Burns and Scapens’ framework: a 25-year review of insights, challenges, and prospective directions Open Access

Burns and Scapens (B&S) wrote “whether management accounting has not changed, has changed, or should change have all been discussed” (2000, p. 3). They presented a framework on how processes of management accounting (MA) change/stability could be conceived through an institutional lens and rules and routines. At the time of writing (early 2024), B&S has been cited about 2,682 times (Google Scholar). It has informed diverse studies on themes of MA change and had ongoing development. As will be revealed, 77 papers have used B&S in its original form or adapted it. To put this in context, Englund et al. (2011) noted that structuration theory-informed accounting research had yielded 65 papers. That is, B&S is important in MA research and is a frequently applied qualitative framework. We can thus infer that B&S as a method theory is useful, and it has shaped the domain knowledge on MA change (cf. Lukka and Vinnari, 2014). At the same time, B&S as a sole method theory has been insufficient to capture MA change dynamics.

The literature has critiqued the B&S framework and integrated other theoretical perspectives to address limitations. Dillard et al. (2004) observed that B&S “conceptualise institutions as sedimentary processes represented in routine practices” and that “organisational practices are not related to the broader social, economic and political context” in which they are embedded (p. 511), highlighting the framework’s limited consideration of external factors. Johansson and Siverbo (2009) suggested that “the full potential of evolutionary theory […] has not been fully described or used in management accounting change research” (p. 147), advocating for a deeper incorporation of long-term, evolutionary perspectives within B&S. Busco et al. (2006) extended B&S by incorporating the sociology of knowledge, underscoring the need to examine “processes of (un)learning and change” alongside accounting practices (p. 13), enhancing the framework’s capacity to account for the production and reproduction of knowledge. Englund and Gerdin (2008) critiqued B&S for ambiguities in how rules and routines mediate structure and action, warning of potential theoretical conflation that could obscure the understanding of MA change. Ter Bogt and Scapens (2019) acknowledged critiques of B&S for its limited focus on external institutional logics and power dynamics, incorporating “situated rationality” to improve understanding of MA change (p. 1802). These critiques suggest an extending of the B&S framework to achieve a more nuanced understanding of MA change – and  Appendix 1 Table A1 for further critiques. Similar to Englund et al.’s (2011) reviewed of structuration theory, this paper undertakes a systematic review of literature drawing on B&S. This exercise is useful for three reasons. First, in an environment where the publication of articles is paramount, systematic reviews provide a concise overview of what has been done/what needs to be done (Petticrew and Roberts, 2012), providing an overview on the applications and developments of B&S. This is not only helpful to junior researchers of MA change, but also in condensing the citations of B&S into bite size chunks to inform research. Second, as exhibited by Lukka and Vinnari (2014), a systematic review can determine the status of a domain theory in accounting research. Consequently, by systematically identifying prior domain research – here the applications/theoretical contributions of B&S – researchers avoid proposing extant contributions. Also, the inclusion of prior theoretical contributions to B&S into an updated framework serves as a departure point for future work. Third, systematic reviews provide accessible entry to a field without reading copious research works (Petticrew and Roberts, 2012) and are increasingly common in recent years as a vehicle to stay abreast of emerging trends in a domain of accounting research (Linnenluecke et al., 2020).

Following methodological advice (Breslin and Gatrell, 2023; Hiebl, 2023; Tranfield et al., 2003), we apply evidence-based thinking and do not propose new theory (Breslin and Gatrell, 2023), rather assess the evidence base and incorporate existing theoretical advances into an updated framework. In following this overall objective, we contribute to the literature in three ways. First, we summarise how B&S-based papers have used the framework and which common themes have emerged. This analysis shows that the B&S framework can be applied in various different empirical settings, but may need theoretical amendments in some settings. Second, synthesising developments of B&S over time, an updated framework is offered which, while not challenging the original core mechanisms, acknowledges important refinements and additions not included in the original framework. Third, we identify avenues for future development. In addition, our review reveals similar theoretical contributions claimed by various authors suggesting a careful review of prior research is paramount.

The next section provides an overview of B&S, its foundations and key concepts. This is followed by details of the method used. Then, Section 4 provides the review findings, which are grouped into empirical applications of B&S (Section 4.1), research suggesting theoretical contributions to B&S (Section 4.2) and methodological observations made during the review (Section 4.3). Section 5 integrates the theoretical advances into an updated framework. Section 6 offers insights into important future research opportunities. Some concluding comments complete the paper.

Drawing from Old Institutional Economics (OIE), B&S embodies four concepts – institutions, action, rules and routines – to describe processes of MA change/stability, underpinning how MA practices evolve, change, stabilise and re-evolve over time. As shown in Figure 1, the process is encoding (a), enacting (b) and reproduction (c) of rules and routines, which may result in institutionalisation (d). An assumption of B&S is that change/stability in MA practices can be interpreted using rules and routines. They defined routines as “the way things are done” (2000, p. 5), and rules as “the way things should be done” (2000, p. 6).

B&S also portray a link between institutions and actions and these two realms represent an “ongoing cumulative process of change through time” (2000, p. 9). B&S starts with the encoding of “institutional principles into rules and routines” (2000, p. 10), line a in Figure 1. This starting point is influenced by existing rules and routines embedded as institutional values, which are enacted by actors (line b). Over time, repeated behaviour (lines b and c) may become institutionalised, i.e. the accepted way of doing things (line d). This process suggests that, over time, MA practices can become taken-for-granted (institutionalised), portraying MA as a stable phenomenon; or new institutions may evolve, interpreted with reference to existing rules and routines (line d/continuum of institutions in Figure 1).

MA change as envisaged by B&S is slower, longer-term, evolutionary change, as rules and routines interact over time to bring about new institutions. Thus, as B&S acknowledge, their framework is focused on intra-organizational change. Revolutionary change is possible as “a result of major external change, but responses to such forces are ‘likely to be determined largely by the current context of the organisation; including its routines and institutions’” (2000, p. 13) – see Section 4, later. B&S state that “by recognising that MA systems and practices are organisational rules and routines we can start to explore MA change as a process (rather than as an outcome)” (2000, p. 22), and their framework captured this process.

Many researchers have drawn upon the work of B&S but shortcomings have been noted, leading researchers to draw on other theoretical approaches, or use a pluralist approach (e.g. Scapens, 2006). A key critique of B&S is that there is potential “methodological bracketing” of institutionalism, with more attention paid to rules, routines and structures and less to agency. However, B&S does encompass action (as opposed to agency, see later) by incorporating Barley and Tolbert (1997) and recent work on routines in B&S capture action more clearly.

Originating from the medical sciences and evidence-based thinking (Tranfield et al., 2003), a systematic approach aims to be more transparent and comprehensive than “traditional” reviews (Hiebl, 2023). This transparency is reflected by traceability of how the reviewed items are selected, measures taken to arrive at a comprehensive sample and how the selected items are analysed. Our first task was to identify all research items that have applied/developed B&S. Like other reviews (Linnenluecke et al., 2020), we adopted a seminal-work-focused search approach starting with citations [¹]. We initially used Google Scholar to identify 2,682 citations from 2000 to the end of 2023 (see Figure 2). Google Scholar includes more citations than databases such as Web of Science or Scopus (e.g. Martín-Martín et al., 2018). We also reviewed alternative databases, but no additional articles were found.

We examined all 2,682 citations manually, excluded non-English language items, leaving 1,770 citations. Considering items in peer-reviewed journals (Wood and McKelvie, 2015), the count was 718. Following Franco-Santos et al. (2012), only articles published in journals rated B or above in the 2023 edition of ABDC or 2 or above in the 2022 edition of Academic Journal Guide (hereafter, AJG ranking) were included, leaving 397 papers. We then used an A/B/C classification logic – see  Appendix 2 Table A2. Category A was assigned to 23 papers offering theoretical contributions to B&S, developing one or more of its elements or extending the framework. This understanding of a theoretical contribution draws on Corley and Gioia (2011), who stated a theoretical contribution should be examined from an originality and utility perspective. Originality can be revelatory or incremental. The latter is relevant here as such contributions steadily progress existing method theory (B&S here). Category B was assigned to 54 papers using B&S to inform research and offer a contribution, but did not make a theoretical contribution to B&S. Category C was assigned to 320 papers only citing B&S, leaving 77 papers with A (23) and B (54) categories for more detailed analysis (see  Appendix 2 Table A2). All authors participated in the classification, with the A and B papers repeatedly reviewed. The gap between the initial 2,682 citations and the final sample is large but similar to other reviews (e.g. Englund et al., 2011). As per Table 1, the analysis of journals spanning from 2000 to 2023 within the domain of management MA change reveals Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change and the Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management as predominant platforms for scholarly dissemination. Management Accounting Research and Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal also feature prominently, underscoring the multifaceted nature of studies on MA change.

Following the meta-data analysis, a thematic analysis extracted and synthesised core contributions of each paper. This stage, supported by NVivo software, involved carefully reading each A and B type paper to identify and summarise contributions and purposes. Unlike traditional methods which start with predefined themes, our approach was intentionally open and inductive, allowing themes to emerge. This choice aligns with the evidence-based character of systematic reviews as Linnenluecke et al. (2020) advocated, ensuring the analysis remained grounded in the actual content of the papers, and not prior expectations. In addition, the four-step approach by Mahama and Khalifa (2017) was applied to distil complex qualitative data from 77 papers into coherent themes/sub-themes. The first step per Mahama and Khalifa (2017) is familiarisation with the data. Utilising the A/B/C categorisation, this initial stage implied a meticulous reading and re-reading of the 77 papers, and a reflective contemplation cycle. This helped uncovering intricate themes and patterns representing the empirical and theoretical contributions of B&S to domain and method theories around MA change. Through this stage, we ascertained both incremental and revelatory advances within the scholarly discourse around the B&S framework.

The second step was data organisation. An orderly structuring of the collected data was aided by NVivo, where a coding methodology segregated contributions of selected papers into emerging themes/sub-themes. This stage focused on categorisation of empirical and theoretical contributions, thereby understanding the evolution of method and domain theories of MA change. The iterative nature of this endeavour enabled the refinement and elucidation of nascent themes. This approach played a pivotal role in augmenting the coherence of our revised framework (see Section 5).

The third step was identifying patterns, where the focus transitions to a detailed examination of the interrelations and patterns within the thematic analysis – see  Appendix 3 Table A3. This process involved the exclusion, relocation and re-titling of themes, unveiling an interplay between aspects/elements of domain and method theories of MA. As per  Appendix 3 Table A3, there were significant advancements within the B&S framework as a method theory, such as the dynamics between routines and rules, their path-dependency and the pre-existence of routines vis-à-vis rules. Also, distinctions drawn between formal and informal rules underscored technology’s pivotal role in embedding rules within organisational practices, whereas the pluralistic application of B&S across diverse disciplines underscored the framework’s utility in augmenting the method theory of MA change. However, the key themes of B&S contributed to domain theory on MA change also, as detailed later.

The fourth step was interpreting for meaning. This was marked by a deep interpretative process, where the significance of the identified themes and sub-themes of MA change are contemplated. As per Table 2, the A papers reveal enhancements in the B&S framework as a method theory, featuring themes such as the interplay between routines/rules, the refinement of rules, pluralistic utilisation, dynamics of power and the significance of trust. Concurrently, the analysis of B papers, which while drawing on B&S, revealed advances in the domain theory of MA change, illuminates the necessity for a comprehensive domain theory that encapsulates the multifaceted nature of MA change (see Table 3). These revelations contest traditional viewpoints and highlight the imperative for adaptability in understanding MA change. This phase, progressing simultaneously with the third stage, culminated in a visual representation (see Figure 3, later) which summarises the theoretical advancements in the B&S as a method theory and highlights key themes, interrelations and conceptual progressions that have emerged.

It is not possible to extensively discuss all 77A and B papers. Thus, seven themes that emerged structure the remainder of this sub-section. Each theme is illustrated with examples.

The examination of change in management accounting practices (MAP) increasingly emphasises actors as catalysts, extending the B&S framework. Seo and Creed (2002) introduced the idea of institutional contradictions driving change, influencing Burns and Nielsen (2006), to propose institutional entrepreneurs navigate these contradictions in nuanced, context-dependent ways. This perspective builds on B&S by positing change is not solely structural but also significantly shaped by individual agency. Spraakman (2006) further expanded this view, emphasising both internal and external change champions in evolution of MAP, illustrating how actors extend beyond routine institutional reproduction to drive change (see also Ozdil and Hoque, 2017).

Further studies strengthen this actor-oriented approach, enriching B&S’s original framework. Länsiluoto and Järvenpää (2010) integrated human and social dimensions into change in MAP, whereas Contrafatto and Burns (2013) highlighted the role of individuals in aligning MAP with environmental goals. Seneviratne and Hoque (2024) and Samanthi and Gooneratne (2023) more recently explored how conflicting interests and institutional tensions act as change catalysts, whereas Barros and Ferreira (2023) and Biswas et al. (2023) demonstrated the impact of top management values and innovation in the evolution of MAP. These studies shift the B&S framework from stability-focused toward dynamic processes, highlighting how agency and rationality actively drive MAP transformation, as further refined by ter Bogt and Scapens (2019).

Interpretation is fundamental in the B&S framework, where varied understandings among actors can lead to deviations and drive transformations in MAP. Extending B&S, Soin et al. (2002) demonstrated that limited strategic engagement with activity-based costing in banking led to merely ceremonial change, whereas Hyvönen and Järvinen (2006) observed that diverse interpretations of contract-based budgeting in healthcare caused practices to diverge from initial goals, highlighting the unpredictability of change. Similarly, Kasperskaya (2008) supported this theme, finding that ceremonial applications of a balanced scorecard (BSC) in city councils arose from differential interpretations across stakeholder groups.

Further challenging static assumptions, Mutiganda (2013) argued that governance policies interact dynamically with accountants’ interpretations, broadening B&S by emphasising the role of actors in actively shaping MAP. Similarly, Rautiainen and Scapens (2013) advocated for a flexible approach, illustrating constrained transformations within BSC implementations. Jabbour and Abdel-Kader (2015) underlined interpretation’s central role in Enterprise Risk Management, demonstrating that accountants’ understandings influence rules beyond formal structures. Richardson and Kilfoyle (2016) expanded B&S by introducing the concept of “institutions-as-truce,” suggesting that MAP mediate stakeholder conflicts and consolidate interests. Collectively, these studies advance B&S by emphasising that interpretative agency significantly influences MAP, underscoring the inherent complexity of change processes.

The B&S framework offers insights into the institutionalisation and evolution of MAP, emphasising how routines and rules become embedded over time. Building on this, Burns (2000) highlighted the dynamic, non-linear nature of MA change, shaped by power dynamics, political influences and institutional contexts, extending B&S’s view of institutionalisation as a stable, linear process. Guerreiro et al. (2006) further nuanced this by demonstrating that institutionalisation varies across organisational groups, suggesting degrees of embeddedness rather than a binary view, aligning with B&S’s recognition of path dependency yet pushing toward a more flexible interpretation.

Contrafatto (2014) contributed to this discourse by outlining a three-step institutionalisation process–establishing meaning, routinising practices and reinforcing structures–which adds a detailed, iterative dimension to the B&S framework. Giannetti et al. (2021) supported this view, underscoring institutionalisation as a non-linear, experiential process, emphasising the adaptive nature of MAPs. Nicoliello and Aliabadi (2022) further extended B&S by illustrating how MAP in charities have evolved from informal routines to structured practices, highlighting the influence of historical and external factors on institutionalisation. Collectively, these studies advance B&S by illustrating that MAP evolution is shaped by a complex interplay of internal and external forces, offering a more nuanced understanding of how MAP embed and transform over time.

B&S has helped to advance the exploration of MAP by examining how both internal and external institutional pressures shape organisational responses. Yazdifar et al. (2008) introduced concepts such as conformity, decoupling and coupling to reveal how organisations strategically navigate these pressures – a perspective reinforced by Siti‐Nabiha and Scapens (2005) – enhancing B&S’s insights into institutional adaptability. Quinn and Jackson (2014) emphasised the need for a balance between robustness and adaptability in MAP routines, particularly when responding to external shocks. Kristandl and Quinn (2018) and Quinn and Gibney (2018) critiqued the notion of routine uniformity, demonstrating how entrenched MAP vary in response to historical and economic factors. In addition, Christensen et al. (2018) and Biswas and Akroyd (2022) identified financial crises and regulatory pressures as key drivers for management control shifts, with cultural controls influencing organisational adaptation. Teklay and Bobe (2024) underscored the influence of field-level institutions, whereas Nguyen et al. (2023) found that new routines are more readily accepted when they align with pre-existing clusters. Collectively, these studies extend B&S by demonstrating MAP as adaptive, contextually nuanced processes within complex, multi-level institutional environments.

Technological advancements have expanded the B&S framework, offering valuable contributions to both method theory and domain theory in MA. Burns and Quinn (2011) demonstrated how technology integrates control routines into software, enhancing the B&S framework by showing how routines extend across industries through digital platforms. Herbert and Seal (2012) further highlighted the shift in MA roles within shared services, where digitalisation supports accountants’ transition to business partners, enriching the domain theory by positioning MA professionals as strategic decision-makers.

Studies by Youssef (2013) and Vitale et al. (2020) reveal how external pressures, such as big data and competition, impact routines, illustrating the B&S concept of routinisation under external technological forces. Similarly, Mättö et al. (2022) and Begkos et al. (2023) highlighted how digital tools, like rolling-forecast systems, catalyse both gradual and radical change in MAP, challenging the B&S framework’s internal focus by showing technology as a dual driver of stability and transformation.

Historical analyses, such as those by McKinstry and Ding (2015) and Hiebl et al. (2015), trace the evolution of MA roles, portraying the strategic progression of accountants in response to technological disruption. These studies underscore technology’s role in reshaping MAPs, reinforcing stability while enabling new, transformative pathways for change, thus enriching the B&S framework’s application in contemporary MA contexts.

The application of the B&S framework within New Public Management (NPM) illuminates how institutional pressures influence the evolution of public sector MAP, enhancing both method and domain theories. Vendramini et al. (2014) revealed that while public sector organisations often comply with performance metrics, the practical impact can be limited, showing a tension between regulatory adherence and actual operational improvements, aligning with B&S’s observations on symbolic versus substantive compliance. Similarly, McLaren et al. (2016) highlighted that performance measures, such as Economic Value Added, may lose relevance over time, enriching B&S by demonstrating the temporal limitations of institutionalised practices.

Alsharari (2018, 2022) extended B&S by examining how political and economic pressures shape public sector accounting reforms, emphasising the influence of institutional context on MAP across organisational levels. These studies underscore path dependency and the role of institutional pressures, showing that public sector MAP evolve through sociocultural and technical influences.

Further contributions examine NPM’s impact on MAP through incentives and situational rationalities. ter Bogt (2008) and Macinati (2010) argued that incentives, when well-designed, can align reforms with short-term goals, challenging assumptions within B&S. Bertz and Quinn (2022), drawing on ter Bogt and Scapens (2019), applied situated rationalities to explain how localised interpretations under NPM shape MAP, extending B&S’s relevance to complex public sector environments.

Studies on family businesses extend the B&S framework by illuminating the unique roles of leadership and culture in shaping MAP. Senftlechner and Hiebl (2015) and Hiebl et al. (2013) demonstrated how family influence creates a distinctive institutional environment, where informal control mechanisms and organisational culture become significant factors in MA adaptation, supporting B&S’s focus on internal norms. Moilanen (2008) further contributed by highlighting trust and informality as stabilising cultural factors in family firms that foster enduring social roles, aligning with B&S’s concept of embedded routines.

Zarifah and Nabiha (2012) built on this by showing how family business leaders, as central social actors, adapt institutional practices through communication, thus reinforcing the B&S perspective on agency within established norms. Börner and Verstegen (2013) introduced the concept of a “meta-script”, directing organisational change through structured behaviours, which broadens B&S’s focus on rules and routines. Finally, Rizza and Ruggeri (2018) and Pagliarussi and Leme (2020) revealed how family values and institutional logic influence MAP development, highlighting the role of convergence and divergence in family firm contexts. Collectively, these studies underscore the importance of leadership and culture in MAP evolution, enhancing the B&S framework’s application in family business settings.

We now turn to how B&S has been developed conceptually. We first review developments to its underlying concepts, then research broadening it using additional theories and concepts.

B&S (see Figure 1) contains four key concepts – rules, routines, institutions and action. The first two have developed most, particularly routines, with some research developing the interactions between them. Some developments around rules and routines are summarised below. There are also papers such as Ter Bogt and Scapens (2019) and Bertz and Quinn (2022), who while generally accepting B&S in its original form, have introduced concepts such as situated rationalities.

Taking routines first, while their nature has been explored (e.g. van der Steen, 2011), Quinn (2011) was one of the first to examine how they interact with rules, arguing that rules are written and suggesting routines may pre-exist rules. Conceptualising routines as comprising two dimensions offered a way forward to the issue raised by Johansson and Siverbo (2009) that routines are not observable, rather artefacts are. When routines are considered as having these two dimensions, the performative dimension can be observed. Johansson and Siverbo (2009) suggested three forces are at play – retention, variation and selection – in the evolution of MA. They highlighted routines as having an observable element (artefacts) and a cultural element. Retention refers to how routines are enacted and replicated in interactions with rules and behaviour. This also suggests routines pre-exist rules, supporting Quinn (2011). Retention may be challenged by endogenous or exogenous variations, which may change rules or behaviours, and potentially lead to new processes of routinisation. Later, Quinn (2014) offered insights supporting the notion that routines may precede rules, and that some routines can display remarkable stability over time. Quinn and Hiebl (2018) suggested that routine foundations stem from organisational, field and the economic/political levels (Dillard et al., 2004) and in turn, patterns of action emerge which may be guided by individuals, interactions and structures. These patterns of action, through repetition, may become routines. A key message of Quinn and Hiebl (2018) is routines are path-dependent, reinforcing B&S, but their work reflects on how various factors may influence the path taken. Studies such as these on routines as per B&S are useful, but more empirical work would be beneficial. More recently, Nguyen et al. (2023) studied interactions between multiple MA routines when a new MA routine was being added to a routine cluster, adding the theoretical underpinnings of routine clusters.

On rules, Bertz and Quinn (2014) extended the B&S concept of rules, introducing formal and informal. In a rules-based empirical setting, they suggested rules precede routines and highlighted how informal rules may emerge which differ from the original intention of a formal rule based on actors’ cognition. Similarly, Oliveira and Quinn (2015) analysed rules as cognitive structures similar to ostensive routines, emphasising the importance of technologically embedded rules within the material realm. They argue that institutionalised MAP should be understood across three realms: material (technologically embedded rules), action (performative routines) and psychological (rules and ostensive routines). Their work is notable for integrating technology into B&S, demonstrating how information systems can both constrain and enable organisational actions. Such refinements to rules and routines highlight definitional clarity issues within B&S. The flow of research on these refinements has been cumulative and supportive and reveals the value of interdisciplinary literature in augmenting B&S. To date, the conceptual refinements to rules and routines within B&S are generally unchallenged, nor reduce the underlying nature of B&S. In some cases, however, B&S has proven to be insufficient to explain complex MA change and authors have adopted a pluralist approach, discussed next.

Theoretical pluralism is not uncommon and MA researchers have drawn on, e.g. economics, psychology and sociology, legitimation and resource dependency, agency and stewardship. B&S has similarly been used in a pluralistic fashion. While B&S considered organisational level institutions, much has been written on broader concepts such as organisational fields, laws/judiciary, rules and regulations and cultural norms (Dillard et al., 2004). In complex processes of change, multilevel institutional analysis has extended B&S (Alsharari, 2018). For example, Dillard et al. (2004) combined B&S with economic/political level institutions and the organisational field level. This latter concept is often used/conceptualised alongside B&S (Alsharari et al., 2015; Ribeiro and Scapens, 2006). Such studies offered a broader and clearer picture of MA change.

B&S has also been used in conjunction with theories/concepts around power. While B&S does mention power, it was not defined, nor were theories and/or concepts of power mentioned. Thus, researchers have sought to understand power within B&S. In a mainly conceptual paper, Ribeiro and Scapens (2006) suggested that Clegg’s (1989) circuits of power may be a useful additional framework – see also Mutiganda (2014). Alsharari et al. (2015) applied power mobilisation dimensions to B&S – something Burns (2000) also mentioned. These mobilisations of power – power over resources, processes, meaning and power of the system – echo mentions of power within B&S.

Another concept added is trust. Johansson and Baldvinsdottir (2003) introduced trust to understand the enactment of rules/routines in a performance/control system. They noted the relationship between evaluators and evaluatees, the former often being a function of MA and/or the management accountant. According to them, trust must be placed in (MA) controls, which may include the involvement of individuals as trust carriers. Trust is necessary so that organisational principles become encoded into rules and routines, and enacted. Busco et al. (2006) mentioned trust [²] highlighting how MA practices may be trust sources and may affect the processes of change (cf. Johansson and Baldvinsdottir, 2003).

Some methodological observations are worthy of mention. First, of the 23 papers classified as category A, ten papers are conceptual, leaving 13 empirical. This is a relatively small number of empirical papers after more than two decades and is encouraging as it leaves scope for more research. Second, B&S is a starting point and while many authors have added to it, few papers followed its visual lead. Of the 23A papers, about half present their development visually. From our reading, key conceptual additions when visually depicted were more understandable. While a subjective observation, visual depictions help readers understand concepts. Third, several theoretical contributions revealed in the A papers were similar but not put forward at about the same time. For example, partly similar contributions by Coyte et al. (2010), Rautiainen (2008) and van der Steen (2009) were published in three consecutive years – likely unknown to each other due to academic review processes. However, other similar contributions have been published with significant time lags, raising the importance of literature review. To give one example, whilst Mutiganda (2014) undoubtedly made substantive contributions to the discourse surrounding public sector accountability, the paper also purports to expand B&S through the lens of Clegg’s (1989) circuits of power. However, antecedent scholarship, notably that of Ribeiro and Scapens (2006) and Scapens (2006) had previously elucidated connections to Clegg’s (1989) work. This, while not intended to detract from any prior work, underscores the imperative for a thorough literature review (Petticrew and Roberts, 2012).

We now bring the conceptual developments of B&S together into an updated conceptualisation – see Figure 3. This updated framework considers MA change may have its origins/drivers inside or outside an organisation. That is, as proposed by several reviewed papers (Alsharari, 2018; Arroyo, 2012; Dillard et al., 2004; Johansson and Siverbo, 2009), and the left-hand box in Figure 3, external institutional forces may trigger MA change. Following Dillard et al. (2004), a distinction is made between institutions at the economic/political and organisational field levels. According to Dillard et al. (2004), institutions at these levels are interdependent, and can influence an individual organisation’s institutions, which may in turn trigger MA change – depicted by the double-headed arrow at the top of Figure 3, indicating that organisational institutions feedback to institutions outside an organisation. However, as noted by others (Johansson and Siverbo, 2009; Quinn and Hiebl, 2018), developments outside an organisation may affect MA change not only via organisational institutions, but also via action. That is, factors at the economic, political or the organisational-field level may initiate novel actions, which may if repeatedly enacted become routines (Quinn and Hiebl, 2018), or variations of prior routines (Johansson and Siverbo, 2009). These relationships are visualised in Figure 3 by the arrows from the outside-organisation box to the “Action” arrow and to the shaded “(Non-)change” arrow within the large “Inside organisation” box.

As theorised by Quinn and Hiebl (2018), the influence of external factors can trigger new MA routines. This first-time routinisation process is visualised in Figure 3 at t₁ on the 'time” line. As highlighted by Quinn and Hiebl (2018), interaction between individuals and structures bring about a first-time action (C₀ per Figure 3). Over time, repeated action can result in new rules and routines, which inform the institutional realm via situated rationalities (see ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019) – see the first “D” arrow from the left of Figure 3 [³]. In turn, the routines and rules at t₂ are shaped by situated rationalities and action. The development from t₂ to t₃ then reflects MA change as initially conceptualised by B&S - change of MA rules and routines that have already been in situ. As detailed above, Johansson and Siverbo (2009) suggested that in this MA change process, three forces are at play – retention, variation and selection. If retention wins over variation in selection processes, MA stability will be the result, whereas MA change materialises if variation forces win over retention.

Other works have identified factors that make MA change/stability more likely. Theoretical constructs behind these factors are depicted by the two thick, downward-pointing grey arrows in the centre of the “Inside Organization” box in Figure 3. These factors reflect situations where MA change was intended or initiated, but factors making the realisation of change more or less likely materialised. Thus, factors here are different to factors outside an organisation. The latter may be seen as antecedents to the overall MA change process, whereas the factors in the grey arrows can be viewed as mediating concepts once MA change has been intended or initiated.

The two grey arrows are connected to “situated rationalities”, (Figure 3, double-headed arrows). This visual connection highlights that factors making change more or less likely are interdependent with situated rationalities. Situated rationalities are “the particular forms of rationality which are applied by individuals or groups of individuals in specific situations” (Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019, p. 1809). Given these rationalities are specific to situations, it seems likely that factors making change more/less likely are contextual. In certain situations, actors may enjoy power to drive change, for instance, due to being part of a powerful coalition, whereas in others they do not have sufficient power. Consequently, some factors which may interact with situated rationalities in explaining MA change/stability are now highlighted.

Variation, and thus MA change seems more likely if power/politics are mobilised by powerful actors supporting change (Mutiganda, 2014; Ribeiro and Scapens, 2006), and conversely less likely if mobilised to resist change (Nor-Aziah and Scapens, 2007). Similar to power, MA change may also be facilitated if actors driving or fostering change show agency (e.g. Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019). How agency is described by Scapens (2006) is in fact embedded agency. Here, it is evident that factors in the grey arrows making MA change more likely may also show interactions. That is, as discussed by Hiebl (2018), organisational power and politics are important in realising embedded agency, and MA change may result from such an interaction. Trust is also relevant, as prior studies have suggested that trust in those driving MA change facilitates it (Busco et al., 2006). In addition, Busco et al. (2006) highlighted that if new MAPs resulting from MA change are trusted, then this trust may facilitate more general organisational change beyond MA change.

In addition to political resistance, two further factors have been theorised in the reviewed papers which make MA change less likely. First, Coyte et al. (2010) found that if MA rules are formulated precisely, they are more coupled to MA routines. This closer coupling between MA rules and routines makes change less likely. Similarly, van der Steen (2009) noted that when existing MA rules and routines are strongly intertwined, the introduction of new rules is unlikely to lead to institutional change (see also Rautiainen, 2008). Second, van der Steen (2009) notes that MA change seems less likely if there are contradictions between existing rules/routines and new rules/routines. This finding refers to the importance of a certain path-dependence within MA and routine change more generally, where leaving the current “MA path” may be resisted.

As detailed in Section 4, several papers have conceptually developed the relation between rules and routines. These relations are part of the three identical boxes at t₁, t₂ and t₃ in Figure 3. As indicated, there are several papers suggesting that the coupling of rules/routines is stronger if rules are defined more precisely (cf. Coyte et al., 2010). In Figure 3, we represent this notion by the 'tightness of coupling’ which encompasses several variations or strengths of coupling, ranging from decoupling to perfect tight coupling between rules and routines. Between these two extremes is loose coupling, which may also be beneficial to change - see Lukka (2007). In addition to rule preciseness and coupling, the roles of MA systems may also mediate MA rules/routines (Busco and Scapens, 2011). That is, Busco and Scapens (2011) suggest that MAPs may take on various roles, which makes the enactment of rules into routines contingent on the exact roles of MAPs. As detailed earlier, several reviewed papers suggested performative routines can be distinguished from ostensive routines – also captured in Figure 3. Collectively, detailed works on the nature of rules and routines can be interpreted as suggesting that rules precede routines, but also vice versa. In addition, these works suggest that rules do not necessarily result in routines and routines do not necessarily feature into rules. Thus, in Figure 3, rules and routines are joined as a dotted double-headed arrow, the dotted line representing the tentative connection and the double head representing the two possible flows of cause and effect (Oliveira and Quinn, 2015).

As our review has shown, theoretical advancements of B&S are based on a small number of papers. We do not question their validity or theoretical generalizability but given that many have developed from in-depth case studies, the context of these case studies may have shaped their respective findings. Consequently, more empirical studies on existing theoretical advancements of B&S would be useful. Such additional studies may shed light on important boundary conditions of the contributions so far (cf. Corley and Gioia, 2011), qualifying in which circumstances a theory can be applied or not. For instance, many of the reviewed studies discussing the relevance of power (Mutiganda, 2014; Nor-Aziah and Scapens, 2007) have studied governmental or publicly-funded organisations. Such organisations are more likely influenced by power and politics (Bertz and Quinn, 2014) and thus questions about such power dynamics can also be attributed to other organisational types. Such context-sensitive research could, for instance, more closely explore the defining and/or refining of situated rationality as proposed by Ter Bogt and Scapens (2019) and shown in Figure 3. Similarly, while Figure 3 has presented more two-way arrows depicting various process flows than Ter Bogt and Scapens (2019), these need empirical support. In addition, studies could explore what types of situated rationalities are linked to “more likely” or “less likely” change e.g. the role of key or powerful actors in situated rationalities.

There is a scarcity of empirical case studies contributing directly to the theoretical framework of B&S. This scarcity underscores a substantial opportunity for further exploration, particularly in regions where qualitative management accounting research is underrepresented. We encourage researchers to engage in this area, leveraging the updated framework shown in Figure 3. More generally, our review findings underscore the significance of integrating novel elements into existing frameworks to enhance comprehension of the complexity of MA change. By incorporating fresh perspectives, our understanding of the dynamic processes and multifaceted factors that drive MA change has and will be enriched. There is value in interdisciplinary collaboration and the exploration of diverse viewpoints in illuminating (potentially) overlooked intricacies of MA change contexts. Furthermore, our review suggests that constructive critique has been embraced as an avenue for refinement rather than a deterrent within the realm of MA change research. It is hoped this will continue with further empirical research on the B&S framework and our updated framework is needed to substantiate the validity and potential impact of knowledge within the domain of MA change.

While some papers noted the role of technology in MA change (e.g. Oliveira and Quinn, 2015), none offer a theorisation of how technology [e.g. ERP, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, big data] features in MA change. Given the increasing impact of technology, it would be interesting to analyse how recent technology fits into B&S/Figure 3 in more depth. Accounting researchers interested in this field could, for instance, find inspiration in the general management literature on technology, organisational routines and change.

Accounting and other professions are also being infiltrated by technology (e.g. AI and machine learning) (cf. Herbert and Seal, 2012). Thus, an important area for further research is how we treat MA rules in such a context and whether our cumulative knowledge on MA rules, routines and their stability/change is still applicable. For example, it has been shown that AI/machine learning can de-skill human actors, yet action is necessary for routines to perpetuate (see Burns and Quinn, 2011). While a machine learning algorithm could be defined as a material routine or as a rule (cf. Oliveira and Quinn, 2015), such algorithms are developing rapidly, questioning the nature of interactions of routines, rules and actions as portrayed by B&S. Indeed, the diachronic/synchronic nature of B&S may be questioned as machines replace human interaction in an MA context practice.

A further area of research is the underlying assumptions of B&S. Although several authors have offered some refinements, the concepts remain unchallenged (see Figure 3). One avenue could be to challenge the assumptions around routines as an organisational concept and place focus on individual habit(s) (ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019; Börner and Verstegen, 2013). For example, the increasing use of technology has resulted in a scenario where the terms 'organisation’ and “routine” become questionable as there may not be an organisation per se – e.g. the increasing number of sole proprietors in the digital gig economy. In an accounting context, technology allows such proprietors to do accounting tasks alone, on a smartphone or tablet. Thus, a question arises how/if MA rules and routines and their change are suitable concepts to study how such sole proprietors process and use accounting information.

Another area of future theory-driven research is to challenge the institutionalist underpinnings of B&S. While some weaknesses have been addressed, the institutional economics approach makes extensive use of historical and comparative material on institutions. As this paper was written, societal institutions being challenged by a pandemic and political change which present-day institutions have no direct comparative for. An underlying assumption of B&S is that new rules and routines build on existing routines. While this assumption has been questioned by Quinn and Hiebl (2018) in relation to routines, perhaps researchers should question this more as society presents challenges.

Also, the original B&S framework has arguably been very structure-centric and has left little room for using it to analyse cases where considerable agency could be observed (Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019). Several papers have identified this shortcoming of B&S and have amalgamated the original framework with notions of agency (Alsharari et al., 2015; Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019; Dillard et al., 2004; Ribeiro and Scapens, 2006). Thus, further theory-driven research could investigate the potential of our updated B&S framework to make sense of cases where strong signs of agency are involved together with other important hallmarks of B&S, such as MA rules and routines.

In our review, we have observed that some claimed theoretical developments of B&S have shown levels of similarity. For the future development of accounting theory more generally, it would be interesting to investigate how theoretical contributions to accounting theory are shaped. That is, it would be valuable to look “behind the scenes” of accounting theory development to understand how theoretical contributions in well-published accounting research are shaped – not only by authors, but by other actors such as conference participants, journal editors and reviewers and by theory trends. Research into such questions could, for instance, be based on interviews with actors involved in developing accounting theory such as B&S. Table 4 summarises possible research trajectories considering B&S (and the developments since its original publication) as a method theory. Indicative research questions are provided for illustration, with other questions possible and indeed likely.

One contribution of the present paper is signalling that MA change was and is a topic of significant interest. In addition, our systematic review implies that there are no obvious empirical contexts in which B&S could not be used, indicating it seems likely to remain a sufficiently generic framework to enlighten the future study of MA change.

This review has shown that in some cases, the original B&S framework did not have sufficient explanatory power to theoretically account for observations made in all empirical papers classified as A above. While these contributions have not materially altered the mechanisms described in the original B&S framework, they have added several important facets and have clarified and refined key concepts therein. In this paper (see Section 5) we incorporate these theoretical advancements into an updated framework. While the updated framework is the second core contribution of this paper, we hope it is used in the spirit of B&S i.e. as a framework to build on.

As a third contribution, we highlight areas worthy of further research. These were inspired by (1) our observations from the systematic review that some parts of the updated B&S framework have not yet received much research attention (e.g. situated rationalities, agency) and (2) advances in the business environment such as technological/climate change. We hope these suggestions not only provide food for thought, but also inspire research advancing our understanding of MA and B&S further.

This paper, like other comprehensive reviews (e.g. Franco-Santos et al., 2012) has limitations. First, while we have tried to incorporate the theoretical advances to B&S as fully as possible into the updated framework, we could fill a full article on Figure 3 alone. Therefore, given length restrictions, we presented an overview of important elements and additions. Readers interested in any specific relationship or facets of the updated framework should refer to the citations. Second, and relatedly, the review is contingent on the authors’ reading of the analysed articles. While we have critically discussed and repeatedly challenged each other’s analysis, we cannot rule out that (slightly) different conclusions are possible. Thus, Figure 3 is not the only conceivable framework based on the existing literature, but we hope it presents researchers with a more up-to-date starting point for the future. Third, our analysis is limited to applications of B&S in journal articles. While further contributions exist in other media, our choice of journal articles corresponds with the notion that novel insights in business research are published in this form (Hiebl, 2023). This, in turn, strengthens our belief that we have captured all relevant applications and developments of B&S. Fourth, B&S is of course one among several institutionally oriented frameworks used to understand stability/change of MA practices and further systematic literature reviews of other frameworks may be useful. Here, we focused on B&S as it is considered one of the most cited and used method theories of MA change research as domain theories (Lukka and Vinnari, 2014).

A previous version of this paper has been presented at the 17^th Annual Conference for Management Accounting Research (ACMAR) in Vallendar, Germany. The authors thank the participants of this conference and Christian Huber, Lukas Löhlein, Ivo de Loo, Utz Schäffer and Erik Strauß for valuable comments.

Deliration: There is no conflict of interest.

Table A1 

Table A2 

Table A3