Abstract
Due process is the means by which ethical constraints are placed on administrative decision-making. I have developed a model of variation in due process and use this model to explore the implementation of “due process” norms by three standard-setting bodies that are created, funded, and overseen by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants – the Accounting Standards Board, the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, and the Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. I conducted two analyses: a comparative analysis of the implementation of due process norms based on differences among the three cases; and, a critique of the due process norms followed by these boards based on their internal logic and a set of best practices identified in other contexts for due process by standard setters. I have presented evidence that due process norms are more fully developed, where standards are enforced by the state and the heterogeneity of users is greatest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alberta Administrative Procedures Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-3
Belton, R. K.: 2005, ‹Competing Definitions of the Rule of Law,’ Carnegie Papers #55 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Canada Constitution Act 1982 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html (accessed October, 2005)
Cunningham v. Canada: 1993, 2 S.C.R. 143
Dryzek J. S. (1990) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge University Press, New York
Edelman L. B. (1990) Legal Environments and Organizational Governance: The Expansion of Due Process in the American Workplace. American Journal of Sociology 96:1401–1440
Edelman L., Uggen C., Erlanger H. (1999) The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth. American Journal of Sociology 105(2):406–454
Folger, R., M. A. Konovsky, R. Cropanzano: 1992, ‹A Due Process Metaphor for Performance Appraisal’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), pp. 129–177
Gerdin J., Greve J. (2004) Forms of Contingency Fit in Management Accounting Research - a Critical Review. Accounting, Organizations and Society 29:303–326
Griswold v. Connecticut: 1965, 381 U.S. 470
Habermas, J.: 1990, ‹Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification’, in his Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. C.␣Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen (MIT Press: Cambridge), pp. 43–115
Habermas J. (1996a) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge
Habermas J. (1996b) On the Cognitive Content of Morality. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96:335–358
Habermas, J.: 1998, ‹The Inclusion of the Other’, in Studies in Political Theory (MIT Press: Cambridge)
Hyman A. T. (2005) The Little Word ‹Due’. Akron Law Review 38(1):1–51
KPMG: 2005, ‹A New Direction for Canadian Accounting Standards,’ Accountability e-lert 2005-03 August 8, 2005 (accessed at http://www.kpmg.ca/unitymail/accountability/en/issues/elert2005–003.html
Leuz C., Pfaff D., Hopwood A. (2004) The economics and politics of accounting. Oxford University Press, Oxford
MacInnis v. Canada (Attorney General) (C.A.): 1997, 1 F.C. 115
Magna Carta as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in␣1297 (from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ featured_documents/magna_carta/translation.html accessed October, 2005)
March J. G, J. P. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. Free Press: New York
Marpet M. I. (1998) An Ethical Issue in Voluntary-consensus-standard Development: A Decision-science View. Journal of Business Ethics 17:1701–1716
Mashaw J. L. (1985) Due Process in the Administrative State. Yale University Press, New Haven
Mathews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319 (1976) Docket Number: 74-204 US Supreme Court
Miller P. B. W. (2002) Viewing the 1996 FAF Restructuring as Policy Making Without a Formal Due Process. Accounting Horizons 16(3):199–214
Morley R. B., Newby S. P. (2002) Due Process Failure in Sector-Neutral Accounting Standard-setting. Financial Accountability and Management 18:1–23
McNollgast (listed author on paper a pseudonym for McCubbins, M. D., R. G. Noll, and B. R. Weingast): 1999, ‹The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act’, Journal of Law Economics and Organization 15(1), 180–217
Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co.: 1950, 339 U.S. 306, 313
O’Toole J. (2000) Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects. Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2):263–288
Priest G. H. (1977) The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules. Journal of Legal Studies 6(1):65–82
Ramraj V. (2004) Four Models of Due Process. I.CON (International Journal of Constitutional Law) 2(3):492–524
Richardson, A. J.: 2005, ‹Regulatory Networks for Accounting Standards: A Social Network Analysis of Canadian Accounting Standard-Setting’, Working Paper, Schulich School of Business
Rubin P. H. (1977) Why is the Common Law Efficient?. Journal of Legal Studies 6(1):51–64
Shapiro B. P. (1998) Toward a Normative Model of Rational Argumentation for Critical Accounting Discussions. Accounting Organizations and Society 23(7):641–663
Shuchman, H. L.: 1983, ‹Professional Associations and the Regulation of Standard-setting,’ Perspectives on the Professions 3(3) (on-line version accessed at http://ethics.iit.edu/perspective/pers3_3sept83_4.html)
Siegel D. M. (2005) Canadian Fundamental Justice and U.S. Due Process: Two Models for a Guarantee of Basic Adjudicative Fairness. George Washington International Law Review 37:1–50
Sunder S. (1988) Political Economy of Accounting Standards. Journal of Accounting Literature 7:31–41
Taylor M. S. (1995) Due Process in Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-experiment in Procedural Justice. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3):495–523
Taylor P., Turley S. (1986) The regulation of accounting standards. Blackwell, London
UK Council on Tribunals: 2003, ‹Guide to Drafting Tribunal Rules’ November 2003 (accessed at http://www.council-on-tribunals.gov.uk/files/guid_guidedraft.pdf)
Van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst (1987) Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation : an international journal on reasoning 1(3):283–301
Van Peursem K. A. (2005) Public Dialogue toward Social Policy: A Methodology for Accounting Research. Accounting and the Public Interest 5:56–87
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Richardson, A.J. Due Process and Standard-setting: An Analysis of Due Process in Three Canadian Accounting and Auditing Standard-setting Bodies. J Bus Ethics 81, 679–696 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9540-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9540-z