Search results

The purpose of this paper is to understand conflicts in sustainability reporting (SR) preparation.

In the preparation of SRs, the logic of financial rationality is often assumed to take precedence over the logic of sustainability. Based on an explorative qualitative case study of a large Swedish retailer, the paper problematizes this view. Over a reporting cycle, employees and consultants involved in the preparation process are interviewed. Conflicting ideas about SRs are identified and analyzed through the lens of institutional logics.

The study identifies five tensions in SR preparation. These tensions relate to conflicting ideas of what an SR is, how it should be written and how it should be used. Among findings, a conflict of logics can be found as the basis of at least one tension. However, tensions may also emerge within a shared sustainability logic.

A contribution of the study is that it sets its finger on the actual fieldwork with SRs. The study shows that it is unreasonable to claim that SRs are “self-evidently” captured by management according to financial rationality. Possibly, the nature of the studied firm, a company within the pharmaceutical and health sector, implies a stronger sustainability logic than in other firms.

According to the study, the results of an SR preparation process are highly dependent on the sometimes conflicting ideas of preparers and others within the company. It is of high importance to identify and clarify such conflicting ideas already in the beginning of the process, to link the SR to the corporate social responsibility strategy of the firm, and to involve top management in the process.

The study identifies underlying tensions in SR preparation. It also introduces a theoretical framework that makes it possible to analyze tensions in the preparation process.

The purpose of this study is to identify the norms that underlie and condition the decisions made by preparers of financial reports.

This interview-based study illustrates how financial report preparers engage in behaviors linked to the perception of recognition and measurement of internally generated intangible assets by important stakeholders. All of the companies included in the study adhere to International Financial Reporting Standards when creating their consolidated financial statements. The participants selected for the study are involved in accounting decisions related to research and development in accordance with International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38.

The authors identify the normative assumptions underlying the recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles, which are based on concerns of consistency, credibility and reasonableness. The authors find that the normative basis for legitimacy in financial accounting is primarily related to cognitive legitimacy and is not of a moral or pragmatic nature.

The study reveals that recognition and measurement of internally generated intangibles in financial accounting relate to legitimacy. The authors identify specific norms that form the basis of this legitimacy, namely, consistency, credibility and reasonableness. These identified norms serve as constraints, mitigating the risk of judgment misuse within the IAS 38 framework for earnings management.

The paper provides an overview of research published in the innovation and operations management (IOM) literature on 15 methods for cost management in new product development, and it provides a comparison to an earlier review of the management accounting (MA) literature (Wouters & Morales, 2014).

This structured literature search covers papers published in 23 journals in IOM in the period 1990–2014.

The search yielded a sample of 208 unique papers with 275 results (one paper could refer to multiple cost management methods). The top 3 methods are modular design, component commonality, and product platforms, with 115 results (42%) together. In the MA literature, these three methods accounted for 29%, but target costing was the most researched cost management method by far (26%). Simulation is the most frequently used research method in the IOM literature, whereas this was averagely used in the MA literature; qualitative studies were the most frequently used research method in the MA literature, whereas this was averagely used in the IOM literature. We found a lot of papers presenting practical approaches or decision models as a further development of a particular cost management method, which is a clear difference from the MA literature.

This review focused on the same cost management methods, and future research could also consider other cost management methods which are likely to be more important in the IOM literature compared to the MA literature. Future research could also investigate innovative cost management practices in more detail through longitudinal case studies.

This review of research on methods for cost management published outside the MA literature provides an overview for MA researchers. It highlights key differences between both literatures in their research of the same cost management methods.