Search results

Prior work has focused on the impact of using alternative bases for allocating costs to products but there has been little work that evaluates the use of alternative allocation bases for allocating costs to departments. In particular, if different departments of a multi‐national firm are located in settings with different reporting requirements, exchange rate risks, and costs of capital, then the choice of cost allocation base can be important. This paper examines the economic impact of alternative service department allocation bases in a decentralised setting. A non‐linear programming (NLP) approach is used to model the problem. A review of prior literature identifies a method, based on the NLP approach, for determining the economic impact of alternative allocation bases in a multi‐product setting. The method is adapted in this paper for the multi‐divisional context. The study finds that centralised production volume decision‐making is superior to decentralised decision‐making using either revenue or volume‐based cost allocation bases. Under certain conditions, revenue‐based allocation bases are also found to be superior to volume bases. Under the assumptions of the model no distinction can be made between the centralised solution and a profit‐based allocation regime. A practical implication of this study is that designers of cost allocation systems need to consider not only the direct income‐shifting effect of different cost allocation bases but also the indirect economic effect of consequential changes in the operating decisions of the firm.

Prior work has examined antecedents and behavioral outcomes of satisfaction in an offline setting but few studies explore whether the findings hold for increasingly important online settings. This paper extends the prior work to explore the antecedents of e‐satisfaction and the relations between e‐satisfaction and two new behaviorial outcomes related to an online setting; customers' stated purchasing behavior (i.e. conversion) and actual browsing behavior (i.e. stickiness). Using a sample of 145 predominantly multi‐channel retail firms, the paper highlights two main results. First, existing models that examine the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction in the offline setting, also apply to an online setting. Second, Web site characteristics had a significant impact on all three types of behavioral outcomes, while Web site customer service was a significant driver of only retention/referral outcomes. Further, Web site customer service may be a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieving favourable outcomes in online settings.

Recent innovations in management accounting have emphasized a customer focus and the requirement of remaining competitive through satisfying customer needs. In so doing they have largely overlooked the dual requirement that customers should satisfy the strategic needs of the supplier. Examines customer profitability analysis (CPA) as a tool for the evaluation of the portfolio of customer profiles, and suggests that activity‐based costing may facilitate the success of CPA implementation.

As Lindsay (1994, 1995) encourages validation of existing results, this research replicates Guilding and McManus (2002) in a New Zealand (NZ) context. The usage and perceived merit of customer accounting practices were lower in NZ than in the Australian study. Few of the regressions where customer accounting usage and perceived merit were dependent variables revealed a statistically significant role for competition intensity and market orientation. There was some minor support for the perceived merit of customer accounting being higher in companies experiencing medium levels of competition intensity.

This study aims to investigate the impact of managerial narcissism and overconfidence on financial statements’ comparability. In other words, this paper seeks to answer the question of whether the personality characteristics of managers may affect the level of financial statements’ quality of commercial entities or not.

The research hypotheses are tested using a sample of 896 observations taken from the Tehran Stock Exchange and 245 observations from the Iraqi Stock Exchange during 2012 and 2018 using the multiple regression model based on the combined data technique.

The findings show that managerial narcissism is positively and significantly associated with Iran’s financial statement comparability. In contrast, Iraqi data articulate a negative association between these two variables. This paper finds that Chief Executive Officer overconfidence and financial statements’ comparability are negatively related in both countries. Following the market variation, the different findings suggest that institutional settings such as the general managerial style, adopting international accounting standards (now IFRS) leading to the extent of auditing market globally in Iraq and suffering from international sanctions in Iran, the governing business environment may play an allocative role in preparing financial statements.

The present research is the first research conducted in two emerging markets (Iran and Iraq) examining the relationship between managers’ narcissism and overconfidence and financial statements’ comparability. Therefore, the present research in this area can significantly contribute to the development of science and knowledge.

This paper compares and contrasts practice-based perceptions of the research–practice gap in the United States (US) with those in Australia.

The current study extends the work of Tucker and Lowe (2014) by comparing and contrasting their Australian-based findings with evidence from a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews with senior representatives of 18 US state and national professional accounting associations.

The extent to which academic research informs practice is perceived to be limited, despite the potential for academic research findings to make a significant contribution to management accounting practice. We find similarities as well as differences in the major obstacles to closer engagement in the US and Australia. This comparison, however, leads us to offer a more fundamental explanation of the divide between academic research and practice framed in terms of the relative benefits and costs of academics engaging with practice.

Rather than following conventional approaches to ‘bridging the gap’ by identifying barriers to the adoption of research, we suggest that only after academics have adequate incentives to speak to practice can barriers to a more effective diffusion of their research findings be surmounted.

This study makes three novel contributions to the “relevance literature” in management accounting. First, it adopts a distinct theoretical vantage point to organize, analyze, and interpret empirical evidence. Second, it captures practice-based views about the nature and extent of the divide between research and practice. Third, it provides a foundational assessment of the generalizability of the gap by examining perceptions of it across two different geographic contexts.

Managers can influence the evaluation of their performance by advancing various reasons for or making attributions regarding their financial achievement or the financial achievement of their divisions. In this study, an experimental design is used to determine the effect that the advancing of controllable reasons versus uncontrollable reasons, of which evaluators are either aware or not aware, has on the evaluation of managers’ performance in conditions in which they had recorded financial results that are lower or higher than the budgeted figures. The experiment reveals that performance evaluations are higher when variances are explained by means of controllable reasons in the abovebudget setting, whereas higher evaluations result in the below‐budget setting when variances are explained by means of uncontrollable reasons. Furthermore, the evaluator’s prior knowledge of these reasons results in a difference in the performance evaluation rating. Specifically, known reasons result in higher manager evaluation ratings. The experiment reveals that managers that record above‐budget performance are given higher evaluation ratings than managers that record below‐budget performance, even when variances are explained by means of reasons that the managers cannot control. This is known as the outcome effect. However, the findings indicate that the outcome effect is smaller when the evaluator has independent knowledge of the reason(s) advanced.