There has been sustained interest in explaining why firms adopt different management accounting practices. This paper applies contingency theory to respond empirically to calls by Gerdin (2005), Tillema (2005) and Chenhall (2007) to increase understanding of factors that explain management accounting sophistication.

Recent papers which have examined unit trusts have controlled either for a 'fund size effect' or for the 'small firms effect' in the investment portfolio. The contribution of this paper is an analysis of the 'small firms effect' whilst simultaneously controlling for the 'fund size effect'. We show that the ethical unit trusts have significantly greater exposure than general unit trusts to the 'small firms effect', and that net of this there is no significant evidence of over or under performance by ethical trusts using an adjusted Jensen measure. Using two cross-sectional approaches, we demonstrate that whilst a 'small firms effect' has a role to play in explaining unit trust performance, fund size is not correlated with the financial performance of unit trusts. This cross-sectional analysis also provides some evidence that ethical unit trusts may perform less well than general unit trusts. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1997.

Acknowledgement:The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and participants at the EIASM conference on new directions in management accounting: innovations in practice and research (Brussels December 2002) for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Financial support from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants is acknowledged with gratitude. ABSTRACTPurpose -This paper investigates and reports on the management accounting practices in the British food and drinks industry.Design/methodology/approach -The data is generated by a large-scale postal questionnaire which was informed by preliminary interviews. Further interviews were carried out to aid interpretation of the responses. Descriptive statistics on the importance and frequency of use of individual practices provide the basis for discussion.Findings -Direct costing is widely practised and important, by contrast with activity-based costing and full absorption costing. Despite the limitations of conventional budgets, they remain a central management accounting 'pillar' and are frequently used in 'what if?' analyses. The balanced scorecard and other non-financial performance measures are perceived to be important but never or rarely used by 40% of companies. Product profitability analyses are frequently applied, and, surprisingly, the profitability of supplying individual customers is frequently calculated by over 50% of the population. Respondents were sceptical about sophisticated DCF investment appraisals.Practical implications -Traditional management accounting is 'alive and well' but there are indications of likely increased use of: information concerning the cost of quality; nonfinancial measures relating to employees and analyses of competitors' strengths and weaknesses. There is evidence of a gap between current textbooks and actual practices.Originality/value -The survey provides a unique detailed examination of actual management accounting practices and an indication of future trends.

Examines the impact on investment returns of stated non‐financial criteria by utilizing information on UK “ethical” unit trusts. Over a limited period of observation there was weak evidence of some overperformance on a risk‐adjusted basis by “ethical” unit trusts. Suggests arguments that might intuitively explain overperformance or underperformance. There is clear evidence that the “ethical” trusts have UK investment portfolios more skewed towards companies with low market capitalization than the market as a whole. Associated with this, they tend to be invested in low dividend yield companies. The degree of international diversification varies and a suitable international benchmark may be needed to separate out any “ethical” effect.