The impact of institutions on management accounting changes at the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670 to 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Aims to examine the four different management accounting systems or sets that existed at the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) during the 1670‐2005 period with Burns and Scapens' institution‐based framework of management accounting change. Design/methodology/approach A case study was used with comprehensive archival evidence coming mainly from the Hudson's Bay Company Archives (HBCA) and the HBC's private archive for 1670‐1970 and from interviews with retired and existing senior managers at the HBC for 1970‐2005. Findings The findings indicated that Burns and Scapens' framework was helpful. Institutions did prevent management accounting changes, even when seriously needed. Under certain conditions, institutions do not resist management accounting changes. Six suggestions are provided for extending and refining Burns and Scapens framework. Research limitations/implications Although the 325 years of evidence was uniquely rich, it was still a case study of a single firm. Practical implications Management accounting is slow to change because of institutions. Originality/value Management accounting change is very much path‐dependent. Changes occur in management accounting because of major external changes such as competition and modernization. Also, management accounting changes come from the introduction of taken‐for‐granted external techniques such as budgeting, capital budgeting, and planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".