IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01002936.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Accounting for Stakeholders or Shareholders? The Case of R&D Reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Yuan Ding

    (CEIBS - Europe International Business School)

  • Thomas Jeanjean

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Hervé Stolowy

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Accounting numbers (and especially net income, equity or total assets) are based on conventions that are shaped by accounting standard setters. Elected choices result from a trade-off between the information needs of various stakeholders. This paper investigates how accounting choices meet the information needs of various stakeholders. Analyzing the R&D policy of Renault, one of the largest carmakers in Europe, over ten years (from 2002 to 2011), the paper illustrates how Renault modifies its R&D accounting policy from total expensing (a static convention) to capitalization (a dynamic convention), coping with the shift from State capitalism dominance to professional shareholder emphasis. Our findings are based on a content analysis of analysts' reactions to Renault accounting choices as well an extensive analysis of the documentation related to Renault (annual reports, presentations to analysts, conference call transcripts). Interestingly, while the R&D capitalization, promoted by the international accounting standard setter (the International Accounting Standards Board - IASB) in line with its advocacy of investors' interest as the principal recipient of accounting information, is supposed to help investors better understand the firm future cash flow, Renault's choice has been constantly challenged, even doubted by analysts. Our findings contradict the conventional wisdom in which shareholders should prefer dynamic conventions of accounting over static conventions while from its inception, the IASB purposely decided to favor investors over other stakeholders and promoted dynamic options of accounting choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2013. "Accounting for Stakeholders or Shareholders? The Case of R&D Reporting," Post-Print hal-01002936, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01002936
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01002936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01002936/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    2. Michael P. Keane & David E. Runkle, 1998. "Are Financial Analysts' Forecasts of Corporate Profits Rational?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(4), pages 768-805, August.
    3. Alexander Dyck & Adair Morse & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Who Blows the Whistle on Corporate Fraud?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(6), pages 2213-2253, December.
    4. Paul M. Healy & Stewart C. Myers & Christopher D. Howe, 2002. "R&D Accounting and the Tradeoff Between Relevance and Objectivity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 677-710, June.
    5. Ulrich Jürgens & Yannick Lung & G. Volpato & Vincent Frigant, 2002. "The Arrival of Shareholder Value in the European Car Industry A Case Study Comparison of Four Car Makers," Post-Print hal-00204249, HAL.
    6. Brown, Ld & Richardson, Gd & Schwager, Sj, 1987. "An Information Interpretation Of Financial Analyst Superiority In Forecasting Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 49-67.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1338 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Lev, Baruch & Sougiannis, Theodore, 1996. "The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 107-138, February.
    9. Jenkinson, Tim & Mayer, Colin, 1988. "The privatisation process in France and the U.K," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 482-490, March.
    10. Stephen Brammer & Andrew Millington, 2004. "The Development of Corporate Charitable Contributions in the UK: A Stakeholder Analysis," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(8), pages 1411-1434, December.
    11. Ding, Yuan & Richard, Jacques & Stolowy, Hervé, 2008. "Towards an understanding of the phases of goodwill accounting in four Western capitalist countries: From stakeholder model to shareholder model," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 718-755.
    12. Chenting Su & Ronald K. Mitchell & M. Joseph Sirgy, 2007. "Enabling Guanxi Management in China: A Hierarchical Stakeholder Model of Effective Guanxi," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 301-319, March.
    13. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    14. Aboody, D & Lev, B, 1998. "The value relevance of intangibles: The case of software capitalization," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36, pages 161-191.
    15. Young, Joni J., 2006. "Making up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 579-600, August.
    16. Ball, Ray & Kothari, S. P. & Robin, Ashok, 2000. "Corrigendum to "The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings"; [Journal of Accounting and Economics 29 (2000) 1-51]," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 241-241, October.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1389 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Clement, Ronald W., 2005. "The lessons from stakeholder theory for U.S. business leaders," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 255-264.
    19. Ball, Ray & Kothari, S. P. & Robin, Ashok, 2000. "The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-51, February.
    20. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    21. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    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. Dargenidou, Christina & Jackson, Richard H.G. & Tsalavoutas, Ioannis & Tsoligkas, Fanis, 2021. "Capitalisation of R&D and the informativeness of stock prices: Pre- and post-IFRS evidence," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4).
    2. Brasch, Annika & Eierle, Brigitte & Jarvis, Robin, 2022. "Research and development investments, development costs capitalization, and credit ratings: Exploratory evidence from UK R&D-active private firms," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).

    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. Ho, Simon S.M. & Li, Annie Yuansha & Tam, Kinsun & Tong, Jamie Y., 2016. "Ethical image, corporate social responsibility, and R&D valuation," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 335-348.
    2. Dennis Oswald & Paul Zarowin, 2007. "Capitalization of R&D and the Informativeness of Stock Prices," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 703-726.
    3. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    4. Cheng, Jia-Chi & Lu, Chia-Chi & Kuo, Nan-Ting, 2016. "R&D capitalization and audit fees: Evidence from China," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 39-48.
    5. Guillaume Dumas, 2012. "Le Comportement Myopique D’Investissement En R&D : Une Realite En France ?," Post-Print hal-03948465, HAL.
    6. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    7. Emmanuel Iatridis, George, 2018. "Accounting discretion and executive cash compensation: An empirical investigation of corporate governance, credit ratings and firm value," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-49.
    8. Guillaume Dumas, 2012. "Le Comportement Myopique D'Investissement En R&D : Une Realite En France ?," Post-Print hal-00690955, HAL.
    9. Eduardo Ortas & Igor Álvarez & Eugenio Zubeltzu, 2017. "Firms’ Board Independence and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    10. Alain Schatt & Leonidas Doukakis & Corinne Bessieux-Ollier & Elisabeth Walliser, 2016. "Do Goodwill Impairments by European Firms Provide Useful Information to Investors?," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 307-327, September.
    11. Mahoney, Joseph & Asher, Cheryl Carleton & Mahoney, James, 2004. "Towards a Property Rights Foundation for a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm," Working Papers 04-0116, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    12. Chan-Jane Lin & Tawei Wang & Chao-Jung Pan, 2016. "Financial reporting quality and investment decisions for family firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 499-532, June.
    13. Boubaker, Sabri & Labégorre, Florence, 2008. "Ownership structure, corporate governance and analyst following: A study of French listed firms," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 961-976, June.
    14. Goncharov, Igor & Werner, Joerg R. & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "Legislative demands and economic realities: Company and group accounts compared," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 334-362, December.
    15. Ben-Nasr, Hamdi & Ghouma, Hatem, 2018. "Employee welfare and stock price crash risk," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 700-725.
    16. Dinh, Tami & Schultze, Wolfgang, 2022. "Accounting for R&D on the income statement? Evidence on non-discretionary vs. discretionary R&D capitalization under IFRS in Germany," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    17. Zhang, Yuan, 2005. "Revenue recognition timing and attributes of reported revenue: The case of software industry's adoption of SOP 91-1," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 535-561, September.
    18. Constant Djama & Guillaume Dumas & Isabelle Martinez, 2011. "L'innovation : une incitation à la gestion des résultats ?," Post-Print hal-00650418, HAL.
    19. Pathak, Jagdish & Sun, Jerry, 2013. "Does investor protection regime affect the effectiveness of outside directorship on the board?," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 19-33.
    20. Hans B. Christensen & Luzi Hail & Christian Leuz, 2021. "Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 1176-1248, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stakeholder; R&D capitalization; Renault; accounting;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-01002936. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.