Amanda M. Convery , Matt Kaufman , Terry D. Warfield
{"title":"Stakeholder conflict and standard-setting foundation oversight","authors":"Amanda M. Convery , Matt Kaufman , Terry D. Warfield","doi":"10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2023.107122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines foundation oversight authority as a distinct tool used to maintain the accounting profession’s delegated authority to set standards. Prior literature traditionally focuses on the standard-setting boards and technical arguments surrounding proposed accounting standards. We examine whether the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) can manage stakeholder conflict and legitimize contentious activity through exercise of its oversight role. The presented case is a qualitative analysis of the FAF’s <em>GASB Scope of Authority</em> project, a rare public exercise of FAF oversight authority, in which the FAF applied its authority despite stakeholder disagreement on the line between oversight and standard setting. We observe the FAF’s oversight of standard setting due process as opposed to the content of proposed standard setting projects. The policy formalizes private consultation at this blurred boundary to safeguard board autonomy and delegated authority. Implications and precedence for the FASB and other contentious accounting issues (e.g., deliberations around ESG reporting) are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48070,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278425423000716/pdfft?md5=28af198166a32c9abbb21f2ec049e229&pid=1-s2.0-S0278425423000716-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278425423000716","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examines foundation oversight authority as a distinct tool used to maintain the accounting profession’s delegated authority to set standards. Prior literature traditionally focuses on the standard-setting boards and technical arguments surrounding proposed accounting standards. We examine whether the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) can manage stakeholder conflict and legitimize contentious activity through exercise of its oversight role. The presented case is a qualitative analysis of the FAF’s GASB Scope of Authority project, a rare public exercise of FAF oversight authority, in which the FAF applied its authority despite stakeholder disagreement on the line between oversight and standard setting. We observe the FAF’s oversight of standard setting due process as opposed to the content of proposed standard setting projects. The policy formalizes private consultation at this blurred boundary to safeguard board autonomy and delegated authority. Implications and precedence for the FASB and other contentious accounting issues (e.g., deliberations around ESG reporting) are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy publishes research papers focusing on the intersection between accounting and public policy. Preference is given to papers illuminating through theoretical or empirical analysis, the effects of accounting on public policy and vice-versa. Subjects treated in this journal include the interface of accounting with economics, political science, sociology, or law. The Journal includes a section entitled Accounting Letters. This section publishes short research articles that should not exceed approximately 3,000 words. The objective of this section is to facilitate the rapid dissemination of important accounting research. Accordingly, articles submitted to this section will be reviewed within fours weeks of receipt, revisions will be limited to one, and publication will occur within four months of acceptance.