Factors Affecting Effective Globalization
Order ID 53003233773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
Factors Affecting Effective Globalization Discussion
I’m working on a business discussion question and need a sample draft to help me learn.
Part 1 a. Please use at least two in references with in text citations that are based in the United States and are websites. Should be between 300-500 words. Please add on to what was said. These is a discussion response.
In order to keep up with globalization, organizations and businesspeople now must consider cultural differences when operating with international companies. Although close in proximity, the United States and Canada have cultural and accounting differences that can impact the way companies do business.
Culturally according to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the U.S. and Canada are extremely similar, revealing societies that are individualistic, moderately ‘masculine’, and accepting of new ideas (Hofstede Insights, 2022).
The U.S. is known for challenging authorities and supporting future-oriented thinking. Canada, however, recognizes the need for collaboration more than the U.S. and tends to put more importance on barriers and authority. In turn, organizations and their representatives must be aware of the slight cultural differences that can affect business including etiquette, politeness, and directness.
Other business differences include the amount of time off, in Canada paid time off and maternity leave is regulated by law, whereas in the U.S. is designated by the employer and set contracts. While stigmas around PTO and working hours are slowly changing in the U.S. the consensus is to work longer hours and not use PTO.
In regard to accounting principles, the U.S. follows GAAP while Canada uses International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Adopted in early 2006 and implemented in 2011, the Canadian Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) requires public organizations to use IFRS in financial reporting (Government of Canada, 2022). The main difference between IFRS and GAAP reporting is that GAAP is a rules-based system that requires more particularized financial reporting, while IFRS is a principles-based system that requires more estimating and judgment in financial reporting (Popatia, 2017).
Major differences between US GAAP and IFRS are the way revenue, inventory, development costs, write-downs, and fixed assets are recorded which can impact the way profits are presented to stakeholders. Under US GAAP, revenue is generally recorded when it is realized/reliable and earned, in accordance with ASA 606 which outlines industry-specific contingencies (PwC, 2014).
IFRS uses general revenue principles that account for all transactions, with minimal industry-specific rules. Differences in the timing of revenue recognition can be a result of US GAAP versus IFRS reporting, leading to differences in revenue on financial statements.
For inventory reporting, IFRS disallows the use of last in, first out (LIFO) methods, which is acceptable under US GAAP, allowing for differences in operating expenses including income tax payable (PwC, 2014). Fixed assets, including property and equipment, in US GAAP, are valued at the historical cost while under IFRS fixed assets can be revalued to the fair market value. The U.S. market currently accepts non-US companies to prepare financial statements using IFRS.
When conducting international business, it is important to understand not only the accounting differences between countries, but also the cultural differences that impact business decisions and deals. Although similar, differences between the U.S. and Canada can impact the understanding of financial statements by investors and creditors.
Government of Canada. (2022). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en.html.
IFRS. (2021). Canada, Who uses IFRS Standards? IFRS Foundation. https://www.ifrs.org/use-around-the-world/use-of-ifrs-standards-by-jurisdiction/view-jurisdiction/canada/
Hofstede Insights. (2022). Country Comparisons: Canada and the U.S. Hofstede Insights. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/canada,the-usa/
Popatia, K. (2017). IFRS & GAAP: Reconciling Differences Between Accounting Systems and Assessing the Proposed Changes to the IFRS Constitution. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 38, Issue 1 Fall.
PwC. (2014). IFRS and US GAAP: similarities and differences. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, October 2014.
Part 1 b. Please use at least two in references with in text citations that are based in the United States and are websites. Should be between 300-500 words. Please add on to what was said. These is a discussion response.
Dr. Martin, J. R. published an article comparing Japanese and American management methods regarding the need for various management accounting and control systems. The article is divided into four sections:
-Worker Characteristics and Attitudes
-Management attitudes and policies toward workers
-Competitive focus of management and management policies
-Management accounting and control
For this discussion, I will only focus on the last two sections.
While American managers are focused on short-term financial results, Japanese managers appear to be more concerned with a long-term strategy. The variations in reporting standards between the two countries could partially explain this discrepancy. When it comes to reporting quarterly to investors, Japanese companies are not required to do so. However, there are several fundamental differences in the Japanese management style.
In reality, Japanese management is based on a very different set of principles than the typical management paradigm in the US. Japanese management practices and procedures (kaizen) are based on continuous improvement. A significant part of American management is built around the idea of optimization.
Every management policy, practice, measurement system, and the decision will be affected by these two concepts if they are not understood. Dynamic management aims for perfection by removing restrictions, whereas optimization seeks the best response given a set of constraints. This is the primary difference between the two approaches.
Furthermore, accounting and control systems are commonly used to influence behavior in Japan, and they are second in importance to a company’s overall strategy. On the other hand, accounting and control systems have primarily been used to inform management of the company’s performance in the United States.
In Japan, planning and control are built from the ground up. This means that employees and lower-level managers help set goals and have a big say in how plans are carried out. However, in the United States, planning and control are done top-down, with the budget flowing down through the organization.
The plan-do-check-act cycle is almost sacred in Japan. This demonstrates the Japanese dedication to planning and receiving feedback (PDCA). The planning stage of this approach involves identifying the problem and its root cause and devising a solution. In the Do stage, the plan is tested to see if it works. The trial run is analyzed during the Check step, and any necessary adjustments are made, and the final step is to implement the strategy. Nevertheless, the PDCA method is a never-ending activity for the Japanese, who meticulously document almost everything they do.
Actual expenses in Japan are compared to market-determined targets. They are deducting the target profit margin from the target price yields the target costs. The target costs should fall somewhere between the standard and allowable expenses. At the target price, the company will have a competitive advantage.
The goal costs are constantly reduced during and after the design stage to encourage continuous development, making this strategy dynamic. The standard American method compares actual expenses to flexible budgets based on engineer-determined standard charges.
On the other hand, everyday costs are based on a static optimization paradigm in which standards are set based on the plant’s and resources’ current constraints. The primary goal is to meet the internal standard rather than continue cutting costs to complete the external target. (Martin, 1992)
Lastly, the four sets of accounting standards used in Japan are: the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), Japanese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (J-GAAP), Japan’s Modified International Standards (JMIS), and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP).
However, the most widely used accounting standards are IFRS and J-GAAP.
IFRS is an accounting standard based on principles, emphasizes balance sheets, has global accounting rules, and is easy to use. GAAP is used in both the US and Japan, but IFRS is now required by law in both countries. This is a full set of rules about accounting standards, how to interpret them, and other things. The rules are not as complicated as J-GAAP.
For a proper interpretation of details by company and country, you need a lot of notes with convincing evidence. In contrast to J-GAAP, IFRS calls for non-operating income and expenses, other operating income, and other operating expenses. (Global Connect Admin b. V. The Future of Accounting Standards in Japan, 2021)
Global connect admin b. V. The future of accounting standards in Japan: IFRS or Japanese GAAP – global connect admin b. V. (2021, March 5). https://globalconnectadmin.com/the-future-of-accounting-standards-in-japan-ifrs-or-japanese-gaap/
Martin, J. R. (1992). Comparing the practices of U. S. and Japanese companies. Management and Accounting Web. https://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumMartin92.htm
Factors Affecting Effective Globalization
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!