Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT It is widely believed that international financial reporting standards (IFRS) have been adopted in many countries, at least for the consolidated reporting of listed companies. However, in nearly all cases, what the rules require is some national or supranational version of IFRS. This might create problems for investor confidence and comparability. We examine what companies and auditors report concerning compliance with IFRS, focusing on the first full year of IFRS reporting by companies in the stock market indices of four major European countries and Australia. We find that, even when companies were complying with IFRS, they were generally not saying so, which seems to miss part of the point of the 35‐year project on international harmonization. In a small number of cases, auditors provided dual reports: on full IFRS in addition to the mandated reference to national GAAP where the latter corresponds with full IFRS. These cases were found only in Germany and the United Kingdom, and mainly related to companies that filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as foreign private issuers. We propose explanations for the general lack of dual reports and for the exceptions. We call for widespread adoption of dual reporting where a plain report on IFRS is not yet possible.
Nobes et al. (Sat,) studied this question.