Beyond intentionality in accounting regulation: Habitual strategizing by the IASB

Stenka, Renata

doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102294

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 109 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These regulators may also actively monitor their regulatory mandates for threats posed by challenges or anomalies associated with "outside" or "unknown" pressures (Young, 1996). Or regulators may enact "collective thinking artefacts" based on their habitus, that suggest takenfor-granted rationalizations regarding their regulatory mandates (Stenka, 2021). Understandings, claims and constructions of regulatory mandates thus influence decisions about the appropriateness of addressing pressures to act on global issues (Büthe, 2010a(Büthe, , 2010b and shed light on how and why different regulators respond to what seem to be similar pressures for action.…”

Section: Regulatory Mandates and The Division Of Regulatory Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, our work contributes to research on the way that regulatory actors discursively manage, (re-) interpret, and ultimately rationalize rulemaking or lack thereof (Bozanic et al, 2012;Merino & Niemark, 1982;Pelger, 2016;Ravenscroft & Williams, 2009;Young, 1996Young, , 2006Zhang & Andrews, 2014). This is important since much research treats regulatory discourses as cheap talk, ideology, or mere rhetoric (Ramanna, 2015;Stenka, 2021), thereby neglecting the effects these discourses have on regulatory bodies and the consequences of their response to pressures to act.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector

Baudot¹,

Cooper²

2022

Accounting, Organizations and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Regulatory Mandates and The Division Of Regulatory Labormentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector

Baudot¹,

Cooper²

2022

Accounting, Organizations and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As the two paradigms are rooted in distinct abstract knowledge bases that cannot be reconciled given their conflicting underlying assumptions (Stenka 2021), attempts, driven by the need for political compromise, to incorporate asymmetry into a decision‐usefulness CF necessarily remain abstract and artificial, most clearly in the case of the IASB's CF 2018. On this basis, we would predict the FinAT debate on asymmetry will continue along the previous lines as long as standard setters use a deductive decision‐usefulness CF but feel unable to consistently develop their standards on this deductive basis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Eternal Debate Over Conservatism and Prudence: A Historical Perspective on the Conceptualization of Asymmetry in Financial Accounting Theory*

Orthaus

Pelger

Kuhner

2022

Contemporary Accting Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent revisions of conceptual frameworks (CFs) by the IASB and the FASB included changes to the status of prudence/conservatism, accompanied by a broader debate about the meaning and role of asymmetry in financial accounting theory (FinAT). This paper adopts a historical perspective to identify possible sources of the current controversies by examining how the discourse on asymmetry has developed over time. For this purpose, we trace the conceptualization of asymmetry in FinAT building from the 19th century until 2018, covering contributions to the US FinAT literature and the conceptual reasoning of standard setters (and their constituents) in the United States and at the international level. We identify four distinct constructs of asymmetry (ultra‐, specified, discretionary, and neutral asymmetry) developed in FinAT under the headings of “conservatism” and/or “prudence.” Our analysis reveals that the respective historical circumstances strongly influenced which notion and role of asymmetry were commonly accepted in FinAT, while the arguments underlying the debates were going in circles and were characterized by an increasing level of abstraction over time. We conclude that the controversy about asymmetry is partially due to conceptual ambiguity but also due to different assumptions about the objective of financial reporting and attributes of the preparer, which are indicative of two conflicting paradigms shaping the FinAT discourse on asymmetry. Our findings point to gaps and limitations in the deductive CFs currently employed by the IASB and FASB. Our study highlights future research potential regarding the construction of the preparer in standard setting and analyses of the ways in which deductive CFs (fail to) translate into consistent standards.

show abstract

“…In view of this, perhaps it is not surprising that, from a user perspective, there are widespread criticisms regarding the actual role of comment letters being a rhetorical or symbolic device. For instance, Young (2003, p. 629) reflects that there is more rhetoric than substance in standard-setters’ reference to user needs such that users, despite being the primary audience of the resultant financial reporting, remain “shadowy figures within the paragraphs of financial accounting standards” (and see, Weetman, 2001; Young, 2006; Georgiou, 2010; Durocher and Fortin, 2011; Larson and Herz, 2013; Stenka and Jaworska, 2019; Stenka, 2022). Further, Georgiou (2018, p. 1297) laments that standard setters invoke “the imagined demands of an imagined user” in relation to “how accounting should be done and used, and hence what practices are to be considered valuable”.…”

Section: Comment Letters To Standard-setting Bodies: An Investor Pers...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global investor responses to the International Sustainability Standards Board draft sustainability and climate-change standards: sites of dissonance or consensus

Millar,

Slack

2024

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to examine sites of dissonance or consensus between global investor responses to the draft standards, International Financial Reporting Standards S1 (IFRS) (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). Design/methodology/approach A thematic content analysis was used to capture investor views expressed in their comment letters submitted in the consultation period (March to July 2022) in comparison to the ex ante position (issue of draft standards, March 2022) and ex post summary feedback (ISSB staff papers, September 2022) of the ISSB. Findings There was investor consensus in support of the ISSB and the development of the draft standards. However, there were sites of dissonance between investors and the ISSB, notably regarding the basis and focus of reporting (double or single/financial materiality and enterprise value); definitional clarity; emissions reporting; and assurance. Incrementally, the research further highlights that investors display heterogeneity of opinion. Practical and Social implications The ISSB standards will provide a framework for future sustainability reporting. This research highlights the significance of such reporting to investors through their responses to the draft standards. The findings reveal sites of dissonance in the development and alignment of draft standards to user needs. The views of investors, as primary users, should help inform the development of sustainability-related standards by a global standard-setting body apposite to current policy and future reporting requirements, and their usefulness to users in practice. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper makes an original contribution to the comment letter literature, hitherto focused on financial reporting with a relative lack of investor engagement. Using thematic analysis, sites of dissonance are examined between the views of investors and the ISSB on their development of sustainability reporting standards.

show abstract

Beyond intentionality in accounting regulation: Habitual strategizing by the IASB

Cited by 15 publications

References 109 publications

Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector

Regulatory mandates and responses to uncomfortable knowledge: The case of country-by-country reporting in the extractive sector

The Eternal Debate Over Conservatism and Prudence: A Historical Perspective on the Conceptualization of Asymmetry in Financial Accounting Theory*

Global investor responses to the International Sustainability Standards Board draft sustainability and climate-change standards: sites of dissonance or consensus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About