have no effect on audit committees’ audit firm appointment decisions. This finding advances understanding of the effectiveness of the audit inspection regime, and provides auditing regulators with guidance on policy making.
{"title":"Cost and Informativeness of Regulatory Reports: Evidence from the UK","authors":"Shuai Yuan","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2006 EU Directive established an EU-wide system for public oversight of the audit profession. In the UK, since 2008 the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published inspection reports for major audit firms, which include overall quality ratings for the individual audit engagements of each audit firm under review. This study examines the FRC’s ratings, and measures their impact on audit fees and audit firm switching. A significant increase in audit fees is found when the audit firm has a higher proportion of engagements with deficient ratings, probably arising from the additional effort and resources needed to meet the FRC’s requirements. This impact is more concentrated among clients with Big 4 audit firms. However, there is no evidence that FRC ratings affect clients’ likelihood of switching audit firms, suggesting that inspection results may not signal audit quality, and thus do not affect clients’ audit firm appointment decisions. The results provide evidence that inspection ratings may increase audit costs, but may not be valuable in distinguishing audit quality, and thus have no effect on audit committees’ audit firm appointment decisions. This finding advances understanding of the effectiveness of the audit inspection regime, and provides auditing regulators with guidance on policy making.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"18 1","pages":"75 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1833056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48508526","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1824073
Berit Hartmann, J. Marton, Josefin Andersson Sols
Abstract Based on two empirical cases, this paper illustrates and comments on the complexities of implementing and enforcing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in a national setting. The paper sheds light on the difficulties that arise in the local regulatory space when IFRS requirements start to shape national accounting legislation and regulations. The findings suggest that the investor focus and requirements for managerial judgement of IFRS can pose two problems. Firstly, an extended influence of IFRS creates tension with established institutions that have developed in the local accounting tradition. Secondly, local organisations can respond strongly to new IFRS regulations and their potential implementation, even if the contradiction with local practice bears no immediate economic consequence to them. The study contributes to the contextualisation of financial accounting in national culture by highlighting the different understandings and uses of IFRS by actors involved in the Swedish regulatory space.
{"title":"IFRS in National Regulatory Space: Insights from Sweden","authors":"Berit Hartmann, J. Marton, Josefin Andersson Sols","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1824073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1824073","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Based on two empirical cases, this paper illustrates and comments on the complexities of implementing and enforcing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in a national setting. The paper sheds light on the difficulties that arise in the local regulatory space when IFRS requirements start to shape national accounting legislation and regulations. The findings suggest that the investor focus and requirements for managerial judgement of IFRS can pose two problems. Firstly, an extended influence of IFRS creates tension with established institutions that have developed in the local accounting tradition. Secondly, local organisations can respond strongly to new IFRS regulations and their potential implementation, even if the contradiction with local practice bears no immediate economic consequence to them. The study contributes to the contextualisation of financial accounting in national culture by highlighting the different understandings and uses of IFRS by actors involved in the Swedish regulatory space.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"17 1","pages":"367 - 387"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1824073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48815636","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1818799
C. Hossfeld, Yvonne Muller-Lagarde, L. Zevounou
Abstract Although legally the criteria to adopt IFRS in the EU have not changed since the adoption of the 2002 IAS-Regulation, the way they are assessed evolved over time. The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the European public good (EPG) criterion has been interpreted since the beginning of the EU endorsement process and how it is interpreted today. After retracing the origin of the European public good criterion in the IAS-Regulation we identify different periods in the EU endorsement process where the application of the EPG criterion changed. These changes are explained by a variety of factors, not least the financial crisis of 2008. The scope of what is considered to be part of the EPG has substantially expanded, a trend that is still ongoing.
{"title":"The Evolution of the European Public Good Assessment in the EU Endorsement Process of IFRS","authors":"C. Hossfeld, Yvonne Muller-Lagarde, L. Zevounou","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1818799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1818799","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although legally the criteria to adopt IFRS in the EU have not changed since the adoption of the 2002 IAS-Regulation, the way they are assessed evolved over time. The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the European public good (EPG) criterion has been interpreted since the beginning of the EU endorsement process and how it is interpreted today. After retracing the origin of the European public good criterion in the IAS-Regulation we identify different periods in the EU endorsement process where the application of the EPG criterion changed. These changes are explained by a variety of factors, not least the financial crisis of 2008. The scope of what is considered to be part of the EPG has substantially expanded, a trend that is still ongoing.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"17 1","pages":"314 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1818799","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60429996","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1841905
B. Giner, A. Jorissen
During the last years many things have happened in the European accounting landscape. We observe the new proactive role of the EU Parliament that started in the aftermath of the financial crisis in...
{"title":"Special Issue on Accounting and Politics","authors":"B. Giner, A. Jorissen","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1841905","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1841905","url":null,"abstract":"During the last years many things have happened in the European accounting landscape. We observe the new proactive role of the EU Parliament that started in the aftermath of the financial crisis in...","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"17 1","pages":"239 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1841905","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45888916","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}
Pub Date : 2020-09-01DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1837889
Masatsugu Sanada
Abstract The purpose of this study is to critically synthesize extant research on the legitimacy of private accounting standard setters in order to inform future research opportunities. This study presupposes that legitimacy is an important issue for the survival of private accounting standard setters who face legitimacy claims from stakeholders and regulatory competition from other standard-setting bodies due to their lack of a democratic foundation. Findings show that the definition, typology, sources, and legitimacy characteristics that researchers use depend on the theoretical perspectives that they employ in their analysis. Simultaneously, they do have some common points despite the difference in their perspectives. Regarding legitimacy changes, prior studies suggest that moving from practical toward cultural legitimacy, the importance of due process, and the role of crises all affect these changes. The review also identifies future research directions as well as several challenges for legitimacy studies in accounting, namely defining an analytical framework, focus on the dynamic nature of legitimacy and output legitimacy, and the need for more empirical studies, among others.
{"title":"Legitimacy of Private Accounting Standard Setters: Literature Review and Suggestions for Future Research","authors":"Masatsugu Sanada","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1837889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1837889","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this study is to critically synthesize extant research on the legitimacy of private accounting standard setters in order to inform future research opportunities. This study presupposes that legitimacy is an important issue for the survival of private accounting standard setters who face legitimacy claims from stakeholders and regulatory competition from other standard-setting bodies due to their lack of a democratic foundation. Findings show that the definition, typology, sources, and legitimacy characteristics that researchers use depend on the theoretical perspectives that they employ in their analysis. Simultaneously, they do have some common points despite the difference in their perspectives. Regarding legitimacy changes, prior studies suggest that moving from practical toward cultural legitimacy, the importance of due process, and the role of crises all affect these changes. The review also identifies future research directions as well as several challenges for legitimacy studies in accounting, namely defining an analytical framework, focus on the dynamic nature of legitimacy and output legitimacy, and the need for more empirical studies, among others.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"17 1","pages":"264 - 302"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1837889","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42571955","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}
Pub Date : 2020-08-27DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1795215
F. López-Arceiz, Ana J. Bellostas, J. Moneva
Abstract Non-profits (NPOs) are one of the key agents in implementing socio-economic policies, financial reporting being relevant for their stakeholders. Different accounting regulations exist in Europe, with no required, common accounting standards to promote these entities’ participation in diverse countries and societies. We analyse the current differences among local accounting regulations related to the elaboration of financial reporting for European NPOs. We accomplish this by considering the primary elements that define an accounting system together with accounting regulations to elaborate on these organisations’ financial statements, and specific operations related to tangible fixed assets, donations and volunteering. Despite there are pressures to promote an isomorphic behaviour in the European context, our results evidence intense differences among European local regulations for NPOs, with origin in diverse cultural and non-profit traditions.
{"title":"Accounting Standards for European Non-profits. Reasons and Barriers for a Harmonisation Process","authors":"F. López-Arceiz, Ana J. Bellostas, J. Moneva","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1795215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1795215","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Non-profits (NPOs) are one of the key agents in implementing socio-economic policies, financial reporting being relevant for their stakeholders. Different accounting regulations exist in Europe, with no required, common accounting standards to promote these entities’ participation in diverse countries and societies. We analyse the current differences among local accounting regulations related to the elaboration of financial reporting for European NPOs. We accomplish this by considering the primary elements that define an accounting system together with accounting regulations to elaborate on these organisations’ financial statements, and specific operations related to tangible fixed assets, donations and volunteering. Despite there are pressures to promote an isomorphic behaviour in the European context, our results evidence intense differences among European local regulations for NPOs, with origin in diverse cultural and non-profit traditions.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"18 1","pages":"43 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1795215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46664900","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}
Pub Date : 2020-08-08DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1795214
K. Camfferman
ABSTRACT This paper reflects on relations between geopolitics and international accounting standard setting in the context of a commonly noted ‘return of geopolitics’. By discussing how selected episodes of the international political setting have impinged on the work of the IASC and the IASB, I attempt to demonstrate that geopolitics is a relevant angle on international accounting standard setting even though many aspects of IFRS can be adequately understood without references to geopolitics. I propose a simple framework to distinguish between symbolical and substantial relations between geopolitics and international accounting standard setting, as well as technical aspects where such a relation is absent. I call for further development of the conceptual toolbox required to analyze the relationship between international accounting standard setting and geopolitics, as well as for more empirical work on the historical and current configurations of this relationship.
{"title":"International Accounting Standard Setting and Geopolitics","authors":"K. Camfferman","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1795214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1795214","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper reflects on relations between geopolitics and international accounting standard setting in the context of a commonly noted ‘return of geopolitics’. By discussing how selected episodes of the international political setting have impinged on the work of the IASC and the IASB, I attempt to demonstrate that geopolitics is a relevant angle on international accounting standard setting even though many aspects of IFRS can be adequately understood without references to geopolitics. I propose a simple framework to distinguish between symbolical and substantial relations between geopolitics and international accounting standard setting, as well as technical aspects where such a relation is absent. I call for further development of the conceptual toolbox required to analyze the relationship between international accounting standard setting and geopolitics, as well as for more empirical work on the historical and current configurations of this relationship.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"17 1","pages":"243 - 263"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1795214","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47447001","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}
Pub Date : 2020-07-15DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1779946
D. Alexander, Roberta Fasiello
Abstract We explore the concept of prudence consistent with Directive 34/2013. There are three strands to our argument: economic, regulatory and legal. From an economic perspective, we demonstrate that neither historical cost nor fair value are designed to achieve long-run operational stability. Regarding regulation, we show that Directive 34 has significantly changed the concept and implications of prudence, in the name of increasing usefulness and relevance. Our legal considerations centre on the Gimle case of 2013, applying its logic to the new regulatory scenario. We note also the concept of the ‘European Public Good’. At various times the EU has suggested four specific components: protection of financial stability, the lack of hindrance to the economic development of the Union, and the objectives of sustainability and long-term investment. To achieve these objectives within the EU we show that it is necessary to follow the logic of our arguments.
{"title":"Prudence and Directive 34 – Reality and Rhetoric in Accounting Regulation","authors":"D. Alexander, Roberta Fasiello","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1779946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1779946","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We explore the concept of prudence consistent with Directive 34/2013. There are three strands to our argument: economic, regulatory and legal. From an economic perspective, we demonstrate that neither historical cost nor fair value are designed to achieve long-run operational stability. Regarding regulation, we show that Directive 34 has significantly changed the concept and implications of prudence, in the name of increasing usefulness and relevance. Our legal considerations centre on the Gimle case of 2013, applying its logic to the new regulatory scenario. We note also the concept of the ‘European Public Good’. At various times the EU has suggested four specific components: protection of financial stability, the lack of hindrance to the economic development of the Union, and the objectives of sustainability and long-term investment. To achieve these objectives within the EU we show that it is necessary to follow the logic of our arguments.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"18 1","pages":"26 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1779946","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46501608","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}
Pub Date : 2020-05-12DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1757731
J. Caruana, M. Kowalczyk
ABSTRACT We assess audit quality in the public sector of two European jurisdictions by using the model developed by English and Guthrie. Accordingly, we analysed the enabling legislations of the two supreme audit institutions in terms of the issues relating to (i) accountability to their respective parliaments; and (ii) independence from their respective executives. The results highlight strong legal provisions that enable independence, and point to some weaknesses regarding accountability. We show that, since the English and Guthrie model was developed in an Australasian context where state audits are designed on the private sector model, the model needs to be amended in order to apply in an European context.
{"title":"The Quest for Audit Quality in the Public Sector","authors":"J. Caruana, M. Kowalczyk","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1757731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1757731","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We assess audit quality in the public sector of two European jurisdictions by using the model developed by English and Guthrie. Accordingly, we analysed the enabling legislations of the two supreme audit institutions in terms of the issues relating to (i) accountability to their respective parliaments; and (ii) independence from their respective executives. The results highlight strong legal provisions that enable independence, and point to some weaknesses regarding accountability. We show that, since the English and Guthrie model was developed in an Australasian context where state audits are designed on the private sector model, the model needs to be amended in order to apply in an European context.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"18 1","pages":"1 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1757731","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44022728","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：