Royal Holloway, University of London
School of Management
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide
Autumn Term, 2010/11 Academic Year
Course outline
Date Thursday
Lecture
Workshop Topic
30 Sep 10
Objectives of financial reporting;
conceptual frameworks
07 Oct 10
Motives for voluntary reporting
14 Oct 10
21 Oct 10
28 Oct 10
04 Nov 10
11 Nov 10
18 Nov 10
25 Nov 10
04 Dec 10
Reporting social and environmental
impact
Regulatory frameworks for financial
reporting
Key contents of financial accounting
statements in the EU
Accounting for pension obligations
Accounting for employee share
options
Off balance sheet finance and
financial instruments
Revenue recognition
Recap and revision lecture
Implications of the IASB conceptual
framework
No workshop this week
Voluntary reporting theories and
practice
Economic and social consequences
of accounting regulation
Impact of recent accounting failures
Accounting for pension obligations
Accounting for employee share
options
Lease accounting
Revenue recognition
Course co-ordinator:
Professor Christopher Napier
Room FBE133, Tel: 01784 276121, E-mail: christopher.napier@rhul.ac.uk
Office hours (Autumn term 2009/10) Monday, 11:00-12:00, Thursday, 10:30-11:30)
If you want to meet the course co-ordinator at any other time, please send an e-mail to
arrange a mutually convenient time outside these office hours.
Workshops will be led by Dr Leonardo Rinaldi.
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Aims of course
This course aims to:

develop students’ knowledge and understanding of key contemporary issues involved in
discharging corporate duties of accountability to third party stakeholders

develop students’ knowledge and understanding of subjectivities inherent in externally
published accounting information

develop students’ appreciation of the economic consequences of corporate reporting
practices
Learning outcomes
Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Demonstrate an awareness and understanding of corporate duties of accountability to
external stakeholders.
2. Discuss and analyse the nature of subjective judgements involved in several complex
areas of financial, social and environmental accounting and reporting.
3. Employ UK and international Generally Accepted Accounting Practice in analysis of the
financial accounting treatment of a range of complex types of financial transactions.
4. Explain the broad nature of economic consequences which can potentially flow from
different accounting and reporting practices
Teaching and learning methods
The course will be taught through 10 one-hour lectures and 8 one-hour workshops. Lectures
will provide a broad outline structure for each topic covered. Workshops will be used to
discuss issues in additional readings and/or work through numerical exercises related to the
lecture material of prior weeks.
Textbooks
The set text for this course is:

Alexander, D., Britton, A. and Jorissen, A. (2009) International Financial Reporting and
Analysis, Andover: Cengage Learning (4th edition). ISBN:978-1-4080-1792-0
In addition, the following supplementary text may be helpful in providing alternative
perspectives on some of the material covered in this course:

Deegan, C. and Unerman, J. (2006) Financial Accounting Theory: European Edition,
Maidenhead: McGraw Hill. ISBN: 978-0-07-710896-0

Elliott, B. and Elliott, J. (2009) Financial Accounting and Reporting, Harlow: FT Prentice
Hall (13th edition). ISBN: 978-0-273-72332-5
The relevant chapters from these textbooks for each week’s topic are indicated in the
following weekly course outline. In addition, several journal articles are identified – most of
which should be available online through the College Library.
Page 2
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Assessment
The assessment for this course comprises an in-course assignment and an end-of-course
examination. The in-course assignment carries a weighting of 30% and the 2 hour closed
book examination carries a weighting of 70% towards the overall course mark. The word
limit for the assignment is 2,000 words, including direct quotations, but not including your list
of references/bibliography.
Assignment question
In some countries, companies are given “pollution allowances” (for example, “carbon
emission credits”) by the national government. They are permitted to emit harmful
substances into the atmosphere up to the amount of their allowances, and any pollution in
excess of the allowances will be penalised. The pollution allowances can be bought and
sold, so a company with low emissions could sell its excess pollution allowances to a
company with high emissions.
Required: Critically evaluate the argument that pollution allowances represent assets that
should be reported on the balance sheets of companies entitled to such allowances.
A good answer will go a long way beyond mere description of the issues involved, including
analysis and criticism. Some reading suggestions will be provided through Moodle, and
good answers are likely to use other relevant sources.
The deadline for submission of your essay is Tuesday 9 November 2010 at 12:00 noon.
Your essay must be submitted in accordance with the standard School of Management
submission procedures. Please submit your essay as a Word file through the Turnitin
plagiarism software – this will give you an automatic receipt, the date and time of which will
be considered definitive as the time of submission. Also submit a printed version of your
essay to the undergraduate office. Further details of the submission process will be given
before the submission date.
Any essays submitted after the deadline will be subject to the standard Royal Holloway late
submission penalties (10 percentage points deducted from the mark awarded for essays
submitted up to 24 hours after the deadline, a mark of zero for any essays submitted more
than 24 hours after the deadline). Extensions to the deadline will only be granted in very
exceptional circumstances. Failure or inaccessibility of computer equipment will not be
accepted as an adequate reason for granting an extension, so if you decide to leave printing
of your essay until the morning of 9 November then you have made the choice to take a risk
of having marks deducted if you experience problems accessing printers etc.
When writing an academic piece of work it is perfectly acceptable to quote or paraphrase
items you have read, provided you enclose direct quotes in quotation marks and state
the original source of the item. This requirement also applies if you copy, cut and paste, or
paraphrase material found on the internet. Failure to attribute quotations in this manner
will result in your assignment being penalised for plagiarism. All written academic work
must have a bibliography attached, listing all items referred to in researching and writing the
piece of work.
Page 3
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
LECTURE PROGRAMME
Lecture 1 – Thursday 30 September 2010
Objectives of financial reporting; and conceptual frameworks
Objectives of lecture:
To recap and develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 The role of corporate reporting
 Cash v. accruals accounting (IAS 18)
 Conceptual frameworks for financial accounting
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapters 1 & 8
Supplementary reading
Deegan & Unerman, chapter 6.
Bence, D. & Fry, N. (2004), “Which way forward”, Accountancy, November 2004, p. 88
Marlow, D. (2009), “Comment that matters”, Accountancy, October 2009, pp. 68-69
Fraser, I. (2009), “More than words”, Accountancy, November 2009, pp. 38-39
Lecture 2 – Thursday 7 October 2010
Motives for voluntary reporting
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 The distinction between mandatory and voluntary elements of corporate reports
 Legitimacy theory
 Stakeholder theory
 Institutional theory
Key reading
Deegan & Unerman, chapter 8
Supplementary reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 10
Deegan, C. (2002), “The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures - a
theoretical foundation”. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
282-311.
O'Dwyer, B. (2005), “Stakeholder democracy: Challenges and contributions from social
accounting”. Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 24-41.
Unerman, J. & Bennett, M. (2004), “Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards
greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?” Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 685-707.
Page 4
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Lecture 3 – Thursday 14 October 2010
Reporting social and environmental impact
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 The role of sustainability reporting
 Stages of sustainability reporting
Key reading
Deegan & Unerman, chapter 9
Supplementary reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 10 (pages 195 to 211)
Adams, C. A. (2004), “The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal
gap” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 731-757.
Dillard, J. F., Brown, D., & Marshall, R. S. (2005), “An environmentally enlightened
accounting” Accounting Forum, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 77-101.
Gray, R. (2002), “The social accounting project and Accounting, Organizations and Society:
privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique”
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 687-708.
Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability. . .and
how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Lecture 4 – Thursday 21 October 2010
Regulatory frameworks for financial reporting
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 The regulatory framework for accounting in the UK and European Union
 Economic consequences of accounting regulation
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 3
Supplementary reading
Deegan & Unerman, chapter 3.
Elliott & Elliott, chapters 5 & 6 (section 6.6)
Broadbent, J. & Laughlin, R., (2002), "Accounting choices: Technical and political trade-offs
and the UK's private finance initiative", Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol 15,
No 5, pp. 622-654.
Sleigh-Johnson, N. (2010) “Where now for UK GAAP?”, Accountancy, May 2010, pp. 64-65.
Page 5
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Lecture 5 – Thursday 28 October 2010
Key contents of financial accounting statements in the EU
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 Components of company accounts
 Creative accounting with use of reserve movements
 Overview of group accounts
 Treatment of goodwill (IAS 38)
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapters 9, 13 & 25 (pages 619 to 633 – you will not be
expected to be able to prepare consolidated accounts, but it is useful to understand the
basic approach to consolidation)
Hines, R. D. (1988), “Financial accounting: in communicating reality, we construct reality”.
Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 251-261.
Supplementary reading
Elliott & Elliott, chapters 8, 17 (sections 17.4 to 17.6) & 20
Unerman, J. & O'Dwyer, B. (2004), “Enron, WorldCom, Andersen et al: a challenge to
modernity”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15, No. 6-7, pp. 971-993.
Lecture 6 – Thursday 4 November 2010
Accounting for pension obligations
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 Distinction between defined contribution and defined benefit pensions
 Conceptual difficulties in accounting for defined benefit pension obligations
 Accounting for pension obligations under IAS 19
 Key differences between IAS 19 and the UK’s FRS 17
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 21 (pages 494 to 520)
Supplementary reading
Elliott & Elliott, chapter 13 (sections 13.1-13.13)
Napier, C. J. (2009), “The logic of pension accounting”, Accounting and Business Research,
Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 231-249.
Peters, B. (2010), “Far from final”, Accountancy, June 2010, pp. 68-69.
Page 6
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Lecture 7 – Thursday 11 November 2010
Accounting for employee share options
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 The role of employee share options
 Conceptual difficulties in accounting for employee share options
 Accounting requirements for employee share options (IFRS 2)
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 21 (pages 484 to 494)
Supplementary reading
Elliott & Elliott, chapter 13 (sections 13:17-13:20)
Crook, K. (2004) “Learning to share”, Accountancy, April 2004, pp 84-85
Franklin, W. & Giles, L. (2004) “Life expectancy”, Accountancy, September 2004, pp. 88-89
Franklin, W. (2004) “End of a relaxed regime”, Accountancy, November 2004, pp. 84-85
Osborne, J. (2005), “Grappling with the practicalities”, Accountancy, June 2005, pp. 68-69
Osborne, J. (2007), “Good in principle”, Accountancy, November 2007, pp. 74-75.
Lecture 8 – Thursday 18 November 2010
Off balance sheet finance and financial instruments
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 Reasons for using off balance sheet finance
 Accounting for leases (IAS 17)
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 15.
Supplementary reading
Elliott & Elliott, chapters 11 & 16
Sanderson, I. (2010), “What REPO 105 really means”, Accountancy, April 2010, pp. 28-29.
Collings, S. (2010), “In a tangle”, Accountancy, August 2010, pp. 70-71.
Page 7
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Lecture 9 – Thursday 25 November 2010
Revenue recognition
Objectives of lecture:
To develop students’ knowledge and understanding of:
 Problems of determining when revenues and gains should be included in the income
statement
 Financial reporting standards on revenue recognition (IAS18, FRS5 Application Note G,
new IASB proposals)
Key reading
Alexander, Britton & Jorissen, chapter 18.
Supplementary reading
Elliott & Elliott, chapter 2 (sections 2.3 to 2.6).
O’Donovan, B. (2010), “Money, money, money”, Accountancy, August 2010, pp. 68-69.
Lecture 10 – Thursday 2 December 2010
Recap and revision lecture
Objectives of lecture:
To:
 Recap the course
 Revise areas as requested by students
Page 8
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
Workshop 1 – Thursday 7 October 2010
Impact of conceptual frameworks
It has been claimed that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has
increasingly moved away from a focus on stewardship, that is, how well a company and its
management use the resources invested by shareholders, and possibly by other
stakeholders. This has been replaced by an emphasis on providing information to help
investors make their investment decisions. With particular reference to contents of the IASB
conceptual framework, critically evaluate the validity of this claim, and assess whether such
a change in the emphasis of accounting is desirable.
There is no workshop on Thursday 14 October 2010
Workshop 2 – Thursday 21 October 2010
Voluntary reporting theories and practice
It has been claimed that the predominant reason for companies disclosing voluntary
information in accounting reports is to protect, and increase, the relative power and wealth of
managers and providers of financial capital. Critically evaluate this claim, supporting your
discussion with both theoretical arguments and practical examples.
Workshop 3 – Thursday 28 October 2010
Economic and social consequences of accounting regulation
“Accounting standards merely regulate the reporting of economic transactions, they have no
impact upon the underlying economic performance or social impact of an entity.” Do you
agree or disagree with this claim? Give both theoretically based reasons and practical
examples.
Workshop 4 – Thursday 4 November 2010
Impact of accounting failures
Drawing upon alleged accounting failures such as Enron, WorldCom, and the 2008 credit
crunch, critically evaluate claims that financial accounts objectively reflect an underlying
economic reality.
Explore the impact that accounting failures at Enron and WorldCom, and the 2008 credit
crunch, may have had on the level of trust placed in corporate financial statements.
Page 9
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Workshop 5 – Thursday 11 November 2010
Accounting for pension obligations
Brno plc operates a defined benefit pension scheme. On 1 January 2005, the present value
of its pension fund obligations amounted to £100 million, and the market value of its pension
fund assets also amounted to £100 million. The company’s policy is to recover any actuarial
surpluses of pension fund assets over pension fund obligations by reducing future
contributions from the company to the pension fund. The following information relates to
Brno plc’s defined benefit pension scheme for the financial years ended 31 December 2005
and 31 December 2006:
2005
2006
6.0%
5.0%
10.0%
8.0%
£15m
£17m
Benefits paid from the pension scheme
£12m
£18m
Contributions paid into the pension scheme
£10m
£14m
£105m
£120m
£110m
£112m
Discount rate at beginning of year
Expected rate of return on pension scheme assets
(forecast at beginning of year)
Current service cost
Present value of pension scheme obligations at end
of year
Market value of pension scheme assets at end of
year
You should assume that all cash flows related to the pension scheme occur at the end of
each year. Ignore taxation.
Required:
(a)
In accordance with the accounting requirements of IAS 19 (using the ‘equity
recognition approach’ option for the treatment of any actuarial gains or losses),
calculate the following amounts to be included in the financial accounts of Brno plc for
each of its financial years ended 31 December 2005 and 31 December 2006, and
identify the accounting statement in which each item would appear:
(i)
The net pension asset or liability
(ii)
The pension operating cost (or credit)
(iii)
The net pension financing cost (or credit)
(iv)
The actuarial gain or loss
(b)
Assess the potential long-term economic consequences of the introduction of IAS 19 in
the UK.
Page 10
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Workshop 6 – Thursday 18 November 2010
Accounting for employee share options
On 1 January 2005 Wolt plc issued options over 500 of its £1 ordinary shares to each of its
2,000 employees. These share options can only be exercised by an employee if that
employee remains employed by Wolt plc for the whole of the three year period ending on
31 December 2007. The directors of Wolt plc estimated on 1 January 2005 that 30% of their
2,000 employees would have left the company by 31 December 2007.
The option exercise price is £6.50 per share, and the market price of Wolt’s £1 ordinary
shares was £4.35 on 1 January 2005. It has been calculated that the fair value of each of
these employee share options on 1 January 2005 was £1.25 per share option.
150 of the employees who had been granted share options left the company during 2005,
and on 31 December 2005 the directors of Wolt plc revised their vesting estimate to 25%.
A further 250 of the employees who had been granted share options left the company during
2006, and on 31 December 2006 the directors revised their vesting estimate to 28%.
A further 120 of the employees who had been granted share options left the company during
2007, and on 31 December 2007 all remaining employees exercised their options. The
market price per £1 ordinary share in Wolt plc was £9.25 on 31 December 2007.
Required:
(a)
Calculate the expense (charge) to be included in Wolt plc’s income statement in
respect of these share options each year from the year ended 31 December 2005 to
the year ended 31 December 2007, in accordance with the provisions of International
Financial Reporting Standard number 2 (IFRS 2).
(b)
Show how the above share options would be treated in the balance sheet of Wolt plc
as at 31 December 2005 and 31 December 2006 in accordance with the provisions of
IFRS2.
(c)
Critically evaluate how the accounting treatment of share options required by IFRS 2
conforms to the International Accounting Standards Board’s conceptual framework.
Page 11
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Workshop 7 – Thursday 25 November 2010
Lease Accounting
Latir plc was incorporated and commenced business on 1 April 2003. On that date it entered
into the following leases:
1. A five year lease for machinery at a rental of £450,000 per annum payable in advance.
The present value of the lease payments at 1 April 2003 was estimated as £1.9 million,
equal to the market value of the machinery leased. Latir plc is responsible for insuring
and maintaining the machinery during the period of the lease.
2. A three year lease for computer equipment, with an annual rental of £50,000 payable in
arrears. The present value of the lease payments at the beginning of the lease was
estimated as £120,000, which was the same as the market value of the computer
equipment on that date. Latir plc is responsible for insuring and maintaining the computer
equipment until the end of the lease.
3. A 15 year lease for the new building occupied by the company. The annual rent payable
for the building is £300,000, payable quarterly in advance. The present value of the lease
payments had been estimated as £2.6 million on 1 April 2003, when the market value of
the land and building was £4 million. Latir is responsible for maintaining and repairing the
building during the lease, but insurance is the responsibility of the landlord.
Latir plc has not entered into any other leases, and has not purchased any fixed assets. Its
accounting policy is to depreciate leased assets, where appropriate, on a straight line basis
over the term of the lease and to apportion interest charges on finance leases using the
sum-of-the digits method.
Required:
(a)
Show how the above leases will be reflected in the financial statements of Latir plc for
the year ended 31 March 2005 (its second year of operation) in accordance with the
requirements of International Accounting Standard 17 (IAS 17), including relevant
notes to the accounts. Clearly explain why you have adopted the accounting treatment
you have chosen for each of the leases. (Note: you are NOT required to show the
comparative figures for the financial year ended 31 March 2004 which would normally
also appear in the 31 March 2005 accounts)
(b)
Without carrying out any further calculations, explain why and how the accounting
treatment of leases you have adopted in your answer to part (a) of this question would
change if the distinction between operating and finance leases were removed, so all
leases were accounted for on the same basis.
Page 12
MN3245 – Accounting for Corporate Accountability
Study Guide 2010/11
Workshop 8 – Thursday 2 December 2010
Revenue Recognition
Clementi Airways operates a long-haul air passenger service from London to Sydney via
Bahrain and Singapore four times weekly. Because the flying time is considerably longer
than more direct flights, Clementi has difficulty in selling all seats in the business class
section of its planes. In order to increase demand, Clementi has advertised a special offer.
Passengers booking a return flight from London to Sydney departing and returning between
1 September and 15 November 2010 would be charged a return fare of £2,000 (which is
considerably less than the fare charged by other airlines), and would be given a voucher
exchangeable for an additional free return flight between London and Sydney departing and
returning between 15 January and 15 April 2011. About 1,000 customers took advantage of
the offer.
Clementi must now decide how to account for the revenue relating to these fares in its
financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2010, and various members of the
accounting staff have been asked for suggestions.
(1)
Ali suggests that the easiest way of accounting is to treat half of the fare (£1,000) as
revenue in 2010 and the remaining half as revenue in 2011.
(2)
Bassam notes that the second flight is described as “free” and therefore all of the
£2,000 should be recognised in 2010.
(3)
Khaldoun points out that the incremental costs of carrying a business class
passenger from London to Sydney and back again (in-flight service, additional fuel,
ground handling, ticketing and administration) are £200, and this should be allowed
for. So Clementi should recognise £1,800 in 2010 and carry forward £200 for 2011.
(4)
Davoud argues that the transaction is not complete until the second flight has been
taken, and therefore Clementi should recognise no revenue until 2011. He would be
prepared for the incremental cost of the first flight to be carried forward rather than
expensed in 2009, and offset against the revenue when this is recognised in 2011.
(5)
Eliezer comments that about half of the passengers holding vouchers will not in fact
use them. He suggests that Clementi should recognise £1,500 per ticket in 2010 and
£500 per ticket in 2011 to allow for this.
(6)
Fatimah reminds her colleagues that an alternative marketing approach that had not
been adopted was to sell return flights between London and Sydney taken between
1 September and 15 December 2010 for £1,700, with no voucher being offered. She
recommends that Clementi should recognise revenue of £1,700 in 2010 and the
remaining £300 in 2011.
Required:
(a)
International Accounting Standard 18 Revenue defines revenue as “the gross inflow of
economic benefits during the period arising in the course of the ordinary activities of an
entity when those inflows result in increases in equity, other than increases relating to
contributions from equity participants”. What problems arise in deciding whether
revenue can be recognised from the sale of goods and supply of services, and how
does IAS18 provide guidance on how to deal with these problems?
(b)
Evaluate the six suggestions for recognising Clementi Airways’ revenue by reference
to IAS18 and consider whether IAS18 leads to a reasonable accounting treatment in
this case. Would the IASB’s current (2010) proposals for revenue recognition lead to
any change in your answer?
Page 13