A single set of standards and the multiplicity of interpretations - EGOS

translations, the standard-setter International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) also provides
for certain languages what IASB regards as official translations. These IASB translations have
been prepared in accordance with a particular process including a review of the translated text by
a committee of accounting experts who represent certain constituent groups. On the contrary, the
EU translations of accounting standards are not reviewed by people who have accounting
expertise when the standards are translated by translation services of EC. As a consequence of the
differing translation policies of EU and IASB, in some languages (such as French) multiple
translations exist. Furthermore, the translation activities have taken place in a fluid setting, and
IASB has at times coordinated also the production of the official EU translations, which is no
longer the case, and various actors’ participation in and influence on the translation has shifted
over time.
The way translation processes and procedures are organized is particular importance also within
the context of regulation as previous literature in the academic field of translation studies
acknowledges the limitations of translation: a translation can very rarely both render the original
text word-for-word in another language and convey its meaning unchanged (e.g. Nida 1964,
Catford 1978, Chesterman 2000) and translation involves trade-off between different dimensions
equivalence. Both academic and professional accountants have expressed concerns about the
adequacy and readability of the translated IFRS (Nobes 2006, Zeff 2007, Evans, Baskerville &
Nara 2011, Hellmann, Perera & Patel 2010a & 2010b, http://www.worldbank.org) and some
member states have complained to EU about the quality 12 of some translations of IFRS standards
( http://eur-lex.europa.eu). While the problems of translating accounting texts in general and
IFRSs in particular have raised concerns among various stakeholders, few academic studies have
addressed translation in the context of accounting harmonization (Evans 2004, Evans, Baskerville
& Nara 2012, Evans & Baskerville 2011,Dalhgren & Nilsson 2012). However, these authors do
not elaborate on how accounting regulations are translated.
1 For a well-known model for the assessment of translation quality, see House (1997, 2006).
2 Also some documented evidence exists that certain translations of IFRS have been directly misleading: E.g both
“the statement of comprehensive income” and “profit and loss” where translated in the EU endorsed translation to
Swedish as “rapport över totalresultat”. Consequently, the items which according to the English original were to
presented in “profit and loss” could according to the Swedish translation be presented in “rapport över totalresultat”,
thus either in profit and loss or other comprehensive income (www.farforlag.se).
3