نقش G4 در تکامل فرآیند تنظیم استاندارد حسابداری بین المللی و همکاری با IASB
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|10206||2006||18 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Volume 15, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 109–126
Between 1992 and 2001, representatives of the G4 national accounting standard setting bodies and the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) participated in a working group known as the G4+1. Immediately following the formation of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), the G4 announced that the working group would no longer meet. Alternatively, the G4 national standard setters would form a partnership with the IASB via liaison representatives. This paper focuses on the objectives and mission of the G4+1, the G4's relationship with the IASC, the impact of the G4 on the restructuring of the IASC to establish a quality independent global accounting standard setter, former G4 participants’ perceptions of the IASB, and the significance of the IASB's current partnership with the G4 national accounting standard setters. The paper additionally discusses recent changes to the IASC Foundation Constitution and considers now modifications to the liaison structure may impact the IASB's partnership with its G4 national standard setting partners. Portions of a monograph published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales entitled Inside G4+1: The Working Group's Role in the Evolution of the International Accounting Standard Setting Process provide the background for the paper.
Inside G4+1: The Working Group's Role in the Evolution of the International Accounting Standard Setting Process (Inside G4+1) (Street, 2005) provides a comprehensive analysis of the G4+1's impact on accounting thought and practice and on the advancement of the international accounting standard setting process. Building on Inside G4+1, this paper focuses on the objectives and mission of the G4+1, the G4's relationship with the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), the impact of the G4 on the restructuring of the IASC to establish a quality independent global accounting standard setter, former G4 participants’ perceptions of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the significance of the IASB's current partnership with the G4 national standard setters. The paper also discusses recent changes to the IASC Foundation Constitution and considers now changes to the liaison structure may impact the IASB's partnership with its G4 national standard setting partners. In 2001, the IASC closed shop and a new breed of international accounting standard setter emerged. While various catalysts contributed to the restructuring of the IASC, a group of national accounting standard setters representing Australia, Canada, New Zealand (N.Z.), the United Kingdom (U.K.), and the United States (U.S.) played a major role. In Shaping IASC for the Future, the Strategy Working Party noted the “IASC must now consider structural changes.” Alternatively, “other national, regional or international bodies are likely to emerge to fill the gap … and become de facto global or regional standard setters” (IASC, 1998a, p. 52). Clearly the G4 was one of the bodies referred to by the Strategy Working Party. Consistent with the G4's mission and vision of the ideal global accounting standard setter, the IASB now strives to operate as an independent standard setter focused on developing accounting standards that best address the needs of investors and other financial statement users. Immediately following the formation of the IASB, the G4 announced in January 2001 that the working group would no longer meet. Alternatively, the G4 national standard setters would form a partnership with the IASB by means of liaison representatives. The IASC's requiescat to the G4 stated: “The G4+1 provided a valuable arena for the debate of several fundamental issues …. The standard-setters who had the foresight to create such a forum deserve our thanks” (IASC, 2001, p. 18).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Between 1992 and 2001, representatives of the national accounting standard setters in Australia, Canada, N.Z., the U.S., and the U.K. participated in a working group. With the IASC serving as an observer, the group was known as the G4+1. Initially the G4+1 functioned as a think tank for its sponsoring standard setting bodies. In its later years, the G4+1 however evolved to function more like an embryonic standard setter. Inside G4+1 reveals that the working group contributed significantly to accounting thought and practice via publication of a series of discussion papers that addressed pressing, controversial accounting issues. G4+1's proposed solutions, as set forth in these papers, were based on the Framework and several have been incorporated into national and international standards. Additionally, some projects on the IASB's current agenda will likely result in G4+1 proposals further impacting national and international standards. The G4+1's most notable contribution may be the working group's role in motivating the IASC to undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as a quality international accounting standard setter. With the G4 echoing the same message as the U.S. SEC, it was evident that only one global accounting standard setting model was acceptable to both the world's leading national standard setters and the regulator of the world's largest capital market. In line with the G4 vision, today's IASB possess the traits of a quality international standard setter: independent decision-making structure, adequate due process, and sufficient technical capabilities. During a recent review of the IASB constitution, the Trustees of the IASC Foundation considered the concerns expressed by various constituents. Based on their review, the Constitutional Review Committee concluded: Some of those concerns have been rooted in misunderstanding about the nature of the organisation's operations. Some are mutually inconsistent. Others reflect real differences in philosophy and approach (IASCF, 2005b, p. 6, IN 8). Key actions of the Trustees included taking important steps to safeguard the IASB's independence (i.e. reaffirming support for the technical expert model and that the IASB has control of its agenda) and modifying operational procedures at the IASB in order to enhance the transparency of and confidence in the due process followed by the Board. As part of the constitutional review, the Trustees also modified the liaison model to incorporate more flexibility. Without the assurance of a liaison seat on the IASB, only time will reveal how the IASB's partnership with the G4 national standard setters will evolve. However, it is obvious that the continuing support of the G4 national standard setters with their established history of setting high-quality accounting standards aimed at providing useful information for capital market participants is of vital importance to the IASB. During its infancy, the IASB has indeed greatly benefited from the resources and expertise generously contributed to the partnership by the G4 national standard setters (i.e. leading research projects, drafting discussion papers, etc.). Additionally, to have real influence in the international arena, each G4 standard setter must remain actively involved in the international partnership pioneered by the G4+1. Otherwise, the primary outlet for their national voice at the IASB will be silenced. In summary, the partnership between the IASB and the G4 national accounting standard setters must be preserved if the goal of achieving convergence to high-quality global accounting standards is to be achieved in a timely manner.