When the supply side of a management accounting innovation fails – the case of beyond budgeting in Sweden

Abstract

Using the management fashion perspective as a theoretical lens, we explicate the limited success of the beyond budgeting (BB) concept in Sweden from a supply-side perspective. The fashion perspective assumes that management concepts do not emerge or diffuse by popular demand, instead viewing the activities of supply-side actors, such as management consultants, professional associations, and academics, as crucial to the success of management concepts in a marketplace of potential users. We conceptualize a management fashion-setting process that enabled us to explore how and why actors have selected or rejected BB, how and why BB has been processed, the channels through which BB has been disseminated, and how and why supply-side actors interact (or do not interact) with other supply-side actors and other parties in these activities. Our findings suggest that a weakly mobilized supply side has produced heavily reduced, heterogeneous packages of rhetoric and design characteristics regarding the BB concept that have reached only a small portion of the target audience of potential adopters. Our study illustrates how barriers to diffusion are created on the supply side in the absence of the localization of BB.

Keywords:

• management accounting
• beyond budgeting
• management fashions
• diffusion

1. Introduction

The successful introduction of several management accounting innovations (MAIs) in recent decades has had a profound impact on research in the field. Extant research has accumulated an impressive body of knowledge about the adoption, implementation, use, and performance effects of globally successful MAIs, primarily activity-based costing/management (ABC/M) and the balanced scorecard (BSC) (see Gosselin (2007), Zawawi and Hoque (2010), Hoque (2014) for literature overviews). Others have explored the supply-side contribution to the diffusion process, focusing on the work of innovators and other actors, such as management consultants, professional associations, and regulators, in creating, promoting, and institutionalizing MAIs in various contexts (e.g. Jones and Dugdale 2002, Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Chiwamit et al. 2014, Hayne and Free 2014, Cooper et al. 2017, Chiwamit et al. 2017, Gibassier 2017, Modell and Yang 2018, Becker et al. 2020). In this paper we focus on the latter perspective on MAIs. Specifically, using the management fashion perspective (Abrahamson 1996a) as a theoretical lens, we sought to understand the limited success of the beyond budgeting (BB) concept in Sweden from a supply-side perspective.

The current study was originally motivated by the observation that the beyond budgeting (BB) concept appears to have had only limited success in our local context – Sweden. There has been relatively little activity among supply-side actors to promote and diffuse BB (or other non-traditional budgeting formats) to the user side and, at least in part as a result of this inactivity, there is little empirical support for the interest in and uptake of new or the abandonment of conventional budgeting ideas in Swedish business practice (e.g. Arwidi and Jönsson 2010, Greve and Dergård 2017, Greve et al. 2017). From a supply-side perspective, the abovementioned findings are puzzling, for at least two reasons.

First, the BB concept was promoted globally by influential actors who were similar in stature to those who have promoted other globally successful MAIs. In particular, ABC/M and the BSC have been successful in Sweden and have evolved from being regarded as management fashions into institutionalized management accounting concepts (Ask et al. 1996, Olve and Petri 2004, Ax and Bjørnenak, 2005, Madsen and Slåtten 2013). It is therefore reasonable to expect that the previous successes of this configuration of global actors would motivate the Swedish supply-side arena to notice and embrace BB. Noteworthy global BB actors include the recognized creators of the concept, the Harvard Business School Press (which published the Hope and Fraser (2003) book on the BB concept), business magazines/journals such as the Harvard Business Review, the California Management Review, and Management Accounting, and international networks or organizations – the Beyond Budgeting Roundtable (BBRT) and the Consortium for Advanced Manufacturing International (CAM-I) – with members representing, for example, the creators of BB and their associates, early adopters, success story cases, professional associations, academics, and consultancy firms. Second, the general idea of managing without budgets has developed a positive reputation in Sweden. This idea is linked primarily to the Svenska Handelsbanken success story and Jan Wallander’s excellent reputation as a business leader and author of publications about the non-budget system at the bank (Wallander 1994).¹ As Svenska Handelsbanken is an essential case in BB rhetoric (Hope and Fraser 2003, 2004; in 2004 the book was published in Swedish) it is thought that favorable conditions exist for the successful introduction of the concept in Sweden, as BB proponents can ‘ride the wave’ of the bank’s and Wallander’s reputation.

In light of the fact that the Swedish supply-side arena has previously successfully introduced and disseminated globally traveling MAIs, the failure in this case of the supply side to successfully introduce BB is a puzzling observation that deserves attention that will produce a better understanding of the internal functioning of the supply-side arena. One perspective which directly highlights the active role of the supply-side arena in diffusion processes is the management fashion perspective (Abrahamson 1996a). It has, however, been largely overlooked in management accounting research (with a few exceptions, e.g. Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Madsen and Slåtten 2013), yet it illuminates important aspects of the supply of management concepts. In general terms, this perspective illuminates how management concepts emerge and spread through the dynamic interplay between suppliers and users of those concepts, focusing on both the arena that produces and spreads management concepts and the behavioral reasons for which managers choose to implement the concepts. The fashion perspective describes these processes and behaviors by reference to the notion of a market and highlights the internal functioning of the market and the various actors involved.

The fashion literature assumes that management concepts do not emerge or diffuse by popular demand, instead viewing the activities of supply-side actors as crucial to the success of management concepts in a marketplace of potential users. The work performed by supply-side actors in accomplishing this is conceptualized in a management fashion-setting process (Abrahamson 1996a). Because fashion-setting is a collective social process and its outcome the result of the joint accomplishments of actors in the supply-side arena, examining how such considerations and decisions were made by influential supply-side actors and played out in practice may provide insights into how the evolution and outcome of the management fashion-setting process have contributed to the limited diffusion of the BB concept in the Swedish context.

By addressing this issue, we respond to several calls in the literature for research that broadens the scope of research on supply-side operations. Although the management fashion perspective represents the principal framework focusing on the work of the supply side in business research (Birkinshaw et al. 2008), scholars have highlighted that prior research has been limited to examining the dissemination phase of the management fashion-setting process and the work of only a few categories of supply-side actors, mainly management consultants. Calls have therefore been made for research examining the early phases of the fashion-setting process – i.e. the creation phase, the selection/rejection phase, and the processing phase – and a wider range of supply-side actors involved in the management fashion community (e.g. Malmi 1999, Benders and van Bijstervald 2000, Clark 2004, Perkmann and Spicer 2008, Roberts 2010, Heusinkveld et al. 2013).

Our study also responds to calls in the literature for more research on management concepts that do not diffuse successfully or become permanent (Strang and Soule 1998, Sturdy 2004, van Veen et al. 2011, Heusinkveld et al. 2013, Piazza and Abrahamson 2020). Prior management fashion research has exhibited strong selection bias focusing research on successful management concepts while virtually ignoring concepts that fail to do so. Research on concepts that fail can potentially advance our understanding of issues such as why the fashion-setting process breaks down and what happens when it does (Piazza and Abrahamson 2020) and the processes through which management concepts fail to become widely disseminated, with attention to ‘the partly random, chance, unplanned and ultimately unpredictable nature of such processes’ (Sturdy 2004, p. 171). Such research may also draw ‘attention to unnoticed variations and deviations [from the fashion perspectives starting assumptions and framework] and the process through which this occurs’ (van Veen et al. 2011, p. 150), and enhance our knowledge of management concepts that succeed (Strang and Soule 1998).

Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion and the identified gaps in the literature, this study addresses the following empirical research question: How have the considerations, decision-making, actions, and interactions of supply-side actors over the phases of the management fashion-setting process contributed to limiting the success of the BB concept in Swedish business practice? In particular, we investigate how and why supply-side actors have selected or rejected BB, how and why BB has been processed, the channels through which BB has been disseminated, and how and why supply-side actors interact (or do not interact) with other supply-side actors and other parties in the course of these activities. Key supply-side actors in the Swedish market are identified and interviewed regarding their participation in the management fashion-setting process. We believe this coverage of key supply-side actors is a strength of this study and is also essential to enhancing our understanding of not only individual key actors’ activities but also of the joint accomplishments of actors in the supply-side arena.

The current study makes three main contributions to the literature (these are discussed in greater detail in Section 5). First, it provides the first direct evidence of decision-making as well as the actions of and interplay between influential supply-side actors over the phases of the management fashion-setting process when a globally traveling MAI enters a local context. Second, the study extends the literature by providing a complementary picture of essential assumptions and elements of the dominant model of the management fashion-setting process which provides a more nuanced understanding of the internal functioning and outcomes of this processes. Finally, the findings contribute to the on-going debate over the relevance of budgeting, specifically the BB and non-budgeting debate.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we present the BB concept, our theoretical foundation, and the studýs framework, which guides our empirical investigation. Section 3 addresses the research method. Section 4 presents our empirical results. In the final section we discuss the findings, present the research contributions, and provide suggestions for future research.

2. Framework

In this section we describe the BB concept, present the study’s theoretical underpinnings, and lay out the framework that guides our empirical investigation. We begin by presenting BB, followed by the general ideas that comprise the management fashion perspective. Our study’s specific research framework is presented in Section 2.3.

2.1. Beyond budgeting – background, definition, content, and developments

BB was introduced in response to dissatisfaction with conventional budgeting in practice. Jeremy Hope and Robin Fraser are generally credited with creating the concept, which was introduced in a series of professional journal articles in the late 1990s (Hope and Fraser 1997, 1999, 2000). Their most important publication on BB is, however, their book ‘Beyond budgeting: how managers can break free from the annual performance trap’, published by Harvard Business School Press in 2003, which gave the concept widespread attention.

These publications argue that three primary factors drive dissatisfaction with conventional budgeting: (1) budgeting is cumbersome and too expensive, (2) budgeting is out of kilter with the competitive environment and no longer meets the needs of either executives or operating managers, and (3) ‘gaming with numbers’ has risen to unacceptable levels (Hope and Fraser, 2003, p. 5). Therefore, the focus of the conventional budgeting process on centrally decided fixed targets and performance-incentive contracts needs to be replaced with the beyond budgeting approach. The main purpose in abandoning the conventional budgeting process and implementing the beyond budgeting approach is to create an adaptive and decentralized organization – an organization that operates with adaptive management processes and that devolves performance responsibility to front-line individuals who work close to the customer – and to use an adaptive management process – a planning and decision-making process (Hope and Fraser, 2003, p. 16). Beyond budgeting is defined as ‘a set of guiding principles that, if followed, will enable an organization to manage its performance and decentralize its decision-making process without the need for traditional budgets’ (Hope and Fraser, 2003, p. 17).

There are two subsets of such guiding principles, with six in each subset. Principles of adaptive processes: (1) Set stretch goals aimed at relative improvement, (2) Base evaluation and rewards on relative improvement contracts with hindsight, (3) Make action planning a continuous and inclusive process, (4) Make resources available as required, (5) Coordinate cross-company actions according to prevailing customer demand, and (6) Base controls on effective governance and a range of relative performance indicators. Principles of radical decentralization: (1) Build a governance framework based on clear principles and boundaries, (2) Create a high-performance climate based on the visibility of relative success at every level, (3) Provide front-line teams with the freedom to make decisions that are consistent with governance principles and strategic goals, (4) Place the responsibility for value-creating decisions on teams, (5) Focus on customer outcomes, and (6) Support open and ethical information systems.

In 1998 Hope, Fraser and Peter Bunce founded the global membership network the Beyond Budgeting Round Table (BBRT) as a joint venture with the Consortium for Advanced manufacturing International (CAM-I) ‘in response to growing dissatisfaction and frustration with traditional budgeting’ (bbrt.org 2020). The BBRT has since then been the key actor promoting BB at the global level and by national official partners. The BB movement has expanded over time and the BBRT today forms one activity within the larger organization, the Beyond Budgeting Institute (BBI), which also is involved in organizing conferences and management education/workshops and providing consultancy services. Although the twelve principles presented by Hope and Fraser (2003) still forms the basis of the BB concept (with updated wording) (bbrt.org 2020), the content and contexts of presentations of the concept have gradually developed since then. For example, Bogsnes (2008) focuses on practical aspects of implementing BB in large traditionally managed companies (Borealis and Statoil) and Morlidge and Player (2010) focus on forecasting in dynamic business environments. See Becker et al. (2020) for an account of the background to BB, how BB has developed over time, and the various actors involved in the trajectory of BB at the global level.

Recent years have witnessed increasing interest in researching BB. Nguyen et al. (2018) provide a review and synthesis of what is a largely discrete and disconnected body of conceptual and empirical research, focusing primarily on how management control systems change under BB, the applicability of BB, and the factors that hinder its implementation. Key findings are that the criticism leveled against conventional budgeting is not equally relevant for all organizations and/or is generally overstated, that organizations are selective in the elements of BB they implement, and that the successful implementation of BB requires changes in existing management control systems regarding, for example, targets, planning/forecasting, motivation/rewards, measures/controls and the role of controllers. These studies also find that the main factors that may hinder the implementation of BB are, for example, fear of change, the lack of internal benchmarks, high costs, and the small number of potential users. Whilst the presentation of BB by supply-side actors features a relatively stable core content, field studies (e.g. Bourmistrov and Kaarbøe 2013, Østergren and Stensaker 2011, Sandalgaard and Bukh 2014, Becker 2014) and survey studies (e.g. Matějka et al. 2020) show that firms have interpreted and implemented BB in several divergent ways.

This study’s definition of BB is based on Hope and Fraser (2003), for two reasons. First, at the time we collected data, this was the dominant representation of the concept, including the criticism of conventional budgeting, the definition of BB, and the BB principles. Second, the Hope and Fraser (2003) book was translated into Swedish and published by a major publisher in 2004. The ensuing comprehensive marketing campaign made BB more easily accessible and noticed. The publisher of the book also marketed the book extensively to practicing managers. The book also experienced diffusion via the publisher’s book club, through which it was distributed to all subscribers. For these two reasons we feel comfortable assuming that the message of the Hope and Fraser (2003) book has formed the basis of the opinions formed about BB and BB-related actions and activities by actors in the Swedish MAI supply-side arena, which are of interest to the current study. This was also confirmed by interviewed respondents.

2.2. The management fashion perspective – general ideas

The principal development of the management fashion perspective was introduced by Abrahamson and colleagues in a series of articles in the 1990s (Abrahamson 1991, 1996a, Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1993, Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999).

A management fashion is defined as ‘a relatively transitory collective belief, disseminated by management fashion-setters, that a management technique leads rational management progress’ (Abrahamson 1996a, p. 257). Drawing primarily on new-institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan 1977) and diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 1995) (but striving to overcome the pro-innovation biases in the latter stream of literature), the perspective explains fashion phenomena based on the notion that management fashions are shaped by the cultural value placed on norms of rationality and progress. The argument behind this perspective relies on the work of Meyer and Rowan (1977), who argue that organizational stakeholders expect managers to manage their organizations and organizational members rationally, i.e. meet the goals of the organization efficiently. Given uncertainty regarding what these goals are and/or what constitutes the most rational way to meet them, however, managers must instead create the appearance that they conform to norms of rationality. They do this by either using or appearing to use management concepts that are perceived by important stakeholders as rational. In a similar vein, managers must also create the appearance that they conform to norms of progress, that is, meet expectations that they will adopt newer and more efficient management concepts to supersede older and less efficient ones when managing organizations and organizational members (Abrahamson 1996a).

The existence of these norms contributes to the creation of an institutionalized market for discourse that disseminates rational, progressive management concepts, i.e. a marketplace where supply-side actors – fashion-setters or knowledge entrepreneurs – and demand-side actors – users or consumers of management concepts – interact under the guidance of norms of rationality and progress. Abrahamson (1996a, p. 257) explains this interaction in terms of a management fashion-setting process, i.e. ‘the process by which management fashion setters continuously redefine both theory and fashion followers’ collective beliefs about which management techniques lead rational management progress’. It should be noted that the use of the term ‘fashion-setters’ or ‘fashion leaders’ does not imply that such a term exerts ‘power over fashion followers’ or that fashion followers ‘are led like sheep in a flock’ (Abrahamson, 1996b, p. 124). Rather, the term should be understood in terms of ‘market leadership’ in a competitive market, in which market leaders lead not because they can force customers to buy their products but because they can sense customer demand and also supply products that satisfy this demand before their competitors can (Abrahamson, 1996b, p. 124).

A supposition of the fashion perspective is, thus, that management concepts do not appear, are not diffused, and do not become successful spontaneously or by popular demand, but instead depend on efforts undertaken by supply-side actors, sometimes in collaboration with actors on the demand side, e.g. high-profile users, and outside experts. This supposition has strong support in extant research, which has consistently shown that the supply side plays an important role in popularizing management concepts (e.g. Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002; Clark 2004, Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, van Veen et al., 2011).

The literature suggests that supply-side actors do not disseminate management concepts without careful thought, and, indeed, the behavior of supply-side actors is typically portrayed as strategic and reflective over the phases of the management fashion-setting process (Whittle 2008, Perkmann and Spicer 2008, Furusten 2009, Roberts 2010, Heusinkveld et al. 2013). By the time a management concept is made available (or not) to a managerial audience it has thus already undergone a process that entails a sequence of considerations and decisions, which, according to the literature, may relate to issues such as news value, actual and latent market demand, compatibility with an existing portfolio of management concepts and the risk of cannibalization effects, consistency with market profiles/images, the need for and conditions facilitating modification and adaptation to fit the target audience of managers, and conditions that facilitate the formation of alliances with other supply-side actors and outside experts to market and diffuse the concept (e.g. Rogers 1995, Heusinkveld et al. 2009, Nijholt et al. 2014).

The work performed by supply-side actors is operationalized in a four-phase management fashion-setting process (Abrahamson 1996a), which stems from the theory of the production of culture (e.g. Peterson 1976, 1979).

In the creation phase, fashion-setters ‘sense incipient preferences guiding fashion demand’ and create management concepts to meet these preferences. These concepts are invented, reinvented or rediscovered, and fashion-setters produce the collective beliefs that certain concepts are innovative and superior compared with already available concepts.

In the selection phase, fashion-setters select (reject) which concepts to develop (not to develop) further, i.e. decide whether or not they will participate in propagating management concepts. Concepts that are judged to satisfy managerial demand are in the end the ones selected. Such demand is driven by socio-psychological and techno-economic forces. The influence of the socio-psychological forces is determined by managers’ individual and personal characteristics, e.g. the aspiration to be perceived as energetic and assertive or to be committed to applying modern ideas at the cutting edge of managerial progress. These factors can also relate to the enhancement of a personal career and pay, frustration, or even boredom (Huczynski 1993). Techno-economic forces are triggered by external events in the macro-scale environment, such as economic crises. These events and, more importantly, the consequences of the events in terms of perceived or actual performance gaps in organizations, are elements that are brought to the attention of managers in the rhetoric of the aspiring management fashion and subsequent activities of supply-side actors. Because fashion-setters introduce managers to management concepts that fit their preferences, they are therefore also involved in shaping demand.

In the processing phase, selected management concepts are commodified and (re)packaged to appear attractive to potential adopters. This phase includes the elaboration of content and rhetoric that can persuade potential adopters that a concept is both rational and represents the most recent management advances. For instance, the rhetoric may highlight performance gaps and underscore how and why a concept may help a firm fill these gaps, or it might focus on successful and high-profile adopters using a particular concept.

In the dissemination phase, selected and processed concepts are promoted and distributed to the fashion market. Fashion-setters may use a number of channels for this purpose, including the mass media, books, websites, seminars, conferences, education, professional organizations/networks, and management consulting services.

In a number of publications Abrahamson and colleagues make further contributions to the development of the management fashion perspective. For example, Abrahamson and Rosenkopf (1993) focus on the occurrence and effects of institutional and competitive bandwagon pressures in a collectivity of firms, and Abrahamson and Fairchild (1999), Abrahamson and Eisenman (2008), and Abrahamson and Piazza (2019) explore the development of life cycles and waves of popularity of management fads and fashions. These contributions are however not directly relevant to this study and therefore are not discussed here. While the ideas Abrahamson introduced still form the basis of the management fashion perspective, important features of the perspective have gradually evolved over time and new features have been introduced as well by other scholars. These include for example the notion of dynamic management concepts (e.g. Benders and van Veen 2001; Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, 2007; Heusinkveld et al. 2011) and the integration of managerial agency into the demand side of the management fashion market (e.g. Heusinkveld et al. 2011; van Veen et al. 2011; Wilhelm and Bort 2013). Over time, researchers have also expanded the scope of the fashion perspective into new areas of research; for example, there is now increasing interest in what happens to management concepts when they reach the end of the downswing phase of the lifecycle curve (e.g. David and Strang 2006; Heusinkveld et al. 2013; Chiwamit et al. 2014). In light of these developments, the management fashion perspective may as of today be described best as ‘a school of thought with theorizing based on various aspects of fashion and a corresponding active stream of empirical research’ (Røvik 2011). In the next section we present the specific ideas on which our framework is based.

2.3. Globally traveling management concepts entering a local context: conceptualizing a local management fashion-setting process

The literature emphasizes the importance of local circumstances in understanding how, why, and under what conditions the supply of and demand for globally spreading management concepts develop in specific patterns in local contexts (Drori et al. 2014). Factors shaping local circumstances include, for example, national culture, industry structure, education systems, trade associations, and governmental agencies (e.g. Abrahamson 1996a, Clark 2004, Guillén 1994, Kieser 1997, Perkmann and Spicer 2008, Whittle 2008, Meyer and Höllerer 2010). Past research has shown that global management concepts are evaluated and adapted by supply-side actors to fit local circumstances when they enter a local context (Sturdy 2004, Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Becker 2008, Whittle 2008, Røvik 2011). This is in effect a process in which global concepts pass through local management fashion-setting processes. Therefore, the management fashion-setting process is, to a great extent, a local process, rather than merely a process of relocation or the transfer of management concepts from one context to another.

Our case of BB in Sweden thus illustrates the supply-side work and outcome of a locally flavored management (accounting) fashion-setting process. Because we focus on one specific management concept in a specific context, we cannot say much about the supply-side arena and the reception and spread of BB in other contexts. Cross-country comparative studies would improve our understanding of how and why country-specific circumstances influence these and other issues. Nevertheless, we hope that our study provides some insights into the part played by the configuration and work of the Swedish supply-side arena and drivers of local evaluation and adaptation processes in shaping the outcomes of the phases of the management fashion-setting process reported here.

In this study, we are interested in the work of and interplay between supply-side actors and other parties over the phases of the management fashion-setting process that have contributed to the limited diffusion of BB in Swedish business practice. While research has examined the functions/roles of supply-side actors (Clark 2004, Howells 2006, Perkmann and Spicer 2008) and interaction/collaboration between and among these actors (Rynes et al. 2001, Scarbrough 2003, Roberts 2010, van Veen et al. 2011), there is a dearth of research focusing on other activities involving supply-side actors, especially in the phases preceding dissemination (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002, Clark 2004, Nijholt and Benders 2006, Perkmann and Spicer 2008). Thus, the literature offers little guidance pertaining to the conceptualization issue. Based on ideas developed by Abrahamson (1996a) and the notion of dynamic management concepts, we conceptualize a three-phase management fashion-setting process that fits this study. The creation phase is excluded because we focus on an already existing management concept.

2.3.1. The selection phase

In the selection phase, local fashion-setters decide whether or not they will participate in the local diffusion of a global management concept. For the purposes of this study this phase includes both decisions to select – i.e. to participate in the diffusion of – as well as decisions to reject – i.e. to not participate in the diffusion of – the BB concept. Our viewpoint is that a decision to select is essentially a decision regarding the intention to participate in the diffusion, because such a decision does not necessarily mean that an actor actually engages in supply-side activities. An actor can be involuntarily inactive on the market for several reasons: if, for example, the necessary expertise is lacking or partnerships with other actors have not been established, or simply because there is a lack of organizational resources. In our operationalization, a decision to select a management concept is therefore broken down into two categories: a decision that has resulted in supply-side activities in the market and a decision that has not resulted in supply-side activities in the market. We also include the alternative that an actor may be unaware of the existence of a certain management concept.

2.3.2. The processing phase

The outcome of the processing phase influences the opinions potential adopters form about a management concept. As outcomes this phase generates sets of design characteristics and rhetoric intended to convince potential adopters of the importance of a management concept to their businesses. Design characteristics represent the technical specifications of a management concept (Bjørnenak and Olson 1999). This means that, from a technical point of view, a management concept can be described by the set-up of its design characteristics. ‘Rhetoric’ is a term used within many disciplines and, consequently, has many meanings. In the management literature, rhetoric represents a ‘spoken and written discourse that justifies the use of a set of concepts for managing organizations or their employees’ (Barley and Kunda 1992, p. 366). Thus, rhetoric is the deliberate use of words or sentences for the purpose of shaping an attitude or action (Hartelius and Browning, 2008). In practical terms, this means that rhetoric constitutes the persuasion factor in management fashion discourse and embodies ‘a practical art and the faculty of theorizing’ (Hartelius and Browning, 2008, p. 19). Thus, management fashion rhetoric denotes ‘discourse designed to convince organizations to use management innovations’ (Abrahamson and Piazza 2019, p. 48).

Abrahamson’s (1996a) framework has been criticized for being static (Kieser, 1997, Clark, 2004). It has however gradually acquired important dynamic features. This evolution includes the addition conceptually of dynamic management concepts (Benders and van Veen, 2001, Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Giroux, 2006; Heusinkveld et al., 2011). The fashion framework initially assumed that management concepts are fixed objects that remain unchanged when they spread across space and time. It is more realistic to assume a dynamic perspective, though, viewing both fashion-setters and users as groups involved in (re)processing the content of management concepts during diffusion. Such processing is made possible because management concepts are intangible items. Benders and van Veen (2001) and Giroux (2006) argue that administrative innovations are characterized by conceptual ambiguity, vagueness, and generality, which define their interpretative viability. Such interpretative viability makes alternative interpretations and uses of management concepts possible, implying that innovations can be understood and applied in ways that differ from what was first intended, and thus they may become loosely coupled to their original content.

In line with these ideas, in our operationalization of the management fashion-setting process we adopt the view that MAIs are dynamic concepts. We focus primarily, in this respect, on the outcomes of the processing phase rather than on the change process itself. The outcomes of the process involve unique versions, i.e. sets of design characteristics and rhetorical elements of an MAI that supply-side actors produce and present to potential adopters. Thus, there is no single outcome of the processing phase, as every actor can in principle produce its own unique version of a management concept. In this study, processing therefore stands for what an actor introduces to the market. We use the framework – a dynamic perspective on the diffusion of MAIs – outlined by Ax and Bjørnenak (2007), which conceptualizes how design characteristics and rhetoric may be selected/rejected, changed, added, or combined when describing the outcomes of the processing phase.

2.3.3. The dissemination phase

In the dissemination phase, a management concept is made available to the market. Fashion-setters determine how, by whom, and in what configurations the management concept should be promoted and distributed to potential adopters. The supply side uses a number of channels to achieve this, such as mass media, conferences, books, education, management consultancy services, professional networks, advertising, websites, and customer relations management activities. For the purpose of this study, we focus on identifying the channels that are used and gauging the extent of their use as well as the definition and size of target groups/audiences.

3. Research method

The empirical setting of the study is Sweden. We collected data mainly through semi-structured interviews with key supply-side actors. As Sweden is a small country with a supply side that is limited in size, it is not difficult to identify the most significant actors and processes. A culture of openness in Swedish business toward participating in research facilitated the arrangement of interviews with the central supply-side actors in the market.

3.1. Data collection

In total, 38 telephone interviews and one e-mail interview involving 35 individuals representing seven categories of supply-side actors were conducted between April and October 2012 (see also Section 3.1.1).² The interviews lasted between 5 and 50 min. The shortest interviews were held with actors who were unaware of the existence of the BB concept. On average, the interviews with actors who were aware of BB lasted about 30 min. See Appendix 1 for a listing of interview data. All of the respondents represent one organization, with the exception of those in the Books/Academics category (all authors relevant to the study are academics), who represent themselves or a group of authors (if they co-authored a book).

Much effort has been put into making sure that the most influential supply-side actors are included in the study and that the respondents who represent them are directly involved in MAI supply-side activities. Based on the literature, the most influential categories of supply-side actors (Abrahamson 1996a, Roberts 2010) were chosen to be included in the study: management consulting firms, the business press, professional institutes/associations/networks, industry trade and employers’ associations, conference organizers, book publishers, and authors/academics. Significant supply-side actors and respondents in this study were identified in various ways.

Management consulting firms (MCFs) – Eight MCFs are included in the study, which were identified from several sources. These include Konsultguiden (Sweden’s leading reference tool for management consulting firms), MCFs’ websites, invitations to national management conferences covering management accounting topics (during the period 2003–2012), and library databases. Four of the eight MCFs in the study are local – Ekan, IC Konsult, Meritmind, and Preera – and four are international (they make up four of the five largest management consulting firms in Sweden) – Acando, Accenture, EY (former Ernst & Young), and McKinsey & Co.

The business press – We chose business-related newspapers/magazines based on three earlier studies on the diffusion of MAIs in the Swedish press (Krohn and Widmark 2005, Johansson and Stockman 2006, Larsson 2012). Seven newspapers/magazines have published the large majority of articles on MAIs (during the study period). Three of them – Affärsvärlden (a weekly business magazine and website), Dagens Industri (it publishes a daily business newspaper, a weekly magazine, a monthly magazine, and a website), and Veckans Affärer (a weekly business magazine and website) – declared in conversation that articles on the topic of MAIs now lie outside of their editorial concepts. Thus, four newspapers/magazines are included in the study: Computer Sweden (the leading business newspaper on MAIs, which publishes two issues a week and a website), Balans (a professional monthly accounting magazine and website), Personal & Ledarskap (a professional monthly management and HR magazine and website), and Chef (a professional monthly management magazine that publishes eleven issues a year and a website).

Professional organizations and interest groups – This group of actors includes four organizations, three of which are well-known for supplying MAIs in Sweden. FAR is a professional institute for public accountants and other highly qualified professionals in the accounting sector in Sweden, organizing authorized public accountants, approved public accountants, and specialists. The Management Accounting Forum is a network open to practitioners and academics that aims to create an arena for the exchange of experiences and the development of knowledge.³ The Swedish Association of Graduates in Business Administration and Economics (‘Civilekonomerna’) is a union and interest organization for professionals and students in business administration and economics, with current membership of about 38,000. The fourth organization, the Controller Network,⁴ was identified in a web search for professional organizations. The network is designed for practitioners and academics interested in financial and management accounting, wherein the idea is to meet two or three times a year to listen to an interesting lecture, exchange experiences, and create contact between management accountants. Approximately 120 management accountants participate in the network.

Conference organizers – Two organizations dominate the part of the management conference market that focuses on management accounting topics, namely IBC Euroforum and Westbridge. We also searched the internet for additional conference organizers and conferences. In addition to the organizers included in the study, we identified another organizer that had organized a conference linked to the BB concept during the study period 2003–2012. The organizer – the Danish organization ‘Ekonomiforum’ – held a one-off conference in Stockholm in 2007 titled ‘Reinventing the CFO’. It had both Jeremy Hope and Bjarte Bogsnes as speakers. Bogsnes’s speech was titled ‘Blowing up the budgets – Statoil’s journey beyond budgeting’, while Hope’s speech, according to the conference program, made no reference to BB. This organizer is not included here as this study focuses on conference organizers that are established in the Swedish market. A professional network – the Management Accounting Forum – and an Industry trade and employers’ association – the Association of Swedish Engineering Industries – also organized conferences covering management accounting topics during the time period on which the study focuses. The network has, however, rejected BB and the association has phased out its conference activities.

Publishers – Two publishers dominate the publication of management accounting books in Sweden, namely Liber (which has two independent publishing houses, Liber Affärslitteratur and Liber Akademi) and Studentlitteratur. A third publisher, Sanoma Utbildning, is also a major publisher of business books. Liber and Studentlitteratur are included in the study. Sanoma Utbildning declined to be interviewed. Nevertheless, we conclude that this does not have a negative impact on the study since at the time of this study they had not published any management accounting books.

Books/Academics – The choice of management accounting books to be used in the study was based on two criteria: they were published during the study period 2003–2012 and had practitioners as the target group (or at least as one of several target groups). Searches were conducted on publishers’ websites, Swedish online bookshops, and the internet to identify relevant books. Ten book titles (see Appendix 1) that fulfilled the criteria of the study were identified. Eight of these were monographs. Amazingly, all books were written/edited by well-known Swedish university academics. This explains why this group of supply-side actors has been categorized as Books/Academics in this study. All respondents except one have earned PhDs and hold positions as assistant, associate, or full professors at a Swedish university.

Industry trade and employers’ associations – Practically all Swedish industry trade and employers’ associations are represented by The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (‘Svenskt Näringsliv’). The management fashion-setting process is therefore relevant on two levels – the confederation level and the association level. A respondent at the confederation level stated that the organization does not pursue management accounting projects, as this is not within its scope of activities. Such projects are pursued at the association level because, he explained, projects at the confederation level risk competing with interests and activities at the association level. Confederation-level projects could also compete or clash with activities carried out by individual member companies (e.g. consulting firms). The respondent was also asked to provide information about organizations at the association level that pursue development projects related to administrative systems and routines. Two such organizations were suggested. Both are known within the confederation for generally pursuing development projects – Swedish Trade and Commerce (‘Svensk Handel’) and Swedish Painting Contractors (‘Målaremästarna’). The respondents at these organizations specified that they do not pursue developments related to administrative systems or procedures, including management accounting, because such issues are considered peripheral in relation to the member companies’ core activities.

A third organization at the association level that was interviewed was the Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (‘Teknikföretagen’),⁵ which is historically a very significant organization in Sweden regarding development projects related to management accounting (Jönsson 1996, Samuelson 2005). It has also been an active player in the diffusion of MAIs in Sweden, particularly in cases involving ABC/M (Ask et al. 1996) and the BSC (Olve and Petri 2004). Concrete supply activities include the organization of management conferences and seminars, book publications (using its own publisher), and network arrangements (with researchers, consultants, international management gurus, business managers, and practicing management accountants). The respondent explained that, at the beginning of the 2000s, the organization reorganized its activities, phasing out several organizational units, including the unit that worked with administrative systems and procedures. Thus, no projects related to BB are being pursued in a specialist unit, nor are any BB projects being pursued in any other organizational unit. The study therefore indicates that Swedish industry trade and employers’ associations (including the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise) do not pursue issues related to the development of administrative systems and procedures (including management accounting). For this reason, there is no reporting of results related to this supply-side actor provided in the results section.

Prior to the interviews, each respondent received information about the background, aim, and structure of the study via e-mail. The meanings of key concepts were explained and illustrated, including management accounting innovation, diffusion, the supply side of the diffusion process, supply-side actors, and BB. We clarified both the differences between and the link between BB and the non-budget system at Svenska Handelsbanken. BB was presented in accordance with Hope and Fraser’s 2003/2004 book, while the Svenska Handelsbanken case/Jan Wallander was presented in the context of the Swedish budget debate (Wallander 1994, 1999).

Each interview began with a summary of the information included in the abovementioned e-mail and a clarification of the focus of the interview and the set of questions to be asked. A set of specific questions relating to each of the three phases of the management fashion-setting process under investigation was developed. An introduction to each question was provided and the significance of the question was explained. One of the two researchers involved in this study conducted all the interviews.

Some respondents answered fewer questions than others. The number of questions put to the respondents depended on the answers to two questions. If the respondent/respondent’s organization were unaware of the existence of BB, no questions were asked about their participation in the three phases of the management fashion-setting process. Also, if the respondent/respondent’s organization had rejected BB, no further questions were asked about subsequent phases. In addition to the specific questions related to each of the three phases of the management fashion-setting process, questions about the respondent’s/respondents’ organization’s awareness of and possible participation in supplying the idea of the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken were asked. Finally, the interviewees were asked about their knowledge of influential supply-side actors, particularly those involved in MAIs that could be relevant to the study. See Appendix 2 for a description of the research instrument used in the study.

In this study, we focus on the BB concept in line with Hope and Fraser (2003), for the reasons highlighted in Section 2.1.

3.1.1. Recent supply-side activities and the situation in business practice

Because time has passed since we conducted the interviews, the attitude towards BB and the work of the supply-side actors may have changed over time. To examine whether this is the case, we consulted interviewees, examined websites, and searched the internet for information. Through this process we identified two significant new facts. First, in 2014, the management consulting firm Ekan became the first official partner in Sweden of the Beyond Budgeting Round Table (BBRT). A partner’s main responsibility is to plan and coordinate regional BBRT members’ meetings. There are currently a handful BBRT members located in Sweden. These meetings are usually also open to non-members, but by invitation only. Since 2014 a few such meetings have taken place. Second, an Ekan partner, Knut Fahlén, has written a book in Swedish which describes the idea of BB and provides case studies illustrating how organizations use these ideas (Fahlén 2016). Interviews in April 2020 with the CEO of Ekan, Dag Larsson, and Fahlén reveal that BBRT meetings typically draw an audience of roughly 40–50 attendees, many of whom (roughly 15–20 attendees) have attended several or all meetings, and the sales volume of the BB book as of April 2020 had not exceeded 1000 copies. Ekan bought the most books to use them to promote BB, the BBRT, and their services for existing and potential clients. Because BBRT activities have attracted relatively few participants and the circulation of the BB book has been low, it is difficult to discern the BBRT’s influence on supply-side work since the first round of interviews for this study was conducted. This was also the view Larsson and Fahlén expressed when asked about the situation.

The circumstances surrounding budgeting practice may also have changed over time. A broad survey of management control systems in Swedish firms conducted in recent years asked several questions about budgeting and planning (Greve and Dergård 2017, Greve et al. 2017). The findings do not suggest that the uptake of BB ideas has changed noticeably since the early 2010s.

Given these facts, we feel comfortable asserting that, despite the passage of time, our conclusions and contributions are valid.

3.2. Data analysis

All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Each transcription was analyzed to determine the phase to which the management fashion-setting process pertained as well as the specific questions to which the answers pertained. In the majority of the interviews, the answers were focused. Answers from respondents in the same group of supply-side actors showed, with one exception, little significant variation. A few interviewees, however, gave lengthy answers to some questions, touching upon aspects related to more than one phase and/or interview question in the same context. In these cases, two researchers carefully read the transcriptions and discussed classification issues until reaching consensus regarding the meaning and implications of the answers. To ensure the accuracy of the transcriptions of interview answers, the respondents were invited to comment on the text in those sections of the paper where their answers appear. This resulted in a few cases in which respondents explained/expanded upon their answers. None of the supply-side actors requested that the interviews be conducted on a confidential basis. However, a few actors did not want their answers linked with their organizations and wanted the names of their organizations to appear as infrequently as possible in the study. This led to the decision not to link answers from management consulting firms that rejected BB to individual firms.

4. Mapping the management fashion-setting process of beyond budgeting in Sweden

This section presents the empirics of the case. A separate sub-section is devoted to each of the study’s six (seven)⁶ categories of supply-side actors. Each sub-section is organized on the basis of three possible outcomes of the selection phase of the management fashion-setting process: Unaware of BB, Rejected BB, or Selected BB. The latter outcome is divided into three parts corresponding to the three phases of the study – selection, processing, and dissemination of BB.

4.1. Management consulting firms

4.1.1. Rejection of BB

Surprisingly, six of the eight MCFs investigated have rejected BB. These include all the large, international MCFs interviewed. Every MCF presented more than one reason for their rejection decision. Two reasons were mentioned by all MCFs. First, they cannot sense any emerging or latent demand for the BB concept among existing or potential clients. All six MCFs explain that the presence of demand, as reflected in actual purchases of consulting services related to a current MAI on the local market, is a basic requirement for taking an active interest in an MAI. Thus, it is not enough that interest in an MAI be noted elsewhere, for example in the business press or at conferences. Second, MCFs rejected BB because they favor conventional budgeting. Indeed, five of the MCFs emphasized that conventional budgeting is included in their portfolios of consulting services. Three of the MCFs note however that, even if their services are governed by conventional budgeting ideas, elements of rolling forecasts or the non-budget management model at Svenska Handelsbanken may be delivered if requested by clients.

Three other major reasons behind rejection decisions were related to the BB concept as such. First, five of the MCFs perceive BB as an artificial/contrived concept. They interpret BB as a description of existing practice in a few organizations rather than as a management concept; they argued that the BB concept has been created to generate buzz rather than to influence practice; they observe that the concept seems to have been created without interaction with a broader group of organizations and that BB therefore seems like a mere supply-side product; and they noted that the idea of abandoning conventional budgeting is perceived as utopian (because the ideas underlying conventional budgeting are well-established and largely exist in all organizations). Second, four MCFs perceive BB as a vague management concept, for three reasons. First, the BB concept is difficult to define (some respondents noted that there seems to be no consensus on the meaning of BB among supply-side actors). Second, BB solutions (‘What to do and how to do it’) are unclear or unconvincing (while the critique of conventional budgeting is clear, the alternatives are perceived as inadequately explained/justified and the methodology weak). Some respondents also compared BB unfavorably to the BSC and lean management, which they believe to be considerably stronger conceptually. Finally, three of the MCFs stated that BB lacks news value either because it falls within their own range of consulting services, has already been available on the client market (in practice), or is older than other management concepts.

Three reasons for rejecting BB each received one mention. They include the idea that BB is difficult to sell to clients primarily because the concept highlights problems/criticisms while clients are interested primarily in solutions to problems or opportunities for improvement; they report that BB is increasingly difficult to identify as a distinct management concept because it is increasingly bundled with other management concepts, such as enterprise/corporate performance management; and finally they argue that ‘pre-packaged’ concepts are down-prioritized in support of in-house-developed concepts.

4.1.2. Selection of BB

The two MCFs that have selected BB are both local (Swedish). They presented several reasons for the decision to participate in the supply of BB.

Ekan, the official partner in Sweden of the BBRT, could not indicate any specific reasons for the decision to select BB. Instead, it represented the decision as having built up over a long period of time through experiences it gained during a long-term business relationship with a client that applies the BB idea and through a professional relationship with Bjarte Bogsnes (Bogsnes, 2008). Another factor contributing to this decision was the fact that BB rhetoric (primarily its critique of management) is consistent with what they perceive to be problems with what is referred to as the ‘dominant management model of large organizations’.

The other MCF, ICK, linked its decision to select BB to two related factors. First, some of the concept’s elements support its main consulting service focus, which is lean management. It believes that conventional budgeting should play a less important role in organizations applying lean management principles than in other organizations, i.e. that parameters other than key budgeting factors (e.g. revenues, costs, and volume) are more important in lean organizations. Second, they had consulting familiarity with budgeting ideas included in the BB concept, especially rolling forecasts.

4.1.3. Processing

The two MCFs that selected BB processed the concept in differing ways, resulting in two distinctly different BB applications.

Ekan’s version of the BB concept comprises a bundled set of elements taken from three sources. The first source is the BB literature, specifically Hope and Fraser (2003). Here, the BB label and the critique of conventional budgeting have been singled out for use. Regarding the BB label, both the term ‘beyond budgeting’ and the term ‘budgetlös styrning’ (a Swedish translation of BB) are used. The second source is the BB case of Statoil (Bogsnes, 2008). The third source is the idea of a perceived need to renew the ‘dominant management model of large-sized organisations’. The model is criticized using terms such as ‘bureaucracy’, ‘internal orientation’, ‘cost focus’, and ‘weak interaction with customers’. The idea also has a solution element, which is essentially based on experiences from successful consulting projects.

ICK’s processing activities have resulted in a partial version of BB. The presentation of the concept is limited to the critique of conventional budgeting presented by Hope and Fraser (2003). This critique is, however, not used to sell the BB concept as such. Instead, it is used to strengthen the arguments for the need for reforms in budgeting practice with the intention of successful implementation of lean management. ICK uses the same two BB labels as Ekan, namely ‘beyond budgeting’ and ‘budgetlös styrning’.

4.1.4. Dissemination

The two MCFs that selected the BB concept work in somewhat different ways in their dissemination activities. Ekan’s activities are not typically directed toward the general public. It organizes primarily seminars and mini-conferences, often on its own premises, targeting existing clients. In some cases, Ahlsell (a BB company), Bjarte Bogsnes, and management accounting researchers have participated as presenters. Also, the company website informs visitors about their participation in the BBRT.

ICK engages in two types of dissemination activities. First, it provides marketing consulting services to existing clients. This typically takes place within the framework of long-term customer relationships. Second, it stages lectures in various contexts, such as for individual organizations (often in the context of internal training) and professional/executive education. These lectures typically include a small segment about BB and, in particular, the need for non-budget management in lean management organizations.

4.2. The business press

4.2.1. Unaware of BB

Surprisingly, three of the four leading business magazines in this study were unaware of the existence of the BB concept. All three magazines – Balans, Chef, and Personal & Ledarskap – were surprised at this lack of knowledge, especially because the development of and debate related to budgeting is regarded as an important topic. This is evidenced by the articles that these magazines have published on budgeting, including articles on rolling forecasts and the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken. The magazines generally register the existence of a new management concept and create knowledge about its content through contact with outside experts, particularly academics, in their professional networks. These actors typically provide information about the introduction of a concept or offer to write articles about a concept.

4.2.2. Selection of BB

Only one business newspaper/magazine in the study – Computer Sweden, the Swedish business newspaper that most frequently publishes articles on MAIs – selected BB. It expands upon its view of BB in the interview, seeing the BB message as a logical continuation of the critique/development within management accounting that was initiated as a result of the ‘relevance lost’ debate (Johnson and Kaplan, 1987). The newspaper sees BB as a component of the current revival of management accounting, particularly regarding the growing importance of non-financial indicators. The respondent also believes that BB fulfills the editorial criteria applied to the publishing of articles about management concepts (not all of which need to be fulfilled in practice): (i) the concept must be perceived as being relevant to the targeted circle of readers, (ii) arguments must exist as to why the concept is relevant (preferably in comparison with existing concepts), (iii) there must be documented positive effects of the use of the concept in practice, (iv) the application of the concept in practice must be illustrated in a case study, and (v) the concept must have achieved a certain level of diffusion in practice.

4.2.3. Processing

Even though Computer Sweden selected BB, it has not yet published any articles in which BB is either the main topic or is mentioned in passing. It believes that this reflects a lack of Swedish BB adopters about which to write, Swedish research on BB, interest within its circle of readers, or access to high-quality material for articles. However, it published two articles in 1998 in connection with the publication of the book Competing in the Third Wave (Hope and Hope, 1997), which to a certain extent touches on the BB message. The first article (September 1998) consists of a brief report from a national conference for management accountants (‘Controllerdagarna’). The article mentions that one of the speakers was Tony Hope, who wrote the book together with Jeremy Hope. The book’s message is summarized in three sentences. The second article (October 1998), which is extensive, includes an interview with Tony Hope. In that article the book’s message is summarized and commented upon by Tony Hope.

4.2.4. Dissemination

Computer Sweden is published in paper and PDF format twice a week and is available via subscription or single-copy sales (through a handful of retail outlets or electronically via the website). The newspaper also has a free website, which, however, focuses on daily business news rather than editorial material. According to its website, the paper version has 100,000 readers and the web version 120,000 readers.

4.3. Professional organizations and interest groups

4.3.1. Unaware of BB

The Swedish Association of Graduates in Business Administration and Economics was unaware of the existence of the BB concept. It says that it is surprised about this, not least in light of the fact that it has a good understanding of the Svenska Handelsbanken case. It also claims that it is a sociable organization with considerable interaction within its membership and other parties (such as management consultants and academics), is included in formal networks with various parties, and follows the work of other organizations regarding new ideas in management accounting. These activities, which are, in part, explicitly aimed at capturing new ideas, should, it believes, have made it aware of the existence of BB.

4.3.2. Rejection of BB

The Management Accounting Forum and the Controller Network have both rejected BB. Both parties believe that it has not been based on a formalized decision-making process. They explained that the basis of their rejection decision is demonstrated by the fact that BB has not been on the agenda nor is there a plan to add it. The activities of both parties are to a great extent governed by demand, which means that participating private and public organizations decide what is included on the forum’s agenda.

The respondent at the Management Accounting Forum offered detailed comments on the forum’s point of view. He believes that topics that find their way onto the agenda attract greater interest from participating organizations or that these topics have achieved a certain degree of diffusion in practice. In the present situation, the Management Accounting Forum believes that BB does not fulfill any of these criteria. The respondent thinks that this may suggest that the current budget discourse, particularly the critique of conventional budgeting, is perceived as far too sweeping and categorical, and that systematic evidence of the validity of the critique in a large group of organizations is lacking. Furthermore, the respondent believes that, because conventional budgeting constitutes a central component in most companies’ management control systems, budgeting is perceived to be beneficial. He also points out that there is much scepticism towards ‘standard solutions’ to organizational problems, as management concepts are so often characterized. Instead, there are efforts being made to apply a contingency-theoretical perspective and, within its scope, discuss the need for contextual adaptation of management accounting. Thus, there are several conditions that have helped shape the organization’s decision to reject BB.

The Controller Network believes that there are two main objections to BB in the network, namely that the concept, its implied solution in particular, is considered to be too vague and that there are too few BB adopters. The respondent also stated that BB does not feel particularly ‘up-to-the-minute’. Other issues are currently more pressing in practice.

4.3.3. Selection of BB

FAR is the professional institute for authorized public accountants, approved public accountants, and other highly qualified professionals in the accountancy sector in Sweden. FAR consists of several organizational units, two of which work with management accounting issues. The unit ‘Magazines’ publishes the abovementioned business magazine Balans, and, as noted above, the magazine reported that it is unaware of the existence of BB. ‘Education’ has a wide range, with a few courses focusing on management accounting. These courses are led by external teachers, typically university teachers/researchers and management consultants, who also propose the content and structure of the courses. The proposals are scrutinized and decisions are reached by a quality council, consisting of its own employees, university academics, and practitioners. The quality council has reacted positively to BB and other current budget ideas that have been proposed by teachers. The respondent expanded upon his response by explaining that the quality council has deemed it important that courses offer alternatives, for example BB, to conventional budgeting and the connection between the BSC and budgeting (i.e. the BSC as a complement to or replacement for conventional budgeting).

4.4.4. Processing

FAR processes BB with two objectives in mind: as an element in the marketing of courses and as course content. In marketing, the BB label exists only in the form of a direct Swedish translation – ‘Bortom Budgetering’. Thus, no description of the concept’s content exists. Regarding course content, the BB label represents two cases that illustrate the Swedish application of alternatives to conventional budgeting rather than the BB concept as such. These two cases are Svenska Handelsbanken and Ahlsell (even if the companies constitute success story cases according to BB rhetoric, in this context they represent Swedish practice). Thus, both processing elements involve only the partial use of the BB concept, limited to its label.

4.4.5. Dissemination

FAR is involved in two types of dissemination of BB. In the case of marketing, FAR uses four main channels, namely mass mail-outs in paper and electronic formats (e-mail), its website, and advertising in newspapers/magazines as well as on job-related websites. The marketing is directed toward two groups, namely those that are already affiliated with FAR (such as members, previous course participants, and newspaper/magazine subscribers) and the general public (reached primarily via advertising in newspapers/magazines and on websites as well as via target group–related address registers). The other type of dissemination occurs in connection with the implementation of the courses, which usually occupy two or three days, and are offered several times a year in many Swedish towns and cities. A one-year course is also offered, which awards participants a certificate in controllership. The course is run twice a year in two Swedish cities. All courses charge fees and are open to both members and other interested parties.

4.4. Conference organizers

4.4.1. Selection of BB

One international and one national management conference organizer dominate the conference market in Sweden, namely IBC Euroforum and Westbridge. Decisions made by both organizations regarding topic selection for conferences are based on market tests. In these tests previous and potential conference participants are interviewed about participant interest, willingness to pay, newsworthiness/practicality, and ‘recognition value’ (a certain awareness of the topic should exist among potential conference participants). In addition, organizing a conference requires access to at least one well-known Swedish case study linked to the conference topic (preferably one in which a company representative can present the case study) and knowledge that well-known Swedish companies apply ideas connected to the conference topic (to which speakers can refer). Westbridge also includes sponsors in its market test, assessing its interest in and willingness to pay for exposure in printed material and exhibit space at the conference venue in connection with a conference. Both IBC Euroforum and Westbridge stated that the conferences they have organized on the topic of BB and related topics have passed the market test.

4.4.2. Processing

As in the case of professional organizations and interest groups, BB is processed by conferences for two purposes, namely marketing and delivery (conference events). Surprisingly, neither IBC Euroforum nor Westbridge uses the BB label in its marketing activities. The only explicit connection to BB is found in a conference invitation from 2006, in which IBC Euroforum writes, ‘Robin Fraser, the Beyond Budgeting Roundtable, is our specially invited guest this year. He gives his perspective on non-budget management and the grounds for abolishing budgeting’. In the text, the BB label has been translated into the abovementioned Swedish term ‘budgetlös styrning’. The respondent believes that the market-oriented appeal of management concepts exists mainly in Swedish case studies and that such case studies should figure in each conference program. Since the most well-known Swedish BB cases – Svenska Handelsbanken and Ahlsell – are associated with the term ‘budgetlös styrning’, there is little reason to use the ‘beyond budgeting’ label in marketing, the respondent said. Another marketing feature regards whether Jan Wallander in person participates as a speaker at a conference. IBC Euroforum has succeeded in securing his participation on three occasions (2001, 2002, and 2004). In these cases it did not, however, use the ‘beyond budgeting’ or ‘budgetlös styrning’ labels, but instead chose to introduce Jan Wallander as the keynote speaker on the topics of ‘Budgeting: An unnecessary evil’ (Wallander 1994, 1999) and the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken. In the case of Westbridge, two explanations exist as to why the BB label is not used in marketing. First, it views the BB label as the intellectual property of the BBRT, which therefore should be avoided. Second, it is up to the conference speakers to decide how their content should be conveyed. The speakers have either chosen to use the Swedish term ‘budgetlös styrning’ or have refrained from using any label.

Regarding the content of conference presentations, both IBC Euroforum and Westbridge leave that to the speakers. IBC Euroforum does, however, require that they include Swedish case studies. Conference invitations from both organizations clearly show that their presentations focus on practical applications in a small number of companies, primarily Svenska Handelsbanken and Ahlsell. Atlas Copco and Höganäs, both Swedish, are other well-known companies that figure into the mix. Surprisingly, we have identified only one conference at which explicit BB content was presented, namely the abovementioned conference from 2006, where Robin Fraser was the keynote speaker.

4.4.3. Dissemination

BB is disseminated in two ways in this category of actors. Both IBC Euroforum and Westbridge market their conferences through several channels, principally mass mail-outs of folders in paper format and via e-mail, advertising in newspapers/magazines, or via their own websites. The marketing activity is directed toward a wide range of potential conference participants. They include previous conference participants, subscribers to business magazines, and practicing management accountants. BB is also disseminated in connection with the organizing and hosting of conferences. IBC Euroforum organizes the leading conferences in Sweden for the target group of management accountants. One conference a year on the topic of management accounting was produced in the years 2000–2012. In total, four presentations featuring BB (i.e. Swedish BB cases) have been made on four occasions. All conferences have taken place in Stockholm and have attracted 50–75 participants per conference. Since 2011, Westbridge has organized two conferences a year for the target group of management accountants. Presentation points featuring BB (i.e. Swedish BB cases) have figured into two of these four occasions. The conferences have taken place in Stockholm and have had 90–100 participants per conference.

4.5. Publishers

4.5.1. Selection of BB

The three publishers included in the study – Liber Akademi, Liber Affärslitteratur, and Studentlitteratur – face three types of decision situation concerning the selection/rejection of books, namely when a manuscript or idea for a book is submitted to the publisher by one or more authors, when the publisher itself has identified an idea for a book, and when a suggestion for a book is submitted by an external actor.

In the case of BB, two types of rejection/selection decision have played a role. Both Liber Akademi and Studentlitteratur have acquired manuscripts or ideas for books that focus on management accounting in which BB plays a role. All of these have been selected for publication. In all cases, the authors are well-known and have previously published books with these publishers, providing what has been seen as sufficient reason for subsequent publication. Nevertheless, only one book with BB content has been published (see Section 4.6). In other cases, the authors have chosen to omit the BB element even though it was included in the planning stage. The other decision situation, which involves Liber Affärslitteratur, is about whether Hope and Fraser’s book Beyond Budgeting – How managers can break free from the annual performance trap (2003) should be translated into Swedish. The publisher came into contact with the book and found the BB concept interesting when it realized that it constituted a concrete alternative to conventional budgeting and that Swedish companies (Svenska Handelsbanken and Ahlsell) figure prominently in the book. It considered these to be strong enough arguments for translation and publication.

4.5.2. Processing

A distinguishing feature in this category of actors is that the publishers have not been responsible for any actual processing of BB in the contexts in which it could effectively occur. With the publication of books, the publishers say that they have left it up to the author(s) to decide on content and presentation. Regarding Beyond Budgeting – How managers can break free from the annual performance trap, the text has not been processed in connection with the translation into Swedish (Hope and Fraser 2004). There is, however, an important exception with regard to the BB label. The Swedish title translated into English reads ‘Replacing the budget – Breaking free from the annual performance trap’ (‘Istället för budget – Att bryta sig loss från den årliga prestationsfällan’). Thus, the BB label has been replaced with an expression that does not relate to the concept, in either Swedish or English. Today, the publisher cannot clarify the reason for this mode of processing. In the main text of the book the ‘beyond budgeting’ label has been translated into the Swedish term ‘budgetlös styrning’, which, as noted previously, is also a general term used in Sweden for ‘managing without budgets’. Thus, the Swedish translation of ‘beyond budgeting’ is not unique to the concept.

4.5.3. Dissemination

The publishers sell books using a standardized marketing mix consisting of mass mail-outs of advertising leaflets and catalogs in paper and electronic format (e-mail). A number of key players on the demand side routinely receive free copies of newly published books. Interested parties also have the opportunity to order books for review. New books that are thought perhaps to interest a wider circle of readers are often displayed at exhibitions and both research and management conferences. The book in this study that features BB has been marketed through these channels. The main target groups for it are university lecturers (the vast majority of people reading these books are university students, primarily those taking advanced courses in management accounting) and practicing management accountants. The book is also included in executive educational programs. In the case of Hope and Fraser’s book, a more comprehensive marketing campaign took place. Liber Affärslitteratur also marketed the book somewhat extensively to practicing managers, such as via organizations that are interested in competency development. The book also experienced diffusion via the publisher’s book club, through which it was distributed to all subscribers. The book first mentioned still exists in the publisher’s catalog and has experienced diffusion (the sales figures are confidential). Hope and Fraser’s book was available on the market for only three years. The book was removed from the publisher’s catalog in 2006 owing to very poor sales.

4.6. Books/Academics

4.6.1. Rejection of BB

Nine of this study’s ten management accounting books with practitioners as the target group have rejected BB. The respondents (authors) indicated several reasons for this.⁷ For seven of the books, the main reason is the BB concept’s lack of practical relevance. They believe that the BB message, above all the critique of budgeting, lacks validity in practice, that too few companies have adopted BB, and that the budget debate is not newsworthy (other issues are more important in practice). In addition, five further reasons were presented with regard to these books, namely that the BB message is far too generalized (the critique hardly applies to all companies and empirical support for the BB message is virtually non-existent); they lack their own experience in research projects on BB; BB is perceived as being far too vague to be effectively communicated in a book; they are not convinced to adopt the BB message as a whole (they agree in part with the critique of budgeting, but not with ‘the solution’); and BB is not sufficiently established in practice. The ninth book rejected BB, arguing that it is irrelevant to the book’s content, and the tenth book argues that the author did not have his/her own experiences in research projects on BB.

4.6.2. Selection of BB

The main reason for selecting the BB content in the book – ‘Financial analysis and control’ (in Swedish ‘Ekonomisk analys och styrning’) (Bergstrand 2010) – is the concept’s newsworthiness. The author refers in particular to the attention the concept is receiving in Norway, not least among academics, and that several large companies, e.g. Statoil, are reasoning in accordance with the BB message.

4.6.3. Processing

BB is brought up in a chapter under the heading Rolling forecasts in modern management control systems (in Swedish Rullande prognoser i moderna styrsystem). Reference is made in the chapter’s introduction to another of the book’s chapters in which the critique of conventional budgeting is summarized. It is subsequently stated that BB has become a recognized alternative to conventional budgeting. The author stated, however, that he regards rolling forecasts as the most significant feature of BB. He is expressly negative toward Hope and Fraser’s (2003) book, arguing that it lacks any actual newsworthiness and does not contribute anything that goes sufficiently ‘beyond’ budgeting. The only element to which he reacts positively is rolling forecasts, which he believes ‘go beyond budgeting and further’. For these reasons, the author said that, for him alone, rolling forecasts represent BB. It is not stated in the book, though, that rolling forecasts and BB are synonymous, but rather that rolling forecasts are introduced as a feature of BB. The book contains sections with special features on the advantages and disadvantages of rolling forecasts and case studies as well as a discussion of the choice between rolling forecasts and conventional budgeting. It is noteworthy that the BB label is mentioned only once in the book and is not included in the book’s subject index.

4.6.4. Dissemination

The authors are not involved in disseminating books. It is the responsibility of publishers to market, sell, and distribute the books that they produce. Therefore, Section 4.5 on the dissemination phase in the case of publishers also pertains to books/academics.

5. Concluding discussion

5.1. Why was BB not successful? – the main findings

This paper set out to examine directly how the considerations, decision-making, actions, and interactions of supply-side actors have limited the success of the BB concept in Swedish business practice. We conceptualize a management fashion-setting process that enabled us to explore how and why actors have selected or rejected BB, how and why BB has been processed, the channels through which BB has been disseminated, and how and why supply-side actors interact (or do not interact) with other supply-side actors and other parties in these activities. Examining this process provides detailed insights and understanding of both individual key actors’ activities and the joint accomplishments of actors in the supply-side arena that have affected the evolution and outcome of the BB management fashion-setting process.

The collective outcome of the management fashion-setting process may be briefly summarized as follows: A weakly mobilized supply-side arena has produced heavily reduced, heterogeneous BB packages of design characteristics and rhetoric that have reached only a small portion of the target audience of potential adopters.

We believe that several key factors have contributed to this outcome, beginning with important supply-side actors that have not participated in marketing and disseminating BB. There are two main explanations for their inactivity. First, several key supply-side actors, including professional organizations and interest groups, university academics, and MCFs have decided actively to reject BB, which, therefore, is a key factor explaining the outcome of the fashion-setting process. These actors serve important functions because they play distinctive roles in the supply-side arena. Professional associations are important because they bring together and mediate between distinct categories of supply-side actors and potential users, thus providing a forum for the dissemination of management concepts (Newell et al. 1998, Scarbrough 2002). This function is enacted through involvement in inter-organizational networks as well as the associations’ capacity to legitimize management concepts (Scarbrough 2002). Previous research has documented the important role that academics play in the popularization of management concepts in Sweden ABC/M and the BSC (Ask et al. 1996; Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Madsen and Slåtten 2013) (see also below). The literature has also identified MCFs as particularly active in such activities and this actor is therefore generally seen as crucial to a management concept’s success (e.g. Abrahamson 1996a, Suddaby and Greenwood 2001, Scarbrough 2003, Heusinkveld and Benders 2005, David and Strang 2006, Heusinkveld and Visscher 2012, Jung and Kieser 2012).

Second, apart from actors who have decided actively to reject BB, some actors have remained inactive in the market for other reasons. This is particularly apparent in the case of the business press. Some business magazines were unaware of the existence of the BB concept and those that have selected BB have not published related articles because of a dearth of material informing pieces written by in-house journalists and a lack of manuscripts submitted by external writers. Given the key role of the business press in diffusion processes, the lack of awareness of BB and involuntary inactivity significantly weaken what should be a force that drives the concept. The business press not only represents the most effective channel for mass distribution of management concepts to the managerial audience, it also functions as a principal arena for the legitimization of management concepts (Mazza and Alvarez 2000, Rüling 2005, Nijholt et al. 2014). It has even been suggested that intensive attention from business media is a necessary condition for a management concept to become popular (Kieser 2002, Rüling 2005).

A second key factor relates to the processing phase. Notably, this study identified no outcome of this phase that has resulted in a comprehensive version of BB or a version with key design characteristics and/or rhetorical elements that are in line with Hope and Fraser (2003, 2004). The study identified several processing strategies (Ax and Bjørnenak 2007) that have all produced simplified/reduced versions of the BB concept. Choosing only certain elements of a management concept also means rejecting other elements. It was surprising to find that the processing activities we identified focused almost exclusively on the rhetoric of BB. Indeed, only one processing strategy that incorporates design characteristics of the BB concept exists, namely ‘design selecting’ (Ax and Bjørnenak 2007). An even more surprising finding was that no outcome of the processing phase incorporates core elements of the ‘solutions part’ of BB (i.e. how to go beyond conventional budgeting), such as its principles and/or tools/techniques.

A third key factor involves the dissemination phase. Our study finds very limited promotion or distribution activities related to the BB message. The few mass distribution activities that have taken place have focused on the BB label and practical applications in a small number of companies, while the dissemination activities that have focused more intently on the content of BB have targeted paying customers, thus limiting the spread of detailed information about BB to a larger audience.

Our study demonstrates how forces that might drive the diffusion process and thus the conditions enabling BB to diffuse successfully are gradually weakened as the fashion-setting process plays out. Once BB is made available to potential adopters, the fundamental conditions enabling the concept to become successful in the Swedish market are virtually nonexistent. As a result of the lack of mobilization of supply-side actors around BB, the vagueness and incompleteness of the versions of BB that have been produced and diffused, and the rarity and limited extent of dissemination activities that have taken place, the concept has never reached the point at which bandwagon effects kick in. The literature agrees that a management concept can become fashionable and diffuse widely only if the concept’s popularity exceeds a critical threshold level that enables it to gain a foothold or take-off point in a local market. Exceeding this threshold level creates pressure among supply-side actors to take part in the diffusion process. There are two main types of supply-side bandwagon pressure effects. A competitive bandwagon effect occurs because actors fear missing out on a market opportunity or lagging behind competitors if they do not jump on the bandwagon (Benders et al. 1998). An institutional bandwagon effect takes place when there is a risk of losing legitimacy for not offering a popular management concept (David and Strang 2006). As the actors that supply a concept and the organizations that adopt that concept grow in number, the pressure other actors experience increases. Thus, the supply and demand sides reinforce each other in an autocatalytic process (Braam et al. 2007, p. 869). Not surprisingly, we found no evidence that the supply-side actors surveyed in the current study had taken actions related to supply-side bandwagon pressure effects.

5.2. Contrasting this study’s findings to those reported in prior research

Our findings provide an interesting contrast to prior research findings regarding the organization, work, and configuration of the management fashion-setting arena, particularly in four areas.

First, the literature typically depicts the supply-side arena as a rather homogeneous, well-organized and cohesive grouping of actors that through varying types of collaboration create, select, process, and disseminate fashionable management concepts (e.g. Clark 2004, Heusinkveld and Benders 2005, Sturdy 2011, Nijholt et al. 2016). In contrast, our findings suggest that the supply-side arena may also be fairly depicted as comprising a loosely coupled group of distinct actors exhibiting a diverse range of processes, beliefs, and conditions as predicates for their work, with loose or temporary forms of alliances, rather than a cohesive group engaging in organized and structured collaboration. This does not however seem to hinder or prevent the successful diffusion of management concepts. Indeed, the Swedish cases of ABC/M and the BSC show that the collective efforts of supply-side actors can nevertheless be highly efficient under certain conditions. On the other hand, when these conditions are not met, as in our case with BB, the management fashion-setting process collapses. This study is, however, just an early step in building a body of knowledge that advances our understanding of the work of and interplay between supply-side actors over the phases of the management fashion-setting process. Collaborations were not the main focus of this study, so future research could investigate this issue more fully with a design focusing, for example, on types of collaboration, the benefits and costs associated with collaboration, and the conditions that must be in place to achieve success through collaborations of various forms. This research should include collaboration in the form of so-called ‘coopetition’ (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996), which has not been studied extensively in this area. While supply-side actors are competitors, they may at the same time benefit from collaboration. Such collaboration may focus on increasing market size for management concepts, creating a market niche, or enhancing a firm’s competitive position in the market.

Second, the notion that the interpretative viability inherent to a management concept is a prerequisite for its becoming successful and that supply-side actors use it intelligently and actively to adapt and (re)package the content of concepts to fit local circumstances or their own purposes pervades the literature (e.g. Benders and van Veen 2001, Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002, Røvik 2011, Czarniawska and Sevón 2005). A large share of actors rejecting BB in this study referred to the vague rhetoric associated with BB to explain the decision. This finding is interesting because it seems to contrast with the notion and importance of interpretative viability in popularizing management concepts discussed in the literature. Why would supply-side actors reject a concept with a high level of interpretative viability? To the best of our knowledge prior research has not addressed this issue. Apart from highlighting the significance of a certain level, i.e. a minimum level, of interpretative viability for a management concept to succeed, prior research has been limited to discussing only what happens to interpretative viability during management concept's life cycle. Benders and van Veen (2001) contend, and Giroux (2006) empirically documents, that interpretative viability rises as concepts take off and become popular, suggesting the presence of a positive feedback loop between interpretative viability and concept success. The rejection decisions examined in this study were, however, made in the early stages of the life cycle, i.e. before such a feedback loop effect occurs. Because we did not explore these decisions in greater depth, we cannot say much about why the vagueness of BB makes in unattractive. Some insights into what contributes to this vagueness may however be gained by considering differences in content between BB and successful concepts, for example ABC/M and the BSC. Our analysis identifies factors that may contribute to the vagueness of BB. For instance, unlike ABC/M and the BSC, BB lacks distinctive design characteristics as well as a distinctive conceptual core (Ax and Bjørnenak 2007). Moreover, it uses graphics ineffectively (Free and Qu 2011) and provides few concrete guidelines regarding how the associated ideas can be applied and used. Because our current knowledge of how concept vagueness affects selection/rejection decisions and what factors contribute to this vagueness is limited, more research is needed to shed light on this issue.

In addition to elucidating the failure of BB, such research could also consider addressing the paradox of strategic management accounting (Nixon and Burns 2012) from this perspective. Future research could benefit from using the three-component modality of interpretative viability – ambiguity, vagueness, and generality – suggested by Giroux (2006), which would bring greater conceptual clarity to research on the notion of interpretative viability. Another interesting finding from this study is that the actors we interviewed that had selected BB did not appear to use its interpretative viability constructively. In fact, the choices made to use the interpretative space around BB were surprising, as their characteristics reduced the potential attractiveness of the concept. These findings are quite unexpected in light of the rather categorical view in the literature accounting for why and how supply-side actors use the interpretative viability of management concepts. A weakness of this literature is however the lack of systematic empirical research pertaining to this issue. Extant studies focus most often on how management concepts have been adjusted primarily by management consultants and the business press in dissemination channels (e.g. Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Braam et al. 2007, Benders and van Veen 2001). Thus, there is a need for more detailed research to better understand why (or why not), how, and under what conditions and configurations supply-side actors use interpretative viability to adapt a globally diffusing management concept to local circumstances or to pursue their own interests in other respects.

Third, even though the literature indicates that university academics are involved in many supply-side activities – such as publishing articles in practitioner and professional journals and magazines, teaching MBA programs and executive education, and presenting research results at public meetings (Kieser 1997, Hedmo et al. 2005, Roberts 2010) – the literature indicates that they do not typically play a decisive role in the fashion-setting arena or in contributing to the success of management concepts.⁸ For example, Roberts (2010, p. 114) states that academics’ actions ‘are generally perceived as following, rather than leading, management progress’. Werr and Greiner (2008) even suggest that the role that academics play in the supply-side arena has become less significant and valued by other actors over time, owing mainly to university reward systems and journal requirements. Our findings suggest, however, a different picture of the role of academics. First, academics are generally regarded as reliable and unbiased experts on management accounting concepts. Moreover, because of the prestige academics enjoy in Sweden, their support of and participation in supply-side activities are highly sought after. Indeed, several actors admitted that if they fail to involve academics in internal and external supply-side activities, they are typically forced to refrain from carrying out these activities (which is what happened in the case of BB). In addition, previous research has reported the active and important role that academics have played in the success of management accounting concepts, particularly the BSC, in Sweden (Ax and Bjørnenak 2005, Madsen and Slåtten 2013). Thus, our findings suggest that university academics, through their opinions about a candidate management accounting concept and willingness to support and participate in the fashion-setting process, significantly influence whether the diffusion of the concept ‘takes off’ or not, play a gatekeeping role in the Swedish supply-side arena.

Fourth, the literature typically depicts large, mainly international MCFs as the most influential and central supply-side actors. These MCFs have been identified as particularly active in creating management concepts, publishing articles and books, making presentations at conferences and seminars, sponsoring events, participating in professional associations’ activities, and advertising their expertise in management concepts. The active involvement of MCFs in the fashion-setting process is therefore seen as crucial to a management concept’s success (e.g. Abrahamson 1996a, Suddaby and Greenwood 2001, Scarbrough 2003, Heusinkveld and Benders 2005, David and Strang 2006, Heusinkveld and Visscher 2012, Jung and Kieser 2012). In light of this, it is reasonable to expect that decisions by international MCFs to reject BB help to explain its failure in Sweden. Our interviews suggest, however, that these MCFs do not have a strong presence in the public market for management accounting concepts in Sweden. Very few of the other supply-side actors interviewed mention that they collaborate with them or indicate that they play an important part in the market. Our interviews with the MCFs themselves point in the same direction. Their fashion-setting activities are generally directed entirely toward existing clients and direct-to-the-client marketing/sales. Previous research confirms the minor role that international MCFs play in popularizing management accounting concepts in Sweden. Studies of the diffusion of the BSC (Ax & Bjørnenak 2005, Madsen and Slåtten, 2013) and ABC/M (Ask et al. 1996) have reported that one important success factor for each these concepts was the active role of a high-profile local MCF specializing in the particular management accounting concept rather than the active involvement of international MCFs. These local MCFs not only conducted activities such as writing books and articles and organizing and making presentations at conferences and seminars, they also organized network arrangements involving primarily local actors, including themselves, university academics, early adopters, and organizers of conferences and seminars. These actor alliances were important contributors to the success of the BSC and ABC/M because they gave legitimacy to and provided a forum for the widespread dissemination of the concepts through multiple channels. Thus, our findings and those of prior studies indicate that large international MCFs play a somewhat minor role in popularizing management concepts in broader populations of organizations in Sweden, instead highlighting the important role of local, concept-specialized MCFs.

5.3. Contributions to research

Our study makes three contributions to current knowledge.

First, this study provides the first direct evidence of decision-making and the actions of and interplay between influential supply-side actors over the phases of the management fashion-setting process when a globally traveling management (accounting) concept enters a local context. This detailed analysis is important because it provides insights into micro-level activities and processes that affect the evolution and outcome of the fashion-setting process. Prior research has been limited to examining the dissemination phase and the work of supply-side actors, mainly management consultants but also those in a few other categories, thus overlooking preceding phases and other important actors that operate on the supply side of the market. Our study addresses these limitations by examining multiple phases and the key actors involved in the market. In so doing, we respond to calls in the literature for more research on these issues (e.g. Malmi 1999, Benders and van Bijsterveld 2000, Clark 2004, Perkmann and Spicer 2008, Roberts 2010, Heusinkveld et al. 2013, Piazza and Abrahamson 2020).

Second, our study extends the literature by providing a complementary picture of essential assumptions and elements of the dominant model of the management fashion-setting process. Above we highlighted a number of such aspects: the configuration of and collaboration within the management fashion arena, the use of the interpretative viability of management concepts, and the respective roles and importance of the supply-side actors involved. We believe this insight represents an important addition to the literature because it provides a more nuanced understanding of the internal functioning and outcomes of the management fashion-setting process. In contrast with those of most prior research in this area, our findings suggest the presence of a more complex and less predetermined management fashion-setting process.

Finally, our findings contribute to the ongoing debate over the relevance of budgeting, specifically the beyond budgeting and non-budget management debate (see Nguyen et al., (2018) for a review of the literature). Previous research has typically contributed to the budgeting debate by examining the design and use of and planned and actual changes in budgeting practice from the managerial perspective. Thus, a national understanding of how and why budgeting develops in certain directions is typically based on a one-sided perspective on the drivers of change. This study adds to this analysis by providing empirical findings pertaining to the drivers of budgeting change and stability from the supply-side perspective. The study highlights the importance of considering both supply- and demand-side perspectives when analyzing the directions and of driving forces behind the development of budgeting practice. Additional empirical research is needed to increase our understanding of the role of the supply side and of how supply- and demand-side forces interplay to influence the development of budgeting practices.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the comments of Henrik Agndal, Sebastian Becker, Elin Funck, Jan Greve, Timo Hyvönen, Torbjörn Stjernberg and Andreas Werr on earlier versions of this paper. We thank the reviewers and the editor, Professor Sven Modell, for their comments and help with the paper. This work was supported by the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, the Torsten and Ragnar Söderberg’s Foundations, and Stena AB.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Jan Wallander is well known in Sweden. He has been the CEO and Chairman of Svenska Handelsbanken and a Board Member or Board Chairman of Ericsson, Marieberg, MoDo, SJ, and SAS. He was an Associate Professor of Economics and has been the Head of SNS (Centre for Business and Policy Studies) and IUI (The Industrial Institute of Social and Economic Research) (Ax and Bjørnenak 2005).

2 Two separate interviews were conducted with one author/academic because he had published two books between 2003 and 2012. Two separate interviews were conducted with two authors/academics because they had published two books each during that period. Two separate interviews were conducted with two respondents because they represented two groups of supply-side actors each (authors/academics and a professional institute, and authors/academics and a professional network). Two interviews were conducted with representatives for an individual supply-side actor (a professional association). Four interviews were conducted with representatives for an individual supply-side actor (a professional institute).

3 Our own translation of the Swedish name ‘Ekonomistyrningsforum’. The forum does not have an official English name.

4 Our own translation of the Swedish name ‘Controllernätverk’. The network does not have an official English name.

5 The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries was formerly known as the Trade Association of the Swedish Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Industry (‘Sveriges Mekanförbund’).

6 Because Industry trade and employers’ associations no longer pursue issues related to the development of administrative systems and procedures (including management accounting), in this section we report no results related to this supply-side actor.

7 The label ‘beyond budgeting’, however, is mentioned in two books and Hope and Fraser’s (2003) book is mentioned. The total number of sentences directly related to BB in these books amounts to two per book.

8 Some academics have however become popular as ‘academic management gurus’. These figures include Michael Porter, Gary Hamel, C.K. Prahalad, Paul Krugman and Robert S. Kaplan. They engage primarily in publishing management ideas for practitioners, making presentations at conferences and seminars for practitioners, participating in professional organizations’ activities, and temporarily acting as management consultants.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Organizations, Respondents, Job titles & Date of interview

Table

Category of supply side actor	Organization and Books/Academics	Respondent’s Position/Title	Date of interview
Management consulting firms	Acando	Business Area Manager Business Consulting	June 5, 2012
	Accenture	Senior Manager	June 14, 2012
	Ekan	Founder & CEO	April 26, 2012
	Ernst & Young	Executive Director Advisory Services	May 15, 2012
	IC Konsult	Senior Partner	June 29, 2012
	McKinsey & Company	Senior Partner	May 29, 2012
	Meritmind	Senior Management Consultant	May 24, 2012
	Preera	Senior Management Consultant	June 4, 2012
Business press	Balans	Editor-in-Chief	May 4, 2012
	Chef	Senior Editor	May 3, 2012
	Computer Sweden	Senior Editor	April 20, 2012
	Personal & Ledarskap	Editor-in-Chief	April 23, 2012
Professional organizations and interest groups	The Swedish Association of Graduates in Business Administration and Economics (Civilekonomerna)	Managing Director Head of Research and Continuing Education	May 4, 2012 May 11, 2012
	The Controller Network (Controllernätverk)	Coordinator (PhD, Associate professor specialized in management accounting)	May 25, 2012
	The Management Accounting Forum (Ekonomistyrningsforum)	Coordinator/Advisory board member (PhD, Professor specialized in management accounting)	May 29, 2012
	The Swedish Institute of Authorized Public Accountants (FAR)	Secretary General	May 9, 2012
		Head of Publishing	May 3, 2012
		Business Developer Education	May 7, 2012
		Teacher/Course responsible (PhD, Associate professor specialized in management accounting)	July 3, 2012
Industry trade and employers’ associations	Målaremästarna	CFO	Oct 10, 2012
	Svensk Handel	CAO	Oct 8, 2012
	The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv)	Vice President	June 27, 2012
	The Association of Swedish Engineering Industries (Teknikföretagen)	Director Industrial Development	E-mails, June 1-13, 2012
Conference organizers	IBC Euroforum	Managing Director	May 11, 2012
	Westbridge	Research Manager	May 19, 2012
Publishers	Liber Affärslitteratur	Publisher	April 24, 2012
	Liber Akademi	Publisher	April 20, 2012
	Studentlitteratur	Former Publisher	May 7, 2012
Books/Academics	Almqvist, R. et al. (2012) ‘Ansvarsfull verksamhetsstyrning’	PhD, Associate Professor specialized in management accounting	May 25, 2012
	Nilsson, F., and Olve, N-G. (Ed.) (2008) ‘Controllerhandboken’	PhD, Adjunct Professor specialized in management accounting	May 18, 2012
	Lindvall, J. (2009, 2011) ‘Controllerns nya roll’, ‘Verksamhetsstyrning – från traditionell ekonomistyrning till modern verksamhetsstyrning’	PhD, Associate Professor specialized in management accounting	May 16, 2012
	Bergstrand, J. (2003, 2010) ‘Ekonomisk styrning’, ‘Ekonomisk analys och styrning’	PhD, Adjunct Professor specialized in management accounting	May 29, 2012
	Nilsson, F. et al. (2010) ‘Ekonomistyrning för konkurrenskraft’	PhD, Professor specialized in management accounting	May 29, 2012
	Olve, N.G. et al. (2003) ‘Framgångsrikt styrkortsarbete – metoder och erfarenheter’	PhD, Adjunct Professor specialized in management accounting	May 18, 2012
	Andersson, G., and Larsson, R. (2006) ‘Gränslöst värdeskapande’	PhD, Associate Professor specialized in management accounting	Oct 8, 2012
	Lind, R. and Ivarsson Westerberg, A. (Eds.) (2011) ‘Ledning av företag och förvaltningar’	Assistant Professor specialized in organization and management	May 30, 2012
	Johansson, U, and Skoog, M. (2007) ‘Verksamhetsstyrning – För utveckling, förbättring och förändring’	PhD, Associate Professor specialized in management accounting	July 3, 2012

Appendix 2. Description of the research instrument used in the study

(Please also see Section 3 in the paper for a description about what happened prior to the interviews and how the interviews were conducted.)

The research instrument used in the study was a written interview questionnaire with four main sections: (1) background information about each respondent, (2) awareness of the BB concept and the phases of the management fashion-setting process, (3) each respondent’s/respondent’s organization’s awareness of and possible participation in supplying the idea of the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken, and (4) knowledge in particular about influential supply-side actors involved in management accounting innovations that could be relevant to the study. Open-ended questions were used in the questionnaire.

Section 1 included questions about each respondents’ position in their organization, tenure in the organization, and experience from working with management accounting innovations.

Section 2 included questions relating to awareness of the BB concept and each of the three phases of the management fashion-setting process – selection/rejection, processing, and dissemination as follows:

Awareness

(Respondents were given a definition of BB in line with Hope and Fraser (2003, 2004) (and the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken))

• Are you aware of BB?

If no:

• Go to Section 3.

If yes:

• How would you/your organization define/describe BB?

• What is your/your organization’s view on/opinion about BB?

• Where/How did you/your organization first learn about BB?

Selection/Rejection

(Respondents were given definitions (and examples) of selecting/rejecting)

• Have you/your organization selected or rejected BB?

• Why was BB selected/rejected?

  • o If selected: What were the circumstances when BB became an issue on your/your organization’s agenda?

  • o If rejected: What were the circumstances when BB was rejected?

• Did you/your organization conduct an assessment/evaluation of BB that guided the decision to select/reject BB?

If no:

• Why not?

If yes:

• What did the assessment/evaluation look like (criteria, method, data, metrics, view of external experts/agents and other input)?

• Who conducted the assessment/evaluation (internal actors and/or external actors/agents)?

• Who participated in the decision to select/reject (internal actors and/or external actors/agents)?

• Why did you/your organization involve (if you/it involved) external actors/agents in the assessment/evaluation/decision?

• What was the role of (if any were involved) external actors/agents in the assessment/evaluation/decision to select/reject?

Processing

(Respondents were given definition (and examples) of processing)

• Have you/your organization processed the BB concept (e.g. design and/or rhetoric)

If no:

• Did you/your organization consider processing BB? If yes, why? If you/your organization did consider processing BB, why did you/your organization not do the processing? If you/your organization did not consider processing BB, why not?

If yes:

• Why did you/your organization process BB? (What initiated processing ‘the need’ to process BB?)

• How have you/your organization processed BB?

• How did you/your organization decide which elements/characteristics of BB to process?

• Who was involved in the analysis/decision to process BB (internal actors and/or external actors/agents)?

• What was the role of (if involved) external actors/agents in the analysis/decision to process BB?

• Why did you/your organization involve (if involved) external actors/agents in analysis/decision to process BB?

Dissemination

(Respondents were given definitions (and examples) of dissemination and distribution channels)

• What distribution channels do you/your organization use to disseminate BB?

• Why do you/your organization use these distribution channels to disseminate BB?

• What is the approx. number of recipients reached for each distribution channel that you/your organization use to disseminate BB?

• What categories of recipients do you target/reach for each distribution channel that you/your organization use to disseminate BB?

• Who is involved in disseminating BB (internal actors and/or external actors/agents)?

• What is the role of (if involved) external actors/agents in disseminating BB?

Section 3 focused on the respondent’s/respondent’s organization’s awareness of and possible participation in supplying the idea of the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken. The questions in Section 2 were, where relevant, discussed but with a focus on the non-budget management system at Svenska Handelsbanken (instead of BB).

Section 4 asked the respondents if they had knowledge about particularly influential supply-side actors involved in management accounting innovations that could be relevant to the study.