INSIGHTS


Adoption and Benefits of Management Accounting Practices: An Inter-country Comparison

Source: Taylor & Francis: Accounting in Europe
April 2012 / by Selcuk Yalcin

Management accounting practices of firms are determined by the scope and amount of information expected from them. Therefore, management accounting practices might differ among firms or countries. This study aims to determine the management accounting practices used by manufacturing firms in Turkey and why these practices are used, through employing a questionnaire. In addition, the adoption rates of these practices are compared with six previous studies on the matter. This study suggests possible reasons for the use of these practices and intentions to use them in the future in Turkey. The findings indicate that the rates of adoption of traditional management accounting practices are higher than those of recently developed techniques. The adoption rates obtained in Turkey are seen to be higher than those obtained from the previous six studies.


1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, economical and technological changes and evolution in consumer preferences have affected not only firms' products and services but also their production processes. These changes have altered the amount and scope of information expected from management accounting. Thus, management accounting practices have been developed in line with these expectations. Moreover, these practices are determined by the scope and amount of information expected from firms. Practices may differ between firms as well as between countries. The reasons for differences in management accounting systems might be historically, culturally, politically or sociologically based. Because such evaluations are beyond the scope of this study, they are excluded.

In the 1980s, Turkey developed programmes aiming to facilitate the development and foreign expansion of its economy. Until the 1990s, important steps had been taken towards agro-industrialisation of the economy. In subsequent years, production structures changed and significant development was achieved in many areas, especially textile-confection, the automotive and automotive supply industry, durable goods, machinery and construction, and the significance of agriculture decreased in industrial production. In the 2000s, with the effect of globalisation and the custom union agreement with the EU, Turkey became an important centre of attraction for foreign capital. At the same time, Turkish firms' exports and foreign investment increased. Moreover, Turkey was affected less by the global crisis and took advantage of the emerging opportunities.

It is expected that accounting is developed by professional accountants and professional accounting associations in accordance with the information needs of accounting users. However, in Turkey, financial accounting is organised by the state. Since 1992, the Ministry of Finance has made arrangements covering all public and private sector enterprises, except for banks and insurance firms, for tax concerns. Uniform charts of accounts and financial statements are required from the enterprises covered in these arrangements. On the other hand, the Capital Markets Board of Turkey has made arrangements for open corporations with the aim of regulating disclosure. Furthermore, the Turkish Accounting Board has translated the International Accounting Standards and the International Financial Reporting Standards and has published them as Turkish Accounting Standards since 2002. In addition, management accounting practices are developed in line with management needs in Turkey. These needs are structured by increased exports, the going public of firms, institutionalisation and capital structure becoming multinational. Our study, like the previous studies that we use to compare management accounting practices in Turkey, aims to determine the degree to which management accounting practices have been adopted. We do not explore the causes of greater or lesser adoption of management accounting practices. However, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare scores relating to the aims of using management accounting practices and adoption of management accounting practices for each grouping, for instance, indigenous Turkish firms, or multinational firms whose markets are primarily European or Asian; and open or closed corporations in Turkey.

This study investigates aims of using management accounting practices in Turkey and compares the adoption levels of management accounting practices in different countries. It investigates the extent to which large Turkish manufacturing firms have implemented various traditional and recently developed management accounting practices, the purpose of using those practices and their intentions to use them in the future. It compares the data acquired from six previous studies about the adoption of management accounting practices in different countries with the data obtained from Turkey. Thus, it aims to determine the adoption levels of management accounting practices on the basis of country.

2. Background

Increasing accounting information needs have caused advances in cost accounting; thus, management of costs has come to the fore. Moreover, under the competition conditions resulting from globalisation, strategic management, strategic management accounting and strategic cost management have been developed. Thus, management accounting practices such as planning and budgeting, costing systems, performance evaluation, decision-making and strategic analysis are being developed in line with the development of management accounting.

Cooper and Kaplan (1992), Innes and Mitchell (1997), Malmi (1997), Anderson and Young (1999) and Sion et al.(2002) define and examine the practices of such models presented as activity-based costing and strategic management accounting in the literature. Bjørnenak and Olson (1999), Malmi (1999) and Malmi and Ikäheimo(2003) analyse such models as activity-based costing, activity-based management, balanced scorecards, life cycle costing, target costing, strategic cost management and economic value adding (EVA) systems. In Bjørnenak and Olson's study (1999), differences between activity-based costing and causes of cost in strategic cost management and cost drivers are indicated. Bromwich and Bhimani (1994) specify that many enterprises carry out practices such as just in time, total quality management, materials requirement planning, activity-based costing, target costing, throughput accounting, life cycle costing, backflush accounting and others. In addition, they propose both financial and nonfinancial measures for companies. Shank and Govindarajan (1993) develop strategic position analysis, value chain analysis and cost driver analysis in strategic cost management. Thus, a step is taken from strategic management accounting to strategic cost management. Later, studies by Kaplan and Norton (1996), Ittner and Larcker (1998), Malmi (2001), Hussain (2005), Bhimani and Langfield-Smith (2007) and Verbeeten and Boons (2009)systematically develop and investigate financial and nonfinancial measures of performance and contribute to strategic management accounting.

Management accounting practices of firms might show discrepancies among firms and countries. Many studies have been conducted to research management accounting practices in different countries and the benefits obtained and expected from them, and to reveal differences in practice among countries. In this area, studies carried out especially in the second half of the 1990s are significant. These studies are summarized in Table 1 (Research of management accounting practices).

Article

Sample

Evidence

Bhimani (1994)

Twenty-one manufacturing companies in the UK.

Many firms tended to use the financial measures; an optimal mix of specific financial and nonfinancial indicators did not exist.

Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998)

A questionnaire was sent to 140 Australian manufacturing firms; 78 were returned.

Adoption levels of traditional practices are on the whole higher than those of modern ones, and benefits from traditional management accounting practices are greater than benefits from modern management accounting practices. Also, the study reveals that most of the big Australian firms emphasised the importance of nonfinancial information and adopted more strategic focuses.

Wijewardena and Zoysa (1999)

A questionnaire was sent to 1000 large-scale manufacturing firms in Japan and Australia; 231 were returned from Australia and 217 were returned from Japan.

Cost control practices are more effective in Australian firms as management accounting practices, whereas more emphasis is put on cost planning and cost cutting practices in the product design phase in Japanese firms.

Guilding et al. (2000)

A questionnaire was sent to 1292 firms in New Zealand, the UK and the USA; 314 were returned.

Competitor accounting and strategic pricing are the most widely used, while most of the strategic management accounting practices are not widely used. Similar levels of strategic cost management usage were found in cross-country comparisons.

Joshi (2001)

A questionnaire was sent to 246 large and middle-scale manufacturing firms in India; 60 were returned.

Significant differences are found between the adoption levels of Indian firms and the results of Chenhall and Langfield-Smith's study (1998) of management accounting practices and the benefits gained and expected from them.

Hyvönen (2005)

A questionnaire was sent to 132 Finnish manufacturing firms; 51 were returned.

The results of management accounting practices are compared with the study of Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998) based on Australian data.

Abdel-Kader and Luther (2006)

A questionnaire was sent to 650 English food and drink firms; 122 were returned.

In contrast to activity-based costing and full costing, direct costing is commonly used, which is significant. Despite limitations of traditional budgeting techniques, they still continue to be a cornerstone of the management accounting, and balanced scorecards and other nonfinancial performance measures are considered to be important; 40% of businesses use them. Also, product profitability analysis is used frequently.

Pavlatos and Paggios (2009)

A questionnaire was sent to 146 big Greek accommodation firms; 85 were returned.

Traditional management accounting practices are more common and they are more likely to use new techniques, such as activity-based cost practices, balanced scorecard and benchmarking.

Angelakis et al. (2010)

A questionnaire was sent to 97 large Greek manufacturing companies; 83 were returned.

Implementation rates for many currently developed practices were of a high level and similar to those presented in the other countries. On the whole, traditional management accounting practices were found to be implemented slightly more than currently developed ones. There is an increasing trend for firms to place greater emphasis in the future on recently developed techniques instead of traditional ones, particularly on performance evaluation techniques.

3. Research Design

The sample of this study is the big manufacturing firms listed as the first 500 firms by the Istanbul Chamber of Industry (ICI). The ICI is an organisation with over 13,000 members, 98% of which are big and medium-sized firms. This organisation follows developments and their effects in Turkey and throughout the world in order to find solutions for any arising problem. The ICI's members are manufacturing firms and their focus is on manufacturing, even though some may also provide services related to their products. Firms with a main focus on service provision are omitted from this study.

In our study, a questionnaire was prepared based on the studies of Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998), Wijewardena and Zoysa (1999), Joshi (2001), Hyvönen (2005), Pavlatos and Paggios (2009) and Angelakis et al.(2010). The survey instrument was piloted by sending it to 10 large manufacturing firms and amended in accordance with feedback received.

The questionnaire was sent as an attachment to the e-mail addresses of accounting department managers of firms. In the case of 28 sample firms, the questionnaire could not be sent, for example, because e-mail addresses were unavailable. Therefore, the number of firms in the sample was reduced to 472. The questionnaire was sent five times from November 2009 to February 2010. Eighty questionnaires were returned, making the return rate 17%.

4. Empirical Results

In this section, we report the empirical results. Section 4.1 describes the demographic features, Section 4.2 the aims of using management accounting practices and Section 4.3 the adoption of management accounting practices.

4.1. Demographic Features

In order to determine the demographic features of the subjects, respondents were asked about the sector of the firm, the number of employees, the age of the firm, the position in the firm of the individual respondents and the organisation of management accounting in the firm. Table 2 (Demographic features) reports the demographic features of the firms.

 

Frequency

Per cent

Section A: sector of the firm

 

 

Packaging Industry

2

2.4

Durable Goods

7

8.8

Food

11

13.8

Construction

10

12.4

Pharmacology

1

1.3

Mining

3

3.8

Machinery

1

1.3

Forestry

5

6.3

Automotive and Automotive Supply Industry

14

17.5

Textile-Confection

10

12.4

Cleaning Products

2

2.4

Non-metallic Minerals

5

6.3

Other

9

11.3

Section B: number of employees in the firm

 

 

<51

1

1.3

51–100

1

1.3

101–150

2

2.5

151–200

2

2.5

201–250

6

7.4

>250

68

85.0

Section C: duration of activity

 

 

1

1.3

5–10 years

3

3.7

11–15 years

3

3.7

16–20 years

5

6.3

>20 years

68

85.0

Section D: position in the firm

 

 

Senior Manager

12

15

Accounting Manager

32

40

Accounting Employee

15

19

Other

21

26

Section E: is management accounting a different branch?

 

 

Yes

64

80.0

No

16

20.0

Section F: are there any cost accounting and management accounting practices?

 

 

Yes

78

97.5

No

2

2.5

Section G: frequency of use of cost accounting and management accounting information?

 

 

Sometimes

5

6.2

Frequently

26

32.5

Always

49

61.3

The majority of participants are in automotive and automotive supply, food, construction and textile-confection industries. Of the firms, 85% have 250 or more employees, which was to be expected, as the sample is composed of big firms. Almost 85% of firms have existed for more than 20 years, whereas 6.3% have existed for 16–20 years. Only 8.7% of the firms have existed for less than 16 years. Questionnaire respondents were, largely, the managers of older big firms. Of the respondents, 15% were senior managers, whereas 40% were accounting managers and 19% were accounting employees.

Eighty per cent of the participant firms have a separate management accounting department. Of the respondent firms, 97.5% have cost accounting and management accounting practices. The firms' usage frequency of cost accounting and management accounting information was also researched. Table 2 reports that 61.3% of the subjects always use this information, 32.5% often use it and 6.2% sometimes use it.

Participant and non-participant firms are grouped as indigenous Turkish or multinational firms, with primarily European or Asian markets, and as open corporations or closed corporations. Distribution of the firms is presented in Table 3 (Distribution of firms). Indigenous Turkish firms and multinational firms' percentages appear close to each other in terms of participants and non-participants. The percentage of non-participant firms with primarily European markets is higher than that of participant firms. More open corporations took part in our study than closed corporations.

 

Ownership

 Ownership

Primary market

 Primary market

Open corporations

Closed corporations

 

Percent

Turkish firms

Multinational

European

Asian

 

 

Participants

0.17

0.61

0.39

0.65

0.35

0.38

0.62

Non-participants

0.83

0.65

0.35

0.80

0.20

0.14

0.86


4.2. Aims of Using Management Accounting Practices

This study reveals the aims of the firms using management accounting practices. In the questionnaire, firm managers were asked to evaluate their intention to use management accounting practices according to a five-point Likert-type scale. Table 4 (Aims of using management accounting practices) summarizes the motivations for using management accounting practices. The means of the answers are between 4.74 and 4.16; standard deviations are between 0.81 and 0.47. Analysing the order of importance of these aims reveals that cost control, information for pricing decision and cost cutting are the top three aims.

Aims

Mean

Std. dev.

Cost control

4.74

0.47

Pricing decision

4.69

0.49

Strategic decision

4.64

0.70

Cost cutting

4.61

0.56

Planning

4.60

0.54

Cost driver analysis

4.56

0.57

Cost allocation

4.55

0.74

Annual report

4.54

0.62

Cost management

4.53

0.67

Stock management

4.51

0.60

Risk management

4.48

0.66

Performance valuation

4.39

0.70

Strategic position analysis

4.30

0.80

Value chain analysis

4.16

0.81

Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare aims of using management accounting practice scores for indigenous Turkish or multinational firms, whose markets are primarily European or Asian, and open or closed corporations. Our hypotheses:

H0: There is no significant difference in scores within each group.
H1: There is a significant difference in scores within each group.

Hypothesis H0 was accepted for all aims of using management accounting practices, in the assessments of each group, taking into account Levene's test for equality for variance values because all significant values (2-tailed) were calculated as p > 0.05. Thus, there is no significant difference between indigenous Turkish firms and multinational firms whose markets are primarily European and Asian, and between open and closed corporations, in terms of all aims of using management accounting practices.

4.3. Adoption of Management Accounting Practices

Our survey investigates the adoption rates of management accounting practices. In the questionnaire, participants were asked to evaluate their adoption of management accounting practices as (1) not used, (2) considering or (3) in use. An independent-sample t-test was conducted to compare the adoption of management accounting practice scores for indigenous Turkish/multinational firms, whose markets are primarily European/Asian and open/closed corporations. Our hypotheses:

H0: There is no significant difference in scores within each group.
H1: There is a significant difference in scores within each group.

Hypothesis H0 was rejected concerning the adoption of management accounting practices for cash budgeting and transfer pricing between indigenous Turkish firms and multinational firms; transfer pricing, EVA, quantitative techniques, customer profitability analysis and quality function deployment between firms whose markets are primarily European or Asian; fixed/variable cost analysis, annual budgets, benchmarking and competitive cost analysis between open corporations and closed corporations. Thus, significant differences are found regarding the adoption rates of some management accounting practices between groups of indigenous Turkish and multinational firms whose markets are primarily European or Asian, and open or closed corporations. Table 5 (The results of independent-samples t-tests) reports the results of the independent-samples t-test.

Origin

M (Turkish)

SD (Turkish)

M (Multinational)

SD (Multinational)

t

p (2-tailed)

Mean difference

95% CI (Lower)

95% CI (Upper)

Eta square

Cash budgeting

2.75

0.64

2.96

0.18

−2.22

0.03

−0.22

−0.412

0.021

0.06 moderate

Transfer pricing

2.40

0.89

2.77

0.63

−2.15

0.04

−2.15

−0.714

0.027

0.06 moderate

Primary market

European

European

Asian

Asian

-

-

-

-

-

-

Transfer pricing

2.77

0.63

2.90

0.96

2.81

0.008

0.58

0.162

0.999

010 moderate

EVA

1.93

0.93

1.44

0.80

2.35

0.022

0.49

0.072

0.905

0.07 moderate

Quantitative techniques

2.76

0.65

2.33

0.92

2.10

0.042

0.422

0.016

0.829

0.06 moderate

Customer profitability analysis

2.47

0.86

1.89

0.97

2.57

0.013

0.58

0.13

1.03

0.08 moderate

Quality function deployment

2.09

0.97

1.59

0.89

2.16

0.034

0.50

0.04

0.94

0.06 moderate

Type

Open corporations

Closed corporations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Fixed/variable cost analysis

2.83

0.50

2.45

0.85

2.47

0.016

0.39

0.07

0.70

0.08 moderate

Annual budgets

3.00

0.00

2.86

0.42

2.22

0.032

0.14

0.01

0.27

0.06 moderate

Benchmarking

2.68

0.75

2.26

0.91

2.20

0.031

0.42

0.04

0.80

0.06 moderate

Competitive cost analysis

2.27

0.96

1.82

0.94

2.06

0.043

0.45

0.01

0.89

0.05 small


Differences are found between indigenous Turkish companies' and multinationals' management accounting practice adoption means; they are higher among the multinationals. Possible reasons for the widespread use of these practices among multinational firms may be more intra-group relations between these firms, and the need for better tracking of cash flows. Differences are also found between the adoption means of practices for firms whose markets are primarily European and those whose markets are primarily Asian. The means are higher among firms whose markets are primarily European, except for transfer pricing. Possible reasons for the widespread use of these practices in these firms are more intra-group relations between these firms, and their increased need for information. The adoption rate for transfer pricing in firms whose markets are primarily Asian is higher than those for firms whose markets are primarily European. The firms whose markets are primarily Asian may also have subsidiary companies in Asian countries. Thus, they may be using transfer pricing. Differences are also found between open and closed corporations' practice adoption means; they are higher among open corporations. The reason for the widespread use of these practices in open corporations may be their greater need for disclosure.

Hypothesis H0 was accepted for the adoption of other management accounting practices between indigenous Turkish firms and multinational firms, firms whose markets are primarily European and firms whose markets are primarily Asian, and open corporations and closed corporations because all significant values (2-tailed) were calculated as p > 0.05. Thus, there is no significant difference between indigenous Turkish firms and multinational firms whose markets are primarily European or Asian and open corporations and closed corporations in terms of adoption of management accounting practices.

This study compares the adoption rates of management accounting practices in Turkey with those in six previous studies. The researched management accounting practices whose adoption rates are explored are planning and budgeting, costing systems, decision support, performance evaluation and strategic analysis practices. Table 6 (Adoption rates of management accounting practices) summarizes the adoption rates of these management accounting practices. There are differences between the time, countries and sectors in which these studies were carried out; however, a general comparison can be made.

Management accounting practices

ICI 500 (Turkey) /

In use

ICI 500 (Turkey) / Considering

ICI 500 (Turkey) /

Not used

a) In use in Greece

b) In use in Finland

c) In use in India

d) In use in Australia

d) In use in Japan

e) In use in Australia

f) In use in Greece

Planning/Budgeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual budgets

94

5

1

99

100

100

98

99

100

98

Capital budgeting techniques

64

5

31

 

96

85

99

79

99

87

Flexible budgeting

58

10

32

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash budgeting

90

4

6

 

96

95

99

94

99

 

Just in time inventory/budgeting

78

8

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Costing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Process costing

59

13

28

 

 

 

52

46

 

 

Batch/job costing

54

4

42

 

 

15

30

40

 

 

Fixed/variable cost analysis

79

6

14

44

94

52

 

 

76

58

Standard costing

71

8

22

20

 

68

69

31

 

 

Life cycle costing

19

11

71

 

 

 

5

13

 

57

Activity-based costing

39

12

49

24

80

20

23

2

56

62

Target costing

41

9

50

 

78

35

 

 

38

51

Kaizen costing

23

13

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality costing

48

7

45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Decision Support

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost volume profit analysis/break even analysis

73

9

18

42

71

65

 

 

86

55

Transfer pricing

74

5

21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benchmarking (internal and external)

71

7

23

19

80

38

 

 

84

81

Quantitative techniques (forecasting, simulation)

76

4

20

25

98

58

59

38

90

77

Quality function deployment

43

7

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balanced scorecards

40

12

48

21

73

40

 

 

88

49

Economic value adding (EVA)

32

13

55

28

71

20

 

 

 

45

Value engineering

12

13

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

Strategic Analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic pricing

62

4

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Competitive cost analysis

49

7

44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Considering customers as assets

18

4

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Customer profitability analysis

58

8

34

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the whole, traditional budgeting practices are used more commonly than more recently developed practices in Turkey and the other countries explored in prior research. In all countries, including Turkey, very high adoption rates are determined in all such planning and budgeting practices as annual budgets, capital budgeting and cash budgets. Flexible budgeting is researched by Pavlatos and Paggios (2009). Their questionnaire was applied only in the hospitality industry. While their study reports this rate as 15%, we found it to be 58% in Turkey. Capital budgeting techniques' adoption rates in all studies are higher than in our study. The adoption rate of just in time inventory/budgeting is 78% in Turkey. There is no information about this system in the six previous studies.

It is seen in Table 6 that traditional costing practices are used more commonly than more recently developed practices. After analysing the adoption rates of costing systems, it is determined that, in Turkey, in general, an adoption rate of over 50% exists for traditional practices; this rate is similar to rates in the other countries. However, adoption rates of life cycle costing, activity-based costing, target costing, kaizen costing and quality costing practices are below 50% in Turkey. Kaizen costing and quality costing practices are not included in the previous six studies. In the other studies, except for Pavlatos and Paggios (2009), Joshi (2001) and Hyvönen (2005), the activity-based costing adoption rate is over 50%, and it can be argued that firms in Turkey lag behind some of the firms in other countries in terms of adopting these practices.

The adoption rates of decision support practices in Turkish firms are higher than in other countries – except for the rates found in the studies of Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998) and Hyvönen (2005). Transfer pricing is involved only in our survey. Quality function deployment, which is also not considered in the other studies, is included in decision support practices and is researched. This practice is used as a supplementary practice to conduct the design of a new product in line with customer needs and requests, and to adapt the firm's processes to customer requests. In this research, the adoption rate of quality function deployment was found to be 43%, which can be said to be rather high.

In Turkey, adoption rates are below 50% for performance evaluation practices. There is no information in the other studies about most of these practices. On the other hand, the adoption rates for balanced scorecards, EVA and value engineering were found to be higher in the studies of Chenhall and Langfield-Smith (1998), Hyvönen (2005) and Angelakis et al. (2010) than the rate we found. Value engineering is researched in our study and in Angelakis et al.(2010). The adoption rates are 12% in our study and 60% in Angelakis et al. (2010).

The adoption rates recorded for strategic analysis practices such as strategic pricing, competitive cost analysis, considering customers as assets and customer profitability analysis differ in Turkey and range from 18% (strategic pricing) to 62% considering customers as assets. There is no information about adoption rates for these practices in the studies of the other countries, except for Pavlatos and Paggios (2009). The adoption rate for customer profitability analysis found by Pavlatos and Paggios (2009) is higher than Turkey's adoption rate.

5. Conclusions

Globalisation, economical and technological developments and changes in customer preferences have recently changed firms' products and services and their design, manufacturing and presentation processes. Thus, the scope and amount of information firms expect from accounting have also changed. In line with the changes in these expectations, there has been a shift from cost accounting to management accounting, strategic management accounting and strategic cost management. Therefore, management accounting practices might differ among firms or countries. This study aims to determine the management accounting practices used by manufacturing firms in Turkey and why these practices are used, through use of a questionnaire. In addition, the adoption rates of these practices are compared with six previous studies on the matter.

In our survey, firm managers were asked to evaluate their intention to use management accounting practices according to a five-point Likert-type scale. It can be said that strategic aims are given more importance in Turkey. A general comparison shows, with only a few exceptions, that the adoption rates of management accounting practices in Turkey are higher than those obtained by the six previous studies.

It can be argued that in Turkey and in the countries explored in the prior studies, traditional budgeting and costing practices are generally used more often than those developed recently. In costing systems, except for batch/job costing and activity-based costing, the adoption rates obtained in Turkey are higher than the rates in all the other studies, which leads to the conclusion that there is a higher adoption rate for costing systems in Turkey. The adoption rates for decision support practices in Turkey are higher than in many countries. In Turkey, the adoption rates obtained for performance evaluation practices are below 50%. Additionally, except for balanced scorecards, EVA and value engineering, we found higher adoption rates for the other practices than those in the other studies. While the adoption rates for strategic analysis practices in Turkey range from 18 to 62%, there is no information on the adoption rates for strategic analysis practices in the other countries, except in Pavlatos and Paggios (2009).

Finally, in our study, higher rates for traditional planning/budgeting and costing practices are found in Turkey than in the other countries, but lower rates for activity-based costing, life cycle costing and target costing practices are found. Further, lower rates for performance evaluation practices are also found in Turkey than in the other countries. However, similar rates for decision support practices are found in Turkey and in the other countries. In summary, in Turkey, traditional budgeting and costing practices are used more frequently. Recently developed management accounting practices, such as activity-based costing, life cycle costing and target costing, are used at lower rates.

This study's respondents consist of manufacturing firms, 39% of which are multinational firms, 65% of which have markets that are mainly European and 38% of which are open corporations. They have large amounts of exports. They were chosen because they are considered to be important firms that have adapted to global competition conditions. However, given that the sample consisted only of large firms, and that there may be non-response bias, respondents may not represent all the manufacturing firms in Turkey. Nevertheless, the study can offer important results regarding the comparison of management accounting practices of important firms in Turkey with those of firms in other countries. Despite its potential limitations, this study has important implications. Future studies should examine why firms are adopting fewer recently developed management accounting practices.


Adoption and Benefits of Management Accounting Practices: An Inter-country Comparison | NOVACON INSIGHTS | NOVACON, The Payroll & Accounting Company