Advertisement

Constituents’ Participation in the IASC/IASB’s due Process of International Accounting Standard Setting: A Longitudinal Analysis

  • Ann JorissenEmail author
  • Nadine Lybaert
  • Raf Orens
  • Leo van der Tas

Abstract

In order to increase its legitimacy as worldwide accounting standard setter, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) reformed in 2001 its due process of standard setting with the purpose of instigating a more widespread constituents’ participation in terms of stakeholder diversity and geographical diversity. Using a multi-period/multi-issue research design, this study sets out to analyze whether constituents’ participation changed after the reform in comparison to the period before the reform. An analysis of 7,442 comment letters sent to the standard setter over the periods 1995–2007 reveal that conclusions are different according to the topic on the agenda of the standard setter. Constituents’ participation with regard to financial-instruments-related issues did not change after the reform. These topics always generated widespread interest from all corners of the world and from all types of constituents. Participation in response to non-financial instruments-related proposals, increased after the reform, especially due to a much more active participation of constituents from G4+1 countries.

Keywords

International Financial Reporting Standard Accounting Profession International Accounting International Account Standard International Account Standard Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Amershi, A., Demski, J., & Wolfson, M. (1982). Strategic behaviour and regulation research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 1(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengsston, E. (2011). Repoliticalization of accounting standard setting-the FASB, the EU and the global financial crisis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(6), 567–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhimani, A. (2008). The role of a crisis in reshaping the role of accounting. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botzem, S., & Quack, S. (2009). (No) limits to Anglo-American accounting? reconstructing the history of the international accounting standards committee: A review article. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 988–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burlaud, A., & Colasse, B. (2011). International accounting standardisation: Is politics back? Accounting in Europe, 8(1), 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairns, D. (1997). The future shape of harmonization: a reply, The European Accounting Review, 6(2), 305–348.Google Scholar
  7. Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. (2007). Financial reporting and global capital markets: A history of the international Accounting Standards Committee 1973–2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colson, R., Benston, G., Carmichael, D., Christensen, T., Jamal, K., Moehrle, S., et al. (2009). Response to FAF exposure draft, ‘proposed changes to oversight, structure, and operations of the FAF, FASB, and GASB’. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 28(1), 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyckman, T. (1988). Credibility and the formulation of accounting standards under the financial accounting standards board. Journal of Accounting Literature, 7, 1–30.Google Scholar
  10. Elbannen, M., & McKinley, W. (2006). A theory of the corporate decision to resist FASB standards. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(7), 601–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emenyony, E., & Gray, S. (1996). International accounting harmonization and the major developed stock market countries: An empirical study. The International Journal of Accounting, 31(3), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Financial Crisis Advisory Group (FCAG). (2009). Report of the financial crisis advisory group, consulted at 26 June 2012 at http://www.ifrs.org/nr/rdonlyres/2d2862cc-befc-4a1e-8ddc-f159b78c2aa6/0/fcagreportjuly2009.pdf.
  13. Financial Stability Forum. (2009). Report of the financial stability forum on addressing procyclicality of the financial system. http://www.fsforum.org/publications/r_0904a.pdf. Accessed June 2010.
  14. Flower, J. (1997). The future shape of harmonization: The EU versus the IASC versus the SEC. The European Accounting Review, 6(2), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fulbier, R., Hitz, J., & Sellhorn, T. (2009). Relevance of academic research and researcher’s role in the IASB’s financial reporting standard setting. Abacus, 45(5), 455–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. G20. (2009). Declaration on strengthening the financial system. London 2 April 2009. http://www.g20.org/Documents/Fin_Deps_Fin_Reg_Annex020409-1615final.pdf. Accessed Dec 2010.
  17. Georgiou, G. (2002). Corporate non-participation in the ASB standard-setting process. European Accounting Review, 11(4), 699–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Georgiou, G. (2004). Corporate lobbying on accounting standards methods, timing and perceived effectiveness. Abacus, 40(2), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgiou, G. (2005). Investigating corporate management lobbying in the UK accounting standard-setting process: A multi-issue/multi-period approach. Abacus, 41(3), 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guenther, D., & Hussein, A. (1995). Accounting standards and national tax laws: The IASC and the ban on LIFO. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 14, 115–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. High-Level Group of Financial Supervision in the EU. (2009). Report http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/docs/de_larosiere_report_en.pdf. Accessed June 2010.
  22. Johnson, S., & Solomons, D. (1984). Institutional legitimacy and the FASB. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 3(3), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnston, D., & Jones, D. (2006). How does accounting fit into a firm’s political strategy? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 25, 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jorissen, A., Lybaert, N., & van de Poel, K. (2006). Lobbying towards a global standard setter—do national characteristics matter? An analysis of the comment letters written to the IASB. In G. N. Gregiou & M. Gaber (Eds.), International accounting standards, regulations and financial reporting. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  25. Jorissen, A., Lybaert, N., Orens, R., & van der Tas, L. (2012). Formal participation in the IASB’s due process of standard setting: A multi-period analysis. The European Accounting Review,. doi: 10.1080/09638180.2010.522775.Google Scholar
  26. Kenny, S., & Larson, R. K. (1993). Lobbying behavior and the development of international accounting standards: The case of IASC’s joint venture project. The European Accounting Review, 2(3), 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kenny, S. Y., & Larson, R. K. (1995). The development of international accounting standards: An analysis of constituent participation in standard-setting. The International Journal of Accounting, 30(4), 283–301.Google Scholar
  28. Kirsch, R. (2006). The international accounting standards committee: A political history. London: IASC.Google Scholar
  29. Knorr, L., & Ebbers, G. (2001). IASC. In D Ordelheide, & KPMG (Eds.), Transnational Accounting (2nd ed.). Palgrave, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Königsgruber, R. (2010). A political economy of accounting standard setting. Journal of Management and Governance,. doi: 10.1007/s10997-009-9101-1.Google Scholar
  31. Larson, R. K. (1997). Corporate lobbying of the international accounting standards committee. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 8(3), 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larson, R. K. (2007). Constituent participation and the IASB’s international financial reporting interpretations committee. Accounting in Europe, 4(1–2), 207–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larson, R. K., & Brown, K. L. (2001). Lobbying of the international accounting standards committee: The case of construction contracts. Advances in International Accounting, 14, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leuz, C. (2010). Different approaches to corporate reporting regulation: How jurisdictions differ and why? Accounting and Business Research, 40(3), 229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Licht, A., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. (2007). Culture rules: The foundation of the rule of law and other norms of governance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 35(4), 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacArthur, J. B. (1996). An investigation into the influence of cultural factors in the international lobbying of the international accounting standards committee: The case of E32, comparability of financial statements. The International Journal of Accounting, 31(2), 213–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacArthur, J. B. (1999). The impact of cultural factors on the lobbying of the international accounting standards committee on E32: Comparability of financial statements: An extension of MacArthur to accounting member bodies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 8(2), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MSCI (2012) Index Definitions. Available at http://www.msci.com/products/indices/tools/. Consulted on 10 May 2012.
  39. Richardson, A., & Eberlein, B. (2011). Legitimating transnational standard-setting: The case of the international accounting standards board. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwartz, S. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures (pp. 43–73). Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Standish, P. (2003). Evaluating national capacity for direct participation in international accounting harmonization: France as a test case. Abacus, 39(2), 186–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Street, D. (2005). Inside G4+1: The working group’s role in the evolution of the international standard setting process. London: Centre for Business Performance, ICAEW.Google Scholar
  43. Street, D. (2006). The G4’s role in the evolution of the international accounting standard setting process and partnership with the IASB. Journal of international Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 15, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sutton, T. G. (1984). Lobbying of accounting standards-setting bodies in the UK and the USA: A Downsian analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(1), 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tandy, P., & Wilburn, N. (1992). Constitution participation in standard-setting: The FASB’s first 100 statements. Accounting Horizons, 6(2), 47–58.Google Scholar
  46. Wallace, O. (1990). Survival strategies of a global organization: The case of the IASC. Accounting Horizons, 4(2), 1–22.Google Scholar
  47. Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 53(1), 112–134.Google Scholar
  48. Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  49. World Bank. (2006). World development report 2007: Development and the next generation. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wyatt, A. (1992). An era of harmonization. Journal of International Management and Accounting, 4(1), 63–80.Google Scholar
  51. Zeff, S. (2012). The evolution of the IASC into the IASB and the challenges it faces. The Accounting Review, 87(3), 807–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Jorissen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nadine Lybaert
    • 2
  • Raf Orens
    • 3
  • Leo van der Tas
    • 4
  1. 1.University of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium
  2. 2.Hasselt Universiteit (University of Limburg)AntwerpenBelgium
  3. 3.Lessius—Business StudiesAntwerpenBelgium
  4. 4.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations