Search results

The paper provides a research framework for analyzing CSR issues and suggests knowledge gaps that can be addressed by managerial accounting researchers.

The paper draws on frameworks introduced by Epstein (2008), Aguinis and Glavas (2012), and Hahn, Figge, Pinkse, and Preuss (2010).

Despite the potential tension between managing corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and corporate financial performance, researchers have generally established a positive relationship between the two. However, the underlying mechanisms or processes linking CSR efforts to financial performance are not well understood. Managerial accounting researchers can help fill the knowledge gap on linkages between processes, performance measures, and incentives in achieving CSR goals. A particularly important area of potential research is how firms motivate creativity, both individually and collectively, to integrate CSR initiatives into firm processes.

The paper provides a framework for researchers starting out at the intersection of management accounting and CSR.

Organizations desire more accurate cost systems as competition increases, and consequently increase cost system complexity, as cost systems with greater complexity are potentially more accurate than simpler systems. However, even complex systems are prone to impactful inaccuracies, for example, due to design or calculation issues, that can adversely affect decision-making and firm performance. The authors investigate whether and the extent to which cost system complexity and competition decrease managers’ attribution of cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system. The authors find greater cost system complexity (by inspiring greater confidence in the cost system) and higher competition (by providing a plausible external cause) decrease managers’ attribution of cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system. With both greater cost system complexity and higher competition, managers observing signals of material cost inaccuracies are potentially the least likely to attribute cost-system-driven adverse firm effects to the cost system.

This study examines challenges to the retrospective financial evaluation of continuous improvement (CI) activities. Through a review of the literature and active engagement with CI implementations, we identify several issues that may lead to divergence between operational and financial assessments. Out of this conflict emerges a set of concepts that we find important − the delineation of soft versus hard capacity benefits, the distinction between capacity used and capacity paid for, and the data gaps that relate to these benefits – and recognize operational improvement and financial improvement as distinct, yet interrelated, theoretical constructs. This study helps explain a series of persistent gaps in the management accounting literature: Conflict between operations and accounting managers, the divergent perspectives of Johnson and Kaplan after their publication of Relevance Lost (Johnson & Kaplan, 1987), and the need for both operational control (including detailed capacity control) and accounting control in CI firms. Instead of one control system being at odds with the other, or co-existing despite each other, each of these systems support a different component of the financial improvement process. Operational control systems in CI firms emphasize non-financial information and social and behavioral controls that empower decision-making by employees, while accounting control systems seek to motivate and translate operational gains into financial gains. Soft and hard benefits linked to capacity play an integral role in understanding the difference in focus of each control system, while data limitations help to explain why these systems remain loosely coupled in practice (or absent, as seems to be the case with detailed Capacity Management Systems).