Next Article in Journal
Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
A Win–Win Opportunity: The Industrial Pollution Reduction Effect of Digital Economy Development—A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the “Broadband China” Strategy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/su14095585
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Effects of Innovative Management Accounting Tools on Performance and Sustainability

by
Anca Antoaneta Vărzaru
1,*,
Claudiu George Bocean
2,*,
Mădălina Giorgiana Mangra
3 and
Gabriel Ioan Mangra
4
1
Department of Economics, Accounting and International Business, University of Craiova, 200585 Craiova, Romania
2
Department of Management, Marketing and Business Administration, University of Craiova, 200585 Craiova, Romania
3
Department of Finance, Banking and Economic Analysis, University of Craiova, 200585 Craiova, Romania
4
Department of Theory and Methodology of Motor Activities, University of Craiova, 200585 Craiova, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 5585; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095585
Submission received: 4 April 2022 / Revised: 30 April 2022 / Accepted: 4 May 2022 / Published: 6 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To cope with an increasingly competitive and turbulent environment caused by economic, health, and political crises, companies need to adopt innovative management accounting tools to meet challenges, increase economic performance and ensure organizational sustainability. This paper aims to study the impact of using innovative management accounting tools on companies’ performance and sustainable approaches. We investigate the influences among the variables involved in quantitative research based on a survey of 567 senior accountants of Romanian companies. The hypotheses formulated based on the literature were tested using structural equation modeling and artificial neural network analysis. The research results show that those companies that used more intensively innovative management accounting tools performed better and had more tools at their disposal to measure and manage a sustainable approach. Innovative management accounting tools provide more and better information and ways to improve organizational performance and the vector of sustainability to cope with the uncertainty produced by the economic crisis.

1. Introduction

The increasingly dynamic economic environment is forcing companies to adopt innovative management accounting tools (IMATs) to cope with the uncertainty of the external environment through better cost and revenue management [1,2,3,4,5]. Van der Stede [6] believes that managerial accounting must consider strategic management approaches by introducing opportunities and threats in managing the company’s costs and revenues, and taking a sustainable approach to business. Furthermore, the continuous and multiple crises and changes affecting the economic environment at the beginning of the 21st century provide several research opportunities that cannot be met usually [6].
Several authors [1,2,3,4,5] have found that the importance and use of management accounting tools increase during turbulent times, especially during economic crises. Although there are many traditional budgeting techniques still considered essential and widely used by organizations, companies tend to increase the use of IMATs during economic crises, amongst others (in health crises such as those produced by COVID-19, political crises such as those caused by the regional wars), to deal with uncertainties through better management, enabling them to reach a high level of performance and a better integration of sustainable approaches into their activities.
Pavlatos and Kostakis [5] studied the effect of the economic crisis on the degree of IMATs use, using multivariate data analysis techniques, measuring perceptions of the intensity of the economic crisis as an independent construct, and perceptions of the degree of IMATs use. In addition, they investigated the impact of crisis perception on the adoption and use of IMATs [5]. Pavlatos and Kostakis [5] focused on choosing a single sector (production sector) to increase the homogeneity of the sample and the reliability of the results, compared to previous research, which focused on different sectors of the economy [4,7,8].
IMATs can have a significant and positive influence on organizational performance [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] through better cost control and providing a dynamic view of organizational operations. Although the benefits of these IMATs are practically proven in the work of organizations in well-developed countries, the abandonment of the traditional tools of managerial accounting is still under debate in both developed and less developed countries. These classic management accounting tools are still widely used by organizations, despite the poor information they provide on organizational costs and results. IMATs play many vital roles in managing costs, budgeting, supporting decision-making, improving evaluation and performance, and supporting strategic management. Therefore, further research is needed to highlight the role of IMATs in supporting organizational performance and sustainability.
To evaluate the benefits of IMATs on organizational activities and results, this paper researches the impact of using innovative management accounting tools on companies’ performance and sustainable approaches. Through the six sections of the paper, we introduced the research topic and presented the theoretical background, methodology, results, discussions, and research conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Strategic Management Accounting

As globalization expands and competitiveness increases, companies need to adapt more and more to changes in the external environment and new economic realities [9]. Therefore, companies’ competition comes from within the country and from abroad. To combat threats and capitalize on opportunities, organizations seek to adopt the most effective management methods to achieve their strategic objectives [10,11]. Conceptualized in the 1980s, in Simmonds’ work [12] to compensate for the lack of management accounting practices, strategic management accounting allowed better control of the company’s performance [11,13,14,15]. Many studies in the existing literature have shown that the innovative practices used in strategic management accounting lead to a better performance for the company [5,11,15,16,17]. However, other studies (such as Lachmann’s [18]) report disappointing results of implementing such practices. In addition to the crucial role of strategic management accounting in developing and implementing competitive strategies [19], it also allows companies a sustainable approach that considers the three pillars of sustainability. Based on these allegations, hypothesis H1 is proposed in this paper:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
IMATs use exerts, in the perception of senior accountants from Romanian companies, significant positive effects on organizational performance.
Cadez and Guilding [20] and Tuan [21] point out that traditional managerial accounting is not flexible in allocating and aggregating costs at the business level and focuses on the internal financial reporting situation over the past period, ignoring external data from the company, and various non-financial information (specific to the approach to sustainability at the organizational level). Therefore, to develop cost-based strategies and consider the financial and non-financial results of companies, strategic management accounting can help companies have a strategic approach based on sustainability, allowing them to expand their operations or conquer new markets [11]. Furthermore, Cescon et al. [22] consider that strategic management accounting supports the senior management of organizations in developing and implementing a strategic vision that is compatible with the principles of sustainable development.
Strategic management accounting uses IMATs, providing more detailed and more extensive information to company managers [23] and paying additional attention to organizations’ external environment and the sustainable side. For example, Ibragimova [24] emphasized the importance of strategic management accounting to manage similar products’ prices and optimize costs to achieve the target profit margin [25]. If traditional managerial accounting provides internal and static financial information, strategic management accounting innovative tools can be adapted to the needs of a company’s strategic management. Strategic management accounting methods provide information on which strategies are based and non-financial information related to the sustainable vision of the organization [26]. Strategic management accounting improves the strategic systems for evaluating the organization’s performance. Based on these allegations, hypothesis H2 is proposed in this paper:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
IMATs use exerts, in the perception of senior accountants from Romanian companies, significant positive effects on the organization’s sustainability.

2.2. Innovative Management Accounting Tools

Over the last 20 years, the effects and empirical implications of IMATs have been studied, such as activity-based cost (ABC) [27,28], target cost (TC) [29], cost life cycle (LC) [30], economic added value (EVA) [3] and balanced scorecard (BSC) [31,32]. Table 1 shows the main IMATs used by organizations and their characteristics in various researchers’ opinions on managerial accounting.
Some papers have had a collective approach, including comparative or parallel analyzes of several IMATs in the research, either focusing on the basic features of the enterprises that influence the adoption [40,41] or investigating the evolution of the degree of IMATs use in turbulent times, especially during economic crises [1,2,3,4,5,42]. In addition to the effects of financial crises on IMATs adoption models, a research topic that may be of interest to both academics and accounting practitioners is the analysis of the influence of these IMATs on organizational economic performance, and sustainable organizational approaches, depending on the degree of adherence to these IMATs and the type of instrument used. As a result of internationally adopted sustainability goals, more and more organizations are using managerial accounting to support sustainable development strategies in times of economic turmoil. IMATs are proactive tools that allow the organization to focus on sustainability, instead of traditional managerial accounting tools oriented towards the past and the organization’s internal environment [42,43].
To analyze the effects of IMATs on companies’ performance and sustainability, we used the technology acceptance model (TAM), proposed by Fred Davis in 1985 [44], revised by Venkatesh and Davis [45] and Venkatesh and Bala [46]. This model analyzed the degree of acceptance of modern technologies in the workplace or private life. Such a model can help estimate the effectiveness and efficiency of IMATs in optimally managing organizational costs and providing adequate information to support well-informed decisions. Starting from the variables defined by Davis [44] in the initial model, we introduced perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU), the IMATs use, the effects of IMATs on organizational performance, and the effects of IMATs on sustainability as endogenous variables of the model. The model allows assessment of the effects of IMATs on organizational performance and sustainability in the senior accountants’ perception of the usefulness and ease of IMATs use.
The two main variables (PEU and PU) that influence the effects of IMATs on organizational performance and sustainability have defined six exogenous variables as antecedents: innovativeness, information, cost, customization, accessibility, and rapidity. On the other hand, the effects of IMATs on organizational performance and sustainability have defined six exogenous variables as antecedents: increasing levels of performance and sustainability, adequate information for performance and sustainability management, and the influence of IMATs on performance and sustainability. Therefore, this paper aims to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect effects of IMATs use on organizational performance and sustainability. Figure 1 shows the research model.
Based on these allegations, hypothesis H3 is proposed in this paper:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
IMATs usefulness has a significant positive indirect effect on organizational performance and sustainability in the perception of senior accountants from Romanian companies.
Researching the management accounting tools used during the economic crisis in Greece, Pavlatos and Kostakis [4] show that organizations are moving away from traditional managerial accounting tools, such as cost analysis, absorption cost, process cost, cost orders, analysis of return on investment flow, and analysis of residual income, in favor of strategic management tools with a more innovative character. On the same note, Chenhall and Moers [2] point out that management and control systems need to become more complex and use not only traditional tools (analysis of budgets and variations) but also innovative managerial accounting tools, such as BSC, ABC, lifecycle costing and target costing, which support and contribute to improving the profitability of an organization. Finally, Pavlatos and Kostakis [4] analyze the same innovative managerial accounting tools. In addition, they add a performance management system—EVA (economic value added) and their degree of use during financial crises.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Among IMATs, BSC and ABC are the tools that have the most substantial influence on organizational performance and sustainability in the perception of senior accountants from Romanian companies.

3. Hypotheses, Materials, and Methods

3.1. Research Design and Data Collection

To study the impact of IMATs use on companies’ performance and sustainable approaches, we conducted quantitative research on a survey among senior accountants of Romanian companies.
The data collected in a database were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistical analyses. To determine the intensity and meaning of the relationships between the research variables, we used the modeling of the structural equation and artificial neural network analysis. Finally, the obtained results confirmed the hypotheses’ validity based on the literature. Figure 2 illustrates the research process.
For data collection, we selected 800 companies from Romania. Representatives of 567 companies responded to the questionnaires sent, with a response rate of 70.9%. Following the validation of the questionnaires (verification of their complete filling) resulted in a group of 554 companies, a representative sample for the total number of companies in Romania (1,106,206 companies). The sampling error was 4.2%. The questionnaires were sent to senior accountants from selected Romanian companies. Of the total number of companies, 177 (representing 31.9% of the companies in the sample) reported using one or more IMATs.
Email data collection has many advantages compared to traditional data collection techniques, such as reducing data collection time, higher response rate, and reducing the total cost of the survey [47]. Before sending the questionnaire by email to senior accountants in the selected companies, the questionnaire was pre-tested and distributed to ten specialists (senior accountants) and researchers in managerial accounting. The final version was sent by email, with a letter stating the research purpose and the relevance of the results. To maintain confidentiality and as a means of combating biases, the questionnaires were anonymized. The data collection period was November 2021 to February 2022.
To ensure the sample’s representativeness, we used stratified sampling. The control variables used to structure the sample were the size and the economic sector. Table 2 renders the sample structure according to control variables.

3.2. Selected Variables

The questionnaire used to assess the impact of management accounting tools (MATs) on organizational performance and sustainability was structured into six sections: control variables, the degree of IMATs use in organizations, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, effects on performance, and effects on sustainability. To measure the impact of IMATs use on the companies’ performance and sustainable approaches, we chose five instruments that are most used in other research papers to measure management accounting innovations [1,2,3,4,5,28,32,41]: balanced scorecard (BSC), activity-based costing (ABC), target cost (TC), lifecycle cost (LC) and economic value added (EVA), tools used and strategic managerial accounting or value-based management. In addition, in our research, we used scales validated in previous research for each item, proving reliable and valid [1,2,3,4,5].
Table 3 shows the survey structure, the items of the questionnaire, and the possible answer options.

3.3. Used Methods

For the H1–H3 hypotheses, we used structural equation modeling (partial least square) [48]. The model of structural equations is as follows:
η = B η + Γ ξ + ζ ,
where:
η, ξ—latent variables;
B—matrix of coefficients relating the latent endogenous variables to each other;
Γ—matrix of coefficients relating the endogenous variables to exogenous variables;
ζ—disturbance.
For structural equation modeling we used SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany), allowing structural equation modeling in the partial least square variant.
For the H4 hypothesis, we used a multilayer perceptron (M.L.P.) in the artificial neural network analysis. A perceptron involves obtaining an output layer from an inputs layer through a hidden layer using an activation function [49]. For our model, we used the hyperbolic tangent function:
f ( n ) = e n − e − n e n + e − n = e 2 n − 1 e 2 n + 1
where:
e—Euler number;
n—input variable;
f(n)—output variable.
For artificial neural network analysis, we used SPSS v20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), allowing setting variables in a multilayer perceptron.

4. Results

Starting from the technology acceptance model (TAM), proposed by Fred Davis in 1985 [44], we defined the latent values of perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU) as influencing factors of IMATs use. Perceived ease of use (PEU) has as antecedents: customization, accessibility, and rapidity, while perceived usefulness has as antecedents: innovativeness, information, and cost.
To increase the significance of quantitative research for the IMATs use variable, we used a single item to illustrate whether organizations use IMATs in managerial accounting. This aspect leads to a maximum load of the only exogenous variable (with a value of 1000). IMATs use influences organizational performance and sustainability, affecting organizational performance and sustainability being defined as latent variables. The antecedents of effects on organizational performance are increased performance, adequate information for performance management, and the influence of IMATs on performance. In contrast, the antecedents of effects on organizational sustainability are the level of increased sustainability, the adequate information for sustainability management, and the influence of IMATs on sustainability.
The conceptual model was applied and tested using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany), allowing structural equation modeling in the partial least square variant. The relationships established in the model, the R square values, the path coefficient values, and the loading of the exogenous variables are found in Figure 3. All exogenous variables have a load above 0.7, which determines that we continue testing the model’s initial theoretical form.
Researching the reliability indicators, we can see that the model is reliable (Table 4), with Cronbach’s alpha recording values above 0.7, composite reliability recording values above 0.8, and average variance extracted (AVE) recording values above 0.6, according to the requirements indicated in the S.E.M. literature [48]. Reliability indicators for IMATs were 1000, given that this latent variable has only one exogenous variable.
Analyzing discriminant validity using the Fornell–Larcker criterion [48], we can say that the model is valid and has high confidence and significance (Table 5).
Paths coefficients that are established among IMATs use, effects on performance, effects on sustainability, T statistics coefficients (with a value above 3), and p values (with a value below 0.005) indicate strong influences of IMATs on performance and sustainability, which confirms the hypotheses H1 and H2 as valid (Table 6).
To investigate the H3 hypothesis, we used a bootstrapping procedure that allowed us to calculate specific indirect effects established among perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, on the one hand, and effects on performance and effects on sustainability, on the other hand (Table 7).
From the analysis of Table 7, the H3 hypothesis is confirmed as valid, IMATs usefulness exerting a significant positive indirect effect on organizational performance and sustainability.
To investigate the H4 hypothesis, we used multilayer perceptron (M.L.P.) from artificial neural network analysis, a feature of SPSS v.20 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). We defined influence on performance (IOP) and influence on sustainability (IOS) as dependent variables and the degree of use of five IMATs introduced in the research as independent variables: balanced scorecard (BSC), activity-based cost (ABC), target cost (TC), lifecycle cost (LC), and economic value added (EVA). As a function of activating the hidden layer and the output layer, we used the hyperbolic tangent function. In the hidden layer, a single unit is defined as the perceived usefulness of the IMATs. The average overall relative error of the perceptron is 0.531.
The bias acting on the hidden layer is negative and of low value. This bias is represented by the cumulative influence of other innovative management accounting tools. The bias acting on the output layer is represented by the perceived ease of IMATs use and other external influences of IMATs. This bias has a positive and relatively small influence on performance and a positive and medium influence on sustainability (Figure 4).
Figure 3 and Table 8 reveal a significant influence of IMATs on sustainability, especially organizational performance. Among IMATs included in the research, two tools (ABC and BSC) strongly influence organizational performance and sustainability. Two tools (TC and EVA) exert medium influence, and LC has a low influence through their perceived usefulness.
Following artificial neural network analysis, the H4 hypothesis is valid. Among IMATs, BSC and ABC are the tools that have the most substantial influence on organizational performance and sustainability.

5. Discussion

Because traditional management accounting tools provide limited information [50] and are not strategically valuable, and do not provide non-financial disclosure, IMATs were introduced at the end of the 20th century [51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. IMATs are tools that provide information useful both for external and internal stakeholders [57]. Many studies have attempted to assess the potential benefits of several innovative management accounting practices and tools in industry and service companies in different countries: Malaysia [11,58,59], Indonesia [60], Nigeria [61], Turkey [62], Romania [63,64], Greece [4,5], Poland [65], Vietnam [14,66].
Most previous research has focused on using and adopting one or more IMATs in different national and economic contexts instead of illustrating the influences of IMATs on financial and non-financial performance and their alignment with the company’s sustainable vision [55,57,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. Following the research and confirmation of the hypotheses, we highlighted the beneficial effects of IMATs on the organizational performance and sustainability of the Romanian companies involved in our study.
Almaryani and Sadik [63] analyzed strategic management accounting in Romanian companies and the role of IMATs in achieving strategic goals. Similar to Almaryani and Sadik [63], we found that the innovative tools used in strategic management accounting cannot wholly replace traditional management methods, especially in small and service companies. Most companies in Romania currently maintain a traditional management accounting implementation, but medium and large companies use strategic management accounting to promote sustainable organizational development. Ma et al. [11] consider that the top management of S.M.E.s prefers traditional management accounting, does not understand the role of accounting, and does not pay enough attention to strategic management accounting.
The model regarding the influence of IMATs in improving the performance and organizational sustainability in the perception of senior accountants of Romanian companies provides us with testing and confirms the validity of the formulated hypotheses information on the relationships and influences established between the variables studied (IMATs).
The analysis of the results indicated that the IMATs analyzed in the research have a relatively high degree of use at the level of Romanian companies. These findings also confirm the findings of Pavlatos and Kostakis [4,5], who concluded that Greek companies widely use these IMATs. In line with the findings of Chenhall and Moers [2] and Pavlatos and Kostakis [4,5], we found the BSC is the most widespread compared to the rest of the IMATs, since it allows management of the intangible elements of the company, permitting an integrated approach to performance, by following all the pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. At the same time, BSC has a solid strategic focus, enabling better control over all other elements of the company’s cost and performance of management and employer actions [31]. The use of target costing allows for more substantial customer orientation, enabling companies to be more connected to the competitive environment than other companies using other IMATs. Costs are managed starting from the customers’ price to obtain the desired profit margin [29]. ABC is a tool that offers stricter cost control and eliminates those that do not add value [5]. EVA supports the managerial decision-making process, focusing on added value and profitability [75], allowing for a better comparison with the competition. Lifecycle cost reduces the cost at each stage of a product or service’s life cycle through better cost management depending on its stage [5,32].
In recent decades, companies have been under increasing pressure to operate sustainably and transparently, leading them to adopt IMATs that allow for more sustainable guidance [76]. External influences and internal responses cause a series of internal fluctuations; both are essential factors in integrating more innovative tools in management accounting practice [5,77,78]. IMATs allow a better response to external pressures by providing more detailed information to substantiate senior management decisions of companies. Erokhin et al. [43] point out that sustainable managerial accounting and sustainability reporting have become integrated tools for measuring accounting performance that communicate information on all dimensions of sustainable development: economic, environmental, and social. In an increasingly dynamic and turbulent economic environment, organizations rely on sustainable and strategic management accounting and sustainability reporting as processes for collecting, analyzing, and communicating information related to the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental and social). The multidimensional and interdisciplinary nature of the management accounting area allows management accounting to strengthen the sustainable dimension of the organization by transforming it into a social and institutional activity. Management accounting supports a socially responsible organization to influence a multitude of stakeholders and provides tools to be influenced by them. IMATs allow management accounting to become a social practice, determined by the nature of the organizational and social environment [43].
Although research on the use of IMATs in the integrated approach to sustainable management accounting and sustainability reporting has been based mainly on case studies in developed countries [79], this is a potentially important area of management accounting. In line with Celik’s research [80], we believe that organizations can ensure a higher level of sustainability by using innovative accounting practices and tools that take into account not only financial aspects. Furthermore, IMATs can be added to other strategies or actions of organizations, such as strategic planning and sustainable innovation, corporate sustainability strategies, entrepreneurial leadership, empowering leadership, innovative work, and organizational learning, to deal with the crisis generated by COVID-19 and to ensure the resilience of organizations through increased performance and increased sustainability [81,82,83,84].

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The paper proposes a conceptual framework for investigating the extent of implementation and IMATs use and their potential influence on companies’ performance and sustainable approaches. Previous research in management accounting has provided some evidence to support the benefits of modern management accounting and optimized cost management to improve companies’ financial and non-financial performance [57,85].

6.2. Practical Implications

Following research, the paper demonstrates that IMATs have a significant and positive influence on organizational performance. However, the adoption of IMATs and the abandonment of traditional managerial accounting practices are tricky in developed and less developed countries, especially in small enterprises that do not have enough expertise to apply innovative management accounting tools.
The paper demonstrates that the innovative tools of management accounting contribute to the development of sustainable management accounting by including social and environmental vectors, giving a complementary role (compared to conventional) to the strategic management accounting system. Furthermore, similar to Zyznarska-Dworczak [85], we have emphasized the multidimensional and interdisciplinary nature of research in management accounting.

6.3. Limitations and Further Research

The sample used consists only of Romanian companies’ representatives (senior accountants) within the paper. The geographical and implicitly cultural component is a limitation that can be overcome by extending the sample to companies in other countries. Another limitation is the transversal manner of the research. The future direction of research may be a longitudinal analysis at different times of the degree of IMATs use and the influences on companies’ performance and sustainable approaches. Another area of research aims to determine the objective effects of IMATs on the financial and non-financial performance of the organization. The COVID-19 crisis also allows for an innovative approach to managerial accounting.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.V. and C.G.B.; methodology, A.A.V. and C.G.B. software, A.A.V. and C.G.B.; validation, A.A.V., C.G.B., M.G.M. and G.I.M.; formal analysis, A.A.V., C.G.B., M.G.M. and G.I.M.; investigation, A.A.V., C.G.B., M.G.M. and G.I.M.; resources A.A.V.; data curation, A.A.V. and C.G.B. writing—original draft preparation, A.A.V. and C.G.B.; writing—review and editing, A.A.V., C.G.B., M.G.M. and G.I.M.; visualization, C.G.B.; supervision, A.A.V.; project administration, A.A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zawawi, N.H.M.; Hoque, Z. Research in management accounting innovations: An overview of its recent development. Qual. Res. Account. Manag. 2010, 7, 505–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chenhall, R.; Moers, F. The role of innovation in the evolution of management accounting and its integration into management control. Account. Organ. Soc. 2015, 47, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chiwamit, P.; Modell, S.R.; Scapens, R. Regulation and adaptation of management accounting innovations: The case of economic value added in Thai state. Manag. Account. Res. 2017, 37, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pavlatos, O.; Kostakis, X. Management accounting practices before and during economic crisis: Evidence from Greece. Adv. Account. 2015, 31, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pavlatos, O.; Kostakis, H. Management accounting innovations in a time of economic crisis. J. Econ. Asymmetries 2018, 18, e00106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van der Stede, W.A. Management accounting research in the wake of the crisis: Some reflections. Eur. Account. Rev. 2011, 20, 605–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Janke, R.; Mahlendorf, M.; Weber, J. An exploratory study of the reciprocal relationship between interactive use of management control systems and perception of negative external crisis. Eff. Manag. Account. Res. 2014, 25, 251–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Becker, S.; Mahlendorf, M.; Scháffer, U.; Thaten, M. Budgeting in times of economic crisis. Contemp. Account. Res. 2016, 33, 1489–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chi, R.; Xiaomiao, M.; Hongpeng, R. How do intelligent manufacturing and S.M.E. organizational change match? Stud. Sci. Sci. 2020, 38, 1244–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Albu, N.; Albu, C.N. Factors Associated with the Adoption and Use of Management Accounting Techniques in Developing Countries: The Case of Romania. J. Int. Financ. Manag. Account. 2012, 23, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ma, L.; Chen, X.; Zhou, J.; Aldieri, L. Strategic Management Accounting in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Emerging Countries and Markets: A Case Study from China. Economies 2022, 10, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Simmonds, K. Strategic Management Accounting for Pricing: A Case Example. Account. Bus. Res. 1982, 12, 206–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roslender, R.; Hart, S.J. Strategic Management Accounting: Lots in a Name? Account. Discuss. Pap. 2010, 1005, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nguyen, H.Q.; Le, O.T.T. Factors Affecting the Intention to Apply Management Accounting in Enterprises in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vu, T.K.A.; Dam, B.H.; Ha, T.T.V. Factors Affecting the Application of Strategy Management Accounting in Vietnamese Logistics Enterprises. J. Distrib. Sci. 2022, 20, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  16. Alamri, A.M. Association between strategic management accounting facets and organizational performance. Balt. J. Manag. 2018, 14, 212–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shi, W. Analyzing enterprise asset structure and profitability using cloud computing and strategic management accounting. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lachmann, M.; Knauer, T.; Trapp, R. Strategic management accounting practices in hospitals. J. Account. Organ. Chang. 2013, 9, 336–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hadid, W.; Al-Sayed, M. Management accountants and strategic management accounting: The role of organizational culture and information systems. Manag. Account. Res. 2021, 50, 100725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cadez, S.; Guilding, C. Strategy, strategic management accounting, and performance: A configurational analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2012, 112, 484–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tuan, T.T. The Impact of Balanced Scorecard on Performance: The Case of Vietnamese Commercial Banks. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cescon, F.; Costantini, A.; Grassetti, L. Strategic choices and strategic management accounting in large manufacturing firms. J. Manag. Gov. 2018, 23, 605–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Asthana, V. Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control, 12th ed.; Gale, Cengage Learning: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ibragimova, A.K. Information Database of Strategic Management Accounting and Controlling. Vestn. Voronezh State Agrar. Univ. 2019, 12, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cadez, S.; Guilding, C. An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Account. Organ. Soc. 2008, 33, 836–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Ward, M.; Mowat, D. Creating an organizational culture for evidence-informed decision making. Healthy Manag. Forum 2012, 25, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Al-Omiri, M.; Drury, C. A survey of factors influencing the choice of product costing systems in U.K. organizations. J. Manag. Account. Res. 2007, 18, 399–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al Sayed, M.; Dugdale, D. Activity-based innovations in the U.K. manufacturing sector: Extent, adoption process patterns, and contingency factors. Br. Account. Rev. 2015, 38, 38–58. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ansari, S.; Bell, J.; Okano, H. Target costing: Uncharted research territory. In Handbook of Management Accounting Research; Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, M.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 507–530. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cravens, K.S.; Guilding, C. An empirical study of the application of strategic management accounting techniques. Adv. Manag. Account. 2001, 10, 95–124. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ax, C.; Greve, J. Adoption of management accounting innovations: Organizational culture compatibility and perceived outcomes. Manag. Account. Res. 2016, 34, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Faria, A.; Ferreira, L.; Trigueiros, D. Analyzing customer profitability in hotels using activity-based costing. Tour. Manag. Stud. 2018, 14, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Campos, F.; Lima Santos, L.; Gomes, C.; Cardoso, L. Management Accounting Practices in the Hospitality Industry: A Systematic Review and Critical Approach. Tour. Hosp. 2022, 3, 243–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ballester-Miguel, J.; Pérez-Ruiz, P.; Hernández-Gadea, J.; Palacios-Marques, D. Implementation of the balance scorecard in the hotel sector through transformational leadership and empowerment. Multidiscip. J. Educ. Soc. Technol. Sci. 2016, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kratz, N.; Kroflin, P. The relevance of net working capital for value-based management and its consideration within an economic value-added (EVA) framework. J. Econ. Manag. 2016, 23, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  37. Baltes, N.; Pavel, R.-M. Study on the correlation between working capital and economic value added for the companies relating to the hotel and restaurant industry listed on the Bucharest stock exchange. Ovidius Univ. Ann. Econ. Sci. Ser. 2020, 20, 838–844. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mohan, A. Life Cycle Costing: Meaning, Characteristics and Everything Else. Accounting Notes. Available online: https://www.accountingnotes.net/cost-accounting/life-cycle-costing/life-cycle-costing-meaning-characteristics-and-everything-else/5783 (accessed on 19 March 2022).
  39. Al-hosban, A.; Alsharairi, M.; Al-Tarawneh, I. The effect of using the target cost on reducing costs in the tourism companies in Aqaba special economic zone authority. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chenhall, R.H. Theorizing contingencies in management control systems research. In Handbook of Management Accounting Research; Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G., Shields, M.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 2, pp. 163–205. [Google Scholar]
  41. Naranjo-Gil, D.; Maas, V.; Hartmann, F. How C.F.O.s determine management accounting innovation: An examination of direct and indirect effects. Eur. Account. Rev. 2009, 18, 667–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bedford, D.S.; Malmi, T. Configurations of control: An exploratory analysis. Manag. Account. Res. 2015, 27, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Erokhin, V.; Endovitsky, D.; Bobryshev, A.; Kulagina, N.; Ivolga, A. Management Accounting Change as a Sustainable Economic Development Strategy during Pre-Recession and Recession Periods: Evidence from Russia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985. Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15192/14927137-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (accessed on 9 March 2022).
  45. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.A. Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. IBM. SPSS—Neural Networks. 2012. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/N7LLA2LB (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  50. Kaplan, R.S. The evolution of management accounting. Account. Rev. 1984, LIX, 390–418. [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson, T.H.; Kaplan, R.S. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ashton, D.; Hopper, T.; Scapens, R. The Changing Nature of Issues in Management Accounting. In Issues in Management Accounting; Ashton, D., Hopper, T., Scapens, R., Eds.; Prentice-Hall: London, UK, 1995; pp. 2–20. [Google Scholar]
  53. Scapens, R. The Changing Nature of Management Accounting. In Towards an Understanding of the Nature and Processes of Management Accounting Change; Scapens, R., Burns, J., Eds.; Uppsala: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000; pp. 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  54. Leftesi, A. The diffusion of management accounting practices in developing countries: Evidence from Libya. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Alsharari, N.; Dixon, R.; Youssef, M. Management accounting change: Critical review and a new contextual framework. J. Account. Organ. Chang. 2015, 11, 476–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nuhu, N.A.; Baird, K.; Appuhami, R. The Association between the Use of MAPs with Organizational Change and Organizational Performance. In Advances in Management Accounting; Marc, J., Epstein, M., Malina, A., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016; Volume 26, pp. 67–98. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hariadi, B.; Alsawayeh, M.I. Innovative Management Accounting Practices and Organizational Performance. In Proceedings of the 23rd Asian Forum of Business Education (AFBE), Bali, Indonesia, 2–13 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
  58. Noordin, R.; Zainuddin, Y.; Tayles, M. Strategic management accounting information elements: Malaysian evidence. Asia-Pac. Manag. Account. J. 2009, 4, 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  59. Jusoh, R.; Tan, A.L. A business strategy, strategic role of accountant, strategic management accounting and their links to firm performance: An exploratory study of manufacturing companies in Malaysia. Asia-Pac. Manag. Account. J. 2012, 7, 59–92. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sunarni, C.W. Management Accounting Practices at Hospitality Business in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Rev. Society of Interdisciplinary Business Research. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2014, 4, 380–396. [Google Scholar]
  61. Oboh, C.S.; Ajibolade, S.O. Strategic management accounting, and decision making: A survey of the Nigerian Banks. Future Bus. J. 2017, 3, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Uyar, A.; Kuzey, C. Does management accounting mediate the relationship between cost system design and performance? Adv. Account. 2016, 35, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Almaryani, M.A.H.; Sadik, H.H. Strategic Management Accounting Techniques in Romanian Companies: Some Survey Evidence. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2012, 3, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Cuzdriorean, D. The Use of Management Accounting Practices by Romanian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Field Study. J. Account. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2017, 16, 291–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Szychta, A. Management accounting practices in developing countries since the 1990s: The case of Poland. Zesz. Teor. Rachun. 2018, 99, 119–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hieu, P.; Dung, B. Management Accounting Practices in Vietnam: An Empirical Study. Acc. Financ. Manag. J. 2018, 3, 1616–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Innes, J.; Mitchell, F. The process of change in management accounting: Some field study evidence. Manag. Account. Res. 1990, 1, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cobb, I.; Helliar, C.; Innes, J. Management Accounting Change in a Bank. Manag. Account. Res. 1995, 6, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Libby, T.; Waterhouse, H. Predicting change in management accounting systems. J. Manag. Account. Res. 1996, 8, 137–150. [Google Scholar]
  70. Burns, J.; Vaivio, J. Management accounting change. Manag. Account. Res. 2001, 12, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jansen, E.P. The effect of leadership style on the information receivers’ reaction to management accounting change. Manag. Account. Res. 2011, 22, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Modell, S. Strategy, political regulation and management control in the public sector: Institutional and critical perspectives. Manag. Account. Res. 2012, 23, 278–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zabri, K.A. Factors explaining the use of management accounting practices in Malaysian medium-sized firms. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2015, 22, 762–781. [Google Scholar]
  74. Armitage, H.; Webb, A.; Glynn, J. The use of management accounting techniques by small and medium-sized enterprises: A field study of Canadian and Australian practice. Account. Perspect. 2016, 15, 31–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Bouwens, J.; Spekle, R. Does EVA add value? In Issues in Management Accounting, 3rd ed.; Hopper, T., Northcott, D., Scapens, R.W., Eds.; Pearson: London, UK, 2007; pp. 245–326. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lozano, R.; Huisingh, D. Inter-Linking Issues, and Dimensions in Sustainability Reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bennett, M.; Schaltegger, S.; Zvezdov, D. Exploring Corporate Practices in Management Accounting for Sustainability; ICAEW: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  78. Stacchezzini, R.; Melloni, G.; Lai, A. Sustainability Management and Reporting: The Role of Integrated Reporting for Communicating Corporate Sustainability Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Schaltegger, S.; Gibassier, D.; Zvezdov, D. Environmental Management Accounting—A Bibliometric Literature Review; Centre for Sustainability Management: Luneburg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  80. Celik, I.E. The Relationship between Accounting Practices and Effects of Financial Crisis in Turkey: A Case Study on an Oil Company. Emerg. Mark. J. 2016, 6, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Su, R.; Obrenovic, B.; Du, J.; Godinic, D.; Khudaykulov, A. COVID-19 Pandemic Implications for Corporate Sustainability and Society: A Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022, 19, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Waiganjo, M.; Godinic, D.; Obrenovic, B. Strategic Planning and Sustainable Innovation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Literature Review. Int. J. Innov. Econ. Dev. 2021, 7, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Alsharif, H.Z.H.; Shu, T.; Obrenovic, B.; Godinic, D.; Alhujailli, A.; Abdullaev, A.M. Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership and Bricolage on Job Security and Sustainable Economic Performance: An Empirical Study of Croatian Companies during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Faulks, B.; Song, Y.; Waiganjo, M.; Obrenovic, B.; Godinic, D. Impact of Empowering Leadership, Innovative Work, and Organizational Learning Readiness on Sustainable Economic Performance: An Empirical Study of Companies in Russia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zyznarska-Dworczak, B. The Development Perspectives of Sustainable Management Accounting in Central and Eastern European Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 14 05585 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual model. Source: own construction based on [1,2,3,4,5,11,28,32,41,42,44,45,46].
Figure 1. Conceptual model. Source: own construction based on [1,2,3,4,5,11,28,32,41,42,44,45,46].
Sustainability 14 05585 g001
Sustainability 14 05585 g002 550
Figure 2. Research process. Source: own construction.
Figure 2. Research process. Source: own construction.
Sustainability 14 05585 g002
Sustainability 14 05585 g003 550
Figure 3. Empirical model. Source: own construction using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Figure 3. Empirical model. Source: own construction using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Sustainability 14 05585 g003
Sustainability 14 05585 g004 550
Figure 4. M.L.P. for the degree of IMATs use in organizations. Source: own construction using SPSS v.20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Figure 4. M.L.P. for the degree of IMATs use in organizations. Source: own construction using SPSS v.20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Sustainability 14 05585 g004
Table
Table 1. Innovative management accounting tools.
Table 1. Innovative management accounting tools.
IMATsDescriptionReferences
ABCActivity-based costing is a tool theorized in the late 1980s. Costs are grouped by the activities of organizations, giving management a present and future view of the costs and performance of each activity. [33,34]
BSCBalanced scorecard, developed in the 1990s, allows evaluating an organization’s performance by considering financial indicators and operational or non-financial ones, offering both internal perspectives related to the activities and external views (on stakeholder issues). [34,35]
EVAEconomic value added is a strategic planning tool that facilitates management accountability for asset use, cost management, and performance evaluation of capital allocation efficiency. [36,37]
LCProduct life cycle cost is a tool for tracking and accumulating costs and revenues at different product life cycle stages, maximizing revenue, and reducing costs by making better and more accurate decisions. [34,38]
TCTarget cost has been designed to overcome the shortcomings of traditional cost management methods. Target costing allows optimized cost planning in such a way as to obtain the desired profit margin. Thus, the cost of the product derives from the market price because the aim is to have a competitive product at reasonable costs.[39]
Source: own construction based on Faria et al. [33]; Campos et al. [34]; Ballester-Miguel et al. [35]; Kratz and Kroflin [36]; Baltes and Pavel [37]; Mohan [38]; Al-hosban et al. [39].
Table
Table 2. Frequencies and descriptive statistics.
Table 2. Frequencies and descriptive statistics.
NMinMaxMeanStd.
Deviation		SkewnessKurtosis
Size554131.780.8280.430−1.411
Sector554132.280.779−0.529−1.165
IMATs_use554121.320.4670.776−1.402
ABC554141.510.9761.6231.067
BSC554141.430.9431.9442.169
TC554141.350.7982.2754.034
EVA554141.190.6603.70812.702
LC554141.150.5944.15216.141
Innovativeness554152.991.254−0.054−0.830
Information554153.241.2300.040−1.034
Cost554353.570.5850.443−0.698
Customization554253.680.6980.107−0.409
Accessibility554253.710.706−0.056−0.268
Rapidity554253.690.7280.062−0.442
Organizational_performance554253.630.8810.009−0.771
Information_for_performance554253.580.858−0.035−0.643
Influence_on_performance554253.410.796−0.048−0.494
Organizational_sustainability554153.261.059−0.122−0.519
Information_for_sustainability554153.190.943−0.145−0.460
Influence_on_sustainability554153.171.0250.104−0.633
Source: own construction using SPSS v.20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Table
Table 3. Questionnaire design (constructs and items).
Table 3. Questionnaire design (constructs and items).
StructureItemsAnswer Options
Economic
variables		Sizesmall, medium, large
Economic sectoragriculture, industry, services
The IMATs use in organizationsUse one or more IMATs in your managerial accounting practicesNo, Yes
The degree of IMATs use in organizationsABCNever used in the past
Used but abandoned
Partial used
Intensively used
BSC
Target costing
EVA
Lifecycle costing
Perceived
usefulness		MATs innovated the organizational, managerial accountingOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1—total disagree, 5—total agree)
MATs provide rich information
Implementation costs
Perceived
ease of use		Allow easy customization of the organizational contextOn a scale of 1 to 5 (1—total disagree, 5—total agree)
It is easy to implement and manage
Implementation time
Effects on performanceOrganizational performance has increased over the last three years.On a scale of 1 to 5 (1—total disagree, 5—total agree)
MATs provide adequate information for optimal cost management.
Financial performance has increased as a result of MATs implementation.
Effects on sustainabilityOrganizational sustainable orientation has increased over the last three years.On a scale of 1 to 5 (1—total disagree, 5—total agree)
M.A.T.s provide adequate information for sustainability accounting.
Sustainability performance has improved as a result of MATs implementation.
Source: own construction based on [1,2,3,4,5,11,28,32,41,42,44,45,46].
Table
Table 4. Model reliability.
Table 4. Model reliability.
Cronbach’s
Alpha		Composite
Reliability		Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)
Effects on performance0.8800.9260.808
Effects on sustainability0.8110.8880.726
IMATs use1.0001.0001.000
Perceived ease of use0.8500.9090.770
Perceived usefulness0.8600.9140.781
Source: own construction using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Table
Table 5. Discriminant validity.
Table 5. Discriminant validity.
Effects on PerformanceEffects on
Sustainability		IMATs UsePerceived Ease of UsePerceived Usefulness
Effects on performance0.899
Effects on
sustainability		0.4550.852
IMATs use0.7540.7401 000
Perceived ease of use0.1570.4160.4800.877
Perceived usefulness0.5810.5820.8700.4820.884
Source: own construction using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Table
Table 6. Paths coefficients.
Table 6. Paths coefficients.
Coefficients PathsT Statisticsp Values
IMATs use -> Effects on performance0.75447.3810.000
IMATs use -> Effects on sustainability0.74045.8370.000
Perceived ease of use -> IMATs use0.0803.2830.001
Perceived usefulness -> IMATs use0.83159.0510.000
Source: own construction using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Table
Table 7. Specific indirect effects.
Table 7. Specific indirect effects.
CoefficientsT Statisticsp Values
Perceived ease of use -> IMATs use -> Effects on performance0.0603.2420.001
Perceived ease of use -> IMATs use -> Effects on sustainability0.0593.2620.001
Perceived usefulness -> IMATs use -> Effects on performance0.62735.3930.000
Perceived usefulness -> IMATs use -> Effects on sustainability0.61533.6310.000
Source: own construction using SmartPLS v3.0 (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany).
Table
Table 8. Predictors and the importance in the M.L.P. model.
Table 8. Predictors and the importance in the M.L.P. model.
PredictorHidden
Layer 1		Output LayerImportanceImportance Normalized
H(1:1)Influence on PerformanceInfluence on Sustainability
Input
Layer		(Bias)−0.108
ABC0.896 0.310100.0%
BSC0.748 0.28291.1%
TC0.311 0.16152.1%
EVA0.444 0.22974.0%
LC0.050 0.0175.5%
Hidden Layer 1(Bias) 0.0850.245
H(1:1) 0.4650.487
Source: own construction using SPSS v.20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vărzaru, A.A.; Bocean, C.G.; Mangra, M.G.; Mangra, G.I. Assessing the Effects of Innovative Management Accounting Tools on Performance and Sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095585

AMA Style

Vărzaru AA, Bocean CG, Mangra MG, Mangra GI. Assessing the Effects of Innovative Management Accounting Tools on Performance and Sustainability. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095585

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vărzaru, Anca Antoaneta, Claudiu George Bocean, Mădălina Giorgiana Mangra, and Gabriel Ioan Mangra. 2022. "Assessing the Effects of Innovative Management Accounting Tools on Performance and Sustainability" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5585. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095585

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop