Lobbying on Accounting Standards: Evidence from IFRS 2 on Share-Based Payments

Inchausti, Begoña Giner; Arce, Miguel

doi:10.1080/09638180.2012.701796

Cited by 113 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with prior work, we find that whilst no party dominates, there is some evidence of bias (e.g. Giner and Arce, 2012;Kwok and Sharp, 2005;Hussein and Ketz, 1991).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Studies from the US, UK, Australia and elsewhere suggest that the standard-setting process is neither systematically aligned to any group nor dominated by one (e.g. Brown, 1981;Sutton, 1984;Tutticci, Dunstan and Holmes, 1994;McLeay, Ordelheide and Young, 2000;Zeff, 2002;Kwok and Sharp, 2005;Giner and Arce, 2012). Throughout the prior work, influence has been associated with persuasion and evidence suggests that levels of persuasiveness shift between groups according to the issue under review McEnroe, 1991, 1998;Cortese, Irvine and Kaidonis, 2010).…”

Section: Stakeholder Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with prior work, we adopt a pluralist framework (see Giner and Arce, 2012;Kwok and Sharp, 2005;McLeay, Ordelheide and Young, 2000) whereby we measure relative influence as a function of the level of proposal acceptance measured against total proposals made. Influence operates on the basis of persuasiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

“…In line with prior work, we find that whilst no party dominates, there is some evidence of bias (e.g. Giner and Arce, 2012;Kwok and Sharp, 2005;Hussein and Ketz, 1991).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Stakeholder Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

show abstract

“…More recently, the process of lobbying on accounting regulation has been studied from the perspective of institutional theory (Bengtsson, 2011;Chatham, Larson and Vietze, 2010;Fogarty, 1992;Giner and Arce, 2012;Kenny and Larson, 1993;Koh, 2011;Larson 2002Larson , 2008Larson and Kenny, 2011). This theory suggests that the actions of organizations should be understood as attempts to obtain legitimacy and to maintain credibility with external constituents (Fogarty, 1992).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lobbying na Regulação Contábil: Evidências do Setor Petrolífero

Santos

2014

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work aims to identify the determining factors in the submission of comment letters to the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) on the discussion paper Extractive Activities as a lobbying strategy in the context of accounting regulation. The results show that size is a determining factor in all models used, indicating that large oil companies are more likely to lobby. This tendency is especially evident for companies that are predominantly opposed to the IASB proposals, which suggests that the IASB's review/replacement of International Financial Reporting Standards 6 (IFRS 6) will be a complex process subject to pressure from oil companies to maintain the status quo.

show abstract

“…There are numerous studies that evaluate the participation of stakeholders groups in the standardization processes of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the IASB, and the Accounting Standards Board (ASB) in the United Kingdom (Tandy & Wilburn, 1996;Georgiou, 2010;Zülch & Hoffmann, 2010;Jorissen et al, 2006;Giner & Arce, 2012;Holder et al, 2013;Huian, 2013). Tandy and Wilburn (1996) were pioneers in this kind of research by analyzing the participation of academics in the procedures for issuing the standards from the FASB.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Differences in Terms of Professional Interests Based on the Project to Replace IAS 39

Carvalho

Albuquerque

Quirós

et al. 2015

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The professional interests of the various stakeholders groups are often seen as obstacles to full accounting harmonization. Studying different professional interests in the accounting domain is significant for organizations involved in the international accounting harmonization process, insofar as it enables them to identify the main obstacles to face in order to achieve full harmonization. Thus, this article is aimed at analyzing the differences in terms of professional interests by addressing the participation of various stakeholders groups in the process of issuing/modifying standards of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). Based on content analysis, we examined the comment letters sent to the IASB in the context of the first part of the first phase of the project to replace the International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39, entitled "Financial Instruments -Recognition and Measurement", by the International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 9, on its turn entitled "Financial Instruments". Respondents were identified according to the stakeholders group, and, later, the collected data underwent a nonparametric chi-square test. The results of this study indicate there are significant differences between the answers obtained from the various stakeholders groups involved in the process of issuing or reviewing a standard of the IASB, above all made clear between the group of financial preparers and the regulatory and/or standard-setting agencies and the professional associations related to accounting.

show abstract

Lobbying on Accounting Standards: Evidence from IFRS 2 on Share-Based Payments

Cited by 113 publications

References 42 publications

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

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

Lobbying na Regulação Contábil: Evidências do Setor Petrolífero

An Analysis of Differences in Terms of Professional Interests Based on the Project to Replace IAS 39

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About