赋予开放式内部控制以意义并使其具有意义:当每个组成部分都有意义,但整体没有意义时

IF 8.3 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Sylvain Durocher , Claire-France Picard , Léa Dugal
{"title":"赋予开放式内部控制以意义并使其具有意义:当每个组成部分都有意义,但整体没有意义时","authors":"Sylvain Durocher ,&nbsp;Claire-France Picard ,&nbsp;Léa Dugal","doi":"10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The increased prevalence of fair value initiated important changes in accounting standards, one of the most contentious being the appearance of other comprehensive income (OCI). Despite the importance of conceptual grounds for the legitimacy of the profession, OCI is not conceptually defined. Our study examines the process by which OCI was integrated into IFRS on an ad hoc basis, without clear conceptual grounds. Through a documentary analysis of 12 OCI-related standard-setting projects, we examine how the IASB gave sense to, and auditors made sense of, OCI, and how these consultation interactions have contributed to the consolidation of an ad hoc approach to OCI. Our study reveals that the construction of meaning of OCI was a restricted process where the IASB only attempted to give limited meaning to the use of specific OCI items while refraining from providing an understanding for its existence conceptually. We show that auditors, generally depicted as influential actors in the development of accounting standards, made limited attempts to make sense of both the existence and use of OCI. Ultimately, OCI-related standard-setting processes led auditors to tolerate the absence of conceptual principles for OCI and accommodate the standard setter’s ad hoc approach. This progressive accommodation is indicative of the power standard setters can exercise over constituencies within consultation processes, resulting in a paradoxical use of the conceptual framework to endorse ad hoc approaches in standard development. In the end, what our study makes evident regarding OCI is that, if each component makes sense, the whole does not.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48078,"journal":{"name":"Critical Perspectives on Accounting","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 102717"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Giving sense to and making sense of OCI: When each component makes sense, but the whole does not\",\"authors\":\"Sylvain Durocher ,&nbsp;Claire-France Picard ,&nbsp;Léa Dugal\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpa.2024.102717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The increased prevalence of fair value initiated important changes in accounting standards, one of the most contentious being the appearance of other comprehensive income (OCI). Despite the importance of conceptual grounds for the legitimacy of the profession, OCI is not conceptually defined. Our study examines the process by which OCI was integrated into IFRS on an ad hoc basis, without clear conceptual grounds. Through a documentary analysis of 12 OCI-related standard-setting projects, we examine how the IASB gave sense to, and auditors made sense of, OCI, and how these consultation interactions have contributed to the consolidation of an ad hoc approach to OCI. Our study reveals that the construction of meaning of OCI was a restricted process where the IASB only attempted to give limited meaning to the use of specific OCI items while refraining from providing an understanding for its existence conceptually. We show that auditors, generally depicted as influential actors in the development of accounting standards, made limited attempts to make sense of both the existence and use of OCI. Ultimately, OCI-related standard-setting processes led auditors to tolerate the absence of conceptual principles for OCI and accommodate the standard setter’s ad hoc approach. This progressive accommodation is indicative of the power standard setters can exercise over constituencies within consultation processes, resulting in a paradoxical use of the conceptual framework to endorse ad hoc approaches in standard development. In the end, what our study makes evident regarding OCI is that, if each component makes sense, the whole does not.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48078,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Perspectives on Accounting\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102717\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Perspectives on Accounting\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235424000169\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Perspectives on Accounting","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235424000169","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

摘要

公允价值的日益普遍引发了会计准则的重大变化,其中最具争议的是其他综合收益(OCI)的出现。尽管概念上的依据对行业的合法性非常重要,但其他综合收益并没有概念上的定义。我们的研究探讨了在没有明确概念依据的情况下,其他综合收益被临时纳入《国际财务报告准则》的过程。通过对 12 个与保荐人责任相关的准则制定项目的文献分析,我们研究了国际会计准则理事会是如何理解保荐人责任的,审计师又是如何理解保荐人责任的,以及这些咨询互动是如何促进了保荐人责任临时方法的巩固。我们的研究揭示了构建OCI意义的过程是一个受限的过程,在这个过程中,国际会计准则理事会只试图对特定OCI项目的使用赋予有限的意义,而没有从概念上对其存在提供理解。我们的研究表明,审计师通常被视为会计准则制定过程中具有影响力的参与者,但他们为理解其他资本成本的存在和使用所做的努力却十分有限。最终,与 OCI 相关的准则制定过程导致审计师容忍了 OCI 概念原则的缺失,并适应了准则制定者的临时方法。这种逐步迁就的做法表明了准则制定者在磋商过程中可以对支持者行使的权力,从而导致在准则制定过程中自相矛盾地使用概念框架来认可临时方法。归根结底,我们对开放式内部审计的研究表明,如果每个组成部分都是合理的,那 么整体就是不合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Giving sense to and making sense of OCI: When each component makes sense, but the whole does not

The increased prevalence of fair value initiated important changes in accounting standards, one of the most contentious being the appearance of other comprehensive income (OCI). Despite the importance of conceptual grounds for the legitimacy of the profession, OCI is not conceptually defined. Our study examines the process by which OCI was integrated into IFRS on an ad hoc basis, without clear conceptual grounds. Through a documentary analysis of 12 OCI-related standard-setting projects, we examine how the IASB gave sense to, and auditors made sense of, OCI, and how these consultation interactions have contributed to the consolidation of an ad hoc approach to OCI. Our study reveals that the construction of meaning of OCI was a restricted process where the IASB only attempted to give limited meaning to the use of specific OCI items while refraining from providing an understanding for its existence conceptually. We show that auditors, generally depicted as influential actors in the development of accounting standards, made limited attempts to make sense of both the existence and use of OCI. Ultimately, OCI-related standard-setting processes led auditors to tolerate the absence of conceptual principles for OCI and accommodate the standard setter’s ad hoc approach. This progressive accommodation is indicative of the power standard setters can exercise over constituencies within consultation processes, resulting in a paradoxical use of the conceptual framework to endorse ad hoc approaches in standard development. In the end, what our study makes evident regarding OCI is that, if each component makes sense, the whole does not.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
7.80%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Critical Perspectives on Accounting aims to provide a forum for the growing number of accounting researchers and practitioners who realize that conventional theory and practice is ill-suited to the challenges of the modern environment, and that accounting practices and corporate behavior are inextricably connected with many allocative, distributive, social, and ecological problems of our era. From such concerns, a new literature is emerging that seeks to reformulate corporate, social, and political activity, and the theoretical and practical means by which we apprehend and affect that activity. Research Areas Include: • Studies involving the political economy of accounting, critical accounting, radical accounting, and accounting''s implication in the exercise of power • Financial accounting''s role in the processes of international capital formation, including its impact on stock market stability and international banking activities • Management accounting''s role in organizing the labor process • The relationship between accounting and the state in various social formations • Studies of accounting''s historical role, as a means of "remembering" the subject''s social and conflictual character • The role of accounting in establishing "real" democracy at work and other domains of life • Accounting''s adjudicative function in international exchanges, such as that of the Third World debt • Antagonisms between the social and private character of accounting, such as conflicts of interest in the audit process • The identification of new constituencies for radical and critical accounting information • Accounting''s involvement in gender and class conflicts in the workplace • The interplay between accounting, social conflict, industrialization, bureaucracy, and technocracy • Reappraisals of the role of accounting as a science and technology • Critical reviews of "useful" scientific knowledge about organizations
×
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