The budgeting processes of Czech companies: the role of the ownership structure and foreign capital

Abstract

Research background: The study investigates the initial phase of budgeting process conducted in corporations. The basic concept correlates with findings in scientific literature that describe budgeting as an inefficient tool, burdened by considerable regulation in the preparation and compilation stages. As a consequence, the majority of academics and practitioners have concluded that producing a budget is merely a formality that minimizes wrinkles on the faces of their initiators, while reaping debatable benefits for managerial control.

Purpose of the article: This paper compares data from the literature with the actual budgetary practices of companies operating in the Czech Republic. The attention was paid to the detailed aspects of the budgeting process, factors affecting the time it takes to prepare a budget, and the impact of ownership structure, especially the role of foreign ownership and foreign capital, on the level of decentralization in the budgeting process.

Methods: The authors examined these topics through a questionnaire completed by 136 respondents, primarily industrial companies based in the country. The subsequent hypotheses were assessed via application of the Z-test.

Findings & Value added: The results presented show that the budgeting practices of the Czech firms are not only influenced by traditional factors (e.g. the size of the company and its given economic sector), but also certain other aspects. Essential facets comprise the ownership structure and the share of foreign capital involved, the latter affecting the extent of autonomy of the business as to the budgetary process. This submitted paper can extend the current theory with new findings on the specific nature of budgeting in post-socialist countries with an open economy and the significant influx of foreign capital.

Keywords

budgeting, planning, budgeting process, impact of foreign capital

References

1. Becker, S. D., Mahlendorf M. D., Schäffer, U., & Thaten, M. (2016). Budgeting in times of economic crisis. Contemporary Accounting Research, 33(4), 1489-1517. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12222
   View in Google Scholar
2. Buganová, K., & Moricová, V. (2017). Innovation of education in risk and crisis management. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (November Special Issue), 177-182.
   View in Google Scholar
3. Choe, Y., & Kan, Ch. (2020). Budget depreciation: when budgeting early increases spending. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(3), 311-326. doi: 10.5281/zeno do.4039933. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa049
   View in Google Scholar
4. De Wall, A., Hermkens-Janssen, M., & van de Ven, A. (2011). The evolutionary adoption framework: explaining the budgeting paradox. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 7(4), 316-336. doi: 10.1108/18325911111182295. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/18325911111182295
   View in Google Scholar
5. De With, E., & Dijkman, A. (2008). Budgeting practices of listed companies in the Netherland. Management Accounting Quarterly, 10, 26-36.
   View in Google Scholar
6. Dokulil, J., Dvorský, J., & Popesko, B. (2018). Budgeting and Czech companies: connected concepts or two different worlds? Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration, 26(44), 65-76.
   View in Google Scholar
7. Dugdale, D., & Lyne, S. (2006). Budgeting practice and organizational structure. Research Executive Summaries, 6(4).
   View in Google Scholar
8. Hansen, S. (2011). A theoretical analysis of the impact of adopting rolling budgets, activity-based budgeting, and beyond budgeting. European Accounting Review, 20(2), 289-319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2010.496260
   View in Google Scholar
9. Hansen, S. C., Otley, D. T., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2003). Practice developments in budgeting: an overview and research perspective. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15(1), 95-116. doi: 10.2308/jmar.2003.15.1.95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2003.15.1.95
   View in Google Scholar
10. Hope, J., & Fraser, R. (2003). Beyond budgeting: how managers can break free from the annual performance trap. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
    View in Google Scholar
11. Joshi, P. L., Al?Mudhaki, J., & Bremser, W. G. (2003). Corporate budget planning, control and performance evaluation in Bahrain. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18(9), 737-750. doi: 10.1108/02686900310500505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310500505
    View in Google Scholar
12. Kenno, S. A., Lau, M. C., & Sainty, B. J. (2018). In search of a theory of budgeting: a literature review. Accounting Perspectives, 17(4), 507-553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3838.12186
    View in Google Scholar
13. Lambovská, M., Rajnoha, R., & Dobrovič, J. (2019). From quality to quantity and vice versa: how to evaluate performance in the budgetary control process. Journal of Competitiveness, 11(1), 53-69. doi: 10.7441/joc.2019.01.04. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2019.01.04
    View in Google Scholar
14. Lidia, T. G. (2014). Difficulties of the budgeting process and factors leading to the decision to implement this management tool. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 466-473. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00484-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00484-5
    View in Google Scholar
15. Libby, T., & Lindsay, R. M. (2007). Beyond budgeting or better budgeting? Strategic Finance, 89(2), 46-51.
    View in Google Scholar
16. Libby, T., & Lindsay, R. M. (2010). Beyond budgeting or budgeting reconsidered? A survey of North-American budgeting practice. Management Accounting Research, 21(1), 56-75. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2009.10.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2009.10.003
    View in Google Scholar
17. Lohan G. (2013). A brief history of budgeting: reflections on beyond budgeting, its link to performance management and its appropriateness for software development. In B. Fitzgerald, K. Conboy, K. Power, R. Valerdi, L. Morgan, K. J. Stol (Eds.). Lean enterprise software and systems. LESS 2013. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 167. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44930-7_6
    View in Google Scholar
18. Lorain, M. A., Domonte, A. G., Sastre Peláez, F. (2014). Traditional budgeting during financial crisis. Cuadernos de Gestión, 15(2), 65-90. doi: 10.5295/cdg. 140480ag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5295/cdg.140480ag
    View in Google Scholar
19. Neely, A., Bourne, M., & Adams, C. (2003). Better budgeting or beyond budgeting? Measuring Business Excellence, 7(3), 22-28. doi: 10.1108/136830 40310496471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040310496471
    View in Google Scholar
20. Neely, A., Sutcliffe, M. R. & Heyns, H. R. (2001). Driving value through strategic planning and budgeting. London: Accenture.
    View in Google Scholar
21. Ostergren, K., & Stensaker, I. (2011). Management control without budgets: a field study of beyond budgeting in practice. European Accounting Review, 20(1). 149-181. doi: 10.1080/09638180903487842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180903487842
    View in Google Scholar
22. Pietrzak, Ż. (2013). Traditional versus activity-based budgeting in non-manufacturing companies. Social Sciences, 82(4), 26-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.82.4.6604
    View in Google Scholar
23. Popesko, B., Novák, P., Papadaki, S., & Hrabec, D. (2015). Are the traditional budgets still prevalent: the survey of the czech firms budgeting practices. Transformations in Business & Economics, 14(3C), 42-59.
    View in Google Scholar
24. Réka, I. (2014). New trends in budgeting ? a literature review. SEA - Practical Application of Science, 2(4), 483-490.
    View in Google Scholar
25. SeTin, S. T, Sembel, R. & Agustine, Y. (2019). Budget gaming behavior: evidence in Indonesia manufacturing companies. Journal Keuangan dan Perbankan, 23(2), 258-269. doi: 10.26905/jkdp.v23i2.2945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26905/jkdp.v23i2.2945
    View in Google Scholar
26. Šiška, L. (2016). The contingency factors affecting management accounting in Czech companies. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(4), 1383-1392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201664041383
    View in Google Scholar
27. Titman, S. (2017). Does ownership structure matter? European Financial Management, 23(3). doi: 10.1111/eufm.12120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12120
    View in Google Scholar
28. Wagner, J. (2014). Performance management and measurement research in the Czech Republic: 1993-2013. In IDIMT-2014: Networking societies ? cooperation and conflict, book series: Schriftenreihe Informatik, 43. Proceedings of 22nd interdisciplinary information management talks (IDIMT) conference. Podebrady, Czech Republic.
    View in Google Scholar
29. Wnuk-Pel, T. & Christauskas, C. (2018). Analysis of operational budgeting practices in Polish and Lithuanian companies. Transformations in Business & Economics, 17(3), 102-124.
    View in Google Scholar
30. Yalcin, S. (2012). Adoption and benefits of management accounting practices: an intercountry comparison. Accounting in Europe, 9(1), 95-110. doi: 10.1080/17 449480.2012.664394. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2012.664394
    View in Google Scholar
31. Zandi, G., Singh, J., Mohamad, S., & Ehsanullah, S. (2020). Ownership structure and firm performance. International Journal of Financial Research, 11(2), 293-300. doi: 10.5430/ijfr.v11n2p293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v11n2p293
    View in Google Scholar
32. Czech Statistical Office, 2015. Statistics & us. Retrieved from https://www.czs o.cz/documents/10180/20555473/3201851503.pdf/42955312-97a9-46e7-9dbb-b0e6b66ea8af?version=1.1.
    View in Google Scholar