From the diffusion to the appropriation of cost accounting in a French university: Between institutional pressures and actors’ game

Download This Article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This article presents the results of research conducted on the diffusion and appropriation of cost accounting at a French university (Hatchuel & Weil, 1992). Following the reforms put in place after the adoption of the LRU (Liberties and Responsibilities of Universities — Law on Universities) in 2007, this university adopted the SIFAC (Système d’Information Financier Analytique et Comptable — Analytical and Accounting Financial Information System) management tool, whose objective was to deeply modify the accounting and budgetary practices and allow the implementation of a cost accounting system (DiMaggio & Powel, 1983). But concretely, nine years after the implementation of the SIFAC tool, we noticed that, if technically, the accounting and budgetary practices have improved, the adoption of this tool did not lead to the implementation of a real cost accounting system. The findings showed that this situation could be explained by three factors: factors related to the tool itself, factors related to the specificity of the host organization, and factors related to the priorities of the actors within this university.

Keywords: Cost Accounting, Universities, Diffusion, Appropriation, Actors’ Game

Authors’ individual contribution: The Author is responsible for all the contributions to the paper according to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) standards.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

JEL Classification: M41, M48, L30

Received: 02.01.2022
Accepted: 09.05.2022
Published online: 12.05.2022

How to cite this paper: El Kaddouri, H. (2022). From the diffusion to the appropriation of cost accounting in a French university: Between institutional pressures and actors’ game [Special issue]. Corporate Governance and Organizational Behavior Review, 6(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv6i2sip2