• Abstract
  • Keywords
  • 1 Business Model
  • 2 Does the Concept of ‘business Model’ Have a Place in Financial Reporting Regulation?
  • 2.1 Management Commentary, the Ukcgc and Business Models
  • 2.2 Extensions of the Business Model Concept in Financial Reporting
  • 3 Ambiguity
  • References

رئوس مطالب

  • چکیده
  • کلیدواژه ها
  • 1. مدل کسب و کار
  • 2. آیا مفهوم "مدل کسب و کار" جایگاهی در تنظیم گزارشگری مالی دارد؟
  • 2.1. تفسیر مدیریت، UKCGC و مدل های کسب و کار
  • 2.2. بسط مفهوم مدل کسب و کار در گزارشگری مالی
  • 3. ابهام


The paper observes that the term ‘business model’ has been incorporated in recent financial reporting regulations. The first section of the paper describes various meanings of ‘business model’ and demonstrates that the term has no settled or agreed meaning. The second part of the paper considers the suitability of the term ‘business model’ as a basis for a measurement standard (IFRS 9) or for requirements for narrative reporting and concludes it is not suitable for either purpose. Examples from the UK FTSE 100 index companies are used to illustrate existing usage in narrative reporting, finding varying levels of informativeness of disclosures about business models. The final part of the paper discusses reasons for incorporating an ambiguous and contested term in reporting guidance. It identifies parallels with ambiguity in other branches of financial reporting and the potential utility of ambiguity in allowing consensus to be arrived at on a form of words, apparently tightening up reporting regulation, while allowing participants ‘wiggle room’.

Keywords: - - - -

2.2 Extensions of the business model concept in financial reporting

The IASB, with its principle-based approach, has been wary of issuing standards based on different business models. Only six of 38 extant IFRSs and IASs relate to specific industries, assets or transactions (IFRS 4 Insurance contracts; IFRS 6 Exploration for and evaluation of mineral resources; IAS 11 Construction contracts; IAS 26 Accounting and reporting by retirement benefit plans; IAS 40 Investment Property; IAS 41 Agriculture—there are also several IFRIC Interpretations that could be described as industry specific.) Any widespread use of a business model approach would require the IASB to develop its own taxonomy or typology of business models in so far as they are relevant to financial reporting. This is hard to conceive of at present and would lead to loss of comparability. For example, would it be beneficial to have separate financial reporting rules (it’s hard to think of them as principles) for online retailers and high street retailers?

Much of the work of IASB, and in particular IFRIC, is ‘fire-fighting’; certain kinds of items or transactions are perceived as giving rise to problems, or unacceptable variety of practice, and so new guidance is formulated to deal with these problems. It is possible that analysis of how entities seek to derive value from these transactions would be instructive and that articulation of entities’ business models would be useful for this purpose. It does not follow that the concept of business model would then need to be enshrined in guidance, for, as already implied, management intention is an inherent part of a business model and it would be too easy for management to switch the espoused model to achieve their preferred reporting alternative.

دانلود ترجمه تخصصی این مقاله دانلود رایگان فایل pdf انگلیسی