Exploring the Evolution of International Accounting Standards

The IASC Board approved the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) Framework ( in April, 1989) which was a successor of the IASC Board, and it accepted its Framework in April 2001 (Wells, 2011)[ Wells, M J. C., (2011). Framework-based Approach to Teaching Principle-based Accounting Standards., Accounting Education: an international journal., 20(4), 303-316.]. International standards are developed by IASB which are named International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Although IASB took the place of IASC with its accounting standards, its IAS (International Accounting Standards) is enforced by IASB until now. The conceptual framework is helpful when it is used to develop the setting of International accounting standards. First of

So it appears that there would be some advantages for many aspects, such as accounting quality, when applying IFRS into various countries. Because IFRS would be able to exclude different options of accounting from national accounting standards which could reduce the divergence of management.[ Ahmed, A. S., Neel, M., & Wang, D. (2013). Does mandatory adoption of IFRS improve accounting quality? Preliminary evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(4), 1344-1372.](Ahmed, Neel & Wang, 2013) This change is likely to be more advantageous for more users, preparers and auditors to make their economic decisions. (Ramanna & Sletten, 2009)[ Ramanna, K., & Sletten, E. (2009). Why do countries adopt international financial reporting standards?. Harvard Business School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper, (09-102).] Therefore, these expectations of changes would be beneficial for their local economic

In Australia, there would be some limitations on economy. Brown & Tarca (2001) suggested that the regulators, users and corporate reporters would have excessive costs and outcomes when Australia adopts IASB framework. For instance, it could be the case that certain issues would be connected with the changes based on revaluation of assets, the scope of treatments for employee retirement allowance, ‘financial instruments of accounting ’ as well as ‘the mandatory amortization of intangible assets’. (Brown & Tarca, 2001)[ Brown, P., & Tarca, A., ‘Politics, Processes and the Future of Australian Accounting Standards’, Abacus, October 2001.] Further, Jones & Wolnizer held that the risk of financial crisis occurring tends to increase if Australia loses its own framework gradually. (2003, p 382) In addition, IASB framework would not have a positive influence on local culture. As the Jones & Wolnizer (2003)[ Jones, S., & Wolnizer, P. W. (2003). Harmonization and the conceptual framework: An international perspective. Abacus, 39(3),