Many scholars and practitioners wonder if the accounting standard setting process is not unbiased due to the limited participation of stakeholders in the due process (mainly those involved in the financial sector, but much limited in the productive sector and SMEs). Also, others think that accounting standards are driven to specific contexts, but not efficient for others. What do you think about these two issues?
Dear Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar, i think this article can be helpful
https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/due-process-handbook-review/comment-letters-projects/ed-due-process-handbook-review/
Thanks Mohamed!! I know it. What I want is not an institutional response of the own setting body that issues the standards. Instead of, I look for a research and critical view about these issues. There is much more behind the due process.
Thanks again for your response.
Accounting standards mean to ensure (a) recognition of financial events, (b) measurement of financial transactions, (c) fair presentation of financial statements, and (d) disclosure so that stakeholders are not misinformed. The advantages of accounting standards are expected to lie in (a) uniformity in accounting, (b) reliability of financial statements, (c) prevention of fraud and accounting manipulation, (d) assistance to auditors, (e) comparability, and (f) determination of managerial accountability.
The common expectation is that the concerns of stakeholders will be addressed by disclosure but accounting standards per se do not encourage participation. On top, accounting standards are also limited by (a) the difficulty of selecting alternatives for certain accounting treatments (or valuations), and (b) innate restrictiveness and inflexibility in the sense that accounting standards cannot override laws or statutes (viz., the specificity of contexts). Issues of alternatives and restrictiveness and inflexibility also have implications for stakeholders, among others.