The politics of prudence in accounting standards

IF 3.6 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
{"title":"The politics of prudence in accounting standards","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.aos.2024.101571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the most recent revision of the conceptual framework underlying accounting standards the concept of prudence became the focus of an extraordinary public political dispute. This dispute is explored here by taking an actor-network theory perspective on politics, a ‘dingpolitik’ (Latour, 2005a) or ‘material politics’ (Barry, 2013a), that revolves around things and matters of concern, rather than just interests and ideologies. The analysis unveils how a multiplicity of human actors, including regulators, preparers, auditors, and users of accounts, academics, lawyers, politicians, and journalists, but also material actors such as IASB due process documents and responses, parliamentary debates, official statements, speeches, legal opinions, and financial press articles, come together and raise concerns that are unpredictable and evolving. These concerns ultimately expose the political qualities of prudence that are connected to other controversies relating to other financial reporting issues. At the peak of the political drama that unfolds we see a group of long-term investors commissioning a legal opinion challenging the legality of IFRSs on the grounds that the removal of prudence violates the legal requirement for accounts to show a true and fair view. Both the politics and anti-politics that take place around the concept of prudence lead us to reflect on conceptions of an unrelenting financialisation of accounting standards through fair value accounting and of their (potential) functions in organisations and society.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48379,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Organizations and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036136822400031X/pdfft?md5=dcd00f02dd8c3918e8497db9d0376865&pid=1-s2.0-S036136822400031X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Organizations and Society","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036136822400031X","RegionNum":2,"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

In the most recent revision of the conceptual framework underlying accounting standards the concept of prudence became the focus of an extraordinary public political dispute. This dispute is explored here by taking an actor-network theory perspective on politics, a ‘dingpolitik’ (Latour, 2005a) or ‘material politics’ (Barry, 2013a), that revolves around things and matters of concern, rather than just interests and ideologies. The analysis unveils how a multiplicity of human actors, including regulators, preparers, auditors, and users of accounts, academics, lawyers, politicians, and journalists, but also material actors such as IASB due process documents and responses, parliamentary debates, official statements, speeches, legal opinions, and financial press articles, come together and raise concerns that are unpredictable and evolving. These concerns ultimately expose the political qualities of prudence that are connected to other controversies relating to other financial reporting issues. At the peak of the political drama that unfolds we see a group of long-term investors commissioning a legal opinion challenging the legality of IFRSs on the grounds that the removal of prudence violates the legal requirement for accounts to show a true and fair view. Both the politics and anti-politics that take place around the concept of prudence lead us to reflect on conceptions of an unrelenting financialisation of accounting standards through fair value accounting and of their (potential) functions in organisations and society.

会计准则中的谨慎政治
在最近一次对会计准则基础概念框架的修订中,谨慎性概念成为了一场非同寻常的公共政治争端的焦点。本文从行动者-网络理论的角度探讨了这一争议,即围绕事物和关注事项而非利益和意识形态的 "丁政治"(拉图尔,2005a)或 "物质政治"(巴里,2013a)。分析揭示了包括监管者、会计报表编制者、审计师和使用者、学者、律师、政治家和记者在内的多种人类行为者,以及诸如国际会计准则理事会正当程序文件和回应、议会辩论、官方声明、演讲、法律意见和财经媒体文章等物质行为者如何汇聚在一起,并提出不可预测和不断变化的关切。这些担忧最终暴露了审慎性的政治特质,而审慎性的政治特质又与其他财务报告问题的其他争议相关联。在这场政治大戏的高潮部分,我们看到一群长期投资者委托法律顾问对《国际财务报告准则》的合法性提出质疑,理由是取消审慎性违反了关于账目必须真实公允的法律要求。围绕 "审慎 "这一概念展开的政治与反政治活动,引导我们思考通过公允价值会计将会计准则不断金融化的概念,以及会计准则在组织和社会中(潜在的)功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.40%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Accounting, Organizations & Society is a major international journal concerned with all aspects of the relationship between accounting and human behaviour, organizational structures and processes, and the changing social and political environment of the enterprise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信