The Nordic’s Business and Accounting Environment Term Paper

Introduction

This paper provides a complete profile of the Nordic’s business and accounting environment with the focus on Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. Nordic countries have common economic interests. These are small countries, which greatly benefit from foreign trade.

Rapid economic developments in Nordic countries have made them among the most competitive economies of the world. Such high rates of economic developments imply that Nordic countries have become significant for both individuals and public policymakers, within and outside their territories.

The rise of Nordic countries has surprised many economists due to their large sizes of governments and high taxes.

Figure 1: World Bank Report – Ease of Doing Business, 2012

Norway

Norway is a well-developed and industrialized nation with a free export-based economy. The country is among the richest country in the world. It has high standards of living, life expectancy, housing, and health.

The Heritage Foundation ranked Norway as the 31^st in terms of economic freedom in the 2013 Index with a score of 70.5 (Heritage Foundation, 2013). This represented an increment of 1.7 points from the previous score.

The Heritage Foundation has attributed this increment to significant indicators of economic freedom like public spending, freedom of investment, and freedom from corrupt activities.

The past gains in economic freedom have placed Norway among countries with high-levels of economic freedom. The government of Norway has focused on reducing public spending.

The country has been able to keep its public debt under control amidst a budget deficit and fiscal stimulus. However, the country controls most of the industries.

The country has developed its competitiveness through a strong culture of transparency and openness. Norway has trade-oriented and investment policies. In addition, its legal system is among the best in the world, and it offers effectual protection of intellectual property rights.

The people have upheld the rule of the law with low tolerance to corrupt practices. The Heritage Foundation provides quick data on Norway as follow (Heritage Foundation, 2013):

• Population: 5.0 million
• GDP (PPP):
  • $265.9 billion
  • 1.7% growth
  • 0.7% 5-year compound annual growth
  • $53,471 per capita
• Unemployment:
  • 3.0%
• Inflation (CPI):
  • 1.3%
• FDI Inflow:
  • $3.6 billion

Finland

The Heritage Foundation has ranked Finland in 74^th position in terms of economic freedom. This has placed the country in the 16^th position in the world ranking of 2013 Index. The country has improved by 1.7 points above the previous year’s rating.

The gain has been due to developments in labor freedom, effective management of public finance, and investment freedom.

The Finnish economy has been among the top economies in the freedom Index category. It operates on protected rights to property, promotion of entrepreneurship, economic flexibility, and productivity.

The country legal framework does not tolerate corruption, and it strives to maintain the rule of the law. The judiciary is not under political influences, and it ensures “transparency and full enforcement of business contracts” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

The country has open policy to foreign trade and investment. This has benefited Finland’s dynamic and resilient economy. In addition, it also has an effective regulatory environment and limited obstacles to trade. This has enhanced innovation and competition in the country.

The government of Finland spends more than half of the GDP on public expenditures as public debt continues to rise. As a result, Finland has started to experience fiscal policy challenges.

The 2013 budget focuses on “transforming and restoring fiscal spending through balance and prudence in budgeting” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

Finland’s 2013 statistics (Heritage Foundation, 2013):

• Population:
  • 5.4 million
• GDP (PPP):
  • $195.7 billion
  • 2.9% growth
  • 0.7% 5-year compound annual growth
  • $36,236 per capita
• Unemployment:
  • 7.9%
• Inflation (CPI):
  • 3.3%
• FDI Inflow:
  • $53.8 million

Sweden

Sweden has economic freedom score of 72.9. This has made the country the 18^th in terms of the 2013 Index on economic freedom by the Heritage Foundation. The country recorded a slight improvement by 1.2 points from the previous rating.

This has taken place due to restructuring in “the monetary policy, government spending, and freedom from corrupt practices” (Heritage Foundation, 2013). In Europe, Sweden takes the ninth position among 43 countries, whereas its overall score is above the global average.

Sweden joined the world’s free economies for the first in the economic freedom index.

The country spends much on social welfare, but Sweden’s economic policies have focused on “improving spending, efficiency, and downsizing the size of the government in the past few decades” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

Sweden has undertaken a decisive tax reform. This created low tax rates for corporate bodies. This move has promoted rapid activities among private players.

The country has a resilient economy, which had developed due to economic freedom. Sweden’s judiciary system is “independent, protects investors, free from corruption, and abides by the rule of the law” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

It also relies on high standards of regulatory transparency and efficiency with the aim of encouraging entrepreneurial activities. Sweden has a well-established monetary policy that ensures that inflation remains low.

The Heritage Foundation provides quick data for Sweden as follow (Heritage Foundation, 2013):

• Population:
  • 9.5 million
• GDP (PPP):
  • $381.7 billion
  • 4.0% growth
  • 1.5% 5-year compound annual growth
  • $40,394 per capita
• Unemployment:
  • 7.8%
• Inflation (CPI):
  • 1.4%
• FDI Inflow:
  • $12.1 billion

Denmark

According to the Heritage Foundation, Denmark is the highest ranked among Nordic countries. It is the ninth country based on the global economic freedom of Index of 2013. The country has an overall score of 76.1, which has generally remained the same as compared to the previous year’s score.

However, it recorded a slight improvement in managing public expenditure and corruption. It recorded declines in labor management and investment freedom. Denmark is in the “second position after Switzerland among 43 countries of the Europe region” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

Denmark has thrived on favorable “regulatory efficiency, competitiveness, open-market policies to sustain flexibility, and large flows of trade and investment” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

Transparency, an effectual regulatory and legal system has ensured that Denmark creates a robust economy from the private sector.

The country has sensible banking laws that favor lending in a prudent a manner. Denmark has also managed to control inflation. Entrepreneurs also benefit from strong property rights and strong anti-corruption laws.

The European debt crisis nearly had negative effects on Denmark, especially in the financial sector and long-term financial sustainability of the situation.

As a result, the banking sector has experienced pressure as the county continues to spend more than half of the GDP on public expenditure.

Denmark has high tax rates for funding the large government. In addition, the tax regime remains complex to investors.

However, high standards of business efficiency and favorable regulatory environment have balanced some of the challenges that arise from massive social spending. The Heritage Foundation summaries Denmark quick statistics as follow:

• Population:
• • 5.6 million
• Unemployment:
  • 8.0%
• GDP (PPP):
  • $206.6 billion
  • $37,152 per capita
  • 1.1% growth
  • -0.6% 5-year compound annually
• Inflation (CPI):
  • 2.8%
• FDI Inflow:
  • $14.8 billion

The general business environment of Nordic countries

The Nordic Model

As noted above, the Nordic countries have maintained high-ranking among competitive economies of the world. These countries also spend more than half of their GDP of public expenditures.

In addition, they also have some of the “highest taxation in the world and low-levels of inequalities” (Schubert and Martens, 2005).

The European Policy Center looked at the Nordic Model and concluded as follows:

“When one looks at the situation in more detail, the Nordic model naturally divides into many sub-models. Although it has some clear overall characteristics, there are, of course, also differences. Norway is an oil economy.

Sweden is still a manufacturing society to a significant extent. Finland is dominated by one company, Nokia, and it is still suffering from losing its biggest trading partner – the Soviet Union.

Denmark has a small and flexible economy, which relies on pockets of high-tech and generally small and medium-sized businesses” (Schubert and Martens, 2005, p. 27).

Nordic countries have homogenous and small populations. They prefer equality and collective undertakings, which mainly originated from social democratic practices of political parties.

Consequently, most accounting practices and macroeconomic principles favor national interests based on cultural and political characteristics (Choi and Meek, 2011). These are the major features, which influence the Nordic economic model.

Norway

The country has a transparent and efficient entrepreneurial framework (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2010). However, Norway’s labor market is not flexible. It has a stable monetary system.

The country’s tax rate is “47.8 percent while the corporate sector enjoys a flat rate of 28 percent of tax” (Heritage Foundation, 2013). There are also additional taxes on “net wealth, value-added tax (VAT) and taxes on the environment” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

The country’s general “tax burden is 42.8 percent” (Heritage Foundation, 2013) of the GDP. Norway’s government spends an average of 44.6 percent of the total domestic revenue.

The country’s public debt is slightly below 50 percent of the GDP. It mainly derives its resources from the oil wealth, which has protected the fiscal system in the country.

Norway has one of the lowest trade-weighted average tariffs of 0.4 percent. There are “agricultural subsidies and non-tariff barriers” (Heritage Foundation, 2013), which do not pose much challenge to the country.

The country has an efficient investment code with the high-level of administration. However, some investors from the European regions may get preferential treatment in certain sectors of the economy.

Norway’s financial sector relies on market forces, but the country controls the largest financial institution.

Finland

Finland has a similar trade policy like other member states of the European Union (EU). Therefore, its average weighted tariff is 1.6 percent.

The country has “open, transparent, and efficient investment regulations” (Heritage Foundation, 2013) in order to attract international investors and trade. These factors have created a favorable environment for entrepreneurship in Finland.

The Finnish banking sector has thrived despite the global financial crisis of 2008. The country has maintained its monetary stability, but food prices have increased the rate of inflation.

Finland’s top income tax is 30.5 percent. The corporate top tax is 24.5 percent. It also imposes taxes on the capital income and VAT. The total tax burden of Finland is 42.1 percent of the domestic income.

However, the country public expenditure is more than half of its GDP (54.1 percent). The deficit in the budget has declined gradually. The country aims to control its public debt through new fiscal reforms that it will implement in the coming years.

Sweden

Sweden has a highly effective and efficient regulatory system. The country reduced the minimum capital for establishing a limited liability business by half. Thus, it has become easier to start a business in Sweden.

Laws on bankruptcy are clear. However, labor requirements are rigid in Sweden, just like in the rest of other European countries. Still, it shares trade policy with other European nations, and the EU “weighted average tariff of 1.6 percent applies in Sweden” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

Other non-tariff barriers have increased “the cost of doing business in Sweden” (Heritage Foundation, 2013). The country benefits from transparent, stable monetary policy, and effective regulatory climate.

Fiscal conditions have created a stable banking industry with sensible and prudent lending practices.

Sweden has a top income tax rate of 57 percent, but corporate bodies have enjoyed a rate of 26.3 percent. Apart from these taxes, Sweden also has VAT and capital income taxes.

Its tax burden is 45.8 percent of the domestic revenue. Sweden spends 51.3 percent of its GDP on public expenditures.

Denmark

An efficient regulatory system has created favorable conditions for businesses in Denmark. In 2012, the government decided to “reduce the amount of public spending by cutting on benefits and welfare costs” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

The trade system in Denmark borrows from EU practices. It has a common weighted average tariff of 1.6 percent. Denmark has one of the most open economies in the globe with aim of attracting foreign investors and traders.

It has transparent and efficient systems to support economic growth. However, the banking sector has suffered “poor performances due to instability because of diversified practices” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

The country has an income tax rate of 56 percent. The corporate tax rate is 25 percent. There are additional taxes like “VAT and taxes on fatty foods” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

The country’s overall tax burden is almost “50 percent of the domestic revenues while the government public expenditure is above 55 percent of the GDP” (Heritage Foundation, 2013).

The government introduced fiscal stimulus to stimulate the economy, but the public debt is slightly below 50 percent of the GDP.

Denmark has a strong regulatory climate, especially on protection of property rights, which relies on an independent and fair justice system. Bankruptcy and commercial laws are consistent.

It also has effective policies on management of corrupt activities because it requires all public officials to main high standards of integrity.

Overall, Nordic countries have developed their macroeconomic conditions by relying on excellent management principles. All Nordic countries have budget surpluses. There are extremely low-levels of bribery and other corrupt practices.

The legal environment is favorable because they value businesses contracts and laws. The effective justice system has favored such an environment. The private sector has thrived on technology and innovation as Finland demonstrates (Andersen et al., 2007).

The legal environment, especially the forms of business in each country and the nature of ownership

Nordic countries have transparent and effective justice systems. They protect property rights of individuals’ entrepreneurs. Laws on bankruptcy and commercial issues remain clear in the region.

In general, most legal systems in the Nordic countries focus on export and import controls, taxes, patent and trademarks, corruption, transfer pricing, and antitrust.

In addition, there are laws on embargoed countries and distribution of equity. There are laws on non-tariff obstacles to trade. All Nordic states have non-tariff barriers to trade.

The major categories of business ownership in Nordic countries are mainly listed entities and non-listed entities.

Governments also have substantial controls in some industries, especially in major financial institutions. These countries have strived to develop favorable environments for entrepreneurship.

Finland

Finland has the best and strongest entrepreneurship rating among the Nordic countries. The country relies on its strong entrepreneurial capabilities and a strong framework. However, the country lacks entrepreneurs with high skills in technical areas.

In addition, it has rigid regulations with regard to the labor market, which has created difficulties in hiring or dismissing workers.

Denmark

Among Nordic countries, Denmark has performed fairly well in entrepreneurship. The country has established clear policies based on specific targets for entrepreneurship development. It has also created a strong legal system and market environments for emerging entrepreneurs.

However, the country experiences a major drawback in attracting highly skilled entrepreneurs from other countries.

Norway

Norway has retained the best position among Nordic countries with regard to laws on bankruptcy and gaining access to finance. The country has low import and export tax burdens.

However, the country has the weakest entrepreneurship framework among Nordic countries. These conditions are observable in its stiff labor laws and entrepreneurial practices.

Sweden

The country enjoys best conditions for generation and transfer of new knowledge. This has positive effects on entrepreneurship. The country has focused on promoting new ventures through reforms in the financial sector. It does well on entrepreneurship relative to other Nordic countries.

The capital markets in the area

The Self-regulatory Corporate Governance Bodies of the five Nordic countries have noted that Nordic countries have developed progressively integrated capital markets in the last few years (Self-regulatory Corporate Governance Bodies, 2009).

Several cross-border merger and acquisitions have occurred. This has resulted in a large number of pan-Nordic firms in which many of them have been listed in more than a single Nordic stock exchange.

Nordic exchange markets have also experienced fast consolidation in the past. Apart from the Oslo Stock Exchange, the rest of the Nordic exchange markets are fully part of the Nasdaq OMX.

It is important to note that Nordic countries are formulating workable rules that can ensure effective listing through harmonized requirements. The aim of this harmonization is to develop competitiveness of the combined Nordic capital market.

Finland stock market has recorded a positive performance during 2013. It gained 6.56 percent or 394 points in April 2013. Between 1995 and 2013, this stock market has recorded average index of 6740 points. In the year 2000, it recorded the highest performance at 18304 Index points.

However, it also recorded a lowest performance in 1995 with 1554 Index points. Finland stock market has 25 Index that focuses on the most traded 25 firms in the list. It relies on a free float adjusted and capped price index at ten percent. Its base value is 500 since 1998.

Sweden stock market recorded positive gains in the month of April 2013. This represented a gain of 4.46 percent or 53 points. Between 1986 and 2013, the country’s stock market has recorded an average performance of 634 Index points.

It had the high score in 1539 Index points in 2000 and lowest Index points of 99 in 1987. This stock market follows performances of 30 active stocks listed in the market. The Sweden stock market is a free float market with capitalization-weighted index. In 1986, it recorded the best value of 125.

Denmark stock market has performed well this year. It gained 3.62 percent or 16 points in the last 30 days. The stock market of Denmark has averaged 270 Index points between 1995 and 2013.

In 2007, it recorded the best performance of 505 Index points with low of 100 Index points in 1995. This stock market tracks performances of all listed stocks in Denmark. It operates on a capitalization-weighted index with the base value of DKK100 since 1995.

Oslo stocks performed well in 2013. They have gained 24 points or 5.66 percent in the last 30 between May and April 2013. It has averaged between 349 Index points between 1996 and 2013.

The stock recorded the highest performance of 1382 Index points in 2006 with the lowest at 77 in 1996. This stock market focuses on 25 stocks, which are most active among the listed stocks in Norway. It is a free float, full return, and capitalization-weighted index.

Stocks in the Nordic countries have been targets for takeovers. However, the unity of the major stock markets to form a single unit shows that Nordic countries are ready to a form a single trading block.

They have uniform legal frameworks based on cultural and historic developments (Ikäheimo, Puttonen and Ratilainen, 2010). In addition, they also share most of the corporate governance aspects.

This may explain why mergers and acquisitions have become rampant among Nordic countries.

Who is responsible for the accounting regulation, and what are the major features of the accounting regulation?

Nordic countries have accounting regulating bodies that focus on taxes, government regulations, and creditors. They observe both regional and individual country accounting standards. Disclosure also focuses on capital markets.

The approach to disclosure is a two-tier approach i.e., there are individual accounts based on traditional practices and consolidated accounts mainly for the international capital market requirements.

Nordic countries have effective laws on accounting frameworks. There is Accounting Standards Board and Accounting Council, which offers framework within the requirements of the company law.

In addition, all listed companies must comply with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) since 2005 (Radebaugh, Lee and Gray, Silver, 1993).

All EU member states like Sweden must also comply with the EU requirements, which fall under IFRSs. Most practices in Nordic countries are under the influence of the law, taxation, profession, and activities in the stock exchange.

Sweden has the Swedish Accounting Standards Board (BFN) with the aim of enhancing “growth through generally accepted accounting principles” (KPMG, 2012). The BFN has the responsibility of providing “general advice and information on accounting issues and practices” (KPMG, 2012).

The Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority ensures compliance with financial requirements among financial institutions. Sweden has mandatory accounting Acts. Accounting data now go to investors rather than government and creditors as was in the past practice (KPMG, 2012).

The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) is responsible for the provision of accounting information and key indicators for the entire investment sector. Firms must comply with Danish GAAP.

The disclosure must reflect both “realized and unrealized gains and losses in the profit and loss account” (KPMG, 2012).

The Banking, Insurance, and Securities Commission of Norway (the supervisory authority) ensures that all accounting records must follow accounting principles, the law, and industry practices. In addition, it also insists that al accounting records must be updated and maintained within the country.

The Finnish Accounting Act requires “anyone who carries on a business or practices a profession to keep accounting records on these activities” (KPMG, 2012). The Financial Supervision Authority (FSA) insists on GAAP.

However, the legislation has not matched changes in the accounting practices. Good practices require firms to comply with regulations and general accounting principles.

Following good accounting practice means compliance with not only legislation, but also with related regulations and common accounting principles.

Therefore, FSA wants disclosures to reflect “going concern, consistency of presentation, substance over form, prudence, continuity of balance sheet accounts, accrual basis of accounting, and the principle of separate valuation i.e., item-by-item basis” (KPMG, 2012).

The major features of the accounting measurements

Nordic countries share major accounting measures. There are minor influences from Anglo practices, especially in ownership, mergers, and international standards and GAAP.

In addition, national economies also shape accounting measures. Since 2005, Nordic countries have followed the EU practices with regard to implementation of the IFRSs.

Financial statements: the countries insist on “updated and maintained income, cash flow statements, and balance sheets” (KPMG, 2012). Annual reports are also mandatory from parent firms.

Measurement: costs of assets from historical pricing, but there are needs to provide additional information on current prices. Financial statements must reflect full disclosure.

Consolidation: consolidation of financial information must comply with the EU directives. Foreign currency translation for financial reporting must be standard i.e., the US dollar. Most Nordic countries insist on keeping and maintaining financial information within the country.

The tax laws, issues, and opportunities in the area (connection of tax to accounting)

Finland treats investment funds as separate taxable funds. However, the country does not tax income or net wealth. Foreign investment funds that earn incomes are separate and taxable entities. Tax exemptions may apply to domestic entities but not foreign ones. Some foreign entities may enjoy exemption from double taxation based on the agreement. Finland does not have any special relief on taxes to attract investors.

Norway’s system of taxation has resulted in generation of huge revenues. However, it has not affected economic performance in the country. The country taxes capital and labor income differently.

Capital funds have low rates while labor incomes have tiered rates, but tax rates on saving differ significantly. Any exemption from taxes is on a case-by-case basis.

Denmark also has a two-tier tax approach in which there are local and state taxes. Taxes in incomes are flat while corporate taxes are progressive. It accounts for all incomes, including incomes from self-employed people.

The country enforces both reporting on income and corporate taxes. Denmark does not tax investment entities, but there is 15 percent for withholding on dividends or shares.

Sweden has high income tax rates while the corporate tax rate is low on its two-tier approach. Most taxation practices are similar in Nordic countries. Taxes have remained high in order to facilitate the national agenda of governments.

Nordic countries must embrace international best practices in accounting and financial reporting. International practices and IFRSs from the EU have contributed to best practices in financial disclosure and reporting in Nordic countries.

Factors like mergers, takeovers, international capital markets, financial innovations, and global competitions present challenges to traditional accounting standards in Nordic countries.

The internal control and auditing environment in the area

The corporate governance among Nordic countries almost meets the highest international standards of the developed economies.

In addition, Nordic countries differ slightly with Anglo-Saxon and other European models due to their laws, ownership structures in the stock markets, and cultures.

The Nordic countries have highly developed economies and stock markets that have attracted foreign investors.

Over the past few years, most listed companies have attracted foreign investors. In fact, most mergers and takeovers have taken place in Nordic countries than any other European countries (Ikäheimo et al., 2010).

Nasdaq OMX owns stock markets in Nordic countries apart from the Oslo Stock Exchange. Nordic countries derive their corporate governance practices from their “respective laws, company Acts, accounting Acts, and regulations from governing and security authorities” (Self-regulatory Corporate Governance Bodies, 2009).

Since 2005, Nordic countries have adopted EU practices with regard to IFRSs requirements. The countries have a strong heritage in terms of cultures and laws.

Although every Nordic country has different law and practices today, their practices still have great resemblance in terms of corporate governance. Nordic countries encourage self-regulation in corporate governance.

Each country developed its regulatory framework based on its internal regulations. The codes may differ, but they are developed from general international standards and common Nordic practices.

• General meetings are sources of power to shareholders during decision-making.
• Strong recognition and protection of minority shareholders and equal treatment
• There is a non-executive board for management of a firm’s affairs, strategies, financial structures, internal control, risk management, and oversight functions
• The CEO performs day-to-day management
• Board committee is responsible for the overall efficient work of the board
• Shareholders appoint auditors who are accountable to them
• There are few controlling shareholders who have active duties in the organization due to dispersed ownership structure of most firms
• Corporate governance emphasizes high standards of transparency in dealing with shareholders, capital markets, and other stakeholders

Credentials for accountants in Nordic countries

Is there an accounting professional association? Who active is it? What are its main activities?

Most employers in Nordic countries insist on formal financial accounting training and qualification. In addition, the accountant must possess strong knowledge in statutory accounting, taxation, and legal conditions of any Nordic country.

University qualification in accounting or finance is the best option for employers. Accountants must also have working knowledge on IFRSs and countries’ GAAP.

Therefore, the general credential is formal training preferably university degree and this also shows that Nordic countries have similar accounting practices.

The Nordic Accountant Federation (NAF) is an association that includes accounting firms in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. The role of NAF is to “provide information on business conditions in the Nordic countries and make it easier finding a reliable business consultant” (NAF, 2013).

NAF recognizes that accounting practices and profession in Nordic countries are similar. However, Nordic countries treat auditing as a different profession from accounting.

Apart NAF, individual countries have some forms of professional organizations. In addition, there is also informal cooperation among universities and business schools in Nordic countries through Nordic Accounting Research Network with aim of providing highly qualified accountants.

There is also Nordic Accounting for businesses in Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

The extent to which the area (or individual countries) have “harmonized” with the IASB and have adopted the IFRS

Nordic countries have fairly adopted IFRSs since 2005 under the EU requirements. Previously they relied on GAAP of every country. Denmark, Finland, and Norway had incorporated IFRS in their reporting. However, stakeholders criticized Sweden for slow adoption.

Sweden noted that some of the requirements were not compatible with its internal GAAP, such as amortization (Rundfelt, n.d). Critics noted the influence of Nasdaq OMX in the region as the main obstacle to IFRS adoption.

They noted that Nasdaq had low interests in monitoring financial reporting in the region. In some Nordic countries, domestic regulating bodies preferred to act within their self-regulatory environment (Rundfelt, n.d).

In addition, small firms also had challenges with the implementation of the IFRSs due to its complexity and large volume.

Generally, the adoption of IFRS has resulted in accuracy in financial reporting, but there is a need to develop a tool for harmonization and methods of guiding small firms, which found the reporting standards to be complex (Procházka, 2011).

References

Andersen, T et al. (2007). The Nordic Model: Embracing globalization and sharing risks. Helsinki: Taloustieto Oy.

Choi, F. & Meek, G. (2011). nternational Accounting (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Heritage Foundation. (2013). 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. Web.

Ikäheimo, S., Puttonen, V., and Ratilainen, T. (2010). External Corporate Governance and Performance – Evidence from the Nordic Countries. Web.

KPMG. (2012). International funds and fund management survey. Web.

NAF. (2013). Nordic Accountant Federation. Web.

Nordic Council of Ministers. (2010). Nordic Entrepreneurship Monitor 2010. Copenhagen: Skive.

Procházka, D. (2011). The IFRS Adoption Index: A Tool for the Measurement of Accounting Harmonisation. Advances in Finance and Accounting, 372-375.

Radebaugh, L. & Gray, S. (1993). International Accounting and Multinational Enterprises. New York: Wiley.

Rundfelt, R. (n.d). Enforcement of IFRS in Europe: Why is Sweden criticized? Web.

Schubert, C., and Martens, H. (2005). The Nordic Model: A Recipe for European Success? Brussels, Belgium: European Policy Centre.

Self-regulatory Corporate Governance Bodies. (2009). Corporate Governance in the Nordic Countries. Web.