The role of local accounting standard setters in institutional complexity

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to locate the role of local standard setters in institutional complexity, where multiple sources of pressure for change and continuity coexist. The existing research does not fully explore this since it tends to illustrate the way in which a particular interpretation concerning certain accounting standards prevails over time (Archelet al., 2011; Murphy and O’Connell, 2013; Pelger, 2016; Young, 2014). Design/methodology/approach It empirically examines and critiques the Japanese experience through the concepts of institutional complexity and translation that specify the relationship between the name and types of practice of accounting standards in the local context (Czarniawska and Sevón, 1996, 2005; Erlingsdóttfr and Lindberg, 2005; Røvik, 2016; Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008). Data sources are texts produced (between 2001 and 2015) by the local accounting standard setter and relevant organisations that represent firms, the certified public accountants and regulatory agency, respectively. Findings The local accounting standard setter in Japan was exposed to competing pressures between change and maintenance, which was translated by the standard setter in Japan. Consequently, the translation led to an “explosion” of local accounting standards (“pure” International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Japanese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), modified IFRS and US GAAP). Originality/value This paper is the first attempt to systematically examine the role of a local standard setter under institutional complexity. It illustrates how institutional complexity is turned into divergent outcomes against the assumption of previous research that indicates multiple interpretations of particular accounting standards finally merging into a specific one.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.