Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 495–524 | Cite as

Management and accounting innovations: reflecting on what they are and why they are adopted

  • Cristiano Busco
  • Ariela Caglio
  • Robert W. Scapens


Drawing on a brief review of the studies that have explored the reasons underpinning the adoption of management and accounting innovations, this paper aims to highlight the potentials of an interpretation recently offered by the literature. A number of studies have focused on the role of economic and functional variables in explaining the adoption of management and accounting innovations. These variables range, for example, from an increase in efficiency and profitability to the greater aid to decision making with which these innovations provide economic agents. Other perspectives have highlighted the role played by external pressures, fads, and fashions, focusing thus on the role of institutional variables. Our paper contributes to this debate by focusing neither on the adopters nor on contextual variables. Rather, by acknowledging how decisions for adoption are nested within a network of relationships and cannot thus be limited to one set of explanatory variables only, our contribution leverages a recent interpretation that focuses on the features of a key element in this networks, i.e. the management and accounting innovation itself. More specifically, drawing on the insights from two illustrative cases related to the adoption of Six-Sigma within General Electric Oil&Gas, and on the development of an end-to-end budget within Nestlé waters, we rely on the interpretative framework developed by Busco and Quattrone (Contemp Account Res, 2014) to illustrate how the adoption of management and accounting innovation is facilitated by its ability to create a space where complex issues are translated into clear visual representations, order and knowledge can be classified and innovated, different interests can be accommodated through a constant process of interrogation and re-invention, and engagement can be sustained through participation in a series of recurrent activities. Finally, we introduce the five papers which comprise this Special Issue, and we briefly illustrate how each of them enhances our understanding of what management and accounting innovations are, and where they came from.


Innovation Management accounting Adoption Case studies 


  1. Abdel-Kader, M., & Luther, R. (2008). The impact of firm characteristics on management accounting practices: A UK-based empirical analysis. The British Accounting Review, 40, 2–27.Google Scholar
  2. Abernethy, M. A., & Bouwens, J. (2005). Determinants of accounting innovation implementation. Abacus, 41, 217–240.Google Scholar
  3. Abernethy, M. A., Lillis, A. M., Brownell, P., & Carter, P. (2001). Product diversity and costing system design choice: Field study evidence. Management Accounting Research, 12, 261–279.Google Scholar
  4. Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fad and fashion: The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612.Google Scholar
  5. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Managerial fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254–285.Google Scholar
  6. Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion: Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 708–740.Google Scholar
  7. Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.Google Scholar
  8. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant Chain. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21, 271–301.Google Scholar
  9. Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. (2007). Management accounting as practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 1–27.Google Scholar
  10. Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B., & Monaghan, A. (2002a). The key to success in innovation part I: The art of interessement. International Journal of Innovation, 6, 187–206.Google Scholar
  11. Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B., & Monaghan, A. (2002b). The key to success in innovation part II: The art of choosing good spokespersons. International Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 207–225.Google Scholar
  12. Amabile, T. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations. California Management Review, 40, 39–58.Google Scholar
  13. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity (pp. 76–87). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review, September/October.Google Scholar
  14. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.Google Scholar
  15. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutional and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93–117.Google Scholar
  16. Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. (2009). The role of narrative in sustaining organizational innovation. Organization Science, 20, 107–117.Google Scholar
  17. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.Google Scholar
  18. Bharadwaj, S., & Menon, A. (2000). Making innovation happen in organizations: Individual creativity mechanisms, organizational creativity mechanisms or both? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17, 424–434.Google Scholar
  19. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825–845.Google Scholar
  20. Birkinshaw, J., & Mol, M. (2006). How management innovation happens. MIT Sloan Management review, 47, 81–88.Google Scholar
  21. Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 709–737.Google Scholar
  22. Bolzoni, L. (1995). La stanza della memoria. Modelli letterari e iconografici nell’ età della stampa. Turin: Einaudi (Eng. Jeremy Parzen Trans.) The gallery of memory: Literary and iconographic models in the age of the printing press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bougen, P. D. (1989). The emergence, roles and consequences of an accounting-industrial relations interaction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 14(3), 203–234.Google Scholar
  24. Briers, M., & Chua, W. F. (2001). The role of actor-networks and boundary objects in management accounting change: A field study of the implementation of activity-based costing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 237–270.Google Scholar
  25. Bromwich, M., & Bhimani, A. (1989). Management accounting: Evolution, not revolution. London: Chartered Institute of Menagement Accountants.Google Scholar
  26. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.Google Scholar
  27. Burns, J., & Vaivio, J. (2001). Management accounting change. Management Accounting Research, 12, 389–402.Google Scholar
  28. Busco, C., Giovannoni, E., & Scapens, R. W. (2008). Managing the tensions in integrating global organisations: The role of performance management systems. Management Accounting Research, 19, 103–125.Google Scholar
  29. Busco, C., & Quattrone, P. (2014). The unfolding nature of the balanced scorecard: Articulating the power of accounting inscriptions. Contemporary Accounting Research. (accepted)Google Scholar
  30. Busco, C., Riccaboni, A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Trust for accounting and accounting for trust. Management Accounting Research, 17, 11–41.Google Scholar
  31. Caglio, A. (2003). Enterprise resource planning systems and accountants: Towards hybridization? European Accounting Review, 12, 123–153.Google Scholar
  32. Callen, J. L., Morel, M., & Fader, C. (2005). Productivity measurement and the relationship between plant performance and JIT intensity. Contemporary Accounting Research, 22, 271–309.Google Scholar
  33. Carlile, P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442–455.Google Scholar
  34. Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An interactive framework for making managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568.Google Scholar
  35. Carruthers, M. (1990). The book of memory: A study of memory in medieval culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 243–267.Google Scholar
  37. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure—chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (1998). The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: An empirical investigation using a system approach. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23, 234–264.Google Scholar
  39. Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Performance measurement and reward systems, trust, and strategic change. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15, 117–143.Google Scholar
  40. Çokpekin, Ö., & Knudsen, M. P. (2012). Does organizing for creativity really lead to innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 304–314.Google Scholar
  41. Cooper, R., & Kaplan, R. S. (1992). Activity-based systems: Measuring the costs of resource usage. Accounting Horizons, Sept., 6, 1–13.Google Scholar
  42. Covaleski, M. A., & Dirsmith, M. W. (1991). The management of legitimacy and politics in public sector administration. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 10, 135–156.Google Scholar
  43. Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (2005). Global ideas. How ideas, objects and practices travel in the global economy. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  44. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17, 215–236.Google Scholar
  45. Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 650–675.Google Scholar
  46. Davila, T. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems’ design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 383–409.Google Scholar
  47. Davila, T. (2005). An exploratory study on the emergence of management control systems: Formalizing human resources in small growing firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 223–248.Google Scholar
  48. Davila, A., Foster, G., & Li, M. (2009). Reasons for management control systems adoption: Insights from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 322–347.Google Scholar
  49. Dechow, N., & Mouritsen, J. (2005). Enterprise resource planning systems, management control and the quest for integration. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 691–733.Google Scholar
  50. Ditillo, A. (2004). Dealing with uncertainty in knowledge-intensive firms: The role of management control systems as knowledge integration mechanisms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 401–421.Google Scholar
  51. Dodd, G. D., Lavelle, W. K., & Margolis, S. W. (2002). Driving profitability with activity based costing: An executive white paper. Madison, Wl: Economy ABC Print.Google Scholar
  52. Drucker, P. F. (1994). The theory of the business. Harvard business review, 72, 95–104.Google Scholar
  53. Ezzamel, M., Willmott, H., & Worthington, F. (2004). Accounting and management–labour relations: The politics of production in the factory with a problem. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 269–302.Google Scholar
  54. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  56. Gordon, L. A., & Silvester, K. J. (1999). Stock market reactions to activity-based costing adoptions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 18, 229–251.Google Scholar
  57. Gosselin, M. (2007). A review of activity-based costing: Technique, implementation, and consequences. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood, & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  58. Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. (1998a). It’s a small world of management accounting practices. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 153–179.Google Scholar
  59. Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. (1998b). Towards increasing business orientation: Finnish management accountants in a changing cultural context. Management Accounting Research, 9, 185–211.Google Scholar
  60. Green, S. E, Jr. (2004). A rethorical theory of diffusion. Academy of Management Review, 29, 653–669.Google Scholar
  61. Gu, F., Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles assets. Measurement, drivers, usefulness. Working paper, New York University, Stern School of Business, electronic copy*blev/intangible-assets.doc. Accessed 19 Jan, 2010.
  62. Hamel, G. (1998). Opinion strategy innovation and the quest for value. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39, 7–14.Google Scholar
  63. Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (1998). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29, 635–652.Google Scholar
  64. Hartelious, E. J., & Browning, L. D. (2008). The application of rethorical theory in managerial research. A literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 1–27.Google Scholar
  65. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.Google Scholar
  66. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778.Google Scholar
  67. Innes, J., & Mitchell, F. (1995). A survey of activity-based costing in the UK’s largest companies. Management Accounting Research, 6, 137–153.Google Scholar
  68. Ittner, C. D., Lanen, W. N., & Larcker, D. F. (2002). The association between activity-based costing and manufacturing performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 40, 711–726.Google Scholar
  69. Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to shaping commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28, 1639–1665.Google Scholar
  70. Jones, T. C., & Dugdale, D. (2002). The ABC bandwagon and the juggernaut of modernity. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 121–163.Google Scholar
  71. Kaplan, R. S. (1998). Innovation action research: Creating new management theory and practice. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 89–118.Google Scholar
  72. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—measures that drive performance (pp. 71–79). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review, January–February.Google Scholar
  73. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996a). Translating strategy into action: The balanced scorecard. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  74. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996b).Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74, 75–85.Google Scholar
  75. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1987). R&D rivalry with licensing or imitation. American Economic Review, 77, 402–420.Google Scholar
  76. Kennedy, M. T., & Fiss, P. C. (2009). Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion: The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among U.S hospitals. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 897–918.Google Scholar
  77. Lapsley, I., & Wright, E. (2004). The diffusion of management accounting innovations in the public sector: A research agenda. Management Accounting Research, 15, 355–374.Google Scholar
  78. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. How to follow scientist and engineers through society. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Latour, B. (1991). We have never been modern. London: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  80. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2000). The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75, 283–298.Google Scholar
  82. Lipe, M. G., & Salterio, S. E. (2002). A note on the judgmental effects of the balanced scorecard’s information organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 531–540.Google Scholar
  83. Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: Competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 289–307.Google Scholar
  84. Maiga, A. S., & Jacobs, F. A. (2008). Extent of ABC use and its consequences*. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25, 533–566.Google Scholar
  85. Malmi, T. (1999a). Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: An exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, 649–672.Google Scholar
  86. Malmi, T. (1999b). Activity-based costing diffusion across organizations: An exploratory empirical analysis of Finnish firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(8), 649–672.Google Scholar
  87. Malmi, T. (1999c) Management, 6, 187–206.Google Scholar
  88. Manz, C. C., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Attaining flexible stability by integrating total quality management and socio-technical systems theory. Organization Sciences, 8, 59–70.Google Scholar
  89. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Istitutionalized organization: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.Google Scholar
  90. Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313–351.Google Scholar
  91. Newell, S., Huang, J. C., Galliers, R. D., & Pan, S. L. (2003). Implementing enterprise resource planning and knowledge management systems in tandem: Fostering efficiency and innovation complementarity. Information and Organization, 13, 25–52.Google Scholar
  92. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Using culture for strategic advantage: Promoting innovation through social control. In M. L. Tushman & P. Anderson (Eds.), Managing strategic innovation and change: A collection of readings (pp. 200–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Sciences, 11, 404–428.Google Scholar
  94. Pfeffer, J., & Salancick, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  95. Plowman, B. (2001). Activity-based management: Improving process and profitability. Burlington, VT: Gower.Google Scholar
  96. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.Google Scholar
  97. Qu, S., & Cooper, D. (2011). The role of inscriptions in producing a balanced scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36, 344–362.Google Scholar
  98. Quattrone, P., & Hopper, T. (2005). A ‘time-space odyssey’: Management control systems in multinational organisations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30, 735–764.Google Scholar
  99. Revellino, S., & Mouritsen, J. (2009). The multiplicity of controls and the making of innovation. European Accounting Review, 18, 341–369.Google Scholar
  100. Scapens, R. W., & Jazayeri, M. (2003). ERP systems and management accounting change: Opportunities or impacts? A research note European Accounting Review, 12, 201–233.Google Scholar
  101. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  102. Schoute, M. (2011). The relationship between product diversity, usage of advanced manufacturing technologies and activity-based costing adoption. The British Accounting Review, 43, 12–134.Google Scholar
  103. Seetharaman, A., Bin Zaini Sooria, H. H., & Saravanan, A. S. (2002). Intellectual capital accounting and reporting in the knowledge economy. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(2), 128–148.Google Scholar
  104. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.Google Scholar
  105. Sillince, J. A. A. (2005). A contingency theory of rethorical congruence. Academy of Management Review, 30, 608–621.Google Scholar
  106. Sillince, J. A. A., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Organizational rethoric: Bridging management and communication scholarship. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, 5–12.Google Scholar
  107. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Strang, D., & Macy, M. W. (2001). In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. The American Journal of Sociology, 107, 147–182.Google Scholar
  109. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rethorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 35–67.Google Scholar
  110. Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 22–39.Google Scholar
  111. Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  112. Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 2, 789–810.Google Scholar
  113. Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 366–394.Google Scholar
  114. Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 373–391). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Wouters, M., & Roijmans, D. (2011). Using prototypes to induce experimentation and knowledge integration in the development of enabling accounting information. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28, 708–736.Google Scholar
  116. Wouters, M., & Wilderom, C. (2008). Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 488–516.Google Scholar
  117. Zajac, E. J., & Fiss, P. C. (2004). The diffusion of the ideas over contested terrain: The (Non)adoption of a shareholder value orientation among German firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 501–534.Google Scholar
  118. Zbaracki, M. J. (1998). The rethoric and reality of total quality management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 602–636.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristiano Busco
    • 1
  • Ariela Caglio
    • 2
  • Robert W. Scapens
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.Bocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  3. 3.Manchester Business SchoolManchesterUK
  4. 4.Birmingham Business SchoolBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations