The Impact of Society on Management Control Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The overall purpose of this paper is to validate and to further elaborate the conceptual framework of MCS suggested by Whitley (1999a). Because institutional factors differ between societies and because business systems and MCSs are embedded in societies we should expect that design and use of MCS vary between societies. This idea opposes with the structural contingency theory where universally valid contingency factors are postured. Two null hypotheses are formulated and tested; 1) The levels of contingencies do not differ between societies and 2) The effects of contingencies on MCS do not differ between societies. Data derive from a cross‐national survey encompassing 757 firms from 10 countries (eight European nations, Canada, Australia). Results indicate that contingencies vary between societies and, more significant, effects of contingencies on MCS also vary between societies. This study contributes to accounting literature in three ways. First, it brings quantitative support to Whitley’s (1999a) theory about MCS as integrated parts of societal business systems. Second, it offers possible explanations to inconsistences in prior research and it also suggests the inclusion of institutional factors as control variables in future research. Finally, it problematizes contemporary knowledge about MCS as it suggests the universal validity of mid‐range theories where a structural contingency framework has been adopted. Most empirical studies have been based on data collected in Anglo‐Saxon economies and findings may be bounded to these societies. Authors: Jan Greve; Co-authors: Christian Ax; Johan Dergård; Tobias Johansson; Carsten Rohde; Torkel Strömsten; Jeanette Willert; Rolf Brühl; David Bedford; Angelo Ditillo; Andrea Dossi; Maurice Gosselin; Michael Hanzlick; Sophie Hoozee; Poul Israelsen; Otto Janschek; Daniel Johanson; Dag Oivind Madsen; Teemu Malmi; Mikko Sandelin; Thomas Toldbod.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".