When accounting standards remain unchanged after deliberation: a comparative analysis of comment letter arguments on goodwill accounting

Noriaki Okamoto and Sintia Farach Dhiba

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 2026, vol. 23, issue 1, 118-143

Abstract: PurposePrevious research on accounting standard setting has focused on changes, with little research into how and why accounting standards persist. This study, therefore, focuses on the 2022 decision of the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to retain the existing impairment-only approach for its goodwill accounting standard. To understand the persistence of the standard, this study aims to investigate how the IASB addressed the same accounting issue in two different periods by examining changes in the interested parties’ arguments. It classifies and compares various arguments in the comment letters (CL) to consider the IASB’s legitimacy in terms of evidence-based policymaking.Design/methodology/approachThis study classifies the interested parties’ arguments on goodwill accounting into several types. The classification enabled us to systematically compare the arguments in the two sets of CL submitted to the IASB’s official documents on goodwill accounting published in 2002 and 2020. In addition to categorizing arguments, this study conducted a text coding analysis for CL to supplement the results of categorization.FindingsAccording to this study’s comparative analysis, the majority of CL were in favor of amortizing goodwill, and there was no conspicuous change in the overall proportion of various arguments in the two periods. Moreover, while conceptual arguments in the CL accounted for a larger proportion than those based on real economic effects, when focusing on the arguments relying on general accounting concepts, there was roughly an even split between arguments in favor of amortizing goodwill and those in favor of the impairment-only approach. These findings can be interpreted as one of the reasons why the IASB decided to retain the existing standards in 2022.Research limitations/implicationsThis study’s comparative analysis through the detailed categorization of arguments in the CL provides a plausible interpretation of the IASB’s decision to retain the current standard for goodwill accounting, especially as those responsible for the accounting standard setting tend to place emphasis on the general conceptual arguments in their standard-setting process. The authors propose this viewpoint as a useful basis for theorizing the dynamics of accounting standards in the current trend of evidence-based standard setting.Originality/valueThis study focuses on the IASB’s accounting standard setting for goodwill over two periods, comparing stakeholder arguments to analyze the persistence of accounting standards. This study’s categorization of conceptual arguments as general and topic-specific is potentially valuable for future research into the politics of accounting standard setting.

Keywords: Analysis of comment letters; Categorization of arguments; Conceptual arguments; Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM); Goodwill accounting (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/qram/article/23/1/118/1334 ... main-unchanged-after (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/qram/article-pdf/23/1/118/ ... m-11-2022-0196en.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:qrampp:qram-11-2022-0196

DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-11-2022-0196

Access Statistics for this article

Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is currently edited by Lukas Goretzki and Thomas Ahrens

More articles in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().