F. Conclusions
The literature on financial reporting issues of SMEs is not very rich. The definition of SMEs
is heterogenous, depending on the national definitions, but mostly refers to unlisted entities.
Research on the external users of SMEs’ financial statements simply assumes that specific
outsiders use financial reports to improve their economic decisions. This assumption prevents
researchers from identifying external users by applying rigorous (interdisciplinary) methodologies.
Research identifying the information needs of external users has generally focused on
one group of external users and on one region or country at a time. There is no evidence concerning
the common information needs of different external user groups at national or international
levels.
To fill the research gaps, the IASB should have examined the common information needs of
external users of SMEs’ financial statements with an international focus. The analysis of the
due process shows that the IASB has failed to do this. IASB’s analysis of the comment letters
on the Discussion Paper supports the main IASB hypotheses because all the comment letters
have been lumped together and the views of external users and other commentators have not
been evaluated separately. Auditors/accountants predominate among the commentators. External
users as defined by the IASB are in a minority. The Questionnaire followed the logic of
the Discussion Paper in an attempt to identify possible modifications to the full IFRS system
on the basis of external users’ information needs. The way the IASB distributed the Questionnaire
ensured that the distribution of respondents was very similar to that of the Discussion
paper: Only 8% of the respondents (i.e., 8 respondents) were external users. And once again
the IASB in analysing the responses did not distinguish between external users and other respondents.
In mitigation, two reservations should be noted: first, not all the aspects of the due process
have been analysed (e.g., all discussions, whether with the Standards Advisory Council, the
SME Working Group, the World Standard Setters or at public round-table meetings held by
- 19 -
IASB). However, an argument in favour of not including all the aspects could be that only the
Discussion Paper and the Questionnaire really offered the IASB the opportunity of conducting
empirical analyses based on a representative international sample. Secondly, the inherent
characteristics of the IASB’s predetermined due process were not taken into account. FASB,
for example, is similarly structured, and the Private Company Financial Reporting Task Force
(AICPA, 2005) argues that its due process modalities should be modified to allow the external
users of unlisted entities’ financial statements to speak out representatively.
The conclusion is that international research is essential. Possible research designs have to be
identified to ensure that questions (1) and (2) of Part E.III can be answered empirically. At the
same time, the need to adapt the structure of the IASB and its due process modalities to the
SME project should be considered. Only after this is done will the IASB be able to determine
the next steps (e.g., either starting from the 1989 Framework and the principles of the full
IFRS system or being compelled by the identified common information needs of external users
to make a fresh start). And only once this is done will the IASB be able to address itself to
the cost benefit question.