IFRS Adoption in Italy: Which Effects on Accounting Figures and Subjectivity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue about the degree of subjectivity incidental to financial statements is topical, although it has long been studied and debated. Indeed, such issue recurs anytime new accounting rules or standards are issued. And, of course, it recurs in case of a complete renovation of the accounting system of reference, such as the one that took place in Europe in 2005, when all listed companies were required to repeal their national accounting rules and GAAP, and to adopt IFRS for the preparation of their consolidated financial statements. This study focuses on such transition with specific reference to the Italian context and explores three interconnected issues: a)identification of the changes in the evaluation criteria – from the Italian regulations and GAAP to IFRS – which actually impact on the financial statements presented by Italian companies in the year of transition; b) appreciation of the importance of such impacts, based on (1) how often each adjustment recurs; (2) whether they determine an increase or decrease of accounting figures and (3) how relevant are their effects on the main accounting figures, namely net earnings and net capital; c) discussion about the managerial discretion introduced by the most impacting evaluation criteria identified, in comparison with the Italian provisions and GAAP previously applied. The overall analysis demonstrates that IFRS introduction determined wide impacts on financial statements, affecting most assets and liabilities, but its impacts on accounting figures were less significant than could be expected. In terms ofsubjectivity, however, differences are very significant.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".