Twenty years of IFRS ‘success’?

A systematic review of

Scopus literature

Erekle Pirvelia and Jochen Zimmermannb

a
Caucasus School of Business, Caucasus University, Tbilisi, Georgia;

b
Faculty of Economics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany;

Corresponding author: Erekle Pirveli, Caucasus School of Business, Caucasus University, P.

Saakadze 1, Tbilisi 0102, Georgia. E-mail: epirveli@cu.edu.ge.

This work was supported by the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia (SRNSFG)
[grant number: FR-23-5672, Project Title: “CSR Disclosure, Earnings Management, and Corporate
Governance: A Georgian Perspective”]. The authors are grateful to the Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor,
and two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation; to
Robert Larson, Christopher Nobes, and Joshua Cieslewicz; and to the participants of the 7th
International Annual Scientific Conference at Caucasus University (Tbilisi, 2022) and the doctoral
accounting workshop at TSU ISET (Tbilisi, 2023).

1
Abstract:

This study augments the literature by systematically reviewing market- and firm-level effects of

International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) adoption over the past two decades. Drawing

on 181 articles from the Scopus database, our meta-analysis applies multivariate regression and

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to simultaneously examine the relationships between

accounting quality, accounting comparability, market effects, and the findings of IFRS adoption.

The results show predominantly positive effects on market outcomes, such as reduced forecast

errors, increased investment flows, and improved market liquidity, whereas findings on

accounting quality and comparability remain mixed. Crucially, SEM reveals that these market

improvements are not primarily driven by fundamental accounting enhancements in either

accounting quality or comparability. Instead, market effects exert a strong direct influence on

IFRS findings, whereas accounting dimensions exhibit weaker direct and significantly negative

indirect effects. These insights challenge the common assumption that market-level

improvements stem from enhanced accounting fundamentals. By offering a structured and

quantitative synthesis, this study strengthens methodological rigor in IFRS literature and informs

future research on standard-setting outcomes.

Keywords: IFRS effects, accounting quality, accounting comparability, economic

consequences, systematic literature review, meta-analysis.

Subject classification codes: M41, M48, G30, G34, G38

2
1. Introduction

The sweeping implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has provided

accounting scholars with a unique context to examine the effects from an international adoption of

regulatory standards (Ball, 2006; Byard et al., 2011; Daske et al., 2008; Horton et al., 2013). Higher

transparency, broader disclosure requirements, and more consistent measurement and recognition rules

were expected to improve the quality and comparability of financial information at the entity level (Ball,

2006; Daske et al., 2008). In turn, these improvements would result in economic effects and affect

market measures, including the cost of equity capital, forecast accuracy, investment flow, and liquidity

(Armstrong et al., 2010; Li, 2010). Whether IFRS adoption has been accompanied by these expected

positive outcomes at firm and market levels is an intensively examined research question (Barth et al.,

2008; Hung & Subramanyam, 2007).

After two decades of extensive research, the current literature on the effects of IFRS adoption

has provided inconclusive results. The market properties of market liquidity (Daske et al., 2008), cost

of equity capital (Li, 2010), investment flow (DeFond et al., 2011), and analyst forecasts (Byard et al.,

2011) generally improve. However, a substantial stream of literature is unable to confirm many of the

anticipated positive effects of IFRS adoption, particularly regarding the entity level effects of

accounting quality (Callao & Jarne, 2010; Paananen & Lin, 2009) and accounting comparability

(Cascino & Gassen, 2015; Kvaal & Nobes, 2012). Moreover, whether accounting quality and

comparability improvements bring about positive market effects remains unexplored.

In tackling the challenge of mixed findings, a stream of ‘literature review’ studies has emerged

(Ahmed et al., 2013; Ball, 2016; Becker et al., 2021; Brown, 2011; Brüggemann et al., 2013; Cascino

et al., 2023; De George et al., 2016; Leuz & Wysocki, 2016; Pope & McLeay, 2011; Singleton-Green,

2015; Soderstrom & Sun, 2007). To categorize and synthesize these mixed findings, these studies

include large but unsystematic reviews (Becker et al., 2021; Leuz & Wysocki, 2016; Soderstrom &

Sun, 2007) as well as systematic literature reviews (Brüggemann et al., 2013; De George et al., 2016;

Pope & McLeay, 2011). Notably, only Ahmed et al. (2013) employ a statistical (meta-analysis)

technique to draw causal inferences. Their study reviews 57 papers on the effects of IFRS adoption,

3
focusing on two accounting quality measures (value relevance and discretionary accruals) and one

market measure (analysts’ forecasts), but does not ask questions about how effects at the reporting entity

(firm) and at the market level interact.

A more comprehensive meta-analysis is now feasible using a larger sample, allowing for a

simultaneous examination of accounting quality, comparability, and market effects in assessing the

impact of IFRS adoption. This review is particularly relevant given the ongoing debate over whether

IFRS adoption outcomes arise from improved accounting quality, enhanced comparability, market

effects, or other unexplored factors (Hail et al., 2010). For instance, Hamberg et al. (2013) suggest that

positive IFRS effects may result from strong enforcement and limited pre-regulation manipulation

rather than actual improvements in accounting quality. Therefore, these institutional factors could drive

IFRS adoption outcomes rather than accounting quality or comparability, where findings remain mixed.

Our meta-analysis aims to shed light on this matter.

We use a systematic framework for mapping the effects of IFRS adoption through an

information-generation process based on IFRS financial reports. IFRS adoption is expected to enhance

information at the reporting entity level through two primary channels: improved accounting quality

(channel 1) or increased comparability (channel 2). In turn, these enhancements influence market

outcomes, including reduced cost of capital, increased investment flow and liquidity, and improved

forecast accuracy. Effects that cannot be attributed to either channel 1 or channel 2 are classified under

institutional factors or other unexplored determinants.

To examine these dynamics, we analyze 181 Scopus studies on IFRS adoption, employing

multivariate regression analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Our findings indicate that

fewer than half of the studies (46%) report positive effects from IFRS adoption, with such effects

predominantly linked to market outcomes. Consistent with this, our multivariate analysis suggests that

IFRS findings are primarily driven by market effects rather than firm-level improvements in accounting

quality or comparability. SEM results further supports this conclusion, showing that neither

improvements in accounting quality nor in accounting comparability at the reporting entity level

4
increase the likelihood of favorable IFRS outcomes, either directly or indirectly through market

linkages.

At a sub-aggregated level analysis, we see that forecast errors, investment flows, and market

liquidity emerge as significant market channels driving IFRS outcomes, suggesting that capital market

confidence plays a pivotal role in how IFRS reforms are evaluated. Value relevance, capturing the

association between accounting numbers and market prices, is the only accounting quality measure

exerting a positive direct effect on IFRS findings. In contrast, accounting conservatism shows no

significant influence, while earnings management affects IFRS findings only indirectly and negatively

by reducing investment flows and increasing both the cost of capital and forecast errors. This suggests

that when IFRS fails to constrain earnings management, it undermines market trust and weakens the

perceived effectiveness of the standards. Unlike market effects, which demonstrate strong positive

associations, or accounting quality, which shows mixed results, accounting comparability exhibits no

direct link with IFRS findings and negatively affects key market indicators. Overall, these results

underscore that IFRS adoption is primarily evaluated through market-based responses rather than

through internal improvements in accounting quality or comparability.

Our study makes several contributions to the existing literature. First, we compile and provide

a descriptive overview of a large sample of literature from Scopus on the effects of IFRS adoption. This

review offers a perspective on the distinct impacts of IFRS adoption on accounting quality,

comparability, and market outcomes. Second, we statistically measure the influence of accounting and

market effects on the findings of IFRS adoption. We additionally employ SEM to simultaneously

identify both the direct and indirect effects of IFRS adoption. This approach helps determine whether

the findings of IFRS adoption is directly or indirectly driven by accounting quality and comparability,

which was the original intent and rationale of the standard setter (IFRS Foundation, 2018). Finally, our

methodology, including the application of SEM techniques, offers a replicable framework for future

studies on other accounting and reporting changes, such as examining the effects of adopting the

European Sustainability Reporting Standards (Pirveli et al., 2025).

5
 Beyond its academic contributions, this study provides insights for accounting standard-setting

bodies and regulators. While other external country-wide effects should be also considered, government

decisions to permit, converge, or adopt IFRS are public policy decisions that should be made based in

part on a set of expected market benefits. Our review provides aggregated evidence on the financial

reporting and capital market effects of implementing IFRS and the factors influencing such effects. This

evidence informs regulators in IFRS-adopting jurisdictions so they can understand how their

institutional environments can be expected to influence the results of IFRS adoption. At the verge of

implementing sustainability standards in financial reporting, the IFRS experience can provide

regulators with insights regarding how to evaluate standards to hopefully ensure that the intended goals

are systematically reached.

In the sections that follow, the theoretical proposition underlying our research is developed, the

research methodology is discussed, and, finally, the results, discussion, and future research directions

are presented.

2. Theoretical development and literature review

2.1. Information generation and processing: Economic and entity effects of IFRS adoption

The “sudden rush” of many accounting communities to converge with or to adopt1 IFRS stems from a

self-reinforcing interplay of economic and political factors, mainly driven by financialization and

globalization (Fontes et al., 2005; Neu & Ocampo, 2007). Capital markets became more important and

interlocked, increasing the popularity of unified accounting standards (Cascino & Gassen, 2015;

Ramanna, 2013). This gave rise to the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) and

subsequently the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), which created IFRS (Lehman,

2005; Zarzeski, 1996).

The rationale of IFRS adoption ultimately rests on improved economic effects in financial

markets. The desired economic effects include increased flow of investments, more precise predictions

1
Some countries, such as Germany and Australia, adopted IFRS while some other countries, such as the United
States (US) and Japan, converged to varying extents with IFRS. We use the term ‘IFRS adoption’ consistently
throughout the paper to denote both usages of IFRS.

6
and better valuations, higher market liquidity, and lower cost of equity. The economic effects

hypothetically play out by information generation through two accounting channels at the reporting

entity level: quality and comparability (World Bank, 2011). The conceptual framework for financial

reporting issued by the IASB states that the mission of IFRS is “to develop Standards that bring

transparency, accountability and efficiency to financial markets around the world. […] The Conceptual

Framework provides the foundation for Standards that: (a) contribute to transparency by enhancing the

international comparability and quality of financial information, enabling investors and other market

participants to make informed economic decisions” (IFRS Foundation, 2018, p. A17).

The IASB and many researchers reason that accounting effects arise at the reporting entity level

and then translate into the financial markets as enhanced quality and comparability, which increases the

perceived informatory value of accounting information and reduces information asymmetry and its

associated cost (Armstrong et al., 2010). For the accounting quality part, the IASB claims IFRS reduce

the level of discretion and remove accounting alternatives. Theory suggests that such designs restrict

managerial discretion and increase the quality of accounting information (Ewert & Wagenhofer, 2005).

As for the accounting comparability part, increased informatory values would arise from overcoming

fragmented and often widely varying local accounting standards (Brochet et al., 2013; DeFond et al.,

2011; Horton et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2011). For example, before mandatory IFRS adoption, United

Kingdom (UK) firms often capitalized and revalued internally generated intangible assets, while French

firms tended to capitalize them at cost, and German firms did not capitalize them at all (Kvaal & Nobes,

2012; Nobes, 2008). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework underlying these ideas.

---------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
---------------------------------

2.2. Early conceptual doubts and evidence

Soon after the mandatory IFRS adoption in many countries, questions emerged regarding whether this

regulatory change would actually achieve the aimed targets (Bradshaw & Miller, 2008). Sceptics

particularly referred to the link between IFRS adoption and accounting comparability from the

conceptual model (Figure 1). Ball (2006) warned that to even think that diversity in reporting practices

7
would disappear is a naïve assumption. Considering just the varied enforcement capacities of countries

adopting IFRS, it was inevitable that substantial differences in reporting would remain. Cieslewicz

(2014) and Nobes (2011) further argued that comparability in reporting could be impeded due to

different accounting histories, previous practices, and the lack of required balance sheet and income

statement formats.

The discussion of raised accounting quality and comparability at the reporting entity level was

not encouraging. The findings around IFRS adoption remained inconclusive (Brown, 2011; Hamberg

et al., 2013). Barth et al. (2008) show positive effects of IFRS adoption on different dimensions of

accounting quality, which Hung and Subramanyam (2007) are unable to confirm. Ahmed et al. (2013,

p. 1345) conclude that “accounting quality decreased after mandatory IFRS adoption”. While some

studies found positive IFRS effects (e.g., Cairns et al. (2011)), the majority of the studies on accounting

comparability show either no effect or a negative effect in the comparability (e.g., Callao et al. (2007),

Cieslewicz (2014) and Nobes (2011)).

These discouraging observations are balanced by the general finding of positive market effects.

Prior literature has shown the positive effects of IFRS adoption on analysts’ information environment

(Byard et al., 2011), and the cost of equity capital (Daske et al., 2008, 2013; Jermakowicz & Gornik-

Tomaszewski, 2006; Li, 2010). For example, Armstrong et al. (2010) and Landsman et al. (2012) find

that equity market participants respond positively to IFRS adoption, which is well evidenced in the

share price-book value co-movement in the post-IFRS adoption period.

2.3. A joint examination of accounting and market effects

Notably, only a small number of studies considers the effects of IFRS on the information generation

channels of accounting quality and comparability with subsequent market reactions. Most research has

looked at IFRS adoption either from the lens of financial markets or accounting quality, but rarely both

together. This omission presupposes that positive market outcomes from IFRS adoption stem from

accounting improvements. For example, Jiao et al. (2012) argue that improved analyst forecast quality

after IFRS adoption in Europe must result from enhanced accounting information. They argue that

8
IFRS adoption was the only systematic change occurring at that time. This raises an important question:

Are financial markets really reacting to better accounting practices, or is something else at play?

A smaller body of research examines IFRS effects on both accounting and market outcomes

simultaneously. Some of these papers explore market effects through accounting quality (channel 1)

(Lang & Stice-Lawrence, 2015; Li & Yang, 2016; Pirveli & Zimmermann, 2019), accounting

comparability (channel 2) (Brochet et al., 2013; Neel, 2017), or both (Horton & Serafeim, 2010; Horton

et al., 2013). However, these studies do not conduct intermediation analysis to determine whether

accounting changes are the underlying cause of market improvements. Instead, they partition their

samples to make group comparisons and attribute market effects to the accounting component. For

example, Lang and Stice-Lawrence (2015) show that IFRS adoption in 42 countries from 1998 to 2011

improved corporate disclosure quality by expanding disclosure, reducing boilerplate language, and

increasing comparability. They partition the sampled entities and observe more vivid economic

improvements for those entities with greater financial reporting improvements. Similar partitioning

approaches appear in Brochet et al. (2013), Horton et al. (2013), Li and Yang (2016), and Neel (2017).

Only two prominent studies, both using SEM, explicitly analyze the intermediation effects of

IFRS adoption. Landsman et al. (2012) examine market effects (abnormal returns) of IFRS adoption

through market mechanisms, such as reduced reporting lag, increased analyst following, and higher

foreign investment. They do not incorporate accounting channels. Glaum, Baetge, et al. (2013) use SEM

to analyze IFRS intermediation through accounting quality (notes and management reports) into market

effects (forecast errors), but they used only a German sample.

Our study addresses the following two research questions through a meta-analysis based on a

systematic literature review. First, do systematic IFRS findings exist at the reporting entity level (in

terms of accounting quality and comparability) and at the market level (in terms of market effects)?

Second, how do reporting entity-level effects interact with market-level effects in IFRS research? The

first research question examines the drivers of IFRS findings separately, while the second combines the

respective effects into an expanded causal model.

9
3. Research design

3.1 Systematic literature review as a research methodology

A quality literature review is essential for academic research as it provides a foundation for

understanding the current state of knowledge in a field. Several types of literature reviews exist, each

with distinct purposes, advantages, and limitations: 1) Narrative reviews summarize key concepts and

theories, offering broad overviews (Baumeister & Leary, 1997); 2) Descriptive reviews categorize

studies to identify trends and patterns; 3) Scoping reviews map emerging fields; 4) Critical reviews

highlight inconsistencies, and new research directions (Paré et al., 2015); and 5) Realist reviews focus

on understanding how and why interventions work in specific contexts, particularly in fields like social

policy and education (Okoli & Schabram, 2015).

In addition, systematic reviews have arisen with the growing volume of scholarly work (Davis

et al., 2014). They synthesize empirical evidence to address focused research questions using explicit,

structured methods that minimize bias and enhance transparency (Snyder, 2019). Such reviews provide

a reliable framework for appraising and combining findings from diverse studies, which is why they

establish a stronger evidence base than traditional narrative or descriptive reviews (Moher et al., 2009).

Meta-analysis is a statistical extension of systematic reviews. If systematic reviews provide

comprehensive syntheses of research findings, appraise their validity, and highlight gaps, meta-analyses

extend this by statistically combining results to resolve inconsistencies and quantify effects (Cheung &

Vijayakumar, 2016). Such an extension of systematic reviews is particularly useful in fields with mixed

evidence. By aggregating data, meta-analysis increases statistical power, addresses limitations such as

small sample sizes or methodological biases, and highlights sources of heterogeneity such as contextual

differences (Snyder, 2019). As research on IFRS adoption shows contradictory results, extending

systematic reviews with the use of meta-analysis provides a more robust framework to quantify these

findings, identify patterns, and assess generalizability (Leventis et al., 2024).

10
3.2 Sample selection

Data collection is performed by searching the prominent abstract and citation database of academic

literature (Scopus editorial source) through the use of Harzing’s Publish or Perish program software

(Harzing, 2023) on February 16, 2021. Our literature search involves three stages: a) we conduct a

Boolean keyword search of “IFRS” and “International Financial Reporting Standards” both in the title

and keywords of the articles; b) the abstract of each identified publication is then examined to determine

if the research is about the effects of IFRS adoption; and c) if the article is deemed to be relevant, a

closer inspection of the full text is carried out to determine if it specifically addresses the effects of

IFRS adoption on accounting quality, accounting comparability, or market effects.

Figure 2 depicts the flow of the sample selection procedures. Harzing’s Publish or Perish

software retrieves a maximum of 200 articles per Scopus search query. Our search produced a total of

400 articles: 200 based on the title search and 200 based on the keyword search. After the removal of

duplicates, 247 studies remain. We then screen titles, abstracts, and keywords for relevance and drop

22 articles from other fields.2 We go through the full texts of 225 articles and eliminate 44 articles that

do not deal with the effects of IFRS adoption. Of the 44 eliminated articles, 31 were about the

determinants of IFRS adoption, which is the second most prevalently examined topic about IFRS

adoption. Other dropped studies are dealt with topic such as financial crises, financial inclusion, and

XBRL. This resulted in a final sample of 181 articles. We carefully examine the full text of all 181

articles and appropriately code them.

---------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
---------------------------------

To control for confounding effects, we analyze the number of Scopus-based citations of these

articles. This enhances quality control as a high number of citations proxies for quality control and

2
“IFRS” abbreviation also yields articles in the medicine field for “IFRs”, which is the abbreviation for the
plural form of “intumescent flame retardant”.

11
impact on the field (David & Han, 2004; Hutzschenreuter et al., 2020). In line with similar reviews

(Terjesen et al., 2016), we include the major themes of theories, research questions, and methods.

3.3 Multivariate analysis

To examine the first research question, which investigates whether reporting entity (accounting) effects

or market effects account for positive IFRS findings, we apply multivariate analysis. As a dependent

variable, we take an article’s finding about the effects of IFRS adoption. IFRS Finding is a binary

variable coded 1 for a positive IFRS finding, and 0 otherwise. We focus on the sign of the effect from

IFRS adoption found in each article. As main independent variables, we create three binary variables:

AQuality, coded 1 if a paper examines accounting quality, and 0 otherwise; COMP, coded 1 if a paper

examines accounting comparability, and 0 otherwise; and MARKET, coded 1 if a paper examines market

effects, and 0 otherwise.

Our model includes two sets of control variables. To comprehensively examine the influence

of the ‘anything else’ channel, the first set of variables controls for institutional aspects examined in the

studies. Mandatory adoption of IFRS standards is the first institutional aspect (Armstrong et al., 2010;

Daske et al., 2008). The dummy variable MAND differentiates between the studies which consider the

mandatory mode of IFRS adoption. MAND is coded 1 for the studies that investigate the effect of

mandatory IFRS adoption, and 0 otherwise. Other institutional aspects are the differences in the levels

of IFRS enforcement (ENFORC) (Christensen et al., 2013; Li, 2010). ENFORC is coded 1 for the

studies that investigate the effect of the strength of IFRS enforcement, and 0 otherwise. Accounting

distance (DIST) is the differences in the pre-post IFRS adoption levels compared to the pre-existing

local standards (Aharony et al., 2010; Brown, 2011). DIST is coded 1 for the studies that investigate the

effect of pre-IFRS adoption differences, and 0 otherwise. Legal origin (LEGAL) (Landsman et al., 2012;

Soderstrom & Sun, 2007) is coded 1 for studies that explore common and code law country origins, and

0 otherwise. Corporate governance mechanisms (CorpGov) (Christensen et al., 2015; Gebhardt &

Novotny‐Farkas, 2011) is coded 1 for studies on the effects of corporate governance mechanisms, and

0 otherwise.

12
 The second set of controls capture paper-specific characteristics and idiosyncrasies. This set of

controls uses the variables NumCIT (the number of Scopus citations), THEORY (whether a theoretical

lens is used in a study), JOURNALQual (the quality of a journal where the article is published),

INTERNL (an international study that examines more than one country), and SAMPLESize (more than

100 observations in a study) (De George et al., 2016). A detailed list of variables is presented in the

Appendix. We employ a logit regression for the following models:

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*MARKETi + γ2*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + (Eq. 1)

γ3*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*AQualityi + γ2*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + (Eq. 2)

γ3*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*COMPi + γ2*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + (Eq. 3)

γ3*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi

Reducing the complex question of IFRS adoption effects in IFRS Finding to a binary

framework of ‘positive’ versus ‘non-positive’ findings could be an oversimplification. Therefore, in

addition to IFRS Finding, we also use IFRS Index as an index variable for IFRS effects. Such an

approach does not only serve as a robustness check but also allows us to perform ordinary least squares

(OLS) regression analysis. IFRS Index is a summary variable for the outcome for each of the following

eight measures used: a) four market measures — cost of equity, forecast errors, investments, and

liquidity; b) three accounting quality measures — accounting conservatism, earnings management, and

value relevance; and c) one accounting comparability measure. In each of the three channels, we retain

one group outside of the regression analysis to serve as a control group: for MARKET, we exclude

“Other” measures (including debt market effects, risk impacts, and valuation outcomes); for AQuality,

we exclude studies focused on the properties of earnings (such as persistence and predictability); and

for COMP, we exclude convergence- and compliance-related studies, preserving them as a conceptual

control group.

13
 Each of the eight measures included in IFRS Index is assigned 1 point in case of a significant

positive finding, (-1) point in case of a significant negative finding, and 0 points in case of a non-

significant finding. More specifically, if a paper finds a positive effect of IFRS adoption on one aspect

of accounting quality, on comparability, or on market effects, then it is assigned (+1) point; if the same

study finds ‘no effect’, then it is assigned 0 point; and if it finds a negative effect, then it is assigned (-

1) point. Therefore, IFRS Index can range from (+8) points, should a study consider all eight aspects of

IFRS adoption and confirms positive effects, and (-8) points if the study finds significantly negative

effects throughout. The mean value of the IFRS Index is 0.569, while the median is 0.500. We re-run

equations 1 through 3 through OLS estimation using IFRS Index.

3.4 Structural Equation Modeling

In the second research question, we observe if changes in the accounting quality (channel 1) or

comparability (channel 2) lead to market effects, and if these altogether lead to the final outcome on

IFRS findings. To address it, we employ SEM analysis offered by Iacobucci et al. (2007), which is a

variation of the basic mediation method used by Baron and Kenny (1986).

The SEM technique is well-suited to our study as it enables simultaneous analysis of multiple

relationships between the reporting entity and market variables on one hand and IFRS findings on the

other. It effectively captures both direct and indirect effects within a single model, quantifies mediation

pathways, and explicitly accounts for measurement errors (Iacobucci et al., 2007). Moreover, SEM

facilitates the examination of the research question and provides a visual representation through path

diagrams, making it a more robust tool for detecting mediation effects than OLS (Iacobucci et al., 2007).

In our empirical model, information generation channels influence market effects, which in turn

shape the IFRS Finding. This approach reflects our observation of how IFRS adoption effects are treated

in the analyzed papers.

We first separately examine the influence of the two information generating channels of

accounting quality and accounting comparability at the reporting entity level on the capital markets. We

estimate the following two logit models:

14
 MARKETi = γ0 + γ1*AQualityi + εi (Eq. 4)

MARKETi = γ0 + γ1*COMPi + εi (Eq. 5)

We then examine whether improved accounting quality and comparability influence IFRS

findings. To test this, we introduce the following two logit regressions to Equations 4 and 5:

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*AQualityi + εi (Eq. 6)

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*COMPi + εi (Eq. 7)

Finally, to arrive at a full causal mediation analysis, we look at the interplay between accounting

and market data, and IFRS Finding by adding the following logit regression:

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*MARKETi + γ2*AQualityi + γ3*COMPi (Eq. 8)

+ γ4*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠𝐼 𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙

+ γ5*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi

We jointly run equations 4 through 8. For the testing purposes of the model fitness, we apply

Delta, Sobel, and Monte Carlo tests. We also produce the mediation results based on bootstrapping to

check indirect effects by following the approach of Zhao et al. (2010). Finally, we apply options to

generate the ratios of a) the indirect effect to the total effect and b) the indirect effect to the direct effect.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive and univariate analysis

The analyzed 181 studies are published in 46 journals. All 46 journals are ranked by the Australian

Business Deans Council (ABDC, 2022), and 44 are also included in the Academic Journal Guide by

the Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS, 2021). Among these, ten journals are classified

15
as “A*” by the ABDC and four hold an ABS “4*” rating. Additionally, 19 journals are ranked “A” by

the ABDC, reflecting a strong level of scholarly quality and recognition at the time of data extraction.

In terms of disciplinary focus, accounting journals dominate the dataset (n = 31; 67%), followed by

finance (n = 9; 20%), economics (n = 3; 7%), management (n = 3; 7%), international business (n = 2;

4%), and one journal in the field of ethics (n = 1; 2%). The journals are published by a range of major

academic publishers, including Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, Emerald, Taylor & Francis,

American Accounting Association, and Sage. The five journals with the highest number of IFRS-related

articles are The International Journal of Accounting (15), The Accounting Review (14), Accounting and

Business Research (12), The European Accounting Review (12), and Journal of International

Accounting, Auditing and Taxation (11). Citation patterns are notably skewed, with a concentrated share

of total Scopus citations attributed to a few high-ranking journals. An overview is provided in Table 1.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
---------------------------------

Table 2 provides further details on publication year, theories used, countries in samples,

databases applied, and methods employed. Most studies were published between 2010 and 2015,

peaking in 2011. Earlier years (2004–2007) saw limited output, reflecting the nascent stage of IFRS

adoption research. The decline after 2015 may indicate topic saturation or a shift toward adjacent themes

like sustainability reporting. Disclosure theory (17 papers), agency theory (12), and positive accounting

theory (12) dominate the research on IFRS adoption effects. Notably, disclosure theory has largely been

applied independently, while agency and positive accounting theories are often used in combination

with each other or other theoretical frameworks. A substantial proportion of studies (81 papers) lack a

defined theoretical framework. Regarding geographic focus, 68 studies adopt a single-country

perspective, 87 consider multiple countries, and 26 (mostly theoretical works) do not specify a country

focus. In terms of data sources, 84 studies rely on a single database, 69 use multiple sources, and the

remaining do not specify data origins. Thirteen studies obtain data directly from stock exchanges, while

Datastream (10 papers), Worldscope (10), and Compustat (9) are among the most commonly used

databases. These choices reflect a predominant focus on capital market-listed entities. Regression

16
analysis is the principal statistical method, with OLS most frequently applied, followed by logit and

tobit models. Additionally, 19 studies use univariate analysis and 11 employ descriptive analysis.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------

Table 3 summarizes the study findings. Of the 181 studies, 83 (46%) report a positive impact

of IFRS adoption on accounting quality, comparability, or market outcomes. Conversely, 27 studies

find negative impacts, and 71 detect no significant effects.

Market effects of IFRS adoption are central in 45 studies, with topics such as liquidity, cost of

capital, valuation, risk, forecasting, debt markets, investments, and reporting costs. Positive evidence

of IFRS adoption is reported in 80% of these studies. Positive outcomes are also evident in 50 of the 83

studies on accounting quality. Earnings management (including accruals quality) is the most frequently

examined aspect (56 studies), followed by value relevance (41), accounting conservatism (18), and

earnings properties (7). Value relevance studies show the highest proportion of positive outcomes,

whereas earnings properties studies report the lowest. Regarding comparability, 20 of the 55 papers that

investigate IFRS effects report positive impacts, while 29 find no significant change.

Beyond these three core areas, 11 studies examine other post-IFRS adoption characteristics,

including transparency (4 papers), corporate governance (2), human development (2), XBRL (1),

corruption (1), and debt contract details (1). Overall, outcomes are largely positive with 10 of the 11

studies finding beneficial effects. Only the single XBRL study reports no improvement.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
---------------------------------

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of the variables used in the

multivariate analysis. The means show that about 46% of the studies find a significant positive effect

from IFRS introduction (IFRS Effect). Thirty-five percent of the articles consider market effects

(MARKET), 46% investigate accounting quality (AQuality), and 32% examine comparability issues

(COMP). In addition, 37% of the papers focus on the mandatory introduction of IFRS, 15% consider

17
the institutional setting of enforcement, and 9% each examine accounting distance, legal origin, and

corporate governance characteristics. The examined articles average 85 Scopus citations. More than

50% of the studies employ a specific theoretical framework, are published in high-quality journals

(ABDC “A” or “A*”), examine multiple countries, and have a sample size exceeding 100 observations.

The correlation matrix shows that IFRS Finding is significantly and positively associated with

several variables. Most notably, IFRS Finding is positively correlated with MARKET (corr. = 0.340; p

< 0.01), indicating that studies adopting a market-based research design are more likely to report

favorable IFRS outcomes. Additionally, IFRS Finding shows positive associations with MAND (corr.

= 0.259; p < 0.01), suggesting that studies examining mandatory IFRS adoption are more likely to yield

positive findings. A similar pattern holds for DIST (corr. = 0.221; p < 0.01), JOURNALQual (corr. =

0.137; p < 0.10), and SAMPLESize (corr. = 0.127; p < 0.10), implying that studies examining countries

with greater post-IFRS accounting differences, published in stronger journals, or with larger samples

are more inclined to report favorable IFRS effects.

Furthermore, the three main empirical design variables of MARKET, AQuality (Accounting

Quality), and COMP (Comparability) are significantly (p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with one

another. Specifically, the correlations are –0.410 between AQuality and MARKET, –0.345 between

AQuality and COMP, and –0.327 between COMP and MARKET. These inverse relationships can be

explained by two main factors. First, most studies focus exclusively on one outcome of IFRS adoption.

If a study investigates, for example, AQuality (coded as 1), it typically does not examine MARKET or

COMP effects (coded as 0), resulting in mechanical negative correlations. Second, even when multiple

components are assessed within a single study, the findings indicate that these components do not

necessarily move together. Improvements in market outcomes may coincide with weak or negative

results in accounting quality, while gains in accounting quality may not be accompanied by greater

comparability. This reflects the conceptual distinctiveness of these dimensions and suggests that IFRS

effects manifest differently depending on the evaluative lens applied.

The independent variables are largely uncorrelated, giving rise to no econometric concerns.

Multicollinearity was checked using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), with the highest value below

18
2. Heteroscedasticity was assessed using the White test, normality of residuals was verified with the

Shapiro-Wilk test, and omitted variable bias was checked with the Linktest.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
---------------------------------

4.2. Multivariate analysis for separated effects

Table 5 provides the initial regression analyses that set the stage for the follow-up SEM analysis. Model

1 analyzes whether IFRS introduction yielded market effects. Reporting entity level effects of IFRS

adoption on accounting quality are tested in Model 2 and on accounting comparability are examined in

Model 3. For all models, we report three specifications: 1) without controls, 2) with institutional

controls, and 3) with institutional and paper-specific controls, the latter only in a summary fashion for

ease of reading.

The three models exhibit distinct characteristics. Market studies (Model 1) consistently show a

significant positive association with IFRS findings. The results in the no controls column (Column 1)

of Model 1 indicate that studies examining market effects following IFRS adoption are more likely to

report favorable outcomes compared to accounting quality (Column 1, Model 2) and comparability

(Column 1, Model 3) studies. The model’s explanatory power, as indicated by the pseudo R², increases

substantially with the inclusion of institutional controls (from 8.5% to 16.2%), while paper-specific

controls add little explanatory value.

Accounting quality studies (Model 2) do not exhibit a significant association with IFRS

findings, suggesting an equal likelihood of reporting positive or negative outcomes. Compared to

market and comparability studies, these results appear more neutral. The explanatory power of this

model is largely driven by institutional factors rather than characteristics of the studies themselves.

Accounting comparability studies (Model 3), by contrast, consistently show significant but

negative IFRS findings, indicating a greater tendency to report unfavorable outcomes. The explanatory

power of Model 3 is relatively weak, but improves by a percentage similar to Model 1 with the addition

of institutional controls.

19
 The mandatory setting is central to explain effects from IFRS introduction (1.16 ≤ b ≤ 1.25, p

< 0.01). The finding is in line with Ahmed et al. (2013), who argue that the mode of standards’ adoption

(i.e., mandatory vs voluntary) is one of the most significant drivers of IFRS adoption results. The results

of the accounting distance (DIST) (1.49 ≤ b ≤ 1.86, p < 0.05) are an indication that the consideration of

the differences between the local pre-IFRS standards and IFRS is similarly crucial.

Other institutional variables such as ENFORC, LEGAL, and CorpGov are not significant in

explaining the effects of IFRS adoption. ENFORC is weakly significant (p < 0.10) only in Model 1

when institutional control variables are included. Its negative value suggests that studies reporting non-

positive market effects of IFRS adoption often attribute these outcomes to weak enforcement

mechanisms, emphasizing that IFRS adoption yields positive market results only in countries with

strong enforcement systems. Paper-specific control variables do not yield statistically significant results

in any model. This implies that our main findings are not altered by the control variables, such as the

number of citations, whether a theoretical lens is used, the rank of a journal, being a multi-country

study, and the number of observations used in a paper.

---------------------------------
Insert Table 5 about here
---------------------------------

4.3. SEM analysis for joint effects

We are now combining the models to move on to an integrated analysis. In the SEM analysis, we have

direct vectors for the effects of accounting quality, comparability, and market studies on IFRS findings,

denoted by single letter vectors b, d, and e. We also have direct vectors between accounting quality and

comparability on market effects, again denoted by single letter vectors a and c. Indirect effects are

presented for the vectors of accounting quality and comparability on IFRS findings through market

mechanism, denoted by vectors ae and cd.

The visualization of SEM results is presented in Figure 3 using simple path analysis without

plotting the effects of institutional and paper-specific controls. The variance explained (R-squared for

SEM) for the dependent variable IFRS Finding is 79%, indicating a good model fit (Chi-squared test p

= 0.170). Market effects significantly influence IFRS findings (vector e = 0.327, p < 0.01), whereas

20
accounting quality (vector b = 0.131, p > 0.1) and comparability (vector d = -0.060, p > 0.1) do not

exhibit significant direct effects. Both accounting quality and comparability are strongly and negatively

associated with market studies (AQuality: vector a = -0.594, p < 0.01; COMP: vector c = -0.532, p <

0.01), suggesting that studies focusing on accounting components are less likely to examine market

effects or to reach similar conclusions. Consequently, despite the strong positive association between

market studies and IFRS findings, the indirect effects of accounting studies, as mediated through market

effects, are significantly negative (AQuality: vector ae = -0.194, p < 0.01; COMP: vector ce = -0.174,

p < 0.01). This indicates a persistent divergence in outcome patterns. Even when accounting studies are

conceptually or empirically linked to market-oriented analyses, they remain less likely to report

favorable IFRS effects. Among control variables, the mandatory nature of IFRS adoption (MAND:

0.219, p < 0.01) and accounting distance (DIST: 0.164, p < 0.05) both significantly and positively affect

IFRS Finding.

---------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
---------------------------------

Table 6 shows the proportions of indirect, direct and total effects towards each other. The direct

links between AQuality, COMP, and IFRS Finding are not significant, while indirect effects are

significant. The indirect effects of AQuality and COMP on IFRS Finding exceed their direct effects

(confirmed by Delta, Sobel, and Monte Carlo methods). The relative indirect effect to total effect is 3

times larger when mediated through MARKET, and the indirect-to-direct effect ratio is 1.5 times larger

than the direct effect for AQuality. Similarly, COMP influences IFRS Finding only through MARKET,

with a mediated effect 2.9 times larger than the direct effect, and the indirect-to-direct effect ratio is

0.75. As MARKET fully mediates the relationship between AQuality, COMP, and IFRS Finding, the

mediation is classified as ‘full mediation’ (Baron & Kenny, 1986) or ‘indirect-only mediation’ (Zhao

et al., 2010). Despite strong indirect links, it is important to note that these links are negative. This

suggests that examining the accounting and market effects of IFRS adoption leads to contrasting

implications for IFRS findings where IFRS findings are positive in market studies, but not in accounting

quality studies (see vectors ae and ce in Figure 3).

21
 ---------------------------------
Insert Table 6 about here
---------------------------------

Figure 4 presents the SEM results at a sub-aggregated level, where IFRS Index is the dependent

variable. Building on the models in Figure 3, this version offers a more granular view of which specific

constructs have the most substantial direct and indirect effects on IFRS findings.

---------------------------------
Insert Figure 4 about here
---------------------------------

The analysis confirms that market effects are the primary channels through which IFRS

outcomes are shaped. Forecast errors (β = 0.190, p < 0.01), investment flows (β = 0.239, p < 0.01), and

market liquidity (β = 0.203, p < 0.01) all exhibit strong direct associations with IFRS Index. These

results reinforce the importance of capital market confidence in the perceived success of IFRS reforms.

Among accounting quality dimensions, value relevance exerts the strongest influence — both

directly and indirectly — on IFRS findings. This is conceptually consistent, as value relevance itself

reflects the degree to which accounting numbers are associated with market prices (Dechow et al.,

2010). Earnings management has a significant negative indirect effect, mediated through increased cost

of capital (β = −0.148, p < 0.05), reduced forecast accuracy (β = −0.161, p < 0.05), and lower investment

flows (β = −0.180, p < 0.05). These findings suggest that when IFRS fails to constrain earnings

management, it undermines market trust, thereby weakening its overall effectiveness. In contrast,

accounting conservatism has no significant impact — either directly or indirectly — on IFRS outcomes.

Accounting comparability (COMP) also does not exhibit a direct effect on IFRS Index.

However, COMP significantly and negatively influences the key market variables: cost of capital (β =

−0.202, p < 0.01), forecast errors (β = −0.187, p < 0.05), and investment flows (β = −0.214, p < 0.01).

These negative pathways suggest that while comparability may theoretically enhance transparency, in

practice it may be associated with lower investor responsiveness when not accompanied by

improvements in value relevance or earnings quality.

22
 Overall, these findings highlight that IFRS adoption effects are largely filtered through market

perception channels rather than internal firm-level accounting enhancements.

Among the indirect effects (not plotted), the most notable effect appears through earnings

management (EM) studies influencing forecast errors (F_CAST), which in turn negatively affects the

findings of IFRS Index. Thus, firms with higher earnings management practices experience greater

forecast errors, which is detrimental to IFRS adoption outcomes. Investments (INV) are positively

linked to IFRS Index. Higher investment levels correlate with a more favorable IFRS Index, suggesting

that IFRS adoption is associated with increased investor confidence.

4.4. Robust analysis

4.4.1. Sample and methodological alterations

We conduct SEM robustness checks to ensure the validity of our findings (not tabulated). First, we

reassess whether our results are driven by armchair effects. Of our 181 papers, 27 did not specify or use

any econometric method and 11 offered only theoretical suggestions. By focusing solely on empirical

studies with specific data and methodologies (N = 154), we find results consistent with our initial

findings.

Second, we examine whether the nature of IFRS adoption, mandatory versus voluntary, affects

the results. We split the studies into voluntary and mandatory IFRS adoption settings and re-run our

regressions. This separation did not significantly alter our findings, maintaining consistency with our

initial results.

Third, we perform the analysis exclusively on the 90 articles done in an European Union (EU)

setting. The main findings on the significance of market effects, accounting quality, and comparability

studies remain unaltered. However, there is variation in the institutional variables. Specifically,

enforcement strength and accounting distance lose their statistical significance in both direct and

indirect paths. The mandatory nature of IFRS is the only variable that retains its statistical significance,

and this occurs only in the simultaneous model (Eq. 8). This is plausible as the EU context offers more

similarity in terms of institutions. Consequently, IFRS studies based on the EU context do not

23
significantly differ in their outcomes for market, accounting quality, and comparability, despite the

contingent variables used to explain these outcomes based on institutional factors.

Fourth, we conduct the SEM analysis exclusively on the 159 studies published in accounting

journals, as potential outliers may stem from journals outside the core accounting discipline. We classify

journal subject areas based on the ABDC and ABS rankings (ABDC, 2022; ABS 2021). In addition to

journal field, we also control for journal rank and citation count. None of these paper-specific factors

significantly influences the likelihood of detecting significant IFRS effects. This reinforces the

robustness of our findings, confirming that the results are not disproportionately driven by studies

published in accounting journals, in top-tier outlets, or those with higher citation visibility. Rather, our

model captures broader patterns across the literature, offering a more balanced and representative

synthesis of the existing evidence.

Finally, we re-run Models 1-3 using an ordered logit model. This method differs from the

previous approach by splitting the non-positive IFRS outcomes into two categories: neutral and negative

findings, rather than using IFRS Finding as the dichotomous dependent variable. Consequently, our

independent variable now takes on three values: 0 (negative findings), 0.5 (neutral findings), and 1

(positive findings). Untabulated results indicate that the main variables of interest remain consistent.

However, the explanatory power of the models is reduced by approximately 8%, suggesting that the

ordered logit model does not outperform the logit model.

Overall, these sensitivity tests solidify the reliability of our primary conclusions.

4.4.2. Econometric tests

Fifteen of the 181 studies examines both accounting and market effects of IFRS adoption, providing

unique insights into their intermediation. To handle missing data efficiently, we apply Full Information

Maximum Likelihood (FIML) SEM in our robustness tests, which estimates model parameters using

all available data without imputing missing values. Additionally, we use Maximum Likelihood with

Missing Values (MLMV) for SEM analysis. Both methods yield identical results, with no differences

in coefficients, standard errors, p-values, or log-likelihood values, indicating that the default estimation

24
already handles missing data effectively. An analysis of missing data patterns confirms no substantial

missingness in the dataset. To test robustness, we re-estimate the model after excluding these 15 studies,

and our findings remain consistent, confirming they are not driven by this subset.

To simplify the model, we removed paper-specific control variables, previously found not to

be significant (Table 5). This adjustment enhanced parsimony without compromising explanatory

power. Residual analysis indicated a strong model fit, with raw and standardized residuals near zero

and no evidence of systematic bias. Fit indices (CFI = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.026, SRMR = 0.022) and

likelihood ratio tests further confirmed robustness (detailed results available upon request). Overall,

econometric modifications suggest a good fit of the applied SEM analysis.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study contribute to a more structured understanding of the effects from IFRS

adoption. The analysis indicates that the introduction of IFRS has been associated with positive effects,

particularly at the market level, as evidenced by reductions in forecast errors and increases in investment

and liquidity. A key theoretical assumption underlying these effects is that improvements in accounting

at the reporting entity level serve as the causal mechanism driving these market-level outcomes.

However, our results indicate limited empirical support for this assumption.

An isolated examination of accounting quality and comparability reveals weaker evidence of a

direct relationship with the effects of IFRS adoption. Accounting quality is not consistently associated

with positive IFRS effects. Where a significant association does emerge, it is primarily within value

relevance studies, a construct that reflects the relationship between accounting numbers and market

prices.

Similarly, accounting comparability does not exhibit a systematic positive relationship with

IFRS findings. Unlike paper-specific factors, the institutional factors of reporting regime (voluntary

versus mandatory) and pre-IFRS adoption accounting distance appear to play a pivotal role in shaping

the effects of IFRS adoption.

25
 The results from the SEM analysis reinforce these observations. The findings demonstrate that

market-focused studies predominantly drive the positive IFRS effects reported in the literature. By

contrast, the effects of entity-level reporting studies are limited, both in direct and mediated

relationships with market outcomes. These findings raise concerns regarding the validity of the

conceptual framework underlying IFRS adoption (Figure 1), as they suggest that the anticipated

improvements in accounting practices are not the primary drivers of the documented market benefits.

Instead, it is likely that broader institutional and unaccounted-for macro-level factors contribute to the

observed positive effects.

To integrate these unobserved factors into a broader theoretical framework, Dallas (2004)

provides a useful starting point by emphasizing the need to incorporate macro-level corporate

governance mechanisms into the analysis. The corporate governance variable in our empirical model,

which yields no significant results, primarily captures micro-level mechanisms, such as board structure

and independence (Marra et al., 2011; Oliveira et al., 2011), CEO duality (AbuGhazaleh et al., 2011),

audit committees (Chen & Zhang, 2010), executive compensation policies (Verriest et al., 2013), and

internal control systems (Hodgdon et al., 2009; Zéghal et al., 2011). In contrast, the broader (macro)

corporate governance framework to which we refer concerns the institutional environment that shapes

firm behavior. This includes the legal and regulatory infrastructure, the efficiency of judicial

institutions, capital market structures, political and economic systems, and prevailing ownership

patterns across the economy (André et al., 2015; Glaum, Schmidt, et al., 2013).

This broader perspective aligns with Pope and McLeay (2011), who argue that the benefits of

IFRS adoption cannot be fully understood without considering the broader institutional context in which

financial reporting occurs. Specifically, both formal and informal macro corporate governance

structures play a crucial role in determining reporting incentives, managerial oversight, and the overall

transparency of financial disclosures (Cornelius & Kogut, 2003). Firms that adopt IFRS within robust

macro corporate governance environments are more likely to experience enhanced market outcomes,

independent of direct improvements in accounting quality or comparability.

26
 The observation that IFRS findings are not necessarily attributable to improvements in

accounting practices underscores the methodological challenges in disentangling the effects of IFRS

adoption from concurrent regulatory and institutional reforms. In several jurisdictions, IFRS adoption

coincided with broader regulatory overhauls, such as securities law reforms or changes in macro

corporate governance requirements, thereby complicating efforts to isolate the specific impact of IFRS

(Becker et al., 2021).

Furthermore, institutional frictions at the country level frequently constrain the extent to which

IFRS adoption translates into tangible capital market benefits. While IFRS is designed as a globally

applicable framework, its effectiveness is contingent upon the regulatory infrastructures and

enforcement mechanisms within each jurisdiction. In settings where enforcement capacities are weak,

the anticipated improvements in financial reporting practices may not be fully realized, thereby limiting

the potential for IFRS adoption to generate meaningful market effects (Leuz & Wysocki, 2016).

6. Conclusions, limitations, and recommendations

Over the past two decades, regulators and accounting professionals have conducted large-scale

empirical examinations of the effects from IFRS adoption. The theoretical premise underlying IFRS

implementation posits that harmonized financial reporting enhances accounting quality and

comparability, thereby generating positive market effects. While the ex-ante rationale for such

harmonization is conceptually sound, the empirical evidence suggests that the mechanisms driving these

outcomes are more complex than initially anticipated.

This study advances the IFRS adoption literature by offering a structured and statistically

grounded assessment of its effects on accounting and market outcomes. Drawing on a meta-analytic

review of Scopus-indexed studies and Structural Equation Modeling, we uncover novel insights into

the transmission mechanisms of IFRS adoption. Our findings indicate that while IFRS is consistently

associated with positive market effects, such as reduced forecast errors, increased investment, and

improved liquidity, these outcomes are not directly driven by improvements in accounting quality or

comparability, the very channels originally envisioned by standard setters. Among the accounting

27
quality dimensions, only value relevance shows a positive direct association with IFRS findings,

whereas earnings management exerts a negative indirect effect on forecast errors, cost of capital, and

investment flows. Accounting conservatism and comparability, by contrast, exhibit no significantly

positive direct or mediating influence. These results suggest that the observed market benefits may stem

from external investor responses or broader institutional dynamics rather than firm-level reporting

enhancements, thereby highlighting a disconnect between regulatory intentions and empirical realities.

Despite the robustness of the findings, this study is subject to several limitations. A key

limitation stems from the inherent generalization required in a literature analysis, which inevitably

simplifies nuanced findings and transforms a paper’s shades of grey into a starker black and white

picture. Consequently, the subtleties within individual studies may not be fully captured. Additionally,

the sample selection relies exclusively on Scopus-indexed research from Harzing (2023), with the most

recent study included in the dataset dating back to 2017. As a result, the analysis may not reflect more

recent scholarly contributions. Furthermore, the evidence base, and by extension much of the prior

literature, is heavily concentrated on developed economies, leading to a relative underrepresentation of

IFRS adoption effects in emerging and less-developed financial markets. This geographic imbalance

presents a gap in the current body of knowledge.

Our findings suggest several promising avenues for future research. Given that accounting

quality and comparability do not appear to be the primary mechanisms driving the effects of IFRS

adoption, future studies should explore alternative explanatory factors, particularly the role of

institutional arrangements and corporate governance reforms. While prior accounting literature has

largely focused on enforcement mechanisms as a determinant of accounting quality, IFRS adoption

appears to co-evolve with broader market developments. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether

IFRS adoption represents an independent driver of financial market outcomes or whether it serves as a

byproduct of larger structural transformations.

Potential areas for further investigation include the implications of financialization, the

expansion of market access for retail and institutional investors, and regulatory shifts related to

consumer protection. If IFRS adoption is merely one component of a broader economic and regulatory

28
transition, future research should adopt a more interdisciplinary approach, integrating insights from

political economy, regulatory studies, and corporate governance. Furthermore, if financial reporting at

the reporting entity level does not constitute the primary determinant of positive societal outcomes, it

may be necessary to reassess the trade-offs associated with increasingly stringent reporting

requirements. Specifically, future research could critically evaluate the cost-benefit dynamics of IFRS

compliance, considering both the economic burden of implementation and the extent of its measurable

advantages.

Ultimately, the findings underscore the need for continued research into IFRS adoption and its

broader implications, particularly in light of emerging reporting frameworks such as sustainability

standards. By addressing these knowledge gaps, future studies can contribute to a more comprehensive

understanding of the drivers and consequences of IFRS adoption, thereby drawing lessons for the

development of new reporting standards, such as those for sustainability.

29
References

AbuGhazaleh, N. M., Al‐Hares, O. M., & Roberts, C. (2011). Accounting discretion in goodwill
impairments: UK evidence. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting,
22(3), 165-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-646X.2011.01049.x
Aharony, J., Barniv, R., & Falk, H. (2010). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on equity
valuation of accounting numbers for security investors in the EU. European Accounting
Review, 19(3), 535-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2010.506285
Ahmed, K., Chalmers, K., & Khlif, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of IFRS adoption effects. The
International Journal of Accounting, 48(2), 173-217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2013.04.002
André, P., Filip, A., & Paugam, L. (2015). The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on conditional
conservatism in Europe. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 42(3-4), 482-514.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbfa.12105
Armstrong, C. S., Barth, M. E., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Riedl, E. J. (2010). Market reaction to the
adoption of IFRS in Europe. The Accounting Review, 85(1), 31-61.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.1.31
Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC). (2022) ABDC Journal Quality List.
https://abdc.edu.au/abdc-journal-quality-list/. Accessed June 6, 2025.
Ball, R. (2006). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): Pros and cons for investors.
Accounting and Business Research, 36(sup1), 5-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2006.9730040
Ball, R. (2016). IFRS – 10 years later. Accounting and Business Research, 46(5), 545-571.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2016.1182710
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.51.6.1173
Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. H. (2008). International accounting standards and
accounting quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 467-498.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00287.x
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General
Psychology, 1(3), 311-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311
Becker, K., Bischof, J., & Daske, H. (2021). IFRS: Markets, practice, and politics. Foundations and
Trends® in Accounting, 15(1–2), 1-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1400000055
Bradshaw, M. T., & Miller, G. S. (2008). Will harmonizing accounting standards really harmonize
accounting? Evidence from non-US firms adopting US GAAP. Journal of Accounting,
Auditing & Finance, 23(2), 233-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X0802300206
Brochet, F., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Riedl, E. J. (2013). Mandatory IFRS adoption and financial
statement comparability. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(4), 1373-1400.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12002
Brown, P. (2011). International Financial Reporting Standards: what are the benefits? Accounting and
Business Research, 41(3), 269-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2011.569054
Brüggemann, U., Hitz, J.-M., & Sellhorn, T. (2013). Intended and unintended consequences of
mandatory IFRS adoption: A review of extant evidence and suggestions for future research.
European Accounting Review, 22(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.718487
Byard, D., Li, Y., & Yu, Y. (2011). The effect of mandatory IFRS adoption on financial analysts’
information environment. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(1), 69-96.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2010.00390.x
Cairns, D., Massoudi, D., Taplin, R., & Tarca, A. (2011). IFRS fair value measurement and
accounting policy choice in the United Kingdom and Australia. The British Accounting
Review, 43(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2010.10.003
Callao, S., & Jarne, J. I. (2010). Have IFRS affected earnings management in the European Union?
Accounting in Europe, 7(2), 159-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2010.511896

30
Callao, S., Jarne, J. I., & Laínez, J. A. (2007). Adoption of IFRS in Spain: Effect on the comparability
and relevance of financial reporting. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and
Taxation, 16(2), 148-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2007.06.002
Cascino, S., Daske, H., DeFond, M., Florou, A., Gassen, J., & Hung, M. (2023). Reflections on the
20-Year Anniversary of Worldwide IFRS Adoption. Journal of International Accounting
Research, 22(3), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2023-037
Cascino, S., & Gassen, J. (2015). What drives the comparability effect of mandatory IFRS adoption?
Review of Accounting Studies, 20(1), 242-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-014-9296-5
Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS). (2021). ABS journal ranking 2021. Retrieved
from https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide/academic-journal-guide-2021.
Accessed June 6, 2025.
Chen, J. J., & Zhang, H. (2010). The impact of regulatory enforcement and audit upon IFRS
compliance–Evidence from China. European Accounting Review, 19(4), 665-692.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180903384684
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Vijayakumar, R. (2016). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis.
Neuropsychology Review, 26(May), 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9319-z
Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2013). Mandatory IFRS reporting and changes in
enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2-3), 147-177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2013.10.007
Christensen, H. B., Lee, E., Walker, M., & Zeng, C. (2015). Incentives or standards: What determines
accounting quality changes around IFRS adoption? European Accounting Review, 24(1), 31-
61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2015.1009144
Cieslewicz, J. K. (2014). Relationships between national economic culture, institutions, and
accounting: Implications for IFRS. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(6), 511-528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2013.03.006
Cornelius, P., & Kogut, B. (2003). Creating the responsible firm: In search for a new corporate
governance paradigm. German Law Journal, 4(1), 45-52.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S207183220001573X
Dallas, G. S. (2004). Governance and risk. McGraw Hill Professional.
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2008). Mandatory IFRS reporting around the world: Early
evidence on the economic consequences. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(5), 1085-1142.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00306.x
Daske, H., Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Verdi, R. (2013). Adopting a label: Heterogeneity in the economic
consequences around IAS/IFRS adoptions. Journal of Accounting Research, 51(3), 495-547.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12005
David, R. J., & Han, S. K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction
cost economics. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.359
Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-
analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3, 511.
https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-511
De George, E. T., Li, X., & Shivakumar, L. (2016). A review of the IFRS adoption literature. Review
of Accounting Studies, 21(na), 898-1004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-016-9363-1
Dechow, P., Ge, W., & Schrand, C. (2010). Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies,
their determinants and their consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50(2-3),
344-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.001
DeFond, M., Hu, X., Hung, M., & Li, S. (2011). The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on foreign
mutual fund ownership: The role of comparability. Journal of Accounting and Economics,
51(3), 240-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.02.001
Ewert, R., & Wagenhofer, A. (2005). Economic effects of tightening accounting standards to restrict
earnings management. The Accounting Review, 80(4), 1101-1124.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.4.1101
Fontes, A., Rodrigues, L. L., & Craig, R. (2005). Measuring convergence of national accounting
standards with international financial reporting standards. Accounting Forum, 29(4), 415-436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2005.05.001

31
Gebhardt, G. u., & Novotny‐Farkas, Z. (2011). Mandatory IFRS adoption and accounting quality of
European banks. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(3‐4), 289-333.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2011.02242.x
Glaum, M., Baetge, J., Grothe, A., & Oberdörster, T. (2013). Introduction of international accounting
standards, disclosure quality and accuracy of analysts' earnings forecasts. European
Accounting Review, 22(1), 79-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2011.558301
Glaum, M., Schmidt, P., Street, D. L., & Vogel, S. (2013). Compliance with IFRS 3-and IAS 36-
required disclosures across 17 European countries: Company-and country-level determinants.
Accounting and Business Research, 43(3), 163-204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2011.558301
Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. (2010). Global accounting convergence and the potential adoption
of IFRS by the US (Part II): Political factors and future scenarios for US accounting
standards. Accounting Horizons, 24(4), 567-588. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2010.24.4.567
Hamberg, M., Mavruk, T., & Sjögren, S. (2013). Investment allocation decisions, home bias and the
mandatory IFRS adoption. Journal of International Money and Finance, 36(September), 107-
130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2013.04.001
Harzing, A-W. (2023). Publish or perish. Retrieved from https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-
perish. Accessed February 16, 2021.
Hodgdon, C., Tondkar, R. H., Adhikari, A., & Harless, D. W. (2009). Compliance with International
Financial Reporting Standards and auditor choice: New evidence on the importance of the
statutory audit. The International Journal of Accounting, 44(1), 33-55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2008.12.003
Horton, J., & Serafeim, G. (2010). Market reaction to and valuation of IFRS reconciliation
adjustments: first evidence from the UK. Review of Accounting Studies, 15, 725-751.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-009-9108-5
Horton, J., Serafeim, G., & Serafeim, I. (2013). Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve the
information environment? Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(1), 388-423.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01159.x
Hung, M., & Subramanyam, K. (2007). Financial statement effects of adopting international
accounting standards: the case of Germany. Review of Accounting Studies, 12(4), 623-657.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-007-9049-9
Hutzschenreuter, T., Matt, T., & Kleindienst, I. (2020). Going subnational: A literature review and
research agenda. Journal of World Business, 55(4), 101076.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101076
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural
equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2),
139-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70020-7
IFRS Foundation. (2018). Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting.
https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/publications/pdf-standards/english/2021/issued/part-
a/conceptual-framework-for-financial-reporting.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2025
Jermakowicz, E. K., & Gornik-Tomaszewski, S. (2006). Implementing IFRS from the perspective of
EU publicly traded companies. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,
15(2), 170-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2006.08.003
Jiao, T., Koning, M., Mertens, G., & Roosenboom, P. (2012). Mandatory IFRS adoption and its
impact on analysts' forecasts. International Review of Financial Analysis, 21(January), 56-63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2011.05.006
Kvaal, E., & Nobes, C. (2012). IFRS policy changes and the continuation of national patterns of IFRS
practice. European Accounting Review, 21(2), 343-371.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2011.611236
Landsman, W. R., Maydew, E. L., & Thornock, J. R. (2012). The information content of annual
earnings announcements and mandatory adoption of IFRS. Journal of Accounting and
Economics, 53(1-2), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2011.04.002
Lang, M., & Stice-Lawrence, L. (2015). Textual analysis and international financial reporting: Large
sample evidence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60(2-3), 110-135.

32
 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.09.002
Lehman, G. (2005). A critical perspective on the harmonisation of accounting in a globalising world.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(7), 975-992.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2003.06.004
Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. D. (2016). The economics of disclosure and financial reporting regulation:
Evidence and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(2), 525-
622. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12115
Leventis, S., Tsalavoutas, I., & Tsoligkas, F. (2024). Informal institutions in accounting research: A
structured literature review. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,
100621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2024.100621
Li, S. (2010). Does mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards in the
European Union reduce the cost of equity capital? The Accounting Review, 85(2), 607-636.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.2.607
Li, X., & Yang, H. I. (2016). Mandatory financial reporting and voluntary disclosure: The effect of
mandatory IFRS adoption on management forecasts. The Accounting Review, 91(3), 933-953.
https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51296
Marra, A., Mazzola, P., & Prencipe, A. (2011). Board monitoring and earnings management pre-and
post-IFRS. The International Journal of Accounting, 46(2), 205-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2011.04.007
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine,
151(4), 264-269. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Neel, M. (2017). Accounting comparability and economic outcomes of mandatory IFRS adoption.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(1), 658-690. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-
3846.12229
Neu, D., & Ocampo, E. (2007). Doing missionary work: The World Bank and the diffusion of
financial practices. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(3), 363-389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.01.007
Nobes, C. (2008). Accounting classification in the IFRS era. Australian Accounting Review, 18(3),
191-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2008.0024.x
Nobes, C. (2011). IFRS practices and the persistence of accounting system classification. Abacus,
47(3), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2011.00341.x
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2015). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of
information systems research. Working Papers on Information Systems, ISSN 1535-6078.
Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1954824. Accessed May
30, 2025.
Oliveira, J., Lima Rodrigues, L., & Craig, R. (2011). Risk‐related disclosures by non‐finance
companies: Portuguese practices and disclosure characteristics. Managerial Auditing Journal,
26(9), 817-839. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901111171466
Paananen, M., & Lin, H. (2009). The development of accounting quality of IAS and IFRS over time:
The case of Germany. Journal of International Accounting Research, 8(1), 31-55.
https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar.2009.8.1.31
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems
knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Pirveli, E., Ortiz-Martínez, E., Marín-Hernández, S., & Thompson, P. (2025). Influencing
sustainability: the role of lobbyist characteristics in shaping the EU’s Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Directive. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 16(2), 415-
442. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2023-0162
Pirveli, E., & Zimmermann, J. (2019). Do wealthy economies have better accounting quality?
International evidence. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 30(2), 92-110.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22382
Pope, P. F., & McLeay, S. J. (2011). The European IFRS experiment: Objectives, research challenges
and some early evidence. Accounting and Business Research, 41(3), 233-266.

33
 https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2011.575002
Ramanna, K. (2013). The international politics of IFRS harmonization. Accounting, Economics and
Law, 3(2), 1-46. https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2013-0004
Singleton-Green, B. (2015). The effects of mandatory IFRS adoption in the EU: A review of
empirical research. Information for Better Markets. Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2515391. Accessed May 30, 2025.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal
of Business Research, 104(November), 333-339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Soderstrom, N. S., & Sun, K. J. (2007). IFRS adoption and accounting quality: A review. European
Accounting Review, 16(4), 675-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701706732
Tan, H., Wang, S., & Welker, M. (2011). Analyst following and forecast accuracy after mandated
IFRS adoptions. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(5), 1307-1357.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2011.00422.x
Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2016). Comparative international entrepreneurship: A review and
research agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299-344.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313486259
Verriest, A., Gaeremynck, A., & Thornton, D. B. (2013). The impact of corporate governance on
IFRS adoption choices. European Accounting Review, 22(1), 39-77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2011.644699
World Bank. (2011). International financial reporting standards: A practical guide. Retrieved from
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/520891468139494304/pdf/International-
financial-reporting-standards-a-practical-guide-sixth-edition.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2025.
Zarzeski, M. T. (1996). Spontaneous harmonization effects of culture and market forces on
accounting disclosure practices. Accounting Horizons, 10(1), 18.
Zéghal, D., Chtourou, S., & Sellami, Y. M. (2011). An analysis of the effect of mandatory adoption of
IAS/IFRS on earnings management. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and
Taxation, 20(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2011.06.001
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

34
Figure 1. Conceptual model of IFRS adoption.

35
Figure 2. Sample selection flow diagram.

36
Table 1
Overview of the sample studies.

Journal Name Field Publisher ABS ABDC Scopus Scopus No. of

Rank Rank Citations Citations Articles
2021 2022 Total Per Paper
The International Journal of Accounting Accounting World Scientific 3 A 823 54.9 15
The Accounting Review Accounting AAA 4* A* 1582 113.0 14
Accounting and Business Research Accounting Taylor & Francis 3 A 1530 127.5 12
The European Accounting Review Accounting Taylor & Francis 3 A* 1277 106.4 12
Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation Accounting Elsevier 3 B 796 72.4 11
Journal of Accounting Research Accounting Wiley-Blackwell 4* A* 2055 228.3 9
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy Accounting Elsevier 3 A 625 89.3 7
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting Accounting Wiley-Blackwell 3 A* 580 82.9 7
Journal of International Accounting Research Accounting AAA 2 A 358 51.1 7
Review of Accounting Studies Accounting Springer 4 A* 507 72.4 7
Journal of Accounting and Economics Accounting Elsevier 4* A* 1087 181.2 6
Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting Finance Wiley-Blackwell 2 B 458 76.3 6
Accounting Horizons Accounting AAA 3 A 381 76.2 5
Accounting in Europe Accounting Taylor & Francis 2 A 235 47.0 5
British Accounting Review Accounting Elsevier 3 A* 285 57.0 5
Advances in Accounting Accounting Elsevier 2 A 166 41.5 4
Australian Accounting Review Accounting Wiley-Blackwell 2 B 147 36.8 4
Contemporary Accounting Research Accounting Wiley-Blackwell 4 A* 615 153.8 4
Accounting and Finance Accounting Wiley-Blackwell 2 A 155 51.7 3
Accounting Forum Accounting Taylor & Francis 3 B 92 30.7 3
Journal of Applied Accounting Research Accounting Emerald 2 B 89 29.7 3
Managerial Auditing Journal Accounting Emerald 2 A 154 51.3 3
Abacus Accounting Wiley-Blackwell 3 A 229 114.5 2
International Journal of Accounting and Information Management Accounting Emerald 2 B 51 25.5 2
International Review of Financial Analysis Finance Elsevier 3 A 125 62.5 2
Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance Accounting Sage 3 A 127 63.5 2
Managerial Finance Finance Emerald 1 B 54 27.0 2
Accounting Perspectives Accounting Wiley-Blackwell na B 23 23.0 1
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal Accounting Emerald 3 A* 45 45.0 1
Applied Financial Economics Economics Taylor & Francis 2 B 32 32.0 1
Australian Journal of Management Management Sage 2 A 74 74.0 1
Betriebswirtschaftliche ForSchung und Praxis Economics NWB Verlag na C 78 78.0 1
Emerging Markets Finance and Trade Intl. Business Taylor & Francis 2 B 28 28.0 1

37
 International Journal of Accounting Information Systems Accounting Elsevier 2 A 23 23.0 1
Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change Accounting Emerald 2 B 27 27.0 1
Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics Accounting Elsevier 2 A 100 100.0 1
Journal of Financial Services Research Finance Springer 3 A 77 77.0 1
Journal of Intellectual Capital Management Emerald 2 B 59 59.0 1
Journal of International Money and Finance Finance Elsevier 3 A 23 23.0 1
Journal of Management and Governance Ethics Springer 1 C 44 44.0 1
Management International Review Intl. Business Springer 3 A 24 24.0 1
Management Science Management INFORMS 4* A* 67 67.0 1
Pacific Accounting Review Accounting Emerald 1 B 30 30.0 1
Review of Accounting and Finance Accounting Emerald 2 B 23 23.0 1
Review of International Political Economy Economics Taylor & Francis 3 A 51 51.0 1
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Finance Springer 3 B 51 51.0 1

Notes: Journal ratings are from ABDC (2022) and ABS (2021). n/a means that the journal is not included in the 2021 ABS listing. The Scopus citation total is as of February
2021 per Harzing (2023).

38
Table 2
Sample studies by publication year, data source, and methods.

a) Publication year: # b) Theoretical lenses used: #

2004 1 Single theory (N=69):
2005 3 Disclosure theory 17
2006 10 Agency theory 12
2007 6 Positive accounting theory 12
2008 10 Valuation theory 7
2009 10 Environmental/cultural 7
2010 26 Other theory 14
2011 37 Used more than one theory (N=31)
2012 27 Agency and positive theories 7
2013 18 Agency and one or more other theories 7
2014 11 Positive accounting and one or more other theories 6
2015 12 Other combination of theories 11
2016 8 Not specified (N=81)
2017 2 Not specified 81
Total 181

39
 c) Countries examined # d) Databases used: # e) Econometric tools used: #
Single country (N=68): Single source (N=84): Regressions (N=124)
Greece 11 Stock exchange information 13 Regression – OLS 23
Australia 8 Datastream 10 Regression – OLS and Logit/Tobit 11
China 8 Worldscope 10 Regression – OLS and other 8
Germany 8 Compustat 9 Regression – OLS and Probit 5
The UK 7 Literature review 4 Regression – Logit 3
The US 4 OSIRIS 4 Regression – Probit 3
Italy 3 Questionnaire/survey/interview 4 Regression – Not specified 63
Portugal 3 From other paper(s) 3 Regression – Other 2
Sweden 3 Hand-collected 3 Regression – OLS, plus Univariate 6
Finland 2 I/B/E/S 2 Univariate tests (N=19)
France 2 Other 22 Univariate* 19
New Zealand 2 More than one source (N=69): Descriptive analysis (N=11)
Jordan 1 Worldscope and other source 19 Descriptive 11
Kenya 1 Worldscope, Datastream and I/B/E/S 10 Not specified (N=27):
Malaysia 1 Worldscope, Datastream and Compustat 7 Not specified/no methodology used 27
Norway 1 Worldscope and I/B/E/S 3
Spain 1 Other combination of datasources 30
The UAE 1 Not specified (N=28):
The Netherlands 1 Not specified 28
Multiple countries (N=87):
EU – from 11 to 20 countries 23
EU – up to 10 countries 12
EU – more than 20 countries 2
Intl. – up to 10 countries 11
Intl. – from 21 to 30 countries 10
Intl. – from 11 to 20 countries 8
Intl. – from 31 to 40 countries 8
Intl. – from 41 to 50 countries 8
Intl. – more than 50 countries 5
Not specified (N=26)
Not specified 26

Note: * Includes ANOVA, Chi-square, Mann-Whitney test, and Cramer’s contingency test.

40
Table 3
Summary of the findings (based on 181 papers analyzed).
Number of Number of Number of Number % of
'Positive' effect 'Negative' 'No' effect of Total 'Positive'
studies effect studies studies studies effect studies
All studies 83 27 71 181 46%

Accounting quality studies 50 14 19 83 61%

Accounting conservatism (CONS) 10 6 2 18 56%
Earnings management (EM) 27 15 13 56 48%
Value relevance (VR) 28 5 8 41 68%
Other:
Earnings properties 3 3 1 7 43%
Accounting comparability studies 23 6 33 62 37%
Accounting comparability (COMP) 20 6 29 55 36%
Compliance/convergence 3 0 4 7 43%
Market studies 36 2 7 45 80%
Cost of capital (COC) 6 1 2 9 67%
Forecast errors (F_CAST) 11 1 1 13 85%
Investment flows (INV) 11 0 1 12 92%
Liquidity (LIQ) 8 1 1 10 80%
Other:
Costs (other) 4 5 0 9 44%
Debt market 3 1 1 5 60%
Risk 2 0 1 3 67%
Valuation 4 0 1 5 80%
Other themes 10 1 0 11 91%
Contract 1 0 0 1 100%
Corporate governance 2 0 0 2 100%
Corruption 1 0 0 1 100%
Human development 2 0 0 2 100%
Transparency 4 0 0 4 100%
XBRL 0 1 0 1 0%
Note: IFRS Index is calculated using CONS, EM, VR, COMP, COC, F_CAST, INV, and LIQ.

41
Table 4
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation matrix.

N Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 IFRS Finding 0.459 0.500
2 MARKET 0.354 0.479 0.340***
3 AQuality 0.464 0.500 0.033 -0.410***
4 COMP 0.315 0.466 -0.242*** -0.327*** -0.345***
5 MAND 0.370 0.484 0.259*** 0.127* 0.090 -0.150**
6 ENFORC 0.149 0.357 0.019 0.144* -0.172** -0.050 0.321***
7 DIST 0.088 0.285 0.221*** 0.218*** -0.173** -0.085 0.164** 0.252***
8 LEGAL 0.094 0.293 -0.068 -0.040 0.004 -0.014 0.067 0.131* 0.033
9 CorpGov 0.088 0.285 0.026 -0.108 0.140* 0.082 -0.118 -0.021 -0.028 0.033
10 NumCIT 85.425 92.821 0.084 0.176** -0.132* -0.044 0.291*** 0.251*** 0.049 0.023 -0.084
11 THEORY 0.552 0.499 0.003 -0.008 0.036 -0.131* 0.069 0.003 -0.072 0.023 0.085 0.136*
12 JOURNALQual 0.652 0.478 0.137* 0.298*** -0.274*** -0.004 0.104 0.176** 0.187** -0.043 -0.140* 0.274*** 0.112
13 INTERNL 0.525 0.501 0.054 0.171** -0.135* -0.093 0.180** 0.305*** 0.296*** 0.079 -0.132* 0.151** -0.011 0.211***
14 SAMPLESize 0.657 0.476 0.127* -0.002 0.205*** -0.238*** 0.240*** 0.074 0.102 -0.047 0.020 0.018 0.100 0.108 0.246***

Notes: ***, **, and * stand for the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively, using two-tailed tests. Variable definitions are in the Appendix.

42
Table 5
Logit regression showing the effects of IFRS adoption.

IFRS Finding
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
W/O W. W. W/O W. W. W/O W. W.
Controls Institutional Institutional Controls Institutional Institutional Controls Institutional Institutional
Controls and Paper- Controls and Paper- Controls and Paper-
specific specific specific
Controls Controls Controls
Variables of Interest:
MARKET 1.48*** 1.44*** 1.46***
(4.43) (3.94) (3.82)
AQ 0.13 0.08 0.15
(0.44) (0.25) (0.42)
COMP -1.10*** -1.02*** -1.10***
(-3.18) (-2.80) (-2.85)
Institutional Control Variables:
MAND 1.25*** 1.20*** 1.22*** 1.16*** 1.17*** 1.17***
(3.18) (2.94) (3.18) (2.96) (3.07) (2.96)
ENFOR -0.96* -0.92 -0.69 -0.77 -0.74 -0.85
(-1.76) (-1.59) (-1.26) (-1.33) (-1.37) (-1.49)
DIST 1.49** 1.53** 1.86*** 1.80*** 1.81*** 1.72***
(2.36) (2.29) (2.93) (2.72) (2.89) (2.63)
LEGAL -0.57 -0.49 -0.66 -0.59 -0.71 -0.64
(-0.77) (-0.69) (-1.17) (-1.04) (-1.22) (-1.10)
CG 0.74 0.72 0.49 0.58 0.63 0.80
(1.27) (1.20) (0.82) (0.96) (0.99) (1.27)
Paper-specific Control Variables:
Included NO NO YES NO NO YES NO NO YES

Wild/LR chi2 19.63*** 31.57*** 32.13*** 0.19 19.45*** 20.90** 10.13** 28.92*** 30.01***
2
Pseudo R 8.50% 16.21% 16.84% 0.10% 9.44% 10.55% 4.40% 12.70% 13.94%

43
Notes: This table reports coefficients, t values (of two-tailed tests, in brackets below), Wild chi2, and Pseudo R2 of the following logit regressions with Huber-White
robust standard errors:
IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*MARKETi + γ2*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + γ3*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi (Eq. 1)

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*AQi + γ2*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + γ3*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi (Eq. 2)

IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*COMPi + γ2*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 + γ3*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi (Eq. 3)

IFRS Finding is a dummy variable coded 1 for studies that report positive effects of IFRS adoption, and 0 otherwise. Similarly, MARKET, AQuality, and COMP are dummy
variables coded 1 for studies that examine the effects of IFRS adoption on market measures, accounting quality, and comparability, respectively, and 0 otherwise. Variable
definitions are in the Appendix. The expected signs for the Variables of Interest and the Institutional Control Variables are positive. ***, **, and * stand for the 1%, 5%, and
10% significance levels (respectively) using two-tailed tests. N = 181.

44
Figure 3. SEM direct and indirect path analysis.

Notes: This figure plots a simple path analysis of the relationships among accounting variables,
market effects, and IFRS adoption findings. We estimate structural equation model (SEM) of the
direct relationship of accounting and market variables to the findings of IFRS adoption, and
indirect relationships of these accounting variables on IFRS findings channeled through market
effects. The SEM includes the following system of equations:
IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*AQualityi + εi (Eq. 4)
IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*COMPi + εi (Eq. 5)
MARKETi = γ0 + γ1* AQualityi + εi (Eq. 6)
MARKETi = γ0 + γ1* COMPi + εi (Eq. 7)
IFRS Findingi = γ0 + γ1*MARKETi + γ2*AQualityi + γ3*COMPi + (Eq. 8)
γ4*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 +
γ5*∑ 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑠 _𝑃𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟_𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 + εi
Variable definitions are in the Appendix. a, b, c, d, and e are direct effects; ae and ce are indirect
effects. ***, **, and * stand for the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively, using two-
tailed tests.

45
Table 6
Significance testing of indirect effects.

Coef. Std. z P>z [95% Conf. Indirect Indirect

Err. Interval] effect / effect /
Total Direct
effect effect
Accounting Quality:
Delta -0.194 0.055 -3.517 <0.01 [-0.303; -0.086] (|-0.194| / (|-0.194| /
Sobel -0.194 0.055 -3.564 <0.01 [-0.301; -0.087] |-0.064|) = |0.131|) =
Monte Carlo -0.195 0.054 -3.607 <0.01 [-0.296; -0.090] 3.057 1.486
Accounting Comparability:
Delta -0.174 0.050 -3.481 <0.01 [-0.272; -0.076] (|-0.174| / (|-0.174| /
Sobel -0.174 0.050 -3.507 <0.01 [-0.271; -0.077] |-0.234|) = |-0.060|) =
Monte Carlo -0.174 0.049 -3.549 <0.01 [-0.270; -0.081] 0.745 2.917

Notes: This table is based on the data from Figure 3 and reports the significance of indirect effects
on IFRS Finding in comparison to (a) total effects (AQuality: vector ae + vector b; COMP: vector
ce + vector d, as shown in Figure 3) and (b) direct effects (vectors b and d in Figure 3). Indirect
effects are estimated using the Delta Method, Sobel Test, and Monte Carlo Simulation. Variable
definitions are in the Appendix.

46
Figure 4. SEM direct and indirect path analysis at the sub-aggregated level based on the IFRS
index.

Notes: This figure plots simple path analysis of the relations among accounting variables, market
effects and the findings of IFRS adoption at a disaggregated level. Accounting quality is given by
accounting conservatism (CONS), earnings management (EM), and value relevance (VR).
Accounting comparability is measured by itself. Market effects are given by cost of capital
(COC), forecast errors (F_CAST), investments flows (INV), and market liquidity (LIQ). The
SEM includes a system of multiple equations following the logic given on Figure 3 above but at
a disaggregated level, consisting of 24 direct relations (plotted on the figure), and 16 indirect
relations (not plotted on the figure). ***, **, and * stand for the 1%, 5%, and 10% significance
levels, respectively, using two-tailed tests. Variable definitions are in the Appendix.

47
Appendix. Variables definitions.
Variable name Definition Measurement
Dependent Variables:
IFRS Finding IFRS finding A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that find
positive effects of IFRS adoption, and 0 otherwise.
IFRS Index IFRS index A summary variable representing the outcome of a
paper based on the following measures: (a) four market
measures – cost of capital (COC), forecast errors
(F_CAST), investment flows (INV), and market
liquidity (LIQ); (b) three accounting quality measures –
accounting conservatism (CONS), earnings
management (EM), and value relevance (VR); and (c)
one accounting comparability measure (COMP). Each
of the eight measures is assigned +1 for a significant
positive finding, -1 for a significant negative finding,
and 0 for a non-significant finding. The index ranges
from +8 (if a study considers all eight aspects of IFRS
adoption and finds uniformly positive effects) to -8 (if it
considers all and finds consistently negative effects).
Variables of Interest:
MARKET Market effects study A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
the market effects of IFRS adoption, and 0 otherwise.
AQuality Accounting quality A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
study the accounting quality effects of IFRS adoption, and 0
otherwise.
COMP Accounting A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
comparability study the accounting comparability effects of IFRS adoption,
and 0 otherwise.
Institutional Control Variables:
MAND Mandatory IFRS A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
adoption the effect of mandatory IFRS adoption, and 0 otherwise.
ENFORC Enforcement A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
the effect of the enforcement strength of IFRS adoption,
and 0 otherwise.
DIST Accounting A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
distance the effect of the differences between IFRS and local
GAAP, and 0 otherwise.
LEGAL Legal origin A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
the effect of the country legal origin, and 0 otherwise.
CorpGov Corporate A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
governance the characteristics of corporate governance, and 0
otherwise.
Paper-specific Control Variables:
NumCIT Number of citations The number of Scopus citations at the time of data
extraction, expressed on a logarithmic scale
THEORY Theory A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that examine
a theory in the background, and 0 otherwise.
JOURNALQual Journal A dummy variable for journal quality coded 1 for the
studies published in ABDC "A" and "A*" journals, and
0 otherwise.

48
INTERNL International study A dummy variable coded 1 for the studies that have an
international character by examining more than one
country, and 0 otherwise.
SAMPLESize Sample size A dummy variable for sample size coded 1 for the
studies that have more than 100 firm-year observations,
and 0 otherwise.

49