Search results

The resource-based view of an organization suggests that differences in resources among organizations affect the propensities for organizations to undertake strategic planning initiatives in response to environmental changes. Organizational resources may be used less effectively when organizations engage in “exploitation” of knowledge that they already have acquired or when they try to use their resources to improve the products and/or services they already produce or provide rather than to undertake new or radically altered activities. Kraatz and Zajac (2001) suggest that organizations relatively well endowed with resources are less likely to engage in major strategic changes to adapt to environmental changes. This, may be because the abundance of (slack) organizational resources may permit them to survive environmental changes without undertaking any strategic changes. These organizations need to respond/innovate only when the environmental change is perceived to create a significant threat to the organization's survival and/or growth. Kraatz and Zajac (2001) noted that organizations having the most success in the past are the least likely to change their goals because of their commitment to the current strategies that maximize the utilization of existing resources, even in situations that involve environmental uncertainty (p. 636). Most of the time, resources-rich large organizations are more likely to survive external threats from environmental change. Nevertheless, this does not rule out the fact that successful strategic changes are initiated/undertaken by resources-endowed firms. When resource-endowed firms do undertake a strategic innovation, their superior resources can facilitate the innovation and increase the likelihood of its success. Thus when the resource endowed organizations do undertake the changes, they are likely to be adaptive to change and to benefit from strategic changes.

A power control framework of organizations predicted that the degree of control exercised by management in resource allocation decisions is affected by the basis of power and perceived availability of resources. Results from experimental cases support the prediction that the basis of power has a consistent effect on resource allocation decisions. However, the effect of the perceived availability of resources varied according to the professional background and positions held by subjects in their organizations.

The organizational ecology perspective approaches the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum by following the evolutionary process of organizational development. There is a growing interest in sustainability, and, recently, books and articles have appeared that discuss sustainability accounting and reporting. A number of schools have developed standalone courses in sustainability accounting while others have integrated sustainability into existing courses in accounting ethics or corporate social responsibility. This chapter applies ecological, both organizational sociological and anthropological, approaches to argue in favor of integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum rather than in standalone courses. These two approaches are utilized because these disciplines have well-established theoretical and methodological approaches that can be applied to study the subject of sustainability, natural resources conservation, and ecological management. In addition, the current trend in accounting education is for the incorporation of social and behavioral sciences perspectives, including sociology and anthropology, into the accounting curriculum. Accordingly, the application of the ecological approach from these disciplines contributes significantly to the study of the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum.

This paper applies organizational development (OD) process‐cultural and structural change strategies to synthesize Etzioni's three approaches to power and compliance: normative, coercive and remunerative to study the management control systems of teams in organizations.

The paper uses library‐archives research.

OD's process and structural differences have affected team members' commitment and operating performance in these three control systems. Advances in information technology have introduced new forms of normative: surveillance control.

If MCS are viewed as adaptive systems, the design and implementation of MCS center on identifying those contingent OD process and structural conditions that support team management in these three control systems.

The management control literature has not applied Etzioni's basis of power and compliance typologies to study the administrative control of teams. This paper fills this research gap by synthesizing and integrating the OD and MCS literature.

The paper extends the organizational learning framework: Structural-Functional (SF)-single-loop or Conflictual-Radical (CR)-double-loop learning to the management accounting literature. The sociological approach of organizational learning is utilized to understand those contingent factors that can explain why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

We view learning as enhancing an organization’s strategic competitive advantage by making it better able to adopt and diffuse innovation in respond to changes in its environment in order to manage improved performance. The success of management accounting innovations is contingent upon whether its learning process involves SF-single-loop or CR-double-loop learning to adopt and diffuse process innovation.

The paper suggests that the learning strategy that the organization chooses is the reason why some management accounting innovations are more successfully adopted than others and why some innovations are easily diffused in some organizations but not in others. We propose that the sociological approaches to learning provide an alternative framework with which to better understand the adoption and diffusion of process innovations in management accounting systems.

It has become evident that management accounting researchers need to pay particular attention to an organization’s approach to adoption and diffusion of innovation strategies, particularly when they are designing and implementing process innovation programs for an organization. According to Schulz (2001), there are two interrelated stages of the learning that can shape the outcome of the innovation process in an organization. The first stage is related to the acquisition/production (adoption) of knowledge that results in gathering information, codification, and exploration. This is followed by the second stage which is the distribution or dissemination (diffusion) processes. When these two stages – adoption and diffusion – are applied within an accounting context, they address issues that are commonly associated with the successes and/or failures of management accounting innovations.

Although innovation involves learning, the nature of the learning process does not completely describe the manner in which an innovation affects the organization. Accordingly, we suggest that the two interrelated organizational sociological dimensions of innovations processes, namely, (1) the adoption and diffusion theories of Rogers (1971 and 1995), to approach organizational learning, and (2) the SF (single loop) and CR (double loop) approaches to learning be used simultaneously to describe management accounting innovations.

When an innovation is implemented, it initially can be introduced as an incremental change, one that can be limited in both in its scope and its breadth of administrative changes. This means that situations which are most likely to benefit from its initiation can serve as the prototype for its adoption by the organization. If successful, this can be followed by systemic accounting innovations to instituting broader administrative changes within the existing accounting reporting and control systems.

The purpose of this paper is to document the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum. Compared to many disciplines in the social and administrative sciences, the greening of the curriculum in accounting is a recent phenomenon. Nevertheless, there has been a remarkable growth in both the content and the coverage of sustainability topics integrated into the accounting curriculum.

The approach to the paper is multidisciplinary. It has combined organizational sociology and ecological anthropology approaches in the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum. In accounting, there is an increasing emphasis on the application of social science perspectives, particularly sociology and anthropology in curriculum development and pedagogical issues. This paper demonstrates that the influence of these two disciplines in accounting education is substantial.

Sustainability in accounting has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, sustainability has integrated social and environmental dimensions into accounting education and research. Sustainability reporting contains information on the economic, social, and environmental activities of business organizations. In practice, sustainability has influenced the accounting standard-setting organizations in developing guidelines on how to integrate sustainability into corporate reports so that the information can be verified and certified by public accounting and regulatory organizations.

The paper is among the first to demonstrate the importance of organizational sociology and ecological anthropology for the integration of sustainability into the accounting curriculum. Both sociology and anthropology have been in the forefront of the study of ecology and natural resources management and conservation in sustainability development. The paper approaches have important implications for sustainability education and framework in accounting theory and research.

The ecological framework focuses on ecosystems, natural resources, agricultural practices, geographical locations, conservation and environmental management. Recently, ecology has provided the underlying framework for sustainability development and reporting. This paper aims to relate the ecological approach to the environmental and conservation objectives embedded in sustainability development and reporting.

The paper argues that sustainability reporting is an organizational development and management program that has to be studied within the context of ecological ethics. It examines the evolution of sustainability reporting in relation to triple bottom line (TBL) accounting systems prepared to report the economic, social and environmental objectives of organizations.

The paper shows that sustainability is a question that transcends several disciplines, including accounting and sociology. While sustainability has been within the domain of sociology (human ecology) and ecological anthropology, recently the subject has attracted researchers from other disciplines, notably from accounting and business management. This paper notes that sustainability development will continue to be of importance to financial accounting reports. TBL reporting has become a competitive advantage for many business organizations for sustained profitability and growth.

The paper examines how governmental and corporations' natural resources conservation efforts have shaped the disclosure of environmental and social information in sustainability accounting reports. It applies theories of functionalism, institutional legitimacy, adaptation, incremental and transformational growth strategies from the organizational ecology and sociology literature to study the evolution of sustainability development and reporting.

Accounting has benefited from sociological theory and methods of research. It highlights the importance of ecological issues in shaping the preparation of sustainability reporting in accounting systems, a subject of interest to practitioners and accounting researchers.

The paper is one of the few attempts to relate ecology and sustainability to accounting reports. It integrates the sociological and organizational development literature related to ecology to advance behavioral accounting research in sustainability reporting beyond current social and environmental issues.