ABSTRACT This article explores commitment to knowledge templates, in this case competing measurement models, in global standard‐setting processes. In particular, I examine the positions of board members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) on a proposal to use fair value accounting in the measurement of revenue. The proposal to measure revenue at fair value was deliberated between 2002 and 2008 as part of the joint revenue project of the FASB and the IASB. I analyze narratives of the board proceedings on the revenue project, which reveal the positions of board members over the life of the proposal. To make sense of these positions, I use Durocher and Gendron's (2014) framework on epistemic commitment, which speaks to one's allegiance to knowledge templates. The analysis shows that individual board member commitment to different knowledge templates is fairly static despite dynamic and contentious debate on this particular proposal. While stable, board member reactions to the proposed shift toward fair value fall into recognizable patterns showing how commitment to different templates entails prioritizing of different core principles and appeals to higher authorities. Finally, the analysis shows how commitment to knowledge templates varies depending on the professional affiliations of board members. For instance, the analysis shows relatively greater consistency of commitment between board members affiliated with academia and corporate preparers than between auditors. Overall, the study indicates the importance of micro‐level features in explaining the development of macro‐level accounting policy. These features are crucial to enhancing our broader understanding of the way in which accounting standards and rules ultimately develop.

We examine responses to pressures to act on extractive firm country-by-country reporting (CbCR) by three regulators: the International Accounting Standards Board, the European Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Debates over CbCR of payments that extractive firms make to governments center on improvements to transparency, governance, and accountability and raise questions about the division of regulatory labor in terms of where and by whom global reporting issues are undertaken and why. Our comparative analysis suggests that while the three regulators resist or respond reluctantly to similar pressures to act on CbCR, each responds in distinct ways that reflect and impact regulatory mandates. Specifically, we show how the regulators’ responses constitute the purpose, problematize the objectives, and construct the perceived interests served by CbCR in relation to each regulator’s mandate. We highlight how these responses can be understood through modes of discursive ignorance (McGoey, 2019) and the uncomfortable knowledge (Rayner, 2012) that each regulator may engage with when pressures challenge how regulators make sense of the world. Our study highlights that regulatory responses are based partly on what regulators assume are their mandates, their legitimacy and ways of operating. It analyzes their self-understandings and defense mechanisms, thereby providing an elaboration of responses to pressures for action and offering a richer political economy of regulation that highlights sensemaking in these processes. We further elaborate on what these responses imply for the division of regulatory labor around pressures to act on global reporting issues, as well as broader implications for participation in and ignorance around accounting regulatory projects.

One view of the socialization experienced by professionals in global Big 4 firms suggests that the intensity of socialization engenders a strong and deep‐rooted professional identity. We scrutinize this claim by drawing on interviews with partners who retired from lifelong employment in Big 4 firms in Japan. Through partners' reflections on their experiences in detaching from the firm, we examine how socialization manifests in partners' identity work. We find that partners' identity, which often appears entrenched, invariable, and heroic, can be highly fragile and vulnerable to changing circumstances. Before leaving the firm, interviewees attempt to reconcile their Big 4 “graduation” with feelings of obsolescence and a growing distance from previous accomplishments. After leaving the firm, interviewees revisit the identity built throughout their careers. Unable to move on to a selfhood detached from that identity, they refashion their identity relative to their former Big 4 partner self, backgrounding their private life and post‐firm professional affiliations. Not knowing how to “close the books,” retired partners seek comfort in the old “plot” and in the old “characters,” finding ways to “keep the books open” even after the “setting” has changed. Our results reconfirm the powerful socialization experienced by partners during their tenure with the Big 4 but run counter to scholarship that characterizes the identity of Big 4 partners as strong and fixed. Rather, we demonstrate the insecurity underlying our professional service heroes' identity work and the contingent identity work processes that partners engage in while navigating departure from the Big 4.

ABSTRACT Socializing personnel into accepting work hour norms has been fundamental to how accounting firms function, but is now challenged by contemporary work perspectives. Using 40 semi-structured interviews of personnel across hierarchical levels at a national firm and an international firm, we show how strangeness and contradiction expressed in work hour perspectives across different levels within both firms are reconstructed as compatible and complementary. Highlighting various firm adaptations, including alternative work arrangements, offshoring, and technological tools, our interviews suggest a major shift in firms' approach toward work hours. This shift is fueled by work perspectives embraced by younger generations desiring work-life balance and purposeful work, and enabled by technology supporting remote work and increasing work efficiencies. The question remains whether firms are evolving to genuinely embody work perspectives of younger generations or restructuring to rely on a smaller workforce willing to accept traditional work hour norms, or some combination thereof.