Complexity and Dual Institutionality: The Case of IFRS Adoption in Russia

Abstract

Manuscript Type Empirical Research Questions/Issue The widespread adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) by many transition economies is expected to contribute to greater transparency in financial reporting. However, the business environment in many of these countries is associated with institutional voids and ongoing economic and institutional change. Organizations operating in this environment face considerable institutional complexity due to influences from incongruent institutional logics of local and global institutions. This study investigates how organizations manage institutional complexity created by the incompatible institutional logics which are linked to IFRS adoption. Research Findings/Insights In Russia, institutional change related to IFRS adoption was not revolutionary as IFRS did not replace Russian Accounting Standards (RAS) but both standards coexist. Based on a sample of 1,236 firms, organizational identity and the discretion in standard implementation were identified as factors that play a role in how organizations manage institutional complexity created by the coexistence of both standards. Theoretical/Academic Implications With organizations in transition economies increasingly managing global and local pressures, this study highlights conditions under which practices rooted in conflicting institutional logics coexist and create dual institutionality. Dual institutionality occurs when distinct but related practices that organizations are using have legitimacy but are rooted in diverse institutional logics and coexist due to different levels of discretion associated with their implementation. This concept is distinct from previously identified institutional duality, where competing institutional logics of subsidiary and the host country influence how a particular practice is implemented by organizations. Practitioner/Policy Implications While adoption of IFRS is expected to contribute to greater financial transparency and comparability, some countries choose to continue with the local standards while permitting or requiring IFRS. This type of parallel adoption may undermine the influence of IFRS. However, divergence between the logics and discretion in standard implementation makes it possible for both practices to exist.

Institutional Complementarities and Gender Diversity on Boards: A Configurational Approach

“…T here is a vigorous tradition in economic research underlining the influence of institutional environments on a wide range of corporate governance phenomena. Notable examples concern studies of business behaviors and performances (e.g., Ntim & Soobaroyen, 2013;Zattoni, Pedersen, & Kumar, 2009), corporate governance legitimacy (e.g., Aguilera & Jackson, 2003;Judge, Douglas, & Kutan, 2008), and corporate governance practices (e.g., Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004;Denis & McConnell, 2003), such as the adoption/diffusion of international accounting standards or codes of good governance (Alon, 2013;Judge, Li, & Pinsker, 2010;Zattoni & Cuomo, 2008). Furthermore, a comparative and country-level literature has explored the effects of institutional antecedents on the composition of corporate boards of directors, with particular regard to gender diversity issues (Adams & Kirchmaier, 2013;De Anca, 2008;Grosvold, 2011;Grosvold & Brammer, 2011;Terjesen & Singh, 2008).…”

An institutional perspective on corruption in transition economies

“…On the other hand, a number of cross-national studies found less corruption in countries with higher institutional quality (Li, Moy, Lam, & Chu, 2008;Schaffer & Turley, 2000). Sound institutional structures provide guidelines of what to expect in a particular situation (Alon, 2013;Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011) and decrease the dominance of unofficial payments in business transactions (Aguilera & Vadera, 2008;Cleveland et al, 2009).…”

Layering of IFRS and Dual Institutionality of Accounting Standards in Belarus

“…In addition to IFRS reporting, all listed companies and banks are required to prepare financial statements according to the national regulations (Alon, 2013). Such dual reporting is complex and expensive for the entities.…”