IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxixy2016i1p149-164.html

Gauging the Impact of Country-Specific Values on the Acceptability of Global Management Accounting Principles

Author

Listed:
  • David R. Borker

Abstract

The implementation of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in many countries brings with it the necessity to upgrade and further train in-company private accountants to comply with these new external reporting requirements. As part of this process, it is assumed that company accountants will also be expected to perform the internal management accounting functions of the firm in a more efficient and effective manner in accordance with internationally recognized best practices. The full range of management accounting activities includes cost and profitability analysis and reporting, decision support analysis, and a variety of activities relating to the planning and budgeting process. It has previously been observed that a country’s cultural and accounting values can have an impact on the success of its IFRS implementation. (Borker D. R., 2013) Furthermore, a more recent study indicates the likelihood that Global Management Accounting Principles (GMAP) as currently proposed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), may also be found more or less acceptable based on country specific cultural and accounting values. (Borker D. R., Manuscript) This paper addresses the possible impact of such values on the management accounting activities of a firm. Specifically, it examines the potential impact on GMAP acceptability by different countries. Using Hofstede cultural values (Hofstede, 1980), and a set of accounting values based on Gray’s original work (Gray, 1988), expanded to include other socio-cultural factors, (Borker D. R., 2014) an analysis is conducted based on a worldwide twelve-country sample. Management Accounting standards, discussed here, are based the Global Management Accounting Principles proposed the AICPA and CIMA. Results of the analysis indicate that cultural and accounting values of individual countries may have a differential impact of the acceptability and success of firms in implementing international management accounting standards.

Suggested Citation

  • David R. Borker, 2016. "Gauging the Impact of Country-Specific Values on the Acceptability of Global Management Accounting Principles," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 149-164.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xix:y:2016:i:1:p:149-164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ersj.eu/repec/ers/papers/16_1_p10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Transparency International TI, 2012. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2012," Working Papers id:5186, eSocialSciences.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:bcp:journl:v:6:y:2022:i:5:p:258-265 is not listed 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. Cannizzaro, Anthony P. & Weiner, Robert J., 2015. "Multinational investment and voluntary disclosure: Project-level evidence from the petroleum industry," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 32-47.
    2. Goran Dostic & Zdravko Todorovic & Igor Todorovic, 2013. "International Aid And Principal-Agent Relationship: Evidence From Bosnia And Herzegovina," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 9(1), pages 115-126.
    3. Krisztina Kis-Katos & Günther G. Schulze, 2013. "Corruption in Southeast Asia: a survey of recent research," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 27(1), pages 79-109, May.
    4. Robert Klitgaard & Johannes W Fedderke & Valerio Napolioni, 2020. "Geography, Climate, and Genes in Development Studies," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 34(Supplemen), pages 46-51.
    5. Lindemann, Henrik, 2015. "Does Regulatory Independence Translate into a Higher Degree of Liberalization? - Evidence from EU Energy Regulators," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-545, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    6. Tobias Zander, 2020. "Does corruption matter for FDI flows in the OECD? A gravity analysis," EIIW Discussion paper disbei280, Universitätsbibliothek Wuppertal, University Library.
    7. Springate-Baginski, Oliver & Thein, Aung Kyaw & Neil, Anthony & Thu, Win Myo & Doherty, Faith, 2014. "Democratising timber: An assessment of Myanmar's emerging ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT) process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 33-45.
    8. Fiona M Underwood & Robert W Burn & Tom Milliken, 2013. "Dissecting the Illegal Ivory Trade: An Analysis of Ivory Seizures Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    9. Melani Cammett & Ishac Diwan & Andrew Leber, 2019. "Is Oil Wealth Good for Private Sector Development?," Working Papers 1299, Economic Research Forum, revised 2019.
    10. Fernando Reboredo, 2013. "Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 295-304, June.
    11. Patricia Crifo & Marc-Arthur Diaye & Rim Oueghlissi, 2014. "Measuring the effect of government ESG performance on sovereign borrowing cost," CIRANO Working Papers 2014s-37, CIRANO.
    12. Dasgupta, Shouro & De Cian, Enrica, "undated". "Institutions and the Environment: Existing Evidence and Future Directions," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 240747, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Sheheryar Banuri & Catherine Eckel, 2015. "Cracking down on bribery," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(3), pages 579-600, October.
    14. Bartha, Zoltán & Sáfrányné Gubik, Andrea & Tóthné Szita, Klára, 2013. "Intézményi megoldások, fejlődési modellek [Institutional solutions, development models]," MPRA Paper 50901, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Teichmann, Fabian, 2013. "Why Ukraine, Romania and Kazakhstan have been outperformed by Russia and Poland," SEER Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 16(4), pages 487-502.
    16. Kazimierz Jamroz & Marcin Budzyński & Aleksandra Romanowska & Joanna Żukowska & Jacek Oskarbski & Wojciech Kustra, 2019. "Experiences and Challenges in Fatality Reduction on Polish Roads," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-32, February.
    17. Filippova, Irina & Balakhnin, Harry, 2013. "Институциональные Факторы Государственной Регуляторной Эффективности [Institutional factors of state regulatory efficiency]," MPRA Paper 47499, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Gunther Capelle-Blancard & Patricia Crifo & Marc-Arthur Diaye & Rim Oueghlissi & Bert Scholtens, 2016. "Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) performance and sovereign bond spreads: an empirical analysis of OECD countries," Working Papers hal-01401718, HAL.
    19. Finlay Jim & Kassar Abdul-Nassar & Neal Mark, 2013. "Can Business Education Change Management Practices In Non-Western Societies: Lessons From Lebanon," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 113-122, July.
    20. José-Miguel Bello y Villarino, 2021. "Measuring Corruption: A Critical Analysis of the Existing Datasets and Their Suitability for Diachronic Transnational Research," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 709-747, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ers:journl:v:xix:y:2016:i:1:p:149-164. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.