Comparative Management Accounting Literature Review on Similarities and Differences Between Management Accounting in Germanic and Anglophone Countries

Andreas Hoffjan, Professor WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar

Pascal Nevries, Assistant Professor WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management, Vallendar

Ren Stienemann, Dipl.-Kfm. cronos billing consulting GmbH, Muenster

Comparative Management Accounting Literature Review on Similarities and Differences Between Management Accounting in Germanic and Anglophone Countries

This paper compares management accounting practices in Germany, the UK and the USA and reveals a range of differences and similarities. The most significant difference is in the use of either the general-ledger concept or the two-circle system. Through following these varying approaches, further differences arise, e.g., the total lack of imputed costs in the Anglo-Saxon countries and different bases for calculated profits in Germany. German management accounting exerts a stronger influence on management, because in the Anglo-Saxon countries financial accounting figures are not regarded as being useful for internal decision making. Thus management in Germany relies much more heavily on internal calculations provided by management accounting. Management accountants in the USA and UK exert a much deeper impact on operational matters and are involved in broader fields of activity than their German counterparts. While Anglo-Saxon management accounting is also directed at shareholders, German management accounting is addressed at internal target groups alone. Apart from these differences, several important similarities could also be observed. Management accountants in all three countries have reasonably similar objectives and goals. Among the most important are the provision of information, participation in the management process and attempts to ensure rational decision making by management. In general, a converging approach in management accounting practice is observable.

1. Introduction The competitive environment in which companies operate is steadily becoming more challenging and demanding. Major corporate take-overs increase the demand for more sophisticated and advanced management accounting information in order to react appropriately to external market pressures. Multinational companies have to cope regularly with various different institutional environments, management practices, and cultural (mis)understandings between the respective countries. While, in this context, the field of financial accounting has already attracted considerable attention from the academic world at a comparative international level, the area of internal management accounting has largely been limited to approaches focussing only on individual countries. These approaches have been analysed thoroughly by national academic researchers and, as a consequence, influenced practices in other countries. However, in order to initiate a debate on the subject and to highlight best practices, as well as innovations and inefficiencies in the management accounting world, a sophisticated comparison, drawing on the differences and similarities between the observed countries, has only recently been conducted in the management accounting literature. Furthermore, different labels, in different languages, are used to refer to management accounting around the world (IFAC, 1998: 84). The relatively young discipline of comparative management accounting attempts to fill this gap in management accounting research, by determining the degree of diffusion of applied concepts and practices in different countries. Divergences should be analysed in order to learn from other language areas and to understand the approaches used. The present paper analyses the different characteristics of management accounting in Germany, the United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States of America (U.S.A.). The intention of this paper is to highlight the differences between the observed countries and the effects they induce.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we explain the choice of the selected countries and the methodology used. Section 3 then introduces the general concept of comparative management accounting. Based on the terminological specification of nationally diverging definitions of management accounting labels, the following section 4 describes and compares the main aspects and characteristics of management accounting in Germany, the U.S.A. and the U.K. Finally, section 5 summarizes the findings.

2. Methodology The present study concentrates on Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.A. These countries have been selected due to various reasons. For a start, the U.S.A. is the worlds leading economic power and thus of fundamental significance with respect to management accounting. Many countries have been and still are influenced by new developments in American management accounting (SHERIDAN, 1995: p. 293). Therefore, the inclusion of the U.S.A. is considered essential in this comparative study. To a lesser degree, this also applies to the UK. Furthermore both, the U.S.A. and the U.K., continuously influence management accounting developments in other countries, because English is the dominant language in the world of business (PISTONI and ZONI, 2000: 311). In addition, it is often claimed that management accounting has its roots in the U.S.A. and has influenced accounting practices and developments in German management accounting (Otto, 2000: 25). Secondly, Germany and the U.K., although having seemingly different management accounting structures and institutions, are among the dominant countries in Europe with respect to management accounting importance (BLAKE
ET AL.,

2000: 123). In this context,

many studies have revealed a significant impact of German management accounting on several other countries in the world (KEYS and MERWE, 1999: 2; BLAKE ET.AL., 2000: 123). Because the U.S.A. and U.K. can be assumed as being fairly similar due to the common language, similar financial accounting orientation and the cultural proximity (CARR and

TOMKINS,1998: 215-6; HOFFJAN and WMPENER, 2006: 238), in this paper, both countries will be treated commonly as Anglo-Saxon or Anglophone countries, if nothing else is stated to the contrary. As comparative management accounting is a relatively young discipline, there are few studies dealing with this topic (BLAKE ET AL., 2000: 122). In order to provide an overview of the state of the art in comparative management accounting, the following literature review identifies current research streams and future research questions. The first step is to develop a framework for classifying the relevant literature. The few studies published so far in this field of research do not claim to be representative of comparative management accounting in general, and also vary with respect to objectives, timeframe and methodological approaches (STOFFEL, 1995: 1). Nevertheless, some general tendencies with respect to functional aspects of management accounting can be identified and will be discussed in this paper. STOFFELs (1995) study is one of the first to concentrate at length on controllership on an international level. In his comparative work, STOFFEL analysed controllership in Germany, the U.S.A. and France. On a broader inter-country scale, BHIMANI (1996) focussed on differences and similarities in management accounting in Europe. However, BHIMANI merely collected and published nation-specific results from eleven European studies without explicitly stressing the differences and similarities in detail. A similar study from LIZCANO (1996) deals with comparative management accounting in Latin America. More recent empirical studies focussing explicitly on the comparative element of management accounting can be found in AHRENS (1997; 1999), OTTO (2000), ZIRKLER (2002), JONES and LUTHER (2004) and HOFFJAN and WMPENER (2006). In order to obtain an overview of the relevant comparative management accounting literature analysed in this paper, the studies were grouped into six different categories as presented in Figure 1:

[Include Figure 1 here]

The categories are ordered with decreasing relevance to our selected countries and comparative management accounting in general. Following this categorisation, all papers in the first group cover the countries Germany, the U.S.A. and / or U.K. and deal simultaneously with comparative management accounting. In the literature review, 30 papers could be included in the first category. The second group includes papers that deal with national management accounting from the respective countries. Although not dealing explicitly with comparative management accounting, these papers are nevertheless useful for a deeper analysis. Because they represent the characteristics and particularities of the specific countries, these papers can be compared to one another. In the third category, aspects closely related to management accounting are discussed from the respective country perspective. Topics such as culture do not deal explicitly with management accounting, but nevertheless have a direct or indirect influence on different perceptions of accounting in the various countries. In the fourth category, the comparative element is highlighted again, although these papers do not deal explicitly with the countries that form the focus of this paper. This category is included, due to potential cross-references from other countries. If it is possible to observe how management accounting differs or converges between other countries, meaningful comparisons could possibly be made. The fifth and sixth categories are included in this categorisation for reasons of completeness, but are not considered as sufficiently relevant to merit further examination.

3. Principles of comparative management accounting 3.1. Comparative management accounting

Comparative management accounting compares management practices and principles between countries and cultures in order to initiate discussion, to highlight best practices, innovations and inefficiencies in management accounting. Managers can also achieve competitive advantages by applying innovative management accounting techniques from other countries or cultures (AMAT ET AL., 1999: 20). Additionally, comparative management accounting aims at guiding techniques and practices towards convergence (HOFFJAN and WMPENER, 2006: 241).

3.2. Management accounting versus controlling Terms like management accounting or controlling are neither equally used nor understood in all countries (AMAT
ET AL.,

1999: 19). In Germany for instance, the label management

accountant is not commonly applied as a description of the occupation neither in the English term nor the German translation (SHERIDAN, 1995: 1; BIRKET 1998: 487). In order to compare the work of management accountants in the three countries, equivalences for the corresponding Anglophone meanings must be found. In this respect, German controlling is generally viewed as similar to the Anglophone management accounting in the relevant academic literature (SHERIDAN, 1995: 1; OTTO 2000: 38; WILLSON
ET AL.,

2003: 5; KPPER, 2005: 6). The discussion of controlling-related problems and

innovations in Anglophone journals like Management Accounting Research, Management Accounting Quarterly or Advances in Management Accounting can be regarded as an indication of the terminological proximity of German controlling and Anglo-Saxon management accounting (KPPER, 2005: 6). Although there is not such a demand for theoretical definitions in the U.S.A. that are comparable to those used in Germany (Otto, 2000: 25), the following chapter tries to examine whether deeper differences are identifiable from an initial view of the definition and terminology of both terms.

3.2.1. Management accounting terminology and definitions in the U.S. and the U.K. In the Anglophone literature, it is evident that various terms are used for management accounting. Labels like internal accounting, enterprise reporting and managerial accounting are widely used as synonyms for management accounting (ZIRKLER, 2002: 17). Given these different labels that are used for the same basic concept, AMAT ET AL. (1999: 19) also observed that the term management accounting implies different meanings across national boundaries. In general, two different perceptions of the scope of management accounting can be observed in the relevant Anglo-Saxon literature (MUSSNIG, 1996: 13). The first perspective defines management accounting from a narrow point of view, such that the term refers mainly to internal cost accounting and internal calculations (MUSSNIG, 1996: 13; HORVTH, 2003: 79). A second, much broader perspective is more common in the Anglo-Saxon countries. According to the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION accounting is defined as:
OF

ACCOUNTANTS (1981: 4) management

[] the process of identification, measurement, accumulation, analysis, preparation, interpretation, and communication of financial information used by management to plan, evaluate, and control within an organization and to assure appropriate use of and accountability for its resources. Management accounting also comprises the preparation of financial reports for non-management groups such as shareholders, creditors, regulatory agencies, and tax authorities.

In this definition, which is characteristic of management accounting in the Anglo-Saxon countries (MUSSNIG, 1996: 13; Zirkler, 2002: 18) and will therefore be used in this paper, a clear focus on financial information becomes apparent. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the definition includes non-management reporting for taxation and regulatory purposes as part of management accounting (MUSSNIG, 1996: 13). Management accounting is therefore an

integral part of the management process. It can be regarded as an umbrella term for the general managerial process of planning, evaluating and controlling, as well as of reporting. Another label which is commonly applied in both the U.S.A. and U.K., is the term controller. WILLSON
ET AL.

(2003: 11) observe that, for the chief accounting officer (CAO)

especially in large companies, the most common title used is controller. Although the label controller can therefore be regarded as widespread in the Anglo-Saxon countries, its application is commonly reserved as a description of the highest-ranking management accountant in the corporation, rather than for all management accountants. The authors also acknowledge that, while various titles can be applied to the position of the CAO, the title controller may be an unfortunate one, because it emphasises the aspect of control more than other also relevant responsibilities like reporting, management and planning. The label controlling also raises some important issues. While the term controller is commonly applied as stated above, controlling is only used as a description of the leadership process of the final stage in the managerial decision making process (STOFFEL, 1995: 9; KPPER, 2005: 6). Therefore, controlling and controller are only similar with respect to the origin of the term in the Anglo-American countries, but not at the conceptual level (SIEGWART, 1982: 98; STOFFEL, 1995: 10). This difficulty concerning the job description of the controller is quite often referred to in the Anglo-Saxon literature. The modern controller does not do any controlling in terms of line authority except in his own department (HORNGREN 10). Finally, the term controllership rather than controlling most often characterises the field of activity of the controller or management accountant in the Anglo-Saxon countries (OTTO, 2000: 26).
ET AL.

2005: 13; STOFFEL, 1995:

3.2.2. Management accounting terminology and definitions in Germany

10

In contrast to the Anglophone label management accounting, business managers in Germany generally use the term controlling as a description of the field of activity of management accountants (BIRKET, 1998: 487; AHRENS and CHAPMAN 2000: 482; KPPER, 2005: 3-.4f). In this context, controlling describes the relatively young discipline of Betriebswirtschaftslehre (business administration). Contrary to the purely practical approach in the U.S.A. and U.K., the basics of controlling have been developed within the academic literature (SCHERRER, 1996: 100; AHRENS and CHAPMAN 2000: 482; JONES and LUTHER 2004: 4; KPPER, 2005: 6) and its definitions and interpretations are characterized by its great variety and diversity. A widely-accepted definition of controlling in the German literature has, therefore, not been so far discernible until the present (FREIDANK, 1993: 400). Nevertheless, it can be observed that the majority of definitions focus on the decisionsupport function (BERENS
ET AL.,

1995: 144), the coordinative function (HORVTH, 2003:

148-9; KPPER, 2005: 5) or define controlling as safeguarding managerial rationality (WEBER, 2004: 47). While controlling concentrates more on internal accounting matters, in the Anglo-Saxon countries, management accounting includes internal as well as external accounting aspects and can be seen as a general term for accounting as a whole (MUSSNIG, 1996: 13). Comparing controlling with management accounting definitions, it can therefore be argued that, on the one hand, management accounting is defined and understood in a functional broader context, whereas controlling definitions, on the other hand, are comparably characterised by their greater universality (e.g. WEBER, 2004: 48). Despite this broader scope of management accounting, some similarities are evident. All definitions cover the aspect that the responsibility of management accountants or controllers is to support managers with relevant information so as to promote objective and fair decisionmaking.

11

3.3. Determinants of and influences on differences between management accounting processes To analyse why and how management accounting differs between countries, it is important to concentrate on the main determinants and key drivers that lead to such variations. The most frequently-stated influence factor held responsible for differences in management accounting is culture (CHOW
ET AL.,

1991: 209-10; Chow et al., 1999: 441).

Other factors such as academic and institutional background, as well as the economic situation of the particular country, can have an impact on diverging management accounting systems (PISTONI and ZONI, 2000: 285; SHIELDS, 1998: 505-6).

3.3.1. Culture as an influence factor in management accounting Culture can be defined as a system of collectively held values (HOFSTEDE, 1991: 5). In this context, the cultural framework of HOFSTEDE is commonly applied by management accounting researchers to explain the variations between different nations and their cultures (CARR and TOMKINS, 1998: 217). HOFSTEDE (2001: 373-4) developed the familiar five dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity and long versus short-term orientation. Using this framework, it can be argued that, for instance, Japanese business managers are characterised by more organisational commitment than their American colleagues, due to a lower tendency towards individualism (CARR and TOMKINS, 1998: 218). In the economic literature, special attention is also paid to the differences in financial culture. While, on the one hand, it is commonly stated that the Anglo-Saxon world is more shareholder and stock-market driven, on the other hand, many scholars do in fact refer to the German financial culture as more stakeholder driven (SHERIDAN, 1995: 290). Culture can therefore explain national differences in management accounting. However, whenever culture is quoted as an influence-factor on management accounting, it is important not to treat this complex field too simplistically (HARRISON and MCKINNON, 1999: 483).

12

Moreover, because this paper focuses on the characteristics and consequences of these differences, rather than on their cultural causes, these studies are only considered peripherally.

3.3.2. Education, occupation and management accounting institutes as influence factors The respective educational and institutional situation also varies between the analysed countries and should be included in the comparative framework. While both in the U.K. and U.S.A., management accounting is based on a professional environment (AHRENS and CHAPMAN, 2000: 480; JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 4), management accounting in Germany can be characterised more as a discipline taught at university than a fully-fledged profession (SHERIDAN, 1995: 289; AHRENS and CHAPMAN, 2000: 482). Furthermore, institutional bodies like the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) and the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) represent the interests of management accountants in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Conversely, German management accounting is highly educationally oriented (Jones and Luther 2004: 3) and there is no wellestablished institutional environment. Although not all studies explicitly compare German with Anglo-Saxon management accounting institutions, all studies nevertheless mention either the highly sophisticated management accounting profession in the U.S.A. and the U.K., or stress the minimal institutional background in Germany. Therefore, the analysed literature generally concurs with the statement that professional institutions for management accounting are more sophisticated in the Anglo-Saxon countries than in Germany. Consequently, German developments in management accounting are mostly based on new ideas and concepts from academics, whereas Anglophone scholars have a reputation for focussing much more on practical research (AHRENS and CHAPMAN, 1999: 42). There are also differences between Germany and the U.K. with respect to the type of qualification of accountants that they acquire before applying for a job in accounting. The occupational biographies of management accountants highlight the fact that the main route into the profession of management accounting is achieved via a university degree (AHRENS

13

and CHAPMAN, 2000: 480-1). However, while in Germany, it is almost mandatory for management accountants to have graduated in controlling or at least some other field within Betriebswirtschaftslehre, AHRENS and CHAPMAN (2000: 480) found that all but one practitioner in Britain had graduated in a subject that was not relevant to business or economics. It can therefore be noted that education in German management accounting is predominantly acquired by means of an university degree in economics, whereas accountants in the U.K. are predominantly trained and qualified on the job.

3.3.3. Economic background as an influence factor In terms of economic background, fluctuations continuously influence and affect different countries in different ways (GOLDSTEIN, 1995: 719-20). The economic situation in a particular country can influence the management accounting practices in that country, as well as in other countries (BLAKE ET AL., 2000: 123). If, for example, one country has to cope with high levels of inflation, management accountants must consider these circumstances (BLAKE
ET AL.,

1998: 56). In addition, if a country is dominated by the economic power of another country, management accountants will inevitably adopt the latters practices; although with varying degrees of responsiveness.

4. Comparison of relevant management accounting concepts 4.1. Responsibilities and objectives of management accounting 4.1.1. Objectives and target groups of management accounting In contrast to Germany, management accounting practices in Anglo-Saxon countries also include, by definition, the provision of financial reports for non-management groups like shareholders, creditors and tax authorities. Consequently, one could assume that both the target groups and the objectives of management accounting differ between these countries.

14

According to the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF

ACCOUNTING (1982: 24) in the U.S., the

objectives of management accounting include providing of information and participating in the management process. Analysing these objectives further, it becomes apparent that there are many similarities to the German understanding of management accounting objectives. In Germany, the aim of management accounting is commonly described as that of ensuring rational managerial decision making as well as safeguarding the processes of controlling, planning and governing (AMSHOFF, 1993: 216; MACHARZINA, 2003: 393; WEBER, 2004: 2930; KPPER, 2005: 11). Furthermore, it can be stated that all management accountants pursue the company goal of profit maximisation as well as that of supporting the management. Therefore, despite a broader field of management accounting target groups in AngloSaxon countries compared to Germany, it can be argued that management accountants in the observed countries share similar goals and objectives.

4.1.2. Long-term versus short-term goals A widely-discussed question in comparative management accounting literature is whether Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S. or the U.K. are short-term oriented, whereas countries like Germany and Japan are possibly more long-term oriented with respect to their business decisions (SHERIDAN, 1995: 290; AHRENS, 1997: 557-8; CARR and TOMKINS, 1998: 217) The dominance for managerial decision making of stock markets in London or New York is often stated as a key argument for this short-term orientation of Anglo-Saxon managers (SHERIDAN, 1995: 290). In addition to economic reasons, cultural background is also often cited as a reason for the differences between these countries. Many scholars refer to the cultural model of HOFSTEDE (2001) for an explanation for the short-term vs. long-term orientation (SHERIDAN, 1995: 290; COATES
ET AL.,

1995: 132).

Drawing on empirical findings in the literature, management accountants from the U.K. consider themselves to be under high pressure to achieve short-term oriented goals, in contrast

15

to their colleagues in Germany (AHRENS, 1996: 149-50). Similar results can be found in the comparative study of COATES ET AL. (1995: 127), according to which German managers are longer-term in their thinking than their U.K. and U.S. counterparts. Finally, according to the empirical study of CARR and TOMKINS (1998: 220), company payback periods are also shorter in the Anglo-Saxon countries than in Germany. The majority of research discussed above, thus agree on the short-term orientation of Anglo-Saxon countries in contrast to the long-term orientation in Germany (COATES
ET AL.

1995: 132; SHERIDAN, 1995: 290; AHRENS, 1997:

557-8; CARR AND TOMKINS, 1998: 217). The findings from the literature are summarised in Figure 2: [Include Figure 2 here]

Despite this apparent consensus in the literature, an excessively undifferentiated analysis of these stereotypes must be criticised, because of a lack of questioning the reasons behind and the implications of these assumptions (AHRENS, 1997: 558). HOROVITZ (1978), for instance, found no significant differences between long-term planning in the U.K. and Germany. In his comparative study, he found that the same percentage of chief executives in Germany and the U.K. use long-range plans (HOROVITZ, 1978: 100). In a long-term orientation index developed by HOFSTEDE (2001), Germany is also ranked as only slightly more long-term oriented than the U.S.A. and the U.K. (HOFSTEDE, 2001: 356). Furthermore, assuming a convergence of management accounting practices as observed by the majority of scholars, a growing similarity of the instruments used for both long-term and short term business-orientations is identifiable as well (COATES ET AL., 1995: 131).

4.1.3. Management accounting versus financial accounting Creditor protection and the principle of prudence are historically strongly emphasised in German accounting. Hence, stringent regulations concerning the reported content to outsiders

16

of the company can be observed in Germany (BAETGE

ET AL.,

2002: 112). Consequently,

financial accountants are driven by statutory requirements, particularly with respect to the (German) legal and commercial codes and the tax regime (JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 13). Their task is to emphasise legal requirements, rather than economic needs inside the company. Financial accounting is directed formally at the state, and not primarily towards shareholders, as in Anglophone countries. Consequently, external reports from financial accounting are sometimes considered as not relevant to management decision making in Germany (JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 13), probably leading to a denial that financial accounting is a bone fide component of management (ibid.). Furthermore, Anglo-Saxon management accounting does not operate with imputed costs such as opportunity costs for managing owners, as is common in German management accounting (ZIRKLER, 2002: 23; MESSNER, 2003: 262). Anglophone accounting figures are based on the same business values that are used in financial accounting. Due to imputed costs, profits calculated in financial accounts normally differ from those calculated in the management accounting system in Germany (BAETGE
ET AL.,

2002: 565-6). Managers in

Germany still emphasise that the numbers reported in the financial statements are not relevant for internal decision-making purposes. Because the data reported by financial accountants is based on the protection of stakeholders and is not relevant for supporting managerial decisions, financial accounting is separate from controlling. The former is responsible for reporting to the state, taxation authorities and other stakeholders such as creditors. The latter concentrates on entrepreneurial or managerial efforts in order to fulfil managerial needs for relevant decision support (KEYS and MERWE, 1999: 7; JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 14). In Anglo-Saxon countries, management accounting and financial accounting are also treated as two separate fields of accounting activity. However, comparing the degree of separation, it can be observed that a much clearer split between financial and management

17

accounting is prevalent in Germany than in the U.S. or the U.K. (JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 13). Indeed, this has already been stated in the definition of management accounting from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ACCOUNTANTS (1981). Management accounting in the U.S.A. or the U.K. not only operates with the same data base as for financial accounting, but a clear division of financial and management accounting of the occupational level as in Germany, is also uncommon.

4.1.4. Fields of activity for management accountants Comparing the fields of activity for which management accountants are responsible, internal cost management is regularly identified as being one of the main functions of management accountants in all observed countries (MUSSNIG, 1996: 13-14; ZIRKLER, 2002: 17). This is backed up by empirical findings, that internal cost management is relevant for 65% of German controllers and for 91% of the interviewed U.S. management accountants (STOFFEL, 1995: 156). While this common ground for activities may not be surprising, many studies dealing with U.S. accounting show that management accountants agree with the definition of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF

ACCOUNTANTS (1981), which is responsible for financial

management activities like reporting to investors and creditors or dealing with tax authorities (STOFFEL, 1995: 83). The key results from STOFFEL concerning the fields of activity of German and U.S. management accountants, are presented in Figure 3. [Include Figure 3 here]

With respect to these findings and in conformity with the studies mentioned above, financial accounting plays a dominant role for U.S. management accountants, with 97% being responsible for external accounting matters. Conversely, in Germany, financial accounting is considered to be relevant for only 21% of management accountants (ZIENER, 1985: 23-4).

18

This is the most significant difference that can be identified between German and AngloSaxon management accounting activities. German controlling is far more detached from cost accounting matters than Anglo-Saxon management accounting. This again becomes apparent in the relevance of accounts receivable, for which 66% of U.S. management accountants are responsible, compared to 9% in Germany. Management accountants in both countries ultimately agree that budgeting and internal reporting are important aspects of management accounting in contrast to the field of internal auditing, which is uniformly regarded as being rather less relevant for daily work. However, despite this low circulation of internal auditing, the comparison reveals that it is still more frequently integrated into Anglo-Saxon management accounting than into German management accounting (ZIENER 1985, p. 23-4). In Germany, internal auditing can be described as operating closely together with the German controller, but not necessary as being integrated into the controlling department itself (HORVTH, 2003: 811; STOFFEL, 1995: 93). By contrast, internal auditing is regarded as a potential activity for management accountants in the U.S.A. (HABERLAND, 1970: 2182). Further differences with German und U.S. management accounting can be found in the appropriate insurance of the corporations assets or the responsibility for computer services (HABERLAND, 1970: 2184; STOFFEL, 1995: 113-14; WILLSON
ET AL.,

2003: 4). Normally,

neither of these two fields of activity is assigned to German controlling (STOFFEL, 1995: 93). Finally, because the fields of activity are positively correlated with the numbers of employees working in a company, these results are only representative for corporations above certain levels of size (Otto, 2000: 273). Therefore, it is evident that, in smaller firms, the management accountant is responsible for a broader range of activities in all observed countries (WILLSON ET AL., 2003: 14).

4.2. Management accounting systems and instruments

19

Management accounting systems are intended to satisfy managers needs and to motivate and assist them in achieving their organizational objectives in a timely, efficient, and effective manner (KAPLAN and ATKINSON, 1998: 1). In this context, management accounting systems must fulfil other requirements than those of financial accounting systems. Concerning the former, data relevance is regarded as one of the main aspects, whereas the data used for financial accounting systems is characterised primarily by objectivity and auditability.

4.2.1. General ledger versus two circle system The handling of data used for external and internal accounting needs is handled in different ways in the observed countries. As in Germany, management and financial accounting are separated to a high degree (as stated above), and the systems of management and financial accounting are also separated by the use of a two circle concept. That is, two different accounting circles apply to internal and external accounting (Messner, 2003: 249). At first glance, there is a dividing line between financial accounting and management accounting in the U.S.A. and the U.K., due to the different activites and accounting goals. Contrary to Germany, proximity between internal and external accounting can nevertheless be observed in the sense that no two completely separated data bases are used in the AngloSaxon countries (KAHLE, 2003, p. 775). More specifically, a common data base named general ledger is commonly applied (KAHLE, 2003: 775). While this general ledger system is widely accepted at an international level, the twocircle or dual cost system is still the most commonly used in Germany. Financial and cost systems are run independently in Germany, with a reconciliation module provided to articulate between the two sets of statements at the end of the year when financial statements are prepared (KAPLAN and ATKINSON, 1998: 8). In the following discussion, both the characteristics, consequences and differences that arise due to this variation will be discussed. The general ledger system can be described as an integrated system that includes all accounts in the financial statements. The key characteristic of this system is that the two

20

different systems - financial accounting and management accounting - access a jointly-used data base (OEHLER, 1997: 358; ZIRKLER, 2002: 19). While the same data is used for external reporting as well as for internal decision support, both financial accounting and management accounting therefore calculate with the same values and basics. Consequently, costs are computed based on aggregate, average allocations of manufacturing overhead, and control procedures use monthly variances computed from general ledger financial accounts (KAPLAN and ATKINSON, 1998: 8). Because the capital market now plays an important role for Anglo-Saxon companies, external reporting to both shareholders and creditors can be regarded as very important for corporations. Significantly more management accounting information is used for external reporting in the U.S.A. than, for instance, in Germany (ZIRKLER, 2002: 16). Consequently, it can be assumed that the general ledger system is dominated by financial accounting data (ZIRKLER, 2002: 21). A further significant difference from the German point of view, is the virtually nonexistence of imputed costs in Anglo-Saxon management accounting as mentioned above (ZIRKLER, 2002: 21; MESSNER, 2003: 262). While imputed depreciation and interest are of great importance in German management accounting (SCHERRER, 1996: 105), they rarely appear in Anglophone management accounting theory and practice (ZIRKLER, 2002: 21; JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 17; WEBER, 2004: 16). The difference between costs and expenses is deemed very important in Germany. Profits computed in the financial accounting system differ from those in the cost accounting system, due to imputed costs such as depreciation or an opportunity cost for the managing owner (CHRISTENSEN and WAGENHOFER, 1997: 255). As a consequence, the potential scope for manipulation in the field of management accounting is greater in Germany, with the use of imputed costs, compared to Anglo-Saxon countries, which calculate solely with actual costs (KPPER, 1995: 24-5). The determination of imputed depreciation or imputed management salary, for instance, offers a window of

21

opportunity for managers to justify a different level of profit to that presented in the external reports (MESSNER, 2003: 264). Similar to imputed costs, opportunity costs are uncommon in Anglo-American countries (HORNGREN
ET AL.

2003: 397-8). If required, these types of cost are calculated in special

calculations for particular purposes. Therefore, in contrast to Germany, a relatively high percentage of diverse special analysis can be found in the general ledger system (ZIRKLER, 2002: 22). Finally, a spin-off of accounts payable and accounts receivable from the main ledger into subsidiary ledgers is also typical for the general ledger system (OEHLER, 1997: 358; ZIRKLER, 2002: 22). As a reason for the joint use of a common database, KAPLAN and ATKINSON (1998: 8) state that at the beginning of the last century, the high cost of information collecting, processing, and reporting [] led companies to attempt to manage their internal operations with the same information used to report to external constituencies. In Germany, the benefits of separating management and financial accounting data and hence having an autonomous data base for internal calculations is regarded as more important than the higher costs of keeping two sets of books. Although the demand for financial information is taken into consideration in this system, many managers consider this information alone as insufficient for running a company (CHRISTENSEN and WAGENHOFER, 1997: 255; KEYS and MERWE, 1999: 8). Moreover, the benefits are seen as the ability to support managerial decisions without any additional calculations from data that is based initially on the strict rules for external reporting. The disadvantages of additional costs for collecting and maintaining separated data bases are currently reduced by state-of-the-art software (KEYS and MERWE, 1999: 8).

4.2.2. Management accounting instruments Management accounting instruments are among the key drivers of convergence in management accounting. In the search for best practice, management accounting instruments

22

are easier to adopt than a new accounting system or a foreign culture. It can furthermore be assumed that management accountants are familiar with the most common instruments of management accounting. Therefore, although German and Anglo-Saxon managers approach accounting from different directions, the instruments and tools can be assumed to be largely similar, and specific management accounting techniques enjoy various degrees of popularity in different countries (SHERIDAN, 1995: 291). While Activity Based Costing (ABC), for instance, has attracted considerable attention in the Anglo-Saxon countries since the mid-1980s, ABC is less commonly applied in Germany (SCHERRER, 1996: 104; FRIEDL
ET AL.,

2005: 56). Comparing the application of ABC in

Germany, the U.K., or the U.S.A., it is evident that there are also different approaches to ABC. The classical ABC in the Anglo-Saxon countries links the overhead allocation to the activities carried out to produce and sell a product. In Germany, an alternative approach, Prozesskostenrechnung (process cost accounting), is applied more commonly and only considers costs external to the manufacturing department (FRIEDL
ET AL.,

2005: 60). In this

respect, DAVIS and SWEETING (1991: 44-5) analysed the use or planned use of cost management techniques in the U.K. and ranked ABC with an affirmation rate of 60% as important for U.K. manufacturing enterprises. In Germany, FRANZ and KAJTER (2002: 57980) recently analysed the spread of ABC and found that only 47 % of large German firms used ABC, and only half of these companies (48%) applied it regularly. In this context, BHIMANI (1996: 103) observed that ABC seems to be particularly strong in the U.K. and comparatively weak in Germany. Contrary to the use of ABC, Grenzplankostenrechnung (flexible margin costing) can be deemed one of the most important cost accounting tools for German companies (FRIEDL
AL., ET

2005: 56). This concept focuses on contribution margins and variable costs, rather than

on full costing (as in ABC) and hence supports short-term decisions such as whether to accept or reject an additional order.

23

While another instrument such as budgeting is regarded as more or less equally important for all management accountants (Sheridan, 1995: 291), instruments like discounted cash flow, payback or internal rate of return are applied to varying degrees. COATES
ET AL.

(1995: 132)

found that management accounting instruments are used in terms of the financial goals and orientation of a company and may therefore differ in their appliance and use.

4.3. Organisational integration of management accountants in the corporation 4.3.1. Hierarchical level of management accountants within the corporation As analysed with respect to the definitions of management accounting, as well as to the activities presented above, management accountants deal with objectively fair and highly relevant data within the corporation. Therefore, calls for a high hierarchical rank of management accountants can be found in the management accounting literature in all countries (HABERLAND, 1970: 2183; MACHARZINA 2003: 390). Therefore, management accountants should operate at a relatively high organisational position within the corporation and should be integrated sufficiently into the operational, strategic and tactical planning of the corporation (MACHARZINA 2003, p. 390). Additionally, securing the independence, neutrality and authority of the controller is considered important. This could be maintained by positioning the accountant at least at the second hierarchical level, or as part of the board of directors (HABERLAND, 1970: 2183; STOFFEL, 1995: 98). Such demands for an influencial and responsible position within the company, as generally proposed in the literature can to some extent be supported by empirical data. In Germany, empirical studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s were in line with the above-mentioned statements and showed a dominance of controlling at the second hierarchical level (SERFLING, 1992: 82). UEBELE (1981) and AMSHOFF (1993) found 54% and 60% respectively of controllers to be positioned at the second hierarchical level within the corporation (UEBELE, 1981: 31; AMSHOFF, 1993: 335). In the U.S.A. however, there are

24

hardly any recent empirical studies on the positioning of management accountants in the hierarchy (STOFFEL, 1995: 103). STOFFEL examined the hierarchical integration of German, U.S. and French management accountants. According to his results as presented in Figure 4, 8 % of German management accountants are classified at the first hierarchical level, 65 % at the second, 26 % at the third and only 1 % at the fourth hierarchical level. By contrast, in U.S. corporations, no controller can be found at the first level, 39 % at the second, 50 % at the third and 11% at the fourth level. [Include Figure 4 here]

Because most U.S. management accountants (50%) are currently assigned to the third hierarchical level in this study, a generally lower positioning, compared to their colleagues in Germany, could be assumed. However, before drawing any further conclusions from the findings of the above study differences between the structures of large companies in the three observed countries have to be taken into account. In Germany, the law requires an organisational structure for public limited corporations which is fairly distinct from the Anglo-Saxon board system. In contrast to the one-tier system in the U.S.A. or U.K., German Public Limited Corporations are characterised by a management board with at least three members. Therefore, the top level in German corporations is by nature broader than in Anglo-Saxon corporations, whereas only the CEO can generally be identified as representing the highest level of management. Consequently, comparing the levels of hierarchical integration, it seems that a second hierarchical level in the U.S. can be regarded as somewhat higher in the organisation than an equivalent position in German corporations. Therefore, despite the differences between German and Anglo-Saxon companies identified above, it is evident that management accountants in Germany and the U.S.A. are both ranked at a relatively similar level of influence and responsibility within the corporation.

25

4.3.2. Interrelations and connections to adjacent departments Analysing the organisational integration of management accountants in the hierarchy of the corporation, entails firstly, examining the name given to the department in which management accountants work. This term can then be interpreted as an indicator of both the activities and the interrelations within the company. In German companies, the department in which management accountants are located is nearly always labelled controlling department or something similar which includes the term controlling, such as Betriebswirtschaft/Controlling (STOFFEL, 1995: 140). In the U.S.A., by contrast, the nomenclature can vary significantly. STOFFELs findings indicate that, 25 % of the departments for management accountants are also called Controllers department, whereas 42 % are labelled Finance Department and 28 % Accounting Department. In the U.S.A., controllership remains closely interwoven and connected with financial aspects. Moreover, the controller is often seen as a financial executive, who reports to the CFO at the same hierarchical level as the treasurer (SIEGWART, 1982: 99; STOFFEL, 1995: 143; WILLSON ET AL., 2003: 18). An analysis of the situation in Germany reveals similar variations in the practical environment (KPPER, 2005: 518). As a common denominator, controlling departments can normally be observed at the same hierarchical level as finance departments. In contrast to the U.S.A., this does not necessary include any interrelations between the departments (SHERIDAN, 1995: 291). This is supported by empirical findings, according to which 54 % of German controlling departments have no organisational connection to financing, whereas such a strict separation was evident in only 3 % of the U.S. corporations (STOFFEL, 1995: 144). Controlling can therefore be found either at the same hierarchical level as the finance department, being an administrative department supporting the head office, or in conformity with the Anglo-Saxon

26

model, as the same level as the treasurer who reports to the accounting department (KPPER, 2005: 528).

4.3.3. Size of management accounting departments Comparable to the field of activity which was identified to be broader in the Anglo-Saxon countries than in Germany, management accounting departments also normally operate with more employees in Anglophone countries (STOFFEL, 1995: 117). This is empirically supported by STOFFEL (1995), who found that, on average, 29.3 people are employed in U.S. management accounting departments, compared to 12.7 employees in German controlling departments (STOFFEL, 1995: 150).

4.4. Role of the controller in the observed countries The fields of activity, the instruments used to achieve goals and the organisational integration of management accounting may be similar or vary between countries. However, the topics discussed above give only a limited indication of the self-perception and the role that management accountants actually play within the organisation. In all three countries, both the changes and the development of the role of management accountants are important and must be taken into consideration. Variances and differences in the role of the accountants can be seen as an indicator of the degree to which management accounting itself is converging or diverging throughout the observed countries. In this context, there is consensus among management accounting scholars that the former, familiar role of the controller as a pure score keeper is at least partly obsolete in all countries (KAPLAN and ATKINSON, 1998: 1; WEBER, 2004: 5). Observing the current status of management accountants and their role within corporations, some differences between the three countries are identifiable.

4.4.1. Role of management accountants in Germany

27

The relevant literature and practice concur that, in Germany, the management accountant has evolved from a pure score keeper of past performance into a central contact person who participates in the management process (MUSSNIG, 1996: 15; WEBER, 2004: 21). In this context, the mission statement of the INTERNATIONALER CONTROLLER VEREIN, conveys an image of the German management accountant who concentrates on the creation of transparency and visualisation of economic consequences, rather than operational involvement in actual decision making. Furthermore, in Germany, the role of the management accountant is characterized as that of a modern coordinator and moderator of plans and processes within the corporation. By maintaining and creating the management accounting system, the management accountant should be able to support decision makers within the corporation by providing relevant information on a wide range of issues (INTERNATIONALER CONTROLLER VEREIN, 2006). This represents an image of the German management accountant as an advisor and provider of relevant information who visualises the economic consequences rather than being involved in the decision-making process. This image is supported by German scholars, who stress either the coordinative function, the provision of information function or the function of controlling as a special aspect of leadership (STOFFEL, 1995: 79; HORVTH, 2003: 148-9; WEBER 2004: 30-1). What all of these functions have in common, is that management accounting is no longer seen as pure score-keeping. In his numerous comparative studies of the role of British and German management accountants, AHRENS (1997: 583) also supports this image, whereby in Germany, controlling has no official input into concrete action and carries no operational responsibility (AHRENS, 1997: 564). Referring to his findings, German management accountants consider it necessary for the controlling department to be distanced from operational action and merely analyse or investigate the economic consequences of the organisational effort. Management accounting in Germany can, therefore, be seen as a representational effort, focussing on the coordination of business activities through plans. Through this rather bureaucratic

28

perspective, it can be stated that German controllers first and foremost see the organisation through the plan. (AHRENS, 1997: 564).
We are responsible for the planning process and generate the planning calendar, the schedule of activities. We are responsible that the planning systems are available, but we are not responsible for the contents of plans. [] so we carry not (operational) responsibility. (ibid.)

In conformity with the above image of a supporter and advisor of decision makers within the corporation, the management accountant should help, advise and ensure, that planning takes place (AHRENS, 1997: 562). SHERIDAN (1995: 291) discusses another aspect of management accountants in Germany, namely that management accountants are much more future-oriented, than for instance, their colleagues in Anglo-Saxon countries. In Germany, companies are management by the real [internal] figures as opposed to publicly reported ones. Therefore, SHERIDAN argues that it is possible for accountants to look much more at the future than, for instance, British management accountants.

4.4.2. Role of management accountants in the U.K. and the U.S. Contrary to the above findings, the management accountants analysed by AHRENS regard themselves as more future-oriented than their colleagues in Germany (AHRENS, 1997: 583). Rather than being too distanced from operational matters and just acting as scorekeepers, British management accountants see their strengths in the involvement with proactive decision making and the formulation of strategic direction (AHRENS, 1997: 584). Furthermore, planning and coordinating, which have been identified as key instruments of German management accountants (HORVTH, 2003: 165), were seen in the U.K. as something that just has to be done sometimes (AHRENS, 1997: 573) and hence did not share the same status as in Germany. Although it is open to debate whether the latter aspects of planning and coordination are representative for U.K. management accountants in general, this statement

29

nonetheless supports the perception of the role of management accountants in the Anglophone literature. Several researchers agree with AHRENS and consider the modern Anglo-Saxon management accountant as being far more deeply involved in operational decision making than, for instance, in Germany (STOFFEL, 1995: 120; WILLSON ET AL. 2003: 5-6). This is based on the notion that the Anglo-Saxon management accountant is, by definition, responsible for supporting and coordinating the decision-making processes in upper management (GRANLUND and LUKKA, 1998: 164). Due to the close organisational connection with finance and especially with the internal cost management department, this role of the management accountant as a pure consultant or provider of information, who is detached from operational matters, cannot be supported (STOFFEL, 1995: 122). Nevertheless, for all observed countries, it can be stated that the management accountant has developed from the above mentioned pure cost accountant to someone with broad management and interpersonal skills who can interact with other departments (WILLSON ET
AL.

2003: 9; WEBER, 2004: 20-1). Management accountants are no longer mere scorekeepers

of past performance and have become value-adding members of management teams (KAPLAN and ATKINSON, 1998: 1). As opposed to previous observations, the management accountant can now be described as a modern manager with at least as much management experience as accounting knowledge (WILLSON ET AL. 2003: 7).

5. Conclusion and future prospects 5.1. Current developments One current development seems to erode the strict separation in German financial accounting practice (JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 14; WEBER, 2004: 176). The increasing implementation of international accounting standards like IFRS or US-GAAP in Germanbased multinationals is sparking a debate on the use of external reporting data for management accounting calculations (WEBER, 2004: 172). Companies like SIEMENS, BAYER

30

or DAIMLER-CHRYSLER have abandoned the isolated orientation on operating profits based on imputed internal data. Instead, these companies focus rather on operating profits for internal calculations, which are derived from external figures. This development in German accounting is commonly referred to as Biltrolling1 (CHRISTENSEN and WAGENHOFER, 1997: 255; ZIRKLER, 2002: 282; MACHARZINA, 2003: 392). Accordingly, a harmonisation of internal and external accounting can be observed in a growing number of German companies. Consequently, a system with a nearly identical basis for internal and external values allows for comparisons with the general ledger system in Anglo-Saxon countries. This approach of externally and internally reported figures becomes feasible due to the characteristics of the international accounting standards IFRS and US-GAAP. They are viewed as resulting in less biased numbers (CHRISTENSEN and WAGENHOFER, 1997: 255) and are much more committed to delivering and procuring relevant information. Furthermore, these standards are less tax-driven and put less emphasis on valuation principles such as prudence (CHRISTENSEN and WAGENHOFER, 1997: 255; KAHLE, 2003: 773). The implementation of IFRS or US-GAAP provides reasons for firms to combine internal and external accounting figures within the corporation (KAHLE, 2003: 774). A stronger orientation on the economic reality and measurement of managerial efficiency stresses the modification of international accounting standards for internal control needs. Considering recent developments in management accounting practice, the abovementioned statement on the lack of relevance of financial accounting figures for internal management decisions seems to be unwarranted (CHRISTENSEN and WAGENHOFER, 1997: 255). In the past, little knowledge and experience has been transferred from Germany to the Anglo-Saxon countries. Recent developments in both management accounting practice and in

Biltrolling is an amalgam of the two words Bilanz and Controlling and refers to a combination of cost-oriented controlling and financial management accounting.

31

the literature signal a reversion of this knowledge transfer from German management accounting to Anglo-Saxon countries. As described above Anglophone corporations are increasingly becoming aware that management accountants are excessively involved in operational matters. Therefore, a satisfactory level of support of management with respect to making objective and fair decisions is not always ensured (HORVTH, 2006: 3). As a solution, the concept of German management accounting is discussed regularly in the Anglophone management accounting literature (HORVTH, 2006: 3). In the past two years, the monthly release of STRATEGIC FINANCE, the journal of the U.S.-Institute of Management Accountants (IMA), has published a series of papers dealing with German management accounting (HORVTH, 2006: 3). Turning to practical developments, the German SAP enterprise resource planning software can be regarded as an important driver of convergence and knowledge transfer from Germany to the Anglo-Saxon countries. This software is widely used in large companies worldwide and offers the conceptual framework of German flexible-margin costing. A transfer of this knowledge is gaining increasing acceptance in management accounting practices in the Anglo-Saxon countries (FRIEDL ET AL., 2005: 56; HORVTH, 2006: 3).

5.2. Summary The present paper compared management accounting practices in Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.A. and analysed the directions in which they are moving. Dealing with management accounting at an international level reveals a range of both differences and similarities. The most significant difference between Anglo-Saxon and German management accounting is therefore the use of the respective management accounting system; either the general ledger concept or the two-circle system. Due to these varying approaches, further differences arise, such as the lack of imputed costs in the Anglo-Saxon countries and different bases for calculating profits in Germany. In comparison to the U.S.A. or the U.K., German

32

management accounting exerts a stronger influence on management, because financial accounting figures are deemed as not useful for internal decision making (JONES and LUTHER, 2004: 13). Further important differences were revealed in the deeper involvement in operational matters and the broader fields of activity of management accountants in the U.S.A. and the U.K. While Anglo-Saxon management accounting is also directed at shareholders, German management accounting is addressed at internal target groups alone. Besides these differences, some similarities and commonalities could also be observed. Regardless of the varied target groups, management accountants in all three countries apply reasonably similar objectives and goals, which are to provide information, participate in the management process and ensure rational managerial decision making. This is the main driver behind the convergence of Anglo-Saxon and German management accounting. The instruments applied by management accountants are the catalyst for achieving this. They are independent of most distinguishing factors such as cultural and educational background. Therefore, the more instruments that are applied and the more bestpractice instruments that are mutually exchanged between the countries management accountants, the quicker and broader is the convergence in the respective field of activity. As has already been stressed, this is currently happening. German management accounting and Anglo-Saxon accounting are both recognising the advantages of each others techniques and practices. In Germany, the concept of Biltrolling indicates a harmonisation of internal and external accounting similar to the Anglo-Saxon model. Conversely, German cost management is commonly presented as best practice in recent U.S. management accounting literature. Furthermore, applications of the German based software SAP also lead to a knowledge transfer from Germany to the Anglophone countries. In discussing the fundamental need for a discipline like comparative management accounting, it can be stated that, despite these convergence tendencies, differences in management accounting practices still exist and will presumably remain in the future. Due to

33

increased competition and changing environments, management accounting characteristics may converge in most aspects and between most countries, but it will continue to diverge between other countries and industries (SHIELDS, 1998: 506; SHERIDAN, 1995: 291).

References:

Ahrens, T., (1996) Styles of Accountability, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 21 (2/3), pp. 139-173. AHRENS, T, (1997) Strategic interventions of management accountants: everyday practice of British and German brewers, European Accounting Review, 6 (4), pp. 557-588. AHRENS, T. (1999) Contrasting Involvements: A study of Management Accounting Practices in Britain and Germany. (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Press). AHRENS, T. and CHAPMAN, C. (1999) The Role of Management Accountants in Britain and Germany, Management Accounting (UK), 77 (5), pp. 42-43. AHRENS, T. and CHAPMAN, C. (2000) Occupational identity of management accountants in Britain and Germany, The European Accounting Review, 9, pp. 477-498. AMAT, O., BLAKE, J. and OLIVERAS, E. (1999) Variations in National Management Accounting Approaches, Working Paper No. 415, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. AMSHOFF, B., (1993) Controlling in deutschen Unternehmen. Realtypen, Kontext und Effizienz, 2nd ed., (Wiesbaden: Gabler). BAETGE, J., KIRSCH, H.-J. and THIELE, S. (2002) Bilanzen, 6th ed., (Dsseldorf: IDW) BERENS, W., HOFFJAN, A. and STRACK, M. (1995), kologiebezogenes Controlling umweltorientierte Koordination in kommunalen Versicherungsunternehmen, Zeitschrift fr ffentliche und gemeinwirtschaftliche Unternehmen, 18 (2), pp. 143-160. BHIMANI, A. (1996) Management accounting: european perspectives. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). BIRKET, W. P. (1998), Management accounting in Europe: a view from down-under, Management accounting research, 9, pp. 485-494.

34

BLAKE, J., AMAT, O. and WRAITH, P., (1998) Management accounting in Latin America, Management Accounting, 76 (4), p. 56. BLAKE, J., AMAT, O. and WRAITH, P. (2000) Developing a new national management accounting framework - the Spanish case, European Business Review, 12(3), pp. 122128. CARR, C. and TOMKINS, C. (1998) Context, culture and the role of the finance function in strategic decisions. A comparative analysis of Britain, Germany, the U.S.A and Japan, Management Accounting Research, 9, pp. 213-239 CHOW, C. W., SHIELDS, M. D. and CHAN, Y. K. (1991) The effects of management controls and national culture on manufacturing performance: an experimental investigation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16 (3), pp. 209-226. CHOW, C. W., SHIELDS, M. D. and WU, A. (1999) The importance of national culture in the design of and preference for management controls for multi-national operations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, pp. 441-461. CHRISTENSEN, J. and WAGENHOFER, A. (1997) Editorial: Special Section: German Cost Accounting Traditions, Management Accounting Research, 8, pp. 255-259. COATES, J., DAVIS, T. and STACEY, R. (1995) Performance measurement systems, incentive reward schemes and short-termism in multinational companies: a note, Management Accounting Research, 6, pp. 125-135. CORPORATE EXECUTIVE BOARD (2004) Profiles of Controller Organization and Metrics Structures, Roles, Responsibilities, and Resources; Controllers Leadership Roundtable, Washington D.C. DAVIS, R., and SWEETING, B. (1991), Management Accounting: Industrial Revolution?, Certified Accountant, 45 (May), pp. 44-46 FRANZ, K.-P. and KAJTER, P. (2002) Kostenmanagement in Deutschland Empirische Befunde zur Praxis des Kostenmanagements in deutschen Unternehmen, in K.-P. Franz and P. Kajter, P. (Eds.), Kostenmanagement, 2nd ed., pp. 569-585 (Stuttgart: SchaefferPoeschel). FREIDANK, C. C. (1993) Controlling: Ein unscharfes Konzept gewinnt Konturen, Die Betriebswirtschaft, 53, pp. 399-415. FRIEDL, G., KPPER, H.-U. and PEDELL, B. (2005) Relevance Added: Combining ABC with German Cost Accounting, Strategic Finance, 87 (June), pp. 56-61.

35

GOLDSTEIN, D. (1995), Uncertainty, competition, and speculative finance in the eighties, Journal of Economic Issues, 29 (3), pp. 719-746. GRANLUND, M. and LUKKA, K., (1998) It's a Small World of Management Accounting Practices, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, pp. 153-179. HABERLAND, G. (1970) Der Controller - Seine Aufgaben und Stellung in den USA, Der Betrieb, 2, pp. 2181 ff. HALLER, A. (1997) Zur Eignung der US-GAAP fr Zwecke des internen Rechnungswesens, Controlling, 9, pp. 270-276 HARRISON, G. L. and MCKINNON, J. L. (1999) Cross-cultural research in management control systems design: a review of the current state, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24, pp. 483-506 HOFFJAN, A. and WMPENER, A. (2005) Comparative Analysis of Strategic Management Accounting in German and English general management accounting textbooks, Schmalenbach Business Review, 58, pp. 234-258. HOFSTEDE, G. H. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, (London and New York: McGraw-Hill). HOFSTEDE, G. H. (2001), Culture's consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed., (Thousand Oakes, CA). HORNGREN, C.T., FOSTER, G. and DATAR, S. (2003) Cost Accounting A Managerial Emphasis, 11th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall). HORNGREN, C.T., SUNDEM, G. L. and STRATTON, W. O. (2005), Introduction to management accounting, 14th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall). HOROVITZ, J. H. (1978) Strategic Control in three european countries - a new task for top management, International studies of management and organization, 8 (4), pp. 96-112. HORVTH, P. (2003), Controlling, 9th ed. (Mnchen: Vahlen). HORVTH, P. (2006) Deutsches Controlling in den USA?, Controlling, 18, p. 3. IFAC (International Federation Of Accountants) (1998) Management Accounting Concepts. Assessed Jan 2006 at http://www.ifac.org/Members/DownLoads/ IMAPS-

1_Accounting_Concepts.pdf INTERNATIONALER CONTROLLER VEREIN (2006) assessed January 2006 at:

www.controllervein.de

36

JONES, T. C. and LUTHER, R., 2004, Contemporary Practices in German Controlling: Local and Global Forces in Management Accounting, Assessed Nov 2005 at:

www.handels.gu.se/eaa2005 KAHLE, H., (2003) Unternehmenssteuerung Zeitschrift fr auf Basis internationaler Forschung,

Rechnungslegungsstandards?, 53(December), pp. 773-789.

betriebswirtschaftliche

KAPLAN, R. S. and ATKINSON, A.A. (1998) Advanced Management Accounting, 3rd ed. (New Jersey). KEYS, D. E. and MERWE, A. (1999) German vs. United States cost management - what insights does German cost management have for U.S. companies?, Management accountant quarterly, 1 (Fall), pp. 1-8. KPPER, H.-U. (1995), Unternehmensplanung und -steuerung mit pagatorischen oder kalkulatorischen Erfolgsrechnungen?, Zeitschrift fr betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, special issue 34, pp. 19-50. KPPER, H.-U. (2005) Controlling - Konzeptionen, Aufgaben und Instrumente, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel). LIZCANO, J. (1996), La Contabilidad de Gestion en Latino America, Asociacion Espanola de Contabilidad y Administracion de Empresas, Madrid, pp. 291-306 MACHARZINA, K. (2003): Unternehmensfhrung das internationale Managementwissen; Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis. (Wiesbaden: Gabler). MESSNER, S. (2003) Die Kostenrechnung im Spannungsfeld internationaler Entwicklungen: ber die Amerikanisierung des Rechnungswesens und ihre Bedeutung fr die interne Unternehmensrechnung in sterreich und Deutschland. (Wien). MUSSNIG, W. (1996): Von der Kostenrechnung zum Management Accounting, (Wiesbaden: Gabler). NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF

ACCOUNTANTS (1981): Definitions of Management Accounting,

Statement on Objectives of Management Accounting (New York). NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF

ACCOUNTANTS (1982) Definitions of management accounting,

Management Practices Committee, Accountants Digest, 48(2), pp. 23-26. OEHLER, K. (1997) Das Generel Ledger-Konzept in Rechnungswesen und Controlling, Controlling, 9(5), pp. 356-361.

37

OTTO, S.-S. (2000), Controllership in Japan. (Mnchen). PISTONI, A. and ZONI, L. (2000) Comparative management accounting in Europe: an undergraduate education perspective, The European Accounting Review, 9(2), pp. 285319. SCHERRER, G. (1996) Management Accounting: A German Perspective, in: Bhimani, A. (ed.), Management Accounting - European Perspectives, pp. 100-122 (Oxford). SERFLING, K. (1992) Controlling, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart). SHERIDAN, T. (1995) Management accounting in global European corporations: Anglophone and continental viewpoints, Management Accounting Research, 6, pp. 287-294. SHIELDS, M. D. (1998) Management accounting practices in Europe: a perspective from the States, Management Accounting Research, 9, pp. 501-513. SIEGWART, H. (1982) Worin unterscheiden sich amerikanisches und deutsches Controlling?, Management-Zeitschrift IO, 2, pp. 97-101. STOFFEL, K. (1995) Controllership im internationalen Vergleich (Wiesbaden: Gabler). UEBELE, H., (1981) Verbreitungsgrad und Entwicklungsstand des Controlling in deutschen Industrieunternehmen Ergebnisse einer empirischen Erhebung. (Kln: Arbeitsbericht des Instituts fr Markt- und Distributionsforschung). WEBER, J. (2004) Einfhrung in das Controlling, 10th ed. (Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel). WILLSON, J. D., BRAGG, S. M. and ROEHL-ANDERSON, J. M. (2003) Controllership, the work of the managerial accountant, 7th ed. (New York), ZIENER, M. (1985) Controlling im multinationalen Unternehmen. (Landsberg am Lech). ZIRKLER, B. (2002) Fhrungsorientiertes US-amerikanisches Management Accounting. (Wiesbaden: Gabler).

Topic
Comparative management accounting (1) Germany, U.S. and / or U.K. 'main focus of the paper' 30 studies (4) 'search for Others similarities' 3 studies relevant relevant National management accounting (2) 'comparison with other countries' 7 studies (5) not Peripheral to management accounting (3) 'consider some aspects' 7 studies (6) not

Countries
Others 2 22% Disagree 2 22%

Figure 1: Categorisation of management accounting literature

German management accounting is more long-term oriented than U.S. and U.K. management accounting

Agree 5 56%

Agree Disagree Others

Figure 2: Comparison of long-term orientation of management accountants

Fields of activities of management accountants Computer applications Internal auditing Insurance Accounts receivable Tax planning and administration External reporting Liquiditiy management Financial accounting Internal cost management Pre-investment analysis Internal reporting Strategic planning Operational planning Budgeting 0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Germany U.S

Figure 3: Fields of activity for management accountants (Source: Adapted from STOFFEL, 1995: 157)

Comparison of management accountants integration

70 60 50 40

Germany U.S.

%
30 20 10 0 1

level of hierarchy

Figure 4: Comparison of management accounting integration (Source: STOFFEL, 1995: 141-2)