The Challenge of Setting Standards for a Worldwide Constituency: Research Implications from the IASB’s Early History

Abstract

Based on Camfferman and Zeff [(2015). Aiming for global accounting standards : The International Accounting Standards Board, 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press] we reflect on possibilities for academic research on the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). We argue that a research agenda may be formed around the notion that the IASB differs from national standard setters because its constituent base includes jurisdictions as well as the more traditional preparer, user and auditor constituency groups. We show that taking a jurisdictional angle draws attention to the variety among the IASB's jurisdictional constituents, identifying numerous research possibilities related to their decisions to adopt, or not to adopt, IFRSs, and to the mechanisms they have developed to form their own IFRS policies and to interact with the IASB. We illustrate how the IASB's structure, governance, processes and standards are influenced by the challenge of reconciling the needs and values of jurisdictional constituents with the objective of setting global accounting standards. We call for research on the ramifications of the diversity of jurisdictional constituents, as well as changing perceptions of standard setting within jurisdictions, for all aspects of the functioning of the IASB. Such research should make greater use of the variety of sources available to researchers today.

Institutional theory and IFRS: an agenda for future research

“…Analysis of this question will help to capture the role of all actors involved in the adoption process, including non-cooperating members of the fields. Results of such analysis can help to improve understanding of the wide range of possible decisions (Camfferman & Zeff, 2018) such as non-adoption, full adoption, or partial adoption of IFRS by countries and organizations.…”

“…Additionally, the scope of adoption may be varied -it can include listed or non-listed companies, consolidated and/or individual accounts, and certain industries or all industries (Camfferman & Zeff, 2018). Thus, it is necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the key factors that explain why this occurs (Albu, Albu, & Filip, 2017).…”

Does the IFRS Effect Continue? An International Comparison

“…As pointed out by Zeff and Nobes [30], the adoption of IFRS by a jurisdiction is not a simple decision. In combination with differences in the scope of application (all or some listed companies, domestic or cross-listed companies, exclusion or inclusion of certain industries, mandatory or voluntary use by non-listed companies, consolidated financial statements only or also in parent company statements), it is clear that the categorization of jurisdictions in terms of adoption is not an easy matter [33]. Nobes and Perramon [34] insisted that the national profile of IFRS policy choice could be explained by pre-adoption financial reporting practices.…”

International Accounting Standards in Africa: Selective Recursivity for the ‘Happy Few’?

“…From a self-mandated and expertise-based technical body, the IASB has developed into a transnational governance scheme whose financial reporting standards are increasingly made mandatory by national governments (Camfferman and Zeff, 2017). A turning point was the decision of the European Union to make IFRS binding for the consolidated financial statements of publicly listed companies from 2005 onwards.…”

“…While the primary purpose of the due process is to provide the IASB with information relevant to standardsetting, it also provides a channel for feedback from interested constituencies and affected third parties (Botzem, 2012). According to Camfferman and Zeff (2017), IFRS Foundation has been increasingly emphasizing its due process since the 2000s as more and more countries adopted IFRS on a mandatory basis to balance rising tensions between its expert model of standard-setting and legitimacy claims from constituents for more participation (see also Botzem, 2014).…”