Accounting regulation for charities: international responses to IFRS adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine charity regulatory systems, including accounting standard setting, across five jurisdictions in varying stages of adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards, and identifies the challenges of this process. Design/methodology/approach Using a regulatory space approach, this paper relies on publicly available archival evidence from charity regulators and accounting standard setters in five common‐law jurisdictions in advanced capitalist economies, all with vibrant charity sectors: the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Findings The study reveals the importance of co‐operative interdependence and dialogue between charity regulators and accounting standard setters, indicating that jurisdictions with such inter‐relationships will better manage the transition to IFRS. It also highlights the need for those jurisdictions with not‐for‐profit or charity‐specific accounting standards to re‐configure those provisions as IFRSs are adopted. Research limitations/implications The study is limited to five jurisdictions, concentrating specifically on key charity regulators and accounting standard setters. Future research could widen the scope to other jurisdictions, or track changes in the jurisdictions longitudinally. Practical implications This paper provides a timely international perspective of charity regulation and accounting developments for regulators, accounting standard setters and charities, specifically of regulatory responses to IFRS adoption. Originality/value The paper contributes fresh insights into the dynamics of charity accounting regulation in an international context by using regulatory space as an organising framework. While accounting regulation literature provides a rich interpretation of regulatory issues within the accounting arena, little attention has been paid to charity accounting regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".