IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rom/mancon/v9y2015i1p81-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Paradox Of Investment: Constraining Strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Diana COZMIUC
  • Ioan PETRISOR

Abstract

Studies show that managers forgo the economic benefits brought by research and development and cut these costs in order to face the pressure from investors for earnings per share. These studies are part of a relatively new discipline called value based management, that emerged as consultancy firms' advice in the 1990s and was implemented by companies around the millenium; it took several years for empirical studies about it to be possible. These two arguments have inspired a research about long-term decisions in companies according to value based management, and this article is part of this research. This article aims to analyze the arguments in favor of and opposed to correlating research and development costs to future economic benefits rather than to the period they are incurred. It is a multidisciplinary approach. The arguments in favor of relating research and development costs to future economic benefits come from strategic management and value based management. The arguments in favor of relating research and development costs to the period they are incurred come from financial accounting (with an exception) and short-termist behavior. We detect a break between forward looking information for management decisions (management accounting) and historic looking information for outside parties (financial accounting). Managers should use the former to make decisions, and value based management is the most recent stage in management accounting. Value based management practitioners among whom Siemens was selected as an example do treat research and development as an investment in the future despite the regulations of financial accounting to expend these costs. Whereas a causal relationship between research and development activities and future economic benefits is likely to exist despite uncertainty, current product sales and the cost of these sales bear no causal relation to incurred research and development costs. Management accounting that recommends the capitalization of research and development costs should inform managers about the implications of the break from financial accounting. The investment paradox is that the reason why strategic management indicates investment, uncertainty related to the early stages of a product, is the argument in financial accounting against capitalizing these costs and this latter is an obstacle to spending on research and development.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana COZMIUC & Ioan PETRISOR, 2015. "The Paradox Of Investment: Constraining Strategy," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 81-96, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:81-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://conference.management.ase.ro/archives/2015/pdf/9.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ittner, Christopher D. & Larcker, David F., 2001. "Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 349-410, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abernethy, Margaret A. & Vagnoni, Emidia, 2004. "Power, organization design and managerial behaviour," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 207-225.
    2. Jana Fibírová, 2008. "The Competitive Advantage of Management Accounting [Konkurenční výhoda manažerského účetnictví]," Český finanční a účetní časopis, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(2), pages 78-90.
    3. Zbysław Dobrowolski & Grzegorz Drozdowski & Mirela Panait & Arkadiusz Babczuk, 2022. "Can the Economic Value Added Be Used as the Universal Financial Metric?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Sterling Huang & Gilles Hilary, 2018. "Zombie Board: Board Tenure and Firm Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 1285-1329, September.
    5. Joan Luft & Michael Shields, 2002. "Zimmerman's contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 795-803.
    6. Ülle Pärl, 2006. "Choice of measures for performance measurement models on the example of successful Estonian companies," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, in: Tõnis Mets & Janita Andrijevskaja & Urve Venesaar & Ene Kolbre (ed.), Entrepreneurship in Estonia: policies, practices, education and research, edition 1, volume 28, chapter 12, pages 228-247, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    7. Leslie A. Robinson & Phillip C. Stocken, 2013. "Location of Decision Rights Within Multinational Firms," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(5), pages 1261-1297, December.
    8. Ganna Demydyuk, 2011. "Optimal Financial Key Performance Indicators: Evidence From The Airline Industry," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 3(2), pages 39-51.
    9. James T. Mackey & F. Johnny Deng, 2016. "Examining the Role of Management Control Systems in the Creation of an Innovative Culture," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(03), pages 1-27, June.
    10. Jan Bouwens & Laurence Van Lent, 2007. "Assessing the Performance of Business Unit Managers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 667-697, September.
    11. Camelia Mihaela Oane (Marinescu) & Klaudia Smol¹g & Emanuel Stefan Marinescu & Romuald Szopa, 2015. "Value-Based Management As The Innovating Paradigm Of Contemporary Governance – A Theoretical Approach," Polish Journal of Management Studies, Czestochowa Technical University, Department of Management, vol. 12(1), pages 106-120, DEcember.
    12. Frank Hartmann & Paolo Perego & Anna Young, 2013. "Carbon Accounting: Challenges for Research in Management Control and Performance Measurement," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 49(4), pages 539-563, December.
    13. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Discussion Paper 2003-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. David Emsley, 2008. "Different interpretations of a “fixed” concept," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(3), pages 375-397, March.
    15. Ali Ahmad & Dababrata Chowdhury, 2022. "A Review of Effective Communication and ItsImpact on Interpersonal Relationships, Conflict Resolution,and Decision-Making," Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, Pro Global Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 18-23, December.
    16. Eva Labro & Mark Lang & Jim Omartian, 2019. "Predictive Analytics and Organizational Architecture: Plant-Level Evidence from Census Data," Working Papers 19-02, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    17. Muurling, Rutger & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2004. "Option-based compensation: a survey," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 365-401.
    18. Leen Paape & Roland F. Spekl�, 2012. "The Adoption and Design of Enterprise Risk Management Practices: An Empirical Study," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 533-564, January.
    19. Eric Floyd & John A. List, 2016. "Using Field Experiments in Accounting and Finance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 437-475, May.
    20. Patrick Afflerbach & Martin Hohendorf & Jonas Manderscheid, 0. "Design it like Darwin - A value-based application of evolutionary algorithms for proper and unambiguous business process redesign," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-21.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rom:mancon:v:9:y:2015:i:1:p:81-96. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ciocoiu Nadia Carmen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mnasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.