Search results

Management Accounting (MA) practice is one strand in the complex weave that makes up the social fabric. Social patterns of interaction and societal presuppositions that impel people to act in certain ways are all factors that potentially impinge on the role and nature of MA. Some researchers recognise that normative pressures, as they are associated with social obligations and appropriate social conduct in human behaviours, are significant as far as MA practices are concerned. Thus, MA practices should be understood along with the effects of organisational, vis‐à‐vis management’s, strategic orientation (as a part of normative pressures) in organisations. This empirical study investigates the effect of organisational strategic orientation on performance, especially Non‐financial Performance (NFP) measurement in different types and kinds of financial institutions in Finland, Sweden and Japan. The study reveals that organisational strategic orientation highly influences NFP measurement in financial institutions, though the effects of this factor are different in different financial institutions. After providing the empirical result, some research directions are given for further research.

Research on how performance measurement systems affect employees’ perceptions of workplace fairness is important. As organizations often rely on their performance measurement systems to communicate information to their employees, it is useful to ascertain if and how the developments of performance measurement systems that are far more comprehensive than traditional financial systems affect employees’ perceptions of informational fairness through the information communicated to employees. Informational fairness refers to employees’ perceptions of workplace fairness that is based on the amount and the truthfulness of information that organizations provide to their employees. Based on a sample of managers from manufacturing organizations, the Partial Least Square results indicate that comprehensive performance measurement systems (comprehensive PMS) have a significant direct effect on job-relevant information. They also indicate that comprehensive PMS have an indirect effect on informational fairness via job-relevant information. In contrast, systems that are based on financial measures have no significant effects on job-relevant information and informational fairness. These results demonstrate how comprehensive PMS (through the communication of a greater amount of job-relevant information) can be used to engender employees’ perceptions of high workplace fairness.

The purpose of this chapter is to trace the evolution of the concept of measurement in financial reporting and to address the question of whether measurement in financial reporting is a process of “measurement” or whether it constitutes something else, which should not be called measurement, but rather characterized a practice which assigns numbers to elements in financial statements as opposed to the process of measuring. The chapter begins with an examination of the concepts of measurement put forth in recent years by the United States Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board, followed by a summary of the general theory of measurement in the natural sciences, and finally a review of the arguments raised by accounting theorists such as Edwards and Bell (1961), Chambers (1966), and Sterling (1970) with respect to the measurement of business income. We agree with Sterling’s argument that business income should be “measured” by the difference between net equity (i.e., assets − liabilities) at two points in time, adjusted for investments and disinvestments by owners, and also the argument that the difference in equity should be determined by the change in exit prices of net assets at the beginning and the end of the accounting period. However, we are less convinced by his argument that the determination of exit prices constitutes a “measurement” process. This leads to the principle argument of this chapter, which is that “measurement” in financial accounting may not constitute a measurement process at all.

This study provides a systematic review on performance measurement of supply chains from a financial perspective.

This study systematically reviews the financial performance measures of supply chains. More specifically, this research reviews a total of 100 papers published in more than 50 peer-reviewed journals. The reviewed papers are categorized into three major areas of engineering, business and management. Additionally, the papers are investigated based on country, journal frequency, applied methods, publication date and research type (application or developmental).

According to the obtained results, cost, return on assets (ROA), sales, asset turnover, return on investment (ROI), market share, inventory turnover, profit margin, revenue growth, economic value added (EVA) and cash-to-cash cycle are the most common metrics of financial performance measurement. Next, a framework is developed based on different categories of performance measurement and decision levels of the supply chain. Finally, some research directions are suggested to be further investigated by other scholars.

Although available studies on supply chain performance measurement are very vast and comprehensive, the majority of the studies have neglected to highlight the importance of financial measures. In other words, with the advent of nonfinancial measures, however, the majority of supply chain managers still prefer to consider financial issues in their performance assessment process.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the association between strategy, structure and environmental uncertainty, and the design and the use of performance measurements systems. The paper provides empirical evidence on the contextual factors associated with the use of financial and non‐financial measures, process and outcome measures and the deployment of innovative performance measurement systems in manufacturing business units.

A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 200 Canadian manufacturing organizations. Respondents were asked to indicate to which extent they use different measures. They also had to mention if they had adopted an innovative performance measurement approach such as the balanced scorecard. The questionnaire also included questions to classify organizations as prospectors, defenders or analyzers and to measure the levels of decentralization and perceived environmental uncertainty.

The results show that there is a significant association between strategy, organizational structure and environmental uncertainty and the use of non‐financial and process measures. They also indicate that there is an association between strategy and environmental uncertainty and the deployment of innovative performance measurement systems.

Since the 1990s, performance measurement has become an important issue for both academics and practitioners. The professional literature has suggested that managers should design innovative performance measurement systems such as balanced scorecards that include financial and non‐financial measures and also process and outcome measures. This paper provides a better understanding of the factors that affect the implementation of innovative performance measurement systems.

The paper presents one of the few studies that provide a better understanding of the contingent factors that influence the design and the use of innovative performance measurement systems.

This his paper focuses on a specific aspect of Value‐Based Management (VBM), the design of performance measurement systems. This remains an important challenge not only in Management Accounting but also in Human Resources Management. Performance measurement on various levels of organisation should be aligned to value creation, and management compensation should be tied to the achievement of targets set to these measures according to VBM proponents. In the present article definitions of concepts and issues associated with the design of performance measurement systems are discussed. Furthermore, the paper presents a review of four tools available to measure and manage intangible resources: human resource accounting, economic value‐added (EVA), balanced scorecard (BSC) and intellectual capital (IC). The role of non‐financial measures is also analysed from a VBM framework. Finally, some concluding remarks are highlighted in the last section.

This paper aims to explore whether fair value Levels 1 and 2 measurements are more value relevant than Level 3 fair value measurements in a less-active market. Specifically, this research addresses two objectives. Firstly, it examines the value relevance of fair value measures for each disclosure level of fair value. Secondly, it assesses the impact of corporate governance on the value relevance of less observable fair value disclosures (Levels 2 and 3).

Drawing insights from agency theorising, this research adopts a quantitative approach (regression analysis) that investigates data from a less active financial market (South Africa).

Contrary to agency theory suppositions, the results show that investors in a less active market value management inputs more than market (more transparent) information. The authors also observe that investors pay limited interest to corporate governance structures when pricing fair value measurement, implying that they rely on factors beyond corporate governance mechanisms.

The authors’ findings offer useful evidence to standard setters and preparers of financial information. While the International Accounting Standard Board suggests that investors value transparent financial information, the data shows that investors in less-active markets value management’s inputs more than those of the market.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the prerequisites for performance measurement supporting purchaser-supplier relationships and value co-creation. It also explains the causes for the limited use of collaborative measurement.

Four case companies representing different contextual settings are studied. The primary source of empirical material is an interview study addressed to 24 interviewees. The empirical data are analyzed according to the constructs created as a result of the literature review.

The results reveal that prevailing performance measurement practices represent a more transactional than relationship-oriented approach to purchaser-supplier collaboration. The technical prerequisites for collaborative performance measurement are mostly not fulfilled, inhibiting the use of performance measurement in a collaborative manner. It is proposed that the differentiation between project and process production types has implications on the importance of collaborative performance measurement.

The paper illustrates the desirable characteristics of performance measurement supporting collaboration. It also presents an application of collaborative performance measurement in a single case context. The research reveals the need to develop non-financial performance measures further in order to facilitate the more proactive use of performance measurement supporting true value co-creation between purchaser and supplier companies.

The empirical research on the topic of performance measurement in purchasing and supply management (PSM) is often limited to intra-organizational measurement and highlights transactional approach to collaboration between parties, although PSM research has otherwise acknowledged the importance of value creation and relationships between organizations.

Intellectual capital (IC), knowledge management and intangible assets are important factors in determining the value of an organization, as reflected in the growth of the knowledge management industry. There is however, a lack of effective measurement techniques to specify and optimize the value of IC. This paper presents a detailed review of existing techniques and establish the need for a more comprehensive approach. The proposed framework addresses IC valuation issues across the IC cycle. People, process, and technology are measured and correlated in the final step with social and financial measures, thus providing a new framework.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and depict the advantages and disadvantages connected to the fair value, providing the reader with objective information and thorough insight into the problems and benefits of fair value. Partial objectives of this paper are to define the concept of fair value, to provide information about theoretical background and evolution of fair value and to examine and describe the possible future development of fair value.

Findings in the paper are based on study of existing literature and also on study using the open-ended approach of grounded theory, including 50 interviews and two group discussions with professional accountants dealing with the fair value accounting in practice.

According to the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of fair value in accounting, it is quite obvious and clear that this concept is far from being perfect. It is very difficult to determine whether its contribution to the improvement of accounting is really beneficial. Although the fair-value discussion seems to be far from over now, the current crisis provided an interesting setting to further explore these issues, understand them better and hopefully urge responsible institutions to fix the imperfections within the system to make it work correctly and more effectively.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

This paper highlights that historical cost and fair value accounting must not be considered as competitors, as they serve different purposes. Knowledge of fair value is important, although it is not enough. Users also need to know the cost of the investment. In fact, knowing how much resources have been sacrificed to obtain that fair value, they could effectively evaluate stewardship. As a consequence, the adoption of a dual measurement and reporting system should be considered and discussed at a standard setting level.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study how fair value accounting can be useful in the future.