利益相关者参与和有效的标准制定

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Accounting Horizons Pub Date : 2021-09-17 DOI:10.2308/horizons-2020-103
Amanda M. Convery, Matthew Kaufman, Terry D. Warfield
{"title":"利益相关者参与和有效的标准制定","authors":"Amanda M. Convery, Matthew Kaufman, Terry D. Warfield","doi":"10.2308/horizons-2020-103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Successful standard-setting outcomes require some level of acceptance by diverse stakeholder groups. This study examines the evolution of FASB due process institutions since Enron, which have the potential to engender stakeholder acceptance. The prior literature on accounting standard-setting outcomes often focuses on the effects of individuals, organizations, or established due process institutions. Our study highlights the critical role played by recent due process institutions such as enhanced advisory groups, transition resource groups, field tests, and post-implementation reviews in contemporary standard-setting activity. Advisory groups, in particular, shift the balance of power within standard-setting to give a stronger voice to specific stakeholders (e.g., investors, not-for-profits, and private companies) and sometimes provide a recruiting network for future FASB members. We synthesize the growing importance these due process institutions have for effective standard-setting outcomes with the academic literature to identify areas for future research.","PeriodicalId":51419,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Horizons","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND EFFECTIVE STANDARD-SETTING\",\"authors\":\"Amanda M. Convery, Matthew Kaufman, Terry D. Warfield\",\"doi\":\"10.2308/horizons-2020-103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Successful standard-setting outcomes require some level of acceptance by diverse stakeholder groups. This study examines the evolution of FASB due process institutions since Enron, which have the potential to engender stakeholder acceptance. The prior literature on accounting standard-setting outcomes often focuses on the effects of individuals, organizations, or established due process institutions. Our study highlights the critical role played by recent due process institutions such as enhanced advisory groups, transition resource groups, field tests, and post-implementation reviews in contemporary standard-setting activity. Advisory groups, in particular, shift the balance of power within standard-setting to give a stronger voice to specific stakeholders (e.g., investors, not-for-profits, and private companies) and sometimes provide a recruiting network for future FASB members. We synthesize the growing importance these due process institutions have for effective standard-setting outcomes with the academic literature to identify areas for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51419,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting Horizons\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting Horizons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2020-103\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Horizons","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2020-103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

成功的标准制定结果需要不同利益相关者群体在一定程度上的接受。本研究考察了自安然事件以来FASB正当程序制度的演变,这些制度有可能产生利益相关者的接受。先前关于会计准则制定结果的文献通常侧重于个人,组织或既定正当程序机构的影响。我们的研究强调了在当代标准制定活动中,诸如加强咨询小组、过渡资源小组、实地测试和实施后审查等近期正当程序机构所发挥的关键作用。咨询小组尤其会改变准则制定中的权力平衡,给予特定利益相关者(如投资者、非营利组织和私营公司)更大的发言权,有时还会为未来的FASB成员提供招聘网络。我们将这些正当程序机构对有效的标准制定结果的重要性与学术文献结合起来,以确定未来研究的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND EFFECTIVE STANDARD-SETTING
Successful standard-setting outcomes require some level of acceptance by diverse stakeholder groups. This study examines the evolution of FASB due process institutions since Enron, which have the potential to engender stakeholder acceptance. The prior literature on accounting standard-setting outcomes often focuses on the effects of individuals, organizations, or established due process institutions. Our study highlights the critical role played by recent due process institutions such as enhanced advisory groups, transition resource groups, field tests, and post-implementation reviews in contemporary standard-setting activity. Advisory groups, in particular, shift the balance of power within standard-setting to give a stronger voice to specific stakeholders (e.g., investors, not-for-profits, and private companies) and sometimes provide a recruiting network for future FASB members. We synthesize the growing importance these due process institutions have for effective standard-setting outcomes with the academic literature to identify areas for future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounting Horizons
Accounting Horizons BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Accounting Horizons is one of three association-wide journals published by the American Accounting Association AAA. This journal seeks to bridge academic and professional audiences with articles that focus on accounting, broadly defined, and that provide insights pertinent to the accounting profession. The contents of Accounting Horizons, therefore, should interest researchers, educators, practitioners, regulators, and students of accounting.
期刊最新文献
Online Toxic Communication about the Accounting Academic Job Market What Does the Auditor Say? Auditors’ Disclosures of Critical Audit Matters and Audit Fees Customer Analytics in Performance Measurement and Reporting Systems Diversity and the Evaluation of Talent in the Accounting Profession: The Enigma of Merit Auditors’ Remote Work Experiences during the Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Implications Going Forward
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1