Article review of “Collaborative inter-organisational relationships and management control change”

Article review of “Collaborative inter-organisational relationships and management control change”

 

How to present this article in Harvard reference format?

Biswas, S. & Akroyd, C., 2022. Collaborative inter-organisational relationships and management control change. Accounting & Finance, 62, pp.4569–4586. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12955 [Accessed 21 Sep. 2026].

 

What are the key research issues the article wants to address?

The key research issues addressed in the article are:

1.    Understanding how management controls are used and change to govern an ongoing inter-organisational collaborative relationship, particularly in an open innovation context.

2.    Examining the development of a collaborative inter-organisational relationship (IOR) through management control changes using theoretical concepts from neo-old institutional economics and Simons’ levers of control framework.

3.    Investigating how trust evolves in such collaborations and how changes in the style of management control—from diagnostic to interactive—impact trust and governance over time.

4.    Differentiating the use and role of management controls in collaborative ongoing IORs as opposed to fixed-term transactional IORs, an area less explored in management accounting literature.

5.    Exploring how relational specificity investments influence the adjustments in management control practices and promote effective collaboration between partners.

In summary, the article seeks to understand the dynamic interplay between management control systems, trust development, and governance in collaborative open innovation partnerships across organisational boundaries.

 

Describe two main theories employed in this article.

The two main theories employed in this article are:

1.    Neo-old institutional economics (neo-OIE): This theory, developed by Burns and Scapens (2000) and others, integrates ideas from old institutional economics, evolutionary economics, Giddens’ structuration theory, and new institutional sociology. It provides a framework to study how management accounting and control practices evolve as sets of rules and routines that shape organisational behaviour. Neo-OIE emphasizes that change in management control is an evolutionary and path-dependent process influenced by taken-for-granted assumptions (institutions), circuits of power, trust, and existing organisational routines. The article uses neo-OIE to understand how collaborative inter-organisational relationships develop through changes in institutionalised rules and routines manifest in management control practices.

2.    Simons’ Levers of Control (LoC) Framework: Simons (1995) proposed that management control systems operate through four levers: belief systems, boundary systems, diagnostic control systems, and interactive control systems. Belief systems communicate core values and inspire motivated search within acceptable limits, while boundary systems set limits on behaviour to control risks. Diagnostic controls are used to monitor outcomes and correct deviations, whereas interactive controls are used to foster dialogue and learning about uncertainties and strategic uncertainties. The article adopts Simons’ framework to conceptualise how these controls are deployed and evolve in the context of managing collaborative ongoing inter-organisational relationships, particularly how the shift from diagnostic to interactive use of controls affects trust and governance.

Thus, the study combines neo-OIE to analyse the evolutionary institutional change and Simons’ LoC to frame the operational use and transformation of management control mechanisms in collaborative inter-organisational settings.

 

Highlight 2 main primary findings reported in this article.

Two main primary findings reported in the article are:

1.    Initial Use of Diagnostic Controls and Low Trust: At the beginning of the collaborative inter-organisational relationship between FruitCo and ResearchCo, the firms primarily applied governance structures and formal safeguards in a diagnostic manner. This diagnostic style of control focused on monitoring outputs against preset standards to protect firm interests and mitigate risks, such as concerns about cost control and information leakage. However, this approach contributed to low levels of trust between the organisations, which created tension and hindered collaborative efforts in the initial phases of the relationship.

2.    Evolution to Interactive Controls and Increased Trust: Over time, the collaborative relationship developed through investments in relational specificity, meaning increasing commitment via managerial time, energy, and adjustments to rules and routines. This development facilitated a shift from a primarily diagnostic to a more interactive style of management control. Interactive controls involved more frequent communication, joint problem-solving, and engagement with strategic uncertainties, which helped to build trust and strengthen the collaborative relationship, enabling more effective open innovation governance.

In summary, the study finds that the style of management control evolves from formal, protective diagnostic controls with low trust to more collaborative, interactive controls that foster higher trust and enable an ongoing innovative partnership.

 

Describe 3 main claims of the article in terms of Toulmin's model of argument.

Using Toulmin's model of argument—which includes Claim, Grounds (Evidence), and Warrant (the reasoning that connects grounds to claim)—three main claims of the article can be described as follows:

---

Claim 1:

Initial reliance on diagnostic management controls leads to low trust in collaborative inter-organisational relationships (IORs).

• Grounds (Evidence): The case study of FruitCo and ResearchCo showed that early in the relationship, diagnostic controls such as strict monitoring, operational rules, and preset milestones were applied to safeguard against risks like appropriation and information leakage. These controls resulted in partner resistance and limited willingness to collaborate due to low trust.
• Warrant: Diagnostic controls focus on formal performance measurement and controlling behaviors to avoid opportunism but do not foster relational closeness or normative cooperation necessary to build trust. Therefore, extensive use of diagnostic controls in early IOR phases constrains trust development.

---

Claim 2:

Investments in relational specificity by top management enable a shift in control style from diagnostic to interactive, which elevates trust and collaboration.

• Grounds (Evidence): The intervention of the CEOs of FruitCo and ResearchCo, involving encouraging direct communication, structural changes, and managerial efforts (time, energy, and effort), helped improve the relationship. This relational investment led to more interaction, consultation before decisions, and reduced resistance from project members.
• Warrant: Relational specificity—building tailored, ongoing interactions—provides the social foundation and motivation for partners to engage collaboratively and share strategic uncertainties. Hence, increased managerial relational investments allow control systems to be used interactively, fostering trust.

---

Claim 3:

The evolving use of interactive control systems supports ongoing collaboration by aligning objectives and routines, allowing trust to function as an effective governance mechanism.

• Grounds (Evidence): Over seven years, both organizations aligned their strategic objectives and adapted routines, with less need for strict monitoring. Communication improved, information flows more freely, and the parties viewed each other as working toward common goals. Trust emerged as a result, which reduced perceived risks and changed the role of management controls from safeguards to governance enablers.
• Warrant: Interactive control systems, by involving managers regularly in decision-making and focusing attention on strategic uncertainties, facilitate alignment and cooperation. This alignment reduces risks and allows trust to operate as a control mechanism, making governance more efficient and collaborative.

---

These claims together articulate the article's core argument that management control use and trust in inter-organisational collaboration are dynamic and interdependent, requiring shifts in managerial approach and relational investments over time.

Describe 2 main research limitations of the study.

The article identifies two main research limitations:

1.    Single Case Study Limitation: The study is based on a single retrospective longitudinal case study of one collaborative inter-organisational relationship between FruitCo and ResearchCo. As such, the findings cannot be generalized broadly without caution. The authors note that the insights provide a basis for further empirical studies but acknowledge the limitation posed by focusing on only one case.

2.    Retrospective Data Collection: The data collection relied on retrospective interviews and documents, which might be subject to recall bias or incomplete recollections. The authors suggest that a real-time, longitudinal case study following a company as it enters a collaborative relationship could provide deeper or additional insights about the changes in management controls and relational development processes.

These limitations highlight the need for further research with multiple cases and real-time data to expand understanding of management controls in collaborative ongoing IORs.

Article review of “Environmental Management Accounting in Private Hospitals”

Article review of “Environmental Management Accounting in Private Hospitals”

 

How to present this article in Harvard reference format?

Swalih, M.M., Ram, R. & Tew, E., 2026. Environmental Management Accounting in Private Hospitals: Navigating Competing Strategic Priorities for Sustainable Decision-Making. Business Strategy and the Environment, 0, pp.1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70979

 

What are the key research issues the article wants to address?

The article addresses the following key research issues:

1.    Lack of research on sustainability negotiation in mission-driven yet commercially exposed service organizations, specifically private hospitals in developing economies. Despite private hospitals' significant environmental footprint, they are often overlooked in sustainability debates.

2.    How competing healthcare, commercial, and sustainability priorities shape the adoption and use of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) in Indian private hospitals. This setting is underexplored in sustainability accounting, with a complex interplay of professional norms, commercial pressure, and emerging sustainability expectations.

3.    The interplay between institutional logics and managerial motivations—how structural pressures and individual motivations jointly influence EMA practices in private hospitals.

4.    The pragmatic and stepwise progression of EMA use in hospitals, starting from basic compliance and cost-efficiency motives towards strategic sustainability practices linking efficiency gains with competitive advantage and enhanced accountability.

5.    How EMA helps hospitals to navigate and reconcile competing institutional pressures, reframing organizational trade-offs as complementarities to facilitate sustainable decision-making.

These issues highlight a gap in literature regarding EMA's adoption in healthcare service sectors in developing countries and aim to understand the dynamics that influence sustainability accounting practices in such complex institutional environments [T1: page 1].

 

Describe two main theories employed in this article.

The article employs two main theories to analyze Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) practices in private hospitals:

1.    Institutional Logics Theory: This theory focuses on the broader systems of norms, values, and taken-for-granted rules that structure organizational behavior and influence how strategic priorities are interpreted and enacted. In the context of hospitals, multiple coexisting institutional logics—such as healthcare, commercial, cultural, and sustainability logics—affect decision-making in different ways. These logics may conflict or coexist, shaping the legitimacy and salience of EMA adoption and use. For example, commercial logics prioritize efficiency and profitability, which may conflict with sustainability goals focused on environmental stewardship. Institutional logics thus provide the structural context that frames which sustainability issues become important and which EMA uses are considered legitimate within these organizations [T4: page 4].

2.    Social Value Orientation (SVO) Theory: SVO theory explains individual differences in managerial motivation towards sustainability practices by distinguishing between prosocial and proself orientations. Prosocial motivations focus on collective welfare, cooperation, and long-term sustainability integration, leading to support for accountability and transformative environmental outcomes. Conversely, proself motivations prioritize self-interest and organizational gain, often focusing on efficiency, cost control, and reputational benefits. The theory helps explain why individuals within the same institutional environment may interpret and enact EMA differently, either instrumentally for efficiency or more transformationally for sustainability accountability [T4: page 4].

The study integrates these two theories to show how institutional structures (institutional logics) and individual managerial motivations (SVO) jointly shape EMA adoption, interpretation, and use for sustainable decision-making in private hospitals [T1: page 1; T4: page 4].

Highlight 2 main primary findings reported in this article.

Two main primary findings reported in the article are:

1.    Pragmatic Stepwise Adoption of EMA: Private hospitals initially adopt Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) primarily for regulatory compliance, legitimacy, and cost efficiency—reflecting pragmatic and proself motivations focused on operational requirements. Basic EMA tools such as energy, water, and waste accounting are used to meet immediate institutional and commercial pressures. As these practices become embedded, hospitals progressively evolve EMA into more strategic mechanisms that support wider sustainability actions, linking efficiency gains with competitive advantage, reputational benefits, and initiatives that complement core healthcare delivery [T1: page 1; T4: page 22].

2.    Shift from Proself to Prosocial Orientations with Sustainability Integration: With growing sustainability expectations and community pressures, EMA use in hospitals shifts towards more prosocial orientations that emphasize accountability, transparency, and sustainable development. Hospitals begin to employ more advanced and integrated EMA tools—such as carbon accounting, life cycle assessment, and integrated resource management—to support sustainability governance and public accountability. This shift reflects a transition from a primarily compliance and efficiency-driven approach to one aligned with longer-term environmental stewardship and strategic sustainable development [T1: page 1; T3: page 19; T4: page 22].

 

Describe 3 main claims of the article in terms of Toulmin's model of argument.

The article presents several claims about Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) in private hospitals. Using Toulmin's model of argument, which includes Claim (conclusion), Data (evidence), and Warrant (reasoning linking data to claim), here are three main claims:

1.    Claim 1: EMA can integrate sustainability into decision-making in private hospitals by aligning environmental stewardship with clinical and strategic priorities.

• Data: Hospitals prioritize patient safety and clinical effectiveness, often marginalizing environmental concerns, especially in resource-constrained developing countries. EMA practices such as biomedical waste management, infrastructure planning, and staff health and safety accounting help reframe sustainability as complementary to healthcare goals [T1, page 3; T6, page 21].
• Warrant: By embedding environmental data within critical operational and clinical routines, EMA enables hospitals to bridge tensions between care quality and sustainability demands, turning potential conflicts into aligned priorities.

2.    Claim 2: Hospitals adopt EMA incrementally, moving from pragmatic, compliance-driven uses towards more integrated systems supporting innovation, accountability, and competitive advantage.

• Data: Initially, hospitals use basic EMA tools (energy, waste, water accounting) for regulatory compliance and cost reduction. Over time, they extend EMA use to include advanced tools (life cycle assessment, carbon management accounting) that support sustainability governance and reputation-building [T1, page 3; T4, pages 19-20; T6, page 21].
• Warrant: This progression illustrates an organizational learning and strategic development path where short-term operational benefits lead to more substantive, transformative sustainability outcomes, reflecting a move from proself to prosocial motivations.

3.    Claim 3: EMA serves as a hybrid accounting technology that mediates competing institutional logics (clinical, commercial, sustainability) allowing hospitals to balance patient care, financial considerations, regulatory compliance, and environmental responsibilities.

• Data: The study shows EMA is used to address regulatory requirements (state sustainability logics), commercial goals (profitability, efficiency), healthcare mandates (patient-centered care, professional ethics), and cultural expectations. This multifaceted use reflects a hybrid accounting role bridging pragmatic and critical sustainability accounting traditions [T2-T3, pages 5-6; T4, page 19; T6, page 21].
• Warrant: EMA's flexibility and integration of diverse environmental and economic measures facilitate reconciliation among institutional tensions, thereby enabling sustainable decision-making that is ethically grounded and strategically viable.

These claims form the core argumentative structure of the article, supported by empirical data and theoretical framing.

 

Describe 2 main research limitations of the study.

·        The article identifies two main research limitations:

1.    Limited Generalizability Due to Context-Specific Focus: The study provides an in-depth understanding of EMA adoption within a specific set of private hospitals in a developing country context. This focus may limit the generalizability of the findings to other industries, geographical regions, or different types of healthcare organizations such as public hospitals. Thus, the external validity of the results could be constrained [T5, page 23].

2.    Potential Biases from Reliance on Self-Reported Data: The research data are largely derived from interviews and self-reported information by hospital managers. This reliance may introduce biases affecting the accuracy, objectivity, and completeness of the findings. Such biases could influence the interpretation of how EMA practices are adopted and used within the hospitals [T5, page 23].

The article suggests that future research could address these limitations by expanding the range of organizational contexts studied, employing quantitative methods, conducting comparative and longitudinal studies, and integrating additional theoretical perspectives [T5, page 23].

A note on generative AI-suggested assignment a template for AMA classes

A note on generative AI-suggested assignment a template for AMA classes 

I am Finance and Accounting student, currently doing my course assignment in Advanced Management Accounting. The assignment brief is as follows:

"Digital technologies are revolutionising how organisations create, analyse, and utilise information for strategic decision-making. Tools such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data Analytics, Cloud Computing, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Blockchain, and Robotic Process Automation (RPA) have significantly influenced management accounting (Granlund, 2011; Moll &Yigitbasioglu, 2019; Argento et al., 2024). At the same time, organisations are under increasing pressure to enhance sustainability performance and incorporate environmental and social factors into their management and reporting processes (Schaltegger& Burritt, 2018; Burritt & Christ, 2016). Management accountants are now expected to support decision-making by blending digital technologies with financial and non-financial data, including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. Required: Using relevant academic and professional sources, critically analyse how digitalisation affects management accounting and evaluate its role in enhancing organisational performance and sustainable value creation.” Need to provide a reference list (not included in the word count of the assignment)  The expected assignment report length is about 1,300 word."

Could you derive 3 investigation objectives of the assignment and provide an assignment essay template with 4 subsections (with subsection headings) for me to consider.

 Based on your assignment brief and current academic literature, here are three focused investigation objectives and a structured essay template you can adapt.

Investigation objectives

• Objective 1: Critically examine how key digital technologies (AI, Big Data Analytics, Cloud, ERP, Blockchain, RPA) reshape management accounting practices, information flows, and the management accountant’s role in strategic decision-making.
• Objective 2: Evaluate the extent to which digitalisation enables management accountants to integrate financial and non-financial (ESG) data into performance measurement, reporting, and control systems that support sustainable value creation.
• Objective 3: Assess the benefits, limitations, and contextual contingencies (e.g., organisational capabilities, governance, data quality) through which digitalised management accounting influences organisational performance and sustainability outcomes.

These objectives move from “what changes” (technologies and practices) to “how it supports sustainability” (ESG integration) and finally to “so what” (performance impact and boundary conditions), matching the brief’s critical-analytic requirement.

Assignment essay template (≈1,300 words)

You can use the following four subsections as your main body. Keep the introduction and conclusion brief so most words go to critical analysis.

Essay title

1. Introduction

2. Digital technologies and the transformation of management accounting

• Define digitalisation in the management accounting context and briefly introduce the technologies in the brief (AI, Big Data, Cloud, ERP, Blockchain, RPA).
• Explain how these tools change:
• Information creation/capture: e.g., automated transaction capture (RPA, ERP), real-time data from IoT/cloud, immutable records (blockchain).
• Information analysis: e.g., predictive analytics, scenario modelling, anomaly detection using AI/ML and big data.
• Information utilisation: e.g., interactive dashboards, self-service analytics, faster feedback loops for planning and control.
• Discuss the shifting role of management accountants: from “number crunchers” to strategic business partners and data interpreters who design metrics, challenge assumptions, and support forward-looking decisions.
• Include at least one critical point: e.g., risk of over-reliance on algorithms, black-box models, or poor data governance undermining decision quality.

3. Digitalisation, ESG data integration, and sustainable management control

• Outline why organisations face pressure to embed environmental and social factors into management and reporting (regulators, investors, stakeholders).
• Show how digital tools help management accountants incorporate ESG:
• Data integration: linking operational, financial, and sustainability data in ERP/cloud platforms; blockchain for traceability in supply chains.
• Measurement and reporting: automated ESG data collection, life-cycle assessment, carbon accounting, and real-time sustainability dashboards.
• Decision support: using AI/analytics to model trade-offs between cost, profit, and ESG outcomes (e.g., scenario analysis for decarbonisation, social impact metrics).
• Explain how this supports sustainable value creation: better resource efficiency, risk management, reputation, and long-term competitiveness aligned with triple bottom line thinking.
• Add critique: data quality/standardisation issues for ESG, greenwashing risks, and the challenge of translating ESG metrics into actionable management controls.

4. Impact on organisational performance: benefits, mechanisms, and evidence

• Present the main performance benefits linked to digitalised management accounting:
• Operational efficiency: automation (RPA), reduced errors, faster closing, lower transaction costs.
• Strategic agility: timely, granular information enabling dynamic pricing, resource reallocation, and rapid response to market changes.
• Improved decision quality: richer data, predictive insights, and scenario planning supporting investment, product, and sustainability decisions.
• Explain the mechanisms: how better information quality, speed, and integration translate into performance (e.g., via better planning, control, coordination, and innovation).
• Introduce evidence from literature that digitalisation and strategic management accounting are associated with improved performance, but not automatically: outcomes depend on capabilities, leadership, and context.
• Include a critical perspective: the “technology value gap” where heavy digital investment does not always deliver expected performance due to poor governance, skills gaps, or misaligned processes.

5. Critical evaluation: contingencies, risks, and implications for sustainable value creation

• Discuss contingencies that shape whether digitalisation enhances performance and sustainability:
• Organisational factors: culture, leadership support, skills/reskilling, change management.
• Technological/data factors: data quality, master-data discipline, cybersecurity, interoperability.
• External environment: regulation, industry pressure, stakeholder expectations.
• Highlight key risks and limitations:
• Algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and ethical concerns in AI-driven decisions.
• Over-automation reducing professional judgement; deskilling or role ambiguity for accountants.
• Sustainability-washing if ESG data and reports are not underpinned by robust controls and assurance.
• Conclude this section by judging how far digitalisation can be said to enhance organisational performance and sustainable value creation:
• It is an enabler, not a guarantee; value depends on how technologies are embedded in management accounting systems, governance, and strategy.
• Emphasise the need for a balanced approach: technology + skilled management accountants + strong data/ESG governance to realise sustainable value.onlinelibrary.

6. Conclusion

 References

Appendix 

You can then add a short overall conclusion (outside the four subsections if your marker allows) that directly answers the brief: digitalisation transforms management accounting and can enhance performance and sustainable value creation, but its impact is contingent on organisational capabilities, data/ESG governance, and thoughtful implementation.

Please suggest an essay title for the assignment report.

Here are three concise, assignment-appropriate title options you can choose from or adapt:

1.    Digitalisation and Management Accounting: Enabling Strategic Decision-Making and Sustainable Value Creation

2.    From Data to Sustainability: The Role of Digital Technologies in Transforming Management Accounting and Organisational Performance

3.    Digital Technologies, ESG Integration, and Performance: A Critical Analysis of Management Accounting in the Digital Era

Option 1 is the most directly aligned with your brief’s wording and would fit well for an Advanced Management Accounting assignment.

*** Students should treat the essay template as a template prototype; they should come up with their own essay template and essay title in their own words.