Cross-sectional survey reveals management accounting organization mediates external pressures and business performance in small and medium enterprises, highlighting managerial competence as a key...
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operate under market uncertainty, digital transformation, and evolving institutional pressures, increasing the need for internal information arrangements that support timely and informed managerial decisions. This study conceptualizes the organization of management accounting (OMA) as an integrative arrangement characterized by formalization, cross-functional integration, timeliness, and decision orientation. Drawing on contingency theory, information-processing theory, the resource-based view, and institutional theory, survey data from 325 Vietnamese SMEs were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Environmental uncertainty, accounting-related digitalization, managerial competence, and institutional pressure were positively associated with OMA, with managerial competence showing the strongest relationship. OMA was positively associated with both operational and strategic performance and represented a significant indirect pathway linking each contextual condition with both performance dimensions. Environmental uncertainty further strengthened the OMA-performance relationships. The model explained 51.8% of the variance in OMA, 39.4% in operational performance, and 44.5% in strategic performance. Robustness checks supported the main findings, although the model did not consistently outperform the linear benchmark in out-of-sample prediction. From a sustainable-development perspective, OMA may help resource-constrained SMEs improve resource-use efficiency, digitally supported decision-making, organizational resilience, and long-term adaptability. Although environmental and social sustainability outcomes were not directly measured, these capabilities are relevant to the enabling conditions associated with SDGs 8, 9, and 12.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Binh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: