{"id":114429,"date":"2011-10-05T16:55:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-05T16:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mafr.fr\/actualites\/i-24-the-principle-of-the-neutrality-of-standards-2\/"},"modified":"2026-08-21T10:56:12","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T10:56:12","slug":"i-24-the-principle-of-the-neutrality-of-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mafr.fr\/en\/jorc\/jorc-review\/jorc-review-archives\/i-24-the-principle-of-the-neutrality-of-standards\/","title":{"rendered":"I-2.4: The principle of the neutrality of standards (the example of accounting standards)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/strong>The question of neutrality is so easily asked, but at the same time impossible to answer easily.<\/p>\n

The subject of neutrality brings a certain number of preliminary ideas and reminiscences to mind.<\/u><\/p>\n

First of all, the image of Buddha comes to mind, because it alone expresses the extent to which neutrality is an endless subject, since by thinking about the fact that he isn\u2019t thinking about anything, Buddha is still thinking about something.
It also makes me think of contemporary music\u2019s constant attempts to attain a form of neutrality: yet this goal remains unattainable, because it is evident that the search for the neutral, in a sound or a timbre, can probably never be found.
I also think of the concept of mathematical zero, which is so impossible to evoke in a simple way that it must be something else, something more than simply the neutral.
The neutral also evokes Edmond Jab\u00e8s\u2019 \u201cpoint\u201d: a poetic ideal of which nothing can be said, not even whether it is neutral or not.<\/p>\n

Another example is Roland Barthes\u2019 course on the Neutral[1]<\/a>, because when one reads Barthes, one understands how very multifarious the neutral is, and how its immensity cannot be reduced to one single conception of the Neutral: the neutral cannot be understood by any single person.<\/p>\n

Lastly, I think of Vladimir Jank\u00e9l\u00e9vich, who described the neutral as a different and elusive reality.<\/p>\n

Of course, I am embarrassed to mention philosophy since my article comes directly after a philosopher\u2019s[2]<\/a>, but the neutral and the question of neutrality truly live on in my memories. It was the same for Maurice Blanchot\u2019s reminiscences, when he concluded that the neutral is like something between day and night, even though we know that there is nothing between day and night.<\/p>\n

In short, I have only found a single postulate in all of philosophy\u2019s work on the question of neutrality, which is that the neutral does not exist<\/u>.<\/p>\n

And yet, the neutral remains no less an obsessional topic, especially in economics.<\/u>
Indeed, the theory of markets leads us to believe that there is a certain homology between doing nothing and being perfectly neutral with regards to the economic system. 
Thereby, economics meet philosophy in the person of Edouard Le Roy for whom being neutral meant doing nothing. And yet, can we not still debate this point: can we not affirm that doing nothing is still doing something?<\/p>\n

But, returning to economics, might we imagine that the \u2018invisible hand\u2019 is the embodiment of neutrality? Is it not the neutral par excellence <\/em>in that it acts, and yet does nothing? It is possible, but this is something of which we will never be certain, because this hand is, indeed, invisible.
The recent economic crisis has shown that this hand is sometimes asleep, and the concept seems to me to be too basic to be a foundation of any sort.<\/p>\n

But, taking economic thought into consideration, it is possible to get lost looking for the neutral: indeed, alongside market theories, doesn\u2019t the theory of economic action (of which Keynesian analysis is the topical illustration) prescribe exactly the opposite by saying that we must not be neutral?<\/p>\n

\u201cTo be neutral, or not to be neutral?\u201d We must realize that this is an obsessional question that pits those who believe neutrality is the optimal posture against those who affirm that the absence of neutrality is ideal.<\/p>\n

In accounting, you might think that the question of neutrality is not an issue, <\/u>because the extremely powerful rule that bookkeeping must be kept in double-entries, neutrality ought to be the last property lacking from accounting.
Nothing is less true: you would be mistaken in believing this simply because neutrality is also an obsessional topic for accounts.<\/u><\/p>\n

It would even be possible to affirm that accounting standards embody most of the debates surrounding neutrality. Some affirm that only neutral accounting standards are quality standards, and that accounting\u2019s ideal is to be neutral.
This ideal is perfectly understandable, since accounting has set for itself the goal of representing economic activity. But, it is possible to consider that one of representation\u2019s functions is to be neutral; that a faithful representation is doubtlessly a neutral one, and therefore neutrality should be accounting\u2019s principal goal.<\/p>\n

I am nonetheless going to try to show that neutrality does not exist<\/u> in any sort of standard-setting, and especially not in accounting standards. I am also going to try to draw a number of practical conclusions from this observation.<\/p>\n

But before this, what is the general organization of accounting standards-setting? This is a dualistic system because unlisted companies are obliged to follow French accounting standards set by the Autorit\u00e9 des Normes Comptables (ANC<\/em> \u2013 French accounting standards authority), whereas listed companies use international accounting standards set by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

How is it then possible to define what a standard-setter is? There are many different types of standard-setting bodies. However, according to my definition, a regulator is obliged to deal with a system\u2019s pathologies, and therefore has a tendency to overestimate them, whereas a standard setter simply wants to deal with generalities. This is what interests us here, within our narrow point of view: the neutrality of standards.<\/p>\n

How is it possible to demonstrate that the neutrality of standards does not exist?<\/em><\/p>\n