Giving sense to and making sense of OCI: When each component makes sense, but the whole does not

The increased prevalence of fair value initiated important changes in accounting standards, one of the most contentious being the appearance of other comprehensive income (OCI). Despite the importance of conceptual grounds for the legitimacy of the profession , OCI is not conceptually defined. Our study examines the process by which OCI was integrated into IFRS on an ad hoc basis, without clear conceptual grounds. Through a documentary analysis of 12 OCI-related standard-setting projects, we examine how the IASB gave sense to, and auditors made sense of, OCI, and how these consultation interactions have contributed to the consolidation of an ad hoc approach to OCI. Our study reveals that the construction of meaning of OCI was a restricted process where the IASB only attempted to give limited meaning to the use of specific OCI items while refraining from providing an understanding for its existence conceptually. We show that auditors, generally depicted as influential actors in the development of accounting standards, made limited attempts to make sense of both the existence and use of OCI. Ultimately, OCI-related standard-setting processes led auditors to tolerate the absence of conceptual principles for OCI and accommodate the standard setter’s ad hoc approach. This progressive accommodation is indicative of the power standard setters can exercise over constituencies within consultation processes, resulting in a paradoxical use of the conceptual framework to endorse ad hoc approaches in standard development. In the end, what our study makes evident regarding OCI is that, if each component makes sense, the whole does not.