IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v60y2020i4p3621-3645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding participation in accounting standard‐setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Handley
  • Elaine Evans
  • Sue Wright

Abstract

This paper explores the motives of participants in the standard‐setting process, based on the premise that standard‐setters strive for standards that are useful for decision‐making by a wide range of financial statement users. Our setting is the development of a contentious but contained Australian accounting standard, Reduced Disclosure Requirements. A consultative process initiated by the Australian Accounting Standards Board to create a specific Australian accounting standard for differential reporting provided an opportunity for interested parties to participate. We analyse the motives of participants through semi‐structured interviews with members of the Australian Accounting Standards Board and comment letter writers who responded to the relevant exposure draft. Our findings identify participants’ economic and political motivations and question the ability of the current standard‐setting process to extract decision‐making requirements from a wide range of users of financial statements and to reflect these in financial reporting standards. We find that the perspectives gathered are homogenised and that the process privileges the voices of powerful elites.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Handley & Elaine Evans & Sue Wright, 2020. "Understanding participation in accounting standard‐setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3621-3645, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:60:y:2020:i:4:p:3621-3645
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.12490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12490
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.12490?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    2. Ann Jorissen & Nadine Lybaert & Raf Orens & Leo Van Der Tas, 2012. "Formal Participation in the IASB's Due Process of Standard Setting: A Multi-issue/Multi-period Analysis," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 693-729, December.
    3. Alain Burlaud & Bernard Colasse, 2011. "International Accounting Standardisation : Is Politics Back ?," Post-Print halshs-00665494, HAL.
    4. Larson, Robert K., 2008. "An examination of comment letters to the IASC: Special purpose entities," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 27-46.
    5. Ronita Ram & Susan Newberry, 2013. "IFRS FOR SMEs: THE IASB'S DUE PROCESS," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 23(1), pages 3-17, March.
    6. Baker, C. Richard & Biondi, Yuri & Zhang, Qiusheng, 2010. "Disharmony in international accounting standards setting: The Chinese approach to accounting for business combinations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 107-117.
    7. Joni J. Young, 2014. "Separating the Political and Technical: Accounting Standard†Setting and Purification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 713-747, September.
    8. Abigail M. Allen & Karthik Ramanna & Sugata Roychowdhury, 2014. "Auditor Lobbying on Accounting Standards," Harvard Business School Working Papers 15-055, Harvard Business School.
    9. Alain Burlaud & Bernard Colasse, 2011. "International Accounting Standardisation: Is Politics Back?," Post-Print halshs-02145367, HAL.
    10. Cooper, David J. & Robson, Keith, 2006. "Accounting, professions and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalization," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 415-444.
    11. Ball, R & Brown, P, 1968. "Empirical Evaluation Of Accounting Income Numbers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 159-178.
    12. Young, Joni J., 2003. "Constructing, persuading and silencing: the rhetoric of accounting standards," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 621-638, August.
    13. Cooper, David J. & Sherer, Michael J., 1984. "The value of corporate accounting reports: Arguments for a political economy of accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(3-4), pages 207-232, October.
    14. Karen Handley & Sue Wright & Elaine Evans, 2018. "SME Reporting in Australia: Where to Now for Decision†usefulness?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(2), pages 251-265, June.
    15. Millicent Chang & Andrew B. Jackson & Marvin Wee, 2018. "A review of research on regulation changes in the Asia‐Pacific region," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(3), pages 635-667, September.
    16. Sutton, Timothy G., 1984. "Lobbying of accounting standard-setting bodies in the U.K. and the U.S.A.: A Downsian analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 81-95, January.
    17. Paul F. Williams & Sue P. Ravenscroft, 2015. "Rethinking Decision Usefulness," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(2), pages 763-788, June.
    18. Jane Broadbent & Richard Laughlin, 2005. "Government concerns and tensions in accounting standard-setting: the case of accounting for the Private Finance Initiative in the UK," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 207-228.
    19. Brad Potter & Tom Ravlic & Sue Wright, 2013. "Developing Accounting Regulations that Reflect Public Viewpoints: The Australian Solution to Differential Reporting," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 23(1), pages 18-28, March.
    20. Alain Burlaud & Bernard Colasse, 2011. "International Accounting Standardisation: Is Politics Back?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 23-47, June.
    21. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7512 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. George Georgiou, 2004. "Corporate Lobbying on Accounting Standards: Methods, Timing and Perceived Effectiveness," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 40(2), pages 219-237, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bamber, Matthew & McMeeking, Kevin, 2016. "An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 59-73.
    2. Samindi Ishara Hewa & Rajni Mala & Jinhua Chen, 2020. "IASB's independence in the due process: an examination of interest groups’ influence on the development of IFRS 9," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(3), pages 2585-2615, September.
    3. Roland Königsgruber & Stefan Palan, 2015. "Earnings management and participation in accounting standard-setting," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(1), pages 31-52, March.
    4. Christoph Pelger & Nicole Spieß, 2017. "On the IASB’s construction of legitimacy – the case of the agenda consultation project," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 64-90, January.
    5. Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019. "The use of made-up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Roland Königsgruber, 2013. "Expertise-based lobbying and accounting regulation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 1009-1025, November.
    7. Urska Kosi & Antonia Reither, 2014. "Determinants of Corporate Participation in the IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts) Replacement Process," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 89-112, June.
    8. Bhimani, Alnoor & Bond, David & Sivabalan, Prabhu, 2019. "Does greater user representation lead to more user focused standards? An empirical investigation of IASB’s approach to standard setting," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91196, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Raffaele Fiume & Tiziano Onesti & Valerio Pieri, 2013. "Dialogue with standard setters," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(3-4), pages 169-189.
    10. Rey, Andrea & Maglio, Roberto & Rapone, Valerio, 2020. "Lobbying during IASB and FASB convergence due processes: Evidence from the IFRS 16 project on leases," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    11. Barbara Masiello & Nicola Moscariello & Pietro Fera, 2018. "Political Marketing Strategies to Foster the Sustainability of Private Transnational Organisations: The Case of the IASB," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    12. Vinnari, Eija & Dillard, Jesse, 2016. "(ANT)agonistics: Pluralistic politicization of, and by, accounting and its technologies," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 25-44.
    13. Bailey, Wendy J. & Sawers, Kimberly M., 2018. "Moving toward a principle-based approach to U.S. accounting standard setting: A demand for procedural justice and accounting reform," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-13.
    14. Hodges, Ron & Mellett, Howard, 2012. "The U.K. private finance initiative: An accounting retrospective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 235-247.
    15. Okamoto, Noriaki, 2017. "Norm entrepreneur lobbying and persuasion: A case study involving the IASB's modification of an exposure draft," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 129-138.
    16. Karen Handley & Sue Wright & Elaine Evans, 2018. "SME Reporting in Australia: Where to Now for Decision†usefulness?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(2), pages 251-265, June.
    17. Stenka, Renata, 2022. "Beyond intentionality in accounting regulation: Habitual strategizing by the IASB," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Crawford, Louise, 2019. "Exploring the emancipatory dimensions of globalisation: The struggle over IFRS8 and country-by-country reporting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    19. Igor Álvarez & José Calvo & Araceli Mora, 2014. "Involving academics in the accounting standard setting process: an application of the Delphi methodology to the assessment of IASB proposals," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(3), pages 765-791, August.
    20. David Procházka, 2015. "Lobbying on the IASB Standards: An analysis of the Lobbyists’ Behaviour over Period 2006–2014," Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 4(2), pages 129-143.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:60:y:2020:i:4:p:3621-3645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.