IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v112y2024ics0361368224000011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costing system design and honesty in managerial reporting: An experimental examination of multi-agent budget and capacity reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Maussen, Sophie
  • Cardinaels, Eddy
  • Hoozée, Sophie

Abstract

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) systems use time inputs and distinguish between the cost of resource usage and the cost of unused capacity to provide accurate cost information. Importantly, TDABC produces aggregate signals of unused capacity at the department level, which offers the potential for superiors to assess misreporting or slack creation during budgeting without knowing which subordinates contributed to the slack. In a multi-agent participative budgeting experiment, we examine the impact of two capacity reporting conditions against a condition where capacity reporting is absent. When superiors receive an aggregate signal of unused capacity and subordinates have no discretion over cost allocation input parameters, misreporting of cost budgets decreases compared to when capacity reporting is absent. However, the benefits of capacity reporting on misreporting largely vanish when subordinates have discretion over the inputs allowing them to hide their unused capacity. When discretion is absent, subordinates anticipate peers to reduce misreporting to avoid the superior's rejection of their aggregate proposal. Yet, discretion over the inputs changes subordinates' anticipation in that they expect others to misreport and hide unused capacity to appear honest. Costing system designers should thus be aware that giving employees discretion over time inputs can offset the decision-making benefits of TDABC.

Suggested Citation

  • Maussen, Sophie & Cardinaels, Eddy & Hoozée, Sophie, 2024. "Costing system design and honesty in managerial reporting: An experimental examination of multi-agent budget and capacity reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000011
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2024.101541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368224000011
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101541?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. Lynn Hannan & Frederick W. Rankin & Kristy L. Towry, 2006. "The Effect of Information Systems on Honesty in Managerial Reporting: A Behavioral Perspective," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 885-918, December.
    2. Markus Brunner & Andreas Ostermaier, 2019. "Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 127-145, January.
    3. Douthit, Jeremy & Majerczyk, Michael, 2019. "Subordinate perceptions of the superior and agency costs: Theory and evidence," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Tim Friehe & Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch, 2018. "Predicting norm enforcement: the individual and joint predictive power of economic preferences, personality, and self-control," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 127-146, February.
    5. S. Hoozee & W. Bruggeman, 2010. "Identifying operational improvements during the design process of a time-driven ABC system: The role of collective worker participation and leadership style," Post-Print hal-00679954, HAL.
    6. Charles Boster & Michael Majerczyk & Yu Tian, 2018. "The Effect of Individual and Pooled Profit Sharing Plans on Honesty in Managerial Reporting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 696-715, June.
    7. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2016. "Earnings benchmarks, information systems, and their impact on the degree of honesty in managerial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 50-62.
    8. Cardinaels, Eddy & Yin, Huaxiang, 2015. "Think twice before going for incentives : Social norms and the principal's decision on compensation contracts," Other publications TiSEM 945e5cb3-b28b-4900-9e86-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Steve Buchheit, 2004. "Fixed Cost Magnitude, Fixed Cost Reporting Format, and Competitive Pricing Decisions: Some Experimental Evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 1-24, March.
    10. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    11. Demeere, Nathalie & Stouthuysen, Kristof & Roodhooft, Filip, 2009. "Time-driven activity-based costing in an outpatient clinic environment: Development, relevance and managerial impact," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(2-3), pages 296-304, October.
    12. Karl Schuhmacher & Michael Burkert, 2022. "Time Is Relative: How Framing of Time Estimation Affects the Accuracy of Cost Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5493-5513, July.
    13. repec:eme:jal000:j.acclit.2018.03.004 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. William B. Tayler & Robert J. Bloomfield, 2011. "Norms, Conformity, and Controls," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 753-790, June.
    15. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    16. Sophie Maussen & Sophie Hoozée, 2022. "On the Influence of Task Interruption and Interactive Time Estimation on Estimation Error in Time-Based Costing Systems," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 519-541, March.
    17. Anil Arya & John Fellingham & Jonathan Glover & K. Sivaramakrishnan, 2000. "Capital Budgeting, the Hold-up Problem, and Information System Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 205-216, February.
    18. Cardinaels, Eddy, 2016. "Earnings benchmarks, information systems, and their impact on the degree of honesty in managerial reporting," Other publications TiSEM 5918f2bd-a456-4e49-989f-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. repec:eme:mfppss:03074350110767169 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Buchheit, Steve, 2003. "Reporting the cost of capacity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 549-565, August.
    21. Hao, Li & Houser, Daniel, 2017. "Perceptions, intentions, and cheating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 52-73.
    22. Davila, Tony & Wouters, Marc, 2005. "Managing budget emphasis through the explicit design of conditional budgetary slack," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(7-8), pages 587-608.
    23. Lan Guo & Theresa Libby & Xiaotao (Kelvin) Liu & Yu Tian, 2020. "Vertical Pay Dispersion, Peer Observability, and Misreporting in a Participative Budgeting Setting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 575-602, March.
    24. Keel, George & Savage, Carl & Rafiq, Muhammad & Mazzocato, Pamela, 2017. "Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: A systematic review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 755-763.
    25. John H. Evans & Donald V. Moser & Andrew H. Newman & Bryan R. Stikeleather, 2016. "Honor Among Thieves: Open Internal Reporting and Managerial Collusion," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(4), pages 1375-1402, December.
    26. Alisa G. Brink & Jennifer C. Coats & Frederick W. Rankin, 2018. "Who’s the boss? The economic and behavioral implications of various characterizations of the superior in participative budgeting research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(1), pages 89-105, March.
    27. Innes Robert & Mitra Arnab, 2013. "Is Dishonesty Contagious?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 722-734, January.
    28. Brink, Alisa G. & Coats, Jennifer C. & Rankin, Frederick W., 2018. "Who’s the boss? The economic and behavioral implications of various characterizations of the superior in participative budgeting research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 89-105.
    29. Eddy Cardinaels & Yuping Jia, 2016. "How Audits Moderate the Effects of Incentives and Peer Behavior on Misreporting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 183-204, May.
    30. Fisher, Joseph G. & Frederickson, James R. & Peffer, Sean A., 2006. "Budget negotiations in multi-period settings," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 511-528, August.
    31. Abdel-Rahim, Heba Y. & Stevens, Douglas E., 2018. "Information system precision and honesty in managerial reporting: A re-examination of information asymmetry effects," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 31-43.
    32. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    33. Eddy Cardinaels & Huaxiang Yin, 2015. "Think Twice Before Going for Incentives: Social Norms and the Principal's Decision on Compensation Contracts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 985-1015, December.
    34. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    35. Birendra Mishra & Igor Vaysman, 2001. "Cost‐System Choice and Incentives—Traditional vs. Activity‐Based Costing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 619-641, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Brunner & Andreas Ostermaier, 2019. "Peer Influence on Managerial Honesty: The Role of Transparency and Expectations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 127-145, January.
    2. Christian Daumoser & Bernhard Hirsch & Matthias Sohn, 2018. "Honesty in budgeting: a review of morality and control aspects in the budgetary slack literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 115-159, August.
    3. Maas, Victor S. & Yin, Huaxiang, 2022. "Finding partners in crime? How transparency about managers’ behavior affects employee collusion," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    4. Ruan, Qinnan, 2022. "Management control systems and ethical decision making," Other publications TiSEM 3b6dc74f-fd2a-48ef-b1a9-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Pamela R. Murphy & Michael Wynes & Till‐Arne Hahn & Patricia G. Devine, 2020. "Why Are People Honest? Internal and External Motivations to Report Honestly†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 945-981, June.
    6. Christoph Feichter & Isabella Grabner, 2020. "Empirische Forschung zu Management Control – Ein Überblick und neue Trends [Empirical Management Control Reserach—An Overview and Future Directions]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 149-181, June.
    7. Douthit, Jeremy & Majerczyk, Michael, 2019. "Subordinate perceptions of the superior and agency costs: Theory and evidence," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Brink, Alisa G. & Coats, Jennifer C. & Rankin, Frederick W., 2018. "Who’s the boss? The economic and behavioral implications of various characterizations of the superior in participative budgeting research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 89-105.
    9. Lisa-Marie Wibbeke & Maik Lachmann, 2020. "Psychology in management accounting and control research: an overview of the recent literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 275-328, September.
    10. Paul Coram & James R. Frederickson & Matthew Pinnuck, 2024. "Earnings management: Who do managers consider and what is the relative importance of ethics?," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 49(2), pages 214-248, May.
    11. Anthony D. Nikias & Steven T. Schwartz & Richard A. Young, 2021. "The effect of information transparency on capital budgeting with privately informed agents: a short research note," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 253-268, June.
    12. Anja Schwering, 2017. "The influence of peer honesty and anonymity on managerial reporting," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(9), pages 1151-1172, December.
    13. Tatiana Kozitsina & Anna Mikhaylova & Anna Komkova & Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Anna Sedush & Olga Menshikova & Mikhail Myagkov & Ivan Menshikov, 2020. "Ethnicity and gender influence the decision making in a multinational state: The case of Russia," Papers 2012.01272, arXiv.org.
    14. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    15. Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "On the Nature of Fair Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 20-26, January.
    16. Hitoshi Matsushima & Toshihiko Shima, 2011. "Investment and Ultimatum Games: Experiments," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-790, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    17. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    18. Schmid, Julia, 2015. "Voluntary industry standards: An experimental investigation of a Greek gift," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2015-206, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    19. Leonardo Becchetti & Luca Corazzini & Vittorio Pelligra, 2021. "Trust and Trustworthiness in Corrupted Economic Environments," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, February.
    20. Thomas Buser, 2011. "Hormones and Social Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-046/3, Tinbergen Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.