IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v15y2021i1p202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Matching Revenues and Costs: The Counter-Intuitive Rationality of Direct Costing

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Maria Moisello
  • Piero Mella

Abstract

This study investigates the consequences of adopting two simple sets of rules the manager can consider as perfectly rational and follow in his decisions regarding price, volume and mix of the various products. The first set follows the full (absorption) costing method logic, while the second is based on the direct (variable, marginal) costing method logic. It shows that costing systems adopting the full-costing method can lead management to make non-rational decisions regarding the setting of prices, acceptance of orders, make or buy choices and, above all, determination of the optimal production mix through programming and budgeting. On the other hand, using the direct costing method allows the manager to achieve rational results during the decision-making and planning phases, even if these often appear counter-intuitive when compared with the results achieved using the full costing method, which seem to conform to naïve intuition. The risk in the latter case is even more serious when we are dealing with multi-production firms operating under conditions of limited production capacity regarding one or more factors, as occurs most of the time. The demonstration of the thesis of the superiority of direct costing method rules in management decisions related to the problem of the matching costs and revenues is carried out with numerical evidence, formulating a set of decision problems that are solved by comparing the results obtained both with the full costing method rules and with the direct costing method rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Maria Moisello & Piero Mella, 2021. "Matching Revenues and Costs: The Counter-Intuitive Rationality of Direct Costing," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(1), pages 202-202, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:15:y:2021:i:1:p:202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/0/0/41693/43272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/0/41693
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Victoria FIRESCU, 2010. "The importance of the calculation methods based on direct costing in managerial decisions," Scientific Bulletin - Economic Sciences, University of Pitesti, issue 9, pages 75-82.
    2. Samuel Sponem & Caroline Lambert, 2016. "Exploring differences in budget characteristics, roles and satisfaction: A configurational approach," Post-Print hal-01479940, HAL.
    3. McIntyre, Edward V., 1999. "Accounting choices and EVA," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 66-72.
    4. Pong, Chris & Mitchell, Falconer, 2006. "Full costing versus variable costing: Does the choice still matter? An empirical exploration of UK manufacturing companies 1988–2002," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 131-148.
    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. Tiina Henttu-Aho, 2018. "The role of rolling forecasting in budgetary control systems: reactive and proactive types of planning," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 327-360, December.
    2. Pong, Christopher K.M. & Mitchell, Falconer, 2012. "Inventory investment & control: How have UK companies been doing?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 173-188.
    3. Aggarwal, Raj, 2001. "Using economic profit to assess performance: a metric for modern firms," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 55-60.
    4. Jean‐François Henri & Steeve Massicotte & Dominique Arbour, 2020. "Exploring the Consequences of Competing Uses of Budgets," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 30(4), pages 257-268, December.
    5. Staci A. Kenno & Michelle C. Lau & Barbara J. Sainty, 2018. "In Search of a Theory of Budgeting: A Literature Review," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 507-553, December.
    6. Masschelein, Stijn & Moers, Frank, 2020. "Testing for complementarities between accounting practices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    7. da Silva Stefano, Gustavo & Antunes, Tiago dos Santos & Lacerda, Daniel Pacheco & Wolf Motta Morandi, Maria Isabel & Piran, Fabio Sartori, 2022. "The impacts of inventory in transfer pricing and net income: Differences between traditional accounting and throughput accounting," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    8. Claudio Fagarazzi & Alessandro Tirinnanzi & Mario Cozzi & Francesco Di Napoli & Severino Romano, 2014. "The Forest Energy Chain in Tuscany: Economic Feasibility and Environmental Effects of Two Types of Biomass District Heating Plant," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-23, September.
    9. Jacobo Gomez‐Conde & Ernesto Lopez‐Valeiras & Ricardo Malagueño & José Carlos Tiomatsu Oyadomari, 2022. "Quality of performance metrics, informal peer monitoring and goal commitment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4041-4077, September.
    10. P. Maik Hamann, 2017. "Towards a contingency theory of corporate planning: a systematic literature review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 227-289, August.
    11. Howard M. Armitage & Dorian Lane & Alan Webb, 2020. "Budget Development and Use in Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Enterprises: A Field Investigation," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 205-240, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - 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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:15:y:2021:i:1:p:202. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.