Search results

Participative budgeting is one of the most intensively researched budgeting variables in management accounting. Research has stalled, however. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate further research by providing an overview of antecedents of participative budgeting and suggesting ways to build upon extant research.

We assess 22 studies published prior to 2011 that offer statistical insights into why organizations use participative budgeting by theorizing and modeling it as a dependent variable.

This work answers two research questions regarding why organizations use participative budgeting: (a) Which antecedents of participative budgeting have been analyzed so far? (b) Which causal-model forms are used in extant research regarding the antecedents of participative budgeting?

This paper provides a detailed overview of empirical studies and respective findings aiming to explain why organizations use participative budgeting. Many prior studies have measured the association between contextual antecedents and participative budgeting. However, from a theoretical perspective, objectives of employees and supervisors are often used to explain the relation. Based on our literature review, we propose that all objectives identified so far intervene in the relationship between context and use of participative budgeting and also further detail these objectives. Consequently, our review analyzes the status quo of research on why organizations use participative budgeting and adds additional suggestions of underlying causal processes that can be tested in future studies.

The Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal was one of the largest examples of organizational wrongdoing in corporate history, costing the firm immense damage to its reputation and over $33 billion in fines, penalties, financial settlements, and buyback costs. In this paper, we draw on the concept of boundary work to provide insight into the causes of wrongdoing at VW. Supplementing other work on the scandal, we show how the ways in which boundaries became established in the organization resulted in an internal context that defined “in” and “out” groups, normalized certain behaviors, and limited communication across intraorganizational boundaries. This allowed wrongdoing to not only become established but also to go unchallenged. We provide contributions to broader understandings of organizational wrongdoing and to the temporal unfolding of boundary work by theorizing how a combination of cognitive, horizontal, and vertical boundaries can create an infrastructure of organizational design that permits organizational wrongdoing, prevents it being challenged, and ultimately normalizes it in everyday activities.