The Rashomon Effect in Financial Reporting: Exploring Multi-Interpretation Financial Accounting Standards’ Phenomenon

Gatot Hidayat, Marko S. Hermawan

Abstract


This study delves into the phenomenon of multi-interpretation in financial reporting, using Garuda Indonesia's annual financial statements as a case study, inspired by the Rashomon effect – a concept from Akira Kurosawa's film depicting varied perspectives on a single event. Stakeholders, including auditors, academicians, regulators, and users, offer diverse interpretations of financial transactions, primarily due to the influence of principle-based accounting standards. To gain insights, we conducted in-depth interviews with these groups, employing qualitative research techniques.

Our study uncovers parallels to the Rashomon effect, as each stakeholder group presents distinct viewpoints. Auditors emphasize compliance and the need for clearer guidelines, while academicians point to subjectivity within principle-based accounting. Regulators voice concerns about misinterpretation and advocate for standardized accounting rules. Users seek transparency for informed decision-making. The adoption of principle-based standards is identified as the core driver of these disparities.

Implications stress the importance of ongoing collaboration among stakeholders to enhance accounting literacy and tackle multi-interpretation issues. Addressing principle-based standards' limitations and fostering a shared understanding are crucial. The potential transition to rule-based standards is proposed as a structured framework for financial reporting.

This research contributes by applying the Rashomon effect framework to financial reporting, offering holistic insights from auditors, academicians, regulators, and users. The proposal to shift from principle-based to rule-based standards presents an innovative solution to mitigate multi-interpretation challenges in financial reporting, impacting the field significantly.


Keywords


accounting

Full Text:

Pdf

References


Accountants, A. of C. C. (2009). Complexity in Financial Reporting. ACCA.

Adelberg, A. H. (1982). An empirical evaluation of the communication of authoritative pronouncements in accounting. Accounting and Finance, 22(2), 75–94.

Agoes, S., & Ardana, I. C. (2009). Etika bisnis dan profesi: Tantangan membangun manusia seutuhnya. Salemba Empat.

AICPA. (2021). AU-C Section 240: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Andriyana, H., & Trisnaningsih, S. (2022). Analisis Pelanggaran Etika dan Kode Etik Profesi Akuntan di Era Persaingan yang Kompetitif (Studi Kasus PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk). Al Qalam: Jurnal Ilmiah Keagamaan Dan Kemasyarakatan, 16(6).

Baranov, P. P., Shaposhnikov, A. A., Maksimova, G. V, & Fadeykina, N. V. (2017). Scientific basis of the audit theory. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 8(4), 1073–1087.

Bazerman, M. H. (1998). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons.

Board, I. A. and A. S. (2022). Complexity, understandability, scalability, proportionality (CUSP). IAASB.

Bwarleling, T. H. (2020). Aplikasi Hukum Benford dalam Menganalisa Kasus Garuda Indonesia. Jurnal Akuntansi Bisnis, 13(2).

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.

Christian, N., Jessica, & Rionaldo, L. (2021). Pendeteksian Financial Shenanigans pada Laporan Keuangan PT Garuda Indonesia Tbk. Jurnal Maneksi, 10(1).

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.

Davis, B., Anderson, R., & Walls, J. (2016). Rashomon Effects: Kurosawa, Rashomon, and Their Legacies. Routledge.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage.

Donaldson, T., & Werhane, P. H. (2002). Ethical Issues in Business. Prentice Hall.

Donelson, D. C., McInnis, J., & Mergenthaler, R. D. (2016). Explaining rules-based characteristics in U.S. GAAP: Theories and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(3), 827–861.

Examiners, A. of C. F. (2019). Report to the Nations 2019: Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse. ACFE.

Farrell, B., Farrell, H., & Wells, P. (2010). The rocket science: Reading financial accounting standards. Irish Accounting Review, 17(2), 41–63.

Flint, D. (1988). Philosophy and Principles of Auditing. Macmillan.

Gamayuni, R. R. (2009). Perkembangan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan Indonesia menuju International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 14(2).

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.

Greenspan, J. W., & Hartwell, C. L. (2009). Are FASB statements becoming more understandable? The CPA Journal, 79(2), 34–38.

Guillaume, O., & Pierre, D. (2016). The convergence of U.S. GAAP with IFRS: A comparative analysis of principles-based and rules-based accounting standards. Scholedge International Journal of Business Policy & Governance, 3(5), 63–72.

Haswell, S. (2006). Over-complexity in accounting standards and the emerging duopoly of US GAAP and IFRS. Australian Accounting Review, 16(2), 49–59.

Hidayat, W. (2018). Dasar-dasar Analisa Laporan Keuangan. Uwais Inspirasi Indonesia.

Howieson, B., Loftus, J., & Schuhrer, S. (2024). Are accounting standards understandable? Accounting & Finance, 64, 1083–1109.

Indonesia, I. A. (2015). Pernyataan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan (PSAK) No. 23: Pendapatan. Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia.

Indonesia, I. A. (2021). Kode Etik Akuntan Indonesia. Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia.

Indonesia, K. K. R. (2019). Putusan Kasus Laporan Keuangan Tahunan PT Garuda Indonesia 2018.

Jamieson, D., Awolowo, I. F., Garrow, N., Winfield, J., & Bhaiyat, F. (2019). Financial shenanigans: The importance of anti-fraud education. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 8(3), 58–63.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.

Jones, M., & Smith, M. (2014). Traditional and alternative methods of measuring the understandability of accounting narratives. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(1), 183–208.

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press.

King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. Sage.

Kurniawati, A., & Febiolla, C. V. (2022). Determinan potensi manipulasi laba perusahaan manufaktur go public dengan menggunakan fraud score model. Jurnal Akuntansi, 14(1), 23–34.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.

Mautz, R. K., & Sharaf, H. A. (1964). The Philosophy of Auditing. American Accounting Association.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage.

Moleong, L. J. (2017). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Remaja Rosdakarya.

Morais, A. I. (2020). Are changes in international accounting standards making them more complex? Accounting Forum, 44(1), 35–63.

Richards, G., & van Staden, C. (2015). The readability impact of international financial reporting standards. Pacific Accounting Review, 27(3), 282–303.

Rorty, M. V, Werhane, P. H., & Mills, A. E. (2004). The Rashomon effect: Organizational ethics in health care. Journal of Clinical Ethics.

Schilit, H. M., Perler, J., & Engelhart, Y. (2018). Financial Shenanigans: How to Detect Accounting Gimmicks and Fraud in Financial Reports. McGraw-Hill Education.

Suryandari, E. (2016). Interpretasi investor non-profesional atas implementasi PSAK. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Investasi.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jaset.v17i2.93179

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License

Jurnal ASET (Akuntansi Riset) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. 

View My Stats Visitor