German and Japanese cost accounting systems differ in significant ways: (1) German cost accountants are more specialized and have more theoretical knowledge compared to their Japanese counterparts. (2) In Germany, cost accounting departments have more responsibility over cost accounting, while in Japan cost accounting is more integrated with financial and management accounting. (3) German companies tend to have more complex cost accounting systems than Japanese companies, as measured by the number of cost types tracked. The institutional environment in Germany promotes more specialized cost accountants who are better equipped to implement complex cost accounting systems.

1. Contabilidade Gerencial: Comparação entre Paises
© Lehrstuhl für Internationale Unternehmensrechnung, WWU Münster
Prof. Peter Kajüter
ANPCONT Annual Conference, Florianópolis, 4th June 2012

2. Comparative Management Accounting –
Achievements and Perspectives
© Lehrstuhl für Internationale Unternehmensrechnung, WWU Münster
Prof. Peter Kajüter
ANPCONT Annual Conference, Florianópolis, 4th June 2012

3. Agenda
1. Motivation
2. Comparative Management Accounting Research
3. Example: Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
4. Conclusions and Outlook
© Peter Kajüter 3

4. Motivation
“It‘s a small world of management accounting practices”
Granlund/Lukka 1998
“Japanese costing has been considered quite different from that found in the West.”
Yoshikawa 2001
“Lessons from German Cost Accounting”
Management accounting and controllership practices are more highly developed in
German-speaking countries … than in the rest of the world.
Sharman, Strategic Finance 2004
“Apparently straightforward terms tend to be defined differently in different countries.”
Amat et al. 1999
© Peter Kajüter 4

5. Motivation
Example: USA vs. Germany
“cost is the monetary value of goods
and services expended to obtain expenses
US
current or future benefits. …
definition
costs reflect an outflow of resources, costs
of “costs”
such as cash, …”
(Atkinson et al. 2007, p. 28)
expenses
Aufwand
neutraler Aufwand
neutral expenses
kostengleicher Aufwand
(betriebsfremd, periodenfremd,
(non-operating, extraordinary, expenses = costs
(Zweckaufwand)
audifferent period)
ß ergew ö hnlich)
German
definition aufwandsgleiche Kosten
costs = expenses kalkulatorische costs
imputed Kosten
of “costs” (Grundkosten) (Zusatz - , Anderskosten)
costs
Kosten
consumption of resources in a period to achieve an objective
© Peter Kajüter 5

6. Motivation
Example: Grenzplankostenrechnung (“GPK”) in German and US firms
“While many U.S. businesses have implemented ERP systems like SAP R/3, most don‘t
use their full functionality for costing purposes. In fact, German companies I talked with
have had great difficulty getting their U.S. affiliates to use GPK methods. DaimlerChrysler
in Germany, for example, has a detailed GPK system that‘s part of a long tradition of
sophisticated costing methods in the Daimler side of the company. But Chrysler doesn‘t
use GPK. It has a different culture, which is common in the U.S., that doesn‘t see the
need for so much detail.” (Krumwiede 2005, p. 31)
© Peter Kajüter 6

7. Motivation
Comparative Management Accounting
Theoretical relevance Practical relevance
1. Enlarge our knowledge base 1. Enhance national management
(e.g. impact of culture, education etc. on accounting practices
management accounting practices) (stimulate innovation)
2. Substitute for experimental conditions 2. Balance standardization and
differentiation in management
accounting of MNC
© Peter Kajüter 7

8. Agenda
1. Motivation
2. Comparative Management Accounting Research
3. Example: Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
4. Conclusions and Outlook
© Peter Kajüter 8

9. Comparative Management Accounting Research
There are four approaches to comparative management accounting research.
Parochial  Originally designed and conducted in one country
research  Comparisons by meta-analysis
Impressionistic
 Conclusions based on impressions rather than on facts
research
Replicative  Studies initially designed and conducted in one country are replicated
research in another
Comparative
 Studies designed to be conducted in parallel in at least two countries
research
© Peter Kajüter 9

10. Comparative Management Accounting Research
National specifics of management accounting practices can prevail on different levels.
Level Perspective Focus of analysis Example
1 Macro-perspective Adoption rate and Adoption of ABC
general assessment
Perceived usefulness of ABC
2 Mezzo-perspective Targets and Decision facilitating, decision influencing ...
conceptual design
Complexity of cost accounting systems
3 Micro-perspective Practice per se, Type Way of using ABC information
of use, Meaning
Perception of ABC by organisational actors
© Peter Kajüter 10

11. Comparative Management Accounting Research
National specifics vs. international convergence of management accounting practices
Economic and legal Influence of MNC on
environment their Subsidiaries
National
IFRS
Financial Reporting
Global Consultancy
Education
Industry
Standardised
History and Culture
ERP Systems (eg SAP)
Contingency Cultural Contingency Societal Effects New
Theory Approach Approach Institutionalism
© Peter Kajüter 11

12. Comparative Management Accounting Research
National specifics vs. international convergence of management accounting practices
?
Contingency Cultural Contingency Societal Effects New
Theory Approach Approach Institutionalism
© Peter Kajüter 12

13. Comparative Management Accounting Research
Comprehensive review of prior empirical research (1978-2010)
 148 papers published
 Most often the US is compared with other countries, emerging economies are underrepresented.
 70% survey research
 Majority with a broad focus
35
Number of publications (total)
30
Number of Hofstede-inspired
25 publications
Studies on cost accounting
20
15
10
5
0
1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
-5 - - - - - - - - - - -
1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1999 2001 2004 2007 2010
Source: Moeschler (2012), p. 59.
© Peter Kajüter 13

14. Comparative Management Accounting Research
Little theoretical and practical contribution due to shortcomings in methodological issues.
Methodological
Prior comparative research Suggested improvements
issue
Conceptual and  Findings potentially distorted  Objective characteristics
response equivalence  Shortcomings hardly reported  7-point-Likert scale
Control variables  Hardly used (even company size)  Use of control variables
Methodological  Use of several theoretical
 Lack of theory
perspective perspectives
Statistical methods for
 Simplistic  Multiple regression analysis
data analysis
© Peter Kajüter 14

15. Comparative Management Accounting Research
Examples
 Bhimani et al. (2007): adoption and success of ABC in seven countries
 Wijewardena/de Zoysa (1999): adoption of cost accounting practices in Australia and Japan
Australia Japan
% %
Job order costing 30 40
Process costing 52 46
Hybrid costing 9 27
Batch costing 15 4
Product life cycle costing 5 13
Activity based costing (ABC) 23 2
Responses: 221 in Australia, 215 in Japan
Source: Wijewardena/de Zoysa 1999, p. 63
© Peter Kajüter 15

16. Agenda
1. Motivation
2. Comparative Management Accounting Research
3. Example: Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
3.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses Funded by
3.2 Research Design IMA
and
Melco Foundation
3.3 Empirical Results
4. Conclusions and Outlook
© Peter Kajüter 16

17. Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
Main research objective Research questions
1. Descriptive research question:
- To what extent do cost accounting systems differ between Germany and Japan?
2. Explicative research question:
- Why do German and Japanese cost accounting systems differ?
Contribution
1. Sensitize management accountants in MNC for cross-national differences in
cost accounting systems
2. Evidence for the relative importance of country vs. industry differences in
cost accounting systems
© Peter Kajüter 17

18. Review of Prior Research
Characteristics of the Studies
● 17 comparative studies on cost accounting.
● Predominantly application rates of instruments (e.g., ABC) were addressed.
● Most studies are with Anglophone participation.
© Peter Kajüter 18

19. Theoretical Perspectives and Hypotheses Development
 Cultural contingency approach
Theoretical perspective (Hofstede 2001, Bhimani 1999)
 Societal effects approach
(Maurice 1979, Sorge and Warner 1986)
National culture
Cost accounting systems
Institutional environment of cost accounting
© Peter Kajüter 19

20. Theoretical Perspectives and Hypotheses Development
Implications of national culture and institutional envionment on cost accounting
● Germany
Culture Cost accounting environment Purposes of cost accounting
Individualism Responsibility accounting Motivate responsible persons
to operate efficiently
Strict rules that govern workplace
Enhance decision facilitating
Uncertainty behavior
avoidance
Preference for comprehensive cost Specialization and theoretical
information education of cost accountants
● Japan
Culture Cost accounting environment Purpose of cost accounting
Less cost information required for performance
Collectivism Permanent employment evaluation, more emphasis on feedforward control
Long-term General and practical qualification
Seniority system
orientation of cost accountants
© Peter Kajüter 20

21. Theoretical Perspectives and Hypotheses Development
Hypotheses
● Cross-national differences in the institutional environment of cost accounting
H1a: The degree of specialisation of cost accountants differs between Germany and Japan.
H1b: The extent of theoretical knowledge of cost accountants differs between Germany and
Japan.
H1c: The relationship of cost accounting towards financial and management accounting
differs between Germany and Japan.
© Peter Kajüter 21

22. Theoretical Perspectives and Hypotheses Development
Hypotheses
● Cross-national differences in the conceptual design of cost accounting systems
Cost-benefit considerations when implementing cost accounting systems are likely to be
influenced by national culture and the institutional environment.
H2a: German companies run more complex cost accounting systems than their Japanese
counterparts.
H2b: German companies run timelier cost accounting systems than their Japanese
counterparts.
© Peter Kajüter 22

23. Agenda
1. Motivation
2. Comparative Management Accounting Research
3. Example: Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
3.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Empirical Results
4. Conclusions and Outlook
© Peter Kajüter 23

24. Research design
Survey
- Industries: food and beverage, mechanical engineering, hospital
Population - Firm size: between 250 and 2,000 employees
- Period of data collection: October – December 2010
Data - Germany: First contact by telephone; online questionnaire was
collection sent to participants thereafter
process - Japan: Written questionnaire was sent to accounting department.
- Returned questionnaires: 480 in Germany and 146 in Japan
Sample - Response rate: 36.1% and 12.3% respectively
- Nearly representative sample
- No non-response bias
© Peter Kajüter 24

25. Sample
Elimination of industry and company size biases
German sample (n=480) Adjusted German sample (n=292) Japanese sample (n=146)
Food and beverage
21% Food and beverage Food and beverage
34% 34%
Mechanical engineering
34%
Mechanical engineering Mechanical engineering
45% 45%
Hospitals
45% Hospitals Hospitals
21% 21%
● Similar procedure for company size:
© Peter Kajüter 25

26. Dependent variables: systems’ complexity and timeliness
Objective and multifarious measurement of cost accounting systems to ensure conceptual equivalence
© Peter Kajüter 26

27. Independent variables
Independent variables to explain cross-national differences:
● Specialization: Functional specialisation of cost accountants
● Theoretical knowledge: Sources of knowledge
● Relation MA / FA Responsible bodies for cost accounting
Distribution of cost accountants‘ workload
Control variables:
● Context factors Industry
Company size
IT systems quality
Top management support
● Cost accounting objectives 12 indicators, measured on a 7-point Likert scale
© Peter Kajüter 27

28. Agenda
1. Motivation
2. Comparative Management Accounting Research
3. Example: Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
3.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses
3.2 Research Design
3.3 Empirical Results
4. Conclusions and Outlook
© Peter Kajüter 28

29. Empirical results: Country Specifics
H1a: The degree of specialisation of cost accountants differs between Germany and Japan.
Functional specialication of cost accountants
To what extent do the following characteristics apply to your
company’s cost accountants? (1=not at all; 7=completely) Germany Japan
Highly specialized exclusively in cost accounting 3.62 *** 3.17
Qualified to enhance and run cost accounting systems 5.03 *** 4.08
H1a
Rather qualified for requirements in financial than in
managerial accounting. (R) 5.06 *** 3.81
*** (**; *) statistically different at 99%
(95%; 90%) confidence level (two-tailed).
© Peter Kajüter 29

30. Empirical Results: Country Specifics
H1b: The extent of theoretical knowledge of cost accountants differs between Germany and Japan.
Sources of knowledge
100%
80%
60% Germany
40% Japan
20% H1b
0%
University Professional In-house training At work 'learning Other
bodies by doing'
*** (**; *) statistically different at 99%
(95%; 90%) confidence level (two-tailed).
© Peter Kajüter 30

31. 5. Empirical Results: Country Specifics
H1c: The relationship of cost accounting towards financial and management accounting differs
between Germany and Japan.
80%
Responsible bodies for cost accounting
60% Germany
40% Japan
20%
0%
Specific Management Accounting/ Operational Other H1c
department for cost accounting Finance departments
accounting department department
Distribution of cost accountants' workload
Germany 53% 23% 24% Management accounting
Financial accounting
Japan 34% 38% 29% Other
*** (**; *) statistically different at 99%
(95%; 90%) confidence level (two-tailed).
© Peter Kajüter 31

32. Empirical Results: Country Specifics
The institutional environment differs internationally:
German cost accountants are more specialized and have
more theoretical knowledge.
German cost accountants have a higher potential to run
complex and timely cost accounting systems.
© Peter Kajüter 32

33. Empirical Results: Complexity of cost accounting systems
Number of
cost types***
Contribution 1,00 Distinction
margin fixed and
0,80
accounting*** variable costs
Operating 0,60
Imputed
income 0,40 costs***
statement***
0,20
H2a:
0,00 Time
Product German firms run
reference of more complex
costing
costs* systems.
Second Number of
stage cost
allocation centers***
Cost
First stage
variance
allocation***
analysis***
Germany (mean = 0.576***) Japan (mean = 0.427)
*** (**; *) statistically different at 99%
(95%; 90%) confidence level (two-tailed).
© Peter Kajüter 33

34. Empirical Results: Timeliness of cost accounting systems
Distinction
fixed and
variable costs
1,00
Operating 0,80
Standard
income 0,60 costs**
statement ***
0,40
0,20 H2b:
0,00 German firms run
more timely
Cost systems.
Product costs
variances***
Cost rates for
Cost rates for
overhead
support cost
allocation
centers*
bases
Germany (mean = 0.501***) Japan (mean = 0.411)
*** (**; *) statistically different at 99%
(95%; 90%) confidence level (two-tailed).
© Peter Kajüter 34

35. Empirical Results: Regression analysis
Dependent variable Cost accounting complexity Cost accounting timeliness
R 0.629 0.401
R² 0.396 0.161
adjusted R² 0.379 0.137
F 24.089 6.737
Significance 0.000 0.000
VIFmax 2.174 2.099
Durbin-Watson statistic 2.028 1.999
Independent variables Standardized coefficients (Beta) Standardized coefficients (Beta)
Country (0 = Germany; 1 = Japan) -0.509 *** -0.238 ***
Company size 0.176 *** 0.045
Industry food and beverage 0.146 *** 0.297 ***
Industry mechanical engineering 0.198 *** 0.227 ***
Factor IT systems quality 0.006 0.134 **
Factor top management support 0.111 ** 0.001
Factor decision facilitating objectives 0.050 -0.038
Factor decision influencing objectives 0.044 0.117 *
Factor cost planning objectives 0.089 -0.026
Factor cost control objectives 0.087 0.087
© Peter Kajüter 35

36. Agenda
1. Motivation
2. Comparative Management Accounting Research
3. Example: Cost Accounting Systems in Germany and Japan
4. Conclusions and Outlook
© Peter Kajüter 36

37. Conclusions and Outlook
CMA research is complex, but offers many opportunities.
 CMA research can enhance our knowledge base and provide practically relevant insights.
 Research Opportunities
 Traditional and emerging economies
 Adaptation of “Western” management accounting practices in emerging economies?
 Novel ideas from management accounting practices in emerging economies?
 Management control systems as a package
 Technical control vs. behavioural control
 Behavioural aspects (level 3)
 Use of management accounting information
© Peter Kajüter 37

38. Contact
Prof. Dr. Peter Kajüter
University of Münster
Chair of International Accounting
Universitätsstr. 14-16
48149 Münster
Germany
Tel.: +49-251-83-22840
Email: peter.kajueter@wiwi.uni-muenster.de
© Peter Kajüter 38