Users’ legitimacy perceptions about standard-setting processes

Framing accounting for goodwill: Intractable controversies between users and standard setters

“…Other studies show that users challenge the presumed usefulness of accounting information to investment analysis and are sceptical of accounting trying to value the components of a business (Georgiou, 2018;Georgiou et al, 2021). Studies also show how users' perceptions about the characteristics of standard-setting processes affect the legitimacy they attribute to these processes (Durocher et al, 2019) and how users, in their limited participation, do not blindly adhere to standard setters' suggested proposals couched in resulting in a faithful representation of economic reality (Durocher & Fortin, 2021). However, researchers have not taken an active interest in how users frame what makes accounting information useful and, thus, our understandings of this remain rather limited.…”

Going GAGAS for due process: examining Yellow Book standard participation

“…On the other hand, research finds limited evidence of a Big Four dominant influence over accounting standard setting. Rather, prior research has recognized Big Four stakeholder due process participation as a mechanism to manage the legitimacy needs of the standard setter and its activities (Durocher et al , 2007, 2019; Bamber and McMeeking, 2016; Larson and Herz, 2011; Richardson and Eberlein, 2011; McEnroe and Martens, 1998; Tandy and Wilburn, 1992; Johnson and Solomons, 1984). To manage legitimacy, organizations assume symbolic displays of conformity in an effort to satisfy institutional pressures (Fogarty, 1992; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Scott, 1987).…”

Beyond intentionality in accounting regulation: Habitual strategizing by the IASB

“…Legitimacy and legitimation play a central role in social action in general (Suchman, 1995;Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005;Vaara et al, 2006;Lupu & Sandu, 2017;Boiral et al, 2020) and regulatory action in particular (Young, 1994;Power, 2003;Durocher & Fortin, 2010;Baudot et al, 2020). There is an extensive body of work examining legitimacy in the accounting standard-setting arena (Chua & Taylor, 2008;Botzem & Quack, 2009;Georgiou & Jack, 2011;Erb & Pelger, 2015;Durocher et al, 2019), some of which acknowledges the significance of taken-for-grantedness and common-sense claims in building senses of the 'acceptable' and 'desirable' (Young, 1994(Young, , 1996Durocher & Gendron, 2011;Mantzari & Georgiou, 2019). However, relatively little is known about the specific manifestations of, as proposed here, habitual language practices employed in the legitimation of accounting solutions in formal regulatory documents.…”