آمادگی شرکت برای اتخاذ استانداردهای بین المللی گزارشگری مالی: شواهد پرتغالی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|21486||2008||14 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6940 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Accounting Forum, Volume 32, Issue 1, March 2008, Pages 75–88
This paper uses ordinal regression, structural equation modelling, and multivariate analysis techniques to investigate the preparedness to adopt IFRS that was exhibited by listed Portuguese companies in August 2003. We find the level of preparedness was significantly associated with company size, commercial internationalization, audit by a ‘Big 4’ accounting firm, and profitability. Our findings will help to indicate the pre-conditions that are likely to spur lagging companies (and countries) to prepare to implement IFRS.
Many companies throughout the world have not adopted, or have not been required to adopt, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). On 4 January 20071 there were about 31 countries, e.g. Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Ivory Coast, Fiji, Ghana, Mali, Moldova, Niger, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, and United States of America where direct use of IFRS is not permitted by domestic listed companies ( Deloitte, 2007). In some cases this is explained by countries electing to retain local Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which are said to be based on, or similar to, or converged with, IFRS. In 21 of the 28 European Union and European Economic Area countries, e.g. Portugal, Spain, and France, it is mandatory for listed companies to use IFRS, but unlisted companies have the option to use or not to use IFRS ( Deloitte, 2005, p. 14). The situation in some other countries is not clear. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), on 4 January 2007, was seeking information about whether IFRS had been mandated or permitted for use in 52 other countries, e.g. Afghanistan, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Liberia, Paraguay, Rwanda, Zaire (Deloitte, 2007). Although there has been widespread voluntary adoption of IFRS by multinational corporations (MNCs), a feature of international accounting practice over the past decade has been that the level of preparedness to adopt IFRS has varied widely between companies and countries. The forces compelling international integration and globalization in all realms of human endeavour are intensifying (Volcker, 2000, p. 210) and many smaller countries are finding these forces hard to combat. In the discipline of accounting, globalisation poses many challenges, as Gallhofer and Haslam (2006) have noted. Support for a regime of global accounting standards is advocated commonly because such standards are consistent with the broad thrust of globalization initiatives endorsed by politically influential bodies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (Graham & Neu, 2003; Volcker, 2000). However, some dissonant voices express the view that accounting harmonization processes repress important differences and idiosyncracies in national systems of accounting (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2006, p. 917). It seems sensible to acknowledge that financial reports, drawn up in accord with IFRS issued by the IASB, are a power discourse—especially so when the large accounting firms, the EU and other coordinating agencies (World Bank and OECD) are disposed to accept, as taken-for-granted, that accounting will be better if IFRS are adopted (Hopwood, 1994; Neu, Gomez, Léon, & Zepeda, 2002; Rodrigues & Craig, 2007). The major aim of this paper is to determine the characteristics of the listed companies in Portugal that were better prepared than others to adopt IFRS. We use the term ‘prepared’ in its sense of readiness. Thus, ‘preparedness’ is evidenced by such factors as training of staff, and accommodative changes to accounting and financial reporting systems. We do not regard ‘preparedness’ merely to be a fuzzy expression indicating latent intent or inclination to adopt IFRS. Our findings should assist domestic and international standard setting agencies, regulatory authorities, and the accounting profession, to understand the company characteristics that have been associated with the adoption of IFRS, especially in small countries. One significant characteristic that will be of interest to many readers of this journal, is the strong influence of a company having a Big 4 accounting firm as its auditor.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Approximately a year and a half before the adoption of IFRS on 1 January 2005, the level of preparedness of Portuguese listed companies to implement IFRS was relatively low, with an average level (1.03) well below half of the maximum possible value of 2.60 calculated using SEM analysis. However, 14 of the 29 companies (48%) indicated they were evaluating the impact of IFRS and were developing conversion processes. Ordinal regression analysis yielded evidence consistent with hypotheses H1, H2 and H3: that is, larger companies with higher levels of commercial internationalization, and audited by Big 4 international accounting firms, displayed higher levels of preparedness to implement IFRS. Subsequently, these results were corroborated, in part, by multiple regression analysis, which confirmed the hypotheses relating to company size (H1) and having a Big 4 international accounting firm as auditor (H3). However, they produced a confounding result in respect of the rate of profitability (H4). None of the analyses adduced evidence of a significant relationship between PREP and leverage (H5); or between PREP and the level of financial investment in foreign company equity (H6). Smaller companies appear to be less inclined to abandon national accounting standards in favour of IFRS. This disinclination, together with that of companies with lower degrees of commercial internationalization, suggests they believe that convergence is unlikely to be advantageous for them. Smaller companies possibly regard IFRS as more of an internationally imposed obligation of little relevance to them.8 Although strong support for IFRS has been accorded by MNCs (Rodrigues & Craig, 2007), our findings suggest that IFRS should not be adopted by all listed companies: IFRS seem to be too complicated and expensive for SMEs (whether listed or not). Our study points to the important influence of Big 4 accounting firms in the accounting convergence process. These firms are represented prominently in the IASB structure and have supported IASB activities strongly. They are well-placed to influence their clients’ accounting policy choices and procedures. This is consistent with the argument of Lehman (2006, p. 978) that the Big 4 accounting firms ‘have the power to control agendas and create technologies of control.’ The finding is consistent too with the view that the ‘international financial and investment community seemingly has taken much less interest in supranational accounting standardization than has the international audit industry’ (Hopwood, 1994, p. 249). Our results allow us to develop a picture of the characteristics of companies that are likely to have a reduced propensity to implement IFRS voluntarily and to lag in the preparation process: small companies, operating in one country, and audited by non-Big 4 accounting firms. Such companies are likely to feel more comfortable using familiar national standards—ones which will often match their national economic, social and legal backgrounds more closely. The generalisability of our findings is limited by the Portuguese setting. However, we believe that, at a minimum, similar findings would be found in national settings like that in which accounting operates in Portugal: EU/EAA member, code-law background, national plan of accounts, and a strong influence of tax laws. This would capture countries such as Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, or Italy. Future research might be directed to investigating whether the factors identified in Portugal as having a positive influence on the degree of preparedeness to adopt IFRS are influential in other countries as well, especially the 52 countries (see Deloitte, 2007) for which the IASB is seeking information about whether or not IFRS had been mandated for use.