Comparative Analysis of GAAP and IFRS: Implications for Global Financial Reporting Harmonization

Martin Munyao Muinde

Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive comparison between the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), two predominant financial reporting frameworks utilized globally. The analysis explores the foundational differences in conceptual frameworks, specific accounting treatments, disclosure requirements, and implementation challenges. Furthermore, this research examines the ongoing convergence efforts, regulatory perspectives, and implications for multinational entities operating across jurisdictional boundaries. Through systematic examination of these frameworks, this article contributes to the discourse on global accounting harmonization and provides insights for academics, practitioners, and policy makers navigating the increasingly complex landscape of international financial reporting.

Keywords: GAAP, IFRS, financial reporting, accounting standards, convergence, harmonization, multinational corporations, regulatory compliance, financial statements, disclosure requirements

Introduction

The globalization of capital markets has intensified the need for comparable, transparent, and uniform financial reporting across national boundaries. Financial reporting frameworks serve as the foundational architecture through which economic entities communicate their financial performance and position to stakeholders. Two predominant accounting paradigms have emerged in this context: the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), primarily utilized in the United States, and the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which has garnered widespread adoption across approximately 167 jurisdictions worldwide (IFRS Foundation, 2023). The coexistence of these disparate frameworks presents significant challenges for multinational entities, investors, auditors, and regulatory authorities navigating the complexities of cross-border financial communication.

The dichotomy between GAAP and IFRS extends beyond mere technical accounting differences; it reflects deeper philosophical divergences in approach, with GAAP traditionally characterized as rules-based and IFRS as principles-based. These foundational differences manifest in various accounting treatments, recognition criteria, measurement methodologies, and disclosure requirements. While convergence initiatives have narrowed some gaps between these frameworks over recent decades, substantial differences persist, creating impediments to the comparability and consistency of financial statements across jurisdictional boundaries (De George et al., 2016).

This article endeavors to provide a systematic comparative analysis of GAAP and IFRS, elucidating key differences, similarities, and ongoing harmonization efforts. Beyond technical accounting comparisons, this research examines the implications for financial statement users, preparers, and regulatory authorities. Furthermore, it contextualizes these frameworks within broader economic, cultural, and political environments that influence their development and implementation. Through this comprehensive examination, this article aims to contribute to the discourse on global accounting harmonization and provide insights for stakeholders navigating the increasingly complex landscape of international financial reporting.

Historical Context and Philosophical Foundations

Evolution of GAAP

The development of GAAP in the United States reflects the distinctive economic, legal, and regulatory environment of American capital markets. Its origins trace back to the financial market collapse of 1929 and subsequent regulatory reforms, notably the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, which established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Zeff, 2018). The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), established in 1973, has served as the primary standard-setting body for GAAP, operating under SEC oversight.

GAAP evolved within a litigious business environment, leading to its characteristically detailed, rules-oriented approach. This framework developed incrementally through responses to specific accounting issues, resulting in voluminous guidance comprising standards, interpretations, bulletins, and industry-specific directives. The American regulatory landscape, characterized by robust enforcement mechanisms and substantial legal liability, has reinforced GAAP’s emphasis on detailed prescriptions and bright-line thresholds (Schipper, 2003).

Development of IFRS

The IFRS framework emerged from different historical circumstances, primarily as a response to the growing internationalization of capital markets and the need for cross-border financial reporting consistency. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), established in 1973, initiated this movement, which was later restructured into the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in 2001 (Camfferman & Zeff, 2015). Unlike GAAP’s national focus, IFRS was designed as a transnational framework accommodating diverse economic, legal, and cultural systems across jurisdictions.

IFRS development has been characterized by a principles-based philosophical orientation, emphasizing substance over form and economic reality over technical compliance. This approach provides overarching guidance rather than exhaustive rules, allowing for professional judgment in application. The framework’s international mission necessitated flexibility to function across varying regulatory environments, legal systems, and enforcement mechanisms (Ball, 2006).

Philosophical Divergence

The philosophical divergence between these frameworks represents a fundamental distinction in approach to financial reporting regulation. GAAP’s rules-based methodology provides detailed implementation guidance, specific thresholds, and numerous examples, prioritizing consistency and comparability through technical compliance. This approach aims to minimize ambiguity and potential manipulation, though critics argue it facilitates structuring transactions to circumvent the intention of standards (Benston et al., 2006).

Conversely, IFRS’s principles-based orientation articulates broad concepts, allowing preparers and auditors to exercise professional judgment in applying these principles to specific circumstances. Proponents contend this approach better captures economic substance and adapts to evolving business practices without continuous standard revisions. However, critics note that excessive flexibility may compromise comparability and consistency, particularly across jurisdictions with varying enforcement regimes (Carmona & Trombetta, 2008).

These philosophical differences fundamentally influence numerous aspects of financial reporting, from recognition criteria and measurement methodologies to disclosure requirements and financial statement presentation. Understanding this conceptual divergence provides essential context for analyzing specific technical disparities between the frameworks.

Conceptual Framework Comparison

Objective of Financial Reporting

Both GAAP and IFRS articulate similar overarching objectives for financial reporting—providing information useful for economic decision-making by investors, creditors, and other stakeholders. However, nuanced differences exist in their emphases and prioritization of user groups. GAAP traditionally prioritizes information needs of investors and creditors in public capital markets, reflecting its development within the U.S. securities regulatory framework (FASB, 2018). IFRS adopts a somewhat broader stakeholder perspective, acknowledging diverse users while still emphasizing primary users as existing and potential investors, lenders, and other creditors (IASB, 2018).

Qualitative Characteristics

Both frameworks identify similar qualitative characteristics for financial information, though with differences in organization and emphasis. GAAP’s conceptual framework delineates fundamental qualities (relevance and faithful representation) and enhancing qualities (comparability, verifiability, timeliness, and understandability) (FASB, 2018). IFRS similarly distinguishes fundamental characteristics (relevance and faithful representation) from enhancing characteristics (comparability, verifiability, timeliness, and understandability) (IASB, 2018).

A subtle yet significant difference emerges in the treatment of conservatism or prudence. While GAAP has de-emphasized conservatism as potentially introducing bias, IFRS reintroduced prudence as an aspect of faithful representation in its 2018 conceptual framework revision, defining it as exercising caution when making judgments under uncertainty (Gebhardt et al., 2014).

Elements of Financial Statements

Both frameworks identify similar elements constituting financial statements: assets, liabilities, equity, income, and expenses. However, definitional differences exist with potentially significant implications. For instance, IFRS defines an asset as “a present economic resource controlled by the entity as a result of past events,” with an economic resource defined as “a right that has the potential to produce economic benefits” (IASB, 2018). GAAP defines an asset as “a present economic resource to which the entity has a right or other access that others do not have” (FASB, 2018).

These definitional nuances, while seemingly subtle, can produce materially different outcomes in recognition decisions, particularly for intangible assets, contingent assets, and research and development expenditures. Similar definitional variations exist for liabilities and other elements, creating systematic differences in financial statement recognition under the respective frameworks.

Recognition and Measurement Principles

Recognition thresholds differ between frameworks, with GAAP historically requiring a higher probability threshold for recognizing assets and liabilities. IFRS typically requires recognition when it is “probable” that economic benefits will flow to or from the entity, interpreting “probable” as “more likely than not” (exceeding 50% probability). GAAP has traditionally interpreted “probable” as a higher threshold, often considered around 75-80%, though this varies by specific standard (Herz & Petrone, 2005).

Measurement approaches also demonstrate philosophical differences. GAAP has traditionally favored historical cost with limited revaluation options, reflecting a stewardship perspective and emphasis on verifiability. IFRS permits greater use of fair value and revaluation models across asset classes, aligning with its focus on current economic reality and decision-usefulness (Nobes, 2005).

These conceptual differences permeate specific accounting standards and treatments, creating systematic variations in financial statement outcomes under the respective frameworks.

Specific Accounting Treatment Differences

Financial Statement Presentation

Presentation requirements illustrate fundamental differences in approach between frameworks. GAAP prescribes specific formats and line items for financial statements, particularly for public entities reporting to the SEC. For example, US companies typically present balance sheets in descending order of liquidity and specify a minimum one-year comparative period. IFRS provides more flexibility in presentation structure while requiring minimum line items and a minimum two-year comparison period for balance sheets (PWC, 2022).

Classification distinctions are evident in several areas. GAAP requires separate presentation of extraordinary items (though this requirement has been eliminated in recent updates) and mandates classification of deferred tax assets and liabilities as noncurrent. IFRS prohibits extraordinary item presentation and classifies deferred taxes as noncurrent, reflecting different conceptual approaches to classification and aggregation (Ernst & Young, 2023).

Revenue Recognition

Revenue recognition represents an area of substantial convergence following the joint FASB-IASB project resulting in largely aligned standards (ASC 606 and IFRS 15). Both frameworks now employ a five-step model emphasizing contract identification, performance obligation identification, transaction price determination, allocation to performance obligations, and recognition upon satisfaction of obligations (Rutledge et al., 2016).

Despite this convergence, implementation differences persist due to the frameworks’ broader contexts. GAAP provides more industry-specific guidance and implementation examples, reflecting its rules-based tradition. IFRS application requires greater judgment in determining distinct performance obligations and measuring variable consideration, consistent with its principles-based philosophy (Khamis, 2016).

Leases

Lease accounting underwent significant convergence with GAAP’s ASC 842 and IFRS 16, with both frameworks now requiring lessees to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities on the balance sheet for most leases. However, important differences remain in implementation and classification. GAAP retains the distinction between operating and finance leases for income statement presentation, with operating leases recognized as a single expense and finance leases separated into interest and depreciation components. IFRS treats all leases similarly to finance leases, potentially creating systematic differences in EBITDA and other performance metrics between frameworks (Xu et al., 2017).

Inventory

Inventory accounting demonstrates significant methodological differences. GAAP permits Last-In-First-Out (LIFO) inventory valuation, reflecting U.S. tax-reporting alignment considerations. IFRS explicitly prohibits LIFO, considering it an inadequate representation of actual inventory flows. This difference can substantially impact reported gross margins and profitability metrics, particularly during periods of price volatility or inflation (Gray et al., 2009).

Measurement models also differ, with GAAP requiring lower of cost or market (with market defined as replacement cost subject to ceiling and floor constraints). IFRS requires lower of cost or net realizable value, potentially yielding different valuation outcomes. Furthermore, GAAP prohibits inventory write-down reversals, while IFRS requires them when circumstances warranting the original write-down no longer exist, reflecting different perspectives on conservatism (Ernst & Young, 2023).

Property, Plant and Equipment

Treatment of property, plant and equipment (PPE) exemplifies the frameworks’ different measurement philosophies. GAAP generally requires historical cost measurement for PPE with recognition of impairment losses when carrying value exceeds undiscounted future cash flows. IFRS permits either cost or revaluation models, allowing periodic revaluation to fair value for entire asset classes. This optionality reflects IFRS’s greater emphasis on current economic values versus GAAP’s prioritization of verifiability and stewardship (PwC, 2022).

Component depreciation presents another distinction, with IFRS explicitly requiring separate depreciation of significant components of assets with different useful lives. While GAAP permits this approach, it is not mandated as explicitly, potentially creating systematic differences in depreciation patterns and asset carrying values (Deloitte, 2022).

Intangible Assets and Goodwill

Intangible asset treatment represents one of the most significant differences between frameworks. GAAP generally requires research and development costs to be expensed as incurred, with limited exceptions for software development and certain contractual arrangements. IFRS distinguishes between research (expensed) and development (capitalized when technical and commercial feasibility is demonstrated) phases, potentially creating material differences in reported assets and profitability, particularly for innovation-intensive entities (Lev & Zarowin, 1999).

Goodwill impairment methodologies also differ substantially. GAAP employs a one-step quantitative approach comparing reporting unit fair value to carrying amount, with impairment recognized when carrying amount exceeds fair value. IFRS utilizes a recoverable amount approach, comparing cash-generating unit carrying value to the higher of fair value less costs of disposal or value in use. These methodological differences can yield materially different impairment recognition patterns and timing (André et al., 2016).

Financial Instruments

Financial instrument classification, measurement, and impairment represent areas of significant difference despite convergence efforts. GAAP (ASC 326) implements the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) model requiring lifetime expected loss recognition upon initial recognition. IFRS 9 employs a three-stage approach with 12-month expected losses for performing assets and lifetime losses for underperforming or non-performing assets. These differences create systematic variations in loss allowances and provisioning patterns (Novotny-Farkas, 2016).

Hedging requirements also differ, with GAAP imposing more stringent effectiveness testing and documentation requirements compared to IFRS’s more principles-based approach. IFRS provides greater flexibility in designating risk components as hedged items, potentially enabling more hedging relationships to qualify for hedge accounting treatment (Deloitte, 2022).

Disclosure Requirements and Transparency

Segment Reporting

Segment reporting philosophies differ between frameworks, influencing transparency regarding operational performance across business lines. GAAP (ASC 280) and IFRS 8 both employ the “management approach,” requiring segment disclosure based on internal reporting structures. However, GAAP requires more extensive disclosures about major customers and geographical areas, while IFRS mandates entity-wide disclosures about products and services, potentially yielding different transparency levels across frameworks (Nichols et al., 2012).

Related Party Transactions

Related party transaction disclosure requirements reflect different emphases on relationship transparency. While both frameworks require disclosure of related party relationships, transactions, and outstanding balances, IFRS emphasizes disclosure of relationships where control exists regardless of transaction occurrence. GAAP focuses predominantly on actual transactions and outstanding balances. IFRS also requires disclosure of key management personnel compensation by category, a requirement absent in GAAP (Ernst & Young, 2023).

Fair Value Disclosures

Fair value measurement disclosures illustrate different approaches to transparency regarding valuation methodologies. Both frameworks require hierarchical categorization of fair value measurements (Levels 1, 2, and 3) and disclosure of valuation techniques and inputs. However, IFRS requires more extensive disclosure of sensitivity analyses for Level 3 measurements and transfers between levels, reflecting its greater emphasis on judgment transparency (Chung et al., 2017).

Management Commentary

Management commentary requirements differ significantly between frameworks. GAAP operates within the SEC regulatory framework requiring Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), which mandates discussion of liquidity, capital resources, results of operations, off-balance-sheet arrangements, and critical accounting estimates. IFRS provides non-binding practice guidance on management commentary with less prescriptive requirements, leading to greater variability in practice across jurisdictions (Cole & Jones, 2005).

Convergence Efforts and Future Directions

Historical Convergence Projects

Convergence efforts between GAAP and IFRS have evolved significantly since the 2002 Norwalk Agreement, which formalized the commitment to framework alignment. Initial efforts focused on short-term convergence projects eliminating specific differences, followed by major joint projects addressing fundamental accounting areas. Notable successes include substantially converged standards for business combinations, fair value measurement, revenue recognition, and leases (Baudot, 2014).

However, convergence momentum has diminished since approximately 2014, with the financial instruments project resulting in significantly different standards (IFRS 9 versus ASC 326) and the insurance contracts project proceeding separately. This deceleration reflects persistent philosophical differences, implementation challenges, and shifting regulatory priorities in respective jurisdictions (Camfferman & Zeff, 2015).

Current Status of Adoption

Global IFRS adoption has progressed substantially, with approximately 167 jurisdictions requiring or permitting IFRS for domestic public companies. Major economies including the European Union, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and significant portions of Asia, Africa, and South America have adopted IFRS. However, the United States maintains GAAP as its domestic framework, while permitting foreign private issuers to use IFRS without reconciliation to GAAP (IFRS Foundation, 2023).

This bifurcated landscape creates ongoing challenges for multinational entities, investors, and regulators navigating different reporting frameworks. The SEC continues to evaluate potential IFRS integration strategies, including endorsement mechanisms, optionality approaches, and supplemental reporting requirements, though full adoption appears unlikely in the near term (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2022).

Future Directions and Emerging Issues

Both standard-setting bodies face similar emerging challenges requiring future standard development. Sustainability reporting represents a significant frontier, with the IFRS Foundation establishing the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in 2021 and the FASB evaluating potential environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure requirements. Digital reporting, cryptocurrency accounting, and intangible asset recognition represent additional areas requiring framework evolution (Eccles & Spiesshofer, 2021).

The question of whether frameworks will continue to converge or maintain distinct approaches remains open. Some scholars advocate for “maintained differences” recognizing the contextual appropriateness of different accounting models across jurisdictions with varying legal systems, enforcement mechanisms, and business environments. Others contend that capital market globalization necessitates a single global standard to minimize information processing costs and enhance comparability (Ball, 2016).

Practical Implications for Stakeholders

Financial Statement Preparers

Multinational entities face substantial complexity navigating dual reporting frameworks. Companies may maintain parallel accounting records, implement sophisticated information systems accommodating framework differences, or employ complex translation adjustments. These requirements create significant compliance costs, with estimates ranging from 0.5% to 2.5% of revenue depending on organizational complexity and jurisdictional spread (De George et al., 2016).

Strategic implications extend beyond compliance costs to business decision-making. Framework differences may influence transaction structuring, capital allocation, compensation arrangements, and covenant definitions. For instance, IFRS’s research and development capitalization provisions may incentivize different innovation investment patterns compared to GAAP’s expensing approach (Lev & Zarowin, 1999).

Financial Statement Users

Investors and analysts face additional complexity when comparing entities reporting under different frameworks. Adjustments for known differences help mitigate comparability challenges, though the interaction of multiple differences creates compounding effects difficult to isolate. Evidence suggests that framework differences affect valuation multiples, analyst forecast accuracy, and information processing costs (Barth et al., 2012).

Cross-border investment decisions may incorporate “framework familiarity bias,” where investors demonstrate preference for entities reporting under their familiar domestic framework. This phenomenon potentially contributes to home bias in investment allocation and systematic valuation differences across markets segmented by accounting frameworks (Bradshaw et al., 2004).

Regulatory Perspectives

Regulatory authorities confront significant challenges supervising markets with heterogeneous reporting frameworks. Securities regulators must develop expertise across frameworks to effectively monitor compliance and evaluate potential misstatements. Cross-border regulatory cooperation becomes more complex when addressing reporting issues manifesting differently across frameworks (Coffee, 2002).

Standard-setters face competing pressures between national sovereignty considerations and international harmonization benefits. The legitimacy of transnational standard-setting raises questions about democratic accountability, representation of diverse economic systems, and appropriate balance between global consistency and local relevance (Büthe & Mattli, 2011).

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of GAAP and IFRS reveals a complex landscape characterized by philosophical divergences, technical differences, and evolving convergence efforts. While frameworks demonstrate substantial similarity in conceptual foundations and objectives, persistent differences in recognition criteria, measurement methodologies, disclosure requirements, and implementation guidance create systematic variations in financial reporting outcomes.

These differences reflect deeper contextual factors, including legal systems, regulatory environments, enforcement mechanisms, and cultural perspectives on financial reporting. The continued coexistence of these frameworks presents both challenges and opportunities for stakeholders navigating global financial markets. Multinational entities must efficiently manage compliance complexities, investors must develop cross-framework analytical capabilities, and regulators must balance sovereignty considerations against harmonization benefits.

Looking forward, both frameworks face similar emerging challenges, including sustainability reporting, digital transformation, and intangible asset accounting. Whether these common challenges will accelerate convergence or reinforce distinctive approaches remains an open question with profound implications for the future of global financial reporting.

The comparative understanding of these frameworks provides essential context for academics researching international accounting, practitioners implementing financial reporting systems, and policymakers evaluating regulatory approaches. By elucidating the nuanced differences between GAAP and IFRS, this analysis contributes to the broader discourse on global accounting harmonization and informs stakeholder navigation of the increasingly complex landscape of international financial reporting.

References

André, P., Filip, A., & Paugam, L. (2016). Examining the patterns of goodwill impairments in Europe and the US. Accounting in Europe, 13(3), 329-352.

Ball, R. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, 36(sup1), 5-27.

Ball, R. (2016). IFRS – 10 years later. Accounting and Business Research, 46(5), 545-571.

Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., Lang, M., & Williams, C. (2012). Are IFRS-based and US GAAP-based accounting amounts comparable? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54(1), 68-93.

Baudot, L. (2014). GAAP convergence or convergence Gap: Unfolding ten years of accounting change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(6), 956-994.

Benston, G. J., Bromwich, M., Litan, R. E., & Wagenhofer, A. (2006). Worldwide financial reporting: The development and future of accounting standards. Oxford University Press.

Bradshaw, M. T., Bushee, B. J., & Miller, G. S. (2004). Accounting choice, home bias, and US investment in non-US firms. Journal of Accounting Research, 42(5), 795-841.

Büthe, T., & Mattli, W. (2011). The new global rulers: The privatization of regulation in the world economy. Princeton University Press.

Camfferman, K., & Zeff, S. A. (2015). Aiming for global accounting standards: The International Accounting Standards Board, 2001-2011. Oxford University Press.

Carmona, S., & Trombetta, M. (2008). On the global acceptance of IAS/IFRS accounting standards: The logic and implications of the principles-based system. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27(6), 455-461.

Chung, S. G., Goh, B. W., Ng, J., & Yong, K. O. (2017). Voluntary fair value disclosures beyond SFAS 157’s three-level estimates. Review of Accounting Studies, 22(1), 430-468.

Coffee, J. C. (2002). Racing towards the top?: The impact of cross-listings and stock market competition on international corporate governance. Columbia Law Review, 102(7), 1757-1831.

Cole, C. J., & Jones, C. L. (2005). Management discussion and analysis: A review and implications for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 24, 135-174.

De George, E. T., Li, X., & Shivakumar, L. (2016). A review of the IFRS adoption literature. Review of Accounting Studies, 21(3), 898-1004.

Deloitte. (2022). IFRS and US GAAP: Similarities and differences. Deloitte Development LLC.

Eccles, R. G., & Spiesshofer, B. (2021). Tectonic shifts in the sustainability reporting landscape. Harvard Business School Working Paper.

Ernst & Young. (2023). US GAAP versus IFRS: The basics. EYGM Limited.

FASB. (2018). Conceptual framework for financial reporting. Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Gebhardt, G., Mora, A., & Wagenhofer, A. (2014). Revisiting the fundamental concepts of IFRS. Abacus, 50(1), 107-116.

Gray, S. J., Linthicum, C. L., & Street, D. L. (2009). Have ‘European’ and US GAAP measures of income and equity converged under IFRS? Evidence from European companies listed in the US. Accounting and Business Research, 39(5), 431-455.

Herz, R. H., & Petrone, K. R. (2005). International convergence of accounting standards—Perspectives from the FASB on challenges and opportunities. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 25(3), 631-660.

IASB. (2018). Conceptual framework for financial reporting. International Accounting Standards Board.

IFRS Foundation. (2023). Use of IFRS standards around the world. IFRS Foundation.

Khamis, A. M. (2016). Perception of preparers and auditors on new revenue recognition standard (IFRS 15): Evidence from Egypt. Journal of Accounting and Business Research, 17(1), 341-364.

Lev, B., & Zarowin, P. (1999). The boundaries of financial reporting and how to extend them. Journal of Accounting Research, 37(2), 353-385.

Nichols, N. B., Street, D. L., & Tarca, A. (2012). The impact of segment reporting under the IFRS 8 and SFAS 131 management approach: A research review. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 24(3), 261-312.

Nobes, C. (2005). Rules-based standards and the lack of principles in accounting. Accounting Horizons, 19(1), 25-34.

Novotny-Farkas, Z. (2016). The interaction of the IFRS 9 expected loss approach with supervisory rules and implications for financial stability. Accounting in Europe, 13(2), 197-227.

PWC. (2022). IFRS and US GAAP: similarities and differences. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Rutledge, R. W., Karim, K. E., & Kim, T. (2016). The FASB’s and IASB’s new revenue recognition standard: What will be the effects on earnings quality, deferred taxes, management compensation, and on industry-specific reporting? Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 27(6), 43-48.

Schipper, K. (2003). Principles-based accounting standards. Accounting Horizons, 17(1), 61-72.

Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). Final staff report: Work plan for the consideration of incorporating IFRS into the financial reporting system for US issuers. SEC.

Xu, W., Davidson, R. A., & Cheong, C. S. (2017). Converting financial statements: Operating to capitalised leases. Pacific Accounting Review, 29(1), 34-54.

Zeff, S. A. (2018). The Source of Accounting Standards: The Case of the FASB. Accounting and the Public Interest, 18(1), 41-56.