Discussion of Barker and Teixeira ([2018]. Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15) and Van Mourik and Katsuo ([2018]. Profit or loss in the IASB Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15)

Abstract

I provide comments on two papers, Barker and Teixeira ([2018]. Gaps in the IFRS Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15) and Van Mourik and Katsuo ([2018]. Profit or loss in the IASB Conceptual Framework. Accounting in Europe, 15), in this issue, which were presented at the EAA-IASB research forum in Brussels. The paper accepts the shortcomings of the updated IASB conceptual framework and argues that these are in large part due to the origins of the document. It points out that the original US project was an attempt to make standard-setting more consistent and involved creating principles which would explain existing standards. Constituents have subsequently resisted attempts to make the framework theoretically sound because they fear this will encourage too much innovation. Standard-setters prefer incremental change, so continue to work with a model created to resolve a problem of the 1970s. I suggest that since standard-setting has been professionalised, the more significant need to is to define what information investors find useful. This may involve providing more granular information about the entity’s business model.

Keywords:

• IASB
• Conceptual Framework
• business model

Notes

1 International Standard-Setting Report April 2005 (pp. 23–28).

2 Website www.iirc.org consulted 11 December 2017.