Pub Date : 2020-04-03DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1742362
G. Mattei, Susana Jorge, F. G. Grandis
Abstract In 2013 the European Commission started addressing issues concerning public sector accounting harmonization across EU Member States, embarking on a project to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSASs). Although acknowledging the indisputable reference of the existing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), it highlighted that IPSASs, as they were, could not be suitably applied in the EU context (European Commission, 2013a). IPSASs were considered as not covering specific important matters of public sector accounting, not showing enough stability due to the need of constant convergence with IFRSs, and offering several options that compromised comparability. Comparability of public sector accounts across Member States is one of the main objectives of EPSASs (EUROSTAT, 2016, 2019), clearly established as a qualitative characteristic in the draft EPSAS Conceptual Framework (EUROSTAT, 2018). It is critical for EU economic and fiscal convergence that countries’ accounts allow for substantial comparison and standardized transition to the National Accounts (Jorge et al., 2014). The IPSAS Conceptual Framework (IPSASB, 2014), meanwhile issued, sustains that adopting these standards would improve comparability of General Purpose Financial Reporting (GPFR), in this way strengthening transparency and accountability of public sector finance. Given that, despite the above concerns, EPSASs are to be developed on the basis of IPSASs (European Commission, 2019), the purpose of this paper is to show that IPSASs are not an adequate reference for EPSASs in terms of allowing the desired comparability of countries’ accounts in the EU. It relies on evidence gathered from IPSAS-based financial reports prepared by some Agencies of the United Nations System and from audit reports of the UN Board of Auditors. The research illustrates that IPSASs only allow for de jure comparability of financial reports at a very broad level. Their implementation and interpretation in practice (due to the options permitted and the judgement required) does not allow for de facto comparable GPFR. European standard-setters need to be aware that the comparability EPSASs need to address across EU Member States’ accounts must go beyond the one that is permitted by IPSASs – EPSASs need to stretch IPSASs harmonization to a higher level of standardization.
摘要2013年，欧盟委员会开始解决欧盟各成员国公共部门会计协调问题，启动了一个制定欧洲公共部门会计准则的项目。尽管承认现有《国际公共部门会计准则》的引用是无可争议的，但它强调，《国际公共机构会计准则》不能在欧盟范围内适当适用（欧盟委员会，2013a）。IPSAS被认为没有涵盖公共部门会计的具体重要事项，由于需要与IFRS不断趋同，没有表现出足够的稳定性，并且提供了一些损害可比性的选项。各成员国公共部门账户的可比性是EPSAS的主要目标之一（EUROSTAT，20162019），在EPSAS概念框架草案（EUROSTAT，2018）中明确确立了这一定性特征。对于欧盟的经济和财政趋同至关重要的是，各国的账户允许与国民账户进行实质性比较和标准化过渡（Jorge et al.，2014）。同时发布的《公共部门会计准则概念框架》（IPSASB，2014）坚持认为，采用这些标准将提高通用财务报告的可比性，从而加强公共部门财务的透明度和问责制。鉴于尽管存在上述担忧，但EPSASs将在IPSAS的基础上制定（欧盟委员会，2019），本文的目的是表明，就允许欧盟各国账户的预期可比性而言，IPSAS并不是EPSASs的充分参考。它依赖于从联合国系统一些机构编写的基于公共部门会计准则的财务报告和联合国审计委员会的审计报告中收集的证据。研究表明，IPSAS只允许在非常广泛的层面上对财务报告进行法律上的可比性。它们在实践中的实施和解释（由于允许的选项和所需的判断）不允许事实上具有可比性的GPFR。欧洲标准制定者需要意识到，EPSAS需要在欧盟成员国账户中解决的可比性必须超出IPSAS允许的范围——EPSAS需要将IPSAS的协调扩展到更高水平的标准化。
{"title":"Comparability in IPSASs: Lessons to be Learned for the European Standards","authors":"G. Mattei, Susana Jorge, F. G. Grandis","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1742362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1742362","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2013 the European Commission started addressing issues concerning public sector accounting harmonization across EU Member States, embarking on a project to develop European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSASs). Although acknowledging the indisputable reference of the existing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), it highlighted that IPSASs, as they were, could not be suitably applied in the EU context (European Commission, 2013a). IPSASs were considered as not covering specific important matters of public sector accounting, not showing enough stability due to the need of constant convergence with IFRSs, and offering several options that compromised comparability. Comparability of public sector accounts across Member States is one of the main objectives of EPSASs (EUROSTAT, 2016, 2019), clearly established as a qualitative characteristic in the draft EPSAS Conceptual Framework (EUROSTAT, 2018). It is critical for EU economic and fiscal convergence that countries’ accounts allow for substantial comparison and standardized transition to the National Accounts (Jorge et al., 2014). The IPSAS Conceptual Framework (IPSASB, 2014), meanwhile issued, sustains that adopting these standards would improve comparability of General Purpose Financial Reporting (GPFR), in this way strengthening transparency and accountability of public sector finance. Given that, despite the above concerns, EPSASs are to be developed on the basis of IPSASs (European Commission, 2019), the purpose of this paper is to show that IPSASs are not an adequate reference for EPSASs in terms of allowing the desired comparability of countries’ accounts in the EU. It relies on evidence gathered from IPSAS-based financial reports prepared by some Agencies of the United Nations System and from audit reports of the UN Board of Auditors. The research illustrates that IPSASs only allow for de jure comparability of financial reports at a very broad level. Their implementation and interpretation in practice (due to the options permitted and the judgement required) does not allow for de facto comparable GPFR. European standard-setters need to be aware that the comparability EPSASs need to address across EU Member States’ accounts must go beyond the one that is permitted by IPSASs – EPSASs need to stretch IPSASs harmonization to a higher level of standardization.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1742362","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45910074","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 : 2020-02-27DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1730921
B. Giner, Alessandra Allini, Annamaria Zampella
Abstract The aim of this study is to test whether financial risk disclosures required by IFRS 7 and Pillar 3 are value relevant for investors to support them in their investment decisions. The sample in the study consists of banks listed on the London, Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, and Milan Stock Exchanges over an 8-year period, from 2007 to 2014. Based on the aforementioned standards, we built financial risk disclosure indexes and distinguished different risk categories, qualitative and quantitative, as well as credit, liquidity, and market risk. Our analyses confirm that there is a positive association between bank value and several categories of established risk disclosures. Furthermore, it suggests that disclosure adds value to more traditional risk value measures. Besides, our results suggest that investors pay attention to the strength of the bank authority when using risk disclosures.
{"title":"The Value Relevance of Risk Disclosure: An Analysis of the Banking Sector","authors":"B. Giner, Alessandra Allini, Annamaria Zampella","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1730921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1730921","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract\u0000 The aim of this study is to test whether financial risk disclosures required by IFRS 7 and Pillar 3 are value relevant for investors to support them in their investment decisions. The sample in the study consists of banks listed on the London, Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid, and Milan Stock Exchanges over an 8-year period, from 2007 to 2014. Based on the aforementioned standards, we built financial risk disclosure indexes and distinguished different risk categories, qualitative and quantitative, as well as credit, liquidity, and market risk. Our analyses confirm that there is a positive association between bank value and several categories of established risk disclosures. Furthermore, it suggests that disclosure adds value to more traditional risk value measures. Besides, our results suggest that investors pay attention to the strength of the bank authority when using risk disclosures.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1730921","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42116271","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 : 2020-02-25DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1726420
Annette G. Köhler, Nicole V. S. Ratzinger‐Sakel, Jochen C. Theis
Abstract We investigate the effect of key audit matters (KAM) in the auditor’s report as required by the new ISA 701. We consider investment professionals and non-professional investors in our experiments, in which we test the communicative value of a KAM section relating to goodwill impairment. Our main results show that in the condition in which the KAM section suggests that already small changes in the key assumptions could eventually lead to a goodwill impairment (KAM negative condition), investment professionals assess the economic situation of the company to be significantly better as compared to the condition in which the KAM section suggests that only large changes in the key assumptions could eventually lead to a goodwill impairment (KAM positive condition). In the additional analysis with non-professional investors, we find that a KAM section has no communicative value, implying that non-professional investors have difficulties with processing the information conveyed with KAM.
{"title":"The Effects of Key Audit Matters on the Auditor’s Report’s Communicative Value: Experimental Evidence from Investment Professionals and Non-professional Investors","authors":"Annette G. Köhler, Nicole V. S. Ratzinger‐Sakel, Jochen C. Theis","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1726420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1726420","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We investigate the effect of key audit matters (KAM) in the auditor’s report as required by the new ISA 701. We consider investment professionals and non-professional investors in our experiments, in which we test the communicative value of a KAM section relating to goodwill impairment. Our main results show that in the condition in which the KAM section suggests that already small changes in the key assumptions could eventually lead to a goodwill impairment (KAM negative condition), investment professionals assess the economic situation of the company to be significantly better as compared to the condition in which the KAM section suggests that only large changes in the key assumptions could eventually lead to a goodwill impairment (KAM positive condition). In the additional analysis with non-professional investors, we find that a KAM section has no communicative value, implying that non-professional investors have difficulties with processing the information conveyed with KAM.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1726420","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42425333","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 : 2020-01-25DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2020.1714065
P. Walton
ABSTRACT The paper considers the case of lobbying to influence the content or other aspects of a standard within Europe. It reviews the institutional framework to identify opportunities for lobbying and then considers the mechanics and constraints that affect lobbying in this context.
{"title":"Accounting and Politics in Europe: Influencing the Standard","authors":"P. Walton","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2020.1714065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2020.1714065","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper considers the case of lobbying to influence the content or other aspects of a standard within Europe. It reviews the institutional framework to identify opportunities for lobbying and then considers the mechanics and constraints that affect lobbying in this context.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2020.1714065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48826885","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2019.1669808
Josep García-Blandón, J. M. Argiles, Diego Ravenda
Abstract We investigate the impact of audit firm tenure, partner tenure, audit fees, fees for non-audit services and total fees on audit quality, as measured by discretionary accruals. Our sample consists of Spanish non-financial public companies for the years between 2006 and 2013. Results indicate that audit quality increases with audit firm tenure but decreases with partner tenure. Moreover, the level of fees paid to the audit firm seems to have a negative impact on audit quality, which is mainly driven by fees for audit services. In this regard, we do not observe any significant relationship between fees for non-audit services and audit quality. Our results also show that the negative relationship between either long partner tenures or high fees and audit quality does not occur when the tenure with the audit firm is long. Therefore, long audit firm tenures do not only seem to involve higher audit quality ‘per se’, but also moderate the negative effects of partner tenure and audit fees on audit quality. The results of this study, which are robust to several sensitivity checks, may be relevant for the current debate on auditor rotation and the joint provision of audit and non-audit services.
{"title":"On the Relationship between Audit Tenure and Fees Paid to the Audit Firm and Audit Quality","authors":"Josep García-Blandón, J. M. Argiles, Diego Ravenda","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2019.1669808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2019.1669808","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We investigate the impact of audit firm tenure, partner tenure, audit fees, fees for non-audit services and total fees on audit quality, as measured by discretionary accruals. Our sample consists of Spanish non-financial public companies for the years between 2006 and 2013. Results indicate that audit quality increases with audit firm tenure but decreases with partner tenure. Moreover, the level of fees paid to the audit firm seems to have a negative impact on audit quality, which is mainly driven by fees for audit services. In this regard, we do not observe any significant relationship between fees for non-audit services and audit quality. Our results also show that the negative relationship between either long partner tenures or high fees and audit quality does not occur when the tenure with the audit firm is long. Therefore, long audit firm tenures do not only seem to involve higher audit quality ‘per se’, but also moderate the negative effects of partner tenure and audit fees on audit quality. The results of this study, which are robust to several sensitivity checks, may be relevant for the current debate on auditor rotation and the joint provision of audit and non-audit services.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2019.1669808","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47118277","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 : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2019.1646427
Sameh Kobbi-Fakhfakh, R. Shabou, Benoît Pigé
Abstract This study examined the association between intensive board monitoring (IBM) and segment disclosure quality (SDQ). It also investigated whether this association can be moderated by firm's home country investor protection (IP) level. Based on a panel of 271 non-financial European Union (EU) listed corporations covering the 2007–2012 period, this study estimated two multiple regression models including industry and year fixed effects. We found evidence that the segment disclosure quality is higher when a majority of outside directors serve on monitoring committees. We, also, found that the positive association between IBM and SDQ is more pronounced for firms in a weak IP environment and less pronounced for firms in a strong IP environment. Thus, we provided evidence in favor of a substitutive relationship between IBM and IP level with respect to their association with SDQ. Our findings are evidenced by several robustness tests.
{"title":"Intensive Board Monitoring, Investor Protection and Segment Disclosure Quality: Evidence from EU","authors":"Sameh Kobbi-Fakhfakh, R. Shabou, Benoît Pigé","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2019.1646427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2019.1646427","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examined the association between intensive board monitoring (IBM) and segment disclosure quality (SDQ). It also investigated whether this association can be moderated by firm's home country investor protection (IP) level. Based on a panel of 271 non-financial European Union (EU) listed corporations covering the 2007–2012 period, this study estimated two multiple regression models including industry and year fixed effects. We found evidence that the segment disclosure quality is higher when a majority of outside directors serve on monitoring committees. We, also, found that the positive association between IBM and SDQ is more pronounced for firms in a weak IP environment and less pronounced for firms in a strong IP environment. Thus, we provided evidence in favor of a substitutive relationship between IBM and IP level with respect to their association with SDQ. Our findings are evidenced by several robustness tests.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2019.1646427","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41551398","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 : 2019-09-29DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2019.1664753
C. Abad, E. Barone, Benita M Gullkvist, N. Hellman, Ana Marques, J. Marton, Stephanie A. Mason, Ricardo Luiz Menezes da Silva, A. Morais, Soledad Moya Gutiérrez, Alberto Quagli, A. Vysotskaya
Abstract This paper summarises the contents of a comment letter produced by a working group of 12 academics in response to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Discussion Paper on principles of disclosure. The comment letter was submitted by the Financial Reporting Standards Committee (FRSC) of the European Accounting Association (EAA). The work includes reviews of relevant academic literature of areas related to the various questions posed by the IASB in the Discussion Paper, including the ‘disclosure problem’ and the objective of the project, the suggested principles of effective communication, the roles of the primary financial statements and notes, the location of information and the use of performance measures. The paper also discusses the disclosure of accounting policies, the objectives of centralised disclosure, and the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board staff’s approach to disclosure.
{"title":"On the ‘Disclosure Initiative – Principles of Disclosure’: The EAA Financial Reporting Standards Committee’s View","authors":"C. Abad, E. Barone, Benita M Gullkvist, N. Hellman, Ana Marques, J. Marton, Stephanie A. Mason, Ricardo Luiz Menezes da Silva, A. Morais, Soledad Moya Gutiérrez, Alberto Quagli, A. Vysotskaya","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2019.1664753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2019.1664753","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper summarises the contents of a comment letter produced by a working group of 12 academics in response to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) Discussion Paper on principles of disclosure. The comment letter was submitted by the Financial Reporting Standards Committee (FRSC) of the European Accounting Association (EAA). The work includes reviews of relevant academic literature of areas related to the various questions posed by the IASB in the Discussion Paper, including the ‘disclosure problem’ and the objective of the project, the suggested principles of effective communication, the roles of the primary financial statements and notes, the location of information and the use of performance measures. The paper also discusses the disclosure of accounting policies, the objectives of centralised disclosure, and the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board staff’s approach to disclosure.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2019.1664753","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47791154","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 : 2019-09-02DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2019.1664754
Araceli Mora, Anne Mcgeachin, Mary E. Barth, R. Barker, Alfred Wagenhofer, P. Joos
Abstract The last financial crisis led to a vigorous debate still in place about the pros and cons of fair-value accounting (FVA). While detractors basically argue its potential negative impact on procicality and financial stability or inadequacy in illiquid markets or specific business models, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) pushed to extend FVA in the new financial instruments standard and issued IFRS 13 to clarify its meaning and application. Some empirical research shows the usefulness of fair value accounting information to investors and contradicts its negative impact on stability, while other studies argue about its limitations in the contracting and stewardship role of accounting. The panelists of this symposium will present their views to contribute to the debate, which should be of interest not just to academic researchers, but also to practitioners and standard setters to deal with implementation issues and potential needs to address in the standards.
{"title":"Fair Value Accounting: The Eternal Debate – AinE EAA Symposium, May 2018","authors":"Araceli Mora, Anne Mcgeachin, Mary E. Barth, R. Barker, Alfred Wagenhofer, P. Joos","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2019.1664754","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2019.1664754","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The last financial crisis led to a vigorous debate still in place about the pros and cons of fair-value accounting (FVA). While detractors basically argue its potential negative impact on procicality and financial stability or inadequacy in illiquid markets or specific business models, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) pushed to extend FVA in the new financial instruments standard and issued IFRS 13 to clarify its meaning and application. Some empirical research shows the usefulness of fair value accounting information to investors and contradicts its negative impact on stability, while other studies argue about its limitations in the contracting and stewardship role of accounting. The panelists of this symposium will present their views to contribute to the debate, which should be of interest not just to academic researchers, but also to practitioners and standard setters to deal with implementation issues and potential needs to address in the standards.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2019.1664754","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42384056","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 : 2019-07-29DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2019.1645960
Christoph Pelger
Abstract In March 2018, the IASB published its revised conceptual framework including notable changes to the chapters on the objective of financial reporting and on qualitative characteristics. The IASB put more emphasis on stewardship as part of the decision usefulness objective, reintroduced prudence as an aspect of neutrality and introduced a tolerable level of measurement uncertainty (as a successor to reliability) as part of faithful representation. The present paper discusses the substance of and reasons for these changes in light of the history of the IASB’s work on conceptual frameworks. The paper also explores the possible impact of these changes on the IASB’s future standard-setting by looking at the other chapters of the IASB’s new framework. This paper finds that the more pronounced role of stewardship and the reintroduction of prudence do not seem to entail a revised conceptual thinking of the IASB in the other chapters, while the introduction of a tolerable level of measurement uncertainty provides the IASB with a conceptual tool with the potential to substantially affect future standard-setting debates. However, its positioning as part of faithful representation is questioned and an alternative arrangement of qualitative characteristics suggested.
{"title":"The Return of Stewardship, Reliability and Prudence – A Commentary on the IASB’s New Conceptual Framework","authors":"Christoph Pelger","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2019.1645960","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2019.1645960","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In March 2018, the IASB published its revised conceptual framework including notable changes to the chapters on the objective of financial reporting and on qualitative characteristics. The IASB put more emphasis on stewardship as part of the decision usefulness objective, reintroduced prudence as an aspect of neutrality and introduced a tolerable level of measurement uncertainty (as a successor to reliability) as part of faithful representation. The present paper discusses the substance of and reasons for these changes in light of the history of the IASB’s work on conceptual frameworks. The paper also explores the possible impact of these changes on the IASB’s future standard-setting by looking at the other chapters of the IASB’s new framework. This paper finds that the more pronounced role of stewardship and the reintroduction of prudence do not seem to entail a revised conceptual thinking of the IASB in the other chapters, while the introduction of a tolerable level of measurement uncertainty provides the IASB with a conceptual tool with the potential to substantially affect future standard-setting debates. However, its positioning as part of faithful representation is questioned and an alternative arrangement of qualitative characteristics suggested.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2019-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2019.1645960","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47051170","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 : 2019-07-25DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2019.1637529
Selena Aureli, Elisabetta Magnaghi, F. Salvatori
Abstract The 2014/95/EU Directive is the first regulatory attempt to harmonise large entities’ non-financial reporting. It sets minimum requirements whilst leaving discretion to Member States in transposing relevant aspects of disclosure. The transposition is the first moment in which the Directive directly impacts on companies and determines whether they will be complying with more similar rules. This study uses the fit/misfit theory to assess the achievement of formal harmonisation between the UK, France and Italy. An analysis of domestic regulations shows that discretion favoured convergence of rules but also the presence of old and new differences. All countries had to engage in some degree of change to be compliant. The UK and France had a high degree of legal fit and used discretion to limit adaptation costs by minimising the legal intervention and over-implementing the Directive respectively. Italy instead welcomed the legal misfit and greatly departed from its previous regulation.
{"title":"The Role of Existing Regulation and Discretion in Harmonising Non-Financial Disclosure","authors":"Selena Aureli, Elisabetta Magnaghi, F. Salvatori","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2019.1637529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2019.1637529","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The 2014/95/EU Directive is the first regulatory attempt to harmonise large entities’ non-financial reporting. It sets minimum requirements whilst leaving discretion to Member States in transposing relevant aspects of disclosure. The transposition is the first moment in which the Directive directly impacts on companies and determines whether they will be complying with more similar rules. This study uses the fit/misfit theory to assess the achievement of formal harmonisation between the UK, France and Italy. An analysis of domestic regulations shows that discretion favoured convergence of rules but also the presence of old and new differences. All countries had to engage in some degree of change to be compliant. The UK and France had a high degree of legal fit and used discretion to limit adaptation costs by minimising the legal intervention and over-implementing the Directive respectively. Italy instead welcomed the legal misfit and greatly departed from its previous regulation.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2019.1637529","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45830322","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：