Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU and Global Private Regulatory Regimes: The Accounting and Auditing Sectors

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Administrative Law and EU Administrative Law

Abstract

In the accounting and auditing sectors, the EU tried to put in place a common model, enforcing private standards: the international accounting standards (IAS/IFRs), established by the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB), and the international standards on auditing (ISA) set by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). EU strategy aims at avoiding a delegation of its regulatory power in two ways: first, controlling the access of international standards within the EU legal order through an endorsement procedure; second, attempting to influence the international standard setting process. The implementation process in the accounting area (in particular, the endorsement of IAS 39) proves that endorsement can act as a filter, but that there are growing pressures threatening to impair its functioning. Moreover, changes in the structure of the IASB following to the global financial crisis challenge the EU’s efforts to influence IASB. In the auditing area, EU strategy – which has not yet been enacted – seems more likely to succeed, mostly because of the weaker political interest in this area. Additionally, the composition of the body monitoring the IAASB, which dates back to a period preceding the crisis, is more favorable to the EU.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mattli and Büthe (2003), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    OECD (1999), p. 4.

  3. 3.

    Abbott and Snidal (2000), p. 421; Shelton (1999), p. 1.

  4. 4.

    Kingsbury et al. (2005a), p. 15. Kingsbury and Krisch (2006)

  5. 5.

    Bertezzolo (2009), p. 257.

  6. 6.

    Transnational regulatory networks (TRN) are “patterns of regular and purposive relations among like government units working across the borders that divide countries from one another”: Slaughter (2004), p. 14. See also Zaring (1998), p. 285, and Raustiala (2002), pp. 4–5.

  7. 7.

    For a general overview about the EU approach to international accounting harmonization, see Luthardt and Zimmermann (2008) and Schaub (2004–2005), p. 609.

  8. 8.

    About the IASC, see Hallström (2004).

  9. 9.

    See http://www.ifrs.org/The+organisation/Governance+and+accountability/Constitution/Constitution.htm.

  10. 10.

    See Mattli and Büthe (2005), p. 225.

  11. 11.

    Constitution, paras. 43 (a) and 44.

  12. 12.

    Constitution, paras. 7 and 25.

  13. 13.

    Constitution, paras. 6 and 26. The Trustees comprise 22 individuals: six from the Asia/Oceania region, from Europe and from North America, respectively; one from Africa and from South America, respectively, and two members appointed from any area, subject to maintaining overall geographical balance. IASB comprise fourteen members: four from the Asia/Oceania region, from Europe and from North America respectively; one from Africa and one from South America; and two members appointed from any area, subject to maintaining overall geographical balance.

  14. 14.

    Members comprise the so-called Big Four (Deloitte Touche, Ernst & Young, KPMG e PricewaterhouseCoopers), national regulatory authorities (ECB, the Chinese Ministry of Finance, the CESR); international organizations (IMF and World Bank) and transnational regulatory networks (BCBS, IAIS and IOSCO). Finally, the European Commission and the American and Japanese financial regulatory authorities are granted observer status. See http://www.ifrs.org/The+organisation/Advisory+bodies/The+SAC/SAC+members.htm.

  15. 15.

    Constitution, para. 21. The two representatives of the IOSCO are the chair of its Emerging Markets Committee and the chair of its Technical Committee (the latter being the committee of advanced economies).

  16. 16.

    Constitution, paras. 18–19.

  17. 17.

    The difficulties in finding new models of accountability are clearly recognized in the proposals preceding the Constitution review: “the Trustees recognize the unique nature of the organization when compared with other international organizations and with national accounting standard-setters. Unlike traditional national standard-setting bodies, the IASB has no authority to impose its standards on countries and does not have a direct reporting mechanism to governments or other public officials. […] The Trustees understand that the IASC Foundation’s unique structure makes demonstrating public accountability more challenging than it would be for a national standard-setter, which normally reports to national regulators, governments, or parliaments”: see IASCF (2008a), para. 16.

  18. 18.

    See IASCF (2008a), paras. 20–21.

  19. 19.

    See IASCF (2008b).

  20. 20.

    About due process requirements in global regulatory regimes, see Cassese (2006).

  21. 21.

    See Botzem (2007), p. 44.

  22. 22.

    See IOSCO (2000a).

  23. 23.

    See IOSCO (2000b), p. 10. See also Hallström (2004), pp. 94–95 and 120–121.

  24. 24.

    See http://www.fsforum.org/compendium/key_standards_for_sound_financial_system.html.

  25. 25.

    See http://www.imf.org/external/standards/scnew.htm.

  26. 26.

    FSB (2010).

  27. 27.

    See European Commission (1995).

  28. 28.

    European Commission (1995), para. 3.3. For an international political economy perspective on European approach on accounting, see Leblond (2005) and Cairns (1998), p. 306.

  29. 29.

    European Commission (2000), paras. 10–11.

  30. 30.

    European Commission (1995), para. 4.3.

  31. 31.

    European Commission (1995), para. 4.6.

  32. 32.

    European Commission (1995), paras. 4.5 and 5.1.

  33. 33.

    As a first step, the Commission mandated the Contact Committee to check the conformity of existing IAS with the Accounting Directives: European Commission (1995), paras. 5.2 and 5.5.

  34. 34.

    European Commission (1995), para. 6: “the Community is not abandoning the field of accounting harmonization”; European Commission (2000), 359, para. 19: “The EU cannot delegate responsibility for setting financial reporting requirements for listed EU companies to a non-governmental third party”.

  35. 35.

    European Commission (2000), para. 21.

  36. 36.

    European Commission (2000), para. 20.

  37. 37.

    European Commission (2000), para. 21.

  38. 38.

    European Commission (1995), para. 5.4: “in order to ensure an appropriate European input into the continuing work of the IASC, the Contact committee will examine and seek to establish an agreed position on future Exposure Drafts […]. This will allow the Union progressively to gain a position of greater influence on the IASC’s work, including the determination of its agenda, so that its output will increasingly reflect the EU viewpoint”.

  39. 39.

    European Parliament and Council (2002), Art. 4.

  40. 40.

    European Commission (2000), para. 20.

  41. 41.

    European Parliament and Council (2002), Art. 3.2.

  42. 42.

    European Commission (2000), p. 2.

  43. 43.

    European Parliament and Council (2002), Art. 6. About the ARC, see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/committees_en.htm#arc.

  44. 44.

    See http://www.efrag.org/content/default.asp?id=4096.

  45. 45.

    European Parliament and Council (2002), recital 10.

  46. 46.

    European Commission and EFRAG (2006).

  47. 47.

    European Parliament and Council (2009).

  48. 48.

    Botzem and Quack (2006), p. 281.

  49. 49.

    European Commission (2000).

  50. 50.

    European Commission (2006), recital 4.

  51. 51.

    European Commission (2006), Art. 4.6.

  52. 52.

    About CESR’s role in the accounting area, see CESR (2002); CESR (2003) and CESR (2004).

  53. 53.

    European Parliament and Council (2010).

  54. 54.

    See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/legal_framework/regulations_adopting_ias_text_en.htm.

  55. 55.

    See EFRAG (2002).

  56. 56.

    See ARC (2003).

  57. 57.

    See ECB Glossary. http://www.ecb.europa.eu/home/glossary/html/glossf.en.html.

  58. 58.

    European Commission (2003b).

  59. 59.

    European Council (2003), p. 14.

  60. 60.

    Larson and Street (2006).

  61. 61.

    European Commission (2004).

  62. 62.

    Botzem and Quack (2006), p. 281.

  63. 63.

    EFRAG (2004). The comments in favour of endorsement came from regulators and supervisors including CESR, the accounting profession and national standard setters of Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands and the UK. The comments opposing endorsement came mainly from banks and the national standard setters of France, Italy and Spain.

  64. 64.

    For a critical point of view, see Simonds (2007) and also Leblond (2005), p. 26.

  65. 65.

    See IASB (2005).

  66. 66.

    European Commission (2005b).

  67. 67.

    Comment letters were 109: see IASB (2004). Comments were coming from supervisory authorities and transnational regulators such as the ECB, the Basel Committee, IOSCO, IAIS, the CESB, the EFRAG and national standard setters from France, Italy, Sweden and UK.

  68. 68.

    For a dissenting point of view, see Stiglitz (2010), pp. 130 and 157.

  69. 69.

    Laux and Leuz (2009), p. 4.

  70. 70.

    See SEC – FASB (2008). Later on, U.S. House of Representatives 2008, Section 132 gave the Sec the power of suspending mark to market.

  71. 71.

    European Council (2008), p. 8.

  72. 72.

    IASB (2008).

  73. 73.

    European Commission (2008a).

  74. 74.

    See EFRAG (2008).

  75. 75.

    European Commission (2008b).

  76. 76.

    G20 (2009a), pp. 5–6; G20 (2009b), para. 14; G20 (2010), Annex II, para. 30 (clearly linking the completion of a single set of high quality standards with the IAS/FASB convergence project).

  77. 77.

    FCAG (2009).

  78. 78.

    IASB-FASB (2010).

  79. 79.

    IASCF (2009), p. 2.

  80. 80.

    RGE (2010).

  81. 81.

    Veron (2009), p. 5.

  82. 82.

    IASB-FASB (2010), p. 2.

  83. 83.

    In a comment letter, the CESR stated that only one European representative was not enough. As the Commission is only in charge with the endorsement of accounting standards, if it was the only European institution represented, there would not be any European body competent for the enforcement of standards. Thus, it suggests that both the Commission and the CESR itself be represented in the Monitoring Body: see CESR (2008), pp. 1–2.

  84. 84.

    See Veron (2009), p. 2, about EU refusal; the decision of taking part in the MB is reported in FCAG (2010). For the current composition of the MB, see http://www.iosco.org/monitoring_board/.

  85. 85.

    In the Communication of 1995, the aim of ensuring an appropriate European input into IASC’s work, in order to influence its agenda, “so that its output will increasingly reflect the EU viewpoint”, was clearly stated: European Commission (1995), para. 5.4.

  86. 86.

    See Dewing and Russell (2008), p. 259.

  87. 87.

    See http://www.ifac.org/About/MemberBodies.tmpl. IFAC’s membership has grown, over the past 30 years, from the 63 members at the beginning, to now include 157 members: see http://www.ifac.org/About/.

  88. 88.

    Loft et al. (2006), pp. 429–430 and 443–444.

  89. 89.

    IFAC (2006b), para. 1.4.

  90. 90.

    The Council consists of one representative for each member, and is responsible for deciding constitutional and strategic matters and electing the Board. The Board, comprised of the President, the Deputy President and not more of 20 members (chosen as to reflect the level of financial contribution to IFAC by member bodies), has all the powers necessary to take the actions necessary to achieve the mission of the IFAC. There are also ten committees, four of which charged with a standard setting function: apart from the IAASB, examined in the text, they are the International Accounting Education Standards Board (IAESB), the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA) and the International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB), establishing standards, respectively, for accountancy education, for international ethics codes for the accountants, and on the accounting and financial reporting needs of national, regional and local governments: see http://www.ifac.org/About/Structure.php#.

  91. 91.

    IFAC (2006a).

  92. 92.

    See http://www.ifac.org/Compliance/.

  93. 93.

    About EU’s policy for auditing, see also Mugge (2008), pp. 38–39.

  94. 94.

    European Commission (2003a).

  95. 95.

    European Commission (2002).

  96. 96.

    European Commission (2003a), pp. 3–4.

  97. 97.

    European Commission (2003a), p. 7.

  98. 98.

    European Parliament and of the Council 2006, Art. 26.1.

  99. 99.

    European Parliament and of the Council 2006, Art. 26.2.

  100. 100.

    European Commission Directorate General For Internal Market And Services (2009).

  101. 101.

    European Commission Directorate General For Internal Market And Services (2010), p. 5.

  102. 102.

    Ivi, at 21.

  103. 103.

    European Commission (2005c). Between EGAOB’s tasks, there is the one of contributing “to the technical examination of international auditing standards, including the processes for their elaboration, with a view to their adoption at the community level” (Art. 2).

  104. 104.

    European Commission Directorate General For Internal Market And Services (2010), p. 4.

  105. 105.

    European Parliament and Council (2004).

  106. 106.

    IOSCO (2005).

  107. 107.

    This oversight role comprises a number of powers. The PIOB can approve or reject nominations of members to all the bodies it oversees, and can request the removal of the chair if deemed necessary. Moreover, the Piob evaluates the IFAC’s committees due process procedures and suggests issues to be included in their work program.

  108. 108.

    See http://www.ipiob.org/index.php.

  109. 109.

    European Commission (2005a).

  110. 110.

    See FCAG (2010).

References

  • Abbott KW, Snidal D (2000) Hard and soft in international governance. Int Organ 54:421–456 (special issue)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ARC (2003) The ARC voted in favour of the adoption of all IASs except for IASs 32 and 39, ARC/2003-07-16/2. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/committees/arc_endorsement_decision_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Bertezzolo G (2009) The European Union facing the global arena: standard – setting bodies and financial regulation. Eur Law Rev 34(2):257–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzem S (2007) Transnational expert-driven standardisation: accountancy governance from a professional point of view. In: Graz J-C, Nölke A (eds) Transnational private governance and its limits. Routledge, London, pp 44–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Botzem S, Quack S (2006) Contested rules and shifting boundaries: international standard setting in accounting. In: Djelic M-L, Sahlin-Andersson K (eds) Transnational governance, Institutional Dynamics of Regulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 266–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns D (1998) The future shape of harmonization: a reply. Eur Acc Rev 6(2):305–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese S (2006) A global due process? Paper presented at New York University Hauser colloquium on globalization and its discontents. http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/Cassese.AGlobalDueProcess.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • CESR (2002) Proposed statement of principles of enforcement of accounting standards in Europe, Consultation Paper, Cesr/02-188b

    Google Scholar 

  • CESR (2003) Consultation on the statement of principles of enforcement of accounting standards in Europe, Feedback Statement, Cesr/03-074

    Google Scholar 

  • CESR (2004) Standard No. 2 on financial information. Coordination of enforcement activities, Cesr/03-317c

    Google Scholar 

  • CESR (2008) Comment letter, CESR/08-455b (13 June)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewing I, Russell PO (2008) Financial integration in the EU: the first phase of EU endorsement of international accounting standards. J Common Market Stud 46(2):243–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2002) Regulation (EC) No. 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards, OJ L 243, 11 September 2002, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2004) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on statutory audit of annual accounts and consolidated accounts and amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC, COM/2004/0177 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2006) Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, in O.J. L 157, 9 June 2006, pp 87–107

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2009) Decision No. 716/2009/Ec Of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 16 September 2009 establishing a Community program to support specific activities in the field of financial services, financial reporting and auditing

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and Council (2010) Regulation (Eu) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC

    Google Scholar 

  • EFRAG (2002) Endorsement of existing International Accounting Standards and related interpretations. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/committees/efrag_endorsement_advices_en.htm accessed date 31 January 2011

  • EFRAG (2004) Adoption of amended IAS 39 (Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement). http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/ias/ias_39_carve-out_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • EFRAG (2008) The amendment to IAS 39 and IFRS 7 ‘Reclassification of Financial Assets’. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/committees/efrag_endorsement_advices_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Council (2003) Press release, 2520th Council Meeting Economic and Financial Affairs

    Google Scholar 

  • European Council (2008) 2894th Economic and Financial affairs Council meeting, No.: 13784/08

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1995) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, accounting harmonisation: a new strategy vis à vis international harmonisation, COM 95(508). http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/accounting/docs/com-95-508/com-95-508_en.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission, EU Financial Reporting Strategy: the way forward, COM (2000) 359. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2000/com2000_0359en01.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission (2002) Commission recommendation of 16th May 2002, on Statutory Auditors’ Independence in the EU: a set of fundamental principles

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003a) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Reinforcing the statutory audit in the EU, COM/2003/286 final, in O.J. 236, 02/10/2003, pp 2–13

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 of 29 September 2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 261, 13 October 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2004) Commission Regulation (EC) no. 2086/2004 of 19 November 2004, Amending Regulation (EC) 1725/2003 Adopting Certain International Accounting Standards in Accordance with Regulation (EC) 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Insertion of Ias 39, in OJEU L 363, 9 December 2004, p 1 et seq

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005a) Commission’s response to changes proposed to the Constitution of the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (Iascf), Letter from Alexander Schaub, Director-general, DG Internal Market and Services, European Commission and Annex. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/iascf_iasb_governance_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission (2005b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1864/2005 of 15 November 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards International Financial Reporting Standard No 1 and International Accounting Standards Nos. 32 and 39, OJ L 299, 16 November 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2005c) Commission Decision 2005/909/EC of 14 December 2005, setting up a group of experts to advise the Commission and to facilitate cooperation between public oversight systems for statutory auditors and audit firms, in O.J. L 329, 16 December 2005, pp 38–39

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2006) Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006, setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG’s) opinions. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006D0505:EN:NOT, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission (2008a) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1004/2008 of 15 October 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Accounting Standard (IAS) 39 and International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7 (Text with EEA relevance) – OJ L 275, 16 October 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008b) Letter from the Commission Services to the IASB about further issues related to IAS 39. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/accounting/news/news-2008_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission Directorate General For Internal Market And Services (2009) Consultation on the adoption of the international standards on auditing, June 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2009/isa_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission Directorate General For Internal Market And Services (2010) Summary of comments. Consultation on the adoption of the international standards on auditing. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2009/isa_en.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • European Commission and EFRAG (2006) Working arrangement between European Commission and EFRAG. http://www.efrag.org/images/Efrag/EFRAG-EC%20Working%20Arrangement.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • FCAG (2009) Financial crisis advisory group letter to G-20 leaders. http://www.ifrs.org/News/Press+Releases/FCAG+letter+to+G-20+leaders.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • FCAG (2010) Financial crisis advisory group issues letter to G-20 on IASB and FASB progress. http://www.ifrs.org/News/Announcements+and+Speeches/FCAG+Issues+Letter+to+G-20.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • FSB (2010) Framework for strengthening adherence to international standards available at http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/publications/r_100109a.pdf, last accessed 16 June 2011

  • G20 (2009a) Declaration on strengthening the financial system, G20 London Summit

    Google Scholar 

  • G20 (2009b) Leaders’ Statement, G20 Pittsburgh Summit

    Google Scholar 

  • G20 (2010) The G20 Toronto Summit Declaration

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallström KT (2004) Organizing international standardization. ISO and the IASC in quest of authority. Edgward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • IASB (2004) Index of all comment letters, Exposure Draft Proposed Amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement: The Fair Value Option. http://www.iasb.org/Archive/Archive+IASB+Project+-+Comment+Letters.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IASB (2005) Press release. Amendment to IAS 39 for fair value option. http://www.iasplus.com/standard/ias39.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IASB (2008) IASB announces next steps in response to credit crisis. http://www.iasb.org/News/Press+Releases/IASB+announces+next+steps+in+response+to+credit+crisis.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IASB-FASB (2010) Progress report on commitment to convergence of accounting standards and a single set of high quality accounting standards. http://www.ifrs.org/News/Announcements+and+Speeches/update+to+G20+on+modified+convergence+strategy.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IASCF (2008a) Proposals and issues for the constitution review. http://www.iasb.org/NR/rdonlyres/7FDD66A0-12CA-451D-91B4-89311597D41E/0/Proposals_and_Issues_for_Constitution_Review.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IASCF (2008b) Due process handbook for the IASB. http://www.ifrs.org/How+we+develop+standards/How+we+develop+standards.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IASCF (2009), Trustees' letter to G20 participants (September). http://www.ifrs.org/Financial+crisis/Update+G20+response.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IFAC (2006a) IFAC’s standards-setting public interest activity committees’ due process and working procedures. www.ifac.org/Downloads/PIAC_Due_Process.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IFAC (2006b) Constitution. http://www.ifac.org/Downloads/IFAC_Constitution.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IOSCO (2000a) Resolution of the Presidents' Committee on IASC Standards. http://www.iosco.org/library/index.cfm?section=resolutions, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • IOSCO (2000b) IASC standards – assessment report, Report by the Technical Committee, IOSCOPD109. http://www.iosco.org/library/index.cfm?CurrentPage=24&section=pubdocs& criteria=none&year=none&rows=10, accessed date 31 January 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • IOSCO (2005) Press release, international regulators and related organizations announce the public interest oversight board for the international accounting profession. http://www.iosco.org/news/pdf/IOSCONEWS83.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Kingsbury B, Krisch N (eds) (2006) Global governance and global administrative law in the international legal order. Eur J Int Law 17:1–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart R (2005a) The emergence of global administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 68:15–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart R, Wiener J (eds) (2005) The emergence of global administrative law. Law Contemp Probl 68:1–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson RK, Street D (2006) The roadmap to global accounting convergence. Europe introduces ‘speed bumps’. CPA J (October), 36–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Laux C, Leuz C (2009) Did fair-value accounting contribute to the financial crisis? Chicago Booth Working Paper 41. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1487905, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Leblond P (2005) The international dimension of the harmonization of accounting standards in the EU. Eusa, Ninth Biannual International Conference. http://aei.pitt.edu/2998/, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Loft A, Humphrey C, Turley S (2006) In pursuit of global regulation: changing governance and accountability structures at the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). Acc Auditing Account J 19(3):428–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthardt U, Zimmermann J (2008) A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1121858, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Mattli W, Büthe T (2003) Setting international standards: technological rationality or primacy of power? World Politics:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattli W, Büthe T (2005) Global private governance: lessons from a national model of setting standards in accounting. Law Contemp Probl 68(3–4):225–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugge D (2008) Keeping competitors out: industry structure and transnational private governance in global finance. In: Graz J-C, Nölke A (eds) Transnational private governance and its limits, cit., pp 29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1999) Regulatory reform and international standardization, TD/TC/WP(98)36/FINAL

    Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala K (2002) The architecture of international cooperation: transgovernmental networks and the future of international law. Va J Int Law 43(1):1–92

    Google Scholar 

  • RGE (2010) New IASB/FASB proposals expand fair value accounting: a step forward? http://www.roubini.com/critical-issues/57374.php, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Schaub A (2004–2005) The use of international accounting standards in the European Union. Northwest J Int Law Bus 23:609–630

    Google Scholar 

  • SEC – FASB (2008) Clarifications on fair value accounting. http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-234.htm, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Shelton D (1999) Introduction: law, non-law and the problem of ‘soft law’. In: Shelton D (ed) Commitment and compliance. The role of non-binding norms in the international legal system. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonds D (2007) Speaking in tongues. Dragging America down the rocky road to a set of global accounting rules. The Economist

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter AM (2004) A new world order. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz J (2010) Freefall. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. House of Representatives (2008) Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 3 October, Section 132

    Google Scholar 

  • Veron N (2009) IFRS sustainability requires further governance reform, Bruegel Policy Contribution, Issue 2009/14. http://www.bruegel.org/pdf-download/?pdf=uploads/tx_btbbreugel/pc_iascfletter_091209.pdf, accessed date 31 January 2011

  • Zaring D (1998) International law by other means: the twilight existence of international financial regulatory organizations. Tex Int Law J 33(2):281–330

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, via Clementina 8, 00184, Rome, Italy

    Maurizia De Bellis (Tenured Assistant Professor of Administrative Law)

Authors
  1. Maurizia De Bellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizia De Bellis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Via del Paradiso 47, Viterbo, 01100, Italy

    Edoardo Chiti

  2. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, Università di Siena, Viale Liegi 5, Roma, 00198, Italy

    Bernardo Giorgio Mattarella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Bellis, M. (2011). EU and Global Private Regulatory Regimes: The Accounting and Auditing Sectors. In: Chiti, E., Mattarella, B. (eds) Global Administrative Law and EU Administrative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20264-3_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation