Faculty for Economy, Communication and IT

Faculty for economy, communication and IT

Elsa Bengtsson 850222-7120 IFRS -what experience has been gained after the European adoption in the year of 2005

International Financial Accounting 7,5hp

Karlstads universitet 651 88 Karlstad

Tfn 054-700 10 00 Fax 054-700 14 60

[email protected] www.kau.se 2009-10-22 Kursansvarig: Berndt Andersson

1 Introduction...... 3

1.1 Question of issue...... 3

1.2 Purpose...... 4

2 Method...... 5

3 Theory...... 6

3.1 Harmonization...... 6

3.2 Standard...... 6

3.3 IASB...... 6

3.4 IASC Foundation...... 7

3.5 IFRS...... 7

4 Why IFRS and experience after adopting it...... 8

4.1 Background to IFRS...... 8

4.2 Experiences with adopting IFRS...... 9

4.3 Pros and cons with IFRS...... 11

4.4 Auditors work...... 12

4.5 IFRS in US...... 13

5 Discussion and conclusions...... 15

5.1 Conclusion...... 17

References...... 18

2 1 Introduction

In September 2002 the biggest change to financial reporting in 30 years was introduced by the Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU). It was a new accounting Regulation that required all listed companies in EU to follow International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in their consolidated financial Statements as of 20051. This decision affects thousands of companies in all the 28 countries of the European Economic Area (Jermakowicz & Gornik- Tomaszewski 2006). The compelling reason for the Regulation was a need to develop an incorporated financial services market in the EU. The change to IFRS will ultimately lead to transparency in financial statements, which should increase market efficiency, reduce the cost of raising capital, and thereby eliminate barriers to cross-border trading (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). IFRS leads to a greater comparability between companies’ financial statements from different countries and this comparability is now successive increasing (Bäckström, A. 2009). The IASB hopes to get US in line with IFRS by 2018 (Faith, Jo. 2009). Adopters in the US will have an advantage compared to adopters in Europe because US companies that adopt IFRS can learn a lot from European adopters (Graziano & Heffes 2009). This is because listed companies that have adopted IFRS have learnt that they have underestimated the complexities, effects and costs of IFRS (Hoogendoom, M. 2009).

1.1 Question of issue When Europe adopted IFRS in 2005 they gained a lot of experience about the IFRS. There have been a lot of issues and questions about IFRS. Lots of companies have experienced that adopting IFRS is time-consuming, cost-full and so on. Now when the US is about to adopt IFRS they can learn a lot from Europe. A question I ask is what Europe has learnt from this adoption. Is IFRS still the best way to go or are there other ways we can gain comparability.

To fully understand IFRS I also want to know the background of it and when the whole idea started. I also want to know what experienced people think about IFRS now when we have the experience after the adoption. With all this knowledge is it still a good idea to use IFRS or can there be another option to IFRS?

I ask my self these three questions:

1 Nordlund, B. lecture 9 okt 2009. Karlstads University

3  What is the purpose of IFRS?

 What experiences was gained when adopting IFRS?

 Is IFRS here to stay?

1.2 Purpose The purpose of this paper is to find out why IFRS exists, what experiences has been gained when adopting IFRS and if IFRS is here to stay.

4 2 Method This paper is a literature study made by articles and the main book from the course. I found the articles by searching in the database Business Source Premier and the articles I have used are scientific. When I did the search I used keywords such as: IFRS, IASB, IAS. There are a lot of articles from the late 2000 so I have used only articles that are as new as possible because IFRS is a quite new term and it develops constantly. I have also searched for literature in the library and its database for books. I have also used IASB´s official webpage as well as for Swedish articles in the Swedish magazine in economics named “Balans”.

The questions I will try to answer by using articles made by different experienced and knowledgeable people in the area of IFRS. There are articles discussing what experience we have made and if we should continue using IFRS.

5 3 Theory Because a lot of terms are used in the paper I have chosen to put a summery of them here to make an understanding for the reader and to prepare for the next chapter to come.

3.1 Harmonization It is a process where bounds are set to their degree of variation to increase the comparability of accounting practices (Alexander et al. 2009).

3.2 Standard A standard is a form of rule that tell us what to do in different situations. A rule tells us what is allowed and suitable. Brunsson & Jacobsson (1998) explains several arguments to use Standards. Standards are an effektivt instrument when transfer information and standards work as a coordination method (Brunsson & Jacobsson (1998). Both harmonization and standardization are often used interchangeably (Alexander et al. 2009).

3.3 IASB The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is the independent standard-setting body of the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASC Foundation), which the IFRS is set by (seen below). IASB is appointed and overseen by a geographically and professionally diverse group of Trustees of the IASC Foundation. Currently the Trustees consist of 15 members from nine countries. A decision at the January 2009 Trustees meeting, the IASB will be expanded to 16 members by 2012. The members are a group of people representing the best available combination of technical skills and background experience of relevant international business and market conditions. It is important in order to contribute to the development of high quality, global accounting standards.

IASB is supported by an interpretations committee (IFRIC) and an external advisory council (SAC) to offer guidance where divergence in practice occurs. The IASB cooperates with national accounting standard-setters to achieve convergence in accounting standards around the world (IASB 1 2009). IASB´s predecessor is the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006).

6 3.4 IASC Foundation The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) Foundation is a not-for-profit, independent and private sector organization. The foundation is dedicated to developing a single set of high quality international financial reporting standards for general purpose financial statements. It promotes the use and rigorous application of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (IASB 2 2009). It also takes account of the special needs of small and medium-sized entities (IFRS for SMEs)2 and emerging economies related documents (IASB 2 2009).

IASC Foundation rests with 22 Trustees, which are individuals with senior executive experience from diverse geographical and professional backgrounds, in both the private and public sectors. The funding of the IASC Foundation is based on four principles. (IASB 2 2009)

3.5 IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) encompasses all standards and interpretations issued or adopted by IASB (Alexander et al. 2009). IFRS was first discussed in 1972 by Englishmen3, but was created in 2001 with a mandate to develop a single set of high- quality global accounting standards and to encourage convergence on these standards (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). Applicability of IFRS is that it should be able for a wide range of users like shareholders and employees and you should not have to be an expert to be able to read a IFRS standards company. IFRS should be prepared for at least annually4.

2 Kirsch, Hanno. Lecture 1 September 2009. Karlstad University

3 Raches, Dominique. Lecture 15 September 2009. Karlstad University

7 4 Why IFRS and experience after adopting it Here I put the reader in perspective of the background of IFRS, and the purpose of IFRS, why IFRS exist. Later I use articles that discuss what Europe experienced when adopting IFRS and the pros and cones about the international standards.

4.1 Background to IFRS There is a historical difference between accounting thinking and practice across the world (Alexander et al. 2009). For example the EU includes countries with extreme diverse economics. Even countries such as Germany and the UK, which are highly industrialized member states, have sharp contrasts in orientation and style when it comes to their accounting and financial reporting practices (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). Accounting is mainly a communication process and through those differences it makes it more difficult internationally and in the context of multinational business. Because of this, businesses need to prepare multiple sets of financial statements under different bases, or users need to learn and understand a variety of different accounting preparation systems. These two alternatives are very costly and time consuming. It can also easily lead to errors and confusions (Alexander et al. 2009).

An elimination, or at least a reduction, of such differences is wanted (Alexander et al. 2009). For listed companies the harmonization process, on a global scale, is well on its way. On regional bases, and which of perhaps EU is the most significantly, have done attempts to reduce country differences. The International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) and its forerunner the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) pursue harmonization at global level (Alexander et al. 2009).

In 1976 Henry Benson, then chairman of the IASB Committee, explained the lack of accounting standards. He was speaking towards a group of Dutch and European accountants and Benson delivered a scathing attack on the lack of accounting standards. He said there has not been enough attention to maintenance of professional standards. Benson reaffirmed his belief in international accounting standards and refuted on criticism that international standards were to loose (Collins, S. 1976). Sir Henry Benson foresaw the importance of international accounting standards by about the year 2000. (Nobes & Zeff).

In May 1990 the European Commission agreed on a Financial Services Action Plan. To create a single large capital market within EU was one of the objectives of this plan. To make this

8 creation possible the European Commission proposed in 2000 that all listed companies should use one set of accounting standards for financial statement purposes. Chosen to be that set of standards was International Finance Reporting Standard (IFRS). On the application of IFRS the Regulation (EC) no 1606/2002 was approved by the European Parliament in 2002 (Alexander et al. 2009). It was the biggest change to financial reporting in 30 years (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). The compelling reason for the Regulation was a need to develop an incorporated financial services market in the EU. The change to IFRS will ultimately lead to transparency in financial statements, which should increase market efficiency, reduce the cost of raising capital, and thereby eliminate barriers to cross-border trading (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). And as mentioned above this Regulation applies in all member states plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein (Alexander et al. 2009). In other words it affects thousands of companies in all the 28 countries of the European Economic Area (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). It requires all listed companies in EU to follow International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in their consolidated financial Statements as of 2005 (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). The European Union's (EU's) regulation concerning this compulsory use of IFRS from 2005 was a major step toward Sir Henry Benson’s goal. With announcements in 2007 from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accepting international standards (IFRS) for foreign registrants, and perhaps for all registrants, Benson's dream is coming true. (Nobes & Zeff) Member states could by that time allow a two year extension for companies that have their securities publicly traded outside the EU, and had already been using international accepted standards since a financial year that started before the Regulation was published. A two year extension was also allowed for companies that had only debt securities listed on a regulated market. There extensions are no longer accepted and all listed companies now have to follow IFRS (Alexander et al. 2009).

4.2 Experiences with adopting IFRS

Nobes and Zeff (2009) say in their article that the central purpose of IFRS, as posited by the IASB and some commentators, is that users all around the world can compare companies´ financial statements better, so information risks are reduced which leads to a reduce of cost of capital (Nobes & Zeff 2009). Martin Hoogendoom talks in an article, from 2006, about listed companies that have underestimated the complexities, effects and costs of IFRS. It has taken much more time than expected. The article made by Hoogendoom is a personal experience

9 from a Dutch perspective, but colleges to Hoogendoom say having the same experience outside the Netherlands. Hoogendoom brings up his own experience when receiving the first drafts that were intended to be in compliance with IFRS, but he had about 300 points of comment. (Hoogendoom, M. 2006). The Journal of Accountancy from 2009 certifies this. The article “IFRS: Don´t Get Caught Short” from May 2009 stats that adoption of IFRS in Europe and Australia revealed that conversion often consumes a lot more time and resources than expected. The article mentions there is a troubling number of companies had to rush and risk mistakes or outsource more work than necessary (Street & Needles 2009). Many companies around the world have found that IFRS conversion appeared to be not only an accounting change, it soon developed into a “multifaceted business initiative involving systems and process, people and change management, and other business consideration” (Street & Needles 2009). In a perfect world the move to IFRS would not affect stock prices or shareholder value. But conversion to IFRS for US companies need to understand the effect it has on their financial position and results of operations, so they can inform investors, analysts, and other key stockholders in a timely manner about the changes associated with a IFRS adoption. I, as the one writing this paper, can make an assumption this is the same for any European company. If the companies fail to communicate the impact of IFRS adoption there is a risk of having their financial performance misinterpreted and, more importantly, being penalized by markets and other financial statement users (Street & Needles 2009).

IFRS has eliminated many differences existing in the European countries and this is a huge contribution to comparability (Hoogendoom, M. 2006). But this comparability is not perfect. Comparability is significant impeded by the lack of balance sheet and income statements formats. According to Hoogendoom this is even a step backwards compared to the EU Directives. This is also an area where analysts will have trouble with comparing financial statements. Some companies will apply a current-non-current distinction, others not, balance sheet will differ, and some companies put cash and cash equivalents at the top of the balance sheet, others at the bottom. Also income statements will be prepared in variety of forms. IFRS is too complex, even for auditors and other specialists. Most users found financial statements difficult to read and understand. IFRS is unclear and unstable. Hoogendoom estimates, as a result of IFRS, financial statements has increased by at least 20 – 30 pages (Hoogendoom, M. 2009).

IFRS is a challenge where all parties involved such as companies, auditors and regulators are taking this very seriously. Hoogendoom believes all users in Europe will benefit from the

10 adoption of IFRS. But he let us know not to expect full or near-full comparability. Major differences in practice will continue and Hoogendoom believes we should not even try to aim for full comparability. He thinks we should take a step back and make IFRS more principle- based and less complex, rather than rule-based. We should at every cost avoid a situation where investors question the usefulness of the financial statements for making their economic decisions (Hoogendoom, M. 2006).

An important diversity is that the countries in Europe come from different accounting cultures and their interpretations will be partly influenced be their history and previous practice. Some room for diversity can not be avoided when it comes to IFRS if there is room judgment and interpretation (Hoogendoom, M 2006). IFRS adoption results in an enormous increase in comparability of European listed companies, IFRS has eliminated many differences existing in the European countries and this is a huge contribution to comparability (Hoogendoom, M. 2006).

4.3 Pros and cons with IFRS IFRS has both positive and negative sides. The most important positive side with IFRS is the quality and the comparability between companies’ financial statements from different countries is successive increasing (Bäckström, A. 2009).

The negatives about IFRS are that it takes a lot of resources which involve time-effort and cost for the company adopting IFRS. Anders Bäckström says in an article for the magazine “Balans” that we stand for a tough challenge when we want to increase the comparability (Bäckström, A. 2009). One other negative view of IFRS is that it impedes competition among accounting firms. IFRS is complex and changeable. It puts lots of demands on companies such as accounting firms. Probable, there is no auditor that knows IFRS completely (Bäckström, A. 2009).

Axelman et al. (2003) say, in a Swedish perspective, for the companies that have to adopt IFRS by 2005, the time to adjust is short seen from a perspective the difference between Swedish praxis and those new requirements. Further the preparations before 2005 will, for most companies, demand an extensive amount of work and preparations has to be done and begin as soon as possible. To keep in mind must also information for 2005 financial statements that have to be able to be compared with 2004s financial statement. That means

11 2004 also has to follow IFRS and to do that balance brought forward from 2003 also has to adjust to IFRS (Axelman et al. 2003). Despite the big shortage and incompleteness IFRS are here to stay, says Bäckström. It is important to influence on the design and scope of IFRS and to do what’s possible to adopt IFRS in a reasonable way (Bäckström, A. 2009).

The international Accounting Standard Board may have a fight on its hand if its mission of developing a single set of financial reporting standards, on an international level, to be made a reality. In November 12 2008 at the IFRS 2008/2009 conference in London, David Tweedle, chairman of the IASB, questioned a global financial standard for financial reporting. He said that while one accounting language worldwide would be the best solution, some European member states would prefer a set of Europe-wide accounting standards rather than a global set of rules. Tweed named France as being a challenge in particular but said that he was positive there would be a global standard eventually. The standard board IASB receives more complaints from Europe than from anywhere else and those complaints, Tweed said, can not be ignored. He also said Europe has to decide if it wants its own standards set in Brussels or a set of international standards (Faith, J. 2009).

4.4 Auditors work There is a deep involvement of the auditors in achieving full fulfillment with IFRS. This involvement is so high that they run the risk of becoming heavily involved in preparing the financial statements they are required to audit. The main reason for this is caused by IFRS being very complex, where many companies, especially small ones, lack enough expertise (Hoogendoom, H. 2006). It is very difficult for smaller accounting firms that do not belong to the biggest firms to undertake an accounting assignment in companies that has adopted IFRS. This is because a quite large critical mass is required to be able to put together the expertise needed, similar to what the biggest firms require to certain the quality of ones clients financial reports. It is a full-time-job to be able to understand IFRS and its development, that only few can on its own have the knowledge needed (Bäckström, A. 2009).

Martin Hoogendoom explains that with so many differences of existing standards, and with differences in first-time adoption, it is an illusion to think diversity in practice will disappear, despite the coordination efforts of the auditors (Hoogendoom, M. 2006). After all, the financial statements are to be prepared by the companies them selves, and they have to make their own interpretation. The auditor’s role is limited to assessing whether the interpretations

12 applied by the company are in fulfillment with IFRS (Hoogendoom, M. 2006). IFRS has unavoidable influenced auditor’s practical work. It has forced an increased expertise, Bäckman says. Auditors have been forced to create extensive quality systems to guarantee a unit application (Bäckström, A. 2009).

All auditors have in all the larger accounting firms completed an extensive education. This education depends how similar and unlike IFRS is to the standards used beforehand, for example in Germany it was a six week long education. On top of that auditors must follow the development of IFRS and annually complete updating courses. To every audit mission there has to attend an expert in IFRS who goes through the annual report which results in a compilation, usually about 20 pages. Some accounting firms also uses a IFRS Reviewing Partner that not take part on a active level but is more like a supporting partner for the audit firm’s all year around audit work (Bäckman, A. 2009). It is a great challenge for the auditors to contribute to increased comparability between companies´ financial statements in different countries. With partly very precise rules that constantly changes and developments for effective markets and normal situations, combined with new work for auditors, the requirements for professional judgment have never been bigger (Bäckström, A. 2009).

4.5 IFRS in US Globally, a recent shift has been towards IFRS. Israel adopted the standards in 2009, Chile will next year and India, Korea, Japan and Canada plan to do so in 2011. The IASB hopes to get US in line with IFRS by 2018 (Faith, Jo. 2009).

Danita Ostling, a partner in Ernst & Young´s Assurance and Advisory Business Service group in the US, was interviewed in the article “Lessons Learned From Europe’s IFRS Conversion” from 2009. She said that about a hundred companies currently uses IFRS and she further said it is pretty clear that if we are to achieve one set of standards and because of the size of US market they can’t be an outliner. She furthers explains that even if Europe converted to IFRS in 2005 it was (as mention before) an actual date of adoption of January 1, 2004. Everyone in Europe, including Ernst & Young, would have liked to have more lead time to better prepare for conversion and embed IFRS. Ostling and Ernst & Young warn repeatedly that IFRS affects more processes and departments in a company, other than accounting and financial reporting. It is, she says, important to have adequate time to reflect on the broader effects and put in place plans for conversion. Ostling further thinks adopters in US will have an

13 advantage compared to adopters in Europe. She thinks the timeline when adopting IFRS in the US is enough time. The US Standard Advisory Council (SAC) has structured it by letting big companies go first followed by smaller companies. By this way small companies can learn from big companies. US companies that adopt IFRS can learn a lot from European adopters (Graziano & Heffes 2009).

Interesting was that in the US there can be a different conversion where those companies has the luxury of time to learn from the experience of other countries and better prepare for IFRS adoption (Street & Needles 2009).

14 5 Discussion and conclusions In this chapter I answer my questions for this paper. One observation to keep in mind is that the questions are answered using the references I have chosen. That’s why the conclusions and the answers is not the absolute truth; they are made by what different knowledgeable people in the area thinks and have learnt.

Countries have sharp contrasts in orientation and style when it comes to their accounting and financial reporting practices. (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006). Because of this, businesses need to prepare multiple sets of financial statements under different bases, or users need to learn and understand a variety of different accounting preparation systems. These two alternatives are very costly and time consuming. It can also easily lead to errors and confusions (Alexander et al. 2009). IASB pursue harmonization at global level (Alexander et al. 2009) and this harmonization is done by using the international standard IFRS. A Regulation required all listed companies in EU to follow IFRS in their consolidated financial Statements as of 2005. This decision affects thousands of companies in all the 28 countries of the European Economic Area (Jermakowicz & Gornik-Tomaszewski 2006).

Even if Europe converted to IFRS in 2005, it was an actual date of adoption of January 1, 2004 (Graziano & Heffes 2009). Besides, listed companies that have adopted IFRS have underestimated the complexities, effects and costs of IFRS. It has taken much more time than expected. As a result of IFRS, financial statements have increased by at least 20 – 30 pages. IFRS is unclear and unstable (Hoogendoom, M. 2009) and takes a lot of resources which involve time-effort and cost for the company adopting IFRS (Bäckström, A. 2009). There is a troubling number of companies that had to rush and risk mistakes or outsource more work than necessary (Street & Needles 2009). If the companies fail to communicate the impact of IFRS adoption there is a risk of having their financial performance misinterpreted and, more importantly, being penalized by markets and other financial statement users (Street & Needles 2009). Ostling and Ernst & Young warn repeatedly that IFRS affects more processes and departments in a company, other than accounting and financial reporting. It is, she says, important to have adequate time to reflect on the broader effects and put in place plans for conversion. (Graziano & Heffes 2009). Martin Hoogendoom writs in his article that IFRS is too complex, even for auditors and other specialists. Most users found financial statements difficult to read and understand. (Hoogendoom, M. 2009). One other negative view of IFRS is that it impedes competition among accounting firms (Bäckström, A. 2009). The audit work

15 has change because of IFRS. There is a deep involvement of the auditors in achieving full fulfillment with IFRS (Hoogendoom, M. 2009). It is a great challenge for the auditors to contribute to increased comparability between companies in different countries (Bäckström, A. 2009). This is once again because of IFRS being very complex and changeable (Hoogendoom, M, 2009).

Bäckström says in his article that we stand for a tough challenge when we want to increase the comparability. IFRS is a challenge where all parties involved such as companies, auditors and regulators are taking this very seriously (Bäckström, A. 2009).

Martin Hoogendoom believes all users in Europe will benefit from the adoption of IFRS. But he let us know not to expect full or near-full comparability. Major differences in practice will continue and Martin Hoogendoom believes we should not even try to aim for full comparability. He thinks we should take a step back and make IFRS more principle-based and less complex, rather than rule-based. (Hoogendoom, M. 2006). An important diversity we have to keep in mind is that the countries in Europe come from different accounting cultures and their interpretations will be partly influenced be their history and previous practice. Some room for diversity can not be avoided when it comes to IFRS if there is room for judgment and interpretation (Hoogendoom, M 2006).

The question I ask my self was if IFRS still, with all of this negative sides, a good way to go when we want comparability. My conclusion when looking back at those articles I have used in this paper is that IFRS is here to stay. Once there is mention if we should create another standard. It is when Martin Hoogendoom says some member states in Europe want a European standard rather than an international one. Nothing more is mentioned about this so I make the conclusion that IFRS is still a better way to go than to create an European standard. Resembling the whole idea with IFRS is to reduce those differences between accounting thinking around the globe and to make it less difficult internationally and in the context of multinational business. We have to keep in mind that IFRS adoption results in an enormous increase in comparability of European listed companies and IFRS has eliminated many differences existing in the European countries and this is a huge contribution to comparability (Hoogendoom, M. 2006). Besides the quality and the comparability between companies’ financial statements from different countries are successive increasing (Bäckström, A. 2009).

16 Europe has made a lot of experience along the way that are useful for the rest of the globe when they are about to adopt IFRS. For example the IASB hopes to get US in line with IFRS by 2018 (Faith, Jo. 2009). Adopters in US will have an advantage, compared to adopters in Europe, because they can learn from the experience of other countries and better prepare for IFRS adoption (Graziano & Heffes 2009).

I can se a clear pattern when the articles used have the same view at IFRS. IFRS is to complex and those adopting IFRS need more time when adopting this international standard than European countries did. IFRS should be able for a wide range of users like shareholders and employees and you should not have to be an expert to be able to read a financial statement that follows IFRS5. IFRS is constantly improving and growing and perhaps one day we will have an absolute 100 percent comparability between all countries´ financial statements. But probably we will not reach absolute comparability doe to different cultures and history. But even an almost full comparability can be enough because the articles seem to agree that IFRS is here to stay.

5.1 Conclusion About one hundred countries have adopted IFRS so far and more countries are on their way. Those countries that now are stepping into adoption can gain knowledge when looking at what Europe has learnt from their adoption. IFRS is an important tool when we want to be able to compare companies from all over the globes consolidated financial statements. IFRS has a lot of negatives but it is constantly improving and developing. Even though IFRS has to be better prepared and perhaps less complex, IFRS is here to stay.

17 References

Alexander, D., Britton, A. & Jorissen, A. (2009). International financial reporting and analysis. London: Cengage Learning.

Axelman, L., Phillips, D. & Wahlquist, O. (2003). IAS/IFRS 2005. Stockholm: Ernst & Young skriftserie nr 55/03

Brunsson, N. & Jacobsson, B.(1998). Standardisering. Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus.

Bäckström, A. (2009) Tuff utmaning att tillämpa IFRS. Balans. tidskrift utgiven av FAR-SRS, nr 2 2009. p 30-32

Collins, S (1976). Benson´s blast. Journal of Accountancy. Vol. 142 Issue 4. [online] p109.

Faith, J. (2009) Europe could end hope of global reporting standard. International Financial Law Review. Vol. 28 Issue 1. [onlin] p10

Graziano, C. & Heffes, E. (2009). Lessons learned from Europe´s IFRS conversion. Financial executive. [online] p17

Hoogendoom, M (2006). International accounting Regulation and IFRS implementation in Europe and beyond – experiences with first-time adoption in Europe. Accounting in Europe. Vol. 3. [online] p23 - 26

IASB, 1 (2009). About us. Copyright: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation. [online]. Available: http://www.iasb.org/About+Us/About+the+IASB/About+the+IASB.htm [2009-10-19]

IASB, 2 (2009). About us. Copyright: International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation. [online]. Available: http://www.iasb.org/About+Us/About+the+IASC+Foundation/About+the+IASC+Foundation. htm [2009-10-19]

Jermakowicz, E. & Gornik-Tomaszewski, S. (2006) IFRS and you. Strategic finance. Vol. 87 Issue 9. [online] p43-48

Nobes, C. & Zeff, S. (2008). Auditors' Affirmations of Compliance with IFRS around the World: An Exploratory Study. Accounting Perspectives. Vol. 7 Issue 4. [online] p279-292

18 Street, D. & Needles, B. (2009) IFRS: Don´t Get Caught Short. Journal of Accountancy. Vol. 207 Issue 5. [online] p56