Complexity and Dual Institutionality: The Case of <scp>IFRS</scp> Adoption in <scp>R</scp>ussia
Сложность и двойная институциональность: случай внедрения МСФО в России
2012-08-14
SCID: 54.1/7pvmq8dd
Discuss with AI
IFRS adoptionRussian Accounting Standardsdual institutionalityinstitutional complexityinstitutional logics
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
Abstract Manuscript Type Empirical Research Questions/Issue The widespread adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ) by many transition economies is expected to contribute to greater transparency in financial reporting. However, the business environment in many of these countries is associated with institutional voids and ongoing economic and institutional change. Organizations operating in this environment face considerable institutional complexity due to influences from incongruent institutional logics of local and global institutions. This study investigates how organizations manage institutional complexity created by the incompatible institutional logics which are linked to IFRS adoption. Research Findings/Insights In R ussia, institutional change related to IFRS adoption was not revolutionary as IFRS did not replace R ussian A ccounting S tandards ( RAS ) but both standards coexist. Based on a sample of 1,236 firms, organizational identity and the discretion in standard implementation were identified as factors that play a role in how organizations manage institutional complexity created by the coexistence of both standards. Theoretical/Academic Implications With organizations in transition economies increasingly managing global and local pressures, this study highlights conditions under which practices rooted in conflicting institutional logics coexist and create dual institutionality . Dual institutionality occurs when distinct but related practices that organizations are using have legitimacy but are rooted in diverse institutional logics and coexist due to different levels of discretion associated with their implementation. This concept is distinct from previously identified institutional duality , where competing institutional logics of subsidiary and the host country influence how a particular practice is implemented by organizations. Practitioner/Policy Implications While adoption of IFRS is expected to contribute to greater financial transparency and comparability, some countries choose to continue with the local standards while permitting or requiring IFRS . This type of parallel adoption may undermine the influence of IFRS . However, divergence between the logics and discretion in standard implementation makes it possible for both practices to exist.
Key Findings
1
Coexisting IFRS- and RAS-based practices reflect dual institutionality: distinct, related practices retain legitimacy while being rooted in diverse institutional logics.
2
Dual institutionality arises when different implementation discretion levels enable organizations to manage conflicting local and global institutional pressures.
3
In Russia, IFRS adoption was evolutionary rather than revolutionary because IFRS did not replace Russian Accounting Standards (RAS), which continue to coexist.
4
The study distinguishes dual institutionality from institutional duality, which concerns subsidiary and host-country logics influencing implementation of a particular practice.
5
Using a sample of 1,236 firms, the study identifies organizational identity and discretion in standards implementation as factors shaping responses to IFRS–RAS complexity.
Research Object
Russian organizations and firms operating under the coexistence of IFRS and Russian Accounting Standards (RAS)
Research Subject
Organizational management of institutional complexity arising from incompatible institutional logics and discretionary implementation associated with the coexistence of IFRS and RAS
Publication Details
Publication Date
2012-08-14
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest