Arya Prabu Rizal, Elvia R. Shauki



PSAK No. 71 convergence of IFRS 9 which will become effective on January 1, 2020, where early implementation is permitted. The complexity of this standard has caused several Banks not to carry out the impact assessment stage according to the OJK roadmap. However, there were Banks that had implemented before PSAK No. 71 effective (early adopters). This study applies a case study as its research strategy were content, thematic, and constant compara­tive analyses were used in analysing data collected from questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. This study found that several early adopters are Banks that are owned by the government, foreign, and joint venture banks. Besides, the author found that the motive in making the decisions to adopt/ not to adopt PSAK No. 71 is dominated by normative isomor­phism as the pressures or demands being professional and considered right. This study also found that there are differences (heteregoneity) in the behavior of the actors and institutions in each bank that were influenced by multiple logics (i.e., rules as regulatory logics, and profit being the banking logics). This is done by the actors to maintain both logics by com­bining the two and looking at the external and internal factors of the institution.

Keywords: PSAK No. 71, Early Adopters, Institutional Theory, Institutional Logics, Coer­cive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism.


PSAK No. 71 merupakan konvergensi dari IFRS 9 yang akan berlaku efektif pada tanggal 1 Januari 2020 di mana implementasi dini diperkenankan. Kompleksitas standar ini me­nyebabkan sebagian besar belum melakukan tahap penilaian dampak sesuai roadmap OJK. Namun dalam kenyataan nya terdapat Bank yang telah mengimplementasikan secara dini PSAK No. 71 (early adopters). Studi ini menggunakan studi kasus sebagai strategi penelitian di mana analisis konten, tematik dan analisa perbandingan konstan diaplikasikan guna menganalisa instrumen penelitian berupa kuesioner dan wawancara semi terstruktur. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa early adopters adalah Bank dengan jenis kepemilikan pemerintah, asing dan campuran. Selain itu, penulis menemukan bahwa motif untuk mengambil keputusan baik untuk melakukan atau tidak melakukan implementasi PSAK No. 71 secara dini didominasi oleh kondisi isomorphism yang muncul (normative isomorphism) karena adanya tekanan atau tuntutan dari profesional yang dinilai benar. Penelitian ini juga menemukan bahwa terdapat perbedaan (heteregoneity) perilaku para aktor dan institusi pada masing-masing bank umum yang dipengaruhi oleh multiple logics yaitu ketentuan (regulato­ry logics), dan keuntungan (banking logics). Hal tersebut dilakukan para aktor untuk menja­ga keseimbangan kedua logika tersebut dengan menggabungkan keduanya serta melihat faktor eksternal dan internal institusi.

Kata kunci: PSAK No. 71, Pelaksana Implementasi Dini, Teori Institusional, Logika Institusional, Coercive, Mimetic, dan Normative Isomorphism


PSAK No. 71, Early Adopters, Institutional Theory, Institutional Logics, Coer­cive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism; PSAK No. 71, Pelaksana Implementasi Dini, Teori Institusional, Logika Institusional, Coercive, Mimetic, dan Normative Isomorphism

Full Text:



Apriyani. 2018. Penerapan PSAK 71, Berdampak pada Penurunan Modal Bank | Infobanknews. Diunduh pada 15 Mei 2018, dari

Ayres, F. L. 1986. Characteristics of firms electing early adoption of SFAS 52. Journal of Accounting and Eco-nomics, 8 (2), 143-158.

Ball, R. 2006. International Financial Reporting Standards ( IFRS ): pros and cons for investors.

Battilana, J., and S. Dorado. 2010. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case Of Commercial Micro-finance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (6), 1419-1440.

Beatty, A. 1995. The Effect of Fair Value Accounting Portfolio Management : How Fair Is It ? Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review.

Bouvier, S. 2017. Accounting standards body rejects complaint over due diligence | News | IPE. Diunduh pada 13 Agustus 2018, dari

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2005. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dimaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Iso¬morphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational. In Source: American So¬ciological Review, 48.

Dunn, M. B., and C. Jones. 2010. Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism : The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967-2005.

Friedland, R., and R. R. Alford. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. WW Powell, PJ DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.

G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting. 2009. Leaders Statement 2 April 2009: London Summit. Available at:

Greenwood, R., and R. O. Y. Suddaby. 2006. Institutional Entrepreneurship In Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms. 49 (1), 27–48.

Hambrick, D. C., S. Finkelstein, T. S. Cho, and E. M. Jackson. 2004. Isomorphism in Reverse: Institutional Theory As an Explanation for Recent Increases in Intraindustry Hete-rogeneity and Managerial Discretion. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 307–350.

Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia. 2016a. Pernyataan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan (PSAK) 71 Instrumen Keuangan (Eksposure Draft). Jakarta.

Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia. 2016b. Public Hearing ED PSAK 71 : Instrumen Keuangan. Jakarta.

Johnson, R. B., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Kolb, S. M. 2012. Grounded Theory And The Constant Comparative Method: Valid Research Strategies For Educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3, 83-86.

Lawrence, T. et al. 2011. Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 52-58.

Lammers, J., and J. Barbour. 2006. An Institutional Theory of Organizational Communication. Communication Theory, 16, 356 - 377.

Rahardjo, M. 2017. Studi Kasus dalam penelitian Kualitatif: Konsep dan Prosedurnya. Malang: Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim.

Reay, T., and C. R. Hinings. 2009. Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629-652.

Renders, A., and A. Gaeremynck. 2007. The Impact of Legal and Voluntary Investor Protection on the Early Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). De Economist Springer, 155 (1), 49-72.

Scott, W. R. 2008. Lords of the Dance : Pro¬fessionals as Institutional Agents. Sage Publications, 29(2), 21.

Shauki, E. R. 2018. Qualitative and Mixed-Method Research Analysis Using Nvivo 11”, Handout, Case Writing and Meth¬odology, ECAM 809303. Jakarta: Univer¬sity of Indonesia.

Stent, W. 2011. A Study of Early and Late Adopters of International Financial Re¬porting Standards in New Zealand.

Thamrin, A. 2012. Bank dan Lembaga Keu¬angan. Depok: PT. Rajagrafindo Persada.

Thornton, P. H. 2002. The Rise of the Corpo¬ration in a Craft Industry : Conflict and Conformity in Institutional Logics. 45(1).

Thornton, P. H., and W. Ocasio. 1999. Institu¬tional Logics and the Historical Contin¬gency of Power in Organizations: Execu¬tive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958– 1990. Ameri¬can Journal of Sociology, 105 (3).

Trombley, M. A. 1989. Accounting method choice in the software industry: Characteristics of firms electing early adoption of SFAS No. 86. Accounting Review, 529-538.

Wang, I. 2011. Early Adoption of Accounting Standards in the Banking Industry. The University of Illinois at Urbana.

Witjaksono, A. 2017. Dampak ED PSAK 71 Intrumen Keuangan Terhadap Pedoman Akuntansi Perbankan Terkait Kredit. Jurnal Online Insan Akuntan, 2 (1), 35–48.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research Design and Methods Fourth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Zilber, T. B. 2015. Institutional Logics and Institutional Work: Should They Be Agreed?. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39.


Creative Commons License
Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View My Stats