You can find some useful tips in our how-to guide.
The maximum length of your abstract should be 250 words in total, including keywords and article classification (see the sections below).
Your submission should include up to 12 appropriate and short keywords that capture the principal topics of the paper. Our how to guide contains some practical guidance on choosing search-engine friendly keywords.
Please note, while we will always try to use the keywords you’ve suggested, the in-house editorial team may replace some of them with matching terms to ensure consistency across publications and improve your article’s visibility.
During the submission process, you will be asked to select a type for your paper; the options are listed below. If you don’t see an exact match, please choose the best fit:
You will also be asked to select a category for your paper. The options for this are listed below. If you don’t see an exact match, please choose the best fit:
Reports on any type of research undertaken by the author(s), including:
Covers any paper where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation. This includes journalistic and magazine-style pieces.
Describes and evaluates technical products, processes or services.
Focuses on developing hypotheses and is usually discursive. Covers philosophical discussions and comparative studies of other authors’ work and thinking.
Describes actual interventions or experiences within organizations. It can be subjective and doesn’t generally report on research. Also covers a description of a legal case or a hypothetical case study used as a teaching exercise.
This category should only be used if the main purpose of the paper is to annotate and/or critique the literature in a particular field. It could be a selective bibliography providing advice on information sources, or the paper may aim to cover the main contributors to the development of a topic and explore their different views.
Provides an overview or historical examination of some concept, technique or phenomenon. Papers are likely to be more descriptive or instructional (‘how to’ papers) than discursive.
Headings must be concise, with a clear indication of the required hierarchy.
The preferred format is for first level headings to be in bold, and subsequent sub-headings to be in medium italics.
Notes or endnotes should only be used if absolutely necessary. They should be identified in the text by consecutive numbers enclosed in square brackets. These numbers should then be listed, and explained, at the end of the article.
All figures (charts, diagrams, line drawings, webpages/screenshots, and photographic images) should be submitted electronically. Both colour and black and white files are accepted.
There are a few other important points to note:
Tables should be typed and submitted in a separate file to the main body of the article. The position of each table should be clearly labelled in the main body of the article with corresponding labels clearly shown in the table file. Tables should be numbered consecutively in Roman numerals (e.g. I, II, etc.).
Give each table a brief title. Ensure that any superscripts or asterisks are shown next to the relevant items and have explanations displayed as footnotes to the table, figure or plate.
Where tables, figures, appendices, and other additional content are supplementary to the article but not critical to the reader’s understanding of it, you can choose to host these supplementary files alongside your article on Insight, Emerald’s content hosting platform, or on an institutional or personal repository. All supplementary material must be submitted prior to acceptance.
, you must submit these as separate files alongside your article. Files should be clearly labelled in such a way that makes it clear they are supplementary; Emerald recommends that the file name is descriptive and that it follows the format ‘Supplementary_material_appendix_1’ or ‘Supplementary tables’. . A link to the supplementary material will be added to the article during production, and the material will be made available alongside the main text of the article at the point of EarlyCite publication.
Please note that Emerald will not make any changes to the material; it will not be copyedited, typeset, and authors will not receive proofs. Emerald therefore strongly recommends that you style all supplementary material ahead of acceptance of the article.
Emerald Insight can host the following file types and extensions:
, you should ensure that the supplementary material is hosted on the repository ahead of submission, and then include a link only to the repository within the article. It is the responsibility of the submitting author to ensure that the material is free to access and that it remains permanently available.
Please note that extensive supplementary material may be subject to peer review; this is at the discretion of the journal Editor and dependent on the content of the material (for example, whether including it would support the reviewer making a decision on the article during the peer review process).
All references in your manuscript must be formatted using one of the recognised Harvard styles. You are welcome to use the Harvard style Emerald has adopted – we’ve provided a detailed guide below. Want to use a different Harvard style? That’s fine, our typesetters will make any necessary changes to your manuscript if it is accepted. Please ensure you check all your citations for completeness, accuracy and consistency.
References to other publications in your text should be written as follows:
, 2006) Please note, ‘ ' should always be written in italics.A few other style points. These apply to both the main body of text and your final list of references.
At the end of your paper, please supply a reference list in alphabetical order using the style guidelines below. Where a DOI is available, this should be included at the end of the reference.
Surname, initials (year), , publisher, place of publication.
e.g. Harrow, R. (2005), , Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Surname, initials (year), "chapter title", editor's surname, initials (Ed.), , publisher, place of publication, page numbers.
e.g. Calabrese, F.A. (2005), "The early pathways: theory to practice – a continuum", Stankosky, M. (Ed.), , Elsevier, New York, NY, pp.15-20.
Surname, initials (year), "title of article", , volume issue, page numbers.
e.g. Capizzi, M.T. and Ferguson, R. (2005), "Loyalty trends for the twenty-first century", , Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.72-80.
Surname, initials (year of publication), "title of paper", in editor’s surname, initials (Ed.), , publisher, place of publication, page numbers.
e.g. Wilde, S. and Cox, C. (2008), “Principal factors contributing to the competitiveness of tourism destinations at varying stages of development”, in Richardson, S., Fredline, L., Patiar A., & Ternel, M. (Ed.s), , Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, pp.115-118.
Surname, initials (year), "title of paper", paper presented at [name of conference], [date of conference], [place of conference], available at: URL if freely available on the internet (accessed date).
e.g. Aumueller, D. (2005), "Semantic authoring and retrieval within a wiki", paper presented at the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 29 May-1 June, Heraklion, Crete, available at: ;(accessed 20 February 2007).
Surname, initials (year), "title of article", working paper [number if available], institution or organization, place of organization, date.
e.g. Moizer, P. (2003), "How published academic research can inform policy decisions: the case of mandatory rotation of audit appointments", working paper, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, 28 March.
(year), "title of entry", volume, edition, title of encyclopaedia, publisher, place of publication, page numbers.
e.g. (1926), "Psychology of culture contact", Vol. 1, 13th ed., Encyclopaedia Britannica, London and New York, NY, pp.765-771.
(for authored entries, please refer to book chapter guidelines above)
Surname, initials (year), "article title", , date, page numbers.
e.g. Smith, A. (2008), "Money for old rope", , 21 January, pp.1, 3-4.
(year), "article title", date, page numbers.
e.g. (2008), "Small change", 2 February, p.7.
Surname, initials (year), "title of document", unpublished manuscript, collection name, inventory record, name of archive, location of archive.
e.g. Litman, S. (1902), "Mechanism & Technique of Commerce", unpublished manuscript, Simon Litman Papers, Record series 9/5/29 Box 3, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
If available online, the full URL should be supplied at the end of the reference, as well as the date that the resource was accessed.
Surname, initials (year), “title of electronic source”, available at: persistent URL (accessed date month year).
e.g. Weida, S. and Stolley, K. (2013), “Developing strong thesis statements”, available at: (accessed 20 June 2018)
Standalone URLs, i.e. those without an author or date, should be included either inside parentheses within the main text, or preferably set as a note (Roman numeral within square brackets within text followed by the full URL address at the end of the paper).
Surname, initials (year), , name of data repository, available at: persistent URL, (accessed date month year).
e.g. Campbell, A. and Kahn, R.L. (2015), , ICPSR07218-v4, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), Ann Arbor, MI, available at: (accessed 20 June 2018)
There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.
Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:
You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .
All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.
The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.
A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.
Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.
Don't forget to add your ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.
Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .
Visit the ScholarOne support centre for further help and guidance.
You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact our Rights team .
Review and decision process.
Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.
If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double blind peer review. Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.
This journal offers an article transfer service. If the editor decides to decline your manuscript, either before or after peer review, they may offer to transfer it to a more relevant Emerald journal in this field. If you accept, your ScholarOne author account, and the accounts of your co-authors, will automatically transfer to the new journal, along with your manuscript and any accompanying peer review reports. However, you will still need to log in to ScholarOne to complete the submission process using your existing username and password. While accepting a transfer does not guarantee the receiving journal will publish your work, an editor will only suggest a transfer if they feel your article is a good fit with the new title.
While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.
During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper. Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you email [email protected] .
Open access.
Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.
If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge). This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.
All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form. This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.
Two to three months before the scheduled print publication of an issue, we carry out editorial checks on your paper and a pre-typeset version appears in the Accepted Articles section of the journal’s online content. Your paper is then copyedited, typeset, and proofs are sent to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. You receive advance notification of this. Please note, this is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.
Visit our author rights page to find out how you can reuse and share your work.
To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about how to promote your work .
Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our article withdrawal and correction policies .
Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.
| The only time we will ever ask you for money to publish in an Emerald journal is if you have chosen to publish via the gold open access route. You will be asked to pay an APC (article-processing charge) once your paper has been accepted (unless it is a sponsored open access journal), and never at submission.
At no other time will you be asked to contribute financially towards your article’s publication, processing, or review. If you haven’t chosen gold open access and you receive an email that appears to be from Emerald, the journal, or a third party, asking you for payment to publish, please contact our support team via . |
| Please contact the editor for the journal, with a copy of your CV. You will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. |
| First, log into your author centre on the journal's ScholarOne site. Click on and check the column of the table at the bottom of the page. If the editor has assigned your paper to an issue, the volume and issue number will appear. If they have yet to assign it, you can email them to request further details. You will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. |
| Please email the journal editor – you will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. If you ever suspect an email you’ve received from Emerald might not be genuine, you are welcome to verify it with the content editor for the journal, whose contact details can be found on the editorial team tab on this page. Alternatively, you can . |
| If you’ve read the aims and scope on the journal landing page and are still unsure whether your paper is suitable for the journal, please email the editor and include your paper's title and structured abstract. They will be able to advise on your manuscript’s suitability. You will find their contact details on the Editorial team tab on this page. |
| Authorship and the order in which the authors are listed on the paper should be agreed prior to submission. We have a right first time policy on this and no changes can be made to the list once submitted. If you have made an error in the submission process, please email the Journal Editorial Office who will look into your request – you will find their contact details on the editorial team tab on this page. |
CiteScore 2023
CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.
Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.
For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition
CiteScore Tracker 2024
(updated monthly)
CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.
The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.
2023 Impact Factor
The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.
For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics
5-year Impact Factor (2023)
A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.
Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .
Time to first decision
Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.
Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024
Acceptance to publication
Acceptance to publication , expressed in days, is the average time between when the journal’s editorial team decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript and the date of publication in the journal.
Data is taken from the previous 12 months (Last updated July 2024)
Acceptance rate
The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %
Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .
This figure is the total amount of downloads for all articles published early cite in the last 12 months
(Last updated: July 2024)
Peer review process.
This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.
The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.
Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.
The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.
All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.
Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.
More reviewer information
The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2023 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...
The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...
The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...
Emerald is pleased to introduce the new Editor-in-Chief of the Accounting Research Journal, Professor Reza Monem of Griffith University. Professor Monem succeeds Professor Ellie Chapple, who stepped down as Edi...
We are pleased to announce our 2022 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper The relationship between CEOs’...
We are pleased to announce our 2021 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper The effect of integrated repor...
We are pleased to announce our 2020 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Is CSR performance related to disclosure tone in ...
ARJ provides a forum for communicating impactful research between professionals and academics on emerging areas in contemporary accounting research and practice.
The Accounting Research Journal embraces a range of methodological approaches in identifying and solving significant prioritised accounting issues. Submissions are encouraged across all areas on accounting, finance and cognate disciplines.
It is strongly recommended that authors specifically address how their research addresses the priority areas and how it impacts those who the research intends to affect.
Priority areas:
These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: July 2024)
Dead reckoning: charting a new (metaphorical) course for accounting, chatgpt: reflections from the uk higher education institutions, accountancy bodies and big4s, top downloaded articles.
These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: July 2024)
Fighting through the flesch and fog: the readability of risk disclosures, leveraging information communication technology (ict) and artificial intelligence (ai) to enhance auditing practices.
These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: July 2024)
Does auditor ethnicity matter in determining audit fees some empirical evidence from indonesia, do founder ceos and overconfidence affect firm risk.
We aim to champion researchers, practitioners, policymakers and organisations who share our goals of contributing to a more ethical, responsible and sustainable way of working.
This journal is part of our Accounting, finance & economics collection. Explore our Accounting, finance & economics subject area to find out more.
See all related journals
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ) is an interdisciplinary accounting research journal publishing...
The Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance is situated at the intersection of academic research and the practice...
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is an international journal that publishes qualitative research...
Springer International Publishing AG
21982627, 21983402
The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.
Category | Year | Quartile |
---|---|---|
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) | 2019 | Q1 |
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) | 2020 | Q1 |
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) | 2021 | Q1 |
Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) | 2022 | Q1 |
The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.
Year | SJR |
---|---|
2019 | 0.629 |
2020 | 0.681 |
2021 | 0.757 |
2022 | 1.510 |
Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.
Year | Documents |
---|---|
2019 | 0 |
2020 | 0 |
2021 | 0 |
2022 | 0 |
This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.
Cites per document | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
Cites / Doc. (4 years) | 2019 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (4 years) | 2020 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (4 years) | 2021 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (4 years) | 2022 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (3 years) | 2019 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (3 years) | 2020 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (3 years) | 2021 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (3 years) | 2022 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (2 years) | 2019 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (2 years) | 2020 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (2 years) | 2021 | 0.000 |
Cites / Doc. (2 years) | 2022 | 0.000 |
Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.
Cites | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
Self Cites | 2019 | 0 |
Self Cites | 2020 | 0 |
Self Cites | 2021 | 0 |
Self Cites | 2022 | 0 |
Total Cites | 2019 | 0 |
Total Cites | 2020 | 0 |
Total Cites | 2021 | 0 |
Total Cites | 2022 | 0 |
Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.
Cites | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
External Cites per document | 2019 | 0 |
External Cites per document | 2020 | 0 |
External Cites per document | 2021 | 0 |
External Cites per document | 2022 | 0 |
Cites per document | 2019 | 0.000 |
Cites per document | 2020 | 0.000 |
Cites per document | 2021 | 0.000 |
Cites per document | 2022 | 0.000 |
International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.
Year | International Collaboration |
---|---|
2019 | 0 |
2020 | 0 |
2021 | 0 |
2022 | 0 |
Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.
Documents | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
Non-citable documents | 2019 | 0 |
Non-citable documents | 2020 | 0 |
Non-citable documents | 2021 | 0 |
Non-citable documents | 2022 | 0 |
Citable documents | 2019 | 0 |
Citable documents | 2020 | 0 |
Citable documents | 2021 | 0 |
Citable documents | 2022 | 0 |
Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.
Documents | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
Uncited documents | 2019 | 0 |
Uncited documents | 2020 | 0 |
Uncited documents | 2021 | 0 |
Uncited documents | 2022 | 0 |
Cited documents | 2019 | 0 |
Cited documents | 2020 | 0 |
Cited documents | 2021 | 0 |
Cited documents | 2022 | 0 |
Evolution of the percentage of female authors.
Year | Female Percent |
---|---|
2019 | 0.00 |
2020 | 0.00 |
2021 | 0.00 |
2022 | 0.00 |
Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.
Documents | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
Overton | 2019 | 0 |
Overton | 2020 | 0 |
Overton | 2021 | 0 |
Overton | 2022 | 0 |
Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.
Documents | Year | Value |
---|---|---|
SDG | 2019 | 0 |
SDG | 2020 | 0 |
SDG | 2021 | 0 |
SDG | 2022 | 0 |
Name * Required
Email (will not be published) * Required
* Required Cancel
The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.
Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®
Cookie settings
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Privacy Policy
A quarterly journal of the american accounting association.
Accounting Horizons is one of three association-wide journals published by the American Accounting Association (AAA). The journal’s primary objective is to publish rigorous research that addresses practice issues and problems, drawing on the best theory and methods in the academy to solve problems of real consequence.
Accounting Horizons Accounting Horizons is one of three association-wide journals published by the American Accounting Association (AAA). The journal aims to bridge accounting academics and non-academics (e.g., practitioners, regulators, and students) by publishing rigorous academic research and thought-provoking perspectives that are pertinent to the accounting profession. This thought-leadership contributes to building a learned profession for the future by addressing emerging issues, facilitating dialogues, and embracing changes.
The scope of acceptable topics mirrors the breath of the accounting profession in both U.S. and international settings. These topics include, but are not limited to:
The journal welcomes submissions of original academic research as well as commentaries, thought pieces, debates, historical reviews, and editorials (all referred to as “perspectives”). An original research paper should address a single timely research question that is important to accounting practice and be written in clear, concise, and plain language that is comprehensible to a broad audience. Authors are encouraged to use graphical presentations for effective communication. Acceptable research methods include analytical, archival, experimental, and qualitative methods as well as literature reviews. A research paper accepted for publication will generally be within 20 pages of text (double-spaced, 12-point font, and normal margins) and 35 pages in total. The journal encourages author teams to involve non-academics in research production. The senior editor may commission original research and perspectives. Editors may be appointed to direct some of the commissioned efforts.
All submitted articles will be peer reviewed. Articles that address an especially timely topic will be evaluated on an expedited basis. The journal intends to distinguish itself from other academic accounting journals by its broad reach of audience, relevance to accounting practice, research rigor, and swift review process.
AAA Member Submission Fee
Submission to First Decision Time
Publishing Schedule
Acceptance to Publication Time
Editorial office.
DANIEL AOBDIA, The Pennsylvania State University, Smeal College of Business, University Park, PA, USA.
LISA BAUDOT, HEC Paris, Dept. of Accounting and Management Control, Jouy-en-Josas, France
LORI SHEFCHIK BHASKAR, Indiana University Bloomington, Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, IN, USA
JOSEPH F. BRAZEL, North Carolina State University, Dept. of Accounting, Raleigh, NC, USA
JENNIFER L. BROWN, Arizona State University, School of Accountancy, Tempe, AZ, USA
HELEN BROWN-LIBURD, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Dept. of Accounting and Information Systems, Newark, NJ, USA
ANTHONY BUCARO, Case Western Reserve University, Dept. of Accountancy, Cleveland, OH, USA
JEFFREY J. BURKS, University of Notre Dame, Dept. of Accountancy, Notre Dame, IN, USA
STEFANO CASCINO, London School of Economics and Political Science, Dept. of Accounting, London, UK
MARGARET H. CHRIST, University of Georgia, J. M. Tull School of Accounting, Athens, GA, USA
PAUL J. CORAM, The University of Adelaide–North Terrace Campus, Business School, Adelaide, SA, Australia
LAUREN CUNNINGHAM, The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Accounting and Information Management, Knoxville, TN, USA
ALESSANDRO GHIO, ESCP Business School, Management Control Department, Paris, France
STEPHANIE M. GRANT, University of Washington, Dept. of Accounting, Seattle, WA, USA
MARCUS P. KIRK, University of Florida, Fisher School of Accounting, Gainesville, FL, USA
RANJANI KRISHNAN, Michigan State University, Broad College of Business, Dept. of Accounting and Information Systems, East Lansing, MI, USA
HENOCK LOUIS, The Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of Accounting, University Park, PA, USA
STEPHEN J. LUSCH, University of Kentucky, Von Allmen School of Accountancy, Lexington, KY, USA
LINDA A. MYERS, The University of Tennessee, Dept. of Accounting and Information Management, Knoxville, TN, USA
KAREN K. NELSON, Texas Christian University, Dept. of Accounting, Fort Worth, TX, USA
ANDREA ALSTON ROBERTS, University of Virginia, McIntire School of Commerce, Charlottesville, VA, USA
ANUP SRIVASTAVA, University of Calgary, Haskayne School of Business, Calgary, AB, Canada
ISABEL YANYAN WANG, Michigan State University, Dept. of Accounting and Information Systems, East Lansing, MI, USA
DAVID A. WOOD, Brigham Young University, School of Accountancy, Provo, UT, USA
AARON YOON, Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management, Chicago, IL, USA
HENG YUE, Singapore Management University, School of Accountancy, Singapore
GORD GRAHAM, Ernst & Young Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
PAUL A. GRIFFIN, University of California, Davis, Dept. of Management, Winters, CA, USA
RAMU THIAGARAJAN, State Street Bank and Trust Company, Boston, MA, USA
WAYNE B. THOMAS, The University of Oklahoma, Dept. of Accounting, Norman, OK, USA
SENYO TSE, Texas A&M University, Dept. of Accounting, College Station, TX, USA
JOHN BARRIOS, Washington University in St. Louis, Olin Business School, Dept. of Accounting, St. Louis, MO, USA
PAUL E. MADSEN, University of Florida, Fisher School of Accounting, Gainesville, FL, USA
KRISTIAN D. ALLEE, University of Arkansas, William Dillard Dept. of Accounting, Fayetteville, AR, USA
KEVAL AMIN, Stony Brook University, College of Business, Stony Brook, NY, USA
LINDSAY M. ANDIOLA, Virginia Commonwealth University, Dept. of Accounting, Richmond, VA, USA
IONELA ANDREICOVICI, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, Dept. of Accounting, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
DENIZ APPELBAUM, Montclair State University, Accounting and Finance, Montclair, NJ, USA
DIANE-LAURE ARJALIÈS, Western University, Ivey Business School, Dept. of Accounting, London, Ontario, Canada
MUSAIB ASHRAF, Michigan State University, Dept. of Accounting, East Lansing, MI, USA
ANN G. BACKOF, University of Virginia, McIntire School of Commerce, Charlottesville, VA, USA
PIETRO BIANCHI, Florida International University, Dept. of Accounting, Miami, FL, USA
BRIAN BRATTEN, University of Kentucky, Von Allmen School of Accountancy, Gatton College of Business & Economics, Lexington, KY, USA
JENNA BURKE, University of Colorado Denver, Business School, Denver, CO, USA
DONAL A. BYARD, Baruch College–CUNY, Dept. of Accounting, New York City, NY, USA
WEI CAI, Columbia University, Business School, Dept. of Accounting, New York City, NY, USA
THOMAS G. CANACE, Wake Forest University, School of Business, Dept. of Accountancy, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
JIAN CAO, Florida Atlantic University, School of Accounting, Boca Raton, FL, USA
YING CAO, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, School of Accountancy, Shatin, Hong Kong,
TINA D. CARPENTER, University of Georgia, J. M. Tull School of Accounting, Athens, GA, USA
CORY A. CASSELL, University of Arkansas, Accounting, Fayetteville, AR, USA
JEFF ZEYUN CHEN, Texas Christian University, Neeley School of Business, Fort Worth, TX, USA
JONGWOON (WILLIE) CHOI, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Dept. of Accounting and Information Systems, Madison, WI, USA
SUNHWA CHOI, Seoul National University, College of Business Administration, Dept. of Accounting, Seoul, South Korea
KIRSTEN A. COOK, Texas Tech University, Terry Lyons School of Accounting, Lubbock, TX, USA
MICHELLE DRAEGER, Colorado State University, Dept. of Accounting, Fort Collins, CO, USA
SCOTT DUELLMAN, Saint Louis University, Chaifetz School of Business, St. Louis, MO, USA
LUMINITA ENACHE, University of Calgary, Haskayne School of Business, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
SCOTT A. EMETT, Arizona State University, School of Accountancy, W. P. Carey School of Business, Tempe, AZ, USA
KURT GEE, The Ohio State University, Fisher College of Business, Dept. of Accounting & Management Information Systems, Columbus, OH, USA
CHRISTINE GIMBAR, DePaul University, Dept. of Accounting & MIS, Chicago, IL, USA
NATHAN C. GOLDMAN, North Carolina State University, Dept. of Accounting, Raleigh, NC, USA
EMILY GRIFFITH, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Dept. of Accounting & Information Systems, Wisconsin School of Business, Madison, WI, USA
ERIN L. HAMILTON, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Dept. of Accounting, Las Vegas, NV, USA
JOHN RUSS HAMILTON, Southern Methodist University, Dept. of Accounting, Dallas, TX, USA
NOEL HARDING, UNSW Sydney, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Sydney, NSW, Australia
NANCY L. HARP, Clemson University, School of Accountancy, Clemson, SC, USA
CHRISTIE HAYNE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Accountancy, Champaign, IL, USA
MOUNA HAZGUI, HEC Montréal, Dept. of Accounting, Montréal, Québec, Canada
DANA R. HERMANSON, Kennesaw State University, School of Accountancy, Kennesaw, GA, USA
MAX HEWITT, The University of Arizona, Dhaliwal-Reidy School of Accountancy, Tucson, AZ, USA
LISA A. HINSON, University of Florida, Fisher School of Accounting, Gainesville, FL, USA
LIKE JIANG, The University of Melbourne, Dept. of Accounting, Carlton, VIC, Australia
BRET A. JOHNSON, George Mason University, Dept. of Accounting, Centreville, VA, USA
MARTIN KAPONS, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Dept. of Accounting, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
CHRISTO KARUNA, Monash University, Dept. of Accounting, Clayton, VIC, Australia
TODD KRAVET, University of Connecticut, Dept. of Accounting, Storrs, CT, USA
ETHAN LAMOTHE, University of Central Florida, Kenneth G. Dixon School of Accounting, Orlando, FL, USA
PHILIPPE LASSOU, University of Guelph, Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
LIAN FEN LEE, Boston College, Dept. of Accounting, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
JACOB LEIDNER, Julius-Maximilians-Universitat Wurzburg, Dept. of Business Management, Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany
TING LUO, Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management, Dept. of Accounting, Beijing, China
DANIEL P. LYNCH, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Dept. of Accounting, Madison, WI, USA
TRACIE M. MAJORS, University of Southern California, Dept. of Accounting, Santa Monica, CA, USA
MARY MARSHALL, Portland State University, School of Business, Boring, OR, USA
MELISSA MARTIN, University of Illinois Chicago, Dept. of Accounting, Chicago, IL, USA
ADI MASLI, University of Kansas, Dept. of Accounting, Lawrence, KS, USA
STEPHANI MASON, DePaul University, School of Accountancy and MIS, Chicago, IL, USA
PAUL N. MICHAS, The University of Arizona, Eller College of Management, Dept. of Accounting, Tucson, AZ, USA
LASSE NIEMI, Aalto University, Dept. of Accounting, Espoo, Finland
JING PAN, The Pennsylvania State University, Smeal College of Business, Dept. of Accounting, University Park, PA, USA
LINDA M. PARSONS, The University of Alabama, Culverhouse School of Accountancy, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
MARIETTA PEYTCHEVA, Lehigh University, Dept. of Accounting, Bethlehem, PA, USA
JEFFREY PICKERD, Brigham Young University, School of Accountancy, Provo, UT, USA
ANDREA M. ROMI, Texas Tech University Jerry S Rawls College of Business Administration, Lyons School of Accounting, Lubbock, TX, USA
ANDREA ROZARIO, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Accountancy, Champaign, IL, USA
TAMMIE J. SCHAEFER, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Dept. of Accountancy, Kansas City, MO, USA
ROY SCHMARDEBECK, University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration, Dept. of Accounting and Information Management, Knoxville, TN, USA
JOSEPH H. SCHROEDER, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, IN, USA
TIMOTHY A. SEIDEL, Brigham Young University, School of Accountancy, BYU Marriott School of Business, Provo, UT, USA
GUOMAN SHE, The University of Hong Kong, Law and Accounting, Pokfulam, NA, Hong Kong
ROSHAN SINHA, Indiana University Bloomington, Dept. of Accounting, Bloomington, IN, USA
CHAD M. STEFANIAK, University of South Carolina, School of Accounting, Columbia, SC, USA
DERRALD STICE, The University of Hong Kong, Accounting Area, Faculty of Business and Economics, Hong Kong,
OKTAY URCAN, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Accountancy, Champaign, IL, USA
SCOTT D. VANDERVELDE, University of South Carolina, School of Accounting, Columbia, SC, USA
ANN VANSTRAELEN, Universiteit Maastricht, Dept. of Accounting and Information Management, Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
GNANAKUMAR VISVANATHAN, George Mason University, School of Business, Fairfax, VA, USA
KIMBERLY WALKER, Virginia Tech, Dept. of Business, Blacksburg, VA, USA
DANA WALLACE, University of Central Florida, Kenneth G. Dixon School of Accounting, Orlando, FL, USA
STEPHANIE WALTON, Louisiana State University, Dept. of Accounting, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
P. BARRETT WHEELER, Tulane University, Freeman School of Business, Dept. of Accounting, New Orleans, LA, USA
JENNIFER L. WINCHEL, University of Virginia, McIntire School of Commerce, Charlottesville, VA, USA
NICOLE S. WRIGHT, James Madison University, School of Accounting, Harrisonburg, VA, USA
XINNING XIAO, Monash University, Dept. of Accounting, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia
RONG ZHAO, University of Calgary, Dept. of Accounting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
QINLIN ZHONG, Fudan University, School of Management, Shanghai, China
FRANK (SHUANG) ZHOU, University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Accounting, Philadelphia, PA, USA
This journal can be accessed via the AAA's Digital Library . AAA Members receive full access as a benefit of their membership . Non-AAA Members can purchase articles for $25.
Calls for papers, from students to professional accountants: the accounting profession pipeline.
Special Call of Accounting Horizons Deadline: December 31, 2024
Deadline: January 15, 2025
Deadline: March 31, 2025
You have full access to this open access article
151 Accesses
Explore all metrics
In today’s global market, information plays a determinant role in the competitiveness of business organizations. Information systems have become essential resources in daily management, strategy development, and implementation. In this context, management accounting systems (MAS) have undergone substantial changes to adapt to new technological and environmental realities and have become an increasingly valuable instrument to support managers’ decision-making processes. Nevertheless, managers may not effectively leverage the information provided by MAS to enhance the quality of their decisions and, consequently, their overall performance. Discrepancies in research outcomes suggest a potential oversight in analyzing other organizational variables through which MAS might impact managerial performance. Based on an extensive literature review, we identified a scarcity of recent research focusing on three variables that could potentially mediate the relationship between MAS and managerial performance. These variables are intricately linked to people-oriented aspects and include the accountants’ involvement in strategy formulation, implementation, and monitoring, user satisfaction with the information supplied by MAS, and the decentralization of decision-making processes. To address this gap, we used the finite mixture - partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS) to discern the interrelationships among the variables in the research model. The results highlight how the interaction between firm characteristics can enhance the use of MAS in managers’ decision support and consequently improve their performance. This research provides relevant theoretical contributions to the debate about different organizational environments and their influence on MAS effectiveness. It also offers managerial implications for business organizations that need to design, implement, and use management accounting systems.
The case of partial least squares (pls) path modeling in managerial accounting research.
Explore related subjects.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In today’s fierce competition, effective information management is a pivotal concern for organizations aiming to thrive in the global market. Managers of these organizations require consistently updated and trustworthy information regarding various facets of their company to adeptly strategize and oversee operational activities. Additionally, access to external information is crucial for swiftly adapting to market dynamics and aligning resources with the overarching corporate strategy (Latifah et al. 2021 ). As such, information systems are essential in daily management, strategy development, and implementation. In this context, organizations must adopt Management Accounting Systems (MAS), which encompasses information beyond productivity (Sharma et al. 2006 ). The development and implementation of MAS should prioritize the type and quality of information they deliver (Ghasemi et al. 2019 ). Achieving this goal is a complex undertaking, particularly considering the unique organizational dynamics of each firm (Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu 2018 ), along with the contemporary challenges associated with digital capabilities (Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu 2018 ) and environmental compliance (Solovida and Latan 2017 ).
The relationship between the use of MAS and performance has been extensively studied. However, the results are not consensual, whether because of how the dependent variable is measured (Hammad et al. 2013 ; Ismail et al. 2018 ), how the MAS is measured (Agbejule 2005 ; Ghasemi et al. 2019 ), or even because of the differences in study context (Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ; Hammad et al. 2013 ). In addition, business organizations face new challenges relating to technological capabilities (Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu 2018 ) and environmental requirements (Solovida and Latan 2017 ).
Nevertheless, managers may not consistently harness the full potential of MAS, meaning they may not effectively leverage the information provided by MAS to enhance the quality of their decisions and, consequently, their overall performance. Discrepancies in research outcomes suggest a potential oversight in analyzing other organizational variables through which MAS might impact managerial performance.
Based on an extensive literature review, we identified a scarcity of recent research focusing on three variables that could potentially mediate the relationship between MAS and managerial performance that specifically pertain to issues associated with people-oriented aspects: (i) the accountants’ participation in strategy formulation, implementation, and monitoring, (ii) the user satisfaction with information provided by MAS, and (iii) the decentralization of decision-making processes.
In today’s competitive environment, accountants have transcended their traditional role as mere information providers for managerial decision-making (Rieg 2018 ). Instead, they are actively engaged in formulating strategies, thereby enhancing the quality of information and augmenting their influence in the management of SMEs (ten Rouwelaar et al. 2021 ; Jackson et al. 2022 ).
The structure of the MAS and the characteristics of the information it provides influence user satisfaction, contributing to greater utilization in the decision-making process (Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu 2018 ) and consequently improving performance.
Regarding decision-making processes, firms have experienced substantial transformations to enhance their responsiveness to market competition. The growing digitization of processes has changed organizational structures, making it easier to decentralize decision-making and enhance employee autonomy (Knudsen 2020 ; Kretschmer and Khashabi 2020 ). Consequently, decentralizing decision-making has become a strategic tool for organizations to navigate market volatility effectively (Ghorbel 2019 ).
To address these research gaps, we intend to answer the following questions:
RQ1: How does the management accounting system contribute to managerial performance? RQ2: How organizational people-oriented aspects and firm characteristics influence the relationship between MAS and managerial performance.
Based on a comprehensive literature review, this study takes a contingency theory approach to analyze the relationships in the following research framework (Fig. 1 ).
Research framework
We will use the finite mixture - partial least squares (FIMIX-PLS) with a sample of two hundred and fifty-five Portuguese firms to discern the interrelationships among the variables in the research framework.
This study offers three significant contributions to management literature, particularly to management accounting systems subjects. First, this study combines four informational dimensions of management accounting systems (integration, aggregation, scope, and timeliness), generating theoretical evidence of how to use people-related organizational aspects to increase managerial performance, thus supporting the proposition of adjustment as a mediation of contingency theory.
Second, this study explores how firm characteristics constrain factors, shaping the framework for management accounting systems and influencing people’s effectiveness.
Third, the research model’s design and comprehensiveness enable the examination of previously unexplored mediating and moderating effects in the management literature. This contribution extends the discourse on diverse organizational environments, emphasizing their significance in implementing an effective management accounting system and their potential implications for supporting managers’ decision-making.
This study also offers significant practical implications to managers of business organizations, helping them design/redesign, and implement effective management accounting systems when they face significant challenges in adapting their processes to the requirements of sustainable development.
The following section presents the literature review and the research hypotheses. The third section presents the sample and data collection, measurement items, and analysis methods. The fourth section presents and discusses the results. The last section emphasizes the main findings, the implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.
The relationship between management accounting systems and managerial performance.
In the increasingly volatile economic environment, management accounting is one of the essential instruments managers use to support their decisions (Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu 2018 ; Oyewo et al. 2021 ). It plays a fundamental role by providing information to make more conscious and informed decisions and feedback on these decisions. Managers realized the importance of the information provided having multidimensional characteristics to ensure the competitiveness of their organizations (Maelah et al. 2021 ). These systems can significantly influence managerial and organizational performance (Hoozée and Mitchell 2018 ).
Management accounting systems can be described in terms of four essential information dimensions: (i) scope, (ii) timeliness, (iii) aggregation, and (iv) integration (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ). The information’s focus, quantification, and time horizon are associated with the scope dimension, which could be smaller or larger (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ; Hammad et al. 2013 ). External financial or non-financial information is associated with a more extensive scope dimension (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ; Sharma et al. 2006 ). Traditional accounting systems, which include internal, financial, and historical data, are related with smaller scope dimension (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ; Fong and Quaddus 2010 ).
The frequency and speed of reporting are correlated with the timeliness dimension (Fong and Quaddus 2010 ). It may also be associated with the availability of information upon request (Hammad et al. 2013 ) and the speed at which standardized or customized information is received (Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ). According to Chenhall and Morris ( 1986 ), MAS can report current events and offer quick decision feedback with access to timely information.
The information systematization by period, functional areas, or formats compliant with formal decision models is associated with the aggregation dimension (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ; Hammad et al. 2013 ). Managers can get information about other departments using data compiled at the functional level (Fong and Quaddus 2010 ).
The ability to define specific goals for various activities and their interrelationships within the sub-units and the reporting of intra-sub-unit interactions are associated with the integration dimension (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ; Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ). According to Hammad et al. ( 2013 ), the integration assists multiple coordinate segments within a sub-unit and deals with data related to cross-functional boundaries.
Chenhall and Morris ( 1986 ) created a tool to test each of these dimensions to assess the informational characteristics of MAS, and several authors used it. Nonetheless, several researchers have used this tool in different ways. Some authors (e.g., Hariyati et al. 2019 ; Le et al. 2020 ; Liem and Hien 2020 ; Ngo 2020 ) chose to measure MAS using all four dimensions, while others (e.g., Chang et al. 2003 ; Heidmann et al. 2008 ; Ghorbel 2019 ) chose to use just a few or even just one (e.g., Naranjo-Gil and Hartmann 2007 ; Harrison 2009 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Do et al. 2020 ) of the dimensions.
Several connections between MAS dimensions and other business factors have been researched since its creation. MAS information dimensions have been studied as independent variables (Chang et al. 2003 ; Agbejule 2005 ; Mollanazari and Abdolkarimi 2012 ), as dependent variables (Chenhall and Morris 1986 ; Bouwens and Abernethy 2000 ; Chiou 2011 ), and occasionally both dependent and independent variables (Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ; Etemadi et al. 2009 ; Ghasemi et al. 2019 ). The results for the same relationships analyzed in different studies are not consensual. They seem to be influenced by the number of items used to measure each dimension and the internal and external circumstances.
Pedroso and Gomes ( 2020 ) recently proposed and validated Chenhall and Morris ( 1986 ) instrument using a multidimensional approach. In this new approach, MAS is measured with a second-order construct comprised of four first-order constructs: scope, timeliness, aggregation, and integration. This multidimensional instrument allows measuring MAS as a single system, which includes the four dimensions. It will also enable comparison results from different studies that use this multidimensional instrument (Pedroso and Gomes 2020 ).
Management accounting systems play a significant role in performance management and measurement. The available information often defines the performance measures that allow an effective performance measurement process (Chenhall and Smith 2011 ). This relationship also arises from the assumption that management accounting may influence managerial performance by providing information to improve decision-making processes (Chong 2004 ; Agbejule 2005 ; Sharma et al. 2006 ; Hall 2008 ; Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ; Hammad et al. 2013 ).
In this context, the following hypothesis is formulated:
The use of information provided by MAS positively influences managerial performance.
Global changes in the market and the utilization of Enterprise Resource Planning systems have required accountants to change the nature of the information they provide and their role in strategic decision-making (Caglio 2003 ; Phillips 2004 ; Oyewo 2021 ). Now, they are not limited to providing information for managers’ decisions but begin participating in strategic decision-making processes (Järvenpää 2007 ; Aver and Cadez 2009 ; Annuar and Ismail 2014 ; Thaller et al. 2024 ). As such, we should avoid simple labels for the functions of management accountants (Rieg 2018 ).
In the new digital organizational realities, accountants will be more prominent as intelligence agents, advising, communicating, and closely linking the company’s activities to strategic decision-making (Garanina et al. 2021 ).
According to the literature, firms with the highest participation of the accountant in the strategic decision-making process follow a more analytical and market-oriented strategy (Cadez and Guilding 2012 ), influencing strategic and operational decisions (ten Rouwelaar et al. 2018 ).
Accountants now assume roles other than only reporting financial information (Arora et al. 2021 ), extending their activity, and acting as strategic business partners (Hoyle 2012 ; ten Rouwelaar et al. 2021 ; Venkatesh et al. 2023 ). In competitive contexts, the activities carried out by accountants can be adjusted to promote innovation and help effectively implement companies’ strategies (Lee and Wang 2020 ).
Overall, it seems that management accountants now face the responsibility of multiple roles and need multiple skills (Rieg et al. 2023 ). These skills enable them to be more effective directly and indirectly through their ability to influence managerial performance (ten Rouwelaar et al. 2021 ). In this context, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Accountant participation in strategic decisions directly and positively impacts managerial performance.
Management accounting systems directly and positively impact accountant participation in strategic decisions.
User satisfaction can be defined as the users’ confidence level in using an information system to meet their information needs. These users assess several aspects based on their experience relating to their expectations, including system and information quality and utilization (Fleischman et al. 2010 ; Weli 2014 ; Gaardboe et al. 2017 ).
Regarding the effect of system quality on user satisfaction, we found a lack of consensus in the literature. While some authors supported this relationship (Hsu et al. 2015 ; Al-Okaily et al. 2021 ), others rejected it (Al-Mamary 2020 ; Davarpanah and Mohamed 2020 ). Concerning the influence of information quality on user satisfaction, the literature is consensual in supporting this relationship (Rai et al. 2002 ; Ghanem and Sulaiman 2016 ; Laumer et al. 2017 ). Concerning the influence of information system usage on user satisfaction, we also found a lack of consensus in the literature. While some authors found statistical significance for this effect (Weli 2014 ; Okour et al. 2019 ), others rejected it (Marjanovic et al. 2016 ; Ratna et al. 2020 ).
The information quality attributes include relevance, precision, reliability, understandability, accuracy, conciseness, completeness, currency, timeliness, and usability (Cohen and Kaimenaki 2011 ; Petter et al. 2013 ; Pavlatos and Kostakis 2021 ). Using information with positive values for these attributes increases user satisfaction and can improve the quality of decision processes, influencing managerial performance (Weli 2014 ; Gaardboe et al. 2017 ; Okour et al. 2019 ). However, we also found contradictory results for this effect (Al-Hattami 2021 ).
As a result of the above discussion, the following hypotheses are formulated:
User satisfaction with management accounting information directly and positively impacts managerial performance.
Management accounting systems directly and positively impact user satisfaction with the information they provide.
The decentralization of decision-making power can be defined as the level of autonomy delegated to managers, giving them greater responsibility for planning and controlling activities (Waterhouse and Tiessen 1978 ), which can be seen as the empowerment process of these managers (Conger and Kanungo 1988 ).
Following a life-cycle approach, firms are more decentralized at the birth stage. As they enter the growth stage, this decentralization slightly decreases until it becomes moderate in maturity (Moores and Yuen 2001 ).
The management accounting literature has studied the relationship between the decentralization of decision-making and several variables related to performance and management accounting (Luft and Shields 2003 ; Herschung et al. 2018 ). Regarding the relationship between decentralization and performance, we can find a positive association with organizational performance (Hoque 2011 ). We also found that the decentralization of decision-making processes does not directly influence managers’ performance (Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ).
Regarding the relationship between decentralization and management accounting, we can find a positive association with sophisticated management accounting practices (Abdel-Kader and Luther 2008 ; Al-Dhubaibi and Kamal 2014 ). This result suggests that firms with more decentralized structures may need more sophisticated information to support their decision-making processes.
Based on the literature review, it seems consensual that there is a positive relationship between decentralization and the implementation, sophistication, and availability of MAS information (Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ; Fuadah et al. 2020 ; Ngo 2020 ; Nguyen et al. 2023 ). However, if it is true that the decentralization of decision-making processes influences MAS information, it is also possible the opposite causal direction (Luft and Shields 2003 ).
The decentralization of decision-making implies that lower-level managers have more information to improve their decisions. As such, management accounting systems that provide relevant information can drive the decentralization of decision-making processes. As a result of the above discussion, the following hypotheses are formulated:
Decentralization of decision-making processes directly and positively impacts managerial performance.
Management accounting systems directly and positively impact the decentralization of decision-making processes.
Sample and data collection.
To select our sample, we sought assistance from the Portuguese representative of Dun & Bradstreet Worldwide Network. Specifically, we requested a random sample comprising 1500 organizations to represent the Portuguese enterprises’ population adequately. Each of these enterprises was contacted by phone to elucidate the research study’s objectives and acquire the name of their Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Despite multiple attempts, twelve enterprises did not respond to our calls. Additionally, ninety-three enterprises declined to participate in the research study, citing reasons such as cessation of operations and a lack of autonomy to respond to the questionnaire.
Consequently, we sent an email to 1407 CFOs of Portuguese SMEs, outlining the research’s purpose and providing a link to the online survey. To encourage participation, CFOs were offered an incentive in the form of a summary of the research findings.
We received 297 responses, 50 of which were incomplete (Table 1 ). The sample was adjusted due to the non-response pattern of some incomplete questionnaires and the option of responding “not applicable” to some items of “Managerial performance”.
Concerning the non-response pattern, we excluded all cases that did not present any response to any of the items of a variable (Hair et al. 2014 ).
Regarding the possibility of respondents answering “not applicable” to eight items in the questionnaire, we eliminated cases with more than 50% of “not applicable” responses (Evans et al. 2002 ). The remainder were treated as missing values (Gillespie 2005 ) and replaced by the average, per case, of the responses to the remaining items of “Managerial performance” (Salmon 2013 ).
After the procedures described above, we had 255 usable responses, representing a response rate of 18.12%. Even though the response rate was not too high, it is identical to similar studies (Cleary 2015 ; Martins et al. 2019 ). Table 2 shows the sample characteristics.
The research questionnaire for measuring the variables in this study was drawn from a systematic literature review. Because the original questions were in English, we translated them into Portuguese and adapted the research instrument to the local business environment.
The final questionnaire includes thirty-eight items (presented in Table 3 ) used to measure the constructs of the research model. Each item represents an observed variable, measured with a 7-point Likert scale.
We use the multidimensional instrument proposed and validated by Pedroso and Gomes ( 2020 ) to measure MAS. The 14-item instrument measures the 4 MAS dimensions: scope, timeliness, aggregation, and integration. The participants were asked to evaluate how often they used information with specific characteristics in their daily decision-making activities (from 1 – Never to 7 – Always).
A construct developed by Mahoney et al. ( 1963 ) and adapted for several studies (e.g., Agbejule 2005 ; Sharma et al. 2006 ; Hall 2008 ) was used for evaluating managerial performance. Based on a 9-item instrument, the CFOs were asked to self-evaluate (from 1 – Unacceptable to 7 – Excellent) their overall performance and their performance in specific activities (planning, investigating, coordinating, evaluating, supervising, staffing, negotiating, and representing). The managers could answer “not applicable” for each item except for the overall performance.
User satisfaction with MAS information was measured through a construct developed by Doll and Torkzadeh ( 1988 ) and adapted by several authors (e.g., Rai et al. 2002 ; Fong and Quaddus 2010 ; Macinati and Anessi-Pessina 2014 ). A 5-item instrument was used to measure managers’ degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the information provided by MAS (from 1 – Completely dissatisfied to 7 – Completely satisfied).
To measure the decentralization of the decision-making process, we used the 5-item construct developed by Gordon and Narayanan ( 1984 ) and used by several authors (e.g., Abdel-Kader and Luther 2008 ; Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ). It asked participants to assess the degree of decentralization of decision-making in different situations in their firm (from 1 – Very low to 7 – Very high).
To assess accountants’ participation in the decision-making process, we used the 5-item construct developed by Wooldridge and Floyd ( 1990 ), adopted in several research studies (e.g., Cadez and Guilding 2008 ; Cadez and Guilding 2012 ). Participants were asked to rate the degree of accountant participation in each item (from 1 – Very low to 7 – Very high).
The type of industry and size of the company were used as control variables. To measure the type of industry, participants were asked to indicate the 2-digit NACE of their activity. To measure the size of the company, participants were asked to indicate the approximate number of workers in the following ranges: less than 10, between 10 and 49, between 50 and 99, between 100 and 149, between 150 and 199, between 200 and 249 and more than 250.
Consistent with the study’s objectives, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to test the research hypotheses. This statistical method was used due to the complexity of the research model (Hair et al. 2017 ; Usakli and Kucukergin 2018 ).
Data analysis comprised three phases. The measurement model was assessed for reliability and validity in the first phase. Constructs’ indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were examined. In the second phase, the results of the structural model were analyzed. The moderation effect of firm characteristics on the model relationship was analyzed in the third phase. The PLS-MGA method (Henseler et al. 2009 ) was used to examine whether a single or several latent firm characteristics moderate the structural relationships of the research model. The finite mixture PLS (FIMIX-PLS) was employed to capture and identify the unobserved heterogeneity of the sample. All the analyses were performed using the IBM-SPSS Statistics version 25 and SmartPLS 3.2.6 (Ringle et al. 2015 ).
Measurement model.
The measurement model was initially evaluated concerning construct reliability. All the measurement items presented outer loadings above or close to 0.70 (Table 3 ), the recommended threshold (Hair et al. 2011 ). Moreover, the Cronbach’s alpha values and the Composite Reliability (CR) obtained for each construct exceed 0.7, indicating sufficient construct reliability. All the average variance extracted (AVE) values were higher than the recommended threshold of 0.5, suggesting that each construct’s measurement items share a significant amount of variance.
Concerning discriminant validity analysis, the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations was used (Hair et al. 2017 ; Usakli and Kucukergin 2018 ). All HTMT values are below 0.90 (Table 4 ), establishing the discriminant validity of the constructs (Henseler et al. 2015 ).
As for the management accounting system construct, the loadings of the first-order constructs on the second-order construct indicate that the utilization of the management accounting system can be measured as a second-order construct reflecting the four MAS dimensions.
Regarding common method variance, we found no significant concerns about common method bias based on the results of Harman’s single-factor test and the Common Latent Factor approach (Podsakoff et al. 2003 ).
The structural model results, using a bootstrapping procedure with 5.000 resamples, are presented in Table 5 .
The f 2 values consistently show a positive orientation, maintaining a uniform rank order of path coefficients. This pattern implies that paths with larger statistically significant coefficients are associated with larger effect sizes. The value of R 2 (0.34) is considered moderate to explain the improvement in managerial performance influenced by using MAS (Hair et al. 2013 ). Based on the results of the structural model, the direct effect of management accounting systems on the decentralization of decision-making processes was non-significant ( p > 0.05), which means that H7 is not supported. All the remaining hypotheses are supported.
To test the moderating effect of the company size, we analyzed two groups: small and medium-sized enterprises. We did not obtain any significant difference in the relationships of the research model. To test the industry’s moderating effect, we analyzed Manufacturing and Wholesale groups of enterprises. The results did not show any significant difference in the relationships of the research model.
Given the results, we decided to explore the possibility that companies’ intangible characteristics may be moderating the relationships of the research model. For this purpose, the FIMIX-PLS procedure was used to uncover latent segments of SMEs, following the systematic approach suggested by Hair et al. ( 2016 ). First, according to the results of this procedure, two groups of firms were found to be the most suitable solution (Table 6 ), confirming the heterogeneity of the sample.
Second, to explain the latent group structure, all the variables relating to firm characteristics were used to identify one or more that match the two-segment FIMIX-PLS partition. Therefore, cross-table analysis regarding these variables was used to assign group descriptors (Ringle et al. 2010 ). None of the firm characteristics was found to show a suitable fit with FIMIX-PLS segmentation results. However, we found small differences in some industries (manufacturing, construction, and retail) and the firms’ size (Table 7 ).
The three most represented industries in Group A are Manufacturing, Wholesale and retailing, and Construction; in Group B, they are Manufacturing, Wholesale and retailing, and Transportation and storage. Although only one of these three sectors differs between groups, the main differences are in the common sectors. Thus, there are more Wholesale and retailing firms in Group A, and in Group B, there are more Manufacturing firms.
In a more fine-tuned data analysis, we found that group A includes a predominance of firms using processes in which human intervention is more intense than group B.
We also found that group A includes more large firms (100 to 249 workers) and fewer small firms (10 to 99 workers) than group B.
Although we have not identified the exact causes for the existence of different groups, it is essential to verify whether firms of these two groups have different behaviors regarding the use of MAS and the consequent positive influence on managerial performance. As such, we used a multi-group analysis (MGA) to assess the moderating effect of firm characteristics on the relationships between MAS and managerial performance. The MICOM procedure was used to analyze the measurement invariance. Based on the results, the partial measurement invariance was verified, which is the requirement for comparing and interpreting the group-specific differences of MGA results (Henseler et al. 2016 ). The results lead us to believe that other variables not included in the questionnaire will be decisive in differentiating the two groups’ behavior.
The MGA results for the two groups of firms, using a bootstrapping procedure with a resampling of 5000, are presented in Table 8 .
Both models have predictive relevance according to the Q 2 results, which are all positive. The values of f 2 are all positive and follow a similar rank order of the path coefficients, which means that large significant path values correspond to large effect sizes (Hair et al. 2013 ). Finally, the value of SRMR = 0.079 shows that the model has a good fit.
The results of the multi-group analysis show differences between the two groups of firms. For group A, the effect of accounting participation on managerial performance was not significant, not supporting H2. The effect of decentralization on managerial performance was also not significant, not supporting H4. All the remaining hypotheses were supported. These results show that the effect of management accounting on managerial performance is partially mediated by user satisfaction with MAS information.
For Group B, the effect of user satisfaction on managerial performance was not significant, not supporting H6. All the remaining hypotheses were supported. The effect of MAS on managerial performance through accountant participation is significant. However, it cannot be considered a mediating effect as it has a VAF below the limit (Nitzl et al. 2016 ). Therefore, for the companies in Group B, only the decentralization of decisions mediates the relationship between MAS and managerial performance.
This study discerns the interrelationships among management accounting systems, organizational variables, and managerial performance. As such, we explore a group of variables that could help MAS improve managerial performance in SMEs. These variables are the accountant’s participation in strategic decisions, user satisfaction, and decentralization of decision-making processes. Although the literature on management accounting did not yet test the mediating effect of these variables on the relationship between MAS and managerial performance, we expected a significant result based on the findings of individual effect components presented by the literature in several organizational contexts, including SMEs.
Regarding the positive influence of MAS on managerial performance, our results confirm the findings of several studies for large companies (e.g., Chong 2004 ; Sharma et al. 2006 ; Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ; Etemadi et al. 2009 ). On the other hand, Agbejule ( 2005 ) rejects it.
Concerning the influence of decentralization on managerial performance, our study did not find significance for this relationship, corroborating the results of Soobaroyen and Poorundersing ( 2008 ).
Also, in this research, two distinct groups of firms were pinpointed, each displaying unique features and perspectives regarding utilizing Management Accounting Systems (MAS) and its influence on managerial performance. These groups also exhibited distinguishing factors that serve as mediators in the relationship between the utilization of multifaceted MAS information and the enhancement of managerial performance. Consequently, it implies the presence of organizational variables related to people, through which the utilization of MAS information will increase managers’ performance.
After analyzing the results, we discerned a group of firms (Group A), primarily encompassing larger organizations with a significant human presence in operational processes. These firms are predominantly included in three key industries: Manufacturing, Wholesale and retail trade, and Construction. Notably, within these firms, users’ satisfaction with the information provided by management accounting systems emerged as a crucial mediating factor (Fig. 2 ). This mediation substantially contributes to refining the decision-making process, resulting in higher performance among managers.
Mediation effects in larger, labor-intensive business organizations
In firms characterized by intricate processes involving substantial human interaction, the importance of user satisfaction with MAS becomes more pronounced. In this context, the satisfaction derived from reliable, relevant, accurate, precise, and complete information is crucial in improving managerial performance.
Group B consists primarily of smaller firms with less pronounced human components in the operational processes, distributed predominantly across the Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail Trade, and Transportation and Storage industries. Unlike the other group, the decentralization of decisions (Fig. 3 ) plays a mediating role, thus improving managers’ performance.
Mediation effects in smaller, less labor-intensive business organizations
In this scenario, utilizing management accounting information can enhance managerial performance by facilitating decentralized decision-making in critical domains, including product development, human resources management, investment management, budget allocation, and pricing decisions.
Both groups of firms exhibit a direct, positive, and statistically significant impact of Management Accounting Systems (MAS) on managerial performance. This impact is measured across multiple dimensions, encompassing planning, investigating, coordinating, evaluating, supervising, staffing, negotiating, and representing. Notably, these results underscore the acknowledged importance of leveraging management accounting information for decision support, a notion well-documented in the literature (Soobaroyen and Poorundersing 2008 ; Rasid et al. 2014 ; Liem and Hien 2020 ; Ngo 2020 ). Furthermore, they elucidate that this impact emanates from the broad and multidimensional characteristics inherent in MAS.
The results also show that MAS positively influences all three people-related organizational variables in both groups, which means that MAS provides reliable information for people working in these firms. However, using that information by accountants who participate in strategic decisions is not a significant mediator in improving managerial performance.
Overall, the results of this study suggest that firms, regardless of their activity, should be concerned with users’ satisfaction with MAS information. This satisfaction could be the only way they will continue to use MAS information to improve their performance and, consequently, could increase organizational performance (Weli 2014 ).
In the current competitive environment, managers of business organizations need reliable information to support them, both in daily operational decisions and in developing corporate strategy (Rikhardsson and Yigitbasioglu 2018 ; Oyewo et al. 2021 ). For this purpose, MAS has a preponderant role in helping them improve organizational performance (Hoozée and Mitchell 2018 ; Bui et al. 2023 ). As such, business organizations should also pay special attention to involving accountants in strategic management processes, as their skills and knowledge can contribute to organizational performance (Janin 2017 ; Venkatesh et al. 2023 ; Thaller et al. 2024 ).
Business organizations face fierce competition to sell on global markets. In order to continue to compete in these markets, companies need management accounting systems that analyze, integrate, and provide financial and non-financial information to help them overcome the major challenges they face. These systems allow it to collect internal information and provide external information at all organizational levels, thus bringing departmental managers closer to customers’ needs.
Based on a comprehensive review of the literature on management accounting, we found that MAS does not always significantly influence managerial performance. To fill this gap, we analyzed the effect of MAS on managerial performance, exploring the role of people-related variables and organizational characteristics. The results of this study offer the following main theoretical and practical contributions and suggestions for future research.
First, our findings suggest that although MAS directly affects managerial performance, using some people-related organizational resources can mediate it. This finding means that they contribute to explaining the relationship between the effective use of MAS and increased managerial performance. As far as we know, based on the literature reviewed, these relationships have not yet been studied. Although several studies have called for more research into the relationship between MAS and performance, the empirical evidence of this relationship is limited and does not even exist when measured in a systemic approach. Therefore, delving into these novel relationships represents a substantial shift in our comprehension of MAS effectiveness within organizational contexts. This approach involves reshaping the causal maps that underlie contingency theory, offering a revised and more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics influencing MAS outcomes.
Secondly, our findings enhance the comprehension of these causal maps by confirming that company characteristics can influence the nature of the mediation exerted by the variables under investigation on the relationship between MAS effectiveness and managerial performance. The data analysis revealed that user satisfaction with MAS information significantly enhances managerial performance in larger, labor-intensive companies. Conversely, MAS enhances managerial performance in smaller, less labor-intensive companies by fostering the decentralization of decision-making processes. This latter revelation may signify a paradigm shift in the decision-making processes of business organizations.
Thirdly, the design and scope of the research model allow for the examination of mediating and moderating effects previously unexplored in the management literature. These findings support the contingency theory proposition of fit as mediation. In light of this theory, our study shows that companies with a more effective MAS can achieve significantly higher manager performance if they attach more value to decentralizing decisions and user satisfaction. As such, they extend previous research that only identified the individual relationships of these variables with MAS without testing the mediating effect.
Organizations require both internal and external information across all functional departments. The ability of these companies to endure recent crises positions them as winners, and their attributes emerge as critical factors in competitiveness.
Our empirical study provides valuable insights into the interaction dynamics between management accounting systems (MAS) and organizational variables related to people. Notably, our findings carry various implications for enhancing the performance of company managers.
First and foremost, in decision-making, managers must move away from traditional centralization approaches and initiate decentralization processes. Our findings emphasize that employing Management Accounting Systems (MAS) information to facilitate decentralization correlates with enhancing managerial performance. Through this approach, departmental managers gain access to current market information, empowering them to respond efficiently to customer requests and foresee competitors by innovating in tune with customer needs.
Secondly, our research highlights the significance of ensuring user satisfaction with the information delivered by the MAS. These findings bear implications for managers, emphasizing the necessity to promote adequate user training. Through this training initiative, users can actively contribute to updating information within the MAS, ultimately boosting their contentment with its functionalities.
Finally, our research reveals that while the management accounting systems encourage accountants’ involvement in the strategic process, this participation does not necessarily translate into enhanced managerial performance. This finding holds important implications for accountants, suggesting a need to shift their role within companies from mere information organizers to active corporate strategy and operations contributors. Improving the quality of the information provided to managers becomes pivotal. Moreover, these results carry implications for managers, urging them to enhance communication with accountants by actively involving them in decision-making processes.
Like any research endeavor, this study has its limitations. Despite being comparable to similar studies, the sample size constrained a more comprehensive analysis, limiting the examination of control variables, including the industry’s impact on management accounting system utilization. It is important to acknowledge that the sample employed in this study is specific to Portuguese companies, warranting caution in generalizing the results. Additionally, the research methodology adopted in this study hinders an in-depth analysis of each company’s specific organizational characteristics and their correlation with MAS.
Future research could employ alternative methods, such as case studies and qualitative research approaches, to scrutinize critical variables influencing MAS effectiveness, such as MAS types, accountant profiles and tasks, manager profiles and tasks, and organizational structure. Furthermore, future research endeavors should prioritize analyzing how MAS can impact organizational performance. This includes delving into the potential mediating effects of managerial performance and exploring the moderating influences of internal variables like the degree of digitalization within companies and external variables such as perceived environmental uncertainty. Such investigations would contribute valuable insights to understanding the intricate relationships between MAS, managerial effectiveness, and broader organizational outcomes.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Abdel-Kader M, Luther R (2008) The impact of firm characteristics on management accounting practices: A UK-based empirical analysis. Br Account Rev 40(1):2–27. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0890838907000911
Agbejule A (2005) The relationship between management accounting systems and perceived environmental uncertainty on managerial performance: a research note. Acc Bus Res 35(4):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2005.9729996
Article Google Scholar
Al-Dhubaibi AAS, Kamal I (2014) Contingencies influencing management accounting practice: a Yemen-based empirical study. Asia-Pacific Manage Acc J 9(2):69–84
Google Scholar
Al-Hattami HM (2021) Validation of the D&M IS success model in the context of accounting information system of the banking sector in the least developed countries. Journal of Management Control (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-020-00310-3
Al-Mamary YHS (2020) Using structural equation modeling approach to investigate the impact of technological factors on user satisfaction. Qual-Access Success 21(178):90–95
Al-Okaily A, Al-Okaily M, Ping A, Al-Mawali T, H. and, Zaidan H (2021) An empirical investigation of enterprise system user satisfaction antecedents in Jordanian commercial banks. Cogent Bus Manage 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1918847
Annuar HA, Ismail Y (2014) The involvement of accountants in corporate strategy in Malaysia: a stewardship theory perspective. Corp Ownersh Control 11(3):130–143. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv11i3p10
Arora MP, Lodhia S, Stone G (2021) Enablers and barriers to the involvement of accountants in integrated reporting. Meditari Account Res. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-11-2020-1102
Aver B, Cadez S (2009) Management accountants’ participation in strategic management processes: a cross-industry comparison. J East Eur Manage Stud 14(3):310–322. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2009-3-310
Bouwens J, Abernethy MA (2000) The consequences of customization on management accounting system design. Acc Organ Soc 25(3):221–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00043-4
Bui HQ, Hoai TT, Tran HA, Nguyen NP (2023) Performance implications of the interaction between the accountants’ participation in strategic decision-making and accounting capacity. J Asian Bus Economic Stud 30(1):67–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABES-04-2022-0087
Cadez S, Guilding C (2008) An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Account Org Soc 33(7–8):836–863. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0361368208000044 [Accessed: 28 March 2014]
Cadez S, Guilding C (2012) Strategy, strategic management accounting and performance: a configurational analysis. Industrial Manage Data Syst 112(3):484–501. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02635571211210086 Available at: [Accessed: 31 March 2014]
Caglio A (2003) Enterprise Resource Planning systems and accountants: towards hybridization? Eur Acc Rev 12(1):123–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818031000087853
Chang RD, Chang YW, Paper D (2003) The effect of task uncertainty, decentralization and AIS characteristics on the performance of AIS: an empirical case in Taiwan. Inform Manage 40(7):691–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00097-6
Chenhall R, Morris D (1986) The impact of structure, Environment, and interdependence on the Perceived usefulness of Management Accounting systems. Acc Rev LXI (1):16–35
Chenhall R, Smith D (2011) A review of Australian management accounting research: 1980–2009. Accounting & Finance 51(1), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2010.00371.x
Chiou B (2011) Which types of management accounting system information can be used to respond adequately to environmental uncertainty? The effects of user participation and tolerance of ambiguity. Afr J Bus Manage 5(34):13293–13301. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2207
Chong VK (2004) Job-relevant information and its role with task uncertainty and management accounting systems on managerial performance. Pac Account Rev 16(2):1–22. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/01140580410818496
Cleary P (2015) An empirical investigation of the impact of management accounting on structural capital and business performance. J Intellect Capital 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2014-0114
Cohen S, Kaimenaki E (2011) Cost accounting systems structure and information quality properties: an empirical analysis. J Appl Account Res 12(1):5–25. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/09675421111130586 [Accessed: 22 April 2014]
Conger JA, Kanungo RN (1988) The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Acad Manage Rev 13(3):471–482. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1988.4306983
Davarpanah A, Mohamed N (2020) Human resources information systems implementation and influences in higher education: evidence from Malaysia. Int J Asian Bus Inform Manage 11(3):65–84. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJABIM.2020070105
Do TH, Le HM, Luong DTT, Tran QT (2020) Relationship between the management accounting information usage, market orientation and performance: evidence from vietnamese tourism firms. J Asian Finance Econ Bus 7(10):707–716. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.707
Doll WJ, Torkzadeh G (1988) The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Q 12(June):259–273
Etemadi H, Dilami ZD, Bazaz MS, Parameswaran R (2009) Culture, management accounting and managerial performance: Focus Iran. Advances in Accounting 25(2), 216–225. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0882611009000327 [Accessed: 29 March 2014]
Evans KR, Schlacter JL, Schultz RJ, Gremler DD, Pass MW, Wolfe WG (2002) Salesperson and sales manager perceptions of salesperson job characteristics and job outcomes: A perceptual congruence approach. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10(4), 30–44. http://www.gremler.net/personal/research/2002_Saleserson_Perceptual_Congruence_JMTP.pdf
Fleischman G, Walker K, Johnson E (2010) A field study of user versus provider perceptions of management accounting system services. Int J Acc Inform Manage 18(3):252–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/18347641011068992
Fong SCC, Quaddus M (2010) Intranet use in Hong Kong public hospitals. Int J Account Inf Manag 18(2):156–181. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/18347641011048138 [Accessed: 5 May 2014]
Fuadah LL, Safitri RH, Yuliani Y, Arisman A (2020) Determinant factors’ impact on managerial performance through management accounting systems in Indonesia. J Asian Finance Econ Bus 7(10):109–117. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.109
Gaardboe R, Sandalgaard N, Nyvang T (2017) An assessment of business intelligence in public hospitals. Int J Inform Syst Project Manage 5(4):5–18. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm050401
Garanina T, Ranta M, Dumay J (2021) Blockchain in accounting research: current trends and emerging topics. Accounting, auditing and accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4991
Ghanem NB, Sulaiman S (2016) Management accounting system, information quality and organizational performance: evidence from Libya. Asia Pasific Manage Acc J 11(2):1–24
Ghasemi R, Habibi HR, Ghasemlo M, Karami M (2019) The effectiveness of management accounting systems: evidence from financial organizations in Iran. J Acc Emerg Economies 9(2):182–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-02-2017-0013
Ghorbel J (2019) A study of contingency factors of accounting information system design in Tunisian SMIs. J Knowl Econ 10(1):74–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0439-8
Gillespie TL (2005) Internationalizing 360-degree feedback: are subordinate ratings comparable? J Bus Psychol 19(3):361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-004-2233-z
Gordon La, Narayanan VK (1984) Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation. Acc Organ Soc 9(1):33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(84)90028-X
Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract 19(2):139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2013) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). First edit. SAGE, Thousand Oaks
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2014) Multivariate data analysis. Seventh ed. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow
Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Matthews LM, Ringle CM (2016) Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part II – a case study. Eur Bus Rev 28(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0094
Hair JF, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, Chong AYL (2017) An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Manage Data Syst 117(3):442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130
Hall M (2008) The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society 33(2–3), 141–163. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0361368207000244 [Accessed: 24 March 2014]
Hammad SA, Jusoh R, Ghozali I (2013) Decentralization, perceived environmental uncertainty, managerial performance and management accounting system information in Egyptian hospitals. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management 21(4), 314–330. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-02-2012-0005 [Accessed: 5 December 2014]
Hariyati H, Tjahjadi B, Soewarno N (2019) The mediating effect of intellectual capital, management accounting information systems, internal process performance, and customer performance. Int J Productivity Perform Manage 68(7):1250–1271. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2018-0049
Harrison JL (2009) Untangling the value of information scope: an investigation in retail pharmacies. J Manage Organ 15(4):470–485. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.15.4.470
Heidmann M, Schäffer U, Strahringer S (2008) Exploring the role of management accounting systems in strategic sensemaking. Information Systems Management 25(3):244–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530802151194%5Cn http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=32964978&site=ehost-live
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR (2009) The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Mark 20:277–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(92)90003-4
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Henseler J, Hubona G, Ray PA (2016) Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Manage Data Syst 116(1):2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
Herschung F, Mahlendorf MD, Weber J (2018) Mapping quantitative management accounting research 2002–2012. J Manag Account Res 30(1):73–141. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51745
Hoozée S, Mitchell F (2018) Who influences the design of management accounting systems? An exploratory study. Australian Acc Rev 28(3):374–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12193
Hoque Z (2011) The relations among competition, delegation, management accounting systems change and performance: A path model. Advances in Accounting 27(2):266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2011.05.006 [Accessed: 29 March 2014]
Hoyle R (2012) Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. First edit. The Guilford Press. https://books.google.pt/books?id=4s7SAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=how+to+deal+with+%22not+applicable%22+scale+%22structural+equation%22&source=bl&ots=1hOXEg8Ukx&sig=q7usEugqJX3DTUIuVARrfjKXloo&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwippL-ko8jJAhUD0xQKHaZuAKQQ6AEIWzAI #
Hsu PF, Yen HJR, Chung JC (2015) Assessing ERP post-implementation success at the individual level: Revisiting the role of service quality. Information and Management 52(8), 925–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.06.009
Ismail K, Isa CR, Mia L (2018) Evidence on the usefulness of management accounting systems in integrated manufacturing environment. Pacific Accounting Review 30(1):2–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-04-2015-0010
Jackson D, Michelson G, Munir R (2022) New technology and desired skills of early career accountants. Pac Acc Rev. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-04-2021-0045
Janin F (2017) When being a partner means more: The external role of football club management accountants. Management Accounting Research 35, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.05.002
Järvenpää M (2007) Making business partners: a case study on how management accounting culture was changed. Eur Acc Rev 16(1):99–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701265903
Knudsen DR (2020) Elusive boundaries, power relations, and knowledge production: A systematic review of the literature on digitalization in accounting. Int J Account Inf Syst 36:100441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2019.100441
Kretschmer T, Khashabi P (2020) Digital transformation and organization design: an integrated approach. Calif Manag Rev 62(4):86–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620940296
Latifah L, Setiawan D, Aryani YA, Rahmawati R (2021) Business strategy – MSMEs’ performance relationship: innovation and accounting information system as mediators. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 28(1):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-04-2019-0116
Laumer S, Maier C, Weitzel T (2017) Information quality, user satisfaction, and the manifestation of workarounds: a qualitative and quantitative study of enterprise content management system users. Eur J Inform Syst 26(4):333–360. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0029-7
Le HM, Nguyen TT, Hoang TC (2020) Organizational culture, management accounting information, innovation capability and firm performance. Cogent Business and Management 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1857594
Lee CL, Wang WY (2020) Strategy, accountants’ activities and new product development performance. Adv Acc 50:100487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2020.100487
Liem VT, Hien NN (2020) Exploring the impact of dynamic environment and CEO’s psychology characteristics on using management accounting system. Cogent Business and Management 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1712768
Luft J, Shields MD (2003) Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research. Acc Organ Soc 28:169–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1751-3243(06)01002-9
Macinati MS, Anessi-Pessina E (2014) Management accounting use and financial performance in public health-care organisations: Evidence from the Italian National Health Service. Health Policy. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168851014000840 [Accessed: 22 April 2014]
Maelah R, Al Lami MFF, Ghassan G (2021) Usefulness of management accounting information in decision making among SMEs: the moderating role of cloud computing. Asia-Pacific Manage Acc J 16(1):59–92. https://doi.org/10.24191/apmaj.v16i1-04
Mahoney TA, Jerdee TH, Caroll SJ (1963) Development of managerial performance: a research approach. South-Western, Cincinnati, OH
Marjanovic U, Delić M, Lalic B (2016) Developing a model to assess the success of e-learning systems: evidence from a manufacturing company in transitional economy. IseB 14(2):253–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0282-7
Martins R, Oliveira T, Thomas M, Tomás S (2019) Firms’ continuance intention on SaaS use – an empirical study. Inform Technol People 32(1):189–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-01-2018-0027
Mollanazari M, Abdolkarimi E (2012) The effects of task, organization and accounting information systems characteristics on the accounting information systems performance in Tehran stock exchange. Int J Innov Manage Technol 3(4):443–448. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIFE.2010.5609459
Moores K, Yuen S (2001) Management accounting systems and organizational configuration: a life-cycle perspective. Acc Organ Soc 26(4–5):351–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00040-4
Naranjo-Gil D, Hartmann F (2007) Management accounting systems, top management team heterogeneity and strategic change. Acc Organ Soc 32(7–8):735–756
Ngo Q-H (2020) Effectiveness of management accounting system in public healthcare sector: an empirical investigation in Vietnam. Asian J Bus Acc 13(2):147–179. https://doi.org/10.22452/ajba.vol13no2.6
Nguyen TT, Mia L, Winata L, Chong VK (2017) Effect of transformational-leadership style and management control system on managerial performance. Journal of Business Research 70:202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.018
Nguyen TH, Nguyen DT, Nguyen TA, Nguyen CD (2023) Impacts of contingency factors on the application of strategic management accounting in Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises. Cogent Business & Management 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2218173
Nitzl C, Roldan JL, Cepeda G (2016) Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modelling, helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Manage Data Syst 116(9):1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302
Okour MK, Chong CW, Asmawi A (2019) Antecedents and consequences of knowledge management systems usage in Jordanian banking sector. Knowl Process Manage 26(1):10–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1586
Oyewo BM (2021) Outcomes of interaction between organizational characteristics and management accounting practice on corporate sustainability: the global management accounting principles (GMAP) approach. J Sustainable Finance Invest 11(4):351–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1738141
Oyewo B, Vo XV, Akinsanmi T (2021) Strategy-related factors moderating the fit between management accounting practice sophistication and organisational effectiveness: the Global Management Accounting Principles (GMAP) perspective. Revista Espanola de Financiacion y Contabilidad 50(2):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02102412.2020.1774857
Pavlatos O, Kostakis H (2021) Exploring the relationship between target costing functionality and product innovation: the role of Information systems. Australian Acc Rev (July):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12349
Pedroso E, Gomes CF (2020) The effectiveness of management accounting systems in SMEs: a multidimensional measurement approach. J Appl Acc Res 21(3):497–515
Petter S, Delone W, McLean ER (2013) Information systems success: the quest for the independent variables. J Manage Inform Syst 29(4):7–62. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290401
Phillips PA (2004) E-business planning and accountants: the balance with performance. Int J Bus Perform Manage 6(1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2004.004116
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903
Rai A, Lang SS, Welker RB (2002) Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis. Inform Syst Res 13(1):50–69. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96
Rasid SZA, Isa CR, Ismail WKW (2014) Management accounting systems, enterprise risk management and organizational performance in financial institutions. Asian Rev Acc 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-03-2013-0022
Ratna S, Utami HN, Astuti ES, Wilopo, Muflih M (2020) The technology tasks fit, its impact on the use of information system, performance and users’ satisfaction. VINE J Inform Knowl Manage Syst 50(3):369–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-10-2018-0092
Rieg R (2018) Tasks, interaction and role perception of management accountants: evidence from Germany. J Manag Control 29(2):183–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-018-0266-0
Rieg R, Meier JH, Finckh C (2023) Beware of the watchdog! Role communication in job advertisements for management accountants. J Appl Acc Res 24(5):889–909. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-07-2022-0188
Rikhardsson P, Yigitbasioglu O (2018) Business intelligence & analytics in management accounting research: status and future focus. Int J Acc Inform Syst 29(April):37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2018.03.001
Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Mooi EA (2010) Response-based segmentation using finite mixture partial least squares. In: Stahlbock R, Crone SF, Lessmann S (eds) Data Mining: Special Issue in annals of Information systems. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp 19–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1280-0_2 .
Chapter Google Scholar
Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker (2015) J.-M. SmartPLS 3.
Salmon S (2013) Role ambiguity as a mediator of the effect of integrative management information on managerial performance: an empirical study in Australia. Int J Manage 30(1):175–193
Sharma R, Jones S, Ratnatunga J (2006) The relationships among broad scope MAS, managerial control, performance, and job relevant information: a concomitant analysis. Rev Acc Finance 5(3):228–250. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14757700610686435 Available at: [Accessed: 30 April 2014]
Solovida GT, Latan H (2017) Linking environmental strategy to environmental performance: mediation role of environmental management accounting. Sustain Acc Manage Policy J 8(5):595–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2016-0046
Soobaroyen T, Poorundersing B (2008) The effectiveness of management accounting systems: Evidence from functional managers in a developing country. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02686900810839866 [Accessed: 6 April 2014]
ten Rouwelaar H, Bots J, De Loo I (2018) The influence of management accountants on managerial decisions. J Appl Acc Res 19(4):442–464. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-10-2016-0101
ten Rouwelaar H, Schaepkens F, Widener SK (2021) Skills, influence, and effectiveness of management accountants. J Manag Account Res 33(2):211–235. https://doi.org/10.2308/JMAR-18-048
Thaller J, Duller C, Feldbauer-Durstmüller B, Gärtner B (2024) Career development in management accounting: empirical evidence. J Appl Acc Res 25(1):42–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-03-2022-0062
Usakli A, Kucukergin KG (2018) Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in hospitality and tourism: do researchers follow practical guidelines? Int J Contemp Hospitality Manage 30(11):3462–3512. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230910978511
Venkatesh R, Riley J, Eldridge S, Lawson RA, Church KS (2023) Management accounting—A rising star in the curriculum for a globally integrated, technology-driven business age. Issues Acc Educ 38(4):109–129. https://doi.org/10.2308/ISSUES-2021-058
Waterhouse JH, Tiessen P (1978) A contingency framework for management accounting systems research. Acc Organ Soc 21(4):65–76
Weli W (2014) Manager satisfaction in using the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system and managerial performance. Australasian J Inform Syst 18(3):119–135
Wooldridge B, Floyd SW (1990) The strategy process, middle management involvement, and organizational performance. Strateg Manag J 11(3):231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(90)90349-9
Download references
Not applicable.
This work has been funded by national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, through project UIDB/05037/2020 with DOI https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/05037/2020 .
Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).
Authors and affiliations.
Faculty of Economics, Univ Coimbra, CeBER, Av Dias da Silva 165, Coimbra, 3004-512, Portugal
Elsa Pedroso & Carlos F. Gomes
Polytechnic University of Coimbra, Coimbra Business School|ISCAC, Bencanta, Coimbra, 3045-601, Portugal
Elsa Pedroso
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Data collection was performed by Elsa Pedroso, and analysis was performed by Elsa Pedroso and Carlos F. Gomes. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Carlos F. Gomes, and all authors commented on previous versions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to Elsa Pedroso .
Ethical approval.
This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
All respondents were over the age of 18 and provided informed consent to participate in the study.
The authors have no relevant financial or non−financial interests to disclose.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Pedroso, E., Gomes, C.F. Discerning interrelationships among management accounting systems, organizational variables, and managerial performance. SN Bus Econ 4 , 102 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-024-00702-w
Download citation
Received : 11 April 2023
Accepted : 08 August 2024
Published : 27 August 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-024-00702-w
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Journal overview. Accounting and Business Research publishes papers containing a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Papers may cover any area of accounting, broadly defined and including corporate governance, auditing and taxation. However the focus must be accounting, rather than (corporate) finance or general management.
Accounting and Business Research publishes papers containing a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Papers may cover any area of accounting, broadly defined and including corporate governance, auditing and taxation. ... Q1 = 25% of journals with the highest Impact Factors. 5 Year Impact Factor*: the average number of citations ...
The Impact IF 2022 of Accounting and Business Research is 2.12, which is computed in 2023 as per its definition. Accounting and Business Research IF is decreased by a factor of 0.17 and approximate percentage change is -7.42% when compared to preceding year 2021, which shows a falling trend.
Scope. Accounting and Business Research publishes papers containing a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Papers may cover any area of accounting, broadly defined and including corporate governance, auditing and taxation. However the focus must be accounting, rather than (corporate) finance or general management.
» ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS RESEARCH. Abbreviation: ACCOUNT BUS RES ISSN: 0001-4788 eISSN: 2159-4260 Category: BUSINESS, FINANCE - SSCI. WoS Core Citation Indexes: SSCI - Social Sciences Citation Index. Journal Impact Factor (JIF): 2 5-year Impact Factor: 2.8 Best ranking: BUSINESS, FINANCE (Q2) ― Percentage rank: 56.7% . Open Access Support ...
Beatriz Santos-Cabalgante, Beatriz García Osma & Domi Romero Fúnez. Pages: 614-647. Published online: 25 Jul 2023. forDividend policy dispute in a context of concessionaire companies: the role of accounting in the case of Spanish Railway Companies (1920-1930) 138 Views. 1 CrossRef citations.
Scope/Description: Accounting and Business Researchpublishes papers containing a substantial and original contribution to knowledge. Papers may cover any area of accounting, broadly defined and including corporate governance, auditing and taxation. However the focus must be accounting, rather than (corporate) finance or general management.
Accounting and Business Research Impact Factor, IF, number of article, detailed information and journal factor. ISSN: 0001-4788. ... Enter journal title, issn or abbr in this box to search. Accounting and Business Research. Journal Abbreviation: ACCOUNT BUS RES Journal ISSN: 0001-4788. Year: Impact Factor (IF) Total Articles: Total Cites: 2023 ...
The latest impact score (IS) of the Accounting and Business Research is 2.12.It is computed in the year 2023 as per its definition and based on Scopus data. 2.12 It is decreased by a factor of around 0.17, and the percentage change is -7.42% compared to the preceding year 2021, indicating a falling trend.The impact score (IS), also denoted as the Journal impact score (JIS), of an academic ...
Get access to Accounting and Business Research details, impact factor, Journal Ranking, H-Index, ISSN, Citescore, Scimago Journal Rank (SJR). Check top authors, submission guidelines, Acceptance Rate, Review Speed, Scope, Publication Fees, Submission Guidelines at one place. Improve your chances of getting published in Accounting and Business Research with Researcher.Life.
Mark-to-market accounting is a major topic of Financial accounting research presented in Accounting and Business Research. Chief audit executive and Audit plan are all topics related to Joint audit research discussed. The in-depth study on Finance also explores topics in the intersecting field of Accounting management.
Open data-based citation metrics about Accounting and Business Research, but also research trends, citation patterns, altmetric scores, similar journals and impact factors. O. O. I. R. Trending Research; Journal Rankings; ... Impact Factor: 1.700 (based on Web of Science 2022) Twitter @AccBusRes (ca. 1087 followers) Categories & Ranks.
Know all about Accounting and Business Research - Impact factor, Acceptance rate, Scite Analysis, H-index, SNIP Score, ISSN, Citescore, SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR), Aims & Scope, Publisher, and Other Important Metrics. Click to know more about Accounting and Business Research Review Speed, Scope, Publication Fees, Submission Guidelines.
The Impact Factor of Accounting And Business Research is 2. The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times its articles are cited.
Accounting and Business Research 2023-2024 Journal's Impact IF is 2.326. Check Out IF Ranking, Prediction, Trend & Key Factor Analysis.
Journal Rankings on Accounting. All subject areas. Accounting. Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous) Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous) Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous) Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management.
This means the journal is among the top 16% in the discipline of Economics. This Journal is the 2038 th out of 18,687 Social Sciences journals. This means the journal is among the top 11% in the science branch of Social Sciences. The 2022 impact factor of Accounting and Business Research is 1.9, making it among the top 9% journals.
SCImago Institutions Rankings SCImago Media Rankings SCImago Iber SCImago Research Centers Ranking SCImago Graphica Ediciones Profesionales de la Información
June 2024, Volume 54, Issue 4. 369-391 Integrating contemporary accounting and international business research: progress so far and opportunities for the future. by Salvador Carmona & Igor Filatotchev & Jan Hendrik Fisch & Gilad Livne. 392-422 Board attributes and companies' choice of sustainability assurance providers.
This journal is part of our Accounting, finance & economics collection. Explore our Accounting, finance & economics subject area to find out more. ARJ provides a forum for communicating impactful research between professionals and academics on emerging areas in contemporary accounting research and practice.
2019 Impact Factor. 1.833 ABR aims to understand the role of all areas of accounting in business, including financial reporting, auditing, tax, corporate governance and public sector. ... Accounting and Business Research, Volume 46, Issue 5 (2016) International Accounting Policy Forum. Original Articles . Article. Introduction.
Business Research (BuR) ... Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) 2021: Q1: Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous) 2022: Q1: ... three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric. Cites per document Year Value; Cites / Doc ...
Accounting Horizons Accounting Horizons is one of three association-wide journals published by the American Accounting Association (AAA). The journal aims to bridge accounting academics and non-academics (e.g., practitioners, regulators, and students) by publishing rigorous academic research and thought-provoking perspectives that are pertinent to the accounting profession.
In today's global market, information plays a determinant role in the competitiveness of business organizations. Information systems have become essential resources in daily management, strategy development, and implementation. In this context, management accounting systems (MAS) have undergone substantial changes to adapt to new technological and environmental realities and have become an ...