Skip to content
Back to outputs

We’re off to see the wizard: an evaluation of directors’ and auditors’ experiences with the Financial Reporting Review Panel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

We’re off to see the wizard: an evaluation of directors’ and auditors’ experiences with the Financial Reporting Review Panel. / Hines, Tony; McBride, Karen; Fearnley, Stella; Brandt, Richard.

In: Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2001, p. 53-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Hines, Tony ; McBride, Karen ; Fearnley, Stella ; Brandt, Richard. / We’re off to see the wizard: an evaluation of directors’ and auditors’ experiences with the Financial Reporting Review Panel. In: Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal. 2001 ; Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 53-84.

Bibtex

@article{755db56e56054e688ce5e84699ed9f47,
title = "We{\textquoteright}re off to see the wizard: an evaluation of directors{\textquoteright} and auditors{\textquoteright} experiences with the Financial Reporting Review Panel",
abstract = "The Financial Reporting Review Panel (FRRP) was an innovation in the UK as it was responsible for the previously little considered issue of ensuring compliance with financial reporting regulations. This paper draws on institutional theory to compare the stated aims, objectives and operating procedures of the FRRP with the practical experiences of those who have had discussions with them, and evidence of the wider impact of their work. The aim is to provide a richer understanding of the way in which this relatively new institution achieves its objectives, and to determine whether it has engaged in “myth making” in order to establish and maintain its legitimacy. The original objectives of the FRRP are explored in this paper, as well as subsequent public pronouncements on its aims, procedures, and achievements. Discussions with key members of the FRRP have enabled further clarification of some of the issues. The perceptions of those with experience of dealing with the FRRP were gained by a series of semi-structured interviews. Interviews were carried out with company directors and audit firm partners who had direct experience of the FRRP. The analysis draws out themes related to the investigation process and final outcomes of this process. The paper concludes that there is some evidence that the FRRP has engaged in “myth building”. For example, it was considered that cases the FRRP chose to pursue tended to involve rather less serious issues than their public statements might suggest. Also they have considerable operational discretion and this appears to be exercised in a rather unpredictable way without explanation. Overall, however, the evidence suggests that the FRRP is an effective regulator.",
author = "Tony Hines and Karen McBride and Stella Fearnley and Richard Brandt",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1108/09513570110381079",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "53--84",
journal = "Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal",
issn = "0951-3574",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - We’re off to see the wizard: an evaluation of directors’ and auditors’ experiences with the Financial Reporting Review Panel

AU - Hines, Tony

AU - McBride, Karen

AU - Fearnley, Stella

AU - Brandt, Richard

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - The Financial Reporting Review Panel (FRRP) was an innovation in the UK as it was responsible for the previously little considered issue of ensuring compliance with financial reporting regulations. This paper draws on institutional theory to compare the stated aims, objectives and operating procedures of the FRRP with the practical experiences of those who have had discussions with them, and evidence of the wider impact of their work. The aim is to provide a richer understanding of the way in which this relatively new institution achieves its objectives, and to determine whether it has engaged in “myth making” in order to establish and maintain its legitimacy. The original objectives of the FRRP are explored in this paper, as well as subsequent public pronouncements on its aims, procedures, and achievements. Discussions with key members of the FRRP have enabled further clarification of some of the issues. The perceptions of those with experience of dealing with the FRRP were gained by a series of semi-structured interviews. Interviews were carried out with company directors and audit firm partners who had direct experience of the FRRP. The analysis draws out themes related to the investigation process and final outcomes of this process. The paper concludes that there is some evidence that the FRRP has engaged in “myth building”. For example, it was considered that cases the FRRP chose to pursue tended to involve rather less serious issues than their public statements might suggest. Also they have considerable operational discretion and this appears to be exercised in a rather unpredictable way without explanation. Overall, however, the evidence suggests that the FRRP is an effective regulator.

AB - The Financial Reporting Review Panel (FRRP) was an innovation in the UK as it was responsible for the previously little considered issue of ensuring compliance with financial reporting regulations. This paper draws on institutional theory to compare the stated aims, objectives and operating procedures of the FRRP with the practical experiences of those who have had discussions with them, and evidence of the wider impact of their work. The aim is to provide a richer understanding of the way in which this relatively new institution achieves its objectives, and to determine whether it has engaged in “myth making” in order to establish and maintain its legitimacy. The original objectives of the FRRP are explored in this paper, as well as subsequent public pronouncements on its aims, procedures, and achievements. Discussions with key members of the FRRP have enabled further clarification of some of the issues. The perceptions of those with experience of dealing with the FRRP were gained by a series of semi-structured interviews. Interviews were carried out with company directors and audit firm partners who had direct experience of the FRRP. The analysis draws out themes related to the investigation process and final outcomes of this process. The paper concludes that there is some evidence that the FRRP has engaged in “myth building”. For example, it was considered that cases the FRRP chose to pursue tended to involve rather less serious issues than their public statements might suggest. Also they have considerable operational discretion and this appears to be exercised in a rather unpredictable way without explanation. Overall, however, the evidence suggests that the FRRP is an effective regulator.

U2 - 10.1108/09513570110381079

DO - 10.1108/09513570110381079

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 53

EP - 84

JO - Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal

JF - Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal

SN - 0951-3574

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 121449