Financial Accounting Theory Report: Local Government Insights

This report delves into Financial Accounting Theory, specifically examining the perceptions of Mayors and CEOs in local government regarding stakeholder attributes and their influence on infrastructure asset decisions. The study explores how these leaders prioritize key stakeholders, such as the public, in the decision-making process for infrastructure projects. It highlights the gap in applying stakeholder theory in the public sector, particularly in Australia, and investigates the roles of Mayors and CEOs in the context of infrastructure asset development and maintenance. The report aims to identify similarities and differences in the perceptions of these leaders regarding stakeholder attributes like urgency, legitimacy, and power, and how these perceptions affect the salience given to each stakeholder group. It also discusses the accounting implications of infrastructure asset decisions influenced by management's changing perceptions to meet stakeholder demands. The study uses literature review, hypothesis development, and survey methods for data collection and analysis to reach conclusions about stakeholder prioritization in the context of local government.

Running head: FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING THEORY
Financial Accounting Theory
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING THEORY
Table of Contents
Summarization of the Article.....................................................................................................2
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................2
2. Objectives and Motivation.................................................................................................3
References..................................................................................................................................5

2FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING THEORY
Summarization of the Article
1. Introduction
The main aim of the report is to inspect the difference between the perception of the
Mayors and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the local government authorities regarding
certain attributes such urgency, legitimacy and power of certain key stakeholders in respect of
their needs and claims for infrastructure assets (Siriwardhane and Taylor 2014). Different
types of stakeholders have their interests in the government’s projects for the purpose of
developing, maintaining and conserving the infrastructure related assets. For this reason,
certain needs, expectation and claims of the stakeholders can be seen in the projects, plans
and policies related to infrastructure. This report plays a crucial role in giving evidence on the
local government authority’s Mayor’s and CEO’s perception related to the above-discussed
attributes of the key stakeholders in the areas of infrastructure projects. More specifically,
this study provides special emphasis on the manner in which the Mayors and CEOs prioritize
these key stakeholders in making decisions related to infustructure assets (Wheelen et al.
2017).
The presence of a certain gap can be seen from analysing the literature related to
stakeholder theory regarding the local government. This study states that the application of
stakeholder theory is less in public sector as compared to the private sector and large
application of this theory can be seen in the healthcare industry. In the local government of
Australia, the presence of primary influence can be seen in the roles of the Mayors and the
CEOs in the decision-making process regarding the development as well as maintenance of
infrastructure assets like local roads, library, public buildings, gardens, parks, art gallery and
others. It needs to be mentioned that the adoption of different manners by the Mayors and
CEOs for prioritizing the needs, interest, claims and demands of the key stakeholders has

3FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING THEORY
certain major impact on the decision outcome related to the infrastructure assets in local
government authorities (Aapaoja and Haapasalo 2014). This study will develop the
framework of the Australian local government context, undertake the stakeholder theory
related literature review along with its application on the firms operating under the public
sector for the purpose of hypothesis development, survey method selection for data
collection, providing variable’s definition as well as measurement, analysis of data and
discussion for reaching to the conclusion (Siriwardhane and Taylor 2014).
2. Objectives and Motivation
The presence of two main objective scan be seen in the study. Extension of the limited
literature on applying the model of stakeholder identification through the identification of the
similarities as well as differences between the roles of the CEO and Mayors is the first
objective of the study. This objective undertakes comparing the perception of the CEO and
Mayors regarding certain attributes like power, legitimacy and urgency. Hypothesizing as
well as testing the effects of the perceived attributes of the stakeholders and the values of the
managers and other demographic factors of the CEOs and Mayors on the salience given level
to each types of stakeholder is the second objective of the study (Tashman and Raelin 2013).
As per this objective, the comparative level of salience rendered to different group of
stakeholders will have probable significance for the prioritization of their needs as well as
claims the decision-making process of the infrastructure assets. At the same time, the level of
union or departure in the salience given extent of each type of stakeholder group will impact
the correct operation of a local government authority regarding the processes of infrastructure
planning and management processes (Siriwardhane and Taylor 2014).
The study obtains double motivation from these objectives. They are extending the
previous literatures to test the public sector’s stakeholder theory and drawing practical
consequence for the decisions of infrastructure prioritization of local government (Eskerod

4FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING THEORY
and Huemann 2013). This study applies the stakeholder theory in the private sector where
more presence of the health service sector can be seen. At the same time, certain key concepts
in the stakeholder theory are regarded for ascertaining the collective perception of the
decision-making process of the management within an organization. When considering the
practical implications, the analysis of literature review states the presence of a dispute on the
fact that whether the Mayor and CEO have the same or different perception on the
stakeholder groups’ attributes (Bal et al. 2013). The study also shows that there are certain
accounting significances of the decisions related to infrastructure assets. The study considers
these accounting issues as crucial consequences of the decision-making process of the
indrustrure assets which is affected by the perception of management changing for the
completion of the demand of the stakeholders (Siriwardhane and Taylor 2014).

5FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING THEORY
References
Aapaoja, A. and Haapasalo, H., 2014. A framework for stakeholder identification and
classification in construction projects. Open Journal of Business and Management, 2(01),
p.43.
Bal, M., Bryde, D., Fearon, D. and Ochieng, E., 2013. Stakeholder engagement: Achieving
sustainability in the construction sector. Sustainability, 5(2), pp.695-710.
Eskerod, P. and Huemann, M., 2013. Sustainable development and project stakeholder
management: What standards say. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 6(1), pp.36-50.
Siriwardhane, P. and Taylor, D., 2014. Stakeholder prioritisation by Mayors and CEOs in
infrastructure asset decisions. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(3),
pp.355-381.
Tashman, P. and Raelin, J., 2013. Who and what really matters to the firm: Moving
stakeholder salience beyond managerial perceptions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(4),
pp.591-616.
Wheelen, T.L., Hunger, J.D., Hoffman, A.N. and Bamford, C.E., 2017. Strategic
management and business policy (p. 55). Boston: pearson.