Six events identified in the study and main narrative mechanisms
| Identification (relevant dates) | Event | Description | Category of event | Narrative mechanisms | Regulatory outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCE 1 (2003–2005) | IFRIC D1 Consultation and IFRIC 3 withdrawal | IFRIC issued a draft interpretation (IFRIC D1 Emission Rights) for public consultation in 2003, an interpretation in 2004 and withdrew it in 2005, considering EFRAG’s negative endorsement | High-stakes Event
| IASB central stage by launching the first ever consultation on AER (agenda-setting) “Practice diversity” narrative (power of interpretation) | IASB sets the agenda: AER to deal with “practice diversity” Solution contested by EFRAG: IASB withdraws the IFRIC |
| FCE 2 (2007–2010) | IASB FASB Joint project | In 2007 FASB included “Emission Trading Schemes” in its agenda, joining forces with IASB. Meetings and discussions papers were ineffective and the interest on this issue faded away by 2010 | Regular Event
| IASB holds interest in the topics and remains in a leading position. The scope of the project is broadened (power to impose definition) The scope of participants is narrowed. (power of central actors) | IASB broadens the topic and puts it out of a due process |
| FCE 3 (2011) | IASB Agenda Consultation | After the agenda consultation to prioritize accounting standard projects, “Emissions trading schemes” suspended and included in “Research projects” | Regular Event
| IASB still concerned with the topic, but delegate decision to stakeholders (power of positions among actors) It justifies moving AER out of a new due process (power of setting the agenda) | IASB gets confirmation of stakeholders to maintain the topic out of a due process |
| FCE 4 (2013) | EFRAG Consultation | Failed EFRAG attempt to urge IASB to move forward by launching a consultation urging | High-stakes Event
| EFRAG attempts to lead setting new agenda and imposing new definitions in AER (power of setting the agenda, power of interpretation). IASB does not reconsider the topic (power of setting the agenda) | Alternative regulator makes a proposal IASB resists the proposal |
| FCE 5 (2013–2014) | Australian Accounting Standards Board request to IFRS Interpretation Committee | The AASB asked IFRS Interpretation Committee to issue guidance on the valuation of liabilities under emission trading schemes. IFRS declined because it did not meet the “agenda criteria of the Interpretations Committee” | Regular Event
| IASB resists the proposal to put the topic in the agenda (power of agenda-setting). | Topic excluded from the agenda |
| FCE 6 (2014–2016) | IASB Agenda Consultation | Discussion initiated by the Global Preparers Forum and the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum, followed by an agenda consultation that included the relabelled “Pollutant Pricing Mechanisms” project, which ended up in the “research pipeline” | Regular Event
| Topic reworded and extended by IASB to “Pollutant Price Mechanisms” (power of interpretation) Topic must now align to the conceptual framework (power of interpretation) | IASB changes the definition of the topic and connects it to the framework |
| Identification (relevant dates) | Event | Description | Category of event | Narrative mechanisms | Regulatory outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCE 1 (2003–2005) | IFRIC D1 Consultation and IFRIC 3 withdrawal | IFRIC issued a draft interpretation (IFRIC D1 Emission Rights) for public consultation in 2003, an interpretation in 2004 and withdrew it in 2005, considering EFRAG’s negative endorsement | High-stakes Event Clear limit in time Open to public and focused on AER | IASB central stage by launching the first ever consultation on AER (agenda-setting) | IASB sets the agenda: AER to deal with “practice diversity” |
| FCE 2 (2007–2010) | IASB FASB Joint project | In 2007 FASB included “Emission Trading Schemes” in its agenda, joining forces with IASB. Meetings and discussions papers were ineffective and the interest on this issue faded away by 2010 | Regular Event Blurred time limit, growing number of meetings dealing with subcategories of technical issues Weak openness: broadened scope of emission | IASB holds interest in the topics and remains in a leading position. The scope of the project is broadened | IASB broadens the topic and puts it out of a due process |
| FCE 3 (2011) | IASB Agenda Consultation | After the agenda consultation to prioritize accounting standard projects, “Emissions trading schemes” suspended and included in “Research projects” | Regular Event Event that is regularly planned beyond the scope of AER. Interaction not limited to AER | IASB still concerned with the topic, but delegate decision to stakeholders ( | IASB gets confirmation of stakeholders to maintain the topic out of a due process |
| FCE 4 (2013) | EFRAG Consultation | Failed EFRAG attempt to urge IASB to move forward by launching a consultation urging | High-stakes Event Temporally bounded Interactions focused on AER | EFRAG attempts to lead setting new agenda and imposing new definitions in AER ( | Alternative regulator makes a proposal |
| FCE 5 (2013–2014) | Australian Accounting Standards Board request to IFRS Interpretation Committee | The AASB asked IFRS Interpretation Committee to issue guidance on the valuation of liabilities under emission trading schemes. IFRS declined because it did not meet the “agenda criteria of the Interpretations Committee” | Regular Event No temporal bounding Interactions limited to two standard setters (ad hoc discussion) | IASB resists the proposal to put the topic in the agenda ( | Topic excluded from the agenda |
| FCE 6 (2014–2016) | IASB Agenda Consultation | Discussion initiated by the Global Preparers Forum and the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum, followed by an agenda consultation that included the relabelled “Pollutant Pricing Mechanisms” project, which ended up in the “research pipeline” | Regular Event Event that is regularly planned beyond the scope of AER. Interactions not limited to AER | Topic reworded and extended by IASB to “Pollutant Price Mechanisms” ( | IASB changes the definition of the topic and connects it to the framework |