正式参与EFRAG的咨询过程:欧洲国家标准制定机构的作用

IF 4.6 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Martin Gäumann, M. Dobler
{"title":"正式参与EFRAG的咨询过程:欧洲国家标准制定机构的作用","authors":"Martin Gäumann, M. Dobler","doi":"10.1080/17449480.2018.1514124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) considers European national standard-setters (NSSs) as close partners that play a vital role in its legitimacy, empirical evidence on EFRAG’s consultation processes and the involvement of NSSs therein remains scarce. We use a multi-issue/multi-period approach to investigate the formal participation in EFRAG’s consultation processes. By examining 2,102 comment letters submitted to EFRAG in the 2002–2015 period, we find that NSSs typically outweigh other stakeholder groups in terms of level of participation across stages of the consultation process and project topics. Although NSSs’ level of participation is rather stable over time, it significantly varies across European countries. We also provide a recent classification of European NSSs and show that NSSs’ level of participation varies by their institutional status and is the highest for private NSSs. Our findings have implications for aspects of the legitimacy of both EFRAG and NSSs and shed light on the role of intermediaries in international accounting standard-setting.","PeriodicalId":45647,"journal":{"name":"Accounting in Europe","volume":"16 1","pages":"44 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2018.1514124","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formal Participation in the EFRAG’s Consultation Processes: The Role of European National Standard-Setters\",\"authors\":\"Martin Gäumann, M. Dobler\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449480.2018.1514124\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract While the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) considers European national standard-setters (NSSs) as close partners that play a vital role in its legitimacy, empirical evidence on EFRAG’s consultation processes and the involvement of NSSs therein remains scarce. We use a multi-issue/multi-period approach to investigate the formal participation in EFRAG’s consultation processes. By examining 2,102 comment letters submitted to EFRAG in the 2002–2015 period, we find that NSSs typically outweigh other stakeholder groups in terms of level of participation across stages of the consultation process and project topics. Although NSSs’ level of participation is rather stable over time, it significantly varies across European countries. We also provide a recent classification of European NSSs and show that NSSs’ level of participation varies by their institutional status and is the highest for private NSSs. Our findings have implications for aspects of the legitimacy of both EFRAG and NSSs and shed light on the role of intermediaries in international accounting standard-setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45647,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounting in Europe\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"44 - 81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449480.2018.1514124\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounting in Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2018.1514124\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2018.1514124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

摘要尽管欧洲财务报告咨询小组(EFRAG)认为欧洲国家标准制定者(NSS)是在其合法性中发挥重要作用的密切合作伙伴,但关于EFRAG咨询过程和NSS参与其中的经验证据仍然很少。我们采用多问题/多时期的方法来调查EFRAG咨询过程的正式参与情况。通过审查2002-2015年期间提交给EFRAG的2102封评论信,我们发现NSS在咨询过程各阶段和项目主题的参与程度方面通常超过其他利益相关者群体。尽管NSS的参与水平随着时间的推移相当稳定,但欧洲国家之间的差异很大。我们还提供了欧洲NSS的最新分类,并表明NSS的参与水平因其机构地位而异,在私人NSS中最高。我们的研究结果对EFRAG和NSSs的合法性具有启示意义,并阐明了中介机构在国际会计准则制定中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Formal Participation in the EFRAG’s Consultation Processes: The Role of European National Standard-Setters
Abstract While the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) considers European national standard-setters (NSSs) as close partners that play a vital role in its legitimacy, empirical evidence on EFRAG’s consultation processes and the involvement of NSSs therein remains scarce. We use a multi-issue/multi-period approach to investigate the formal participation in EFRAG’s consultation processes. By examining 2,102 comment letters submitted to EFRAG in the 2002–2015 period, we find that NSSs typically outweigh other stakeholder groups in terms of level of participation across stages of the consultation process and project topics. Although NSSs’ level of participation is rather stable over time, it significantly varies across European countries. We also provide a recent classification of European NSSs and show that NSSs’ level of participation varies by their institutional status and is the highest for private NSSs. Our findings have implications for aspects of the legitimacy of both EFRAG and NSSs and shed light on the role of intermediaries in international accounting standard-setting.
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
Accounting in Europe
Accounting in Europe BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
14
×
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