Impacts of contingency factors on the application of strategic management accounting in Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Note: Source: Suggested by authors

Table 1. Independent variables

Abbr.	Detail	Reference	Expected sign
SIZE	Organization size	Haldma and Lääts (2002), Abdel-Kader and Luther (2008), Cadez and Guilding (2008), Cinquini and Tenucci (2010), Chi (2021), Vu et al. (2022).	+
COMP	Competitive intensity	McManus (2013), Doan (2012), Pavlatos (2015), Kariuki and Kamau (2016), Bui et al. (2020), Chi (2021).	+
STRU	Organizational structure	N. Waweru (2008), Chenhall (2008), Tuan Mat (2010), Pavlatos (2015), T. M. Nguyen and Nguyen (2021), Huyen (2022).	+
TECH	Organization’s technology	Cadez and Guilding (2008), Kariuki and Kamau (2016), Pham et al. (2020), T. M. Nguyen and Nguyen (2021), Vu et al. (2022).	+
STRA	Business strategy	Cadez and Guilding (2008), Ojra (2014), Bui et al. (2020), Chi (2021), Vu et al. (2022).	+
INST	Perception of market instability	McManus (2013), Ojra (2014), Pavlatos (2015), Do (2022), Huyen (2022).	+

Source: Compiled by the authors

Table 2. Dependent variable

Abbr.	Detail	Reference
SMA	Apply strategic management accounting	Cadez and Guilding (2008), Ojra (2014).

Note: Source: Compiled by the authors

Table 3. Describe the characteristics of the respondents

Characteristics	Classification	Valid		Invalid
		Frequency	Percentage (%)	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Enterprise size	Small (less than 100 staffs)	111	28.1	22	48.9
	Medium (from 100 to less than 200 staffs)	134	33.9	15	33.3
	Large (over 200 staffs)	150	38.0	8	17.8
	Total	395	100	45	100
Workplace	Director	65	16.5	9	20.0
	Deputy director	85	21.5	8	17.8
	Chief accountant	110	27.8	12	26.7
	Accountant	135	34.2	16	35.6
	Total	395	100	45	100
Working time	Less than 5 years	72	18.2	17	37.8
	From 5 to less than 10 years	138	34.9	13	28.9
	From 10 to less than 20 years	125	31.6	10	22.2
	Over 20 years	60	15.2	5	11.1
	Total	395	100	45	100
Qualifications	Postgraduate level	85	21.5	12	26.7
	University degree	216	54.7	21	46.7
	College degree	94	23.8	12	26.7
	Total	395	100	45	100

Source: Survey results

Table 4. The results of testing the reliability of the Cronbach’s Alpha scale

Variables	Observable variables	Corrected Item-Total Correlation	Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted	Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient
SIZE	SIZE1	0.704	0.843	0.861
	SIZE2	0.777	0.784
	SIZE3	0.768	0.779
COMP	COMP1	0.653	0.804	0.838
	COMP2	0.557	0.823
	COMP3	0.532	0.828
	COMP4	0.575	0.820
	COMP5	0.685	0.798
	COMP6	0.691	0.796
INST	INST1	0.547	0.772	0.795
	INST2	0.564	0.765
	INST3	0.621	0.737
	INST4	0.694	0.698
TECH	TECH1	0.728	0.731	0.820
	TECH2	0.666	0.763
	TECH3	0.594	0.797
	TECH4	0.587	0.798
STRA	STRA1	0.637	0.594	0.748
	STRA2	0.521	0.723
	STRA3	0.572	0.669
STRU	STRU1	0.630	0.743	0.800
	STRU2	0.660	0.712
	STRU3	0.647	0.727
SMA	SMA1	0.524	0.920	0.921
	SMA2	0.696	0.913
	SMA3	0.564	0.919
	SMA4	0.628	0.918
	SMA5	0.678	0.914
	SMA6	0.828	0.906
	SMA7	0.677	0.915
	SMA8	0.791	0.908
	SMA9	0.635	0.916
	SMA10	0.755	0.910
	SMA11	0.811	0.908

Source: Research results

Table 5. The results of exploratory factor analysis of independent variables

	Component
	1	2	3	4	5	6
COMP5	0.800
COMP6	0.795
COMP1	0.778
COMP4	0.711
COMP2	0.699
COMP3	0.663
TECH1		0.868
TECH2		0.824
TECH4		0.760
TECH3		0.752
INST4			0.843
INST3			0.792
INST2			0.756
INST1			0.746
SIZE2				0.902
SIZE3				0.890
SIZE1				0.865
STRU2					0.834
STRU3					0.828
STRU1					0.827
STRA1						0.851
STRA3						0.812
STRA2						0.776
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.				KMO		0.747
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity				Sig.		0.000
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings				Eigenvalues		1.667
				Cumulative %		65.422

Note: Source: Research results

Table 6. The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the dependent variable

		Component
		1
SMA6		0.870
SMA11		0.859
SMA8		0.843
SMA10		0.809
SMA2		0.759
SMA5		0.743
SMA7		0.741
SMA9		0.699
SMA4		0.693
SMA3		0.629
SMA1		0.590
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.	KMO	0.926
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Sig.	0.000
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings	Eigenvalues	6.250
	Cumulative %	56.819

Note: Source: Research results

Table 7. Correlations

Variables	SIZE	COMP	INST	TECH	STRA	STRU	SMA
SIZE	1
COMP	−0.005	1
INST	0.060	−0.027	1
TECH	0.009	0.050	−0.076	1
STRA	−0.082	−0.008	−0.006	0.032	1
STRU	0.089	0.231**	−0.130**	0.167**	−0.013	1
SMA	0.259**	0.475**	0.235**	0.398**	0.150**	0.314**	1

Note: ** and * indicates significant at 1%, 5%.

Source: Research results

Table 8. Model Summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Durbin-Watson
1	0.744	0.554	0.547	0.39275	1.746

Note: Source: Research results

Table 9. Anova

Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	74.399	6	12.400	80.386	0.000
	Residual	59.851	388	0.154
	Total	134.250	394

Note: Source: Research results

Table 10. Coefficients^a

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	Collinearity Statistics
		B	Std. Error	Beta			Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	−1.970	0.303		−6.492	0.000
	SIZE	0.234	0.034	0.238	6.962	0.000	0.980	1.021
	COMP	0.292	0.024	0.427	12.245	0.000	0.946	1.057
	INST	0.338	0.041	0.284	8.258	0.000	0.975	1.026
	TECH	0.399	0.038	0.362	10.497	0.000	0.968	1.033
	STRA	0.156	0.032	0.166	4.867	0.000	0.992	1.008
	STRU	0.178	0.037	0.173	4.837	0.000	0.900	1.111

Note: a. Dependent Variable: SMA

Source: Research results

Table 11. The results of Harman’s single-factor test

Component	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	8.410	24.735	24.735	8.410	24.735	24.735
2	3.057	8.990	33.725	3.057	8.990	33.725
3	2.821	8.297	42.022	2.821	8.297	42.022
4	2.509	7.378	49.400	2.509	7.378	49.400
5	1.985	5.837	55.237	1.985	5.837	55.237
6	1.700	4.999	60.236	1.700	4.999	60.236
7	1.214	3.572	63.808	1.214	3.572	63.808

Note: Source: Research results

Table A1. Describe the variables

Variables	Observed variables	Description	Source
SIZE	SIZE1	The total turnover of your enterprises in the last financial year was relatively high.	Libby and Waterhouse (1996), Cadez and Guilding (2008), Cinquini and Tenucci (2010), Ojra (2014), Chi (2021), Vu et al. (2022).
	SIZE2	Your enterprise’s total number of employees per year is considerable.
	SIZE3	The total value of assets on your enterprise’s balance sheet in the last financial year was significant.
COMP	COMP1	Many promotions occur in our industry.	Doan (2012), Pavlatos (2015), Kariuki and Kamau (2016), Bui et al. (2020), Chi (2021).
	COMP2	Many enterprises in our manufacturing sector invest heavily in product promotion.
	COMP3	Enterprises in the manufacturing sector have high competition for market share.
	COMP4	The current business environment is threatening the survival of our enterprise.
	COMP5	Fierce price competition is threatening our enterprise.
	COMP6	The quality or novelty of our competitors’ products is threatening our enterprise.
INST	INST1	Sometimes our customers are very price sensitive.	Cadez and Guilding (2008), Cinquini and Tenucci (2010), Ojra (2014), Pavlatos (2015), Do (2022), Huyen (2022).
	INST2	We see a demand for our products from customers who have never purchased our products before.
	INST3	New customers tend to have a different product interest from existing customers.
	INST4	Our customers are always looking for new products.
TECH	TECH1	Technology is a critical element of an enterprise’s operating system.	Ojra (2014), Kariuki and Kamau (2016), Pham et al. (2020), T. M. Nguyen and Nguyen (2021), Vu et al. (2022).
	TECH2	Technology-based enterprise production techniques.
	TECH3	Computer-based accounting information system.
	TECH4	Our enterprises invest in software packages to support their accounting systems and other operations.
STRA	STRA1	The degree of change of the enterprise’s list of products/services delivers to the market over time.	Guilding (1999), Cadez and Guilding (2008), Cinquini and Tenucci (2010), Bui et al. (2020), Chi (2021), Vu et al. (2022).
	STRA2	The pioneering role of enterprises in developing new products/services or new markets in enterprises in the same industry/field in the same field.
	STRA3	Enterprise reaction capabilities for the first signals about the needs or opportunities of the market.
STRU	STRU1	Small issues in the enterprise must be brought to the upper management for the final decision.	N. Waweru (2008), Chenhall (2008), Tuan Mat (2010), Pavlatos (2015), T. M. Nguyen and Nguyen (2021), Huyen (2022).
	STRU2	Any important decisions made by employees must be approved by senior management
	STRU3	Employees cannot make their own decisions without authorization.
SMA	SMA1	Attribute costing	Cadez and Guilding (2008); Ojra (2014).
	SMA2	Life-cycle costing
	SMA3	Target costing
	SMA4	Value-chain costing
	SMA5	Customer profitability analysis
	SMA6	Valuation of customers as assets
	SMA7	Competitor cost assessment
	SMA8	Strategic costing
	SMA9	Strategic pricing
	SMA10	Brand valuation
	SMA11	Benchmarking

Note: Source: Compiled by the authors

Haldma, T., & Lääts, K. (2002). Contingencies influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing companies. Management Accounting Research, 13(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.2002.0197

 Google Scholar

Abdel-Kader, M., & Luther, R. (2008). The impact of firm characteristics on management accounting practices: A UK-based empirical analysis. The British Accounting Review, 40(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2007.11.003

 Google Scholar

Cadez, S., & Guilding, C. (2008). An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 33(7–8), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.01.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cinquini, L., & Tenucci, A. (2010). Strategic management accounting and business strategy: A loose coupling? Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 6(2), 228–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/18325911011048772

 Google Scholar

Chi, v. t. q. (2021). study in the factors affecting the application of Strategic Management Accounting (SMA) and impacts on the operating accomplishments in the manufacturing enterprises in bac kan province, Vietnam. The International Journal of Business & Management, 9(1), 280–259. https://doi.org/10.24940/theijbm/2021/v9/i1/BM2101-063

 Google Scholar

Vu, T. K. A., Dam, B. H., & Ha, T. T. V. (2022). Factors affecting the application of strategy management accounting in Vietnamese logistics enterprises. Journal of Distribution Science, 20(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.20.01.202201.27

 Google Scholar

McManus, L. (2013). Customer accounting and marketing performance measures in the hotel industry: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.07.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Doan, N. P. A. (2012). Factors affecting strategic management accounting in Vietnam’s medium and large sized enterprises. Journal of Economic Development, 214(10), 81–90.

 Google Scholar

Pavlatos, O. (2015). An empirical investigation of strategic management accounting in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(5), 756–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2013-0582

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kariuki, S. N., & Kamau, C. G. (2016). Organizational contingencies influencing the adoption of strategic management accounting practices among manufacturing firms in Kenya. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 5(4), 167–182.

 Google Scholar

Bui, T. T. Q., Pham, M., Huynh, T. X. T., & Pham, B. (2020). Effect of applying strategic management accounting on the operational performance of manufacturing enterprises in vietnam. International Journal of Science and Research, 9(12), 1254–1259. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v9i12/SR201214225453.pdf

 Google Scholar

Waweru, N. (2008). Predicting change in management accounting systems: The effects of competitive strategy. Global Journal of Business Research, 2(1), 25–41. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1543441

 Google Scholar

Chenhall, R. H. (2008). Accounting for the horizontal organization: A review essay. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4–5), 517–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2007.07.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tuan Mat, T. (2010). Management accounting and organizational change: impact of alignment of management accounting system, structure and strategy on performance. Ph.D thesis. Edith Cowan University, Perth Western Australia. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=theses

 Google Scholar

Nguyen, T. M., & Nguyen, T. T. (2021). The application of strategic management accounting: Evidence from the consumer goods industry in Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics & Business, 8(10), 139–146. https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO202127335615024.pdf

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huyen, C. T. (2022). Factors affecting the application of strategic management accounting in enterprises. Turkish Journal of Computer & Mathematics Education, 13(2), 1111–1124. https://turcomat.org/index.php/turkbilmat/article/view/12712/9164

 Google Scholar

Pham, D. H., Dao, T. H., & Bui, T. D. (2020). The Impact of contingency factors on management accounting practices in Vietnam. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics & Business, 7(8), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.077

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ojra, J. (2014). Strategic management accounting practices in Palestinian companies: application of contingency theory perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/29107927.pdf

 Google Scholar

Do, T. T. T. (2022). Factors affecting the application of Strategic management accounting in enterprises listed on the stock market in Vietnam. Journal of Science and Technology, 58(4), 68–77. https://do.org/10.jst.iuh.edu.vn/index.php/jst/iuh/article/view/4498/668

 Google Scholar

Libby, T., & Waterhouse, J. H. (1996). Predicting change in management accounting systems. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 8, 137–150.

 Google Scholar

Guilding, C. (1999). Competitor-focused accounting: An exploratory note. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 24(7), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00007-0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar