Some obstacles to global financial reporting comparability and convergence at a high level of quality

Zeff, Stephen A.

doi:10.1016/j.bar.2007.08.001

Cited by 253 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The auditors in the United States are more individualistic in nature, so the concern is likely to be about them first and their audit clients, or even the public, second. In contrast, auditors in the United Kingdom would actually like to think that they can regulate themselves without a great deal of government intervention or oversight (Zeff, 2007). Being able to regulate themselves, however, requires being concerned about clients and being concerned about the way in which audits are conducted even when it may cost an audit firm more time and money.…”

Section: You Can Do a Better Audit With Less Time I Know That's Not mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The application of business risk audit methodology within non-Big-4 firms

Kutum¹,

Fraser

Hussainey

2015

Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the application of the business risk audit (BRA) approach within non-Big-4 audit firms in the USA, the UK and Canada. This paper focuses on the motivation for adopting this approach for non-Big-4 audit firms in the three countries, and the advantages, disadvantages and aftermath of applying this method. Design/methodology/approach – A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to obtain the data necessary to address the research questions was used. Findings – It is found that non-Big-4 audit firms in the three countries have adopted BRA; their motivation was primarily to follow the standards in each country, and the general trend in the industry. The advantages identified are consistent with previous research; a direct benefit was noted for audit effectiveness and risk management for both clients and auditors. One major disadvantage of applying BRA is the cost burden to both the audit firm and their clients. Some of the interviewees claimed that this method is better suited to large firms and large audits. Originality/value – This is an innovative study that addresses a contemporary auditing issue. The majority of the audit research studies concentrate on the big audit firm practices; this study is the first to examine the application of audit practices within smaller audit firms.

show abstract

Section: You Can Do a Better Audit With Less Time I Know That's Not mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, many in the accounting and auditing industry in the United Kingdom have actually called for greater private-sector efforts to regulate the accounting industry and ensure that shareholders and the public are protected (Zeff, 2007). This shows the drastic difference in cultural attitudes.…”

Section: Cultural Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of business risk audit methodology within non-Big-4 firms

Kutum¹,

Fraser

Hussainey

2015

Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…position has been modified and extended over the years and most commentators now agree that the active engagement of stakeholders stems from a political and social agenda as much as a technical one, i.e. not necessarily dominated by the economic (direct cost) notion of self-interest (Demski, 1973;Sutton, 1984;Puro, 1984;Mitchell and Sikka, 1993;McLeay, Ordelheide, and Young, 2000;Zeff, 2002Zeff, , 2007Whittington, 2005).…”

Section: "The Genius Of the Fasb's Due Process Is The Cultivation Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Until now, prior work has relied almost exclusively on vote-counting systems to measure the relative influence of stakeholder groups -largely overlooking the potential implications of jurisdictional bias (see Zeff, 2002Zeff, , 2007 and ranking comments equally (see McEnroe, 1993) -and defined constituent success as the number of comments accepted as a proportion of those made (e.g. Yen, Hirst and Hopkins, 2007;Kwok and Sharp, 2005).…”

Section: "The Genius Of the Fasb's Due Process Is The Cultivation Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Environmental, economic, political, cultural, operational differences etc. could be solved with the existence of accounting choices in the standards, because this would allow considering different circumstances between companies and between countries (Zeff, 2007). Jaafar and McLeay (2007) argue that the separation of these terms might be feasible in different economic environments, as it is expected that entities involved in similar economic activities choose similar accounting methods, regardless of their country of origin.…”

Section: Comparabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparabilidade das escolhas contábeis na mensuração subsequente de ativos imobilizados, de ativos intangíveis e de propriedades para investimento em empresas da América do Sul

Souza

Lemes

2016

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expertise on comparability, accounting choices, and fair value is among the most controversial and poorly discussed themes in the current accounting scenario. Accounting choices are needed in order to guarantee a reliable representation, at the same time that their discretionary use may decrease the comparability level expected by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In this article, we identified the comparability degree of accounting choices in the subsequent measurement of fixed assets, intangible assets, and investment property (IP) for listed companies in Brazil, Chile, and Peru, in addition to check whether certain entity characteristics can influence managers' accounting choice for fair value. Comparability was measured through the T-index and the explanatory variables were identified through regressions, within the period 2009-2013. It was found that, for fixed assets, national and international comparability increased after IFRS adoption, both increased over time. For intangible assets, there was not a substantial increase in national and international comparability. For IP, national and international comparability did not increase after IFRS adoption, their rates remained close to 0.50 (low comparability) in almost every year. Thus, IFRS adoption alone did not ensure comparability. By using regression analysis, we found that the characteristics industry, audit by big four, country, managers' remuneration, size, indebtedness, profitability, relevance, and time influenced managers' accounting choices, indicating the possibility that the choices under analysis have been used for management of outcomes.

show abstract

Some obstacles to global financial reporting comparability and convergence at a high level of quality

Cited by 253 publications

References 8 publications

The application of business risk audit methodology within non-Big-4 firms

The application of business risk audit methodology within non-Big-4 firms

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

A comparabilidade das escolhas contábeis na mensuração subsequente de ativos imobilizados, de ativos intangíveis e de propriedades para investimento em empresas da América do Sul

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About