Comparative Management Accounting

Table of content

Appendices

Figures

Tables

List of abbreviations

1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation and goals of this study
1.2 Methodological explanation

2 Principles of comparative management accounting
2.1 Comparative management accounting
2.2 Management accounting versus controlling
2.2.1 Management accounting terminology and definitions in the U.S. and the U.K
2.2.2 Management accounting terminology and definitions in Germany
2.3 Determinants and factors of influence for differences in management
accounting
2.3.1 Culture as influence factor in management accounting
2.3.2 Education, occupation and institutions of management accountants as influencing
factors
2.3.3 Economic background as influence factor
2.3.4 Other potential determinants and factors of influence
2.3.5 Concluding remarks concerning divergence versus convergence of management
accounting
2.4 Literature review

3 Comparison of relevant management accounting aspects
3.1 Tasks and objectives of management accounting
3.1.1 Objectives and target groups of management accounting
3.1.2 Long-term versus short-term goals
3.1.3 Management accounting versus financial accounting
3.1.4 Fields of activity for management accountants
3.1.5 Tasks of management accountants
3.2 Management accounting systems and instruments
3.2.1 General ledger versus two circle system
3.2.2 Management accounting instruments
3.3 Organisational integration of management accountants in the corporation
3.3.1 Hierarchical level of management accountants within the corporation
3.3.2 Interrelations and connections to adjacent departments
3.3.2.1 Organisational connection to the finance department
3.3.2.2 Organisational connection to the cost accounting department
3.3.2.3 Regional separation of financial and management accounting departments
3.3.3 Size of management accounting departments
3.4 Role of the Controller in the observed countries
3.4.1 Role of management accountants in Germany
3.4.2 Role of management accountants in the U.K. and the U.S.

4 Current developments in international management accounting
4.1 Approach of management accounting and financial accounting in Germany
4.2 German influence on Anglo-Saxon management accounting

5 Conclusion

Literature

Appendices

Appendix A: Sophistication of occupational institutions for management accountants

Appendix B: Convergence versus divergence in management accounting

Appendix C: Literature review

Appendix D: Long-term versus short-term orientation in management accounting

Appendix E: FEI-Catalogue

Appendix F: Mission Statement IGC

Appendix G: Mission Statement Kaarmann GmbH

Appendix H: Summary of the findings in the paper

Figures

Figure 1: Organisation of the paper

Figure 2: Comparison of management accounting institutions

Figure 3: Convergence versus divergence in the literature

Figure 4: Comparison of long-term orientation of management accountants

Figure 5: Fields of activity of management accountants

Figure 6: Comparison of management accounting integration

Figure 7: Hierarchical organisation of U.S. controller and treasurer

Figure 8: Typical integration of management accounting in Germany

Figure 9: Approachment of internal and external accounting

Tables

Table 1: Terms for management accounting

Table 2: Categorisation of management accounting literature

Table 3: U.S. vs. German management accounting tasks

Table 4: Terms for management accounting departments

List of abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation and goals of this study

The competitive environment for companies is steadily becoming more challenging and demanding. Large planned company take-overs as recently announced from multinational corporations like for instance Mittal Steel or E.ON AG indicate the demand for more sophisticated and advanced management accounting information in order to react properly on the external market pressures worldwide. Multinational companies regularly have to cope with different institutional environments, management practices, techniques as well as cultural understandings between the respective countries.

While in this context the field of financial accounting has already attracted much attention from the academic world on a comparative nationwide level, the area of internal management accounting has largely been a concern of approaches focussing on single countries only. These approaches have been analysed by national academic scholars and as a consequence also influenced the practices in other countries. However, in order to initiate a discussion and to highlight best practices, novelties and inefficiencies in the management accounting world, a sophisticated comparison drawing on the differences and similarities in 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, page 84). The relatively young discipline of comparative management accounting tries 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 to learn from the respective other language area and to understand the used approach.

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.). The intention of this paper is to highlight the differences in management accounting between the observed countries as well as its effects. Additionally, it should be analysed whether a convergence or divergence of management accounting practices and techniques can be observed and whether current developments in management accounting will influence future practices.

The paper is organized as follows. Chapter 1.2 explains the choice of the selected countries and the methodological proceeding. Afterwards, chapter 2 introduces the general concept of comparative management accounting and reviews the current academic literature. Based on the terminological specification of nationwide diverging definitions of management accounting labels, the following chapter 3 describes and compares the main aspects and characteristics of management accounting in Germany, the U.S. and the U.K. Chapter 4 discusses current developments in management accounting. Finally, the concluding chapter 5 summarizes the findings. The organization of the paper is illustrated in the following figure 1:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Organisation of the paper

(Source: Own illustration)

1.2 Methodological explanation

The present study concentrates on the countries Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. These countries are selected due to various important factors. At first, the U.S. is still the leading country in the world with respect to economic power and management accounting importance. Many countries have been and still are influenced by new developments in U.S. management accounting (Sheridan 1995, page 293). Therefore an involvement of the U.S. is considered to be mandatory in this comparative study. Furthermore, the U.S., but also the U.K., continuously influences management accounting developments in other countries because of English as the dominant language in the world of business (Adler 1991, page 13; Pistoni & Zoni 2000, p. 311). In addition management accounting is often claimed to have its roots in the U.S. and has influenced the accounting practices and development in German management accounting (Otto 2000, page 25).

Secondly, Germany and the U.K., though being seemingly different regarding management accounting structures and institutions^[1], are among the dominant European countries in Europe with respect to management accounting importance (Blake, Amat & Wraith 2000, page 123). In this context, many studies have shown a significant impact of German management accounting on several other countries in the world.^[2]

As the U.S. and the U.K. can be assumed to be rather similar due to the same language, similar financial accounting orientation^[3] and the same contextual and cultural proximity (Carr & Tomkins 1998, page 215f; Hoffjan & Wömpener 2005, page 623; Hofstede, 2006), both countries will be treated commonly as ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglophone’ countries if nothing else is stated.

In this context, as comparative management accounting is a relatively young discipline, only a few studies dealing with this topic are available so far. Consequently, some topics within the comparative management accounting literature are still discussed controversial. In order to give an overview on specific issues in comparative management accounting, statements are developed that mirror the contrasting opinions in the literature.

Therefore, in a first step, a framework was developed, aiming at classifying the relevant literature as presented in chapter 2.4. Following these categories, the literature was then identified.

In the next step, statements were generated. The statements are based on the results of a systematic analyse of the relevant management accounting literature in the German and Anglo-Saxon language area. Keeping in mind the possibly varying management accounting concepts, it will be analysed whether the current literature confirms or confutes the respective statements. As the reviewed literature varies significantly concerning the analytical method, the included countries, the time and goal of study and its target groups, the statements do not claim any legalitiy and universal validity. Nevertheless, the results can give first evidence in which cases unanimity among the literature can be observed, and in which cases further research is needed. Finally, conclusions are drawn in the relevant chapters.

2 Principles of comparative management accounting

2.1 Comparative management accounting

Management accounting is only recently researched and discussed on a comparative and nationwide level (Blake, Amat & Wraith 2000, page 122). While in the beginnings of internal accounting research the focus was solely on financial accounting matters, a range of authors are now searching for a deeper understanding of management accounting practices and principles in different countries and environments (Hoffjan & Wömpener 2005, page 51).^[4]

Comparative management accounting compares management practices and principles between countries and cultures in order to initiate a discussion and to highlight best practices, novelties as well as inefficiencies in the management accounting world. Managers could furthermore achieve competitive advantages by applying innovative management accounting techniques from other countries or cultures (Amat, Blake & Oliveras 1999, page 20). Additionally, comparative management accounting aims at a guidance of techniques and practices towards a convergence in the business world (Hoffjan & Wömpener 2005, page 51).

2.2 Management accounting versus controlling

Terms like management accounting or controlling are not equally used and understood in all countries (Amat, Blake & Oliveras 1999, page 19). In Germany for instance, the label management accountant is not commonly applied as a description of the occupational identity – neither in its English term nor in its German translation (Sheridan 1995, page 1; Birket 1998, page 487).

In order to compare the work of the management accountants in the three countries, equivalences for the corresponding Anglophone meanings have to be found. In this aspect, controlling is regularly viewed as similar to the Anglophone management accounting in the relevant academic literature (Sheridan 1995, page 1; Otto 2000, page 38; Willson, Bragg & Roehl-Anderson 2003, page 5; Küpper 2005, page 6).^[5] 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 taken as an indication for the terminological proximity of German controlling and Anglo-Saxon management accounting (Küpper 2005, page 6).

Though there is not such a call for theoretical definitions in the U.S. comparable to Germany (Otto 2000, page 25), the following chapter tries to examine whether there are deeper differences identifiable from a first view on the definition and terminology of both terms.

2.2.1 Management accounting terminology and definitions in the U.S. and the U.K.

In the Anglophone literature various terms are observable for management accounting. Labels like ‘internal accounting’, ‘enterprise reporting’ and ‘managerial accounting’ are widely used in a synonym way for management accounting (Vatter 1950, page 97f; Zirkler 2002, page 17). In line with these different labels used for the same meaning, Amat, Blake & Oliveras (1999) also observed that “the term management accounting implies different meanings across national boundaries” (Amat, Blake & Oliveras 1999, page 19). In general, two different perceptions on the scope of management accounting can be observed in the relevant Anglo-Saxon literature (Mussnig 1996, page 13).

The first perspective defines management accounting in a narrow point of view, whereupon management accounting mainly comprises internal cost accounting matters and internal calculations. (Mussnig 1996, page 13; Horvath 2003, page 79).

More common in the Anglo-Saxon countries is a second, much broader point of view. In line with the National Association of Accountants (1981)^[6] management accounting is defined as:

“[…] 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.” (National Association of Accountants 1981, page 4)

In this definition, which is characteristic for management accounting in the Anglo-Saxon countries (Mussnig 1996, page 13; Zirkler 2002, page 18) and will consequently be applied in this paper, a clear focus on financial information becomes apparent. Furthermore it is noteworthy that the definition includes non-management reporting for tax and regulatory purposes as part of management accounting (Mussnig 1996, page 13; Bell et al. 2003, page 3). Management accounting therefore is an integral part of the management process. It can be seen as an umbrella term, for the general managerial process of planning, evaluating, controlling as well as reporting.

Another label which is commonly applied in the U.S. as well as in the U.K., is the term controller. Willson, Bragg & Roehl-Anderson (2003) observe that for the chief accounting officer (CAO) especially in large companies, “the most common title used is controller” (Willson, Bragg & Roehl-Anderson 2003, page 11). Though the label controller can therefore regarded as widespread in the Anglo-Saxon countries, its application is commonly reserved as a description of the highest 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 duties like reporting, management and planning.^[7]

Furthermore, noteworthiness exits concerning the label controlling. While the term controller is commonly applied as stated above, controlling is only used as a description of the process of leadership respectively the last step of managerial decision (Stoffel 1995, page 9; Küpper 2005, page 6). Therefore, controlling and controller are only similar on the origin of the term in the Anglo-American countries, but not on the conceptual level (Siegwart 1982, page 98; Stoffel 1995, page 10).

This difficulty concerning the job description controller is quite often referred to in the Anglo-Saxon literature. Cohen & Robbins (1966) for instance state, that „the term controller is, in a sense, a misnomer“ (Cohen & Robbins 1966, page 27). Furthermore, „the modern controller does not do any controlling in terms of line authority except over his own department“ (Horngren, Sundem & Stratton 2005, page 13; Stoffel 1995, page 10).

Finally, the term ‘controllership’ rather than controlling most often characterises the field of activity of the controller respectively management accountant in the Anglo-Saxon countries (Otto 2000, page 26).

2.2.2 Management accounting terminology and definitions in Germany

In contrast to the Anglophone label ‘management accounting’, business managers in Germany rather use the term ‘controlling’ as a description for the field of activity of management accountants (Birket 1998, page 487; Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 482; Küpper 2005, page 3f).^[8] In this context, controlling describes a relatively young^[9] discipline of ‘Betriebswirtschaftslehre’^[10]. Contrary to a merely practical approach in the U.S. and the U.K., the basics of controlling have been developed within the academic literature (Scherrer 1996, page 100; Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 482; Jones & Luther 2004, page 4; Küpper 2005, page 6) and its definitions and interpretations are characterized by its great variety and diversity.^[11] A widely accepted definition of controlling among the German literature is therefore not discernible until today (Freidank 1993, page 400; Triska 2005, page 8).

Nevertheless, it can be observed that the majority of definitions focus on the decision-support function^[12] (Berens, Hoffjan & Strack 1995, page 144), the coordinative function (Horvath 2003, page 148f; Küpper 2005, page 5) or define controlling as safeguarding the rationality of management (Weber 2004, page 47).

While controlling concentrates more on internal accounting matters, management accounting in the Anglo-Saxon countries includes internal as well as external accounting aspects and can be seen as a general term for accounting as a whole (Mussnig 1996, page 13).

Comparing controlling with management accounting definitions, it can hence be argued that on the one side management accounting is defined and understood in a functional broader context, whereas controlling definitions on the other side are comparably characterised by its greater generality.^[13]

Despite this broader scope of management accounting, some similarities are observable. All definitions for example cover the aspect that management accountants’, respectively controller’s task is to support managers with relevant information for objective-fair decisions. For a first orientation, table 1 displays the major terms and their usage in the three observed countries:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1: Terms for management accounting

(Sources: Siegwart 1982, page 98; Stoffel 1995, page 140; Birket 2002 page 487)

Keeping in mind that the meanings are not exactly the same, this paper will nevertheless apply the term management accounting as a label for the management accounting practice in Anglo-Saxon countries as well as in Germany. In cases where a differentiation is crucial and helps to avoid misunderstandings, the term ‘German controller’ will be used instead.^[14]

2.3 Determinants and factors of influence for differences in management accounting

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 this variations in management accounting. The most frequently stated influence factor responsible for differences in management accounting is culture^[15] (Chow, Shields & Chan 1991; page, 209f; Awasthi, Chow & Wu 1998, page 119f; Chow, Shields & Wu 1999, page 441). Other factors like academic and institutional background as well as the economic situation in the particular country can have an impact on diverging management accounting systems (Pistoni & Zoni 2000, page 285; Shields 1998, page 505f). In this context a lively discussion in management accounting research can be found in the academic literature, whether these differences are tending towards a convergence or a divergence of the business world (Granlund & Lukka 1998, page 154)

After discussing the relevant determinants of management accounting in the following section, the first statement ‘management accounting tends towards a convergence in the course of time’ should be disproved or confirmed on the basis of the relevant literature.

2.3.1 Culture as influence factor in management accounting

Culture can be defined as a “system of collectively held values” (Hofstede 1991, page 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 & Tomkins 1998, page 217). In his seminal work, Hofstede (2001) developed the five dimensions power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity avoidance and long-term versus short-term orientation (Hofstede 2001, page 373f). Using this framework, it can be argued that for instance Japanese business managers are characterised by more organisational commitment than their U.S-American colleagues due to a lower tendency towards individualism (Carr & Tomkins 1998, page 218).^[16]

In the economic literature, special attention is also given to the differences of 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 refer to the German financial culture to be more stockholder driven (Sheridan 1995, page 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 & McKinnon 1999, page 483). Moreover, as this paper tries to focus on the characteristics and the consequences of these differences rather than on their cultural causes, these studies are only considered peripheral.

2.3.2 Education, occupation and institutions of management accountants as influencing factors

The respective educational and institutional situation also varies between the analysed countries und should be included in the comparative framework. While the U.K. and the U.S. management accounting is based on a professional environment (Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 480; Jones & Luther 2004, page 4), management accounting in Germany can rather be characterised as a discipline taught at university than a profession (Sheridan 1995, page 289; Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 482).

Furthermore, institutional bodies like the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (IMA)^[17] and the Institute of Management Accountants (IMA)^[18] are representing the interests of the management accountants in the Anglo-Saxon countries. On the contrary, German management accounting is highly educational oriented (Jones & Luther 2004, page 3) and a sound institutional environment does not exist.^[19] These findings are based on the statement analysed in appendix A, whereby ‘occupational institutions for management accounting are more sophisticated in Anglo-Saxon countries than in Germany’. Though not all studies analysed on this issue explicitly compare German with Anglo-Saxon management accounting institutions, all studies nevertheless mention either the highly sophisticated management accounting profession in the U.S. and the U.K., or stress the low institutional background in Germany. Therefore, the literature analysed in the appendix A agrees on the statement, that occupational institutions for management accounting are more sophisticated in the Anglo-Saxon countries than in Germany as illustrated in figure 2:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2: Comparison of management accounting institutions

(Source: Own illustration)

Consequently, German developments in management accounting are most often based on new ideas and concepts from academics, whereas Anglophone scholars have a reputation for focussing rather on practical research (Ahrens & Chapman 1999, page 42).

Differences between Germany and the U.K. also exist regarding the type of qualification of the accountants before applying for a job in accounting. The occupational autobiographies of management accountants highlight that the main route into the occupation of management accounting is achieved via a university degree (Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 480f). However, while in Germany it is nearly mandatory for management accountants to have graduated in the major ‘controlling’ or at least any other topic of ‘Betriebswirtschaftslehre’^[20], Ahrens & Chapman (2000) found in their study “all but one practitioner” (Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 480) in Britain who had graduated in a subject that was not relevant to business or economics (ibid.).^[21]

It can therefore be noted that education in German management accounting is predominantly accomplished via an economic university degree, whereas the accountants in the U.K. are predominantly trained and qualified on the job.^[22]

2.3.3 Economic background as influence factor

Focussing on the economic background, fluctuations in this area are continuously influencing and affecting countries with different impact (Goldstein 1995, page 719f; Long 1995, page 45; Ford & Thompson 1997, page 61f). The economic situation in a country can influence the management accounting practices in the respective country as well as in other countries (Blake, Amat & Wraith 2000, page 123). If for example one country has to cope with high levels of inflation, management accountants have to consider these circumstances (Blake, Amat & Wraith 1998, page 56). In addition, if a country is dominated by the economic power of another country, management accountants will inevitably adopt these practices; though with varying degrees of responsiveness.

2.3.4 Other potential determinants and factors of influence

Finally several other factors may affect the question why and how management accounting differs between nations and therefore whether these practices tend towards a convergence or divergence.

First of all the political system of a country can play a central role. On the one hand, the U.K. and the U.S. are dominated by a common law system with professional bodies being responsible for creating financial accounting standards. Moreover, countries like Germany are characterized by a civil law system, where financial accounting frameworks are settled by the government. Though financial accounting aspects are not concerned in detail in this study, evidence can be found that some governments in Europe have developed accounting laws that also have a direct impact on management accounting practices (Blake, Amat & Wraith 2000, page 123).

Secondly, the linguistic differences between the Anglophone countries and Germany can also cause problems concerning a similar understanding. Though English is commonly spread also in the German business world, problems concerning the different linguistic background can come up. If the meaning of a label for instance is “derived from a specific cultural context […] which is not theirs” (Birket 1998, page 487), the precise sense of a term can get lost in translation (Birket 1998 page 487).

Furthermore, the greater social status of engineering in Germany, the speciality of German co-determination or the unavailability of cheap long-term bank financing in the U.K. are regularly discussed in the relevant literature as influence factors for management accounting practices (Ahrens 1997b, page 557).

Finally, the spread and use of management accounting instruments can also be seen as an indicator of the approach of management accounting practices. While statutory regimentations, cultural differences or tax differences may persist between countries, management accounting instruments are, due to a search for best practices, commonly applied in all countries. Though they are used with varying levels of degree they can be valued as drivers of convergence (Granlund & Lukka 1998, page 155).

2.3.5 Concluding remarks concerning divergence versus convergence of management accounting

It is admittedly almost impossible to measure the precise level of influence of the determinants on management accounting practice. Drawing on the findings in the relevant accounting literature and referring to the first statement^[23], only the minority of studies analysed in appendix B see a general convergence of management accounting practices. More common in this context is the attitude that no clear tendency concerning convergence or divergence can be identified (Birket 1998; Pistoni & Zoni 2000), or that management accounting converges in some aspects while it diverges in other aspects (Shields 1998; Ahrens & Chapman 1999).

The results of the literature review on this issue are illustrated in figure 3:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3: Convergence versus divergence in the literature

(Source: Own illustration)

[...]

---

^[1] Compare chapter 3.

^[2] German management accounting has been widely adopted and influenced a wide range of countries outside of Germany, e.g. Austria, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, (northern) Italy, France, the Netherlands, Namibia and South Africa (Keys & Merwe 1999, page 2; Blake, Amat & Wraith 2000, page 123).

^[3] Compare chapter 3.1.3.

^[4] Compare chapter 2.4 for an overview over the current literature and scholars dealing with comparative management accounting.

^[5] If stated below, ‘controlling’ refers to its usage in the German language area.

^[6] The Institute of Management Accountants, the professional association of practicing and academic management accountants in the U.S., as well as the IFAC, the International Federation of Accountants, define management accounting in the same way (IFAC 1998, page 99).

^[7] Similar problems concerning the acceptance of the controller due to a misinterpreting of its label can be observed in Germany. Compare Hoffjan 2004.

^[8] This field of activity will be discussed in more detail in chapter 3.1.4.

^[9] In his publication of 1965, Kroeckel still stated that there is no comparable position to the U.S. controller in German companies (Kroeckel, 1965, page 165).

^[10] Betriebswirtschaftslehre is the German science of business economics.

^[11] Compare Triska (2005) for a comprehensive overview of controlling-conceptions in Germany (Triska 2005, page 7-17).

^[12] Berens, Hoffjan & Strack 1995 define controlling as “procurement, dressing and analysis from data to the preparation of objective-fair decisions" (Berens, Hoffjan & Strack 1995, page 144).

^[13] As an example for this ‘generality’ of controlling definitions in Germany, compare the understanding of controlling by Weber (2004) as stated above. Compare Weber 2004, page 48.

^[14] In chapter 3.1.4 for instance, the term German controller has to be used in order to avoid a mix-up of terminology.

^[15] Compare chapter 2.3.1.

^[16] Compare chapter 3.1.2 for more details.

^[17] Compare www.cimaglobal.com.

^[18] Compare www.imanet.org.

^[19] In Germany, the Internationaler Controller Verein e.V. (“Controller association”) is trying to develop an institutional background similar to the Anglo-Saxon countries, however they itself admit that they don’t have the international weight of the CIMA (www.controllerverein.de; Jones & Luther 2004, page 27).

^[20] Betriebswirtschaftslehre is the German label for business administration.

^[21] These accountants normally compensate their lack of special economic knowledge by attending courses of study at one of the professional institutes in the first two years of working. Compare Ahrens & Chapman 2000, page 481.

^[22] Similar differences regarding the occupational education can be observed between the countries Australia and Japan. Compare Wijewardena & De Zoysa 1999, page 3.

^[23] Management accounting tends towards a convergence.