IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reacre/v21y2009i2p79-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Luthardt, Ulf
  • Zimmermann, Jochen

Abstract

Accounting rules affect fundamental areas of social interaction encompassing groups that have diverse and conflicting interests regarding financial reporting. In the absence of a coherent social choice theory, concepts of legitimacy can be used to assess the acceptance of accounting standard-setting processes and their resulting norms. In this paper, we analyze the standard-setting process in Europe. Accounting rules in Europe are developed in a two-stage process involving both private standard-setting and public rule-making. From a structural perspective, the European Union (EU) is well positioned to develop legitimate accounting procedures. However, the original purpose and the ensuing legitimacy of its control mechanism are jeopardized when EU structures are used and sometimes abused for policy formation and the creation of EU-IFRS.

Suggested Citation

  • Luthardt, Ulf & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-88.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:79-88
    DOI: 10.1016/j.racreg.2009.06.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1052045709000320
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.racreg.2009.06.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Canning & Brendan O'Dwyer, 2001. "Professional accounting bodies' disciplinary procedures: accountable, transparent and in the public interest?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 725-749.
    2. John Flower, 2004. "European Financial Reporting," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-62810-6.
    3. Johnson, Steven B. & Solomons, David, 1984. "Institutional legitimacy and the FASB," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 165-183.
    4. Ballmann, Alexander & Epstein, David & O'Halloran, Sharyn, 2002. "Delegation, Comitology, and the Separation of Powers in the European Union," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(3), pages 551-574, July.
    5. Scharpf, Fritz W., 2004. "Legitimationskonzepte jenseits des Nationalstaats," MPIfG Working Paper 04/6, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    6. Axel Haller, 2002. "Financial accounting developments in the European Union: past events and future prospects," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 153-190.
    7. Warren, Mark E., 1996. "Deliberative Democracy and Authority," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 46-60, March.
    8. Sutton, Timothy G., 1984. "Lobbying of accounting standard-setting bodies in the U.K. and the U.S.A.: A Downsian analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 81-95, January.
    9. Matthias Schmidt, 2002. "On The Legitimacy Of Accounting Standard Setting By Privately Organised Institutions In Germany And Europe," Schmalenbach Business Review (sbr), LMU Munich School of Management, vol. 54(2), pages 171-193, April.
    10. Thornburg, Steven & Roberts, Robin W., 2008. "Money, politics, and the regulation of public accounting services: Evidence from the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 229-248.
    11. George Georgiou, 2004. "Corporate Lobbying on Accounting Standards: Methods, Timing and Perceived Effectiveness," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 40(2), pages 219-237, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McEnroe, John E. & Sullivan, Mark, 2013. "An examination of the perceptions of auditors and chief financial officers regarding principles versus rules based accounting standards," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 196-207.
    2. Larson, Robert K. & Kenny, Sara York, 2011. "The financing of the IASB: An analysis of donor diversity," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco De Luca & Jenice Prather-Kinsey, 2018. "Legitimacy theory may explain the failure of global adoption of IFRS: the case of Europe and the U.S," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(3), pages 501-534, September.
    2. Roland Königsgruber & Stefan Palan, 2015. "Earnings management and participation in accounting standard-setting," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(1), pages 31-52, March.
    3. Renata Stenka & Peter Taylor, 2010. "Setting UK standards on the concept of control: An analysis of lobbying behaviour," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 109-130.
    4. Bamber, Matthew & McMeeking, Kevin, 2016. "An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 59-73.
    5. Urska Kosi & Antonia Reither, 2014. "Determinants of Corporate Participation in the IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts) Replacement Process," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 89-112, June.
    6. Marius Gros & Daniel Worret, 2016. "Lobbying and Audit Regulation in the EU," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 381-403, September.
    7. Holder, Anthony D. & Karim, Khondkar E. & Lin, Karen Jingrong & Woods, Maef, 2013. "A content analysis of the comment letters to the FASB and IASB: Accounting for contingencies," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 134-153.
    8. Hodges, Ron & Mellett, Howard, 2012. "The U.K. private finance initiative: An accounting retrospective," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 235-247.
    9. Durocher, Sylvain & Fortin, Anne & Cote, Louise, 2007. "Users' participation in the accounting standard-setting process: A theory-building study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-2), pages 29-59.
    10. Christoph Pelger & Nicole Spieß, 2017. "On the IASB’s construction of legitimacy – the case of the agenda consultation project," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 64-90, January.
    11. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    12. Lisa Baudot & Robin W. Roberts & Dana M. Wallace, 2017. "An Examination of the U.S. Public Accounting Profession’s Public Interest Discourse and Actions in Federal Policy Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 203-220, May.
    13. Karen Handley & Elaine Evans & Sue Wright, 2020. "Understanding participation in accounting standard‐setting: the case of AASB ED 192 Revised Differential Reporting Framework," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 3621-3645, December.
    14. Roland Königsgruber, 2013. "Expertise-based lobbying and accounting regulation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 1009-1025, November.
    15. Igor Álvarez & José Calvo & Araceli Mora, 2014. "Involving academics in the accounting standard setting process: an application of the Delphi methodology to the assessment of IASB proposals," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 18(3), pages 765-791, August.
    16. David Procházka, 2015. "Lobbying on the IASB Standards: An analysis of the Lobbyists’ Behaviour over Period 2006–2014," Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 4(2), pages 129-143.
    17. Barbara Masiello & Nicola Moscariello & Pietro Fera, 2018. "Political Marketing Strategies to Foster the Sustainability of Private Transnational Organisations: The Case of the IASB," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    18. Bhimani, Alnoor & Bond, David & Sivabalan, Prabhu, 2019. "Does greater user representation lead to more user focused standards? An empirical investigation of IASB’s approach to standard setting," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91196, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Samsonova-Taddei, Anna & Humphrey, Christopher, 2015. "Risk and the construction of a European audit policy agenda: The case of auditor liability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 55-72.
    20. Chiapello, Eve & Medjad, Karim, 2009. "An unprecedented privatisation of mandatory standard-setting: The case of European accounting policy," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 448-468.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reacre:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:79-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-accounting-regulation .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.