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

Abstract

Purpose

Burns and Scapens (2000) (B&S hereafter) offered a well-cited framework conceptualising management accounting change. This paper aims to provide a systematic review of how B&S has been used to inform management accounting research and presents an updated framework as a point of departure for future work.

Design/methodology/approach

A systematic literature review method is used to ascertain various contexts and designs of B&S-based research. After an extensive examination of citations, 77 journal articles published are identified, described and analysed.

Findings

The systematic review shows that the B&S framework has been applied in many contexts, yet its main tenets remain unchallenged. Several researchers have suggested additions and amendments, and this paper synthesises these to an updated framework. Similar theoretical advancements were noted, indicating that future contributions should be grounded in comprehensive reviews of literature.

Research limitations/implications

A limitation is that the analysis is limited to journal articles and the results of the review are contingent on the authors’ reading.

Originality/value

An updated framework is a core contribution, serving as a basis for further advances in the understanding of the complexity of management accounting change/stability. In addition, concrete and fruitful areas for future research are presented.

Citation

Ammar, S.F., Hiebl, M.R.W. and Quinn, M. (2025), "Burns and Scapens’ framework: a 25-year review of insights, challenges, and prospective directions", Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-01-2024-0011

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

2. The B&S framework

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

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

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

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

3. Review methods and sample

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Review findings

4.1 Applications of Burns and Scapens in empirical studies

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

4.1.1 Actors as catalysts for change.

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

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

4.1.2 Interpretations and outcomes.

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

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

4.1.3 Institutionalisation and evolution.

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

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

4.1.4 External and internal institutional pressures.

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

4.1.5 Technological disruption and its impact on management accounting practices.

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

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

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

4.1.6 New Public Management and accounting evolution in the public sector.

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

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

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

4.1.7 Leadership, culture and management accounting change in family business.

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

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

4.2 Theoretical advancements

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

4.2.1 Concept development.

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

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

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

4.2.2 Pluralist use.

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

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

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

4.3 Methodological observations

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

5. An updated framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Discussion and prospective directions

6.1 Empirical work drawing on Burns and Scapens

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

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

6.2 Future theoretical developments of Burns and Scapens

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

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

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

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

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

6.3 Methodological suggestions

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

7. Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Figures

Figure 1.

The process of institutionalisation

Figure 2.

Selection process and sample construction

Figure 3.

Updated management accounting change framework

Table 1.

Biographical information

Journal	# papers
Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	14
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	11
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	8
Management Accounting Research	8
British Accounting Review	5
Journal of Management Control	5
Accounting History Review	4
Accounting & Finance	3
Accounting History	3
Critical Perspectives on Accounting	3
Financial Accountability & Management	3
Accounting, Organizations and Society	2
Accounting Forum	1
Asian Review of Accounting	1
Australian Accounting Review	1
European Accounting Review	1
International Journal of Organizational Analysis	1
International Journal of Public Administration	1
Journal of Economic Issues	1
Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management	1
Grand Total	77

Source: Created by the authors

Table 2.

Key review findings of a papers

Theme	Advancements to B&S framework as a method theory
Routines and rules interaction	Explored the nature and interaction between routines and rules Conceptualized routines as having observable (artefacts) and cultural elements Suggested routines may pre-exist rules Discussed the path dependency of routines and their foundation at various levels
Refinement of rules	Introduced the differentiation between formal and informal rules Explored the role of technology in embedding rules within organizational practices Highlighted the cognitive structure of rules and their operationalization
Pluralistic application of B&S	Used in conjunction with theories from economics, psychology, sociology, etc., to address broader concepts like organizational fields and cultural norms Enhanced understanding of management accounting change through multilevel institutional analysis Added concepts of power and trust to the framework
Power in the context of B&S	Integrated theories and concepts of power to understand its role within B&S Applied power mobilization dimensions to B&S, exploring power over resources, processes, meaning, and the system
Trust and organizational principles	Explored the role of trust in the enactment of rules/routines within performance/control systems Discussed trust as necessary for encoding organizational principles into rules and routines, and their enactment

Source: Created by the authors

Table 3.

Key review findings of B papers

Theme	Advancements to domain theory of management accounting change
Actors as catalysts for change	Actors transform MAPs by leveraging institutional contradictions, expanding focus beyond structures to include human and social factors Dynamic conditions, like conflicting interests, drive accounting change, emphasizing innovation through internal champion actions and external pressures The shift toward recognizing actors as catalysts reflects an evolved understanding of MAPs, highlighting sustainability and efficiency
Interpretations and outcomes	Divergent interpretations of MAPs can drive change, underscoring the complex impact of interpretations on outcomes Varied adaptations of accounting practices often diverge from intended reforms, highlighting the role of interpretation in institutional change The interplay between governance policies and interpretations challenges traditional views, reshaping MA through dynamic agency and conflict resolution
Institutionalisation and evolution	Accounting change is a dynamic process influenced by politics, power and institutional context, challenging binary views of institutionalisation Institutionalisation involves constructing meaning systems, adopting rules and reinforcing structures, highlighting its iterative, experiential nature The evolution of accounting practices reflects the interplay between institutional developments and accounting, emphasizing continuous adaptation and learning
External and internal institutional pressures	MA practices evolve under the dual pressures of external mandates and internal dynamics, challenging the rigidity of traditional accounting routines The balance between adaptability and robustness in MA reflects responses to external shocks and pressures, illustrating the field’s dynamic nature External and internal pressures shape the evolution of MA, with governance roles in management controls adapting within inter-organizational collaborations
Technological disruption and its impact on MAPs	Technological advancements transform MA, from SAP’s knowledge diffusion to big data’s reshaping of managerial practices and strategies The intersection of technology with accounting practices highlights the need for accountants to adapt and innovate within digital transformations Studies reveal technology’s dual role in enabling gradual changes and rapid transformations, underscoring its profound impact on MA evolution
NPM and accounting evolution in the public sector	PMS often fall short in utility, challenging the effectiveness of traditional metrics and NPM-driven reforms in the public sector Accounting changes in public sectors, influenced by NPM, highlight the role of external and internal pressures in shaping practices and enhancing coherence Studies reveal the evolutionary nature of public sector accounting, emphasizing the critical role of institutional context in implementing new practices
Leadership, culture and MA change in family business	Family firms showcase a unique interplay of leadership, culture and institutional logics driving MA change through informality and trust The dynamic interactions within family businesses, guided by principles like the “metascript,” demonstrate how leadership and culture influence MA practices Studies highlight how family values and managerial actions, influenced by both internal and external pressures, shape the evolution of MA systems in family firms

Source: Created by the authors

Table 4.

Future research directions

Concept/Dimension	Potential empirical questions
Empirical foundations of B&S	How does the context of case studies shape the findings and theoretical advancements in B&S? What are the boundary conditions for the applicability of B&S theories in different organizational contexts? Can the relevance of power dynamics observed in MA change in governmental or publicly funded organizations be generalized to other types of organizations? How do situated rationalities in various contexts – e.g. technological advances/changing work patterns - contribute to our understanding of MA change? What role do key actors play in shaping situated rationalities and influencing MA change?
Theoretical developments of B&S	How can modern accounting technologies (ERP, AI, machine learning, big data) be integrated into the B&S framework? What are the implications of technological advancements on MA rules and routines? How does the gig economy and the use of technology by sole proprietors challenge the assumptions of organizational routines in B&S? How can B&S address the challenges posed by external shocks, such as pandemics or climate change, to institutions? In what ways can the B&S framework be expanded to include more agency and incorporate insights from theories like structuration theory and actor-network theory?
Methodological approaches	How are theoretical contributions to accounting theory, particularly B&S, developed and shaped behind the scenes? What role do conference participants, journal editors and reviewers play in the development of MA change theory and frameworks such as B&S? How do theory trends influence the development of theoretical contributions in frameworks like B&S?

Source: Created by the authors

Table A1.

Studies addressing limitations of B&S

Study	Extracts about the limitations of the original B&S framework
Alsharari et al (2015, p. 47)	It is the interaction of internal and external institutions that shapes MAC within organizations. Having this into consideration, we chose Burns and Scapens’ (2000)framework and Hardy’s (1996) model to explain the intra-organizational processes of change and the role of power in such a change
Busco et al (2006, p. 13)	Aiming to address these issues, this paper combines insights from the sociology of knowledge (Bergerand Luckmann, 1966; Giddens, 1984, 1990) and the emerging practice-based literature on learning and knowing (Gherardi, 2000; Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001; Nicolini et al, 2003) to extend the institutional framework of accounting change developed by Burns and Scapens (2000); where MAS are viewed as sets of rules (the formalised statements of procedures) and routines (the practices habitually in use) implicated within the production and reproduction of knowledge. In so doing, we emphasise the need to study processes of (un)learning and change by looking at the intertwined relationship between participation in a practice – such as management accounting – and the management of anxieties (Schein, 1992) which characterise reflection on a practice
Johansson and Siverbo (2009, p. 147)	In this article we discuss an idea that has been introduced in the OIE-guided management accounting change research but that has not been much developed. What we are referring to is the evolutionary foundation that the framework of Scapens (1994) and Burns and Scapens (2000)rests on and that is implicit in much OIE research in management accounting. We argue, in agreement with Burns and Scapens and others such as Coad and Cullen (2006), that research on management accounting change should be based on evolutionary theory. However, we also claim that the full potential of evolutionary theory or an evolutionary ontology still has not been described or used in management accounting change research. The conceptualisation and understanding of management accounting change, in general and from an institutional economics perspective in particular, can be improved and expanded if the evolutionary approach is developed beyond the general belief that it describes only small and gradual, often slow, changes
Dillard et al (2004, p. 51)	Burns and Scapens conceptualize institutions as sedimentary processes represented in routine practices that have become embedded within the ongoing daily activity of organizational life. The organizational practices are not related to the broader social, economic and political context within which they are grounded and, at times, imposed. As Burns and Scapens (p. 4–5) note, they do not consider the links between the organizational practices and the organizational field, or the possible influence of societal factors or influential actors. There is a need to consider how these influences translate down to the organizations and the actors therein Part of the limitation is that, as noted above, Burns and Scapens ground their framework on notions of OIE (Scapens, 1994) instead of the more comprehensive sociology based institutional theory used by Barley and Tolbert, and which underpins our proposed framework[13]. The sociology grounded theory allows the consideration of the social, political and economic aspects that make up the context within which an organization functions. In our opinion, meaningful change is more likely motivated and better understood where the societal context can be explicated and linked to social action through the various levels of the social order
Oliveira and Quinn (2015, p. 506)	This dual dimension of routines as structure and as action is absent from management accounting frameworks like B&S Englund and Gerdin (2008)refer to conceptual disparity, where some writers view management accounting as modalities (structures) drawn on to reproduce practices, whereas others view management accounting as recurrent practices (actions)[3]. They argue that combining both conceptualizations may be ontologically problematic due to conflating social structure and action, and that: […] we need notions both to describe the situated and recurrent management accounting practices as such, and to denote the non-situated modalities that inform those management accounting practices (Englund and Gerdin, 2008, p. 1130) We adopt the notion of duality in management accounting routines to avoid conceptual disparity (Burns, 2000; Englund and Gerdin, 2008; Johansson and Siverbo, 2009)and clearly distinguish between the tacit (ostensive) dimension and the action (performative) dimension of routines (Feldman and Pentland, 2003). This distinction is particularly useful when rules are apparently absent (see the RoutineCo case later): in the absence of (formal) rules, the ostensive dimension would operate as orienting actors’ practices at a collective level
Quinn (2011, p. 338)	More recent contributions have however argued shortcomings in the B&S framework (Englund and Gerdin, 2008; Johansson and Siverbo, 2009), in particular with respect to a lack of clarity in the definition of such key terms as (management accounting) routines. This paper seeks to address, at least in part, some possible issues of definitional clarity within B&S and thus bolster the underlying proposals of the framework The objective of B&S was not to offer definitions of rules and routines, rather describe the ongoing process whereby rules and routines interact and create relative stability, or change, in management accounting practices. As mentioned above, a perceived weakness in the B&S framework, and for much of the similarly positioned “institutional” management accounting research, is its ambiguity when defining management accounting routines
Mutiganda (2014, p. 130)	The choice of Burns and Scapens’ (2000)framework is based on its systematic approach to conceptualising the intra-organisational processes to institutionalise change (Busco et al, 2006). Burns and Scapens’ framework was designed to apply in management accounting and control studies (Scapens and Varoutsa, 2010) Burns and Scapens (2000), Scapens (2006) and Scapens and Varoutsa (2010) have called for further studies, however, to redefine and apply their framework in other fields. As a result, this study uses the framework of circuits of power (Clegg, 1989) to extend Burns and Scapens’ (2000) framework by analysing how circuits of power among organisations and their actors affect the institutionalisation of competitive tendering and accountability
ter Bogt and Scapens (2019, p. 1802)	We believe that the B&S framework still provides a useful starting point for studying how institutions interact within organisations. However, it has attracted some criticism and researchers who have used it to study management accounting practices have identified a number of issues which deserve greater attention
van der Steen (2011, p. 504)	We believe that the B&S framework still provides a useful starting point for studying how institutions interact within organisations. However, it has attracted some criticism and researchers who have used it to study management accounting practices have identified a number of issues which deserve greater attention
Quinn and Hiebl (2018, pp. 1177–1178)	These factors are then interwoven with the work of Burns and Scapens (2000)[1] and theoretical insights on the foundations of organizational routines (Felin et al, 2012) This framework presents a more complete process of routinization of management accounting, drawing on Burns and Scapens (2000), Felin et al. (2012) and others
Ribeiro and Scapens (2006, p. 98)	Burns and Scapens (2000) have drawn on multiple theoretical insights (Burns, 2000b; Burns and Baldvinsdottir, 2005; Busco et al, 2002, 2006; Scapens, 1994, 2006; Siti-Nabiha and Scapens, 2005; Soin et al, 2002). These insights, drawn from OIE (Hodgson, 1988; Tool, 1993), evolutionary economics – namely the neo-Schumpeterian work of Nelson and Winter (1982) and Giddens’ (1979, 1984) structuration theory and certain strands of NIS (especially Barley and Tolbert, 1997; see also Barley, 1986), have been combined to develop a framework for studying the intra-organisational processes of management accounting change[1]. In this framework, management accounting is viewed as a set of rules and routines that, together with other organisational rules and routines, allow for the reproduction and cohesion of organisational life (Scapens, 1994)
Scapens (2006, p. 21)	The Burns and Scapens framework, set out in Figure 1, provides a useful basis for studying such stability and change in management accounting practices. However, this framework has been used largely to study stability and resistance to change, and rather less to study institutional change (the case of Nuovo Pignone is an exception). Also, as the framework focuses on institutions within the organisation, it gives less attention to the external institutions (which are the focus of NIS)
Samanthi and Gooneratne (2023)	Over time, Burns and Scapens (2000) framework has attracted criticism for it does not capture external institutions influencing change (Ter Bogt and Scapens, 2019), the effects of changes in the longer term (Siti-Nabiha and Scapens, 2005), as well as its absence of power and trust of individuals toward change (Yazdifar et al, 2008). The recent framework of Ter Bogt and Scapens (2019), which is an extension of the work of Burns and Scapens, strives to address these omissions. It incorporates both broader and local institutions, resulting tensions and how such tensions influence rules, routines and actions over time while capturing the intermediary role of “situated rationality.”
Bertz and Quinn (2022, p. 78)	several authors have offered developments and suggestions to Burns and Scapens (Dillard et al, 2004; Quinn and Hiebl, 2018; Bertz and Quinn, 2014; van der Steen, 2011) and combined it with other theoretical approaches (Nor-Aziah and Scapens, 2007) to explain the often-complex nature of management accounting change. More recently, ter Bogt and Scapens (2019) offered a framework updating and adapting the original Burns and Scapens framework
Nguyen et al (2023, pp. 545–546)	Arguably, a starting point for this research tradition was the framework by Burns and Scapens (2000) (see also Scapens, 1994) which largely drew on old institutional economics. They noted the notions of organizational rules (how things should be done) and routines (how things are done) as a lens to better understand management accounting change. Later, Quinn (2011)bolstered Burns and Scapens (2000)by drawing on insights from Feldman and Pentland (2003). Specifically, Quinn (2011)questioned Burns and Scapens’ (2000)notion of management accounting rules, suggesting that the ostensive routine (Feldman and Pentland, 2003) was a more appropriate concept

Source: Created by the authors

Table A2.

Review sample classification (2000–2023)

Author(s)	Year	Journal	ABDC	AJG	A/B logic
Burns	2000	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	B
Soin et al.	2002	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	B
Johansson and Baldvinsdottir	2003	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	B
Dillard et al.	2004	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	A
Siti-Nabiha and Scapens	2005	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	B
Scapens	2006	British Accounting Review	A*	3	A
Hyvönen and Järvinen	2006	European Accounting Review	A*	3	B
Spraakman	2006	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Guerreiro et al.	2006	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Burns and Nielsen	2006	Journal of Economic Issues	B	2	B
Busco et al.	2006	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	A
Ribeiro and Scapens	2006	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	A
Lukka	2007	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	A
Nor-Aziah and Scapens	2007	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	A
Englund and Gerdin	2008	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	A	3	B
Yazdifar et al.	2008	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	A	3	B
Kasperskaya	2008	Financial Accountability & Management	A	3	B
ter Bogt	2008	Financial Accountability & Management	A	3	B
Rautiainen	2008	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	A
Moilanen	2008	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	B
van der Steen	2009	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	A
Johansson and Siverbo	2009	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	A
Coyte et al.	2010	Australian Accounting Review	B	2	A
Macinati	2010	Financial Accountability & Management	A	3	B
Länsiluoto and Järvenpää	2010	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
van der Steen	2011	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	A
Irvine, 2011	2011	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	B
Quinn	2011	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	A
Burns and Quinn	2011	Journal of Management Control	A	2	B
Busco and Scapens	2011	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	A
Zarifah and Siti Nabiha	2012	International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting	B	2	B
Arroyo	2012	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	A
Herbert and Seal	2012	British Accounting Review	A*	3	B
Mutiganda	2013	Critical Perspectives on Accounting	A	3	B
Hiebl et al.	2013	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Börner and Verstegen	2013	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Youssef	2013	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Contrafatto and Burns	2013	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	B
Rautiainen and Scapens	2013	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	B
Quinn and Jackson	2014	Accounting History Review	B	2	B
Contrafatto	2014	Accounting, Organizations and Society	A*	4*	B
Vendramini et al.	2014	International Journal of Public Administration	B	2	B
Bertz and Quinn	2014	Journal of Management Control	A	2	A
Quinn	2014	Management Accounting Research	A*	3	A
Mutiganda	2014	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	A
Jabbour and Abdel-Kader	2015	Accounting Forum	B	3	B
McKinstry and Ding	2015	Accounting History	A	2	B
Hiebl et al.	2015	Accounting History Review	B	2	B
Alsharari et al.	2015	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	A
Oliveira and Quinn	2015	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	A
Senftlechner and Hiebl	2015	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Gervais and Quinn	2016	Accounting History Review	B	2	B
Richardson and Kilfoyle	2016	Accounting, Organizations and Society	A*	4*	B
McLaren et al.	2016	British Accounting Review	A*	3	B
Ozdil and Hoque	2017	British Accounting Review	A*	3	B
Kristandl and Quinn	2018	Accounting History	A	2	B
Quinn and Gibney	2018	Accounting History Review	B	2	B
Alsharari	2018	International Journal of Organizational Analysis	B	1	B
Rizza-Ruggeri and Ruggeri	2018	Journal of Management Control	A	2	B
Christensen et al.	2018	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	B
Quinn and Hiebl	2018	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	A
ter Bogt and Scapens	2019	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	A
Pagliarussi and Leme	2020	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	B
Giannetti et al.	2021	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	B
Biswas and Akroyd	2022	Accounting & Finance	A	2	B
Nicoliello and Aliabadi	2022	Accounting History	A	2	B
Teklay and Bobe	2022	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	A*	3	B
Alsharari	2022	Asian Review of Accounting	B	2	B
Vitale et al.	2022	Journal of Management Control	A	2	B
Bertz and Quinn	2022	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	A
Seneviratne and Hoque	2023	Accounting & Finance	A	2	B
Begkos et al.	2023	British Accounting Review	A*	3	B
Barros and Ferreira	2023	Journal of Management Control	A	2	B
Samanthi and Gooneratne	2023	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Mättö et al.	2023	Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management	B	2	B
Biswas et al.	2023	Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change	B	2	B
Nguyen et al.	2023	Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management	A	2	A

Source: Created by the authors

Table A3.

Frameworks and themes in review sample (2000-2023)

Author(s)	Year	Complementary framework	Theoretical theme	Empirical theme
Burns	2000	Power	Institutions	Accountability
Soin et al.	2002	–	Path-dependency	Activity based costing
Johansson and Baldvinsdottir	2003	Trust	Trust	PMS
Dillard et al.	2004	Structuration theory and Dillard et al. (2004)	External-internal institutions	Theoretical development
Siti-Nabiha and Scapens	2005	NIS	Coupling	Results-oriented management
Scapens	2006	–	Agency, trust and power	Review MA change
Hyvönen and Järvinen	2006	–	Path-dependency	Budgetary
Spraakman	2006	–	External-internal institutions	MAS
Guerreiro et al.	2006	NIS	Institutionalisation	MAS
Burns and Nielsen	2006	Praxis	Institutional contradictions	Praxis
Busco et al.	2006	Trust	Trust	MA change
Ribeiro and Scapens	2006	Power	External-internal institutions and power	Theoretical development
Lukka	2007	NIS	Coupling	Standardisation
Nor-Aziah and Scapens	2007	NIS	External pressures and coupling	Budgetary
Englund and Gerdin	2008	Structuration theory	Institutions and actions	Theoretical disparity
Yazdifar et al.	2008	Power	External pressures (imposition)	NPM (PMS)
Kasperskaya	2008	NIS	Coupling	MCS
ter Bogt	2008	NIS	External pressures (reforms)	NPM (BSC)
Rautiainen	2008	NIS	External pressures (reforms)	NPM (Budgeting)
Moilanen	2008	Power	Coupling	Social positions
van der Steen	2009	Scripts	Rules and routines	Theoretical development
Johansson and Siverbo	2009	Evolutionary	Change variations	Theoretical development
Coyte et al.	2010	–	Rules preciseness	Capital budget
Macinati	2010	–	External pressures (ISO certification)	Environmental accounting and PMS
Länsiluoto and Järvenpää	2010	Other	External pressures (imposition)	NPM (budgeting)
van der Steen	2011	Ostensive-performative routines	Rules and routines	Inertia
Irvine	2011	Coupling	Acquisition	MAS (Six-Sigma)
Quinn	2011	Ostensive-performative routines	Rules and routines	Theoretical development
Burns and Quinn	2011	–	Technology as a carrier of routines	Technology
Busco and Scapens	2011	Other	Organisational culture	Role of MAS
Zarifah and Siti Nabiha	2012	Praxis and scripts	Institutional entrepreneurs	Theoretical development
Arroyo	2012	Dillard et al. (2004) and Power	Institutional entrepreneurs	Leadership and change
Herbert and Seal	2012	–	Technology (shared service organisation)	Business partners
Mutiganda	2013	Other	Policy and institutionalisation	Accountability (budgeting)
Hiebl et al.	2013	–	Institutionalisation	MA in the family business
Börner and Verstegen	2013	Scripts	Scripted behaviour	MCS in healthcare
Youssef	2013	Power	Technology (B-to-B e-commerce)	Planning and decision-making
Contrafatto and Burns	2013	Other	Institutionalisation	Sustainability
Rautiainen and Scapens	2013	NIS and Actor-Network Theory	External pressures (reforms)	Accountability (budgeting)
Quinn and Jackson	2014	–	External pressures (imposition)	MAPs
Contrafatto	2014	NIS and other	Institutionalisation	Sustainability
Vendramini et al.	2014	NIS	External Pressures (privatisation)	Accountability
Bertz and Quinn	2014	–	External pressures (competition)	Accountability
Quinn	2014	Ostensive-performative routines	Ostensive-performative routines	Rules and routines
Mutiganda	2014	Power	Circuits of power	Ceremonial accountability
Jabbour and Abdel-Kader	2015	–	External pressures (competition)	Enterprise risk management
McKinstry and Ding	2015	–	MCS in the history	Hybridised financial control
Hiebl et al.	2015	–	Roles of accountants in the history	Role of chief accountant
Alsharari et al.	2015	Dillard et al. (2004) and Power	External-internal pressures; and power	Theoretical development
Oliveira and Quinn	2015	Ostensive-performative routines and power	Rules and routines	Role of technology
Senftlechner and Hiebl	2015	–	Trust	MCS in the family business
Gervais and Quinn	2016	–	External pressures (industrial revolution)	Costing systems
Richardson and Kilfoyle	2016	Evolutionary	Institutions-as-truce	Accounting systems
McLaren et al.	2016	–	Effectiveness of institutions	EVA-based MCS
Ozdil and Hoque	2017	NIS	Change agents	Budgeting
Kristandl and Quinn	2018	–	Embeddedness	MAPs
Quinn and Gibney	2018	–	Embeddedness	MAPs
Alsharari	2018	Dillard et al. (2004)	External-internal pressures	NPM
Rizza-Ruggeri and Ruggeri	2018	Institutional logics	Logic and divergence and convergence	MA in the family business
Christensen et al.	2018	NIS	External pressures (crisis)	EVA
Quinn and Hiebl	2018	Ostensive-performative routines	External-internal pressures	Routine foundations
ter Bogt and Scapens	2019	Institutional logic	Situated rationality	Theoretical development
Pagliarussi and Leme	2020	ter Bogt and Scapens (2019)	Institutionalisation	Quality control
Giannetti et al.	2021	Experiential learning theory	Learning process	Costing systems
Biswas and Akroyd	2022	Levers of control	Trust	Diagnostic-interactive controls
Nicoliello and Aliabadi	2022	–	Institutionalisation	Accounting process in the history
Teklay and Bobe	2022	Institutional logic	Contextual forces	Quality control management
Alsharari	2022	Dillard et al. (2004) and Power	External-internal pressures	Results-based budgeting
Vitale et al.	2022	Ostensive-performative routines	Digital transformation	Big data
Bertz and Quinn	2022	ter Bogt and Scapens (2019)	Situated rationality and experience	Budgets, BSC
Seneviratne and Hoque	2023	Episodic power	Control variations	Budgetary designs in universities
Begkos et al.	2023	Digital transformation	Incremental-revolutionary forms	Accounting transformation
Barros and Ferreira	2023	ter Bogt and Scapens (2019)	Situated rationality	MCS and innovation
Samanthi and Gooneratne	2023	ter Bogt and Scapens (2019)	Situated rationality	Business partners
Mättö et al.	2023	ter Bogt and Scapens (2019)	Institutionalisation	Vernacular accounting
Biswas et al.	2023	Institutional logic	Inter-organisations	MCS as governance devices
Nguyen et al.	2023	Ostensive-performative routines	Routine cluster	Interrelated routines

Notes:

MA = Management accounting; NIS = New institutional sociology; MAS = Management accounting systems; MAP = Management accounting practices; MCS = Management control systems; NPM = New public management; BSC = Balanced scorecard; PMS = Performance measurement system; EVA = Economic value added

Source: created by the authors

Notes

1. A somewhat related category of reviews is an author-centric review (Linnenluecke et al., 2020, p. 177). While such an approach may focus on the development of theory over time, it is usually restricted to work by pre-defined author(s). We did not apply such an author-centric approach, but rather applied a seminal-work-focused approach (Hiebl, 2023).

2. They also include the concept of “roles” (see Busco and Scapens, 2011) in their discussion of B&S.

3. In the later episodes of MA change – from t₂ to t₃ – the set of A and D arrows is reflective of the reciprocal relationship between situated rationalities and routines and rules, as visualised by ter Bogt and Scapens (2019) by a double-headed arrow between situated rationalities and routines.