Lobbying of the International Accounting Standards Committee: The Case of Construction Contracts

Abstract

Many cultural, political, economic and other environmental factors have been suggested as impediments to the efforts of the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) to harmonize international accounting standards. We investigate the relationship between lobbyists’ position, and: (1) their home countries’ financial accounting standards; and (2) their home countries’ tax rules. The factors are tested both separately and jointly to increase our understanding of lobbying and obstacles to harmonization. Long-term construction contracts are used as our case study. Construction contracts were traditionally accounted for by either the completed contract method (CCM) or the percentage of completion method (PCM). Originally, the IASC’s Standards (IASs) allowed both CCM and PCM. Thus, most countries’ accounting standards complied with IASs. However, the IASC’s Comparability Project, beginning with Exposure Draft (ED) 32, proposed to eliminate CCM. Thirty-nine comment letters submitted on ED 32 contained specific references to long-term construction contracts. Although almost 60% opposed the complete elimination of CCM, the IASC eliminated it. However, in many ways, the IASC co-opted lobbyists by allowing the Zero Profit Method, which may effectively result in the same timing of profit recognition as CCM. Support is found for a strong link between respondents’ lobbying position and both their home country’s accounting standards and tax laws. Each factor may hinder the harmonization process. A high positive correlation also exists between the accounting standards and tax laws of lobbyists’ countries. Beyond the possible importance of the tax and financial reporting linkage affecting harmonization, the issue of multicollinearity should signal caution when interpreting the results of lobbying studies that simultaneously include highly correlated variables in the same model.