Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a contingency framework that allows researchers to classify and study management accounting innovation within the context of the literature on the sociology of diffusion and adoption.

The process of innovation in organizations involves two stages: the stages of diffusion and adoption along two dimensions of extent: technical and administrative, and scope: autonomous and systemic. A combination of these two dimensions yields four types of accounting innovations: mechanistic, organic, organizational development, and organizational transformation. Management accounting innovations has been studied using these four innovation typologies.

The paper suggests that management accounting researchers pay particular attention to an organization's approach to diffusion and adoption strategies of innovation, particularly, the extent and scope dimensions when designing and implementing process innovation programs.

The innovation contingency framework developed in this paper facilitates the analysis of two important research questions. First, why have some innovations been readily accepted while other, apparently similar proposed innovations have not? Second, why has a particular innovation succeeded in some firms and failed in others?

The subject of accounting innovations and change are important to managers. Accounting innovations as administrative and technical innovations are intertwined in performance evaluation as well as compensation systems. Accordingly, they are resisted.

The paper's contribution is in the advancement of sociological theories in behavioral managerial accounting. The paper develops a process innovation framework that integrates organizational sociological research in process innovations, particularly in diffusion research.

This paper applies the social contract and legalistic ethical frameworks, to study whether or not corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability support corporate financial performance. The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical data from Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical firm, to document whether or not CSR has contributed to creating financial wealth and value for the corporation.

The paper approaches CSR as embedded in social contract and legalistic ethical frameworks, which suggest that business organizations are self‐motivated to report on CSR. The underlying premise of the research is that socially desirable sustainable activities are expected to improve financial performance.

A case study of a multinational corporation (MNC) and CSR member company, Johnson & Johnson, substantiates that CSR and sustainability have contributed to improve the organization's economic performance. The empirical evidence from Johnson & Johnson suggest that profitability can be sustained for a long period of time if economic performance is effectively integrated with social and environmental goals, as part of the business strategic planning process, to benefit shareholders, consumers, society and the community at large. When CSR is incorporated in business strategies of sustainability, including social and environmental performance, it complements economic profitability objectives.

The contribution of this paper is in the extension and application of the importance of sustainability and CSR in the pharmaceutical industry. It is one of the few studies that examined the impact CSR and sustainability have on the financial and economic performance of the health care industry. The study has documented that sustainability promotes transparency, adherence, and disclosure that incorporates and promotes social equity, environmental restoration/renewal and financial performance. It is argued that in the long run, organizations that have integrated sustainability and CSR in their strategic planning processes are able to manage risks and take advantage of opportunities of programs that are safer, greener, and economical.

Aims to apply organizational systems perspectives to discuss the three types of organizational development (OD) and management control systems (MCS): normative, coercive and remunerative‐instrumental (utilitarian) that affect the operating performance of teams.

The paper examines the effect that managerial power relations, cultural process and structural change intervention of these three types of control systems have on the formation (size, composition, and strategies), and operational activities (functions and assignment of tasks) of teams. The paper uses library archives research to study OD, MCS and teams. It has applied an organizational systems perspective that examines the effects of OD and MCS on teams' management.

Recent new directions in management control systems and OD process and structural intervention strategies have transformed management accounting control systems as the new administrative control innovations mechanisms for managing teams' performance and activities in industrial organizations. Accordingly, the traditional mechanistic control approach has been substituted or replaced by organic‐based processes and structures of team‐based control systems.

In organizations, the management of teams is multi‐dimensional, involving the simultaneous use of normative, remunerative and coercive control mechanisms. The paper advances the views that the effectiveness of team management in organizations is contingent upon several structural and process factors including the mix of these three types of compliance systems and the form of organizational setting, i.e. manufacturing or professional organizations.

In the management control literature, the management of teams has centered on normative or remunerative or coercive control systems. This paper shows that OD's cultural process and structural intervention strategies provide new directions to address these three types of management control system for teams in industrial organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the impact that the ecological approach has in international development programs in both the USA and Europe. It discusses the applications of sustainability by international donor agencies among bilateral and multi‐lateral organizations in developing economies. It outlines the influence of sustainability in the US Federal Government agencies to protect and maintain environmentally‐based development programs.

The paper compares industrial ecology and ecological anthropology approaches to sustainability development. It discusses their policy implications for international development assistance programs. It describes how anthropological and sociological approaches to sustainability have impacted the development policies and programs of bilateral and multilateral organizations, as well as those of multi‐national corporations.

There are common sustainability trends among the four competing donor organizations in approaching sustainability development by bilateral and multilateral international development organizations. These organizations – the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, the United Nations and its affiliated Organizations, and the US Federal government agencies, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency – have shaped and influenced the policies and programs of sustainability development in business organizations and in developing economies.

Sustainability has been a subject of interest in international development assistance programs in both bilateral and multilateral organizations since the 1970s. Over time, the subject of sustainability received prominence in the developed world. It can be argued that sustainability has its roots in the developing economy and has been adapted/modified to meet the environmental and natural resources conservation and management policies of the developed economies.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the organizational learning framework to the management accounting literature to better understand why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

A theoretical framework integrating diffusion and organization learning theories is developed. Diffusion theory is used to describe the process whereby the innovation is implemented. Argyris' and Argyris and Schon's theory of organizational learning is used to describe the type of learning – single loop or double loop – required by the innovation. Finally, the works of Attewell, and of Schulz relating to organizational learning, and of Rogers and of Sandberg relating to adoption and diffusion theories, were utilized to identify and understand the potential pitfalls faced by managements implementing an accounting innovation.

The paper advances the notion that an organization's approach to learning and innovation should be of interest to management accounting researchers. The single‐loop (incremental/organizational development (OD)) and the double‐loop (radical/organizational transformation (OT)) learning influences the adoption (stage one) and diffusion (stage two) strategies that are appropriate for the design and implementation of management accounting innovations.

The paper makes an important contribution to the behavioral accounting literature by integrating sociological diffusion and organizational learning behavior literatures and relating them to management accounting research.

Accounting for quality and improved organizational performance has recently received attention in management control research. However, the extent to which process innovation changes have been integrated into management control research is limited. This paper contributes to that integration by drawing from institutional adaptive theory of organizational change and process innovation strategies. The paper utilizes a 2 by 2 contingency table that uses two factors: environmental conditions and organizational change/learning strategies, to build a process innovation framework. A combination of these two factors yields four process innovation strategies: mechanistic, organic, organizational development (OD) and organizational transformation (OT).

The four process innovation typologies are applied to characterize innovations in accounting such as activity based costing (ABC). ABC has been discussed as a multi-phased innovation process that provides an environment where both the initiation and the implementation of accounting change can occur. Technical innovation can be successfully initiated as organic innovation that unfolds in a decentralized organization and requires radical change and double loop learning. Implementation occurs best as a mechanistic innovation in a hierarchical organization and involving incremental change and single loop learning. The paper concludes that if ABC is integrated into an OD or OT intervention strategy, the technical and administrative innovation aspects of ABC can be utilized to manage the organization’s operating activities.

There is limited research that utilizes the consequential‐conflictual (CC) approaches, which utilized radical orientation of double loop, second order and reorientation of organizational learning strategies. Both the functional‐institutional (FI) and CC approaches are integrated with the sustainability and ecological resources management literature. The aim of this paper is to fill this research gap.

The paper applies FI and CC sociological approaches.

This paper's contribution to the managerial auditing education literature is based on the proposition that ethics education can improve the moral and ethical reasoning of auditors, when the educational processes incorporate both the FI and CC sociological organizational learning strategies. The paper suggests that ethics education in auditing could benefit from experiential teaching methods utilized in allied applied disciplines of medicine, engineering, and educational psychology.

Sociological approaches have been commonly applied in behavioral managerial accounting and control systems research. This paper extends the FI and CC framework to ethics education in managerial auditing research.

The subject of accounting ethics education is important to auditors. When accounting ethics education utilizes both the FI and CC teaching approaches, the managerial auditing education processes become interactive and cooperative by bringing experiential organizational experiences to the classroom.

Accounting ethics education is shaped by ecological and environmental sustainability concerns. Recently, business school interest and growth in sustainability management has contributed to the integration of ethics education in managerial auditing and accounting contexts, overcoming the shortcomings accounting programs experienced from stand‐alone ethics courses.