Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book presents a detailed and scholarly historical study of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), which prepared the way for the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). The IASB holds the dominant influence over the financial reporting of thousands of listed companies in the European Union as well as in many other countries.

This study examines whether the mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in the European Union (EU) in 2005 reduces the cost of equity capital. Using a sample of 6,456 firm-year observations of 1,084 EU firms during the 1995 to 2006 period, I find evidence that, on average, the IFRS mandate significantly reduces the cost of equity for mandatory adopters by 47 basis points. I also find that this reduction is present only in countries with strong legal enforcement, and that increased disclosure and enhanced information comparability are two mechanisms behind the cost of equity reduction. Taken together, these findings suggest that while mandatory IFRS adoption significantly lowers firms' cost of equity, the effects depend on the strength of the countries' legal enforcement.

The increasing use of transnational standard-setting bodies to address quality uncertainties and coordination issues across the global economy raises questions about how these bodies establish and maintain their legitimacy and accountability outside the sovereignty of democratic states. Based on a discussion of the legitimacy challenge posed by global governance, we provide an overview of mechanisms by which such bodies can defend their legitimacy claims and examine the actual mechanisms used by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). While the IASB staked its initial credibility on technical competence and independence, it has increasingly emphasized due process norms in its claim for support. Our analysis evaluates the IASB due process against the cultural benchmarks established by domestic standard-setters in the USA and UK and against a normative model of procedural legitimacy. These comparisons help us to understand the modifications that were made in the hope of due process adding legitimacy to accounting standard-setting beyond the state. They also reveal the broader political context of competing legitimacy criteria that confronts transnational standard-setters.

The gravitational pull of US capital markets in the early 1990s created incentives for foreign multinational companies and governments to adopt or converge to American accounting standards, US Generally Accepted Accounting Standards (US GAAP). Fifteen years later, more than a hundred countries had accepted (or planned to accept) a single set of accounting standards - yet not the American ones. Instead, a London-based private body had become the world's standard setter, and even in the US there was serious discussion about phasing out national standards for multinational companies. My explanation for change in the international politics of accounting standards emphasizes two conceptual tools featured in this special issue: cross-border sequencing effects and internal institutional configurations and capacity building. Unlike previous work that centers on the rise of private or technical authority or gives pride of place to either EU regional reform and capacity building or US developments, this article attributes the change in the politics of accounting standards to a sequence of developments that took place in the transatlantic political arena, inside and between these two large polities. The order and timing by which the US created and the EU emulated institutional configurations and regulatory capacities determined the particular set of transatlantic interactions. If the US or the EU had never developed these arrangements and capacities or had developed them in a different sequence or at different historical moments, transatlantic interactions would likely have followed an alternate path and generated different types of international politics.

In this paper, we aim to compare the cyclical behavior of credit impairments in the P&L account under three accounting regimes: IAS 39, IFRS 9, and US GAAP with the CECL update. Our results show that although IFRS 9 is less procyclical than IAS 39, it remains more procyclical than CECL. The difference comes from accounting for the expected loss in one year in the case of IFRS 9, while CECL accounts for expected losses over their lifetime. This accounting comes at the cost of a large increase in provisions that occur primarily during longer contractionary phases. However, the length and shape of the cycle matter more under IFRS 9.

PurposeThe paper analyzes four cases of IAS adoption (Aérospatiale in 1989; Usinor in 1991; Coflexip in 1993; and Péchiney in 1995) to better understand the instructional logics behind the use of alternative or additional standards by French companies in the early 1990s.Design/methodology/approachThe study employs multiple case studies to explain how and why the heterogeneity of adoption (IAS versus US GAAP) is a response to institutional complexity.FindingsThis research shows that French companies adopted IAS as long as they were not required to use US GAAP by their financial backers. The results highlight how the companies combine logics to respond to the complexification of the field. The authors outline how endorsement of logics by outside carriers (auditors, financial analysts, stock exchange commissions) and framing of logics by managers evolve in time and space within this complexification process.Research limitations/implicationsThis study contributes to the institutional complexity literature in that it focuses on distinct organizational responses to multiple institutional logics. More precisely, the choice of standards in primary consolidated accounts are viewed as an organizational response to compatible and conflicting demands from several levels: home countries, transnational areas and host countries with the aim of raising funds in the US.Originality/valueThis research makes a distinct link between institutional complexity and international accounting standards and US GAAP.

Kim and Shi (Rev Account Stud, doi: 10.1007/s11142-012-9190-y , this issue) document that voluntary IFRS adoption is associated with significant benefits and argue that the effect is causal—a conclusion that is similar to many published papers on IFRS adoption. Yet voluntary IFRS adopters constitute only a small percentage of the global population of firms, which implies that either practitioners behave irrationally or the benefits are incorrectly estimated by academics. In this discussion I argue that the error is on the part of academics, not practitioners, and that it is mainly due to the lack of exogenous variation in accounting standards. This conclusion is based on inconsistencies between the estimated benefits and costs of IFRS adoption, as well as the accounting standards choices of presumed rational managers. I also propose a contracting explanation for the capital market benefits around IFRS adoption in which managers behave rationally, but IFRS per se is not the cause.

Purpose This study aims to investigate the impact of the adoption of international accounting and auditing standards on corruption perception. In addition, this study examines the strength of auditing and reporting standards (SARS) that mediate the relationship. Design/methodology/approach Agency theory and bonding theory were applied in this paper to investigate the impact of the adoption of international accounting and auditing standards on corruption perception. Data from 130 countries during three years were collected from Transparency International, Worldwide Governance Indicators, International Federation of Accountants, World Economic Forum, World Bank, Freedom House and World Justice Project. Hypotheses were tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Findings The results show a positive impact of the adoption of international accounting and auditing standards on corruption perception, directly and indirectly, through the SARS. Practical implications The results provide an insight into corruption eradication strategy through the adoption of international accounting and auditing standards and strengthen the auditing and reporting standards. Originality/value This study is distinctive, as no study has yet examined the impact of the adoption of international accounting standards construct, which contains International Financial Reporting Standards and International Standards on Auditing, on the corruption perception. The corruption perception construct is developed by combining the corruption perception index and the control of corruption indicators.

PurposeAn intractable effect of revenue and expense recognition based on tax regulation and accounting rules is unresolved and may be manageable only by reducing the value of deferred taxes. Therefore, in this study, the authors examined the relationship between the International Accounting Standard 12 (IAS 12) and deferred income taxes associated with tax and accounting rules.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used a large sample of balanced data from 144 firms across 1992–2019. To mitigate the problem of superfluous results, the authors used the same number of firms and years for pre- and post-IAS 12 periods. The authors employed robust econometric estimations to establish the impact of IAS 12 on deferred tax.FindingsThe regression results show that deferred tax assets decreased significantly, whereas deferred tax liabilities increased significantly, in the post-IAS 12 period. These contrasting results imply that IAS 12 implementation has increased conservatism and prudence in financial reporting. However, the authors find that the increase in deferred tax assets post-IAS 12 is value destructive, suggesting that its implementation has unintended consequences. The results are robust to alternative measurements and econometric identification strategies.Originality/valueWhile prior studies have explored topics such as deferred tax measurement and the impact of income and expense recognition, the authors specifically analyzed how IAS 12 affects deferred taxes and their effect on the market valuation. The authors find that certain accounting standards may not be relevant to the capital market.

On 1 January 2005, all stock exchange listed companies in the European Union (EU) began using International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) written by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). This article argues that the IASB's introduction of fair value accounting reflects and reinforces changed relations of production in which the financial sector increasingly dominates the productive sector, nationally institutionalized economic systems are undermined, and new forms of economic appropriation are validated. As a private body, the IASB has been able to rapidly introduce the fair value paradigm with little public debate outside specialized financial circles. In contrast to more functionalist views, this article argues that accounting standards are inherently political. Accounting numbers provide some of the key economic anchors around which social relations are structured. Accounting techniques cannot be reduced to questions of efficiency since they set out to quantify and compare things which, by their very nature, are neither quantifiable nor directly comparable.