Introduction to Management Accounting - Plaistead Plc and Crawford Plc

This article covers the topics of estimating contribution per unit, break-even sales revenue, profit estimation, and pricing strategy for Plaistead Plc. It also covers cost allocation and overhead cost allocation for Crawford Plc. The content is relevant for courses in management accounting and is applicable to students in various colleges and universities.

Introduction to
management accounting

Contents
Contents................................................................................................................................................2
Part 1.....................................................................................................................................................3
Question 2: Plaistead Plc..................................................................................................................3
Part 2.....................................................................................................................................................8
Question 3: Crawford Plc.................................................................................................................8
Part 3.....................................................................................................................................................3
Question 4:........................................................................................................................................3
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................9

Part 1
Question 2: Plaistead Plc.
Answer to (a)
Estimating Contribution per Unit
Note: Contribution per unit = (selling price per unit) – (variable costs per unit)
Particulars £
Selling Price 13
Materials (5.25)
Labour (2.95)
Variable Overheads (1.85)
£2.95
Answer to (b)
Estimating Break Even Sales Revenue at the Break-even Point and Margin of Safety:
Break Even point is reached when: total contribution = total fixed costs.
The break-even point (units) is estimated as:
Fixed Cost/ (𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡)–(𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡)
Note: (selling price per unit) – (variable costs per unit) = Contribution per unit
According to the data in the question, total fixed costs are estimated as:
Production Fixed Costs = £59,000
Selling Fixed Costs. = £47,600
£106,600

Applying the equation, the number of electric kettles at break-even (the break-even
point (sales): =£106,600
£2.95
= 36,136 electric kettles.
Therefore, Revenue at Break-even = 36,136 electric kettles x £13
= £469,768
Margin of Safety (Volumes/Units) = (Planned sales in unit) - (Breakeven sales in unit)
= (53, 000 electric kettles) – (36, 136 electric kettles)
= 16, 864 electric kettles
Margin of Safety (Revenue) = (Planned sales revenue) - (Breakeven revenue)
= £689,000 –£469,768
= £219, 232
OR
Margin of safety (revenue) = (Margin of safety (volume/unit)) x (Selling price)
= 16,864 electric kettles x £13
= £219, 232
Answer to (c)
Estimating profit at 53,000 electric kettles at selling price of £13per electric kettle:
Sales (from question) = 53,000 electric kettles
Break even number of electric kettles (from calculation). = 36,136 electric kettles
Therefore, sales are above break-even point by 16,864 electric kettles (53, 000 – 36,136)
Contribution per electric kettles = £2.95
Additional contribution = 16, 864 x £2.95 = £49, 749
Answer to (d)
Estimating units of electric kettles to produce and sell for a profit of £90,000

According to the calculations provided, producing and offering to sell 36,136 electric
kettles will result in neither a loss nor profit. This is the moment at which the venture
pays off, and it is referred to as the break-even stage (Borthick and Pennington, 2017). .
 If 36,136 electric kettles are created and sold, this would have been agreed to create
no gain, no losses (zero profits).
 Every additional electric kettle purchased and sold would generate £2.95 (see
answer (a) above).
 The variety of unique electric kettles to produce (in addition to 36,136 electric
kettles) to make £90,000 income is:
£90,000
£2.95
= 30,508 electric kettles.
As a result, the greatest number of electric kettles which could have been produced and sold in
order to generate a £90,000 profit would've been:
= (36,136 electric kettles) + (30,508 electric kettles = 66,644 electric kettles
Answer to (e)
Recalculating the sales price at which 53,000 electric kettles may be supplied for a £90,000 gain
Total contribution = (fixed costs) + (profit)
Therefore: Profit = (Total Contribution) – (Fixed Costs)
Thereafter: Derive ‘contribution per unit’ of 53, 000 electric kettles.
Note that: Contribution per unit = (selling price per unit) – (variable costs per unit)
Therefore: Selling Price per unit = (Contribution per unit) + (variable costs per unit) Total
Contribution is estimated as: £106,600 (Fixed costs) + £90,000 (Profit desired) = £196, 600

If 53,000 electric kettles are sold, contribution needed per electric kettles is estimated as:
£196, 600
53, 000 (electric kettles)
= £3.71
Therefore, the estimated selling price = (Contribution per unit) + (variable costs per unit):
Contribution per unit £3.71
Materials £5.25
Labour £2.95
Variable Overheads £1.85
New Selling Price £13.76
Answer to (f)
Adoption of new pricing strategy:
Proposed Strategy’s Selling Price = £13 x 1.09 (estimating 9% increase in
selling price)
= £14.17
Proposed Strategy’s Contribution (per kettle) = £2.95 + £1.17 (This is the proposed
Strategy’s selling price less old selling price)
= £4.12
Proposed Strategy’s Sales (in Units/Volume) = 53, 000 x 1.17 (estimating 17% increase in
Sales volume)
=62, 010 electric kettles

Proposed Strategy’s Total Contribution = £4.12 x 62, 010 electric kettles
= £255,481
Proposed Strategy’s Fixed Costs = £106,600 + £45,000
= £151, 600
Proposed Strategy’s Profit = New Total Contribution – New Fixed Costs
= £255, 481 - £151,600
= £103, 881
The proposed approach provides a profit of £103, 881, which is higher than the £49,749
beginning cash profit. As a consequence (as mentioned in answer (c) above), the proposed plan
is a critical step that Plaistead Plc must accept.
Answer to (g)
The break-even calculation is dependent on several factors, such as the following:
 Production, shipping, and carrying cost are all subdivided into permanent and variable parts.
 There will be a propensity if assessment information is recorded on a graph because the
structure of spending is ongoing (Bühler, Wallenburg and Wieland, 2016).
 At every present generation, the overall amount of capital expenditures will remain constant,
whereas operating cost will fluctuate in relation to output.
 The maker's sales costs would remain constant regardless of the number of sales, suggesting
that they would not alter in reaction to differences in end products.
 The installation costs, workers, accommodation, marketing, and other purchased technology
will all remain same.
 The public's perceptions, as well as the scientific capabilities and effectiveness of computer
networks, would stay constant.
 Profits and expenses were also calculated utilizing a completely electronic assessment, such
as stock fair pricing or quantity demanded (Chung and Chen, 2016).
 Only the productive capacity or advertising is considered a significant part of the cost.

Part 2
Question 3: Crawford Plc
Answer to (a)
Allocating cost based on:
 Number of employees 12:10:3.
 Direct materials 17:8.
 Floor space 3:4:1.
 Floor space 3:4:1.
 Machinery used in each department 50:40:3.
 Number of employees 12:10:3.
 Kilowatt hours 1.5:1.3:2.
STEP 1: Allocating costs to departments using a suitable method (ratio) for each
department:
Total (£) Assembly (£) Joinery (£) Canteen
(£)
Indirect labour–12:10:3 28 000 13,440 11,200 3,360
Indirect material – 17:8 22 000 14 960 7 040 -----
Heating & lighting – 3:4:1 13 000 4 875 6 500 1 625
Rent & rates – 3:4:1 14 000 5 250 7 000 1 750
Depreciation – 50:40:3 19 000 10 215 8 172 613
Supervision – 12:10:3 15 000 7 200 6 000 1 800
Power – 1.5:1.3:2 9 000 2 813 2 438 3 750
120 000 58 753 48 350 12 898
STEP 2: Allocating service department costs to production departments:
Total (£) Assembly (£) Joinery (£) Canteen
(£)
Balance from Step 1 above 120 000 58 753 48 350 12 898
Allocate Canteen to Assembly &
Joinery
7 035 5 863 [12 898]
120 000 65 788 54 213 ------
STEP 3: Calculating the overhead recovery rates for Assembly and Joinery Department:
The amount of "labour hours" determines the total spending capability. The agency's
overhead expenses are computed in both circumstances by dividing the number of actual
labour hours by the amount of suburbs. The excess recovering percentage is as follows:
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 Di𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛t

= 65,788 = £31.33 per labour hour
2 100 hours
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛t
= £54,202 =38.72 per labour hour
1 400 hours
Answer to (b)
Special Product Soft Stool: Calculation of full job cost and product cost for 10 units of Soft Stool.
£ £
Direct costs 85
Production overhead:
Assembly department (4 labour hours x £31.33) 125.32
Joinery department (6 labour hours x £38.72) 232.32
Total production overheads 357.64
Total production cost for one unit £442.64
Total production for 10 units (£442.64 x 10) £4,426.4
Working of Overhead Costs Allocations
Allocation of cost of indirect labour is 12:10:3 (= 25), on the basis of number of employees
(28 000)
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦= 12 x £28,000=£13,440
25
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦= 10 x £28,000=£11,200
25
𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛= 3 x £28,000=£3,360
25
Note: Canteen would not be reimbursed for indirect material costs because they are not
manufacturing and do not use the £22,000 in raw - materials.
Allocation of cost of indirect materials is 17:8(= 25), in proportion to direct materials

𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦= 17x £22,000=£1
𝟒,960
25
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦= 8 x£22,000=£7,4
𝟎
25
Allocation of cost of heating and lighting is 3:4:1(= 8), in proportion to floor space (13 000)
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦=3 x £13,000=£4,875
8
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦= 4 x £13,000=£6,500
8𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛= 1 x £13,000=£1,25
8
Allocation of cost of rent and rates is 3:4:1(= 8), in proportion to floor space (14 000)
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦=3 x £14,000=£5,250
8
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦. =4x £14,000=£7,000
8
𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛=1 x£14,000=£1,750
8
Allocation of depreciation cost is 50:40:3(= 93), according to the value of machinery used in each
department (19 000)

𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦=50 x £19,000=£10,215
93
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦=40 x £19,000=£8,172
93
𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛=3 x£19,000=£613
93
Allocation of cost of supervision is 12:10:3(= 25), on the basis of number of employees
(15,000)
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦=12 𝑋£15,000=£7,200
25
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦=10 𝑋£15,000=£6,000
25
𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛=3 𝑋£15,000=£1,800
25
Allocation of cost of power is 1.5:1.3:2(= 4.8), on the basis of kilowatt hours (9,000)
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦=1.5 x£9,000=£2,813
4.8
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦=1.3 x£9,000=£2,438
4.8
𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛= 2 x£9,000=£3,750
4.8

Absorption of canteen cost is 12:10(=22), on the basis of kilowatt hours
𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦=12 x£12,898=£7,035
22
𝐽𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑦=10 𝑋 £12,898 =£5,863
22
Answer to (c)
Working in a continuous induction phase is significantly more efficient and cost-effective
(plant-wide rate). However, if manufacturing techniques differ significantly between
sections (labor-intensive vs. machine-intensive), adopting a sufficient number is likely to
inflate overhead expenses. It may have been higher if the results had been different.
Absorption Costing's Benefits:
 GAAP Conformance– It has the benefit of complying to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) that is needed for filing tax returns with the IRS
(IRS).
 Keeping track of all manufacturing expenses– Extendable exchange rates only
factor into the equation actual expenses, although this includes all manufacturing
costs. Adjusted operational expenses like as personnel, building rent rates, and
electricity prices are addressed via absorptive pricing. This offers workers a much
more entire facts of how much a company spends on each product, enabling them
to place orders to boost socioeconomic sales and profit opportunities (Daferighe,
2019).
 Monitoring Revenues- When contrasted to extensible pricing, absorption price
provides a considerably more exact fiscal situation, especially if all products are not
delivered throughout that period. This becomes a serious issue if a company invests
in production under the expectation of steady overall sales.
Absorption Costing's Drawbacks:

 Lopsided Gain and Loss- Absorb costs can creates the appearance that a business
earns more money than it really does over the course of a financial year. This is
because all monetary obligations aren't deducted from the company's revenue until
all manufactured goods have been delivered. As a consequence, it's possible that top
leadership will be duped (Ejiogu and Ejiogu, 2018).
 No operational effectiveness influence- Absorption sale costs do not give as
extensive a viability assessment as extensible cost, hence they have little impact on
plan efficacy. Despite the fact that constant costs make up a substantial share of
capital investment, finding out spending variations at different sales growth is
difficult, making it difficult for management to assure final judgments and activities.
 Isn’t suitable for contrasting of items– Variable values, rather than absorbing
pricing, may well have been significantly more useful and successful in cases where
even a leader wants to integrate a maker's numerous income streams. This is owing
to the reality that tracking the produces higher of each product makes evaluating the
cost distinction between different items more simpler (Ghanem and Sulaiman,
2016).
Part 3
Question 4:
Answer to (a)
Estimations of Budgets and Variances:
Jayrod Plc
Statement of Original Budget, Flexed Budget, Actual Costs and Variances of PK65 Product Cost
Original Budget Flexed Budget Actual Cost Variance
Unit 10 000 9 000 9 000
£ £ £ £
Direct materials 600 000 540 000 579 500 39 500 A
Direct Labour 450 000 405 000 451 400 46 400 A
Variable Production 120 000 108 000 106 000 2 000 F
Overhead 200 000 200 000 202 000 2 000 A
Fixed Production Overhead
Total Cost 1,370 000 1,253 000 1,338 900 85 900 A

Original Budget
Direct materials= (Standard unit cost) x (Original budget’s production units)
=£60x10,000 units= £600,000
Direct labour= (Standard unit cost) x (Original budget’s production units)
=£45x10,000 units=£450,000
Variable production overheads= (Standard unit cost) x (Original budget’s production units)
= £12x10,000 units= £120,000
Fixed production overhead= £200,000
Actual Costs
Actual costs are as stated in the question, for the actual production of Product PK65
Workings
Flexed Budget
Direct materials = (Standard unit cost) x (Flexed Budget’s production units)
= £60x9,000=£540,000
Direct labour = (Standard unit cost) x (Flexed budget’s production units)
= £45x9,000=£405,000
Variable production overheads = (Standard unit cost) x (Flexed Budget’s production
units)

Variance
Variance = (Flexed budget costs) – (Actual costs)
Direct materials= (£540,000) – (£579,500) =£39,500 A
Direct labour = (£405,000) – (£451,400) = 46,400 A
Variable production overheads = (£108,000) – (£106,000) =£2000 F
Fixed production overhead= (£200,000) - (£202,000) =£2000 A
Material Price Variance= Actual Quantity x (Standard Price –Actual Price)
Material Usage Variance= Standard Price x (Standard Quantity –Actual Quantity)
Labour Rate Variance= Actual Hours x (Standard Rate –Actual Rate)
Labour Efficiency Variance= Standard Rate x (Standard Hours –Actual Hours)
Answer to (b)
The estimations of the component splits require the application of respective formula thus:
Estimation of Total Direct Materials Variance split into: (i) Direct Material Price Variance
and (ii) Direct Material Usage Variance
(i) Direct Material Price Variance= (Standard Price –Actual Price) x Actual Quantity
= (190, 000kg x £3 per/kg) – (£579,500Actual Cost) = (£570, 000) – (£579,500 Actual Cost)
= £9,500 A
(ii) Direct Material Usage Variance= Standard Price x (Standard Quantity –
Actual Quantity)
Here, SQ = 9,000 units x 20kg = 180, 000kg
Applying formula: SP (SQ –AQ) = £3 x (180, 000kg) – (190, 000kg) = £3x 10,000kg
= £30,000A

Direct Material Cost Variance= £39,500 A
(Direct Material Price Variance) and (Direct Material Usage Variance) =Total
Direct Material Variance
Check: (£9,500A) and (£30, 000A) = £39,500A (in our Table in Solution (a) above.
Equals
Direct Material Price Variance
=£9,500A
Direct Material Usage Variance
= £30,000A
The performance of the various component tier differences (£9,500A and £30,000A) give
answers to the queries, "Who really should be made responsible for the £39,500A overall direct
material variability?" and "Who really should be found responsible for the £39,500A overall
direct material variability?"
The raw commodities particular factor indicates the overall cost of products anticipated
expenditures that have been allowed based on the characteristics used.
Another aspect of raw elements is their usage; it was revealed that "excess input materials
usage" created unwanted variation, which had a negative effects on the financial direct positive
component variations (Giacomini, Sicilia and Steccolini, 2016).
Normally, the production facility leader is accountable for this simple capacity usage
disparity.
Calculation of Total Direct Labour Variance split into: (i) Direct Labour Rate Variance
and Direct Labour Efficiency Variance
Labour Rate Variance= Actual Hours x (Standard Rate –Actual Rate) =
or
Labour Rate Variance= (Standard Hour x Actual Hours) - (Actual Rate x Actual Hours)
Standard Rate (SR) = £15
Actual Hours (AH) = 30,500 hours
(SR x AH) – (AR x AH) = (£15x 30,500hours) -£451, 400
= (£457, 500) -£451, 400= £6,100F
Labour Efficiency Variance=Standard Rate x (Standard Hours –Actual Hours) =SR (SH –AH)
Standard Rate = £15

Direct Labour Cost Variance = £46,400 A
Standard Hours = (3hours x 9,000 units) = 27, 000 hours.
SR (SH –AH) = £15(27, 000 hours–30, 500 hours)
= £15 x30,500 hours = £52,500 A
(Direct Labour Rate Variance) and (Direct Labour Efficiency Variance) =Total Direct Labour
Variance
(£6,100F) and (£52,500A) = £46,400(in our Table in Solution (a) above.
Equals
Direct Labour Rate Variance
=£6,100 F
Direct Labour Efficiency Variance
= £52,500 A
The significant parts produced by the two fundamental keep splitting variations (£6,100F
and £52, 500A) address the query "Who really should be made responsibility for the negative
total immediate labour numerous changes of £46,400?"
The present and permitted working-hour expenses are determined by the direct labour
price variation.
The comparable difference in job growth contrasts the quantity of time that should have
been allowed for the overall grade to the quantity of time actually utilized. The discrepancy is
subsequently paid at the hourly rate that was decided on.
As a consequence, in the instance of Jayrod Plc, there appears to be a £52, 500 A
unfavourable labour efficiency disparities (Holzer and Schoenfeld, 2019).
Even though less time was spent than have been needed, the actual quantity of products
was decreased. If companies could've have functioned more swiftly, they could've have invested
more money.
When it comes to labour efficiency fluctuation, the output facility management is
responsible for the amount of hours it takes to produce a certain amount of goods.
Answer to (c)
Periodic costing is a cost-cutting technology that enables significantly more effective
advertising administration by examining deviations from genuine costs or actively planning. Its
purpose is to continuing to provide a means for creating strategic objectives and offering

evaluation, and also essential decision-making factors and a technique for addressing the
quantity of assets available for sale.
The normal price provides for the following:
 Regulate: This might be computed, and any inconsistencies in the findings and spending
may be investigated.
 Productivity measurement: Any differences between the baseline and true cost can be
utilized to evaluate the efficacy of expenditure section senior executives.
 Variants: Conventional expenditures are utilised to create socioeconomic component
records, but they're also required for monitoring and assessing variations that provide
management with 'input' on how far the company can go (Jermias, Gani and Juliana,
2018).
 To value stock: To evaluate goods, costing accountancy that utilizes a stock price
technique, is an alternative to LIFO and FIFO.
 Accountancy generalisation: It appears that the norm is the only cost (Kuurila, 2016).
The value and significance of variability analysis: The importance of variability analysis
and why it is necessary: Since management desires fewer variations from expected spending,
variation evaluation promotes good strategies. This leads to more accurate and forward-thinking
legislative changes (Mazarak and Fomina, 2016).
If labour efficiency variation is judged damaging, or gross resource cost variation in
acquisitions is considered bad, management could increase monitoring of these sections in an
effort to boost efficiency.
Variance analysis's drawbacks- Monetary results are being utilized to analyse variation
once a huge fraction has been accomplished. There may be an information gathering error that
would have an impact on the required remedial action. Moreover, because not all abnormalities
were appropriate for data gathering, effective variance assessment would have been hampered
(Roberts and Gnan, 2017).

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Borthick, A. F. and Pennington, R. R., 2017. When data become ubiquitous, what becomes of
accounting and assurance?. Journal of Information Systems. 31(3). pp.1-4.
Bühler, A., Wallenburg, C. M. and Wieland, A., 2016. Accounting for external turbulence of
logistics organizations via performance measurement systems. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal.
Chung, S. H. and Chen, K. C., 2016, July. The Relationships among Personality, Management
Accounting Information Systems, and Customer Relationship Quality. In 2016 5th IIAI
International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI) (pp. 759-763).
IEEE.
Daferighe, E. E., 2019. The Evolving Dimensions Of The Accounting Profession And The 21st
Century Expectations. Archives of Business Research. 7(5). pp.226-232.
Ejiogu, A. R. and Ejiogu, C., 2018. Translation in the “contact zone” between accounting and
human resource management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
Ghanem, N. and Sulaiman, S., 2016. Management accounting system, information quality and
organizational performance: evidence from Libya. Asia-Pacific Management
Accounting Journal (APMAJ). 11(2). pp.1-23.
Giacomini, D., Sicilia, M. and Steccolini, I., 2016. Contextualizing politicians’ uses of
accounting information: reassurance and ammunition. Public Money & Management.
36(7). pp.483-490.
Holzer, H. P. and Schoenfeld, H. M. eds., 2019. Managerial accounting and analysis in
multinational enterprises. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Jermias, J., Gani, L. and Juliana, C., 2018. Performance Implications of Misalignment Among
Business Strategy, Leadership Style, Organizational Culture and Management
Accounting Systems. Leadership Style, Organizational Culture and Management
Accounting Systems (January 9, 2018).
Kuurila, J., 2016. The role of big data in Finnish companies and the implications of big data on
management accounting.
Mazarak, A. and Fomina, O., 2016. Tools for management accounting. Economic Annals-XXI.
159(5-6). pp.48-51.
Roberts, H. and Gnan, L., 2017. Welcoming family business into the accounting family: an
introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management.