Exploring firm and individual-level determinants of IFRS for SMES adoption in Morocco, a diffusion of innovations’ perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Analysis of IFRS for SMEs adoption subjects in the literature.

Subject	Number of papers	%	Citations	%
Acceptability by stakeholders	17	31%	226	47%
Adoption Impact	16	30%	62	13%
Adoption Context	12	22%	112	23%
Adoption Factors	7	13%	55	11%
Adoption approach	2	4%	28	6%

Source: Elaborated by authors.

Figure 1. The structure and hierarchy’s interview according to Cooper and Schindler (2006) and Gavard-Perret et al. (2008). Source: Elaborated by authors.

Table 2. Summary of the findings related to IFRS for SMEs adoption.

Authors	Year	Findings
Samujh	2007	Examined prerequisites for adopting IFRS for SMEs in New Zealand; found no significant advantages.
Masca, Moldovan-Teselios, & Batrancea	2010	Confirmed the focus on acceptability in the context of IFRS for SMEs adoption.
Atik	2010	Found Turkish SMEs’ willingness to adopt IFRS when elective, not compulsory, due to satisfaction with current tax-based accounting.
Schutte & Buys	2011	Supported the observation that over 30% of papers examined the acceptability of the standard, with these papers garnering 47% of the total citations.
Aboagye-Otchere & Agbeibor	2012	Highlighted the pre-adoption acceptability of IFRS for SMEs.
Strouhal	2012	Provided insights into the acceptability and challenges of IFRS for SMEs.
Albu et Al.	2013	Studied stakeholder perceptions in emerging economies; identified three scenarios for implementation.
Uyar & Güngörmüş	2013	Found that Turkish accountants recognize many advantages of IFRS for SMEs, but lack knowledge about it.
Adetula & Owolabi	2014	Found similar trends in acceptability and citation rates of IFRS for SMEs.
Kiliç, Uyar, & Ataman	2014	Emphasized the significant advantages of IFRS for SMEs for Turkish accountants, except for Big4 professionals.
Ezaaz et Al.	2014	Found that IFRS for SMEs benefited SMEs in Fiji despite technical interpretation difficulties.
Oyewo	2015	Highlighted the necessity of considering factors like timeframe, costs, perceived benefits, and SME proprietors’ characteristics in Lagos, South Africa.
Kaya & Koch	2015	Concluded that developing non-EU countries are more likely to adopt IFRS for SMEs; prior application of full IFRS aids adoption; lower governance quality is positively associated with adoption.
Rudzani & Manda	2016	Identified obstacles to adoption in South Africa, including low awareness, lack of education, and training.
Benhayoun & Marghich	2017	Found that 56% of papers addressed the adoption of IFRS for SMEs, focusing primarily on adoption.
Bonito & Pais	2018	Studied national-level adoption of IFRS for SMEs.
Damak-Ayadi & Sassi	2020	Suggested future research on firm-level determinants of IFRS for SMEs adoption.
Sappor, Sarpong, & Seini	2023	Found that coercive isomorphism and environmental factors positively impact IFRS for SMEs adoption in Ghana.
Muda, Tornyeva, & Maccarthy	2024	Revealed that coercive and mimetic isomorphic pressures promote IFRS for SMEs adoption in Ghana, while normative pressure does not; environmental factors moderate the relationship.

Table 3. Summary of the findings related to DOI theory.

Authors	Year	Findings
Benhayoun I.	2020	Accounting research typically focuses on positive accounting theory and neo-institutional theory; these exhibit limitations in addressing IFRS for SMEs adoption.
Benhayoun & Zejjari	2022	Identified the limitations of traditional accounting theories in addressing IFRS for SMEs adoption, prompting exploration of DOI theory.
Becker et Al.	2015	Highlighted the lack of literature on administrative innovations, including accounting systems, compared to technical innovations.
Wisdom et Al.	2013	Emphasized the multifaceted nature of the adoption process at organizational and systemic levels.
ROGERS	2003	Criticized past diffusion research for not considering the organizational context of decision-makers; highlighted the importance of measuring explanatory variables at the time of the phenomenon’s occurrence to avoid methodological biases.
Elhaddad & Amzile	2015	Moroccan companies reluctant to adopt IFRS for SMEs due to perceived disadvantages; prefer aligning Moroccan GAAP with the new standard.
Delvaille, Ebbers, & Saccon	2005	French professionals have reservations about adopting international standards due to established accounting traditions.
Elmghaamez, Gerged, & Ntim	2020	Applied DOI theory at the country level to study full IFRS adoption, using the bell-shaped curve of adopter categories (early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards).
Rogers	2003	Stated that factors influencing innovation adoption should be studied in an ex-ante context to avoid recall problems.
Wisdom, Ka Ho, Hoagwood, & Horwitz	2013	Found that innovation adoption effectiveness depends on specific adoption constructs operating at various levels (external, organizational, innovation, individual). These factors significantly influence adoption decisions.
Ezaaz et Al.	2014	Found that IFRS for SMEs benefited SMEs in Fiji despite technical interpretation difficulties.

Table 4. Profiles of interviewees.

Position	Professional experience	Education level	IFRS’ level of knowledge	Date	Length
senior accountant	10 years	Undergraduate	Basics	11/02/2022	44 min
Senior auditor	3 years	Graduate	Expert	11/02/2022	1h and 22 min
Ceo	15 years	Graduate + CPA	Advanced	10/31/2022	45 min
Head of department	13 years	Graduate	Intermediate	11/03/2022	47 min
Accounting executive	7 years	Graduate	Intermediate	10/30/2022	1h and 5 min
Chief accountant	12 years	Graduate	Intermediate	10/27/2022	56 min
Associate	15 years	Graduate + CPA	Advanced	10/28/2022	57 min
Cfo	9 years	Graduate	Advanced	10/29/2022	1h and 10 min
Chief accountant	7 years	Graduate	Basics	11/03/2022	55 min
Auditing manager	12 years	Graduate + CPA	Advanced	11/05/2022	1h and 12 min
Associate manager	22 years	Graduate + CPA	Expert	11/04/2022	1h
Accounting executive	10 years	Undergraduate	Intermediate	11/04/2022	40 min
					12h and 42 min

Source: Elaborated by authors.

Table 5. Index table related to the code “Subject”.

Subjects	0	–	+	Total	Frequency	Weight-trend	Neutrality
Csques	5	7	19	31	19%	9,68	84%
Process	11	2	15	28	17%	10,48	61%
Resources	6	1	15	22	13%	11,29	73%
Interest		1	20	21	13%	15,32	100%
Condit.	3	2	15	20	12%	10,48	85%
Efforts	7		7	14	9%	5,65	50%
Cost	2	5	7	14	9%	1,61	86%
Obstl.	3	8		11	7%	−6,45	73%
Opinion	3			3	2%	0,00	0%
Total	40	26	98	164	100%	58,06	75,61%

Source: Elaborated by authors.

Table 6. Index table related to the code “Status”.

Status	0	–	+	Total	Frequency	Weight-trend	Neutrality
Cpa	9	3	14	26	16%	8,87	65%
Consulant	1	3	13	17	10%	8,06	94%
Company	30	20	71	121	74%	41,13	75%
Total Général	40	26	98	164	100%	58,06	75,61%

Source: Elaborated by authors.

Table 7. Analysis of detected determinants of our corpus.

	Determinants	0	–	+	Total	Frequency	Weight-trend	Neutrality
Exter. Syst.	International openness			17	17	20%	16,19	100%
	Legal system	2	1	4	7	5%	2,86	71%
Organisation	Training plan	4	1	10	15	12%	8,57	73%
	Size	3	3	7	13	8%	3,81	77%
	Incentives from organisation	5		7	12	8%	6,67	58%
	Required skills and knowledge	1		3	4	4%	2,86	75%
	Need to collaborate with professionals		2		2	0%	−1,90	100%
	Support from Top Management (General Management and equivalents)			2	2	2%	1,90	100%
	Legal form			1	1	1%	0,95	100%
Individual	Lack of willingness from stakeholders	2	1	4	7	5%	2,86	71%
	Accountants’ motivation		1	4	5	5%	2,86	100%
	Organizational culture	1		1	2	1%	0,95	50%
Innovation	More advantageous than current practices	1	3	8	12	10%	4,76	92%
	Adaptation to accounting practices and specificities		1	4	5	5%	2,86	100%
	Significant time period	1	2		3	0%	−1,90	67%
	Unnecessary incurred costs		2		2	0%	−1,90	100%
	Effectiveness evidence elsewhere	1	1		2	0%	−0,95	50%
	High level of expertise required	1		1	2	1%	0,95	50%
	Adaptation to needs			1	1	1%	0,95	100%
	Risks to undertake		1		1	0%	−0,95	100%
Other	Implementation modality	1	2	9	12	10%	6,67	92%
	Industry sector		1		1	1%	−0,95	100%
Total		23	22	83	128	100%	58,10	82%

Source: Elaborated by author.

Table

The Interviewee Profile

FIRST AND LAST NAME: CURRENT POSITION: COMPANY: PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: EDUCATION LEVEL: IFRS LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE:

Table

Topics	Subjets	Status
Pre-adoption phase	Opinion
	Interest
	Conditions
	Process
Adoption phase	Resources
	Cost
	Efforts
	Influencing elements
	Obstacles
Post-adoption phase	Consequences

Table

Interview n°:……		Date : ………/10/2022
Questions	Relevant information	Observations
First and last name
Entity
City
Position
Experience
Level of education
Level of Knowledge of IFRS
Opinion
Interest
Conditions
Process
Resources
Cost
Efforts
Influencing elements
Obstacles
Consequences

Table

Categories	CODE 1	CODE 2	CODE 3	CODE 4	CODE 5	CODE 6	CODE 7	CODE 8	CODE 9	CODE 10	CODE 11	CODE 12
Status	COMP.	Aud. Fir.	Consult.
Region	F-M	C-S	T-T-H	M-S	Or.	D-T	S-M	R-S-K	G-ON	D-OED	BM-K	L-SEH
Position	ACC.	EXECU.	MID. MANAG.	TOP MANAG.	OTHER
Professional Experience	1 to 3	4 to 6	7 to 9	10 to 12	13 to 15	16 to 18	19 to 21	22 to 24	24 and more
Level of Education	HS	HS +2 y	HS +3 y	HS +4 y (Underg.)	HS +5 y (Grad.)	HS +6 y	PhD	CPA
Level of Knowledge of Ifrs	No	BASIC	INTERM.	ADVAN.	EXPERT
Subject	Interest	Condit.	Process	Resources	Costs	Efforts	Obstl.	Csques	Opinion
Determinants	Comp. Size	Int. Opn.	Indebt.	Perfor.	Int. K	Ar/act	Leg. for.	Aud. Rep.	Other
Evaluation	+	–	0

COMP.: Company | Aud. Fir.: Auditing Firm | CPA: Chartered Public Accountant | Consult.: Consultant | HS: High School | Int. Opn.: International Openness.

Indebt.: Level of Indebtedness | Perfo.: Performance | Int. K: International capital; Ar/act: Area of Activity | Aud. Rep.: Auditors’ Reputation.

Acc. Tr.: Accountants’ trainings.

Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

 Google Scholar

Gavard-Perret, M., Gotteland, D., Haon, C., & Jolibert, A. (2008). Méthodologie de la Recherche, Réussir son mémoire ou sa thèse en sciences de gestion. Pearson.

 Google Scholar

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.