International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) are issued in English and subsequently translated into a multitude of languages to make them accessible to non-English-speaking IFRS users. In an international work context, IFRS users apply either the original English version or a translated version of an IFRS standard to input information presented in different languages. While research has reported numerous challenges inherent in IFRS translation, we know very little about the actual impact of using different languages on decision-making. Based on a series of 2 × 2 between-subjects experiments with German students who possessed different levels of accounting knowledge, we investigate the influence of language on decision-making. Our experimental manipulations entail the language of the accounting standard used (English vs. German) and the language of the input case information (English vs. German). Our German participants made decisions about a series of cases relating to IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures. Based on an expert benchmark solution for the cases, we determine the quality of participants' decisions. We find that the use of IAS 24 in the participants' mother tongue (German) has a positive impact on decision-making quality. We also find some support for a positive influence of the native language of the input case information relative to English input case information. Moreover, participants' accounting knowledge and English language skill are positively associated with decision-making quality.

Recent evidence suggests that managers establish a positive link between management accounting system (MAS) integration and controllership effectiveness, which is fully mediated by the perceived consistency of financial language. Our paper extends this research by analyzing whether controllers have similar perceptions on MAS design. Testing a series of multi-group structural equation models, we find evidence for a preparer-user perception gap with respect to the mediating impact of a consistent financial language. Our results contribute to the still-ongoing controversial debate on MAS integration by indicating that the effectiveness of MAS design cannot be evaluated solely from an instrumental perspective independent from users' perceptions. JEL classification: M41

No abstract

No abstract