A strategic performance measurement system (SPMS) enables firms to translate strategies, objectives and targets into an integrated set of financial and non-financial measures covering a range of perspectives. The purpose of this study is to investigate the determinants of SPMS disclosures by examining whether significant relationships exist between voluntary SPMS disclosure practice and various corporate characteristics including profitability, age, size and industry. It also aims to explore whether uncertainty in the business environment arising from the onset of the global financial crisis may affect disclosure decisions. Content analysis of publicly available data is conducted focusing on the Top 100 publicly listed firms in Australia. Logistic regressions are used to test the hypotheses developed based on the predictions from voluntary disclosure and socio-political theories. The results show that firm age, size and industry prominence are significantly related to SPMS disclosures. However, the suggestion that business uncertainty may affect SPMS disclosures is not supported.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArandaC. and ArellanoJ. (2010), ‘Strategic performance measurement systems and managers' understanding of the strategy: A field research in a financial institution’, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 330–358.
2.
BewleyK. and LiY. (2000), ‘Disclosure of environmental information by Canadian manufacturing companies: A voluntary disclosure perspective’, Advances in Environmental Accounting and Management, Vol. 1, pp. 201–226.
3.
BisbeJ. and MalaguenoR. (2012), ‘Using strategic performance measurement systems for strategy formulation: Does it work in dynamic environment?’, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 23, pp. 296–311.
4.
BourneM.MillsJ.WilcoxM.NeelyA. and PlattsK. (2000), ‘Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 754–771.
5.
ChenhallR. (2005), ‘Integrative strategic performance measurement systems, strategic alignment of manufacturing, learning and strategic outcomes: An exploratory study’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 395–422.
6.
ClarksonP. M.LiYRichardsonG. D. and VasvariF. P. (2008), ‘Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, Issue 4, pp. 303–327.
7.
CrabtreeA. D. and DeBuskG. K. (2008), The effects of adopting the balanced scorecard on shareholder returns, Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International Accounting, Vol. 24, Issue 1, pp. 8–15.
8.
DavisS. and AlbrightT. (2004), ‘An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecard implementation on financial performance’, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15, pp. 135–153.
9.
De GeuserF., MoorajS. and OyonD. (2009), ‘Does the balance scorecard add value? Empirical evidence on its effect on performance’, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 93–122.
10.
DeardenJ. (1969), ‘The Case against ROI Control’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 124–135.
11.
DebuskG. K. and CrabtreeA. D. (2006), ‘Does the balanced scorecard improve performance?’, Management Accounting Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 44–48.
12.
DeeganC.RankinM. and TobinJ. (2002), ‘An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A test of legitimacy’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 312–343.
13.
DyeR. A. (1985), ‘Disclosure of non-proprietary information’, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 23, Spring, pp. 123–145.
14.
EcclesR.HerzR.KeeganE. and PhillipsD. (2001), The Value Reporting Revolution: Moving Beyond the Earnings Game, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
Elijido-TenE. O. (2008), ‘The case for reporting pro-active environmental initiatives: A Malaysian experiment on stakeholder influence stategies’, Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 36–60.
16.
Elijido-TenE. O. (2009), ‘Can stakeholder theory add to our understanding of Malaysian environmental reporting attitudes?’, Malaysian Accounting Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 85–110.
17.
Elijido-TenE. O. and TjanY. (2012), Strategic Performance Measurement System and Sustainability Commitment: Evidence from Australia's Top 100 Listed Firms, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
18.
FiggeF.HahnT.SchalteggerS. and WagnerM. (2002), ‘The sustainability balanced scorecard – linking sustainability management to business strategy’, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 11, Issue 5, pp. 269–284.
19.
FisherJ. (1995a), ‘Use of non-financial performance measures’, in: YoungS. M. (ed.), Readings in Management Accounting, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 329–335,
20.
FisherJ. (1995b), ‘Contingency-based research on management control systems: categorization by level of complexity’, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 14, pp. 24–53.
21.
FreedmanM. and JaggiB. (1996) ‘Association between environmental performance and environmental disclosures: An assessment’, Advances in Accounting, Vol. 14,p. 161.
22.
GarengoP.BiazzoS. and BititciU. S. (2005), ‘Performance measurement systems in SMEs: a review for a research agenda’. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 7, No, 1, pp. 25–47.
23.
GatesS. (1999), Aligning Strategic Performance Measures and Results, New York, NY: The Conference Board.
24.
GimbertX.BisbeJ. and MendozaX. (2010), ‘The role of performance measurement systems in strategy formulation processes’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 477–497.
25.
GrayRKouhyR. and LaversS. (1995), ‘Corporate social and environmental reporting’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 47–77.
26.
GrayR.KouhyR. and LaversS. (1995b), ‘Methodological themes: Constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK Companies’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 78–101.
27.
HabibA. (2010), ‘Value relevance of alternative accounting performance measures: Australian evidence’, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 190–212.
28.
HairJ. FJr, AndersonR. E., TathamR. L. and BlackW. C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edn.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
29.
HealyP. M. and PalepuK. G. (2001), ‘Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: A review of the empirical disclosure literature’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 31, No. 1–3, pp. 405–440.
30.
HoqueZ. and JamesW. (2000), ‘Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on organizational performance’, Journal of Management Accounting Research, Vol. 12, pp. 1–17.
31.
HsiehH.-F. and ShannonS. E. (2005), ‘Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1277–1288.
32.
HughesK. E. (2000), ‘The value relevance of nonfinancial measures of air pollution in the electric utility industry’, The Accounting Review, Vol. 75, Issue 2, April, pp. 209–228.
33.
IselinE. R.MiaL. and SandsJ. (2008), ‘The effects of the balanced scorecard on performance: The impact of the alignment of the strategic goals and performance reporting’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 71–85.
34.
IttnerC.LarckerD. F. and RandallT. (2003), ‘Performance implications of strategic performance measurement in financial services firms’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28, No. 7/8, pp. 715–741.
35.
IttnerC. and LarckerD. (2001), ‘Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: a value-based management perspective’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 349–410.
36.
JohnsonH. T. and KaplanR. S. (1987), Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
37.
KaplanR. S. and NortonD. P. (1992), The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 71–79.
38.
KaplanR. S. and NortonD. P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
39.
KaplanR. S. and NortonD. P. (2000), The Strategy – Focused Organization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
40.
KaplanR. S. and NortonD. P. (2004), Strategy Maps, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
41.
KleinbaumD. G. and KleinM. (2010), Logistic Regression: A Self-learning Text (3rd edn.), New York: Springer Science Business Media.
42.
KPMG (2008), KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008, USA: KPMG International.
43.
Langfield-SmithKThorneH. and HiltonR. W. (2012), Management Accounting: Information for Creating and Managing Value (6th edn.), Sydney, NSW: McGraw Hill Australia, Pty Ltd.
44.
LegendreS. and CoderreF. (2013), ‘Determinants of GRI G3 application levels: The case of the Fortune Global 500’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 20, pp. 182–192.
45.
LiY.RichardsonG. D. and ThorntonD. (1997), ‘Corporate disclosure of environmental information: theory and evidence’, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 435–474.
46.
LindblomC. (1994), The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance disclosure, Paper presented at the Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York.
47.
LiuX. and AnbumozhiV. (2009), ‘Determinant factors of corporate environmental information disclosure: An empirical study of Chinese listed companies’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 593–600.
48.
LynchR. L. and CrossK. F. (1991), Measure Up: Yardsticks from Continuous Improvement, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
49.
MilgromP. and RobertsJ. (1992), Economics, Organization and Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50.
NeelyA.AdamsC.KennerlyM. (2002), The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Stakeholder Relationships, London: Prentice Hall.
51.
O'DonovanG. (2002), ‘Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 344–371.
52.
PattenD. M. (2002), ‘The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note’, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 27, Issue 8, pp. 763–773.
53.
RigbyD. and BilodeauB. (2011), Management Tools and Trends 2011, Bain and Company.
54.
RobertsR. W. (1992), ‘Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 595–612.
55.
TabachnickB. G. and FidellL. S. (2001), Using Multivariate Statistics (4th edn.), Pearson Education, Needham Heights, MA.
56.
VerrecchiaR. (1983), ‘Discretionary disclosure’, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 179–194.
57.
WisemanJ. (1982), ‘An evaluation of environmental disclosures made in corporate annual reports’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 53–63.
58.
YuL.PereraS. and CroweS. (2008), ‘Effectiveness of the balanced scorecard: The impact of strategy and causal links’, Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 37–55.
59.
ZhangY. and WildemuthM. B. (2009), ‘Qualitative analysis of content’, in: WildemuthB. M. (ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science, Westport: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 308–319.
