This study investigates the role of audit styles at different levels on financial statement comparability in South Africa, a setting where firms report under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the institutional environment is strong and the audit environment is dominated by the Big 4 audit firms. An output‐based comparability measure is used to consider the association between audit styles at a firm level, audit office level and individual auditor level and financial statement comparability. Evidence of audit style effects on financial statement comparability is found at the three different levels—the audit firm, the audit office and the individual auditor. The study further finds some evidence that audit office style dominates audit firm style and individual auditor style dominates audit office style. This finding suggests that even in countries where internal (within the audit firm) and external (country regulations) control mechanisms are strong, the audit style of the individual auditor is present and associated with increased financial statement comparability. Using a setting where firms report under IFRS further suggests that in a principles‐based environment, despite strong internal controls and in‐house working rules by audit firms, individual auditors continue to have some level of autonomy in the interpretation and application of the accounting principles and in‐house working rules.

Purpose This paper aims to investigate financial statement comparability in the extractive industry. This paper focuses on the extractive industry because International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) contain limited guidance on the accounting treatment for exploration and evaluation (E&E) costs and IFRS 6 – Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources allowed firms to continue with existing divergent accounting treatment of E&E costs. Design/methodology/approach The authors use data from Australia, a country that adopted IFRS in 2005 with a large extractive industry. They also compare changes in cross-country comparability around the IFRS adoption date between Australian firms and adopters relative to Australian firms and non-adopters to better isolate changes in comparability that are attributable to the adoption of IFRS from other sources that are not related to the adoption of IFRS. The authors measure comparability consistent with De Franco et al. (2011) where financial statements are comparable when two firms produce similar accounting amounts for similar economic events. Findings For non-extractive industry firms, the authors find the comparability of financial statements of Australian firms increased with other adopters and that this increase was relatively greater than the increase with non-adopter firms. This evidence is consistent with comparability benefits associated with the adoption of IFRS. However, for extractive industry firms, the authors do not find a significantly greater increase in the comparability of financial statements of Australian firms with adopters relative to the increase with non-adopters, suggesting that the increase is likely not associated with the adoption of IFRS. In additional analysis, they find that following IFRS adoption non-extractive Australian firms have greater within-country comparability relative to extractive Australian firms, while there was no difference in the pre-adoption period. Originality/value The evidence suggests that the divergent practices for E&E costs under IFRS 6 and the lack of an accounting standard that deals with matters relating to the extractive industry hinder the comparability of financial statements in this industry.

We investigate whether the comparability of financial statements changes after a switch from International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in substance (i.e., content of IFRS) to IFRS in both substance and form (i.e., IFRS as issued by the IASB). While the substance of the accounting standards remains the same, form is added to the adoption in that it is now formally referred to as “IFRS as issued by the IASB.” We use data from South Africa, a country whose local generally accepted accounting practices (GAAP) was the same, word-for-word, as IFRS prior to the adoption of IFRS as issued by the IASB in 2005. We compare South African firms with firms in other countries, divided into two groups: mandatory IFRS adopters and non-adopters. We find evidence of increased comparability of financial statements of South African firms with both adopters and non-adopters. Furthermore, we find a global increase in the comparability of firms’ financial statements, consistent with market changes unrelated to IFRS adoption. However, an incremental increase in the comparability of financial statements of South African firms with the adoption of IFRS relative to non-adopting firms is consistent with benefits from South Africa’s addition of form to its existing in-substance adoption of IFRS. This increased comparability is also consistent with the benefits observed in the accounting amounts of firms from other adopting countries becoming more comparable with those of South African firms.