A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation

Larson, Robert K.; Herz, Paul J.

doi:10.1080/17449480.2013.772716

Cited by 59 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there are many cultural, social, economic and financial barriers impairing the ability and willingness of stakeholders from certain jurisdictions from behaving in this manner (Whittington, 2008;MacArthur, 1996MacArthur, , 1999Larson and Street, 2004). Thus response rates are lower to the IASB than to domestic standard setting bodies (Larson and Herz, 2013). …”

Section: Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Yet the issue of jurisdictional influence is often overlooked in the literature (Jorissen, Lybaert, Orens and Van Der Tas, 2014;Larson and Herz, 2013). Geographical bias has the potential to be even more divisive than showing favour towards stakeholder groups.…”

Section: Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper reviews the IASB's standard-setting due process in relation to the complex and This study is motivated, at least in part, by criticisms of, and challenges to, the IASB's procedural legitimacy (e.g. Larson and Herz, 2013;Burlaud and Colasse, 2011; Kwok and Sharp, 2005). This is an important issue within an accounting standard-setting context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy

Bamber

McMeeking

2016

The British Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the due process of accounting standard-setting by focusing on relative levels of stakeholder and jurisdictional influence. We draw on legitimacy theory to explain our findings and ask what implications any bias might have for the IASB. This study extends the standard-setting literature in three ways. First, we create a weighted coding system to analyse the content of comment letters. Second, we test for differences in the acceptance rate of comments made by stakeholders and by jurisdictions. Third, we analyse IASB discussion documentation that sheds light on the decision-making process. Previous studies have focused on whether outcome-oriented proposals are 'influential' (persuasive) by focusing on success rates measured as proposed changes being accepted. We widen this definition to include whether constituents' views are discussed. We find that accounting firms appear to have significantly less influence than other stakeholders. We also find that the IASB reacts less favourably to UK proposals but comments from the US are more likely to be discussed. A lack of fairness (real or perceived) could jeopardise perceptions of the procedural legitimacy of the due process and ultimately impair the IASB's cognitive legitimacy. Fogarty's (1994) review of the FASB standard-setting process identified a series of constraints, opportunities and dilemmas. The question of whether certain stakeholder groups hold greater levels of (relative) influence has been the subject of much work and researchers have studied this phenomenon in both domestic and international contexts (e.g. McEnroe, 1991, 1998; Kwok and Sharp, 2005; Cortese, Irvine and Kaidonis, 2010). Almost invariably, influence and legitimacy are considered together (Hussein and Ketz, 1991;McEnroe, 1993;Tutticci, Dunstan and Holmes, 1994;Suchman, 1995;Larson, 2002;Chua and Taylor, 2008;Burlaud and Colasse, 2011;Danjou and Walton, 2012). This paper reviews the IASB's standard-setting due process in relation to the complex and This study is motivated, at least in part, by criticisms of, and challenges to, the IASB's procedural legitimacy (e.g. Larson and Herz, 2013;Burlaud and Colasse, 2011; Kwok and Sharp, 2005). This is an important issue within an accounting standard-setting context. Procedural legitimacy is a type of moral legitimacy which can be created (lost), maintained, and built (impaired) according to levels of perceived independence and impartiality (Suchman, 1995). Suchman (1995) distinguishes legitimacy into three primary forms: pragmatic, moral and cognitive.

show abstract

Section: Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Jurisdictionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy

Bamber

McMeeking

2016

The British Accounting Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sendo assim, os países inserem sua participação para tentar influenciar como a criação da norma irá impactar em sua contabilidade, principalmente os EUA, que por meio do FASB estão participando diretamente do processo normativo analisado no presente estudo. A participação ativa da Austrália também é observada em outros estudos, como Matos (2013) e Larson e Herz (2013), e sua justificativa principal, assim como a participação dos EUA e Inglaterra, é a participação no G4+1, além de terem como língua nativa o inglês (Larson & Herz, 2013).…”

Section: Análise Das Características Da Amostraunclassified

Fair Value Measurement: Análise do Nível de Concordância dos Usuários da Informação Contábil com Relação aos Critérios Propostos na Minuta de Pronunciamento (ED/2009/5) do IASB

Visoto

Matos

Niyama

2017

RCC, Rev. Contab. Control.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoO valor justo e sua conceituação são discutidos tanto no meio acadêmico quanto no profissional, sendo sua aceitação questionada por parte de diferentes usuários. Em 2013, o IASB editou a IFRS 13, que trata diretamente dos critérios relacionados ao valor justo, em uma única norma. Assim, tendo como base a relevância do assunto em diferentes normas contábeis, o objetivo da pesquisa consiste em identificar o nível de concordância/discordância dos respondentes ao ED/2009/5 do IASB, referente ao Fair Value Measurement. Para a realização desse objetivo, foram classificadas e categorizadas, por meio de análise de conteúdo, as respostas advindas das cartas comentário recebidas pelo IASB. Os resultados, em uma amostra de 89 cartas comentário, demonstram que houve um nível maior de discordância por parte dos respondentes, que em sua maioria eram europeus, norte americanos e australianos. Já na análise do tipo de respondente não houve participação direta de acadêmicos, sendo a atuação mais presente a de órgãos normatizadores. Com relação à tipologia dos argumentos utilizados, observou-se uma diferença no seu uso quando a discordância ou concordância, sendo que na concordância a maior parte dos usuários preferiu não argumentar e, na discordância, foram utilizados argumentos baseados na prática profissional. A pesquisa contribui principalmente para o debate acerca dos critérios relacionados ao reconhecimento, mensuração e apresentação do valor justo, demonstrando o nível de aceitação dos usuários perante à norma atual do IASB. Palavras

show abstract

“…Respondents from countries where the use of IFRS is permitted or required tend to respond less favorably to the modifications proposed to the ED, citing the significance to support their positions. Larson and Herz (2013) addressed the participation level of various countries and the factors that influence the geographical diversity of the comment letters submitted to the IASB from 2001 to 2008. The authors concluded that the most involved countries are those in the EU and those with rather developed capital markets, and 55% of answers were received from 7 countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and USA.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Differences in Terms of Professional Interests Based on the Project to Replace IAS 39

Carvalho

Albuquerque

Quirós

et al. 2015

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The professional interests of the various stakeholders groups are often seen as obstacles to full accounting harmonization. Studying different professional interests in the accounting domain is significant for organizations involved in the international accounting harmonization process, insofar as it enables them to identify the main obstacles to face in order to achieve full harmonization. Thus, this article is aimed at analyzing the differences in terms of professional interests by addressing the participation of various stakeholders groups in the process of issuing/modifying standards of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Based on content analysis, we examined the comment letters sent to the IASB in the context of the first part of the first phase of the project to replace the International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39, entitled "Financial Instruments -Recognition and Measurement", by the International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 9, on its turn entitled "Financial Instruments". Respondents were identified according to the stakeholders group, and, later, the collected data underwent a nonparametric chi-square test. The results of this study indicate there are significant differences between the answers obtained from the various stakeholders groups involved in the process of issuing or reviewing a standard of the IASB, above all made clear between the group of financial preparers and the regulatory and/or standard-setting agencies and the professional associations related to accounting.

show abstract

A Multi-Issue/Multi-Period Analysis of the Geographic Diversity of IASB Comment Letter Participation

Cited by 59 publications

References 68 publications

An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy

An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy

Fair Value Measurement: Análise do Nível de Concordância dos Usuários da Informação Contábil com Relação aos Critérios Propostos na Minuta de Pronunciamento (ED/2009/5) do IASB

An Analysis of Differences in Terms of Professional Interests Based on the Project to Replace IAS 39

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About