Skip to content

23 March, 2023

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categories

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • ethical decision-making

      Call for FTSE 100 companies to give guidance on ethics

      Most top firms have a published code of ethics, but many lack the framework to...

    • BlackRock Larry Fink Larry Fink puts focus on finance and inflation

      Although BlackRock’s CEO does not mention the term ‘ESG’ in his annual letter, he highlights...

    • woke silicon valley bank News round-up: this week in governance

      GOP declares SVB ‘woke’; banks slow to sustainability; fund managers accused of dodging voting risks;...

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • data decision

      How to boost decision making

      Innovative digital tools can help boards to deliver against strategic objectives, but it is the...

    • remote working

      Navigating the new world of work

      Firms need to focus on building an inclusive environment and a culture of trust to...

    • digital transformation

      Digital transformation: Get the basics right

      Board involvement at the get-go will boost the chances of a successful digital transformation for...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • uncertainty in 2023

      Being a CEO in 2023: how to navigate uncertainty

      Agility, planning in the shorter term and bravery will all stand chief executives in good...

    • A week of business moving to the centre of human rights

      A week of events signals the initiatives underway to have companies play a central role...

    • audit reform IIA Why we need audit reform right now

      There is an "urgent need" for reform to the audit landscape as well as internal...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • life sciences podcast Reform of NHS levy ‘harms UK competitiveness’

      Boards in the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector face increasingly difficult decisions, according to a...

    • Board priorities 2023 Board priorities 2023: tact, trust and transparency

      We asked key figures what would help boards this year. The answers ranged from 'smarter...

    • Group of investors/shareholders in glass building Climate issues likely to figure prominently at next year’s AGMs

      A recent webinar heard that say-on-climate voting is expected to rise, while ESG remains a...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • female ceo Less than a third of FTSE 100 executives are women

      In Europe as a whole, only 7.7% of top companies’ chief executives are female, gender...

    • board size Performance declines as boards grow in size

      Researchers found that investment dropped by 2-3 percentage points as companies passed from 12 to...

    • Silicon Valley governance Silicon Valley improves its governance

      Big technology companies are stealing a march over other top corporates when it comes to...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Gender diversity barometer

      Barometer of Gender Diversity in Governing Bodies in Europe

      The 2023 Barometer of Gender Diversity in Governing Bodies in Europe looks at the 16...

    • geopolitical risk airmic

      Navigating geopolitical risk

      Today, the future feels less secure, and optimism is more restrained. Taking decisions in an...

    • Edelman Trust Barometer 2023

      2023 Edelman Trust Barometer

      The report is the result of the Edelman Trust Institute's research, which sampled more than...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

The long and winding road to financial reporting standards

by Robert Eccles and Kazbi Soonawalla

Setting standards for sustainability reporting is complex. Can we learn from the past 150 years of setting financial reporting standards?

Image: Extezy/Shutterstock.com

It is currently an exciting time in the world of setting standards for sustainability reporting. It is also a complex and confusing one. Last year saw the IFRS Foundation establish the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The ISSB has consolidated the Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB). The VRF was formed in a merger of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and the International Integration Reporting Council (IIRC). The ISSB has also made the framework of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) a key part of its work.

At the same time, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) is working to establish the reporting standards for the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) had been supporting this work and more recently announced a collaboration with the ISSB. Many wonder whether the confusion of many NGOs working on standards for sustainability reporting is simply being replaced by a world of confusion from different government-backed organisations doing the same thing.

It is in this context we think it is useful to put the last two years into the historical perspective of 150 years of setting standards for financial reporting. There is a rich and fascinating literature on the history of the accounting profession and establishment of accounting standards, with Professor Stephen A. Zeff being one of the most distinguished scholars in this field. We have benefited enormously from his work.

Early accounting methods

Double entry bookkeeping, the place where the road started, is often credited to Lucas Pacioli’s 1494 publication Summa de Arithmetica Geometria Proportioni et Proportionalità. However, the Italian and other double entry methods date back to at least 1211.

Over 600 years later, The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) was formed in 1880 and was probably the first professional accountancy body in the world.

In the US, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and its predecessors were created in 1887 with the formation of the American Association of Public Accountants. Legislation on reporting requirements followed and, in the UK, The Companies Act 1900 required all registered companies to appoint auditors (no professional qualification needed) to report on their balance sheets and these had to be presented to shareholders every year.

By the 1920s, more than 90% of listed industrial firms in the US prepared audited financial reporting, although there were few formal reporting obligations. This changed with the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1934 following on from the stock market crash of 1929. The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 required firms to be audited and laid the foundation for financial reporting in the US.

The CAP’s formation was one of the first attempts to rationalise and legitimise standard setting

The formalisation of standard setting followed on from the creation of the SEC, and the AICPA was an early player in the standard setting world. In 1939 it appointed the Committee on Accounting Procedure (CAPs) to issue standards. The CAP’s formation was one of the first attempts to rationalise and legitimise standard setting. However, in reality it continued to be heavily influenced by its parent body the AICPA, and the accounting profession was under regular threat that the SEC could take away its rule-making authority. The main outcomes of this period were the improvement in uniformity of accounting practices and the clear establishment of the private sector as the source of accounting standard setting and policymaking.

Despite issuing 51 Accounting Research Bulletins, there were concerns that the absence of a guiding framework and the lack of independence from the AICPA meant that the CAP could not effectively do its job. These concerns led to the creation of the Accounting Principles Board (APB) by the AICPA in 1959.

The APB was regarded as being relatively independent of the AICPA and was created with the specific purpose of issuing authoritative guidance about accounting theory and its practical applications. The APB did early good work in standard setting, but concerns about independence from the AICPA persisted.

A fork in the road

In the 1970s, responsibility for standard setting was transferred to the newly formed Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). By delegated authority from the SEC the FASB was made responsible for establishing US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP), thereby laying the foundation for the separation of practice and standard setting.

On the global stage, early progress in standard setting took place with the formation of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) in 1973, through an agreement made by accountancy bodies from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland, and the US.

The IASC promulgated a substantial body of International Accounting Standards (IAS), Interpretations, a Framework, and other guidance that was adopted directly by many companies and used by national accounting standard-setters in developing their own accounting standards.

It meant that even though few countries fully adopted or required IAS, these standards played a significant role as guidance or consultative documents for national standard setters. In turn, with some variation, national standard setters influenced and impacted the work of the IASC. This was particularly the case with a group known as the G4+1, which consisted of members of national standard-setting bodies from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US (the plus one).

International standard bearers

After 25 years of work, the IASC concluded in 1997 that to continue to perform its role effectively, it needed to facilitate convergence between national accounting standards and high-quality global accounting standards. Towards that end, a new constitution was adopted in 2000 and the standards-setting body was renamed the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). It was made responsible for setting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

In a single stroke, all EU-listed companies were required to adopt IFRS from 2005

At the time of the formation of the IASB, few countries had adopted IAS as issued by the IASC. Two key events changed that quite dramatically. In 2000, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) endorsed IFRS (and any extant IAS) for cross-border security offerings in global capital markets.

In 2002, the European Union made the decision to require IFRS for all companies listed on European stock exchanges. In a single stroke, all EU-listed companies were required to adopt IFRS from 2005 and were given a couple of years to get their houses in order. This gave the IASB a ready and significant jurisdiction, and national standard setters’ work became more about IFRS interpretation and writing standards for non-listed companies.

Time to converge

One of the early objectives of the IASB was to create some sort of synergy with US GAAP and work towards a single set of high-quality global standards. To this end, the convergence project, the “Norwalk Agreement,” between the FASB and IASB in 2002 was heralded as a much-needed step towards harmonisation.

More generally, the response to the project wasn’t unanimously positive, and critics harboured concerns about US GAAP/IFRS dominance. These were compounded with disquiet about inevitable implementation issues around a potential “one size fits all” approach.

There were trepidations that “harmonisation”…would instead be stealthily replaced with “standardisation”

There was apprehension that there was considerable variation in the starting level of preparedness amongst IFRS adopters. For instance, one country could be adopting IFRS from a situation where their national standards were closely aligned to IFRS; these would typically be countries with greater Anglo Saxon or common law influence.

In contrast, another country’s national standards could be ideologically and practically quite different from IFRS and US GAAP. There were trepidations that “harmonisation”, a term which denotes a coming togetherness and flexibility, would instead be stealthily replaced with “standardisation,” a term which on occasion signifies a rigid and autocratic approach to standard setting.

One of the objectives of the Norwalk Agreement was to reach common agreement on a conceptual framework whose purpose is to set out the fundamental concepts for financial reporting, such as: guidance in selecting transactions, the events and circumstances to be accounted for, how they should be recognised and measured, and how they should be summarised and reported.

No easy task

FASB’s The Conceptual Framework was initially issued in 1978 and the IASC’s Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements was issued in 1989 and grandfathered through by the IASB in 2002. The conceptual framework was added to the convergence project agenda in 2004. It was anticipated that this step would be relatively straightforward. That did not prove to be the case.

The project was divided into a number of phases. In 2010 on the completion of Phase A, the IASB published The Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting and the FASB issued its updated counterpart. At this stage, the boards gave up on getting a common conceptual framework. Today, both boards have their own conceptual framework related agendas for their ongoing development.

Post the signing of the “Norwalk Agreement,” a number of other countries either decided to adopt IFRS in full or move their national standards towards IFRS/US GAAP. Australia transitioned to IFRS in 2005 and Canada in 2011. Accounting standards for New Zealand companies are based on IFRS and are referred to as NZ-IFRS.

In 2007, the Accounting Standards Board of Japan and the IASB entered into an agreement to converge Japanese Accounting Standards with IFRS. Since 2010 large, listed firms in Japan have been permitted to use IFRS to prepare their consolidated financial statements, in lieu of Japanese GAAP.

In a significant and high-profile move, in 2007 the SEC removed the reconciliation requirement for foreign registrants that use IFRS. In its 2012 “Final Report” the SEC staff made no recommendation on potential incorporation of IFRS into US financial reporting.

Go your own way

In 2013, bilateral efforts started winding down. In its place was established the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF), an advisory body comprising 12 standard setters from across the globe. The FASB was selected as one of the members to work on global accounting issues and represent US interests in the IASB’s standard setting process.

There was some inevitable political blaming for the winding down of convergence efforts, and, in June 2014, the former SEC chair, Christopher Cox, speaking at the SEC and Financial Reporting Institute Conference, blamed the IASB for the “divergence” of US GAAP and IFRS.

Work should be done to get as close as possible to a global set of standards for sustainability reporting

In response, IASB chair Hans Hoogervorst defended the project in a letter, arguing that “convergence was a limited-scope project”, and, like any programme, had its successes (such as the converged standard on revenue recognition) and its challenges (such as the highly contested reporting of financial instruments). In that context, the creation of the ASAF could be viewed as convergence evolving into something more dynamic and reflective of global dynamics.

The point of this brief review of the long and winding road to develop financial reporting standards is obvious. It is also important to note that while the EU will mandate the standards developed by EFRAG through the CSRD, the ISSB will depend upon governments requiring their use. The tension with the EU is obvious. Will there eventually need to be some form of the “Norwalk Agreement?”

However this happens, work should be done to get as close as possible to a global set of standards for sustainability reporting. But it is important to be realistic about the effort, difficulties, and time it will take to accomplish this goal. Which will never be achieved in the purist sense. Just as is the case for financial reporting standards.

Robert Eccles is visiting professor of management practice and Kazbi Soonawalla is senior research fellow in accounting, both at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford. 

This article first appeared as a post on the Harvard Law School forum on corporate governance. Read the original article.

 

 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • Investors call for sustainability standards to take in ‘double materiality’
    October 19, 2022
    sustainability double materiality

    Asset managers want the ISSB to include proposals for companies to report their impact on the environment.

  • EU under fire over sustainability reporting reforms
    November 25, 2022
    sustainability directive

    Campaigners fear that ‘limited’ EU draft directives on corporate reporting will hinder the creation of a ‘sustainable and just economy’.

  • ESG legislation: What are the FRC proposals?
    August 17, 2022
    FRC proposals sustainability ESG

    The FRC has set out its plans to help integrate sustainability into corporate governance, reporting and audit reforms.

  • Financial Reporting Council appoints four new non-executive directors
    February 25, 2022
    London financial buildings

    Angela Cha, Sir Ashley Fox, Clare Thompson and David Willis have joined the FRC board to work alongside new chair Sir Jan du Plessis.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

corporate governance, ESG, financial reporting, Financial Reporting Council, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, ICAEW, Insights, Norwalk Agreement, Regulation, Saïd Business School, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, sustainability reporting

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us

 

 

 

 

Most Popular

  • ESG resilience requires leaders to manage without certainty
  • News round-up: this week in governance
  • Being a CEO in 2023: how to navigate uncertainty
  • Into the mind of white-collar criminals
  • How to boost decision making

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

2022 AGM Season Forecast: An Eye on The Horizon

To help prepare for AGMs in 2022, Equiniti (EQ) hi...

Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

This guide aims to provide directors and their col...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...
Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

Creativity in a Crisis: a Boardroom Map for Innovation

In the uncertain times at the height of any crisis...
Board Directors Guide to D&O Liability Insurance - November 2020 - AIG & Board Agenda

Board Directors' Guide to D&O Liability Insurance

Directors face liability over a range of new threa...
Leadership-in-Risk-Management-Board-Report

Leadership in Risk Management: Board Report

Board Agenda, in association with Mazars and INSEA...
Director's Guide to Internal Investigations

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...

 


 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|