Who wrote “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Quagli and Paolini, 2012
What is “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?” looking at?
Questionnaire on the public consultation of the IFRS for SMEs, promoted by the European Commission.
What do the results of “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?” show? What are the challenges these results bring with them?
There is a strong difference between users and preparers and also between Countries regarding the position toward the IFRS for the SMEs.
This issue will represent a strong challenge for the European policy on accounting matters because it will force the European Regulator to choose a solution in conditions of substantial diversity of desired preferences among stakeholders.
What two opposite forces exert their influence around the debate of differential reporting in a European Context? “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
From one side, even if the IFRS for SMEs is designed for a worldwide application, in the EU context the publication of IFRS for SMEs arrives when the EU has planned a strong reduction of administrative burden for companies. A large part of firms feel an excessive burden in applying the system of rules developed by the European Commission. In this way, the IFRS for SME could find a good acceptance because they resemble a simplification of full IFRS.
On the other hand, the EU has for a long time adopted some directives to harmonise financial statements among the Member States. After the endorsement of full IFRS for publicly listed companies in 2002 and continuously updated Directives for national harmonised regulations, the adoption also of a third option, the IFRS for SME could generate excessive confusion at a macro-level of the whole accounting system for European Companies.
What is the aim of IFRS for SMEs?
Aims at giving an international complete set of accounting rules to companies that a) do not have public accountability and b) publish general purpose financial statements for external users.
The premise for this issue consists in the fact that the IFRS are mainly addressed to satisfy the informative needs of sophisticated external users who operate in financial markets.
How is the IFRS for SMEs compared to IFRS? “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Examples of how IFRS for SMEs simplifies some recognition and measurement topics.
What was the hypotheses of the questionnaire? “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
What were the predicted outcomes of the questionnaire? “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
A positive evaluation on the IFRS for SMEs will regard most of all the Anglo-Nordic respondents who are presumed favourable to the standard, due to their cultural tradition of great transparency in financial statements and the prevalence of substance over form.
The remaining two classes, German speaking and Latin respondents, are presumed to express a general negative view toward the IFRS for SMEs for the opposite reasons.
Criticisms of IFRS for SMEs. “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
How does size affect the perceived benefit of IFRS for SMEs? “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Larger size implies a more sophisticated financial reporting environment in terms of number and diversity of users and of stakeholders structure.
A large part of respondents don’t see benefits from the international comparability of financial statements and the weak knowledge of IFRS demonstrated by smaller firms influence the capability to understand the real costs and benefits deriving from the IFRS adoption.
Why do users require IFRS for SMEs? What use can they get from it? “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Banks- main users of SMEs financial statements. Usually banks demand very detailed information about financial conditions of SMEs and financial statements are not enough to satisfy their needs.
Suppliers are very interested in indebtedness, average payment time, while competitors use financial statements for comparisons .
QUESTION 1: General opinion on IFRS for SMEs in European context. “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Strong prevalence of disagreement with the opportunity to adopt the IFRS for SMEs. 74 no and 27 yes.
However, predominantly no countries such as German- speaking countries had a greater number of respondents.
Preparers- 2/3 said no. Main reason is difficulty in applying the standard.
Medium companies are strongly oriented towards the standard and large against. Maybe because larger companies see IFRS as alternative.
CRITICISMS:
Q2: Benefits for preparers and users. “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Many don’t believe there are many: Many respondents affirm that comparability already exists under European Directives and with IFRS for SMEs comparability is damaged by many accounting options.
Increased international comparability.
Many users affirm to be already able to analyse SMEs financial statements, even without IFRS for SMEs.
Q5-9: Relationships with legal European accounting framework. “How is the IFRS for SME accepted in the European context?”
Potential incompatibility between the standard and the Directives to be assessed.
There are many alternatives for adoption such as; an inclusion of the standard directly in Directives, a freedom of choice given to member states, a modification of Directives to guarantee a substantial homogeneity with IFRS for SMEs.
In general, the answers by respondents show all companies should stay within the scope of the Directives.
Users: majority want to include IFRS for SMEs within Directives.
Preparers: Opposed to.
Favourable response: increased comparability and thus facilitate trade within Europe.
Unfavourable: IFRS may only be adopted optionally and that it is too complicated.
Reasons for rejecting any further adjustment of EU directives:
Who wrote “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”?
Raiborn et al, 2011
Why is information about a firm’s environmental costs important to external and internal stakeholders? “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et all, 2011
Might be assessing firm for risk, determining firm value, and investing investment opportunities.
What is the problem with a lot of current environmental costs? “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et all, 2011
They are only partially reflected in today’s financial statements and environmental reporting disclosures.
Traditional accounting systems and reporting have contributed to this disclosure problem.
Environmental costs are often aggregated with other costs, are buried within accounts, or are omitted entirely. because of measurement issues.
Some have to be disclosed (purchase of emissions allowance), others do not (installation of scrubbers to remove toxic chemicals) need to be separately disclosed.
Some are easy to measure, some are not.
Such a deficiency of information may paint an incomplete and possibly drastically inaccurate business picture that can lead to McNamara Fallacy.
Financial accounting generally recognises items that can be measured by distinct exchanges and accounted for in monetary units.
Information currently provided does not meet stakeholder expectations.
Dawkins and Lewis (2003) found that over 50% of surveyed investors rated the quality of corporate environmental and social disclosures as poor.
Narrative information rarely read by analysts.
What is McNamara Fallacy? “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et al, 2011
Relationship between environmental disclosure and environmental impact. “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et al, 2011
Disclosing more info does not necessarily translate into action that benefit either the environment or the firm’s economic situation.
Recent studies have shown that firms that voluntarily disclose more environmental information tend to pollute less than their tighter- lipped counterparts.
Increased media and stakeholder scrutiny that accompanies these disclosures may reinforce the tendency to act in an environmentally responsible manner.
More information does not necessarily mean better environmental stewardship, because incentives exist for poorly-performing firms to disclose even more than is required in attempt to appease stakeholders.
Lower performers are likelier to have material events that must be reported in SEC filings and annual reports, leading to more info being disclosed.
Effect of environment on share prices can provide incentives to perform in a more environmentally responsible manner. Positive correlation between share price and environment.
Mandatory environmental reporting. “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et al, 2011
Intent is to ensure disclosure and consistency in reporting environmentally-related liabilities across firms.
SFAS No.5 states that a loss must be both probable and reasonably estimable before it can be recognised.
Designation as a potentially responsible party (PRP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act suggest that a liability is probable.
However, the nature of the liability claims and the number of PRPs specified can mean that determining the liability amount for a single PRP is difficult.
SEC requires that all environmental liabilities be reported unless the firm can prove that the liability will not be of interest to investors.
Environmental items requiring accounting or disclosure recognition include:
Voluntary reporting. “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et al, 2011
Optional nature means that disclosures vary in both quantity and type of the information provided.
Research suggest that organisations with the following characteristics are more apt to provide voluntary environmental disclosures:
Increasing number of firms using Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework.
Content and quality of voluntary information under these guidelines is more comparable and less varied.
This information most commonly requested by internal stakeholders.
External Reporting. “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et al, 2011
Organisational stakeholders are most concerned with the “big picture” that indicates how the company addresses the environmental impacts of its business activities.
Disclosures in external environmental reports:
OPERATIONS:
-Greenhouse gas and other emission data
-Fines or penalties for non compliance with environmental guidelines
-Eco-friendly capital investments
-Performance measurements
-Internal or external assurance of environmental data
-Contributions to local and global conservation and sustainability projects.
PLANS AND STRATEGIES:
Information should be:
Internal reporting. “Environmental reporting: Towards enhanced information quality”, Raiborn et al, 2011
Primarily concerned with identifying and disclosing the costs and benefits of various environmental activities and investments.
Cost may be ascertainable but benefits are often indeterminate and qualitative.