Search results

As a consumer of research published in scientific journals, do you ever wonder what degree of belief you should place on the results being presented? Alternatively, and perhaps more importantly, do you ever think whether the findings would apply in your own organisation to guide business practice? Clearly, these are important considerations.

Today the customer is truly king. In what was dreamt about only a short time ago, customers are not only obtaining value priced products, they are of high quality, matched increasingly to their specifications or needs, and accompanied with higher levels of service. “Satisfying the customer” has truly become the maxim of the 1990s for many companies.

The budget has traditionally been viewed as playing an essential role in management control. However, recently it has become the subject of intense critique. The critiques concern the way budgets are used as well as the fundamental drawbacks of the budgeting process. At the same time, a number of studies provided evidence that budgets are still being used in most organizations. Responding to the call for more examination of these issues against empirical evidence, this chapter studies contemporary budgeting practices in the case of a Russian oil company.

The chapter is heavily based on primary data collected from the interviews with company representatives. Secondary data collected from public sources was used as well. The empirical description is organized around a monthly budgeting process adopted in one subsidiary of the case company. The description is presented from the perspective of the financial department of the subsidiary company.

The study concludes that, in spite of all the critiques, budgeting is widely used in the Russian oil company. It is extensively used for control purposes, and the main focus of budgetary control is put on a transactional level.

The chapter traces the budgeting process currently adopted in one of the Russian oil corporations. This contributes to research evidence on Russian companies, an area which has previously received little attention from researchers and provides evidence supporting the view of budgeting as continuing to play an important role in many organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to expand on some of the points made in Ken Merchant's paper (this issue) in connection with the research‐practice gap.

Aiming to be provocative for the purpose of evoking further discussion, this commentary adopts the perspective that some deeply rooted misconceptions about the nature and production of scientific knowledge underpin the research‐practice gap.

There are three key findings. First, contrary to popular belief, practical knowledge does not simply derive from basic (“scientific”) knowledge “trickling down” to practice; instead, basic knowledge needs to be transformed into a theory or phronesis of management accounting in a manner that reflects the context and purpose of organizations. Practical knowledge therefore becomes a distinct and rigorous mode of knowing in its own right, no less important than basic knowledge. Second, the adoption of field research or the case study method may be the only way to overcome all of the dimensions associated with the “data problem” existing in management accounting. Finally, a strong argument can be made to suggest that the research‐practice gap and its epistemological underpinnings not only impede the discipline's ability to carve out its own unique intellectual identity (Malmi and Granlund), but they also explain the discipline's inability to produce a cumulative body of knowledge.

The paper suggests that a key step, among others, in addressing the researcher‐practitioner gap is the need to overcome philosophical misconceptions about the nature and production of scientific knowledge. This perspective has not received significant coverage in accounting.

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.

This chapter reviews factors responsible for climate change, impacts of the change on animal health, zoonotic diseases, and their linkage with One-Health program.

This chapter is based on the available literature related to climate change and its effect on animal health and production from different points. The causes and change forcers of climate change, direct and indirect effects of the change on animal health management, host–pathogen–vector interaction, and zoonotic diseases are included. Inter-linkage between climate change and One-Health program are also assessed.

Beside natural causes of climatic change, greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activities, causing global climate changes which have direct and indirect animal health and production performance impacts. The direct impacts are increased ambient temperature, floods, and droughts, while the indirect are reduced availability of water and food. The change and effect also promote diseases spread, increase survival and availability of the pathogen and its intermediate vector host, responsible for distribution and prevalence of tremendous zoonotic, infectious, and vector-borne diseases. The adverse effect on the biodiversity, distribution of animals and micro flora, genetic makeup of microbials which may lead to emerging and re-emerging disease and their outbreaks make the strong linkage between climate change and One-Health.

Global climate change is receiving increasing international attention where international organizations are increasing their focus on tackling the health impacts. Thus, there is a need for parallel mitigation of climate change and animal diseases in a global form.

Most research on climate change is limited to environmental protection, however this chapter provides a nexus between climate change, animal health, livestock production, and the One-Health program for better livelihood.

In this paper, I demonstrate an alternative explanation to the development of the American electricity industry. I propose a social embeddedness approach (Granovetter, 1985, 1992) to interpret why the American electricity industry appears the way it does today, and start by addressing the following questions: Why is the generating dynamo located in well‐connected central stations rather than in isolated stations? Why does not every manufacturing firm, hospital, school, or even household operate its own generating equipment? Why do we use incandescent lamps rather than arc lamps or gas lamps for lighting? At the end of the nineteenth century, the first era of the electricity industry, all these technical as well as organizational forms were indeed possible alternatives. The centralized systems we see today comprise integrated, urban, central station firms which produce and sell electricity to users within a monopolized territory. Yet there were visions of a more decentralized electricity industry. For instance, a geographically decentralized system might have dispersed small systems based around an isolated or neighborhood generating dynamo; or a functionally decentralized system which included firms solely generating and transmitting the power, and selling the power to locally‐owned distribution firms (McGuire, Granovetter, and Schwartz, forthcoming). Similarly, the incandescent lamp was not the only illuminating device available at that time. The arc lamp was more suitable for large‐space lighting than incandescent lamps; and the second‐generation gas lamp ‐ Welsbach mantle lamp ‐ was much cheaper than the incandescent electric light and nearly as good in quality (Passer, 1953:196–197).