International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) is a financial reporting standard for listed corporations in more than half of the world’s countries. This wide adoption combined with its influence on accounting in countries that have not formally adopted it makes IFRS a remarkable case of far-reaching convergence. This paper develops a framework that integrates institutional theory and political economy and employs a discourse analytical approach to address the issue of why the Swedish accountancy profession came to accept and adopt IFRS. The analysis covers the professional debates regarding the measurement of the value of assets and liabilities in the main professional journal over the nearly two decades in which IFRS was gradually integrated into the local accounting standards on a voluntary basis prior to its formal adoption. The analysis emphasizes the combination of a pervasive international development discourse that stresses the significance of financial markets developing into a sense of inevitability and an elite portion of the accountancy profession with a vested interest in change. IFRS can be seen as a strategic professionalization project for the elite members of the accountancy profession which, combined with financial interests, led to its endorsement of the changes and alignment with forces of financialization.
AxelmanL (1995) Redovisningsrådets utkast om redovisning av leasingavtal. Balans, issue 1.
2.
BaudotL (2014)
GAAP convergence or convergence gap: Unfolding ten years of accounting change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal27(6): 956–994.
3.
BotzemSDobuschL (2012)
Standardization cycles: A process perspective on the formation and diffusion of transnational standards. Organization Studies33(5–6): 737–762.
4.
BotzemSQuackS (2009)
(No) limits to Anglo-American accounting? Reconstructing the history of the International Accounting Standards Committee: A review article. Accounting, Organizations and Society34(8): 988–998.
5.
CamffermanKZeffSA (2007) Financial Reporting and Global Capital Markets: A History of the International Accounting Standards Committee, 1973–2000.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
6.
ChiapelloEMedjadK (2009)
An unprecedented privatisation of mandatory standard-setting: The case of European accounting policy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting20(4): 448–468.
7.
ChuaWFTaylorSL (2008)
The rise and rise of IFRS: An examination of IFRS diffusion. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy27(6): 462–473.
8.
De GeorgeETFergusonCBSpearNA (2012)
How much does IFRS cost? IFRS adoption and audit fees. The Accounting Review88(2): 429–462.
9.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983)
The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
10.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1991) Introduction. In PowellWWDiMaggioPJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, pp.1–38.
11.
DingYJeanjeanTStolowyH (2005)
Why do national GAAP differ from IAS? The role of culture. The International Journal of Accounting40(4): 325–350.
12.
EdenhammarH (2004) Måste redovisningen vara så komplicerad?. Balans, issue 6–7.
13.
ErikssonL (1991) Förändringar – men knappast till det bättre. Balans, issue 12.
14.
FaircloughN (2003) Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research.
New York:
Routledge.
15.
FaircloughN (2005)
Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies26(6): 915–939.
16.
FissPCZajacEJ (2004)
The diffusion of ideas over contested terrain: The (non)adoption of shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly49(4): 501–534.
17.
HellmanN (2011)
Soft adoption and reporting incentives: A study of the impact of IFRS on financial statements in Sweden. Journal of International Accounting Research10(1): 61–83.
18.
HinesRD (1989)
Financial accounting knowledge, conceptual framework projects and the social construction of the accounting profession. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal2(2): 72–92.
19.
HögfeldtP (2005) The history and politics of corporate ownership in Sweden. In: MorckR (ed) A History of Corporate Governance around the World.
Chicago:
NBER, pp.517–579.
JohanssonE (1993) Internationell praxis och svenska regler – stötesten för Redovisningsrådet. Balans, issue 1.
22.
JohanssonS-E (1991) Eriksson skjuter vid sidan av målet. Balans, issue 12.
23.
JonnergårdKLarsson-OlaisonU (2016)
Stubborn Swedes: The persistence of the Swedish corporate governance system under international reform. Nordic Journal of Business65(1): 13–28.
24.
JonnergårdKLarssonU (2007)
Developing codes of conduct: Regulatory conversations as means for detecting institutional change. Law & Policy29(4): 460–492.
25.
JönssonS (1994)
Changing accounting regulatory structures in the context of a strong state. Critical Perspectives on Accounting5(4): 341–360.
26.
JudgeWLiSPinskerR (2010)
National adoption of international accounting standards: An institutional perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review18(3): 161–174.
27.
JürgensUNaumannKRuppJ (2000)
Shareholder value in an adverse environment: The German case. Economy and Society29(1): 54–79.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977)
Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology83(2): 340–363.
34.
MüllerJ (2014)
An accounting revolution? The financialisation of standard setting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting25(7): 539–557.
35.
NölkeAPerryJ (2007)
The power of transnational private governance: Financialization and the IASB. Business and Politics9(3): 1–25.
36.
OliverC (1992)
The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies13(4): 563–588.
37.
PaleaV (2015)
The political economy of fair value reporting and the governance of the standards-setting process: Critical issues and pitfalls from a continental European Union perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting29: 1–15.
38.
PelgerC (2016)
Practices of standard-setting – An analysis of the IASB’s and FASB’s process of identifying the objective of financial reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society50: 51–73.
39.
PerryJNölkeA (2006)
The political economy of international accounting standards. Review of International Political Economy13(4): 559–586.
40.
PhillipsNLawrenceTBHardyC (2004)
Discourse and institutions. The Academy of Management Review29(4): 635–652.
41.
PreiatoJBrownPTarcaA (2015)
A comparison of between-country measures of legal setting and enforcement of accounting standards. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting42(1–2): 1–50.
42.
RamannaK (2013)
The international politics of IFRS harmonization. Accounting, Economics and Law3(2): 1–46.
43.
RoseCMeyerC (2003)
The Danish Corporate Governance System: From stakeholder orientation towards shareholder value. Corporate Governance an International Review11(4): 335–344.
44.
ScottWR (2001) Institutions and Organizations.
Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
45.
StafsuddA (2009)
Corporate networks as informal governance mechanisms: A small worlds approach to Sweden. Corporate Governance: An International Review17(1): 62–76.
46.
SuchmanMC (1995)
Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review20(3): 571–610.
47.
SvenbergS-Å (1992) Redovisningsrådets rekommendation – viktigt steg mot bättre koncernredovisning. Balans, issue 2.
48.
Van HulleK (2004) From accounting directives to international accounting standards. In: LeuzCPfaffDHopwoodA (eds) The Economics and Politics of Accounting.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp.349–375.
49.
VirtanenA (2009)
Revealing financial accounting in Finland under five historical themes. Accounting History14(4): 357–379.
50.
VitolsS (2004)
Negotiated shareholder value: The German variant of an Anglo-American practice. Competition and Change8(4): 357–374.
51.
WennestamCNilssonF (1996) Redovisning av immateriella tillgångar – En redogörelse för IASCs utkast till rekommendation. Balans, issue 5.
52.
WhittingtonG (2008)
Fair value and the IASB/FASB conceptual framework project: An alternative view. Abacus44(2): 139–168.
