Open Journal of Accounting
Vol.04 No.02(2015), Article ID:55673,11 pages
10.4236/ojacct.2015.42002

The Term “Business Model” in Financial Reporting: Does It Need a Proper Definition?*

Marco Sorrentino1, Margherita Smarra2

1Department of Law and Economic Sciences, Pegaso Telematic University, Naples, Italy

2Department of Economics, Management and Institutions, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy

Email: marco.sorrentino@unipegaso.it, margherita.smarra@unina.it

Copyright © 2015 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Received 5 February 2015; accepted 10 April 2015; published 15 April 2015

ABSTRACT

In the last five years, the vocabulary of financial reporting has been enriched by a new specific term: “business model”. However, as the expression is rather equivocal, it is not still possible to find an unanimously shared meaning of the term in the literature. Because of the relatively recent application of the term “business model” in financial reporting, the investigation of its proper meaning is still an uninflated topic of research. Specific purpose of this paper is trying to contribute in finding a proper definition of this term when used in financial reporting (if any). In this sense, after having reviewed the main literature on “business model” definition we have analyzed the parts of the comment letters on the IASB’s Discussion Paper 2013/1―titled “Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting”―which deal with “business model” definition. In particular, the questions whose answers have been specifically investigated are the following: 1) Should the IASB define “business model”? Why or why not? 2) If you think that “business model” should be defined, how would you define it? However, considering the contrasting definitions found both in the literature and in the comment letters, it is not still possible to get a widely accepted meaning of the term “business model” in financial reporting. For these reasons, at this stage of research, the authors completely agree with the thought of Singleton-Green that asserts, “Defining or agreeing a definition of the term “business model” will not advance our understanding of the financial reporting issues”.

Keywords:

Business Model, Financial Reporting, IASB

1. Introduction

In the last five years, the vocabulary of financial reporting has been enriched by a new specific term: “business model”. Starting in 2009, different authoritative organizations have explicitly referred to this term as a part of financial reporting regulation [1] .

On 12 November 2009, the IASB1 officially employs for the first time the term “business model” in its own accounting standard (IFRS 9) and states that: “(…) an entity shall classify financial assets as subsequently measured at either amortised cost or fair value on the basis of both: a) The entity’s business model for managing the financial assets and b) The contractual cash flow characteristics of the financial asset” [2] .

One year later, the Financial Reporting Council [3] 2 issued a new version of the UK Governance Code in which the directors are required to “include in the annual report an explanation of the basis on which the company generates or preserves value over the longer term (the business model)”.

In the last 2010, IASB published amendments to IAS 12 and spoke again of “business model”: “This presumption is rebutted if the investment property is depreciable and is held within a business model whose objective is to consume substantially all of the economic benefits embodied in the investment property over time, rather than through sale” [4] .

In November 2011, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission3, in its Regulatory Guide 228, requires companies to draw up a prospectus in which explaining: “(…) the main components of the issuer’s business model and how they relate to each other, the key assumptions underlying the model and the associated risks” [5] .

Regardless of the different ways to use the concept of “business model” by the different organizations above, one thing is sure: nowadays the term “business model” is still an undefined term in financial reporting [6] .

As a consequence of it, in 2013 the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a Discussion Paper on “Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting”, in which there are, inter alias, specific questions about the meaning of the term “business model” [7] .

On this regards, specific purpose of this paper is trying to contribute in finding a proper definition of the term “business model” in financial reporting (if any). In this sense, Section 2 presents a literature review that highlights the disparate views on the definition and scope of the term “business model” according to management and accounting doctrine. Section 3 critically analyzes the parts of the comment letters on the IASB’s Discussion Paper 2013/1 that deal with “business model” definition. Section 4 sets out conclusions and suggests possible areas for further research.

2. Literature Review

The term “business model” is one of the most investigated concepts in the strategy and organizational theory literature [8] -[10] . Since the mid-1990s, the widespread use of the term has dramatically increased as a direct consequence of three different factors, namely: 1) the advent of the Internet [11] [12] ; 2) rapid growth in emerging markets [13] -[15] and 3) the expanding industries and organizations dependent on postindustrial technologies [16] .

However, as the expression is rather equivocal, it is not still possible to find an unanimously shared meaning of the term in the literature. Since 1957, when the term “business model” appeared for the first time in an academic paper4, numerous and different definitions have been provided by the prevalent managerial literature. The following list summarizes some of the most effective ones, in a chronological order:

ü According to [17] the business model is “an architecture of the product, service and information flows, including a description of the various business actors and their roles; a description of the potential benefits for the various business actors; a description of the sources of revenues”;

ü Reference [11] more generically states that the business model represents “the content, structure, and governance of transactions designed so as to create value through the exploitation of business opportunities” and then [10] conceptualizes a firm’s business model as a “system of interdependent activities that transcends the focal firm and spans its boundaries”;

ü Reference [19] describes the business model as “the heuristic logic that connects technical potential with the realization of economic value”;

ü Reference [20] thinks of business model as “stories that explain how enterprises work. A good business model answers Peter Drucker’s age old questions: Who is the customer? And what does the customer value? It also answers the fundamental questions every manager must ask: How do we make money in this business? What is the underlying economic logic that explains how we can deliver value to customers at an appropriate cost?”;

ü Reference [21] provides a definition of business model in the following terms: “(…) the business model outlines how a company generates revenues with reference to the structure of its value chain and its interaction with the industry value system”;

ü Reference [22] defines a business model as a “concise representation of how an interrelated set of decision variables in the areas of venture strategy, architecture, and economics are addressed to create sustainable competitive advantage in defined markets”;

ü According to [23] the business model captures the key features of a business to inform a judgement (by investors, for example) on whether the business is likely to achieve financial and other objectives. It should answer a series of questions essential to any business―who are the customers, what do they value, how can that value be delivered to the customer at an appropriate cost and how does the business deploy its assets?;

ü According to [24] , business models “consist of four interlocking elements, that, taken together, create and deliver value”, namely: 1) customer value proposition; 2) profit formula; 3) key resources, and 4) key processes;

ü Reference [25] states that “A business model is (…) a reflection of the firm’s realized strategy”;

ü Reference [26] believes that “A business model articulates the logic, the data and other evidence that support a value proposition for the customer, and a viable structure of revenues and costs for the enterprise delivering that value”;

ü According to [27] “(…) a business model is the method of doing business by which a company can sustain itself―that is, generate revenue. The business model spells-out how a company makes money by specifying where it is positioned in the value chain”;

ü Reference [28] argues that “A business model describes the value logic of an organization in terms of how it creates and captures customer value”;

ü According to [29] “business model is defined by three main elements: the value proposition, value creation and delivery and value capture. Value creation is at the heart of any business model; (…). While the value proposition is typically concerned with the product and service offering to generate economic return, in a sustainable business, the value proposition would provide measurable ecological and/or social value in concert with economic value”.

Regarding its application, the best doctrine [30] agrees that the concept of “business model” has been generally employed in trying to clarify above all three phenomena: 1) e-business and the use of information technology in organizations; 2) strategic issues, such as value creation, competitive advantage, and firm performance; and 3) innovation and technology management.

However, the last years have been characterized by a significant debate also in accounting literature about the relevance of the concept of “business model” in financial reporting.

In this sense, [31] state that “intent-based accounting and business model based accounting are sufficiently similar that they can be treated as the same, at least in terms of analysing their properties in the context of the qualitative characteristics of relevance and comparability and the objective of financial reporting”.

Reference [32] agrees with the conclusion in the [31] that there are similarities between business model and intent, and in an explicit response to the paper states that “basing the accounting on how management intends to use, dispose or settle an item or arrangement does provide more comparable and relevant financial reporting”.

Reference [33] gives greater importance to the concept of “business model” in financial reporting, asserting that: “Financial reporting should provide a reality check on a firm’s business model and its execution”.

On the contrary, [1] is more sceptical about the role of business models in financial reporting, because of the ambiguity of its proper meaning. In this sense, the author states that “the term “business model” is open to a wide variety of interpretation because there is a lack of agreement about what a business model comprises and that an individual company’s model could be described in many way”. Therefore, he concludes that: “(…) the ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a business model may be useful, at least in the short term for regulators, but in the longer term a better analysis of whether it leads to stability or instability is needed. My guess is the latter”.

Reference [34] agrees with much of [1] ’s opinion, but his view of the role of business models in financial reporting is rather positive. According to the ICAEW member “business model is a simplified version of reality. It tells us how the firm makes money and, perhaps more importantly, how it hopes to make money”.

Reference [35] deals with the role of the concept of “business model” in supporting the required information for the Management Commentary section dedicated to the nature of the business. According to [35] the concept of “business model” is implied by the aspects required in the abovementioned section (i.e. sectors where the company operates; main products services processes and distribution channels; structures of the business and how it creates value) and its use in financial reporting is instrumental to support the choice of measurement options.

In his study, [36] highlights some of the perceived key themes and identify other bases for grouping/organiz- ing the literature based on business models in financial reporting. Reference [36] takes a clear position on the distinction between the notions of the business model and strategy, sustaining that “(…) the term “strategy” is a dynamic and forward-looking notion, a sort of directional roadmap for future courses of action, whereas, “business model” is a more static notion, reflecting the conceptualisation of the company’s underlying core business logic”.

Last, but not least, it is extremely interesting to highlight the analysis made by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and some European standard setters5 in the Research Paper titled “The Role of the Business Model in Financial Statements” [6] , published in December 2013. In this study, EFRAG and the other standard setters reviewed doctrinal papers on the topic in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the term “business model” and unsurprisingly found that also in the accounting field academics have not developed a widely accepted meaning of the term. However, although the Research Paper notes discordances in providing a universal definition, it recognizes the manner in which cash flow is generated and value is created as the most important characteristic to identify the concept of “business model”.

Although it is possible to notice considerable variation in business model definitions, several recurrent features can be found.

First, the majority of the analyzed definitions drew an explicit link between the business model and the organization’s capability to create value (make money) and drive financial performance.

At the same time, most of them underline the organization’s inputs―the resources and capabilities (or capitals) on which it relies―as a key component of the business model.

Another important feature considered to be within the business model scope by the aforementioned definitions are actions or activities―the very mechanics of the business. These elements improve the quality or uniqueness of the organization’s offerings [37] .

On the contrary, the main literature [35] agrees in identifying what a business model “is not”: “First, the business model does not involve a linear mechanism for value creation from suppliers to the firm to its customers. Value creation through business models involves a more complex, interconnected set of exchange relationships and activities among multiple players. Second, the business model is not the same as product market strategy (i.e., it does not refer to firm positioning in product markets based on differentiation or cost leadership in certain activities) or corporate strategy (i.e., it does not describe or prescribe the areas of business in which a firm becomes active). Third, the business model cannot be reduced to issues that concern the internal organization of firms (e.g., control mechanisms, incentive systems); activity systems, even though centered on a focal firm, typically span firm boundaries. However, the business model can be a source of competitive advantage” [30] .

3. The IASB’s Discussion Paper on “A Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting”

On 18 July 2013, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) issued a Discussion Paper on “Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting” [7] , in which there are, inter alias, the following specific questions about the meaning of the term “business model”:

1) Should the IASB define “business model”? Why or why not?

2) If you think that “business model” should be defined, how would you define it?

At the end of comment period (14 January 2014)6, the IASB received 243 submissions to the Discussion Paper. Of the 243 total comment letters received, 121 (49.79%) of the respondents provided an explicit response to the first question: “Should the IASB define “business model”. Why or why not?” whose regional profile has shown below (Figure 1)7.

Figure 1. Regional profile of the respondents provided an explicit response to the first question.

The responses received can be generally categorized into the following three categories [38] :

a) Some respondents think that the IASB should define, or provide further clarification on, the business model concept in the Conceptual Framework.

b) Some respondents think that the IASB should consider developing a separate framework for co-operatives because they have a distinct business model.

c) Some respondents did not think that the IASB needed to define or provide additional guidance on the business model concept.

Following Table 1 provides a summarized breakdown of the responses received:

Table 1. Response rate on the question: Should the IASB define “business model”? Why or why not?

The more effective responses that support the utility for a “business model” definition are the following:

“We agree that the use of the notion of the business model can be helpful in ensuring that the accounting model best reflects the most likely way in which the asset or liability will affect the cash flows of the entity” [Business Europe].

“Yes, the IASB should define “business model”. If the IASB agree with the view that different business models should be taken into consideration when developing or revising standards then it will be necessary to define the concept otherwise the IASB could find themselves considering a different definition of business model for each standard, which may in itself lead to conflicting standards” [Co-operatives UK].

“However, we believe it may be necessary to define the concept of business model to facilitate its universal application in all areas of financial reporting, and not just for financial instruments, whose classification clearlydepends on the business model” [Group of Latin-American Accounting Standard Setters―GLASS].

“Business model plays a role in recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure. As such it cannot be ignored and should be defined in the Conceptual Framework” [RSM International].

“Standardized models would allow for others to view the financials from managements approach, and would make identifying resources, financial stability, and comparability to an industry more transparent” [Student of Master in Accounting of Science in Accounting-The Indiana University Kelley School of Business Indianapolis].

Apart from Co-operatives UK, all the other co-operatives support the idea that the IASB should consider developing a separate framework for them. According to all of these respondents8: “(…) the business model of cooperatives shows significant differences as compared with those of investor oriented corporations”.

Despite of an overwhelming majority of responses in support of the introduction of the definition of “business model”, 33 respondents voiced their opposition, which is less than 14% of the total.

Those dissenting responders commonly raised the following two reasons: “a) The concept is well understood; b) The business model concept would be too difficult to define. In addition, there appears not to be a standard definition in academic literature and the concept cannot be understood separately from an understanding of business strategy” [31] .

In particular, some respondents cited the following reasons for their support:

“We do not think that the term ‘business model’ needs to be defined in the framework. Trying to define it would introduce unnecessary problems, partly because many companies have multiple business models for their various activities. The framework would be unlikely to suffer from the absence of a definition” [The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)].

“However, we do not believe that a definition of the ‘business model’ in the CF is needed because the business model is entity specific. IFRS9 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’ introduced the concept for financial instruments primarily to address measurement issues between the banking and trading books in the banking industry. A conglomerate can have several business models for its diverse activities. Any definition would of necessity have to be high level which would limit its usefulness” [Investment Management Association (IMA)].

“The business model is inherent to every organization, so its definition would not meet the characteristics of each business and could lead the IASB incur in harmful errors in the standards and to highlighted information from the financial statements. The business model should not be defined for the stated reasons” [Brasilia University].

“ACAG does not believe that the IASB should define ‘business model’. This term is already well understood” [Australasian Council of Auditors-General].

“We do not think a definition of the term ‘business model’ is necessary, rather a general description of how the business model is relevant to financial reporting would be sufficient” [ICAS].

“However a rigid definition of ‘business model’ in the revised Conceptual Framework may prove difficult to achieve, and indeed may conflict with local statutory definitions, and we are not convinced it is necessary to go that far” [British American Tobacco].

“The business model concept is clear enough and should not be defined by the IASB in the ConceptualFramework. It should be used in the applicable IFRSs” [Hydro-Québec].

“However, we do not think it is necessary, or possible, for the IASB to define ‘business model’. As previously suggested, a reference to management’s intensions should be sufficient” [Maersk Group].

“Defining a business model, however, is more difficult as there appears to be no standard definition in academic literature. The concept also cannot be understood in isolation from an understanding of business strategy. On balance we therefore consider it best to avoid seeking to develop a single definition of a nebulous concept” [Quoted Companies Alliance].

Of the 243 total comment letters received by the IASB, just 37 (15.23%) of the respondents provided a response to the following question: “If you think that ‘business model’ should be defined, how would you define it?” whose regional profile has shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Regional Profile of the respondents provided a response to the second question.

The responses received can generally be categorized into the following three categories:

a) Some respondents give a specific opinion of how the business model should be defined.

b) Some respondents just suggest the elements that should be considered in order to give a correct definition of the term business model.

c) Some suggestions were similar to, or based on, definition of term “business model” given by the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Draft of the International Framework.

Following Table 2 provides a summarized breakdown of the responses received.

Table 2. Response rate on the question: If you think that “business model” should be defined, how would you define it?

Source: researcher compilation.

The Definitions of the Term “Business Model” in the Comment Letters on IASB DP 2013/1

The following tables (Tables 3-5) show the different definitions of the term “business model” issued by the comment letters that are classified according to the three categories above.

Table 3. Respondents that give a specific opinion of how the business model should be defined.

Table 4. Respondents that suggest the elements that should be considered in order to give a correct definition of the term business model.

Table 5. Respondents that agree with the definition of term “business model” given by the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Draft of the International Framework.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, after having reviewed the main literature on “business model” definition, we have analyzed the possible meaning of the term in financial reporting, by the investigation of the comment letters on the Discussion Paper “Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting”, issued by the International Accounting Standards Board in July 2013. In particular, the analysis has concerned the part of the letters that deals with the definition of the term “business model” in financial reporting.

On this regards, we found that most of the definitions given by the respondents substantially agree in identifying the term “business model” with the basic concept expressed by the main literature of cash-flows generation and value creation. At the same time, we have honestly to underline that the response rate to the question that required a proper definition of the term “business model” in financial reporting (If you think that “business model” should be defined, how would you define it?) is so low to have to be considered immaterial. Out of 243 comment letters, less than 10% give an explicit explanation of the concept (19 of category A + 5 of category B).

Some of the main reasons for this could be the following:

1) The concept of the term “business model” is already well understood.

2) The “business model” is too difficult to define.

3) The concept of “business model” is not relevant in financial reporting.

Based on the low response rate to the specific questions about the term “business model” in financial reporting and, at the same time, considering the contrasting aforementioned reasons (“…is already well understood” vs“… is too difficult to define”), according to us, it is not still possible (or maybe necessary) to get a widely accepted meaning of the term in financial reporting.

Indeed, at this stage of research, we completely agree with the thought of [34] that on this topic argues, “It does not matter that there is no agreed definition of the term “business model”. The salient point is that firms do different things and do them differently. There is a relatively new practice of referring to such matters using the language of “business models”, but this is simply a reflection of verbal fashion. The substance of the matter is that financial reporting does and should reflect the fact that firms do different things and do them differently. Defining, or agreeing a definition of, the term “business model” will not advance our understanding of the financial reporting issues” [34] .

References

  1. Page, M. (2014) Business Models as a Basis for Regulation of Financial Reporting. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 683-695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9239-0
  2. IASB―International Accounting Standards Board (2009) IFRS 9 “Financial Instruments”. IFRS Foundation, London.
  3. FRC―Financial Reporting Council (2010) The UK Corporate Governance Code. Financial Reporting Council, London.
  4. IASB―International Accounting Standards Board (2010) Deferred Tax: Recovery of Underlying Assets (Amendments to IAS 12 Income Taxes). IFRS Foundation, London.
  5. ASIC―Australian Securities & Investments Commission (2011) Regulatory Guide 228 Prospectuses: Effective Disclosure for Retail Investors.
  6. EFRAG―European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (2013) The Role of the Business Model in Financial Statements. Research Paper, EFRAG.
  7. IASB―International Accounting Standards Board (2013) Discussion Paper DP/2013/1: A Review of the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting. IFRS Foundation, London.
  8. Ghaziani, A. and Ventresca, M.J. (2005) Keywords and Cultural Change: Frame Analysis of Business Model Public Talk 1975-2000. Sociological Forum, 523-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11206-005-9057-0
  9. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. and Tucci, C.L. (2005) Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present and Future of the Concept. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 1-38.
  10. Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2010) Designing Your Future Business Model: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004
  11. Amit, R. and Zott, C. (2001) Value Creation in E-Business. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 493-520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.187
  12. Demil, B. and Lecocq, X. (2010) Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency. Long Range Planning, 43, 227-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.004
  13. Prahalad, C.K. and Hart, S. (2002) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 2-14.
  14. Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2007) Profitable Business Models and Market Creation in the Context of Deep Poverty: A Strategic View. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 49-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.27895339
  15. Thompson, J.D. and MacMillan, I.C. (2010) Business Models: Creating New Markets and Societal Wealth. Long Range Planning, 43, 291-307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.002
  16. Perkmann, M. and Spicer, A. (2010) What Are Business Models? Developing a Theory of Performative Representations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 29, 269-279.
  17. Timmers, P. (1998) Business Models for Electronic Markets. Electronic Markets, 8, 3-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10196789800000016
  18. Bellman, R., Clark, C.E., Malcolm, D.G., Craft, C.J. and Ricciardi, F.M. (1957) On the Construction of a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game. Operations Research, 5, 469-503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.5.4.469
  19. Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-Off Companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 529-555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529
  20. Magretta, J. (2002) Why Business Models Matter. Harvard Business Review, 80, 86-92.
  21. Fisken, J. and Rutherford, J. (2002) Business Models and Investment Trends in the Biotechnology Industry in Europe. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 8, 191-199.
  22. Morris, M., Schindehutte, M. and Allen, J. (2005) The Entrepreneur’s Business Model: Toward a Unified Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 726-735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.001
  23. Rasmussen, B. (2007) Business Models and the Theory of the Firm. Pharmaceutical Industry Project Working Paper, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, 32, 1-11.
  24. Johnson, M.W., Christensen, C.C. and Kagermann, H. (2008) Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review, 86, 50-59.
  25. Casadesus-Masanell, R. and Ricart, J.E. (2010) From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics. Long Range Planning, 43, 195-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.01.004
  26. Teece, D.J. (2010) Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003
  27. Rappa, M. (2010) Business Models on the Web. http://digitalenterprise.org/models/models.html
  28. Fielt, E. (2011) Business Model Definition. Business Service Management, 11, 1-50.
  29. Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014) A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
  30. Zott, C., Amit, R. and Massa, L. (2011) The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management, 37, 1019-1042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311406265
  31. Leisenring, J., Linsmeier, T., Schipper, K. and Trott, E. (2012) Business-Model (Intent)-Based Accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 42, 329-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2012.681860
  32. Brougham, A. (2012) Discussion of “Business-Model (Intent)-Based Accounting” by Jim Leisenring, Thomas Linsmeier, Katherine Schipper and Edward Trott. Accounting and Business Research, 42, 345-347.
  33. ICAEW-Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (2010) Business Models in Accounting: The Theory of the Firm and Financial Reporting. ICAEW, London.
  34. Singleton-Green, B. (2014) Should Financial Reporting Reflect Firms” Business Models? What Accounting Can Learn from the Economic Theory of the Firm. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 697-706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9240-7
  35. Cinquini, L. and Tenucci, A. (2011) Business Model in Management Commentary and Link with Management Accounting. Financial Reporting, 41-59.
  36. Novak, A. (2014) Business Model Literature Overview. Financial Reporting, 1, 79-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/FR2014-001004
  37. IIRC-International Integrated Reporting Council (2013) Business Model Background Paper for . IIRC. >http://www.theiirc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Business_Model.pdf
  38. IASB-International Accounting Standards Board (2014) Feedback Summary: Business Model. IASB.

NOTES

*Although this study is the joint result of the discussion among the authors, Sections 1, 2 and 4 have been developed by Marco Sorrentino and Section 3 has been developed by Margherita Smarra.

1Nowadays, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) is the EU standard-setting body.

2The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is the UK’s independent regulator responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment.

3The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is Australia’s corporate, markets and financial services regulator.

4The title of the paper is “On the Construction of a Multi-Stage, Multi-Person Business Game” and it was written in [18] .

5The French Autorité des Normes Comptables (ANC) and the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC).

The following standard setters in Europe also support the issue of this Research Paper: 1) Belgium, CNC/CBN―Commission des Normes Comptables/Commissie voor Boekhoudkundige Normen; 2) Cyprus, ICPAC―The Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Cyprus; 3) Denmark, FSR―Danske revisorer; 4) Germany, DRSC (ASCG)―Accounting Standards Committee of Germany; 5) Italy, OIC―Organismo Italiano di Contabilità; 6) Luxembourg, CNC―Commission des normes comptables; 7) Malta, MIA―The Malta Institute of Accountants; 8) Netherlands, RJ―Raad voor de Jaarverslaggeving; 10) Norway, NRS―Norsk RegnskapsStiftelse; 11) Poland, KSR―Polish Accounting Standards Committee; 12) Slovenia, Slovenski Institut za Revizijo; 13) Sweden, Rådet för fi nansiell rapportering.

6However, the last comment letter was received on 6 June 2014.

7Global stands for international organizations and associations.

8International Organization of Industrial, Artisanal and Service Producers’ Cooperatives (CICOPA); Confcooperative-Confederazione Cooperative Italiane; Confcooperative Federsolidarietà; Confcooperative Federlavoro e Servizi, Confederación Nacional de Cooperativas de Trabajo (CNCT); Canadian Worker Cooperative Federation; Japan Workers’ Co-operative Union; US Federation of Worker Cooperatives; Cooperatives Europe.