{"title":"多模式标准化与可比性:挪威采用中小型企业国际财务报告准则的失败尝试","authors":"Anna Alon, G. Haaland, K. Røsok","doi":"10.1080/00014788.2021.2001306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The coexistence of IFRS and non-IFRS standards has proven challenging at the national level. We utilise a multi-mode standardisation perspective that recognises the interplay of committees, market players, and the government to examine multi-standard financial reporting in Norway and focus on two parallel efforts that introduced proposals to base the national accounting standards on the IFRS for SMEs. In our case, the jurisdictional tensions stem from the broad remit of the government to regulate financial reporting and the ambiguous legal standing of the national standards and of the standard setter. Comparability is often cited as one of the central aims of standardisation in financial reporting. Consequently, how different players utilise the concept is of interest. We find that the scope of comparability that the standards aim to achieve is not given sufficient consideration. The feedback provided with regard to the proposals underscores that the scope of comparability is important for the users of the standards. They focus on the most likely comparisons that are made and want to maintain a national focus and comparability across similar types of companies and industries. They do not regard the standardisation efforts and proposed elimination of standards and options as necessarily beneficial for comparability.","PeriodicalId":7054,"journal":{"name":"Accounting and Business Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"734 - 764"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-mode standardisation and comparability: Norway's failed attempt to adopt the IFRS for SMEs\",\"authors\":\"Anna Alon, G. Haaland, K. Røsok\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00014788.2021.2001306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The coexistence of IFRS and non-IFRS standards has proven challenging at the national level. We utilise a multi-mode standardisation perspective that recognises the interplay of committees, market players, and the government to examine multi-standard financial reporting in Norway and focus on two parallel efforts that introduced proposals to base the national accounting standards on the IFRS for SMEs. In our case, the jurisdictional tensions stem from the broad remit of the government to regulate financial reporting and the ambiguous legal standing of the national standards and of the standard setter. Comparability is often cited as one of the central aims of standardisation in financial reporting. Consequently, how different players utilise the concept is of interest. We find that the scope of comparability that the standards aim to achieve is not given sufficient consideration. The feedback provided with regard to the proposals underscores that the scope of comparability is important for the users of the standards. They focus on the most likely comparisons that are made and want to maintain a national focus and comparability across similar types of companies and industries. They do not regard the standardisation efforts and proposed elimination of standards and options as necessarily beneficial for comparability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting and Business Research\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"734 - 764\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting and Business Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2021.2001306\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting and Business Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2021.2001306","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Multi-mode standardisation and comparability: Norway's failed attempt to adopt the IFRS for SMEs
The coexistence of IFRS and non-IFRS standards has proven challenging at the national level. We utilise a multi-mode standardisation perspective that recognises the interplay of committees, market players, and the government to examine multi-standard financial reporting in Norway and focus on two parallel efforts that introduced proposals to base the national accounting standards on the IFRS for SMEs. In our case, the jurisdictional tensions stem from the broad remit of the government to regulate financial reporting and the ambiguous legal standing of the national standards and of the standard setter. Comparability is often cited as one of the central aims of standardisation in financial reporting. Consequently, how different players utilise the concept is of interest. We find that the scope of comparability that the standards aim to achieve is not given sufficient consideration. The feedback provided with regard to the proposals underscores that the scope of comparability is important for the users of the standards. They focus on the most likely comparisons that are made and want to maintain a national focus and comparability across similar types of companies and industries. They do not regard the standardisation efforts and proposed elimination of standards and options as necessarily beneficial for comparability.
期刊介绍:
Accounting and Business Research publishes papers containing a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Papers may cover any area of accounting, broadly defined and including corporate governance, auditing and taxation. However the focus must be accounting, rather than (corporate) finance or general management. Authors may take a theoretical or an empirical approach, using either quantitative or qualitative methods. They may aim to contribute to developing and understanding the role of accounting in business. Papers should be rigorous but also written in a way that makes them intelligible to a wide range of academics and, where appropriate, practitioners.