No abstract

No abstract

This paper proposes a theoretical model to assess how stakeholders perceive a major change of an accounting regime: for example, the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards [IFRS] or an IFRS-based financial reporting system. Using a theory borrowing approach, the model evolves from a review of key factors that have been reported to affect perceptions of change. These factors are drawn from literature dealing with management change, institutional arrangements, psychology, information systems, sociology and financial reporting. The proposed model implicates individual, technical, situational, and change process factors as major elements. Thereby, it highlights a multiplicity of matters that influence perceptions of a financial reporting change. The emerging model holds strong prospect of improving understanding of change processes in general, and financial reporting changes, in particular. The proposed model can be used to assess how any major national financial reporting reform is (or will be) perceived, and whether or not the reform will be successful. The practical insights arising from application of the model can be particularly relevant for regulators and standard-setters in devising appropriate strategies for coping with perceived implementation problems.

This is a response to questions raised by Kuruppu and Lehman (2016) and Thomson (2016) on Fontes, Rodrigues and Craig's (2016) model of Stakeholder Perceptions of a New Financial Reporting System. We clarify some matters that arise from the commentators' concerns about the intended contribution of the model, and its conceptual foundations. We also respond to concerns raised about the need to adopt a holistic and contextualized approach; provide further insights to the complex and dynamic nature of stakeholder perceptions and their formation; and elaborate on methodological assumptions underpinning the model. We argue that interpretative-based research offers an appropriate and challenging way to further improve and extend the model. We encourage researchers to adopt critical and interpretive-based methods to foster a reflective debate that will lead to improvements in the Stakeholder Perceptions model.

Purpose In 2010, Portugal’s newly implemented Accounting Standardization System (SNC - Sistema de Normalização Contabilística) aligned Portuguese accounting standards for unlisted companies with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of the local context and the role of auditors in the institutionalization of this IFRS-based model in Portugal. Design/methodology/approach Drawing from an institutional theory framework, the authors interviewed 16 Portuguese auditors in 2017 (seven years after formal implementation of the SNC) to determine their perceptions on whether barriers to the IFRS-based model persisted. Findings The authors reveal that the code-law institutional logic embedded in the Portuguese context is hindering full institutionalization of the new accounting model. Some persisting barriers to implementation reflected a decoupling between formal requirements and actual practices. Despite these barriers, there has been an encouraging institutionalization of SNC. The authors reveal a high level of commitment of auditors. They draw attention to the engagement of auditors in the institutional work that is intended to assist in SNC implementation, and their role as promoters of a power-knowledge discourse in propagating IFRS institutional logics at the national level, namely, through the justification and rationalization of the reported institutional contradictions. Practical implications The highlighting the authors provide of problems related to accounting change should assist international regulators, the Portuguese standard-setter and professional accounting associations to devise appropriate strategies to promote IFRS-based accounting systems implementation. Originality/value The authors contribute to the skimpy literature on micro institutional analysis and encourage further exploration of the dynamics between the micro and macro levels of analysis in institutional research.

No abstract

No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual authors. Review ProcessPapers submitted to this conference have been double-blind peer reviewed before final acceptance to the conference. Initially, abstracts were reviewed for relevance and accessibility and successful authors were invited to submit full papers. Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the quality of all the submissions. Ethics and Publication Malpractice PolicyACPIL adheres to a strict ethics and publication malpractice policy for all publications -details of which can be found here: http://www.academic-conferences.org/policies/ethics-policy-for-publishing-in-the-conferenceproceedings-of-academic-conferences-and-publishing-international-limited/ Self-Archiving and Paper RepositoriesWe actively encourage authors of papers in ACPIL conference proceedings and journals to upload their published papers to university repositories and research bodies such as ResearchGate and Academic.edu. Full reference to the original publication should be provided. Conference ProceedingsThe Conference Proceedings is a book published with an ISBN and ISSN. The proceedings have been submitted to a number of accreditation, citation and indexing bodies including Thomson ISI Web of Science and Elsevier Scopus.Author affiliation details in these proceedings have been reproduced as supplied by the authors themselves.

English-language editing of that article was financed under Agreement 672/ P-DUN /2019 with funds from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education allocated to the popularization of science.