Factors affecting the application of balanced scorecard to enhance operational efficiency of listed companies: The case of Vietnam

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

(Source by Authors)

Table 1. Summary table of observed variables of research factors

No.	Factors	Code	Observed variables (or items)	References
1	Organizational size (QM)	QM1	Great total revenue	Hoque and James (2000), Hendricks et al. (2004), Koske and Muturi (2015), Giang (2017), Ha (2019)
		QM2	Great total assets
		QM3	Large number of employees
		QM4	Great products and services
		QM5	Businesses have the opportunity to grow and develop
2	Organizational culture (VH)	VH1	There is support from administrators for employees	Erserim (2012), Rababah and Bataineh (2016), Hung (2016), Nhi and Toan (2018)
		VH2	There is mutual support from employees in departments
		VH3	There is consensus on common development goals
3	Manager’s awareness (NT)	NT1	Managers highly appreciate the usefulness of BSC	Tanyi (2011), Northcott and Taulapapa (2012), Islam et al. (2014), Hung (2016), Giang (2017), Nhi and Toan (2018)
		NT2	Managers have an understanding of BSC
		NT3	Managers have a high demand for BSC application
		NT4	Managers accept high fees when organizations apply BSC
4	Accountant’s capabilities (TD)	TD1	Highly qualified accountant	Hung (2016), Giang (2017), Nhi and Toan (2018)
		TD2	Accountants have knowledge of management accounting in general and BSC in particular
		TD3	Accountants actively participate in advanced training classes
		TD4	Accountants with professional accounting certificates
		TD5	Accountants have the ability to advise businesses on accounting-related issues
5	Cost of using BSC (CP)	CP1	Enterprises analyze the costs and benefits of applying BSC	Koske and Muturi (2015), Giang (2017), Ha (2019)
		CP2	Enterprises use non-financial measures to assess the feasibility of applying BSC
		CP3	Low cost of BSC transfer training
		CP4	Low cost of technology investment for organizing BSC
		CP5	Low cost of consulting from organizations/experts on organizing BSC
6	Benefits of using BSC (LI)	LI1	BSC strengthens the competitiveness of businesses	Islam et al. (2014), Koske and Muturi (2015), Ha (2019)
		LI2	BSC is an effective tool in communication and decision making
		LI3	BSC is perceived to improve service delivery through the customer’s point of view
7	BSC Application (VD)	VD1	BSC effectively supports businesses in assessing financial performance	Tanyi (2011), Islam et al. (2014), Koske and Muturi (2015)
		VD2	BSC supports businesses in perfecting and improving internal processes
		VD3	BSC supports businesses to improve human resources through the aspect of learning and development
		VD4	BSC effectively supports businesses in terms of customers
8	Operational efficiency (HQ)	HQ1	Increasing in return on investment (ROI)	Hoque and James (2000), Koske and Muturi (2015)
		HQ2	Increasing in return on sales (ROS)
		HQ3	Increasing in asset utilization capacity
		HQ4	Increasing in customer satisfaction
		HQ5	Increasing in product quality

Source by Authors

Table 2. Demographic information of respondents

Age range	N	%	Position	N	%
< 26	52	19%	Consultants	46	16.8%
26–35	122	44.5%	Board of management	27	9.9%
36–45	81	29.6%	Head of department	98	35.8%
> 45	19	6.9%	Staff	103	37.6%
Total	274	100%	Total	274	100%
Education	N	%	Work experience	N	%
College	18	6.6%	Under 5 years	57	20.8%
University	197	71.9%	5–10 years	117	42.7%
Postgraduate	59	21.5%	10–20 years	71	25.9%
			Over 20 years	29	10.6%
Total	274	100%	Total	274	100%
Stock Exchange	N	%	Business field	N	%
HNX	160	58.4%	Commercial	50	18.2%
HOSE	114	41.6%	Service	62	22.6%
			Manufacturing	162	59.2%
Total	274	100%	Total	274	100%

(Results from SPSS tool)

Table 3. Results of Cronbach’s Alpha test

Factors	Number of observations	Number of valid observations	Cronbach’s Alpha	Corrected Item-Total Correlation (Min)
Organizational Size (QM)	5	5	0.892	0.677
Organizational Culture (VH)	3	3	0.829	0.641
Manager’s Awareness (NT)	4	4	0.900	0.763
Accountant’s Capabilities (TD)	5	5	0.857	0.646
Cost of using BSC (CP)	5	5	0.866	0.628
Benefits of using BSC (LI)	3	3	0.861	0.721
BSC Application (VD)	4	4	0.861	0.681
Operational Efficiency (HQ)	5	5	0.898	0.715

(Results from SPSS tool)

Table 4. Rotated component matrix

	Factors
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
QM3	0.892
QM2	0.850
QM1	0.820
QM4	0.770
QM5	0.720
HQ5		0.892
HQ4		0.847
HQ1		0.785
HQ3		0.721
HQ2		0.702
CP2			0.856
CP1			0.789
CP5			0.744
CP4			0.710
CP3			0.689
TD5				0.799
TD3				0.744
TD2				0.718
TD1				0.709
TD4				0.701
NT4					0.872
NT3					0.839
NT1					0.821
NT2					0.772
LI3						0.844
LI1						0.835
LI2						0.794
VH1							0.839
VH2							0.834
VH3							0.696
VD4								0.903
VD2								0.716
VD1								0.692
VD3								0.632
Total Variance Explained (%)	27.365	35.320	42.368	47.946	53.148	57.777	61.115	63.555
Eigenvalues	9.659	3.055	2.792	2.225	2.116	1.930	1.483	1.195
KMO coefficient: 0.890	Bartlett’s Test sig: 0.000

Results from SPSS tool

Table 5. Composite reliability and average variance extracted

Factor	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Organizational size (QM)	0.903	0.654
Organizational culture (VH)	0.831	0.623
Manager’s awareness (NT)	0.900	0.691
Accountant’s capabilities (TD)	0.857	0.546
Cost of using BSC (CP)	0.870	0.574
Benefits of using BSC (LI)	0.863	0.677
BSC application (VD)	0.861	0.608
Operational Efficiency (HQ)	0.898	0.639

Results from AMOS tool

Figure 2. Structural equation modeling (SEM).

Table 6. Results from SEM model

Relationship		Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	Sig.	Standardized Estimate
VD	←	QM	0.327	0.068	4.814	***	0.270
VD	←	VH	0.176	0.064	2.741	0.006	0.169
VD	←	NT	0.215	0.052	4.174	***	0.268
VD	←	TD	0.259	0.059	4.405	***	0.260
VD	←	CP	0.133	0.061	2.185	0.029	0.126
VD	←	LI	0.110	0.051	2.157	0.031	0.118
HQ	←	VD	0.605	0.083	7.256	***	0.513

*** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

(Results from AMOS tool)

Table 7. Summary of research results

Factor	Impact level	Correlation	Impact order
Impact on the BSC Application
Organizational size (QM)	0.270	+	1
Organizational culture (VH)	0.169	+	4
Manager’s awareness (NT)	0.268	+	2
Accountant’s capabilities (TD)	0.260	+	3
Cost of using BSC (CP)	0.126	+	5
Benefits of using BSC (LI)	0.118	+	6
Impact on the Operational Efficiency
BSC Application (VD)	0.513	+

(Source by Authors)

Hoque, Z., & James, W. (2000). Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.1

 Google Scholar

Hendricks, K., Menor, L., & Wiedman, C. (2004). Adoption of the balanced scorecard: A contingency variables analysis. Ontario: Richard Ivey Business School. University of Western Ontario. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10 .1.1.503.806&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 Google Scholar

Koske, C. C., & Muturi, W. (2015). Factors affecting application of BSC: A case study of nongovernmental organizations in Eldoret, Kenya. Journal of Management, 2(2), 1868–1898. https://strategicjournals.com/index.php/journal/article/view/193/208

 Google Scholar

Giang, N. T. P. (2017). Các nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến việc vận dụng bảng điểm cân bằng (BSC - Balanced ScoreCard) trong các công ty niêm yết tại thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. (Master’s thesis, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City). https://digital.lib.ueh.edu.vn/handle/UEH/56697

 Google Scholar

Ha, T. L. N. (2019). Các nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến việc vận dụng bảng điểm cân bằng (BSC - Balanced ScoreCard) đối với các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa tại thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. (Master’s thesis, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City). https://digital.lib.ueh.edu.vn/handle/UEH/59316

 Google Scholar

Erserim, A. (2012). The impacts of organizational culture, firm’s characteristics and external environment of firms on management accounting practices: An empirical research on industrial firms in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 372–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.059

 Google Scholar

Rababah, A., & Bataineh, A. (2016). Factors influencing balanced scorecard implementation. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 7(2), 204–212. https://portal.arid.my/Publications/ff52ee2e-12f2-40.pdf

 Google Scholar

Hung, T. N. (2016). Các nhân tố tác động đến việc vận dụng kế toán quản trị trong các doanh nghiệp nhỏ và vừa tại Việt Nam. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City). https://digital.lib.ueh.edu.vn/handle/UEH/55618

 Google Scholar

Nhi, V. V., & Toan, P. N. (2018). Factors influencing to the application of balanced scorecard among listed companies in Ho Chi Minh city. The 5th IBSM International Conference on Business, Management and Accounting, pp. 19–21 April. Hanoi University of Industry, Vietnam. http://www.caal-inteduorg.com/proceedings/ibsm5/AACT8-52.pdf

 Google Scholar

Tanyi, E. (2011). Factors influencing the use of Balanced Scorecard. ( Unpublished MAS Thesis, Hanken School of Economics). https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/26702/tanyi.pdf

 Google Scholar

Northcott, D., & Taulapapa, T. M. A. (2012). Using the balanced scorecard to manage performance in public sector organizations: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(3), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551211224234

 Google Scholar

Islam, M., Yang, Y. F., Hu, Y. J., & Hsu, C. S. (2014). Factors affecting balanced scorecard usage. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 17(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2014.064125

 Google Scholar