Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Implications of Management Accounting and Control: A Systematic Review of the Contributions from the Journal of Business Ethics

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Management accounting and control seeks to provide information that substantiates decision-making at all firm levels and thus may also foster ethical decision-making. Against this background, this article presents a systematic literature review of research on management accounting and control and business ethics that has been published in the Journal of Business Ethics. Through this review, we intend to bring to the forefront a research topic that has been widely neglected in broader literature reviews on accounting ethics research and that has been covered by a small number of articles published by traditional leading accounting journals only. Our systematic literature review is guided by a theoretical framework that integrates the decision-facilitating and decision-influencing roles of management accounting and control information and the stages of the ethical decision-making process. Through this theoretical lens, we analyze 64 management accounting and control articles published in the Journal of Business Ethics over more than three decades. Synthesizing and structuring this research, we discuss prior accomplishments and elaborate on avenues for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Accounting can be divided into the major sub-disciplines of financial accounting, management accounting, auditing, and taxation (Endenich and Trapp 2018). Note that in this review, we considered articles that cover MAC issues in the audit sector (i.e., those management accounting articles with a specific industry focus on the audit sector) but excluded all other audit-related articles.

  2. This approach can be further rationalized by Bampton and Cowton (2013) who identified fewer than five accounting ethics articles published in The Accounting Review, which is widely perceived to be a leading scholarly accounting journal (e.g., Bonner et al. 2006), over the two decades that their analysis covered. Against this background, we used EBSCO Business Source Complete to analyze whether significantly more articles on MAC and business ethics have been published in recent years. Our search referred to the three leading mainstream accounting journals (in alphabetical order: Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, and The Accounting Review) as well as to the three leading journals that primarily publish interpretative and critical research (Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal; Accounting, Organizations and Society; and Critical Perspectives on Accounting) between 2013 and 2018. We identified three articles related to MAC and business ethics in these journals during this period. These articles refer to topics that are covered by the papers published in the JBE and discussed in this review. Against this background and given our objective of identifying the major topics, methods, and theories in research on MAC and business ethics, it seems reasonable to focus our review on publications from the JBE. Because ethical considerations may play a role in accounting education, we also searched in Issues in Accounting Education and the Journal of Accounting Education for potentially relevant papers but only identified teaching cases that include questions related to ethical decision-making in a management accounting context. However, in light of our focus on research related to MAC and business ethics, these papers are beyond the scope of our review. Moreover, by focusing on publications from the JBE, we intend to ensure comparability between the articles analyzed and a focused and condensed analysis. Future research may complement our analysis by focusing on a broader set of journals.

  3. Ethical decisions can be defined as “both legal and acceptable to the larger community” (Jones 1991, p. 367).

  4. Prior research frequently emphasizes reward systems as an important organizational factor (James 2000; Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe 2008; Treviño et al. 2006). These systems are part of the information systems provided by management accountants. However, our review suggests that other MAC information systems affect ethical decision-making as well.

  5. In the following paragraphs, we highlight the interconnections between the different stages of the ethical decision-making process and the decision-facilitating and -influencing role of MAC information using illustrative examples. These examples are not intended to represent an exhaustive list of these interconnections.

  6. We considered all articles that were assigned to an issue or published “Online First” as of October 9, 2017, the day on which we conducted final checks of the completeness of our database.

  7. Note that our review does not consider articles in the area of executive compensation. Although some aspects of executive compensation—such as target setting for compensation formulas—are related to MAC, executive compensation is a very broad area that also touches, e.g., on market and corporate finance, corporate governance and law. To ensure a clear focus of our article, we limited our analysis to MAC used in internal delegation relationships, i.e., between managers and employees but not between top managers and firm owners.

  8. These terms are (in alphabetical order) balanced scorecard, budget*, controller, costing, management account*, managerial account*, management control, performance measurement, pricing, and transfer price. Note that an asterisk can be used in search engines as a substitute for any other letter(s). E.g., the search term management account* will return results for both management accounting and management accountant.

  9. For Step 1 and Step 2, we searched for the aforementioned MAC-related terms in the title of the article, while the term ethic* was searched for in the overall text. To identify additional potentially relevant articles, we broadened the queries in Steps 3 and 4 by searching for both the MAC-related term as well as the term ethic* in the overall text. These queries naturally returned a large number of results (sometimes several dozen or even more than one hundred articles) that were subsequently manually checked for relevant articles by one of the authors.

  10. These 64 articles are marked with an asterisk in the reference list. Note that we considered non-empirical articles on MAC and business ethics published in the JBE in the quantitative-descriptive analysis of this section and for our overall argumentation, but we focus on empirical articles in subsequent sections. The non-empirical articles of our sample comprise the following (in chronological order): Woelfel (1986), Brooks (1989), Loeb and Cory (1989), Ottensmeyer and Heroux (1991), Hansen et al. (1992), Alder (1998), Maguire (1999), Mehafdi (2000), Keeble et al. (2003), Kerssens-van-Drongelen and Fisscher (2003), Martin and Freeman (2003), van den Brink and van der Woerd (2004), van Marrewijk (2004), Rosanas and Velilla (2005), Barsky (2008), Searcy (2012), Rodgers et al. (2015), Hansen and Schaltegger (2016), Cugueró-Escofet and Rosanas (2017), Pryshlakivsky and Searcy (2017), Hahn and Figge (2018), Hansen and Schaltegger (2018) and Murthy and Rooney (2018).

  11. Formerly known as the National Association of Cost Accountants and the National Association of Accountants. For the sake of clarity, we refer consistently to IMA® in this paper.

  12. IMA® members are required to comply with these standards; failure “to comply may result in disciplinary action” (IMA®2017, p. 2). IMA®’s Statement of Ethical Professional Practice also includes a guideline for “Resolving Ethical Issues” that recommends using established company guidelines, discussion with an immediate or next-level supervisor, requesting advice from IMA®’s helpline, consulting one’s own legal attorney, and disassociating from the company (IMA®2017).

  13. In the 1983 version, IMA® mentions legal requirements and the opportunity to inform a person “engaged” by the company—likely to be the company’s external auditor—on the ethical issue (Loeb and Cory 1989).

  14. Loeb and Cory (1989) distinguish between internal and external whistleblowing. Internal whistleblowing comprises “taking an issue to a level […] that is above an employee’s direct superior” (Loeb and Cory 1989, p. 903) and external whistleblowing “discussing the issue outside the employer organization” (ibid.).

  15. Because MCSs are concerned with aligning the behavior of employees with the interests of their organizations, budgeting and performance measurement are crucial elements of MCSs (Lindsay et al. 1996; Rosanas and Velilla 2005). Given this distinctive role and the significant body of research that evolved in these two areas, we discuss budgeting and performance measurement in separate sections.

  16. Similarly, Sweeney et al. (2010) (see below) show significantly higher ethical evaluations of four audit-related cases describing unethical behavior by female when compared to male respondents. Roxas and Stoneback (2004), building on data from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, report that for their aggregated dataset, males’ answers to an ethical dilemma faced by a management accountant were significantly less ethical than females’ answers. Nevertheless, at the disaggregated level, results become insignificant for most countries.

  17. An unethical tone at the top is defined in a manner consistent with Douglas et al. (2001, p. 107) as the “ethical environment within the firm created through management practices and espoused values.”

  18. The controllability principle states that managers should only be evaluated based on measures they can influence to maintain motivation (Burkert et al. 2011; Merchant 2006).

  19. Related extensions of the BSC with social, environmental, and ethical aspects have been named sustainability scorecard and responsive business scorecard (van Marrewijk 2004; Hansen and Schaltegger 2016).

References

The 64 articles that comprise the database of our literature review have been marked with an asterisk

  • Ahrens, T., & Chapman, C. S. (2004). Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: A field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), 271–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Alder, G. S. (1998). Ethical issues in electronic performance monitoring: A consideration of deontological and teleological perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 729–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., Noel, T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee reactions to internet monitoring: The moderating role of ethical orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 481–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arjaliès, D. L., & Mundy, J. (2013). The use of management control systems to manage CSR Strategy: A levers of control perspective. Management Accounting Research, 24(4), 284–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Awasthi, V. N. (2008). Managerial decision-making on moral issues and the effects of teaching ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 207–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bampton, R., & Cowton, C. J. (2013). Taking stock of accounting ethics scholarship: A review of the journal literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 549–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical investigation of an incentive plan that includes nonfinancial performance measures. The Accounting Review, 75(1), 65–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Barsky, A. (2008). Understanding the ethical cost of organizational goal-setting: A review and theory development. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, D. S., & Malmi, T. (2015). Configurations of control: An exploratory analysis. Management Accounting Research, 27, 2–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bento, R., Mertins, L., & White, L. (2017). Ideology and the balanced scorecard: An empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(4), 769–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnberg, J. G., Shields, M. D., & Young, S. M. (1990). The case for multiple methods in empirical management accounting research (with an illustration from budget setting). Journal of Management Accounting Research, 2, 33–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2012). The social structure of communication in major accounting research journals. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(3), 869–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, S. E., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2002). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(4–5), 303–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandau, M., Endenich, C., Trapp, R., & Hoffjan, A. (2013). Institutional drivers of conformity—Evidence for management accounting from Brazil and Germany. International Business Review, 22(2), 466–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brooks, L. J. (1989). Ethical codes of conduct: Deficient in guidance for the Canadian accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brunner, M., & Ostermaier, A. (2017). Peer influence on managerial honesty: The role of transparency and expectations. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Buchheit, S., Pasewark, W. R. Jr., & Strawser, J. R. (2003). No Need to compromise: Evidence of public accounting’s changing culture regarding budgetary performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(2), 151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkert, M., Fischer, F. M., & Schäffer, U. (2011). Application of the controllability principle and managerial performance: The role of role perceptions. Management Accounting Research, 22(3), 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J., & Baldvinsdottir, G. (2005). An institutional perspective of accountants’ new roles—The interplay of contradictions and praxis. European Accounting Review, 14(4), 725–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, S., & Pierce, B. (2007). Towards a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of management accountants. European Accounting Review, 16(3), 469–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabretta, G., Durisin, B., & Ogliengo, M. (2011). Uncovering the intellectual structure of research in business ethics: A journey through the history, the classics, and the pillars of Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 499–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 946–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Center for Business Ethics. (1986). Are corporations institutionalizing ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 5(2), 85–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chang, C. J., & Yen, S.-H. (2007). The effects of moral development and adverse selection conditions on managers’ project continuance decisions: A study in the Pacific-Rim region. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(3), 347–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H., Ittner, C. D., & Paz, M. T. (2014). The multiple roles of the finance organization: Determinants, effectiveness, and the moderating influence of information system integration. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 26(2), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. X., Martin, M., & Merchant, K. A. (2014). The effect of measurement timing on the information content of customer satisfaction measures. Management Accounting Research, 25(3), 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, T. T. Y. (2001). Ethics control mechanisms: A comparative observation of Hong Kong companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chung, J. O. Y., & Hsu, S. H. (2017). The effect of cognitive moral development on honesty in managerial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(3), 563–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Clor-Proell, S., Kaplan, S., & Proell, C. (2015). The impact of budget goal difficulty and promotion availability on employee fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(4), 773–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cugueró-Escofet, N., & Rosanas, J. (2017). The ethics of metrics: Overcoming the dysfunctional effects of performance measurements through justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(4), 615–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Donada, C., Mothe, C., Nogatchewsky, G., & de Campos Ribeiro, G. (2017). The respective effects of virtues and inter-organizational management control systems on relationship quality and performance: Virtues win. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, P. C., Davidson, R. A., & Schwartz, B. N. (2001). The effect of organizational culture and ethical orientation on accountants’ ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 101–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Douglas, P. C., & Wier, B. (2000). Integrating ethical dimensions into a model of budgetary slack creation. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 267–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Douglas, P. C., & Wier, B. (2005). Cultural and ethical effects in budgeting systems: A comparison of U.S. and Chinese managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(2), 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2014). The effects of performance rating, leader–member exchange, perceived utility, and organizational justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 265–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury, C. (2015). Management and cost accounting (9th edn.). Andover: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endenich, C. (2014). Economic crisis as a driver of management accounting change—Comparative evidence from Germany and Spain. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 15(1), 123–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endenich, C., & Trapp, R. (2018). Signaling effects of scholarly profiles—The editorial teams of North American Association journals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 51, 4–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, G., & Young, S. M. (1997). Frontiers of management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), 79–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gamble, E., & Beer, H. (2017). Spiritually informed not-for-profit performance measurement. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 451–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Goebel, S., & Weißenberger, B. (2017). The relationship between informal controls, ethical work climates, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 505–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., Grubnic, S., Herzig, C., & Moon, J. (2012). Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Management Accounting Research, 23(3), 205–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goretzki, L., Lukka, K., & Messner, M. (2018). Controllers’ use of informational tactics. Accounting and Business Research, 48(6), 700–726. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Goretzki, L., Strauss, E., & Weber, J. (2013). An institutional perspective on the changes in management accountants’ professional role. Management Accounting Research, 24(1), 41–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Graf, L., Wendler, W. S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2017). Wanting more, getting less: Gaming performance measurement as a form of deviant workplace behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3688-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. M., & Donovan, A. (2010). The methods of business ethics. In G. G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business ethics (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2018). Why architecture does not matter: On the fallacy of sustainability balanced scorecards. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 919–935. 

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hansen, D. R., Crosser, R. L., & Laufer, D. (1992). Moral ethics v. tax ethics: The Case of transfer pricing among multinational corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(9), 678–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2018). Sustainability balanced scorecards and their architectures: Irrelevant or misunderstood? Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 937–952. 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, F. G. H., & Slapničar, S. (2012). Pay fairness and intrinsic motivation: The role of pay transparency. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20), 4283–4300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasgall, A., & Shoham, S. (2008). Knowledge processes: From managing people to managing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hawk, S. R. (1994). The effects of computerized performance monitoring: An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(12), 949–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Herremans, I. M., Isaac, R. G., Kline, T. J. B., & Nazari, J. A. (2011). Intellectual capital and uncertainty of knowledge: Control by design of the management system. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 627–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesford, J. W., Lee, S.-H., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2007). Management accounting: A bibliographic study. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbook of management accounting research (Vol. 1). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Huang, C.-L., & Chang, B.-G. (2010). The effects of managers’ moral philosophy on project decision under agency problem conditions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(4), 595–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • IMA® (2017). IMA statement of ethical professional practice. Montvale: IMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are nonfinancial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner, C. D., Larcker, D. F., & Meyer, M. W. (2003). Subjectivity and the weighting of performance measures: Evidence from a balanced scorecard. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 725–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, H. S. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision making through organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1), 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kaplan, S. E., McElroy, J. C., Ravenscroft, S. P., & Shrader, C. B. (2007). Moral judgment and causal attributions: Consequences of engaging in earnings management. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 149–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Keeble, J. J., Topiol, S., & Berkeley, S. (2003). Using indicators to measure sustainability performance at a corporate and project level. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3), 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kerssens-van Drongelen, I. C., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2003). Ethical dilemmas in performance measurement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(1/2), 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kneiding, C., & Tracey, P. (2009). Towards a performance measurement framework for community development finance institutions in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 327–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, M., Trapp, I., & Trapp, R. (2017). Diversity and validity in positivist management accounting research—A longitudinal perspective over four decades. Management Accounting Research, 34, 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, C., & Sponem, S. (2012). Roles, authority and involvement of the management accounting function: A multiple case-study perspective. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 565–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2017). An ethical perspective on emerging forms of ubiquitous IT-based control. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(1), 139–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, T., & Lindsay, R. M. (2010). Beyond budgeting or budgeting reconsidered? A survey of North-American budgeting practice. Management Accounting Research, 21(1), 56–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lindsay, R. M., Lindsay, L. M., & Irvine, V. B. (1996). Instilling ethical behavior in organizations: A survey of Canadian companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(4), 393–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lisi, I. E. (2015). Translating environmental motivations into performance: The role of environmental performance measurement systems. Management Accounting Research, 29, 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lisi, I. E. (2018). Determinants and performance effects of social performance measurement systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 225–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Loeb, S. E., & Cory, S. N. (1989). Whistleblowing and management accounting: An approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(12), 903–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, V. S., & Matĕjka, M. (2009). Balancing the dual responsibilities of business unit controllers: Field and survey evidence. The Accounting Review, 84(4), 1233–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Maas, V. S., & Torres-González, R. (2011). Subjective performance evaluation and gender discrimination. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 667–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Maguire, S. (1999). The discourse of control. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 109–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control systems as a package—Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Martin, K., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Some problems with employee monitoring. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 353–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Masanet-Llodra, M. (2006). Environmental management accounting: A case study research on innovative strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(4), 393–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNair, C. J. (1991). Proper compromises: The management control dilemma in public accounting and its impact on auditor behavior. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 635–653.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mehafdi, M. (2000). The ethics of international transfer pricing. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(4), 365–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, K. A. (2006). Measuring general managers’ performance—Market, accounting and combination-of-measures systems. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 893–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Moyes, G. D., & Park, K. (1997). Chief financial officers’ perceptions concerning the IMA’s standards of ethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(2), 189–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Murthy, V., & Rooney, J. (2018). The role of management accounting in ancient India: Evidence from the Arthasastra. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(2), 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Musbah, A., Cowton, C., & Tyfa, D. (2016). The role of individual variables, organizational variables and moral intensity dimensions in Libyan management accountants’ ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(3), 335–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otley, D. T., & Pierce, B. J. (1996). Auditor time budget pressure: consequences and antecedents. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(1), 31–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ottensmeyer, E. J., & Heroux, M. A. (1991). Ethics, public policy, and managing advanced technologies: The case of electronic surveillance. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(7), 519–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pryshlakivsky, J., & Searcy, C. (2017). A heuristic model for establishing trade-offs in corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 323–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Puyou, F.-R., & Faÿ, E. (2015). Cogs in the wheel or spanners in the works? A phenomenological approach to the difficulty and meaning of ethical work for financial controllers. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 863–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, P. (2016). Management accounting goes digital: Will the move make it wiser? Management Accounting Research, 31, 118–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Reck, J. L. (2000). Ethics and budget allocation decisions of municipal budget officers. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 335–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rodgers, W., Söderbom, A., & Guiral, A. (2015). Corporate social responsibility enhanced control systems reducing the likelihood of fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(4), 871–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rosanas, J. M., & Velilla, M. (2005). The ethics of management control systems: Developing technical and moral values. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(1), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Saini, A., Krush, M., & Johnson, J. L. (2008). Anomie and the marketing function: The role of control mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 845–862.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Salazar, J., Husted, B., & Biehl, M. (2012). Thoughts on the evaluation of corporate social performance through projects. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlank, R. (1985). The business ethics of the eighties. Controllers Quarterly, 1, 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shafer, W. E. (2002). Ethical pressure, organizational-professional conflict, and related work outcomes among management accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 263–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shapiro, B. (2016). Using traditional narratives and other narrative devices to enact humanizing business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Shapiro, B., & Naughton, M. (2015). The expression of espoused humanizing values in organizational practice: A conceptual framework and case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(1), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, M. D. (1997). Research in management accounting by North Americans in the 1990s. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 9, 3–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprinkle, G. B. (2003). Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2–3), 287–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sweeney, B., Arnold, D., & Pierce, B. (2010). The impact of perceived ethical culture of the firm and demographic variables on auditors’ ethical evaluation and intention to act decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 531–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, B., & Pierce, B. (2006). Good hours, bad hours and auditors’ defence mechanisms in audit firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 858–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Ethical decision making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 545–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thibadoux, G., Scheidt, M., & Luckey, E. (2007). Accounting and medicine: An exploratory investigation into physicians’ attitudes toward the use of standard cost-accounting methods in medicine. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(2), 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiessen, P., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1983). Towards a descriptive theory of management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(2/3), 251–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uysal, ÖÖ (2010). Business ethics research with an accounting focus: A bibliometric analysis from 1988 to 2007. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • *van den Brink, T., & van der Woerd, F. (2004). Industry specific sustainability benchmarks: An ECSF pilot bridging corporate sustainability with social responsible investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 187–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Kolk, B., Bogt, ter, H. J. and van Veen-Dirks, P. M. G. (2015). Constraining and facilitating management control in times of austerity—Case Studies in four municipal departments. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(6), 934–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • *van der Woerd, F. and van den Brink, T. (2004). Feasibility of a responsive business scorecard—A pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Van Marrewijk, M. (2004). A value based approach to organization types: Towards a coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Veen-Dirks, P. (2010). Different uses of performance measures: The evaluation versus reward of poduction managers. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), 141–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framwork. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 757–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wijethilake, C., Munir, R., & Appuhami, R. (2018). Environmental innovation strategy and organizational performance: Enabling and controlling uses of management control systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1139–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Woelfel, C. J. (1986). Standards of ethical conduct for management accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 5(5), 365–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, J. L. (2001). Conjectures regarding empirical managerial accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32(1–3), 411–427.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Steven Dellaportas (Section Editor) and four anonymous reviewers for insightful comments and helpful suggestions on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Funding

Christoph Endenich has received financial support from the ESSEC Business School Research Center. Rouven Trapp has not received any funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Management Control, ESSEC Business School, 3 Avenue Bernard Hirsch, CS 50105 Cergy, 95021, Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France

    Christoph Endenich

  2. Institute of Management Accounting and Control, Ulm University, Helmholtzstraße 18, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    Rouven Trapp

Authors
  1. Christoph Endenich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rouven Trapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Endenich.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Endenich, C., Trapp, R. Ethical Implications of Management Accounting and Control: A Systematic Review of the Contributions from the Journal of Business Ethics. J Bus Ethics 163, 309–328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4034-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4034-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation