| Course | ACC-6030 Accounting Theory |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Written Assignment 3: international accounting standards |
| Length | About 746 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | M.S. in Management in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ACC 6030 Module 3
One Set of Standards, Many Gatekeepers: The IASB, Endorsement and the Limits of Global Comparability
Student Name
M.S. in Management in Accounting, Thomas Edison State University
ACC-6030: Accounting Theory
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
One Set of Standards, Many Gatekeepers: The IASB, Endorsement and the Limits of Global Comparability
Introduction
International accounting standards promise that investors can compare companies across borders using one language. Whether that promise holds depends less on the content of the standards than on who writes them, who adopts them and who enforces them (Schroeder et al., 2011). This paper examines those questions.
From the IASC to the IASB
The International Accounting Standards Committee, formed in 1973 by professional accounting bodies from several countries, issued International Accounting Standards that often allowed several alternatives, reflecting the need for agreement among diverse national practices. In the late 1990s, a project with the International Organization of Securities Commissions pushed the IASC to improve its core standards, and in 2001 it was restructured into the IASB: an independent board of full-time members appointed by trustees of a foundation, with an advisory council and an interpretations committee. A Monitoring Board of public authorities, created in 2009, oversees the trustees. The board follows due process with discussion papers, exposure drafts, comment letters and public meetings.
How Jurisdictions Adopt IFRS
The IASB has no power to require anyone to use its standards. Adoption happens through national or regional law. The European Union required listed companies to use IFRS in their consolidated statements from 2005, but only standards endorsed through an EU process involving technical advice and a vote by member states. Other jurisdictions adopt IFRS as issued, adopt with modifications or converge local standards toward IFRS. The United States, as noted in other modules, permits foreign private issuers to file under IFRS but requires U.S. GAAP for domestic companies.
Adoption takes several forms. Some countries require IFRS as issued by the IASB, others endorse each standard through a national process, and some, such as China, maintain national standards substantially converged with IFRS. Washington lets foreign private issuers file IFRS accounts with no reconciliation, yet holds domestic registrants to U.S. GAAP, so the same industry may report under two frameworks in the same market.
The IAS 39 Carve-Out
The endorsement process became contentious almost immediately. In 2004 the EU endorsed IAS 39 on financial instruments but removed provisions on the fair value option and on hedge accounting for portfolios of core deposits, after European banks argued that the rules would create artificial volatility in their results. The carve-out meant that some European companies reported under IFRS as endorsed by the EU rather than IFRS as issued by the IASB, a gap that undermined the claim of a single global standard. Later standards replaced IAS 39, but the episode showed that endorsement gives jurisdictions a veto that can be used under political pressure.
The episode showed that endorsement gives a political body a veto over technical standards. Later replacement of IAS 39 by IFRS 9 resolved much of the original dispute, but the EU still retains the ability to carve out provisions, and its hedge accounting carve-out survived the transition.
Lobbying and the Independence of the Standard Setter
Lobbying is a normal part of due process, but it can shade into political pressure. Zeff (2002) documented how companies, industry groups and governments have tried to influence standard setters, arguing that the IASB faces an especially difficult challenge because it lacks a single government protector and depends on many jurisdictions to adopt its standards. Pressure on fair value accounting during the 2008 financial crisis, when the IASB amended reclassification rules for financial assets within days without full due process, illustrates the problem. Theory suggests that standard setters with secure funding and broad legitimacy are better able to resist such pressure, which is why the foundation's funding and the Monitoring Board's role matter.
Can a Single Standard Deliver Comparability?
Research suggests that standards alone do not ensure comparable reporting. Ball (2006) argued that the effects of IFRS would depend on local incentives and enforcement, warning that uniform standards could mask differences in how they are applied. Studies of mandatory adoption found benefits concentrated in countries with strong enforcement and reporting incentives (Daske et al., 2008). If national regulators, auditors and courts apply the same standards differently, investors comparing a German and a Brazilian company under IFRS may still face meaningful differences.
Conclusion
The IASB has built a credible, independent standard-setting process and its standards are used widely. But adoption through endorsement, the possibility of carve-outs, lobbying and national enforcement mean that global comparability remains partial. A single set of standards is necessary for comparability but not sufficient.
References
Ball, R. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors. Accounting and Business Research, 36(sup1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730040
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2008). Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: Early evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(5), 1085-1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00306.x
Schroeder, R. G., Clark, M. W., & Cathey, J. M. (2011). Financial accounting theory and analysis: Text and cases (10th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Zeff, S. A. (2002). "Political" lobbying on proposed standards: A challenge to the IASB. Accounting Horizons, 16(1), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2002.16.1.43
What the ACC 6030 Module 3 instructions ask for
International standards are the theme of Written Assignment 3. Prompts here tend to cover how the IASB is organized and how it consults, the history from the IASC, how countries adopt IFRS, the case for and against a single global standard, political influence on standard setting or the effects of adoption. Some use cases from the Schroeder text. Adoption around the world has moved on since 2011, so check what has changed before writing. This sample takes a governance and politics angle, which complements assignments that compare specific rules. A frequent final question, whether the U.S. should switch to IFRS, is argued both ways in the last part here. Most answers are expected to draw on research about whether adoption improved comparability, not on opinion alone.
Inside the ACC 6030 Module 3 example
The paper states its thesis early: comparability depends on who writes, adopts and enforces standards. It traces the IASC's restructuring into the IASB and describes due process and oversight. The adoption section explains that the IASB depends on national law and describes the EU's endorsement process. The IAS 39 carve-out serves as evidence of how endorsement can fracture a standard. A lobbying section draws on Zeff's analysis and the 2008 crisis episode. The comparability section uses research on adoption and enforcement, and the conclusion separates necessary from sufficient conditions for comparability. The carve-out serves as the case that shows how endorsement and lobbying meet.
Where the marks sit in the ACC 6030 Module 3 rubric
International standard setting counts as one tenth of the written half of ACC-6030. For an international standards assignment, mentors look for an accurate account of the IASB's structure and history, correct description of how jurisdictions adopt IFRS, analysis supported by specific episodes and research, and a reasoned conclusion. Distinguishing IFRS as issued from IFRS as endorsed shows depth. Papers lose points for outdated claims, such as imminent U.S. adoption, and for listing rule differences when the prompt asks about governance or theory. APA citations and clear organization complete the expectations. Evidence from specific episodes, such as the IAS 39 carve-out, carries more weight than general claims about political pressure on standard setters. Showing how endorsement differs from adoption clarifies the EU's role.
Common ACC 6030 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often answer an international standards prompt by listing differences between U.S. GAAP and IFRS, even when the question concerns governance, adoption or politics. Read the prompt carefully. Use specific episodes, such as the EU's IAS 39 carve-out or the 2008 reclassification amendment, as evidence. Support claims about comparability with research and acknowledge the role of enforcement. Check dates and institutional names, since the IASC and IASB are easy to confuse. Separate what the IASB decided from what the EU endorsed. A free first sample of your own ACC-6030 Module 3 paper is available on request.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More ACC 6030 and M.S. in Management in Accounting sample papers
- ACC 6030 Module 1: Written Assignment: How U.S. Standard Setting Was Built
- ACC 6030 Module 2: Written Assignment: Using the Conceptual Framework
- ACC 6030 Module 4: Written Assignment: Positive Accounting Theory Applied
- ACC 6030 Module 5: Written Assignment: Measuring Income in Theory
- ACC 6030 Module 6: Written Assignment: The Income Statement and Non-GAAP Earnings
- ACC 6030 Module 7: Written Assignment: Balance Sheet and Cash Flow Theory
- ACC 6030 Module 8: Written Assignment: The Working Capital Concept
- ACC 6030 Module 9: Written Assignment: Theory of Property, Plant and Equipment
- ACC 6030 Module 10: Written Assignment: Intangibles, Goodwill and Long-Term Investments
- ACC 6020 Module 2: Acquisition Method Written Assignment
- ACC 6010 Module 4: Pensions Written Assignment With IAS 19
ACC 6030 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free ACC 6030 Module 3 sample paper?
The international standards paper is shown above in full: the IASC to IASB transition, adoption and endorsement, the IAS 39 carve-out, lobbying and the limits of comparability.
How did the IASB come into being?
The International Accounting Standards Committee was restructured in 2001 into the IASB, an independent full-time board overseen by trustees of a foundation.
What was the IAS 39 carve-out?
The EU's 2004 endorsement of IAS 39 without certain fair value option and hedge accounting provisions, after objections from European banks.
Can the IASB require countries to use IFRS?
No. Adoption depends on national or regional law, often through an endorsement process.
Does IFRS adoption guarantee comparability?
No. Research shows that enforcement and reporting incentives strongly affect how standards are applied, so comparability remains partial.