Bakgrund: Redovisningsskandaler anses grunda sig i de kryphål som återfinns inom redovisningens regelverk. När dessa kryphål utnyttjas riskerar organisationens redovisnings legitimitet att ådra sig en legitimitetsskada eftersom den då strider mot allmänhetens förväntningar om hur en korrekt redovisning är upprättad. Tidigare forskning har presenterat strategier för att reparera legitimitet på en organisatorisk nivå. Forskningen tycks däremot vara tunn om hur ett legitimitetstillskrivande medel såsom redovisningen kan repareras när det ådragit sig en legitimitetsskada. Det förklarar varför det varit motiverat att genomföra en studie som undersöker detta. Syfte: Studien syftar till att skapa en modell som förklarar den process där redovisningens legitimitet repareras. Metod: Syftet har besvarats genom en deduktiv ansats där befintlig legitimitetsreparerande litteratur legat till grund för en tentativ modell. Utifrån teori har vi härlett tre mekanismer som vi prövat om de kan förklara hur redovisningens legitimitet repareras. Genom studiens kvalitativa ansats har vi, med hjälp av innehållsanalyser, utfört två fallstudier där fallen avsett två redovisningsskandaler. Med hjälp av empiri bestående av nyhetsartiklar och årsredovisningar, har vi provat om modellen ger en förklaring till hur redovisningens legitimitet repareras. Resultat och slutsats: Studiens resultat pekar mot att vår slutgiltiga modell besvarar syftet. Redovisningens legitimitet kan repareras genom framförallt organisationens egna vidtagna åtgärder, men även genom att såväl organisationen som media utpekar syndabockar som ställs ansvariga för redovisningens brister. Vår slutmodell förklarar även att media har en inverkande och pådrivande roll ifråga om redovisningens legitimitet och att regler och policys skapar möjligheter för organisationen att utnyttja dessa för att legitimera redovisningen. / Background: Accounting scandals are considered based on the loopholes found in the accounting rules. It is argued that an organization's legitimacy in the accounting, in such situations when these loopholes are exploited, can be threatened since it differs from the public's expectations of how a proper accounting is constituted. Previous research has presented strategies to repair organizational legitimacy. Research seems however to be sparse in the matter of how a tool to repair legitimacy, such as accounting, can be repaired when it incurs a loss of legitimacy. This study contributes to this specific area. Purpose: This study aims to create a model that explains the process by which accounting legitimacy is repaired. Method: Through a deductive approach, in which existing literature formed the basis for a tentative model, we derived three mechanisms that have been tested whether they can explain how the legitimacy of accounting can be repaired. Further, by using the techniques of content analysis, we did a dual case study where the cases concerned two Swedish accounting scandals. Using empirical material consisting of news articles and annual reports, we tested whether the model provides an explanation for how the legitimacy of accounting is repaired. Results and conclusions: This study's results suggest that our purpose can be answered. The results also indicates that accounting's legitimacy can be repaired primarily through the organization's own actions taken, but also by the organization as well as the media designate scapegoats who are deemed to be responsible for the accounting's shortcomings. Our final model also explains that media plays an influencing and actuating role in terms of the legitimacy of accounting, and that rules and policies create opportunities for the organization to legitimize its own accounting.

<p>Nowadays, there exist two reporting regimes, rules-based and principle-based (comply-or-explain). In the rules-based environment, researchers have studied the relationship between internal control quality and accounting quality. Prior studies have suggested that reports on internal control are an effective way for investors to evaluate the quality of the firm‟s internal control. By having a sound system of internal control, it creates reliance upon the firm‟s financial reporting. Therefore, the condition of internal control has direct connection to the investors‟ decision making.  In  U.S., where the corporate governance has been known to be typically rules-based, most researches have shown a positive relationship between internal control reporting and accounting quality. In the comply-or-explain reporting regime, there has only been one research as far as we know, that investigates the relationship between internal control reporting and accounting quality. The research took place in Netherlands; their study provided positive association between internal control  reporting quality and accounting quality, particularly earnings quality. The result is consistent with other research in rules-based regime.    The Swedish code has  been enacted for  five years and it is in the same regime as Netherlands. However, under current Swedish code, we are not aware of any empirical research  that  has taken place to address the effectiveness of the code. Therefore, we conducted the study with 152 firms listed on Swedish NASDAQ OMXS to test internal control reporting quality and accounting quality. We used proxies for internal control reporting quality: effectiveness statement of  internal control, internal control reporting score and internal control proportion. Simultaneously, we use discretionary accruals as a proxy of accounting quality. Our result showed a negative significant relationship between internal control reporting score and discretionary accruals but this relationship is quite weak and sensitive. It is broken with the presence of one more variable in regression, such as size variable. The result could not give any evidence for relationships between either effectiveness statements or extent of internal control reporting with discretionary accruals. Although, the relationship between internal control reporting score and discretionary accruals is not tight, it still encourage the  notion  that firms with good internal control report will improve their accounting quality. Our research contributes knowledge to wide-range of concerned parties. Moreover, it also suggests valuable ideas for further studies in the same area.</p>

Nowadays, there exist two reporting regimes, rules-based and principle-based (comply-or-explain). In the rules-based environment, researchers have studied the relationship between internal control quality and accounting quality. Prior studies have suggested that reports on internal control are an effective way for investors to evaluate the quality of the firm‟s internal control. By having a sound system of internal control, it creates reliance upon the firm‟s financial reporting. Therefore, the condition of internal control has direct connection to the investors‟ decision making.  In  U.S., where the corporate governance has been known to be typically rules-based, most researches have shown a positive relationship between internal control reporting and accounting quality. In the comply-or-explain reporting regime, there has only been one research as far as we know, that investigates the relationship between internal control reporting and accounting quality. The research took place in Netherlands; their study provided positive association between internal control  reporting quality and accounting quality, particularly earnings quality. The result is consistent with other research in rules-based regime.    The Swedish code has  been enacted for  five years and it is in the same regime as Netherlands. However, under current Swedish code, we are not aware of any empirical research  that  has taken place to address the effectiveness of the code. Therefore, we conducted the study with 152 firms listed on Swedish NASDAQ OMXS to test internal control reporting quality and accounting quality. We used proxies for internal control reporting quality: effectiveness statement of  internal control, internal control reporting score and internal control proportion. Simultaneously, we use discretionary accruals as a proxy of accounting quality. Our result showed a negative significant relationship between internal control reporting score and discretionary accruals but this relationship is quite weak and sensitive. It is broken with the presence of one more variable in regression, such as size variable. The result could not give any evidence for relationships between either effectiveness statements or extent of internal control reporting with discretionary accruals. Although, the relationship between internal control reporting score and discretionary accruals is not tight, it still encourage the  notion  that firms with good internal control report will improve their accounting quality. Our research contributes knowledge to wide-range of concerned parties. Moreover, it also suggests valuable ideas for further studies in the same area.