A Structured Literature Review about the Role of Management Accountants in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting

Abstract

Management accountants have proven to be pivotal for introducing new forms of accounting and reporting in companies to support managers in their decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the role management accountants play in sustainability accounting and reporting to understand how research is progressing, point out its focus, critique its developments, and finally, identify future research avenues. Results reveal that, to date, management accountants’ level of involvement is lower than that of non-accountants and that there is a consensus in academia and practice that a more significant involvement of management accountants is needed for promoting homogenization of sustainability accounting and reporting in companies and its more widespread diffusion and use among managers, thus embedding sustainability in corporate strategy and practices. Our findings show that more active involvement of management accountants depends, among other things, on their ability to broaden their competencies to include other domains of expertise and on the role of accounting education in improving their sustainability knowledge. Therefore, we call for more research on the competencies, skills, and roles that management accountants should play in order to promote the adoption and improvement of sustainability accounting and reporting.

Full text

sustainability
Article
A Structured Literature Review about the Role of Management
Accountants in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
Ilenia Ascani *, Roberta Ciccola and Maria Serena Chiucchi


Citation: Ascani, I.; Ciccola, R.;
Chiucchi, M.S. A Structured
Literature Review about the Role of
Management Accountants in
Sustainability Accounting and
Reporting. Sustainability 2021,13,
2357. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13042357
Academic Editor: Paola Demartini
Received: 10 January 2021
Accepted: 13 February 2021
Published: 22 February 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Department of Management, School of Economics “G. Fuà”, UniversitàPolitecnica delle Marche, Piazzale
Martelli, 8, 60121 Ancona, Italy; r.ciccola@univpm.it (R.C.); m.s.chiucchi@univpm.it (M.S.C.)
*Correspondence: i.ascani@univpm.it
Abstract:
Management accountants have proven to be pivotal for introducing new forms of account-
ing and reporting in companies to support managers in their decision-making process. The purpose
of this paper is to review the literature on the role management accountants play in sustainability
accounting and reporting to understand how research is progressing, point out its focus, critique its
developments, and finally, identify future research avenues. Results reveal that, to date, management
accountants’ level of involvement is lower than that of non-accountants and that there is a consensus
in academia and practice that a more significant involvement of management accountants is needed
for promoting homogenization of sustainability accounting and reporting in companies and its more
widespread diffusion and use among managers, thus embedding sustainability in corporate strategy
and practices. Our findings show that more active involvement of management accountants depends,
among other things, on their ability to broaden their competencies to include other domains of exper-
tise and on the role of accounting education in improving their sustainability knowledge. Therefore,
we call for more research on the competencies, skills, and roles that management accountants should
play in order to promote the adoption and improvement of sustainability accounting and reporting.
Keywords:
sustainability accounting; sustainability reporting; management accountants; controllers;
management accounting; managerial reporting; structured literature review
1. Introduction
Over the last three decades, pressures from external stakeholders and new normative
requirements for regulatory compliance as well as managers initiatives provided by man-
agers have increased the relevance of sustainability accounting and reporting in numerous
companies and in society, in general.
In order to ensure that sustainability practices become deeply rooted in organizations
and embedded in corporate strategy, it is necessary that management accounting and
reporting integrate sustainability measures and tools that help managers include sustain-
ability criteria in their decision-making processes and in organizational daily routines [
1
–
7
].
Literature has amply shown that a key actor for the effective design and implementa-
tion of management accounting and reporting is the management accountant. This figure
has also proven to be pivotal for pushing the actual use of information by managers, thus
influencing their decision-making process [
8
–
10
], and for driving innovations in manage-
ment accounting and reporting [
11
–
13
]. In particular, research has demonstrated how
the management accountant is essential for introducing new forms of internal business
reporting in companies, such as the Intellectual Capital Report, and in fostering their use
within organizations [
8
,
14
–
16
]. In this regard, Chiucchi [
8
] has shown how the manage-
ment accountant has been fundamental in managers’ focus on Intellectual Capital (IC)
and, by influencing their learning process, the management accountant has promoted IC
reporting practices and the inclusion of variables related to IC in their decision-making
processes. The relevance of the accounting function in adopting new forms of internal
business reporting has also been underscored by Mio et al. [
17
] who illustrate and discuss
Sustainability 2021,13, 2357. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042357 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 2 of 25
the introduction of an Internal Integrated Report in a company, inspired by the Integrated
Report proposed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), to support
managerial decision-making processes.
Considering the importance that literature generally attributes to management accoun-
tants not only in introducing accounting innovations that support managerial decision-
making processes, but also in implementing new forms of internal business reporting,
it would be interesting to explore the role that management accountants may have in
companies to adopt and implement sustainability accounting and reporting. This theme
has garnered interest also in practice: Professional management accounting associations,
such as the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), call for management
accountants’ involvement in sustainability, because they have the competencies to measure
and report information and thus, can play a key role in promoting sustainability accounting
and reporting [18].
Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to review and critique, through
a Structured Literature Review (SLR) [
19
], the current state of the art of the literature on
management accountants’ role in sustainability accounting and reporting and ultimately,
to delineate emerging trends and identify avenues for future research.
Our study contributes to this contemporary field of research by showing that, to date,
the involvement of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting ap-
pears to be marginal compared to that of non-accountants, such as sustainability managers,
engineers, or other functional managers. As is seen in literature, there is a wide consensus
on the need to involve management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting
to a greater degree in the future. In keeping with this line, the results of our SLR also seem
to indicate that this future, potentially pivotal involvement of management accountants
will depend on their ability to broaden their existing domain of expertise by acquiring
new skills and competencies related to sustainability. After critically analyzing the status
quo of existing research on the relationship between the management accountant’s role
and sustainability accounting and reporting, the present paper identifies future areas of
research related to management accountants’ involvement and role, to the harmonization
and standardization of sustainability information and their implications for management
accountants, and, finally, to the relevance of education in sustainability accounting and
reporting for future management accountants. Lastly, reflections on how investigating
these research areas may also have practical implications are provided.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2illustrates and justifies
the use of the Structured Literature Review method; Sections 3and 4present the results of
the SLR, providing insights on and a critique of the literature analyzed. Lastly, Section 5
discusses the findings, offers indications for future research opportunities, and provides
conclusions.
2. Research Method
In order to understand how the academic literature exploring management accoun-
tants’ role in sustainability accounting and reporting has developed over the years, as well
as what topics have been studied and what the future research avenues could be, we con-
ducted a structured literature review. From a methodological perspective, several methods
have been proposed to carry out a literature review, such as the traditional authorship
review, the narrative review, the systematic review, and the structured literature review.
These review methods differ from each other according to the rigidity of the rules to be
followed. Systematic and structured reviews adopt a replicable and transparent process to
minimize bias and subjectivity that may characterize traditional literature reviews [
19
–
22
].
In fact, the latter has been criticized since “the determination of which studies are to be
included in the review and the appraisal of study quality can be subjective. Such reviews
are often partial and rarely include all studies relating to a particular issue” [
20
] (p. 216).
Therefore, to overcome these problems, more reproducible review methods such as the
systematic and structured literature reviews have been developed and applied. The sys-

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 3 of 25
tematic literature review is a “replicable, scientific and transparent process, in other words
a detailed technology, that aims to minimize bias through exhaustive literature searches
of published and unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail of the reviewers
decisions, procedures and conclusions” [
22
] (p. 209). In contrast to traditional reviews, the
systematic literature review requires the writing of a review protocol and the provision of a
detailed description of the search process; first applied in the medical sciences, it was later
adopted in the management and accounting literature [
19
,
22
]. In 2016,
Massaro et al. [19]
proposed the Structured Literature Review (SLR), a “method for studying a corpus of schol-
arly literature, to develop insights, critical reflections, future research paths and research
questions” [
19
] (p. 2). Similar to the systematic literature review, the SLR follows a set of
rigid rules in its development, but it is strictly characterized by “an explicit method fol-
lowing specific steps” [
19
] (p. 770). The SLR method necessarily involves ten fundamental
steps which cannot be sidestepped, meaning that researchers must focus on certain aspects
which aim to test the reliability and the validity of the literature review [
19
]. This process
is designed to help researchers avoid certain risks, such as missing seminal articles, and
contributes to reducing researchers’ bias and subjectivity [
19
], leading to a reliable analysis
of the literature as “it helps to yield different outcomes that are defensible” [
19
] (p. 769).
For these reasons, we decided to adopt the Structured Literature Review (SLR) method
and to apply the 10 steps identified by Massaro et al. [19]:
1. Write a literature review protocol;
2. Define the questions that the literature review is setting out to answer;
3.
Determine the type of studies to include and carry out a comprehensive literature
search;
4. Measure article impact;
5. Define an analytical framework;
6. Establish literature review reliability;
7. Test literature review validity;
8. Code data using the developed framework;
9. Develop insights and critique through dataset analysis;
10.
Develop future research paths and questions.
The following sections illustrate the application of the SLR method to our research
topic by highlighting the most relevant choices and elements that characterize each step of
the literature review carried out.
3. The Structured Literature Review
3.1. The Literature Review Protocol
In this step, we describe the motivations for this research project and how we decided
to approach this stream of literature. As far as the motivation is concerned, we were
aware that sustainability accounting and reporting is a contemporary research field that
has garnered growing attention from accounting researchers as well as practitioners in
recent years. In this regard, it appears interesting to explore management accountants’ role
in sustainability, given that the extant literature has shown how they can play a pivotal
role in introducing innovations in management accounting and reporting. Therefore, we
decided to carry out a literature review, a Structured Literature Review (SLR), specifically,
to understand the state of research on the role played by management accountants in
sustainability accounting and reporting and to offer insights on future developments.
In our initial meetings, we designed the research plan to be carried out. In particular,
we chose the Scopus database as our source of information and we identified the combi-
nation of search fields, such as keywords, date of publication, and document type. Then,
we identified inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting publications to include in our
dataset. A detailed description of the literature search is provided in Section 3.3. Lastly, we
determined the units of analysis to analyze the publications included in the final dataset,
as described in Section 3.5.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 4 of 25
3.2. The Research Questions
The motivation for this research project, highlighted in the literature review protocol,
and the research gap that it endeavors to fill, led us to formulate the research questions
that would guide our research and that represent the second step of the SLR. According
to Massaro et al. [
19
] (p. 744), an SLR “needs to critique an existing field of knowledge
before it can offer a path towards future research”. Drawing upon Alvesson and Deetz [
23
]
and the three tasks of critical research that they identified, i.e., “insight”, “critique”, and
“transformative redefinitions”, Massaro et al. [
19
] state that at least three research questions
should guide an SLR. The first research question should provide answers to how a stream of
literature has progressed over time; this can be done by analyzing, for example, publications’
impact, trend, and distribution among journals, books, etc. The second research question
should offer a critical analysis of the developments of a certain research field, and, in this
aim, an analytical framework must be developed to shed light on the foci that characterize
the literature examined. In particular, the analytical framework should be composed of
different units of analysis to organize and examine existing studies and their main findings
and it should foster a critique of the literature in question. This will pave the way to
answering the third research question, which is aimed at identifying new directions for
future research that could contribute to expanding knowledge on the issue at stake.
Therefore, by adapting the three research questions identified by Massaro et al. [
19
] to
the specific topic under investigation in this article, we formulate the following research
questions:
RQ.1
How is research for inquiring into the role of management accountants in sustain-
ability accounting and reporting developing?
RQ.2
What is the focus and critique of the research on the role of management accountants
in sustainability accounting and reporting?
RQ.3
What future avenues of research on the role of management accountants in sustain-
ability accounting and reporting can be identified?
3.3. Type of Studies and Literature Search
The third step consists in selecting what type of studies is relevant to the research
and carrying out the literature search. First, databases are selected and keywords are
determined in order to identify papers suitable for this study. We chose Scopus as the
database for publication selection since it is “one of the most appropriate data warehouses
for literature review studies” [
24
] (p. 3229), thanks to its broad coverage of academic
peer-reviewed literature [
24
,
25
]. Then, we identified the relevant keywords for our research
and we used them to construct the search string that was applied to “titles, abstracts, and
keywords” for publications published in English and included in the “Business, Manage-
ment and Accounting” area. The search string consisted of two parts; the first concerned
sustainability accounting and reporting and the second related to management accountants.
It included the following keywords: “sustainability” OR “sustainable practice*” OR “sus-
tainability practice*” OR “sustainable development” OR “SDG*” OR “sustainable report*”
OR “sustainability report*” OR “sustainability reporting” OR “sustainability accounting”
AND “controller*” OR “accountant*” OR “management accountant*” OR “CFO*” OR
“Chief Financial Officer*”.
The part of the search string devoted to sustainability accounting and reporting in-
cludes various terms that refer to the sustainability accounting and reporting domain, like
“sustainability accounting”, “sustainability report”, and “sustainability reporting”, which,
to date, represent one of the most common accounting tools used to account for sustainabil-
ity [
26
]. It also includes terms that are strictly related to sustainability, such as “sustainable
development”, “sustainability practices”, and “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”.
The part concerning the management accountant, in turn, includes the words “management
accountants” and “controllers” because in some countries, e.g., German-speaking countries,
“controller” is used as a synonym for management accountant [
27
]. This part of the string
also includes the words “Chief Financial Officer” and “CFO” because they may also act as

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 5 of 25
management accountants, in some companies. Finally, we included the term “accountant”
because, in the accounting literature, it is sometimes used as a synonym for “management
accountant”. It is important to specify here that, in the search string we included different
terms to find papers on the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting
and reporting, such as “CFO” or “accountant”. Nevertheless, we selected and included in
our SLR only those publications that specifically focus on management accountants, i.e.,
that are specifically referred to management accounting and controlling. This was made
possible through the reading of the abstracts and the full texts which provide information
to clearly understand the focus of the papers. Therefore, in the remainder of the article, we
only use the term “management accountants” to refer to those professionals who are in
charge of management accounting.
In order to accomplish an exhaustive search and to collect the most relevant studies on
the topic, we did not exclude any journals. For the same reason, we did not limit the search
to journal articles, but also included books, book chapters, and working papers; nor did we
define a specific time frame. The search process, carried out on 12 October 2020, yielded
202 studies and the basic information like author(s), title, year of publication, abstract, etc.,
was retrieved.
In determining which studies should be included or excluded, we defined inclusion
and exclusion criteria. We included publications whose main topic was the role and involve-
ment of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting. Likewise,
we excluded articles where the management accountant was just one of the recipients of
specific recommendations rather than the main topic of the study; we also excluded studies
where the term “accountant” referred to auditors or fiscal experts as well as publications
where the term “controller” referred to electromechanical devices.
The decision to exclude or include any publication was based, first, on reading the
title, keywords, and abstract; then, if the information included in the abstract was not
sufficient to include or exclude a study, the full text was read. At the end of this process,
we had identified 46 publications, which we began to read in full. As we analyzed them,
we realized that some publications, while explicitly referring to the role of management
accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting in their abstracts, in the full text
management accountants might simply be mentioned in passing or, along with other
accounting professionals, were merely the recipients of general comments on sustainability
accounting and reporting. We excluded these publications, thus obtaining a final sample of
23 studies published between 2001 and 2020 (see Appendix A).
3.4. Publication Impact
The fourth step of the SLR entails measuring the articles’ impact. A proxy of an
article’s quality and impact can be the measurement of citations; in this paper, the focus is
on citations and citations per year (CPY) based on Google Scholar metrics. The publications’
citation information was downloaded from the software Harzing’s Publish or Perish 7 on
November 30, 2020. We use this tool as it displays the most stable and comprehensive
coverage [
28
,
29
] and it has been applied also in previous SLRs e.g., [
25
,
30
,
31
]. While
“citations” refers to the total citations received by a study to date, “citations per year” is the
total number of citations divided by the number of the years between the publication year
and the current year. In this regard, the CPY counterbalances the fact that older studies
can collect more citations than the most recent ones. Tables 1and 2show the top five
publications by citations and CPY [
32
–
36
]; it is possible to observe that the first three of
the top five publications are ranked in the same order in both tables, while Fraser [
35
] and
Çali¸skan [
36
] switch their respective positions. It is worth underlining that four out of five
studies are published in academic journals, while Tilt [
34
] is a book chapter. Management
accounting is one of the main areas of interest in three out of the four journals, while the
other one (i.e., Social Responsibility Journal) focuses primarily on social responsibility.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 6 of 25
Table 1. Top five articles by citations.
Reference Article Journal/Book Google Scholar
Citations
1 Jones [32]
Accounting for the environment: Towards a
theoretical perspective for environmental
accounting and reporting
Accounting Forum 303
2Ballou, Casey, Grenier
and Heitger [33]
Exploring the strategic integration of
sustainability initiatives: Opportunities for
accounting research
Accounting Horizons 179
3 Tilt [34]Corporate responsibility, accounting
and accountants
Professionals Perspectives of
Corporate Social Responsibility 116
4 Fraser [35]
“Fleshing out” an engagement with a social
accounting technology
Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 68
5 Çali¸skan [36]How accounting and accountants may
contribute in sustainability? Social Responsibility Journal 58
Table 2. Top five articles by Citations Per Year (CPY).
Reference Article Journal/Book Google Scholar
CPY
1 Jones [32]
Accounting for the environment: Towards a
theoretical perspective for environmental
accounting and reporting
Accounting Forum 30.3
2Ballou, Casey, Grenier
and Heitger [33]
Exploring the strategic integration of
sustainability initiatives: Opportunities for
accounting research
Accounting Horizons 22.28
3 Tilt [34]Corporate responsibility, accounting
and accountants
Professionals Perspectives of
Corporate Social Responsibility 10.55
4 Çali¸skan [36]How accounting and accountants may
contribute in sustainability? Social Responsibility Journal 9.67
5 Fraser [35]
“Fleshing out” an engagement with a social
accounting technology
Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal 8.5
3.5. The Analytical Framework
The coding framework is partly based on similar units of analysis adopted in previ-
ous SLRs and partly developed ad hoc in this paper to enrich our understanding of the
role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting. As a result,
10 categories, which we can also call “units of analysis”, were developed for coding the
articles. Table 3summarizes these categories and their attributes.
The first category classifies publications according to the author type (A). In line with
Dumay et al. [
30
], this category helps to pinpoint whether the topic under investigation
has been of interest to academics and/or practitioners/consultants.
The second category, “Location” (B), refers to the country of research and was adopted
by Guthrie et al. [
37
], Dumay et al. [
30
], and Massaro et al. [
25
]. Differently from these
previous studies, we decided to use the five continents as general attributes, without further
classifying our selected studies by specific regions or countries. This was done because
we did not expect to see a significant number of papers from specific countries, as did
happen, for example, for Dumay et al. [
30
] in their SLR on Integrated Reporting. However,
during the coding process, we took note of the specific countries where studies took place
and, where relevant, we have commented on this aspect in Section 4.2. By adopting this
unit of analysis, we can identify where, i.e., on which continents, the literature on the role
of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting has been mostly
developed.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 7 of 25
Table 3. Analytical framework, Krippendorff’s alpha, and summary of results.
K-alpha K-alpha
A Author Type 1.000 B Location 1.000
A1 Academic(s) 22
B1
Africa 1
A2 Practitioner(s) and consultant(s) 1
B2
The Americas 1
A3 Academic(s), practitioner(s) and consultant(s) 0
B3
Asia 1
Total 23
B4
Europe 5
B5
Oceania 8
B6
Other 7
Total 23
K-alpha K-alpha
C Jurisdiction 1.000 D Organizational focus 1.000
C1 Supra-national/International/Comparative-General 7
D1
Publicly listed companies 0
C1.1
Supra-national/International/Comparative-Industry 0
D2
Private companies 3
C1.2
Supra-national/International/Comparative-Organizational 2
D3
Public sector 5
C2 National-General 2
D4
Not for profit 0
C2.1
National-Industry 5
D5
General/Other 15
C2.2
National-Organizational 4 Total 23
C3 One organization 3
Total 23
K-alpha K-alpha
E Research method 1.000 F Sustainability definition 0.928
E1 Case/field study/interviews 5
F1
Environmental-Social-Economic 12
E2 Content analysis/historical analysis 0
F2
Environmental-Social 4
E3 Survey/Questionnaire/Other empirical 5
F3
Environmental-Economic 0
E4 Mixed methods 4
F4
Social-Economic 0
E5 Commentary/Normative/Policy 8
F5
Environmental 7
E6 Literature review 1
F6
Social 0
Total 23
F7
Economic 0
Total 23
K-alpha K-alpha
G Sustainability accounting and reporting focus 0.861 H
Management accountant’s
current involvement in
sustainability accounting and
reporting
0.940
G1 Internal: measurement and management 5
H1
No involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 1
G2 External: disclosure 5
H2
Low involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 9
G3 Internal and external: measurement, management,
and disclosure 13
H3
Involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 3
Total 23
H4
High involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 2
H5
Not specified 8
Total 23
K-alpha K-alpha
IManagement accountant’s future/potential involvement
in sustainability accounting and reporting 0.839 L
Management accountant’s role in
sustainability accounting and
reporting
1.000
I1 No involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting 0
L1
Bean counter 0
I2
Low involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting
0
L2
Business partner 2
I3 Involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting 6
L3
Other 21
I4
High involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting
15 Total 23
I5 Not specified 2
Total 23
The third category, “Jurisdiction” (C), serves to indicate whether literature on the topic
under investigation is focused on one organization, one nation (national), or on several
nations (supra-national). This category was drawn from the original classification scheme
by Guthrie et al. [
37
] based on seven attributes. In our paper, the attributes “national”
and “supra-national” are sub-classified into “general”, “industry”, and “organizational”,

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 8 of 25
depending on their focus. For example, the “general” attribute contains papers that do
not have an empirical basis, such as commentaries and literature reviews (supra-national
general) or papers exploring specific nations, regions, and networks (national general). This
unit of analysis clarifies whether this stream of literature mostly provides commentaries on
the topic or instead, focuses on specific organizational settings, industries, or nations.
The fourth category refers to the organizational focus (D) and was also drawn from
Guthrie et al. [
37
]; it supports our understanding of if and how the involvement of man-
agement accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting can depend on specific
organizations’ characteristics, such as publicly listed companies, public or private organi-
zations, and not-for-profit organizations. Differently from Guthrie et al. [
37
], however, we
have not divided private companies into SMEs and large enterprises, but included them
under the same attribute, because we do not have expectations regarding a significant
number of publications referred to large companies rather than to SMEs.
The fifth category, “Research method” (E), identifies the different research meth-
ods adopted by the authors. The taxonomy applied is based on the one proposed by
Guthrie et al. [37]
and Dumay et al. [
30
], but with the addition of the attribute “mixed
methods” to include publications adopting both qualitative and quantitative research
methods (e.g., surveys and interviews).
The five categories described so far were drawn from previous SLRs, while the five
that follow were developed ad hoc. The common purpose of these next units of analysis
is to delve more in-depth into management accountants’ role in sustainability accounting
and reporting.
The sixth category (F) refers to the sustainability definition adopted in the publications
analyzed. As the notion of sustainability encompasses the environmental, social, and
economic dimensions—the so-called triple bottom line [
38
,
39
]—we adopt this unit of
analysis to shed light on which dimensions of sustainability the studies are specifically
centered.
The seventh category (G) focuses on what we call “Sustainability accounting and
reporting focus” and it is referred to the internal or external orientation of sustainability
accounting and reporting. It is classified into three attributes: external, internal, and
both. As regards the external focus of sustainability accounting and reporting, previous
studies show that sustainability information can be produced in the goal of “fulfilling
stakeholder expectations and serving information requirements by external parties” [
7
]
(p. 832). Burritt and Schaltegger [
7
] call it the “outside-in” approach driving sustainability
accounting because its main objective is the disclosure of sustainability information useful
to various external stakeholders. In an internal focus, instead, sustainability accounting
is seen as “the process for information collection and communication to support internal
decision making to implement corporate sustainability” [
7
] (p. 832). The authors call this
orientation the “inside-out” approach because the organizations themselves are interested
in the definition and implementation of their strategy through sustainability measurement
and management; in fact, the main receivers of sustainability reports are managers who
use sustainability information in their decision-making processes. The third attribute
relates to the dual focus towards both external disclosure as well as internal measurement
and management of sustainability information. Through this unit of analysis, we can
understand whether sustainability accounting and reporting is an organizational practice
devoted to the disclosure of sustainability information and, thus, primarily to meet external
parties’ needs or whether it is oriented towards the management of sustainability in order
to help managers carry out a company strategy.
Categories eight (H) and nine (I) refer to present and future involvement of manage-
ment accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting. First, by focusing on their
current involvement, we understand if and to what extent management accountants are
actively involved in sustainability accounting and reporting. Similarly, the subsequent unit
of analysis serves to focus on future and potential involvement in order to understand if

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 9 of 25
and to what extent management accountants will be or should be involved in sustainability
accounting and reporting in the future.
The 10th category (L) refers to the management accountant’s role in sustainability
accounting and reporting. Literature on management accountants identifies two main
archetypes used to describe the management accountant in terms of his/her role within
organizations: “bean counter” and “business partner”. The former identifies a management
accountant who is involved in “recording, data inputting and reporting tasks” [
40
] (p. 1188),
often with the negative connotation of a “narrow accountant” [
41
] (p. 437). Conversely, the
business partner archetype is associated with a management accountant who possesses “the
willingness and ability [
. . .
] to provide more added value to the management (decision-
making and control) of the companies” [
42
] (p. 100). Therefore, we decided to apply the
attributes “bean counter”, “business partner”, and “other”. We used the third attribute
to designate those studies that do not explicitly refer to the first two archetypes. It is
worth highlighting that we based our coding on what was explicitly expressed in the
papers to avoid any misunderstanding that could bias our results. This unit of analysis
is particularly important because it can help us identify the type of roles management
accountants play in relation to sustainability accounting and reporting. For example,
if management accountants are defined as business partners, then they are expected to
provide valuable support to the management team. Therefore, we can understand if and
how management accountants can contribute to the diffusion of sustainability accounting
and reporting and to the promotion of sustainability-oriented decision processes within
companies.
3.6. The Coding of the Publications and Its Reliability
According to Massaro et al. [
19
], to ensure reliability, we applied the Krippendorff’s
alpha (K-alpha) inter-coder reliability test as a reliability measure. Reliability measures
can help researchers to assess the quality of coding and reduce mistakes and personal bias.
Furthermore, they can help researchers prove that their data: “(a) have been generated
with all conceivable precautions in place against known pollutants, distortions and biases,
intentional or accidental, and (b) mean the same thing for everyone who uses them” [
43
]
(p. 267). According to the K-alpha test, authors can “rely on variables with reliability above
a = 0.800; consider variables with reliabilities between 0.667 and a = 0.800 only for drawing
tentative conclusions” [43] (p. 325).
Two authors independently coded the 23 publications in separate Excel spreadsheets.
We used the software “R” [
44
] and the library “irr” [
45
] to test the reliability of our coding.
The results show a K-alpha higher than 0.800 for all units of analysis, meaning that the
results are reliable; the third author solved any final discrepancy in coding. Results obtained
from the K-alpha test are summarized in Table 3.
3.7. The Literature Review Validity
In this step of the SLR, according to Massaro et al. [
19
], we tested the literature review
validity to verify the accuracy of the findings so far achieved; in particular, we verified the
internal and the external validity of our SLR.
As regards the internal validity, we tested a first draft of the analytical framework,
including five categories (A, B, C, D, and E), on five randomly selected studies in our dataset
to verify whether the units of analysis we had chosen led to valid findings. From this small
group of publications, we also identified the elements needed for a deeper examination.
We expanded the framework by adding five additional units of analysis (F, G, H, I, and L),
which provided us with more detailed information about the literature in question. The fact
that we expanded the analytical framework after analyzing five publications shows how
the implementation of the SLR method is “fluid” [
19
] (p. 772). In this case, we added new
units of analysis, aware that an “initial analysis uncovers new and relevant attributes” [
19
]
(p. 772). Finally, we used the analytical framework for coding all publications.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 10 of 25
Regarding the external validity, which concerns the possibility that the results of
the study could be representative of this stream of research, we did not limit our search
in Scopus to a specific document type. We looked for all possible types of publications,
according to Scopus taxonomy, such as articles, articles in press, proceedings, book chapters,
editorials, short surveys, and so on. Therefore, despite the limited literature on this specific
topic, our dataset can be considered representative of the available literature on this theme.
As Figure 1illustrates, our final dataset is composed of 18 articles, 4 book chapters, and 1
short survey.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27
Figure 1. Type of publication.
As regards the articles, Table 4, below, shows their distribution among journals. The
distribution is very fragmented; while Sustainability Accounting, Management, and Policy
Journal published three papers and Accounting Forum, Accounting, Auditing, and Accounta-
bility Journal, and Pacific Accounting Review published two papers, the remainder of the
journals published only one article each. Overall, it is possible to observe that a higher
interest in this topic is shown by journals devoted to sustainability and accounting themes.
In addition, we placed no temporal restrictions in Scopus and our final dataset con-
tains studies published between 2001 and 2020. As shown in Figure 2, below, despite the
limited numbers of publications, an increasing interest in the nexus between sustainability
accounting and reporting and the role of management accountants is evident.
Table 4. Distribution of articles in journals.
Source title Number
Accounting Forum 2
Accounting Horizons 1
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 1
Journal of Cleaner Production 1
Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 1
Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment 1
Pacific Accounting Review 2
Revista de Contabilidad – Spanish Accounting Review 1
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 1
Social Responsibility Journal 1
Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting 1
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Articles Book chapter Short survey
Type of publication
Figure 1. Type of publication.
As regards the articles, Table 4, below, shows their distribution among journals.
The distribution is very fragmented; while Sustainability Accounting, Management, and
Policy Journal published three papers and Accounting Forum,Accounting, Auditing, and
Accountability Journal, and Pacific Accounting Review published two papers, the remainder of
the journals published only one article each. Overall, it is possible to observe that a higher
interest in this topic is shown by journals devoted to sustainability and accounting themes.
Table 4. Distribution of articles in journals.
Source Title Number
Accounting Forum 2
Accounting Horizons 1
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 2
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change 1
Journal of Cleaner Production 1
Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 1
Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment 1
Pacific Accounting Review 2
Revista de Contabilidad – Spanish Accounting Review 1
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal 1
Social Responsibility Journal 1
Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting 1
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 3
In addition, we placed no temporal restrictions in Scopus and our final dataset contains
studies published between 2001 and 2020. As shown in Figure 2, below, despite the

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 11 of 25
limited numbers of publications, an increasing interest in the nexus between sustainability
accounting and reporting and the role of management accountants is evident.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27
Figure 2. Publication trend.
4. Findings
The following sections present results to answer RQ.1 “How is research for inquiring
into the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting de-
veloping?” and RQ.2 “What is the focus and critique of the research on the role of man-
agement accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting?”. They are structured
according to the categories of the analytical framework. It is important to underline that
valuable information to answer RQ.1 has been also gathered through the analysis of the
publications’ impact (section 3.4), trend, distribution among journals, books, etc. (section
3.7).
4.1. Author Type
The category “Author type” (A) includes three attributes: A1 Academic(s), A2 Prac-
titioner(s) and consultant(s), and A3 Academic(s), practitioner(s), and consultant(s). All of
the studies in our SLR were written by academics, except for one article [46] that was
authored by a practitioner. In 2008, Lewis was an assistant director in the Policy and Tech-
nical Directorate of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).
Of the 23 publications analyzed, 10 were co-authored, with five studies written by
two authors, four by three authors, and one by four authors. In addition, our findings
show that Low, Tingey-Holyoak, and Zvezdov wrote two publications, while Schaltegger
authored three papers.
4.2. Location
The “Location” (B) criterion includes six attributes: B1 Africa, B2 The Americas, B3
Asia, B4 Europe, B5 Oceania, and B6 Other. Table 3 shows that Oceania is the most studied
geographical area with eight papers e.g., [47–49], followed by Europe with five papers
e.g., [50,51]. Within Oceania, most of the studies focus on Australia and New Zealand.
Interestingly, a common aspect of some studies located in both of these countries is their
attention to the environment and natural resources, like carbon or water [52,53]. The fact
that Oceania boasts the highest number of publications seems to confirm the strong inter-
est and the relevant role that this region has been playing and still plays in the develop-
ment of studies related to business and supplementary reporting, such as the Intellectual
Capital Report [37,54] and the Integrated Report [55–58] and in the measurement, man-
agement, and disclosure of intangibles and non-financial capitals.
Within Europe, France, Spain, Germany, and the UK are the most explored geograph-
ical areas. The remaining regions are under-investigated with only one article for each
continent. It is worth noting that some countries, such as China and the United States,
contribute little to this research field, despite the high environmental and social impact of
their economies.
0
1
2
3
4
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Publications trend
Figure 2. Publication trend.
4. Findings
The following sections present results to answer RQ.1 “How is research for inquiring
into the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting devel-
oping?” and RQ.2 “What is the focus and critique of the research on the role of management
accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting?”. They are structured according
to the categories of the analytical framework. It is important to underline that valuable
information to answer RQ.1 has been also gathered through the analysis of the publications’
impact (Section 3.4), trend, distribution among journals, books, etc. (Section 3.7).
4.1. Author Type
The category “Author type” (A) includes three attributes: A1 Academic(s), A2 Practi-
tioner(s) and consultant(s), and A3 Academic(s), practitioner(s), and consultant(s). All of
the studies in our SLR were written by academics, except for one article [
46
] that was au-
thored by a practitioner. In 2008, Lewis was an assistant director in the Policy and Technical
Directorate of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).
Of the 23 publications analyzed, 10 were co-authored, with five studies written by
two authors, four by three authors, and one by four authors. In addition, our findings
show that Low, Tingey-Holyoak, and Zvezdov wrote two publications, while Schaltegger
authored three papers.
4.2. Location
The “Location” (B) criterion includes six attributes: B1 Africa, B2 The Americas, B3
Asia, B4 Europe, B5 Oceania, and B6 Other. Table 3shows that Oceania is the most studied
geographical area with eight papers e.g., [
47
–
49
], followed by Europe with five papers
e.g., [
50
,
51
]. Within Oceania, most of the studies focus on Australia and New Zealand.
Interestingly, a common aspect of some studies located in both of these countries is their
attention to the environment and natural resources, like carbon or water [
52
,
53
]. The fact
that Oceania boasts the highest number of publications seems to confirm the strong interest
and the relevant role that this region has been playing and still plays in the development of
studies related to business and supplementary reporting, such as the Intellectual Capital
Report [
37
,
54
] and the Integrated Report [
55
–
58
] and in the measurement, management,
and disclosure of intangibles and non-financial capitals.
Within Europe, France, Spain, Germany, and the UK are the most explored geograph-
ical areas. The remaining regions are under-investigated with only one article for each
continent. It is worth noting that some countries, such as China and the United States,
contribute little to this research field, despite the high environmental and social impact of
their economies.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 12 of 25
Lastly, seven articles were coded under the attribute “Other” e.g., [
59
–
61
] since they
did not focus on a specific country or geographical area. As we will see next, several articles
included in the sample are commentaries or essays that offer observations without focusing
on a specific context.
4.3. Jurisdiction
In the category “Jurisdiction” (C), we classify publications referring to the following
attributes: C1 Supra-national/International/Comparative–General, C2 National–General,
and C3 One organization. Attributes C1 and C2 have both been further sub-classified into:
C1.1 Supra-national/International/Comparative–Industry, C1.2 Supra-national/Interna-
tional/Comparative–Organizational, and C2.1 National–Industry, and C2.2 National–
Organizational.
Our analysis results show that seven publications fall into C1 e.g., [
34
,
36
,
60
]; they
were not the product of empirical analysis. Two publications fall into C2 [
33
,
62
]; while
Ballou et al. [33]
explored how management accountants could support sustainability initia-
tives in the context of an association, i.e., the Corporate Responsibility Officer’s Association,
Lodhia [
62
] focused on the Sustainable Development Bill, an environmental legislation for
Fiji, and its influence on management accountants. C3 includes three publications focused
on one organization [
35
,
63
,
64
]; Fraser [
35
] studied the case of a local city council, while
Egan and Tweedie [
64
] focused on a large company group, and Fernández Chulián [
63
]
circumscribed the study to a Spanish university.
Looking at the specific sub-attributes, no paper met the criteria of C1.1, while two
papers fell into C1.2 [
51
,
65
] as the focus was on companies belonging to different industries
located in Germany and the UK. As regards the sub-attributes of C2, five publications
fall into C2.1 e.g., [
46
,
53
] with a focus on specific industries located in one nation. Four
publications are included in C2.2 e.g., [
48
,
66
]; they are centered on organizations belonging
to different industries but located in the same nation.
One overriding observation that emerged is that most of the publications in our
dataset do not have an empirical underpinning; these studies, national and supra-national,
provide insights about the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and
reporting and highlight some practical implications about their involvement in this area. At
the industry level, five papers have analyzed organizations belonging to a specific industry
at a national level, while no studies explore a specific industry in different national contexts.
Finally, only three studies have focused on a single organization; organizations belonging
to different industries have been investigated both at the national and supranational levels
of analysis.
4.4. Organizational Focus
The category “Organizational focus” (D) consists of five attributes: D1 Publicly listed
companies, D2 Private companies, D3 Public sector, D4 Not-for-profit sector, and D5
General/Other.
The publications in the dataset fall into sub-categories D2, D3, and D5. Three publica-
tions focus on D2 “Private companies”, i.e., professional accounting firms [
52
], professional
services firms [
53
], and a firm operating in the food industry [
64
]. Public sector organiza-
tions are the subject of five publications e.g., [
35
,
46
] belonging in the D3 attribute. Although
we did not divide the public and private sectors into sub-attributes within the analytical
framework, we took note that two papers analyzing the public sector focus on local gov-
ernment institutions [
35
,
49
], and two papers focus on the university context [
47
,
63
]. As
regards universities, Botes et al. [
47
] investigate the state of the art of accounting education
in relation to sustainability in New Zealand universities, showing that sustainability issues
are not integrated enough in the accounting courses and that “sustainability education
is not in sufficient depth” [
47
] (p. 116) to the extent that many would-be management
accountants leave accounting programs without the appropriate comprehension of the
concept of sustainability. Similarly, Fernández Chulián [
63
] highlights the need for change

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 13 of 25
in the accounting education of future management accountants and explores the possibility
of including sustainability accounting and reporting in accounting programs in Spanish
universities.
We found that most of the studies (15 out of the 23 papers) belong in D5, which
represents a “residual” attribute for publications that do not fit any of the other specific
attributes. D5 includes studies that have to do with different types of organizations, such as
both public and private organizations and/or listed and not listed companies e.g., [
48
,
67
].
Moreover, this attribute includes papers that are concerned with organizational issues
without referring to a specific type of organization [
33
,
51
,
65
] as well as publications that
have no organizational focus e.g., [59,60,62].
In our analysis of the organizational focus of the 23 publications, we expected to find
studies on both publicly listed companies—which are often at the forefront of sustainability
issues because of regulatory requirements—and not-for-profit organizations—which by
their nature are committed to the collective social good. Instead, no papers in our dataset
focused on either of these two kinds of entities.
4.5. Research Method
The “Research method” category (E) includes six attributes: E1 Case/Field study/
Interviews, E2 Content analysis/Historical analysis, E3 Survey/Questionnaire/Other
empirical, E4 Mixed methods, E5 Commentary/Normative/Policy, and E6 Literature
review.
The most often-used research method (eight publications) is E5 “Commentary/Norma-
tive/Policy” e.g., [
32
,
34
,
59
]. The next most common are E1 “Case/Field study/Interviews”
and E3 “Survey/Questionnaire/Other empirical” (five publications each). In E1, for
example, Egan and Tweedie [
64
] use the case study method focusing on a large Australian
company in order to investigate how management accountants can contribute to corporate
sustainability. In E3, Ballou et al. [
33
], for example, conducted a survey completed by 178
members of the Corporate Responsibility Officer’s Association to explore how accountants
can promote the strategic integration of sustainability initiatives.
In our sample of 23 publications, four papers use mixed methods and fall into E4
e.g., [
47
,
48
]. For example, Mistry et al. [
48
] conducted surveys and semi-structured in-
terviews with management accountants to investigate their perceptions about their role
in accounting for sustainable development within organizations. Finally, Çali¸skan [
36
]
is the only author who carries out a literature review analyzing the role of accounting
and accounting professionals in sustainability. No papers employ historical and content
analysis as the research method.
In sum, our results highlight that nine papers adopted a descriptive and normative
approach, typical of commentaries, a method that prevailed in the early years of the time
period considered. The number of empirical papers has increased over the last few years,
and both qualitative and quantitative methods have been applied.
4.6. Sustainability Definition
We divided the category “Sustainability definition” (F) into seven attributes: F1
Environmental–Social–Economic, F2 Environmental–Social, F3 Environmental–Economic,
F4 Social–Economic, F5 Environmental, F6 Social, and F7 Economic. The publications in
the dataset fall into attributes F1, F2, and F5.
From the publication of the Brundtland Report [
68
], the last three decades have seen
a constant interest in the concept of sustainability, mainly understood as the balance
between environmental protection, social responsibility, and economic goals, summarized
by Elkington as the “triple bottom line” [38,39]. The results of our SLR confirm this trend,
with 12 studies coded into the F1 attribute, meaning that more than 50% of the publications
are in line with the most accredited and widely accepted definition of sustainability, which
combines the environmental, social, and economic dimensions e.g., [47,48,50].

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 14 of 25
The next most-populated attribute, F5, contains seven papers that focus on the environ-
mental dimension e.g., [
62
,
64
,
67
] and which, albeit with different nuances, examine the role
of management accountants in measuring and disclosing company impacts on air, water,
and, more generally, natural resources. For example, Burritt and Tingey-Holyoak [
52
] focus
on carbon accounting; similarly, Tingey-Holyoak and Pisaniello [
53
] explore the topic of
water accounting knowledge. It is not surprising that many papers focus on the environ-
mental dimension considering that “an increasing recognition of the impact of humans on
the environment has led to a radical requestioning of traditional economic, ethical, and
accounting assumptions” [
32
] (p. 124) and that the environment itself is often described
as “one of the few silent groups of stakeholders” [
60
] (p. 213). In this regard, given the
importance of environmental issues for organizations and society, Jones [
32
] develops a
theoretical framework for environmental accounting and reporting that challenges the
traditional accounting paradigm. In addition, the author examines the implications of this
theoretical framework for management accountants and organizations.
Of the three dimensions—environmental, social, economic—the environmental di-
mension is the only one that is analyzed separately with respect to the social and economic
dimensions. The remaining four papers fall into F2 and focus on both the environmental
and the social dimensions, delving into the role of management accountants in social
and environmental accounting; Tilt [
34
], for example, investigates the involvement of
management accountants in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
4.7. Sustainability Accounting and Reporting Focus
The category “sustainability accounting and reporting focus” (G) consists of three
attributes: G1 Internal: Measurement and management, G2 External: Disclosure, and G3
Internal and external: Measurement, management, and disclosure. The most commonly
found orientation is G3 “Internal and External: Measurement, management, and disclo-
sure”, which characterizes 13 papers e.g., [
50
,
51
]. The rest of the publications are evenly
split between internal and external focus, with five papers addressing measurement and
management e.g., [
35
,
64
] and five papers exploring disclosure e.g., [
46
,
62
], classified in G1
and G2, respectively.
The publications in our dataset generally do not focus on a specific accounting tool,
with a few notable exceptions. Some studies investigate tools employed for disclosure goals,
such as sustainability reporting [46,47,49] and integrated reporting [59]. As for tools used
for sustainability measurement and management, Fraser [
35
] focuses on the application of
a Sustainability Assessment Model (SAM) in a city council, while Egan and Tweedie [
64
]
study the involvement of management accountants in sustainability initiatives within an
Australian company where a sustainability report was introduced as a form of internal
business reporting. Finally, in the context of both external and internal focus, Çalı¸skan [
36
]
(p. 258) highlights that sustainability reports are “the main product of accounting systems
used by both internal and external stakeholders to evaluate the result of a corporation’s
activities”.
Overall, the results of this unit of analysis show that neither an inside-in nor an
outside-out approach [
7
] predominate, as sustainability accounting and reporting seem
relevant both for disclosure purposes and for managerial decision support.
4.8. Management Accountants’ Current Involvement in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
The category “Management accountant’s current involvement in sustainability ac-
counting and reporting” (H) includes five attributes: H1 No involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting, H2 Low involvement in sustainability accounting and report-
ing, H3 Involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting, H4 High involvement in
sustainability accounting and reporting, and H5 Not specified.
In our sample, only Lodhia [
62
] reports no current involvement of management ac-
countants and eight papers do not specify the current involvement of the management ac-
countant in sustainability accounting and reporting e.g., [
46
,
59
,
61
]. The analysis also reveals

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 15 of 25
that nine publications report a current low involvement in sustainability accounting and re-
porting e.g., [
34
,
49
,
51
]. In particular, these studies highlight that non-accountants are more
involved in sustainability accounting and reporting than accountants are e.g., [
51
,
64
,
69
]. In
this regard, several scholars have pointed out that professionals such as engineers [
53
], gen-
eral or middle managers, sustainability managers [
51
,
65
], or environmental managers [
64
]
are often in charge of sustainability accounting and reporting within organizations. Schal-
tegger and Zvezdov [
51
] found that sustainability and general managers identify, create,
and provide sustainability information, while the involvement of management accountants
is related to the definition of indicators and the provision of information to decision makers
at the top management level. Therefore, it appears that management accountants do not
play a role in decisions about what sustainability information should be collected and
created. This may be because, as observed by Schaltegger [
69
], conventional management
accounting systems are not able to provide sustainability information and a new range
of measurement and management tools specifically addressed to sustainability issues
have been developed and used by non-accountants; these tools reflect the specific needs
of different departments within organizations. For instance, marketing managers “are
particularly interested in physical information (e.g., on environmental impacts) but much
less in monetary sustainability information (e.g., costs of pollution prevention or savings
derived from energy efficiency measures)” [
69
] (p. 280), while finance managers collect
and use quantitative and monetary sustainability information [69].
Williams [
49
] suggests that the low involvement of management accountants could
be due to the current inadequacy of their skill sets; management accountants need to be
skilled in sustainability in order to be able to “measure, evaluate, record, interpret, and
report organisational sustainability information” [
49
] (p. 282). In this regard, Egan and
Tweedie [
64
] show that management accountants also lack the mindset needed to support
sustainability practices and struggle to find a common vocabulary with other organizational
actors, such as engineers. The authors show that when management accountants engage
in sustainability initiatives, they appear reluctant to embrace innovations: they support
non-accountants in the data collection and reporting, but they do not work creatively with
colleagues of other Departments to develop innovative accounting solutions.
Finally, three studies note a current involvement of management accountants in
sustainability accounting and reporting [
48
,
60
,
67
] and two publications highlight their
current high involvement [
35
,
53
]. Idowu [
60
] commented that management accountants
are involved in ensuring that organizations are socially responsible through the control
of costs and benefits associated with social and environmental issues. In particular, the
author focused on Social and Environmental Accounting (SEA) and commented on some
management accounting techniques useful to support short- and long-term decisions
about sustainability. In this vein, Margerison et al. [
67
] found that, in China, manage-
ment accountants are embracing environmental accounting in an effort to broaden their
traditionally narrow specialization. By using surveys and interviews, Mistry et al. [
48
]
found that, although they do not use environmental management accounting systems,
management accountants employed in large organizations are involved in accounting
for sustainable development by supporting the decision-making process of upper-level
management. In contrast, management accountants employed in SMEs play a more limited
role in sustainability accounting and reporting and they deal with traditional activities
such as “producing managerial reports, preparing cost benefit analysis, dispatch schedules,
etc.” [
48
] (p. 129). In his study, Fraser [
35
] found that the involvement of management
accountants in the application of a Sustainable Assessment Model (SAM), which is “an
accounting technology developed to incorporate sustainability considerations into organi-
zational decision-making and, potentially, accountability processes” [
35
] (p. 509), provided
credibility to the project because the SAM was framed as “an extension of a legitimate
accounting tool” [35] (p. 527).
In sum, we observe that management accountants are not highly involved in sus-
tainability accounting and reporting within organizations, at least in the current scenario.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 16 of 25
Sustainability accounting and reporting appear to be more practiced by non-accountants,
such as sustainability managers or general managers, while management accountants’ in-
volvement appears to be marginal. However, some studies have reported the involvement
of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting; these studies have
mainly focused on the environmental dimension of sustainability and have illustrated that
management accountants can support decision making processes through the application
of environmental accounting tools, even if their use remains somewhat limited.
4.9. Management Accountants’ Future/potential Involvement in Sustainability Accounting
and Reporting
The category “Management accountant’s future/potential involvement in sustainabil-
ity accounting and reporting” (I) explores the same basic theme of the previous one (H)
but with a different time perspective: the future. It also includes five attributes: I1 No in-
volvement in sustainability accounting and reporting, I2 Low involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting, I3 Involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting, I4
High involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting, and I5 Not specified.
Analysis results revealed that only 2 publications do not specify the future involve-
ment of management accountants, 6 studies foresee a future involvement of management
accountants, and 15 studies point to a high future involvement in sustainability accounting
and reporting. Generally speaking, the publications that observe an involvement of man-
agement accountants claim that they can play a role in sustainability measurement and
management in the future e.g., [
36
,
47
,
52
,
61
,
62
]. In this regard, Schaltegger [
69
] suggests
that the future involvement of management accountants could concern the coordination
and organization of different types of sustainability information developed by managers
and its incorporation into the overall management accounting system of the organization.
It is noteworthy that three studies are focused on sustainability and accounting ed-
ucation and they all foresee a potential future involvement of management accountants,
which would depend on their training in sustainability accounting and reporting [
47
,
50
,
63
].
In this regard, referring to water accounting, Tingey-Holyoak and Pisaniello [
53
] suggest
that it would be necessary for accountants and engineers to create, standardize, and share
knowledge based on their respective domains of expertise. This point has also been under-
scored by Burritt and Tingey-Holyoak [
52
] and Çalı¸skan [
36
]. In particular, Çalı¸skan [
36
]
(p. 263) suggests that future management accountants need to be “equipped with the
core knowledge of environmental engineering as a specialized profession to handle the
technical accounting problem that is related to sustainability”. Overall, it seems that the
future involvement of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting
will depend on their ability to broaden their existing/traditional domain of expertise by
acquiring knowledge and developing new skills and competencies traditionally pertaining
to other fields of expertise. This observation echoes the phenomenon, identified and stud-
ied in the accounting literature, of management accountants’ “hybridization”, defined as
“the enlargement in the set of practices and legitimated competencies which make up the
domain of a specific expertise” [
70
] (p. 147). It seems that management accountants should
expand their competencies to include aspects of environmental engineering to calculate
costs related to the consumption of environmental resources.
4.10. Management Accountants’ Role in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
The category “Management accountant’s role in sustainability practices” (L) includes
three attributes: L1 Bean counter, L2 Business partner, and L3 Other. As explained in the
section dedicated to the analytical framework (Section 3.5), we based our coding on what
the authors explicitly declared in their manuscripts about management accountants’ role
in order to avoid the risk that our understanding and interpretations could bias the results.
Our results show that no papers identify a bean counter’s role, only two papers refer
to a business partner’s role, while 21 papers provide some description of the manage-
ment accountant’s role in sustainability accounting and reporting without referring to the
traditional archetypes.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 17 of 25
Hoang [
59
] and Oyewo [
66
] specifically refer to a business partner role for management
accountants. Hoang [
59
], who focused on how Boards of Directors may raise awareness
on ESG risks via corporate reporting, stated that the adoption of the Integrated Report
gives management accountants an important role to play in providing ESG information
to stakeholders. Moreover, Hoang [
59
] (p. 65) calls for future research on management
accountants as business partners, because “the rising awareness of ESG risks requires new
knowledge and experience in both financial and non-financial”. Oyewo [
66
], in turn, who
used questionnaires to collect the views of 131 senior accounting/finance officers from
Nigerian firms, found that the presence of management accountants with specialized skills
allows management accounting practices to support corporate sustainability, prompting
the author to call for “accountants in business” [
66
] (p. 27). The 21 papers that provide some
descriptions of management accountants’ role in sustainability accounting and reporting
do not explicitly refer to the traditional archetypes. So, while there is a consensus on the
fact that management accountants should or may play a role in sustainability accounting
and reporting, there is “uncertainty regarding the role that accountants should play” [
47
]
(p. 117).
In this regard, Schaltegger and Zvezdov [
51
,
65
] argue that “accountants are involved
in sustainability accounting in a way that has not been investigated in literature to date” [
51
]
(p. 350). In particular, they highlight how management accountants may act as “gate-
keepers”, which they also defined as a “brokerage role”. A similar type of role is also
posited by Egan and Tweedie [
64
]. In such a role, Schaltegger and Zvezdov [
51
] stated
that management accountants would select sustainability information, produced by man-
agers, and define the indicators to be presented to the top management to be used in
their decision-making processes. They described it in the following way: “this role of
accountants transforming and transporting information between functional specialists,
departments and top management can be seen as information brokerage. Brokerage is the
act of facilitating exchange. [
. . .
] accountants as information brokers could support the
uptake of sustainability issues and bring the importance of sustainability performance to
the immediate attention of senior management” [51] (p. 339).
Overall, the literature on management accountants’ role in sustainability accounting
and reporting does not resort to the traditional management accountant descriptors. Their
new role as “gatekeepers” is emerging in an intermediate position between internal pro-
ducers of sustainability information and top management; thus, management accountants
could play a role in facilitating and supporting information flows within organizations.
5. Discussion, Future Research Directions, and Conclusions
The literature review carried out in the previous sections shows that, despite the
limited number of papers and their fragmented distribution in various journals, academic
interest in exploring the role played by management accountants in sustainability account-
ing and reporting is growing. In terms of geographic distribution, Oceania is the most
studied region, thus confirming this area’s strong interest and continued role in the devel-
opment of research related to the measurement, management, and disclosure of intangibles
and non-financial capitals. In order to have a broader perspective, it could be interesting to
conduct a more in-depth investigation of the European area, which has, so far, been the
object of only a modest number of empirical investigations; it would also be interesting
to extend the analysis to China and the U.S., which remain unexplored. Our review also
highlights that empirical investigations are still scarce, and this seems to confirm that, while
the relevance of this research field has been recognized, there is the need to delve more
deeply into this topic. In this regard, the literature review shows that our knowledge about
the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting within
private companies and public organizations is limited. To date, no study has explored this
topic in publicly listed companies or in not-for-profit organizations, which, by their very
nature, should be at the forefront of sustainability debates.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 18 of 25
Our findings reveal that many studies of our dataset focus on the measurement and
management of sustainability information and, thus, on the relevance of sustainability
information for planning, controlling, and for organizations’ decision-making process.
However, those who traditionally are in charge of these tasks and responsibilities, i.e.,
management accountants, are less involved in sustainability accounting and reporting than
non-accountants are. More specifically, their role mainly involves managing sustainability
information flows between the internal producers of this information and top management,
rather than actually identifying relevant data and producing information. As observed by
some authors, this may be attributable to the ad hoc development of measurement and
management tools, within specific departments, to address sustainability issues, given that
traditional management accounting systems are inadequate for providing sustainability
information. In addition, our findings show that neither the organizational characteristics
of the company in which management accountants are employed, nor the industry to
which these companies belong to, influence their limited involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting.
Despite their current limited engagement, management accountants are expected
to be more involved in sustainability accounting and reporting in the future since they
are the ones who have the proper accounting competencies to support the diffusion of
sustainability accounting and reporting within organizations. Nonetheless, management
accountants’ potential future involvement seems also to be conditional on their ability to
acquire competencies and skills in sustainability; in this regard, universities could play a
pivotal role. Finally, the present review also offers some insights on the taxonomy related
to the role of management accountants in this field. Currently, it is not fully clear how
to best describe the role management accountants can or could play in sustainability
accounting and reporting. Traditional archetypes developed in the accounting literature on
management accountants’ role, i.e., bean counter and business partner, are not employed
nor, perhaps, are they suitable to describe their role in sustainability accounting and
reporting; fairly new, instead, the term “gatekeepers” has emerged in the accounting
literature and has gained some attention.
The primary focus of this section is to critically discuss the main findings of the SLR
in order to answer RQ.3: “What future avenues of research on the role of management
accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting can be identified?”. In the following
sections, we offer further reflections on the current state of the literature and highlight
future avenues of research that emerge from our study. Our discussion includes man-
agement accountants’ involvement and role in sustainability accounting and reporting,
the harmonization and standardization of sustainability information and implications
for management accountants, and the role of education in sustainability accounting and
reporting for future management accountants.
5.1. Management Accountants’ Involvement in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
The SLR shows that the current involvement of management accountants in sustain-
ability accounting and reporting is, in most cases, marginal. However, all of the publications
in our dataset suggest a potentially relevant, future involvement of management accoun-
tants in sustainability, meaning that a high involvement of management accountants in
sustainability accounting and reporting is needed and should be fostered.
Table 5, below, is a pivot table resulting from the relationship between the current and
the future or potential involvement of management accountants in sustainability accounting
and reporting. As outlined in the papers included in our SLR, 12 papers that had reported
a not specified, an absent, or a low current involvement of management accountants in
sustainability accounting and reporting call for their future high involvement. In this
regard, Schaltegger and Zvezdov [
51
] (p. 353) suggest that “the main implication for future
research is investigating how accountants could be more strongly involved in sustainability
accounting and reporting”.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 19 of 25
Table 5. Current and potential involvement of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting.
Potential/Future
Involvement
Current
Involvement
High involvement in
sustainability accounting and
reporting
Involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting
Not
specified Total
High involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 1 - 1 2
Involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 2 1 - 3
Low involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 7 1 1 9
No involvement in sustainability
accounting and reporting 1- - 1
Not specified 44 - 8
Total 15 6 2 23
In this scenario, it is also important to underscore how limited empirical research
has been up to now; therefore, it could be interesting to expand, in breadth and depth,
our knowledge on the actual involvement of management accountants in sustainability
accounting and reporting. On the one hand, this can be achieved by conducting empirical
research on a wider scale, which would also provide a better and more detailed under-
standing of the current involvement of management accountants; it would also help us to
see if there is a relationship between their involvement and certain company characteristics,
such as corporate size (as already explored by Mistry et al.) [
48
], organizational structure,
or sector, among others. On the other hand, future research could also delve into those
situations in which management accountants have a high involvement in sustainability
and accounting practices by conducting exploratory single or multiple case studies, which
may help understand why and how management accountants are, or could be, be involved
in sustainability accounting and reporting.
5.2. The Role of Management Accountants in Sustainability Accounting and Reporting
The SLR reveals that research on the role of management accountants in sustainability
accounting and reporting has found a new conception of this role, i.e., that of “gatekeep-
ers” of sustainability information [
51
,
61
,
64
,
65
]. The role of gatekeeper, also defined by
Schaltegger and Zvezdov [
51
] as a “brokerage role”, includes selecting sustainability in-
formation, frequently produced by sustainability or functional managers, overseeing its
exchange and diffusion among the different managers, and directing towards the top
management. In this way, management accountants are central to integrating sustainability
in the managerial decision-making process and to favoring the uptake of sustainability
practices by managers. If we consider the ample literature produced over the years on the
different roles that management accountants may play, this role seems to be new. More
specifically, even if Lantto [
71
] identified the role of management accountant as “brokers”
in 2014, she ascribed it a different nuance. In her case study, Lantto [
71
] found that man-
agement accountants acted as brokers between the IFRS world—external parties—and the
organization, “bridging boundaries between the reporting practice and the business” [
71
]
(p. 351). Instead, in the case of sustainability accounting and reporting, management
accountants act as brokers within organizational boundaries. Therefore, further research
should be undertaken for an in-depth investigation into the nature and the characteristics
of this role, the activities related to it, the possible criticalities a management accountant
may face, and the competencies (technical and soft) that should be developed when playing
this role.
As far as the traditional archetypes on management accountants are concerned (e.g.,
bean counter and business partner—see Section 3.5), we argue that their relevance in
sustainability accounting and reporting needs to be further investigated. As a matter of

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 20 of 25
fact, our SLR reveals that only in two articles of our dataset is there explicit mention of one
of these archetypes (business partner). In this regard, it would be interesting to conduct
more empirical research to explore whether and how traditional archetypes are able (or
not able) to describe the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and
reporting. Considering the different effects associated with these archetypes in terms of the
ability to understand the business, to innovate the management accounting system and
thus, to influence the managerial decision-making process, more research on management
accountants’ roles could help understand the actual diffusion of sustainability accounting
and reporting practices in companies, as well as its evolution.
5.3. Management Accountants and the Harmonization of Sustainability Information
Management accounting as an organizational practice is not an exclusive prerogative
of management accountants, to the extent that, over the years, operational managers have
increasingly undertaken activities traditionally pertaining to the management accounting
field [
72
,
73
]. Our SLR shows that management accountants are less involved in sustainabil-
ity accounting and reporting compared to non-accountants, such as engineers [
53
], general
or middle managers, sustainability managers [51,65], or environmental managers [64].
In this regard, Schaltegger [
69
] (p. 280) argued that different managers (e.g., produc-
tion, marketing, etc.) may “have their own specific sustainability information, methods and
databases”, but that the existence of this locally developed sustainability information may
result in inefficiency, lack of harmonization, and incoherence of sustainability information
itself, since various functional managers gather and use differently sustainability infor-
mation with disparate purposes. Therefore, with a variety of professionals dealing with
sustainability decisions, it becomes necessary to harmonize and standardize the collection,
communication, and use of sustainability information. According to Schaltegger [
69
],
management accountants may avoid conflicts and contradictory results by designing a
comprehensive sustainability management accounting system or by fostering the integra-
tion of sustainability information within the overall management accounting system of the
organization. Thus, the author encourages management accountants to further develop the
coordination and integration of different types of sustainability information [69] (p. 287).
In line with this, we deem that further research is needed to better understand not only
the criticalities of integrating sustainability information within the corporate management
accounting and reporting system, but also how the management accountant may help
overcome or reduce them. The problem of the integration of local measures in management
corporate reporting is an area open to research in management accounting. Lukka [
74
]
(p. 340) argues that “their integration does not seem an impossible task in practice since
there is a potential division of labour between the two”. The role that management ac-
countants may have in promoting the harmonization and the integration of local measures
into the corporate reporting and vice versa has been explored by Chiucchi [
8
,
14
], who has
also shown some of the characteristics that the management accountant should have to
help this integration. Therefore, additional research in this direction may also help favor
the harmonization and standardization of sustainability information within the corporate
reporting process.
Finally, future research could investigate the phenomenon of “hybridization” [
70
]
(p. 147), which could be driven by the introduction and development of sustainability
accounting and reporting, and its consequences, in terms of professional competition. This
derives, on the one hand, from non-accountants being more involved than management
accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting and thus, entering the accounting
field of expertise. On the other hand, in order to remain competitive and reduce the risk of
being “pushed out” by other non-accountants, management accountants find themselves
needing to engage in sustainability and develop new skills pertaining to other fields of
knowledge, e.g., engineering.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 21 of 25
5.4. Management Accountants, Sustainability and Accounting Education
In our SLR, a growing concern regarding management accountants’ education has
emerged; it relates to equipping future accountants with the necessary skills and compe-
tencies to deal with sustainability accounting and reporting, which has been the object of
attention in some studies e.g., [
47
,
50
,
63
]. Specifically, some national accounting education
programs have been examined to understand the relevance of sustainability issues; the
results show that sustainability issues are not present enough [
50
] and not sufficiently
integrated [
47
] in the accounting programs. Furthermore, aspiring accountants do not
seem to have an adequate understanding of the concept of sustainability when they leave
accounting courses [47].
As stated by Boulianne et al. [
50
] (p. 313), a pivotal challenge in accounting today
is “determining not only what an accountant is but also what an accountant should be”.
In a similar vein, Fernández Chulián [
63
] highlights the need for an extensive redesign
of accounting programs in order to train new generations of accountants. Although not
specifically focused on accounting education per se, other studies call for investigations on
the role of accounting education—provided both by universities and professional external
bodies—in improving management accountants’ sustainability knowledge [
51
] and in
contributing “to move away from the traditional economic focus that currently dominates
accounting practice” [49] (p. 282).
Future research could further examine the reasons why current accounting education
programs do not effectively provide management accountants with the necessary expertise
in sustainability; therefore, it would also be interesting to explore how their effectiveness
could be increased. Furthermore, it could be enlightening to look for a possible link between
the low involvement of management accountants and their education, by studying if and
how the sustainability skills and competencies required by organizations are covered in
formal accounting programs, for example.
In conclusion, we hold that the extant literature on the role of management accountants
in sustainability accounting and reporting appears still limited and that future research
would clarify and enrich our understanding on the topic at stake. From the results of our
SLR, we have identified some research avenues that may be interesting, from a theoretical
point of view, to better understand the role and the involvement of management accoun-
tants in sustainability accounting and reporting and that could also help investigate their
influence on the uptake of sustainability practices by managers.
Some of these research streams may also have practical implications. For instance,
since a more relevant involvement of management accountants will depend both on their
ability to broaden their traditional domain of expertise and on the role of accounting
education in improving the sustainability knowledge of future generations of management
accountants, educational institutions may benefit from the results of this research to design
their graduate and masters’ programs. Moreover, the results of the SLR would also
encourage and inspire management accountants to engage in sustainability and to drive
innovations by incorporating sustainability in corporate management accounting and
reporting systems.
As with any piece of research, this paper has limitations. The findings observed
are limited to the data analyzed and to the choices made during the process of writing
this review. We documented each phase in detail, in order to make it possible to repeat
and verify the undertaken procedures. In addition, future literature reviews could use
other scientific databases for the search process, such as Web of Science, to compare and
discuss results of different datasets. Finally, the findings of this paper are dependent on our
interpretation; we therefore take responsibility for the interpretation and possible errors
and/or omissions.
Author Contributions:
1. Introduction, M.S.C.; 2. Research Method, R.C.; 3. The Structured
Literature Review, R.C.; 4. Findings, I.A.; 5. Discussion, Future Research Directions, and Conclusions,
I.A. and R.C., and more specifically 5.1. and 5.2. I.A.; 5.3. and 5.4. R.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 22 of 25
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A Publications Reviewed in Chronological Order
I.
Lodhia S.K. The accounting implications of the sustainable development bill. Soc. Environ. Account. J.
2001
,21,
8–11.
II.
Lewis, T. Debate: Public sector sustainability reporting – Implications for Accountants. Public Money Manag.
2008
,
28, 329–331.
III.
Jones M.J. Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and
reporting. Account. Forum 2010,34, 123–138.
IV.
Tilt, C.A. Corporate Responsibility, Accounting and Accountants. In Professionals’ Perspectives of Corporate Social
Responsibility; Idowu S.O., Filho W.L. Eds.; Springer, 2010, pp. 11–32.
V.
Fernández Chulián, M. Constructing new accountants: the role of sustainability education. Rev. Cont.
2011
,14,
241–265.
VI.
Idowu, S.O. Accounting for decision makers in a sustainable environment. In Theory and practice of corporate social
responsibility; Idowu S.O., Louche C. Eds.; Springer, 2011, pp. 208–228.
VII.
Fraser, M. “Fleshing out” an engagement with a social accounting technology. Account. Audit. Account. J.
2012
,
25, 508–534.
VIII.
Burritt, R.L.; Tingey-Holyoak, J. Forging cleaner production: the importance of academic-practitioner links for
successful sustainability embedded carbon accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 2012,36, 39–47.
IX.
Ballou, B.; Casey, R.J.; Grenier, J.H.; Heitger, D.L. Exploring the Strategic Integration of Sustainability Initiatives:
Opportunities for Accounting Research. Account. Horizons.2012,26, 265–288.
X.
Schaltegger, S.; Zvezdov, D. In Control of Sustainability Information: Untangling the Role of Accountants. In
Accounting and control for sustainability, Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting; Songini, L.; Pistoni, A.;
Herzig, C. Eds.; Emerald, 2013, pp. 265–296.
XI.
Botes, V.; Low, M.; Chapman, J. Is accounting education sufficiently sustainable? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.
2014,5(1), 95–124.
XII.
Çalı¸skan, A.Ö. How accounting and accountants may contribute in sustainability? Soc. Responsib. J.
2014
,10(2),
246–267.
XIII.
Mistry, V.; Sharma, U.; Low, M. Management accountants’ perception of their role in accounting for sustainable
development. An exploratory study. Pac. Account. Rev. 2014,26, 112–133.
XIV.
Schaltegger, S.; Zvezdov, D. Gatekeepers of sustainability information: exploring the roles of accountants. J.
Account. Organ. Change 2015,11, 333–361.
XV. Seay, S. Sustainability is Applied Ethics. J. Legal Ethic. Regulatory Iss. 2015,18, 63–70.
XVI.
Williams, B.R. The local government accountants’ perspective on sustainability. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.
2015,6, 267–287.
XVII. Schaltegger, S. Sustainability as a fundamental challenge for management accountants. In The role of management
accountants, Local Variations and Global Influences; Goretzki L., Strauss E. Eds.; Routledge, 2017, pp. 274–291.
XVIII. Boulianne, E.; Keddie, L.S.; Postaire, M. (Non) coverage of sustainability within the French professional accounting
education program. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2018,9, 313–335.
XIX.
Egan, M.; Tweedie, D. A “green” accountant is difficult to find. Can accountants contribute to sustainability
management initiatives? Account. Audit. Account. J. 2018,31, 1749–1773.
XX.
Hoang, T. The Role of the Integrated Reporting in Raising Awareness of Environmental, Social and Corporate
Governance (ESG) Performance. Stakeholders Gov. Responsib.2018,14, 47–69.
XXI.
Tingey-Holyoak, J.; Pisaniello, J.D. Water accounting knowledge pathways. Pac. Account. Rev.
2019
,31, 258–274.
XXII.
Margerison, J.; Fan, M.; Birkin, F. The prospects for environmental accounting and accountability in China.
Account. Forum 2019,43, 327–347.
XXIII.
Oyewo, B.M. Outcomes of interaction between organizational characteristics and management accounting
practice on corporate sustainability: the global management accounting principles (GMAP) approach. J. Sustain.
Fin. Invest. 2020. doi:10.1080/20430795.2020.1738141.

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 23 of 25
References
1.
Crutzen, N.; Herzig, C. A review of the empirical research in management control, strategy and sustainability. Perform. Meas.
Manag. Control. Glob. Issues 2013,26, 165–195. [CrossRef]
2.
De Villiers, C.J.; Rouse, P.; Kerr, J. A new conceptual model of influences driving sustainability based on case evidence of the
integration of corporate sustainability management control and reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,136, 78–85. [CrossRef]
3.
Henri, J.-F.; Journeault, M. Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental and economic perfor-
mance. Account. Organ. Soc. 2010,35, 63–80. [CrossRef]
4.
Lueg, R.; Radlach, R. Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review. Eur. Manag. J.
2016,34, 158–171. [CrossRef]
5. Schaltegger, S. Sustainability as driver of corporate success. Control. Z. 2010,22, 238–243. [CrossRef]
6. Schaltegger, S.; Sturm, A. Eco-Efficiency through Eco-Control; VDF: Zurich, Switzerland, 1995.
7. Burritt, R.L.; Schaltegger, S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Account. Audit. Account. J. 2010,23, 829–846.
[CrossRef]
8.
Chiucchi, M.S. Intellectual capital accounting in action: Enhancing learning through interventionist research. J. Intellect. Cap.
2013,14, 48–68. [CrossRef]
9.
Emsley, D. Restructuring the management accounting function: A note on the effect of role involvement on innovativeness.
Manag. Account. Res. 2005,16, 157–177. [CrossRef]
10.
Ma, Y.; Tayles, M. On the emergence of strategic management accounting: An institutional perspective. Account. Bus. Res.
2009
,
39, 473–495. [CrossRef]
11.
Goretzki, L.; Strauss, E.; Weber, J. An institutional perspective on the changes in management accountants’ professional role.
Manag. Account. Res. 2013,24, 41–63. [CrossRef]
12. Hyvönen, T.; Järvinen, J.; Pellinen, J. Dynamics of creating a new role for business controllers. Nord. J. Bus. 2015,64, 21–39.
13. Vaivio, J. Mobilizing local knowledge with ‘Provocative’ non-financial measures. Eur. Account. Rev. 2004,13, 39–71. [CrossRef]
14.
Chiucchi, M.S. Measuring and reporting intellectual capital. Lessons learnt from some interventionist research projects. J. Intellect.
Cap. 2013,14, 395–413. [CrossRef]
15.
Giuliani, M.; Marasca, S. Construction and valuation of intellectual capital: A case study. J. Intellect. Cap.
2011
,12, 377–391.
[CrossRef]
16.
Giuliani, M.; Chiucchi, M.S. Guess who’s coming to dinner: The case of IC reporting in Italy. J. Manag. Gov.
2018
,23, 403–433.
[CrossRef]
17.
Mio, C.; Marco, F.; Pauluzzo, R. Internal application of IR principles: Generali’s Internal Integrated Reporting. J. Clean. Prod.
2016
,
139, 204–218. [CrossRef]
18. CIMA. Sustainability and the role of the management accountant. Res. Exec. Summ. Ser. 2011,7, 1–14.
19.
Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Guthrie, J. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Account.
Audit. Acc. J. 2016,29, 767–801. [CrossRef]
20.
Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Manag. Decis.
2006
,44,
213–227. [CrossRef]
21.
Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
22.
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by
Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003,14, 207–222. [CrossRef]
23. Alvesson, M.; Deetz, S. Doing Critical Management Research; Sage: London, UK, 2000.
24.
Secundo, G.; Ndou, V.; Del Vecchio, P.; De Pascale, G. Knowledge management in entrepreneurial universities: A structured
literature review and avenue for future research agenda. Manag. Decis. 2019,57, 3226–3257. [CrossRef]
25.
Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Garlatti, A. Public sector knowledge management: A structured literature review. J. Knowl. Manag.
2015
,
19, 530–558. [CrossRef]
26.
Traxler, A.A.; Schrack, D.; Greiling, D. Sustainability reporting and management control—A systematic exploratory literature
review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,276, 122725. [CrossRef]
27.
Ahrens, T.; Chapman, C.S. Occupational identity of MAs in Britain and Germany. Eur. Account. Rev.
2020
,9, 477–498. [CrossRef]
28.
Harzing, A.-W. A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners.
Science 2013,94, 1057–1075. [CrossRef]
29. Harzing, A.-W. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Science 2014,98, 565–575. [CrossRef]
30.
Dumay, J.; Bernardi, C.; Guthrie, J.; DeMartini, P. Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Acc. Forum
2016
,40,
166–185. [CrossRef]
31.
Cuozzo, B.; Dumay, J.; Palmaccio, M.; Lombardi, R. Intellectual capital disclosure: A structured literature review. J. Intellect. Cap.
2017,18, 9–28. [CrossRef]
32.
Jones, M.J. Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and reporting.
Account. Forum 2010,34, 123–138. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 24 of 25
33.
Ballou, B.; Casey, R.J.; Grenier, J.H.; Heitger, D.L. Exploring the Strategic Integration of Sustainability Initiatives: Opportunities
for Accounting Research. Account. Horiz. 2012,26, 265–288. [CrossRef]
34.
Tilt, C.A. Corporate Responsibility, Accounting and Accountants. In Professionals’ Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility;
Idowu, S.O., Filho, W.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 11–32.
35.
Fraser, M. “Fleshing out” an engagement with a social accounting technology. Account. Audit. Account. J.
2012
,25, 508–534.
[CrossRef]
36.
Çali¸skan, A.Ö. How accounting and accountants may contribute in sustainability? Soc. Responsib. J.
2014
,10, 246–267. [CrossRef]
37.
Guthrie, J.; Ricceri, F.; Dumay, J. Reflections and projections: A decade of Intellectual Capital Accounting Research. Br. Account.
Rev. 2012,44, 68–82. [CrossRef]
38. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997.
39.
Elkington, J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag.
1998
,
8, 37–51. [CrossRef]
40. Järvinen, J. Shifting NPM agendas and MAs’ occupational identities. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2009,22, 1187–1210. [CrossRef]
41.
Friedman, A.L.; Lyne, S.R. The beancounter stereotype: Towards a general model of stereotype generation. Crit. Perspect. Account.
2001,12, 423–451. [CrossRef]
42.
Järvenpää, M. Making Business Partners: A Case Study on how Management Accounting Culture was Changed. Eur. Account.
Rev. 2007,16, 99–142. [CrossRef]
43. Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018.
44.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria,
2018; Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 20 December 2020).
45.
Gamer, M.; Lemon, J.; Fellows, I.; Singh, P. Coefficients of Interrater Reliability and Agreement for Quantitative, Ordinal and
Nominal Data. 2012. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/irr/index.html (accessed on 20 December
2020).
46.
Lewis, T. Debate: Public Sector Sustainability Reporting-Implications for Accountants. Public Money Manag.
2008
,28, 329–331.
[CrossRef]
47.
Botes, V.; Low, M.; Chapman, J. Is accounting education sufficiently sustainable? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.
2014
,5, 95–124.
[CrossRef]
48.
Mistry, V.; Sharma, U.; Low, M. Management accountants’ perception of their role in accounting for sustainable development. Pac.
Account. Rev. 2014,26, 112–133. [CrossRef]
49.
Williams, B. The local government accountants’ perspective on sustainability. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.
2015
,6, 267–287.
[CrossRef]
50.
Boulianne, E.; Keddie, L.S.; Postaire, M. (Non) coverage of sustainability within the French professional accounting education
program. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2018,9, 313–335. [CrossRef]
51.
Schaltegger, S.; Zvezdov, D. Gatekeepers of sustainability information: Exploring the roles of accountants. J. Account. Organ.
Chang. 2015,11, 333–361. [CrossRef]
52.
Burritt, R.L.; Tingey-Holyoak, J. Forging cleaner production: The importance of academic-practitioner links for successful
sustainability embedded carbon accounting. J. Clean. Prod. 2012,36, 39–47. [CrossRef]
53. Tingey-Holyoak, J.; Pisaniello, J.D. Water accounting knowledge pathways. Pac. Account. Rev. 2019,31, 258–274. [CrossRef]
54. Guthrie, J.; Petty, R. Intellectual capital: Australian annual reporting practices. J. Intellect. Cap. 2000,1, 241–251. [CrossRef]
55.
Adams, S.; Simnett, R. Integrated Reporting: An Opportunity for Australia’s Not-for-Profit Sector. Aust. Account. Rev.
2011
,21,
292–301. [CrossRef]
56.
Dumay, J.; Hossain, M.D.A. Sustainability Risk Disclosure Practices of Listed Companies in Australia. Aust. Account. Rev.
2019
,
29, 343–359. [CrossRef]
57.
Higgins, C.; Stubbs, W.; Tweedie, D.; McCallum, G. Journey or toolbox? Integrated reporting and processes of organisational
change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2019,32, 1662–1689. [CrossRef]
58.
Stubbs, W.; Higgins, C. Integrated Reporting and internal mechanisms of change. Account. Audit. Account. J.
2014
,27, 1068–1089.
[CrossRef]
59.
Hoang, T. The Role of the Integrated Reporting in Raising Awareness of Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG)
Performance. Dev. Corp. Gov. Responsib. 2018,14, 47–69. [CrossRef]
60.
Idowu, S.O. Accounting for decision makers in a sustainable environment. In Theory and Practice of Corporate Social Responsibility;
Idowu, S.O., Louche, C., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 208–228.
61. Seay, S. Sustainability is Applied Ethics. J. Legal Ethic. Regul. Iss. 2015,18, 63–70.
62.
Lodhia, S.K. The accounting implications of the sustainable development bill. Soc. Environ. Account. J.
2001
,21, 8–11. [CrossRef]
63.
Fernández Chulián, M. Constructing new accountants: The role of sustainability education. Rev. Cont.
2011
,14, 241–265.
[CrossRef]
64.
Egan, M.; Tweedie, D. A “green” accountant is difficult to find. Can accountants contribute to sustainability management
initiatives? Account. Audit. Account. J. 2018,31, 1749–1773. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2021,13, 2357 25 of 25
65.
Schaltegger, S.; Zvezdov, D. In Control of Sustainability Information: Untangling the Role of Accountants. In Accounting and
Control for Sustainability, Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting; Songini, L., Pistoni, A., Herzig, C., Eds.; Emerald: Bingley,
UK, 2013; pp. 265–296.
66.
Oyewo, B.M. Outcomes of interaction between organizational characteristics and management accounting practice on corporate
sustainability: The global management accounting principles (GMAP) approach. J. Sustain. Financ. Investig.
2020
, 1–35. [CrossRef]
67.
Margerison, J.; Fan, M.; Birkin, F. The prospects for environmental accounting and accountability in China. Account. Forum
2019
,
43, 327–347. [CrossRef]
68.
Brundtland, G. Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK,
1987.
69.
Schaltegger, S. Sustainability as a fundamental challenge for management accountants. In The Role of Management Accountants,
Local Variations and Global Influences; Goretzki, L., Strauss, E., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp.
274–291.
70.
Caglio, A. Enterprise Resource Planning systems and accountants: Towards hybridization? Eur. Account. Rev.
2003
,12, 123–153.
[CrossRef]
71.
Lantto, A.-M. Business Involvement in Accounting: A Case Study of International Financial Reporting Standards Adoption and
the Work of Accountants. Eur. Account. Rev. 2014,23, 335–356. [CrossRef]
72. Burns, J.; Vaivio, J. Management accounting change. Manag. Account. Res. 2001,12, 389–402. [CrossRef]
73.
Scapens, R.W.; Jazayeri, M. ERP systems and management accounting change: Opportunities or impacts? A research note. Eur.
Account. Rev. 2003,12, 201–233. [CrossRef]
74.
Lukka, K. Total accounting in action: Reflections on sten Jönsson’s Accounting for Improvement. Account. Organ. Soc.
1998
,23,
333–342. [CrossRef]