literature review on strategic management

• Open access
• Published: 27 November 2021

Strategic management accounting and performance implications: a literature review and research agenda

• Jafar Ojra 1 ,
• Abdullah Promise Opute   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6221-1856 2 , 3 &
• Mohammad Mobarak Alsolmi 4  

Future Business Journal volume  7 , Article number:  64 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

38k Accesses

10 Citations

Metrics details

The important role that management accounting plays in driving organisational performance has been reiterated in the literature. In line with that importance, the call for more effort to enhance knowledge on strategic management accounting has increased over the years. Responding to that call, this study utilised a qualitative approach that involved a systematic review to synthesise existing literature towards understanding the strategic management accounting foundation, contingency factors, and organisational performance impact. Based on the evidence in reviewed literature, we flag key directions for advancing this theoretical premise towards providing further insights that would enable practitioners strategically align their strategic management accounting practices for optimal organisational performance. The limitations of this study have been acknowledged.

Introduction

Successful managerial decisions enable organisational profitability and accounting aids effective managerial decisions [ 75 ]. Aimed at optimising the decision-enabling substance of accounting, management was criticised in 1980s as being too focused on internal operational issues that offer little to management from the point of strategy formulation and sustaining competitive advantage (CIMA Report Footnote 1 ). Recognising the importance for a broader impact of accounting on managerial decision-making, Simmonds [ 82 , p. 26] introduced and defined strategic management accounting (SMA) as “the provision and analysis of management accounting data about a business and its competitors, for use in developing and monitoring business strategy” .

Subsequently there has been increasing efforts that stress the importance for organisations to embrace strategic management accounting theory towards boosting strategic decision-making and organisational performance (e.g. [ 4 , 8 , 9 , 17 , 23 , 53 , 58 , 86 , 90 , 48 ], amongst others). As rightly noted by Turner et al. [ 86 ], organisations that aim to enhance their competitiveness and performance, must not only develop but also “implement internal policies and procedures such as strategic management accounting that are consistent with their business strategies and account for changing competitive demands” (p. 33). Doing that will enable the strategic management accounting tool to be effectively used to drive corporate success. This is the underlying argument in this study.

The task of profitably satisfying customers is becoming more challenging [ 61 , 65 , 67 ]. Meeting that challenge requires that organisations recognise the importance for effective decision-making. Accountants play a significant role in enabling effective decision-making in organisations (e.g. [ 21 , 23 , 27 ]). Accounting information enables the organisation determine the going concern [ 6 , 36 ]. Accounting provides the management with relevant information for ensuring and sustaining growth and profitability. The strategic management accounting foundation emphasises that in order to fully fulfil its management decision-making enabling function, accounting practices must not only focus on the internal but also on the external components relating to the organisation's operations. In other words, accounting should embrace a much broader and market-oriented approach and focus on costing (e.g. [ 8 , 17 , 58 , 78 ]); planning, control and performance measurement (e.g. [ 17 , 58 ]), strategic decision-making (e.g. [ 8 , 58 ]), customer accounting (e.g. [ 58 , 86 ]) and competitor accounting (e.g. [ 17 , 58 , 86 ]).

Given the importance of strategic management accounting to effective management decision-making and corporate success, there remains a growing interest in understanding the topic. Little wonder therefore that the advocacy for more research towards a better understanding of what strategic management accounting practices organisations adopt and what motivates their preference for one technique over the other (e.g. [ 4 , 53 , 58 , 86 , 90 ]) remains current. While embracing strategic management accounting is a critical path for enabling effective managerial decision-making and boosting organisational performance (e.g. [ 3 , 9 , 58 ]), the enablement outcome of strategic management accounting practice would hinge on the effectiveness of the organisation in tailoring its strategic management accounting practices to its strategy and environment [ 9 , 11 , 58 ].

Following that contingency logic, this research is a response to the aforementioned call and the aim in this study is to contribute to strategic management accounting discourse by critically analysing the body of knowledge towards enhancing the understanding of how knowledge has evolved in this theoretical domain and also to contribute to knowledge by flagging directions for further knowledge development. To achieve the aim of this study, the theoretical focus in this study is premised along three questions:

What strategic management accounting techniques can organisations use towards driving organisational performance?

What factors would influence strategic management accounting techniques usage and performance association? and

What future research gaps exist based on the explored literature?

Literature review

This study follows the theoretical foundation that strategic management accounting would aid effective management decision-making, and ultimately boost organisational performance. In line with the aim of this study, relevant literature is reviewed to explain the theoretical premise of this study. The literature review is organised along three core themes in strategic management accounting discourse, namely, strategic management accounting techniques, contingency factors of strategic management accounting usage, and the impact of strategic management accounting on organisational performance.

Strategic management accounting: definition and techniques

Management accounting is noted to involve the “generation, communication, and use of financial and non-financial information for managerial decision-making and control activities” ([ 28 ] p. 3). One major criticism of accounting in the 1980s relates to the fact that accountants have hardly taken a proactive role in the strategic management process [ 7 , 8 ]. According to Nixon and Burns [ 55 , p. 229], although strategic management has been variously defined, there is “broad consensus that the key activities are (1) development of a grand strategy, purpose or sense of direction, (2) formulation of strategic goals and plans to achieve them, (3) implementation of plans, and (4) monitoring, evaluation and corrective action”. The role of management accounting is to enable effective decision-making, and it involves typically information gathering and analysis, identifying options, implementation, monitoring and evaluation [ 16 ]. Thus, the focus in strategic management accounting, rephrased also as accounting for strategic positioning [ 73 , 74 ], is to embrace a broader approach that incorporates a strategic management focus into its dynamics towards effectively enabling management decision-making and organisational performance [ 8 , 80 ]).

Since the first attempt by Simmonds [ 82 , p. 26] who defined strategic management accounting as “the provision and analysis of management accounting data about a business and its competitors, for use in developing and monitoring business strategy” , there have been numerous attempts to enhance that definition and identify core techniques of strategic management accounting. For example, CIMA [ 16 ] describes strategic management accounting as a management accounting form that emphasises focusing on information relating to external factor of the entity and also on non-financial information as well as information that is generated internally. In a much earlier contribution, Bromwich [ 7 , p. 28] offers a description of strategic management accounting as involving “the provision and analysis of financial information on the organisation’s product markets and competitors’ costs and cost structures and the monitoring of the organisation’s strategies and those of its competitors in the market over a number of periods” (Cited in [ 56 , p. 14]).

In their 2008 study, Cadez and Guilding asked the question “what is strategic management accounting?” (p. 838). In that same study, they conclude, based on evidence from reviewed literature, that there are two perspectives of strategic management accounting. While one perspective focuses on strategically oriented accounting techniques, the other focuses on the actual involvement of accountants in the strategic decision-making process. Following the former perspective (e.g. [ 8 , 9 , 17 , 58 ]), existing literature distils sixteen (16) strategic management accounting techniques that are categorised under five SMA themes (e.g. [ 9 , 11 , 58 ]):

Strategic costing;

Strategic planning, control and performance measurement;

Strategic decision-making;

Competitor accounting; and

Customer accounting.

Strategic costing

According to literature (e.g. [ 8 , 11 , 23 ]), strategic and marketing information-based cost data can be leveraged by organisations to ensure effective strategies for achieving sustainable competitive advantage. Thus, organisations must recognise the importance of integrating cost strategies and undertake multiple strategic cost analyses. Literature distils five key costing techniques: attribute costing (e.g. Roslender and Hart 2003), life-cycle costing (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]), quality costing (e.g. [ 17 ]), target costing (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]) and value chain costing (e.g. [ 8 ]).

Strategic planning, control and performance measurement

Literature has also underlined the need for organisations to give due attention to planning, control and performance measurement features of the strategic management accounting, as doing that is important in the pro-active market orientation approach for competing effectively in the marketplace (e.g. [ 8 , 58 ], Chenhall 2005). Core components under the strategic planning, control and performance measurement tool includes benchmarking (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]) and integrated performance management (Balanced Scorecard) (e.g. [ 8 , 17 ]).

Strategic decision-making

As a strategic management accounting tool, strategic decision-making is a critical tool for supporting strategic choice [ 11 ]. Core strategic decision-making options include strategic costing (e.g. [ 58 ]), strategic pricing (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]) and brand valuation (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]).

The importance of addressing strategic costing as a key strategic decision-making element has been emphasised in the literature (e.g. [ 58 , 78 , 79 ]). In this discourse, it is underlined that effectively driving competitive advantage requires cost analysis that explicitly considers strategic issues. In line with that viewpoint, Cadez and Guilding [ 8 ] note that strategic costing involves “the use of cost data based on strategic and marketing information to develop and identify superior strategies that will produce a sustainable competitive advantage” (p. 27).

In the literature too, strategic pricing is underlined as another core element the strategic decision-making typology of strategic management accounting (e.g. [ 8 , 58 ], Simmonds 1982). According to scholars, understanding market competition level, which as noted by Guilding et al. [ 29 , p. 120] entails the appraisal of the following factors: “competitor price reaction, price elasticity; projected market growth; and economies of scale and experience”, is important (e.g. [ 8 , 11 , 58 ]).

Within the strategic management accounting literature, brand valuation is the third element of the strategic decision-making technique. The brand valuation component “involves combining projected brand earnings (an accounting-orientated measure) with a multiple derived from the brand’s strength on strategic factors such as the nature of the brand’s market, its position in that market and its level of marketing support” [ 29 , p. 118]. In the view of Cescon et al. [ 11 ], brand valuation enables organisations to understand market reputation trends over time and potential implications for marketing executives and strategic accounting. Cescon et al. [ 11 ] contend that organisations would achieve a variable brand valuation that would provide a potential measure of marketing achievement when perceived quality and branded products are considered, while Guilding et al. [ 29 ] remind that achievable impact of brand valuation would hinge, amongst others, on the valuation method used.

Competitor accounting

According to Porter [ 72 ], strategy involves developing appropriate tools that enable a firm to analyse and determine its position in a competitive market. Thus, a firm selects suitable strategies that enables it compete more effectively over its rivals. To effectively do that, a firm needs to collect competitor accounting information. The importance of giving due attention to competitor accounting has been underlined in the literature (e.g. [ 11 , 17 , 58 ]). Three forms of competitor accounting tools are described in the literature, namely, competitor cost assessment (e.g. [ 11 , 17 , 58 ]), competitor position monitoring (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]) and competitor performance appraisal (e.g. [ 11 , 17 , 58 ]).

Customer accounting

The fifth cluster of strategic management accounting techniques described in the literature relates to customer accounting (e.g. [ 49 , 58 ]). Customer accounting concerns practices aimed at appraising profit, sales or costs related to customers or customer segments [ 58 ]. Core customer accounting techniques include customer profitability analysis (e.g. [ 30 , 58 ]), lifetime customer profitability analysis (e.g. [ 58 ]) and valuation of customers as assets (e.g. [ 30 , 58 ]).

The contingency factors of strategic management accounting

According to management accounting discourse, when organisations carefully embrace appropriate strategic management accounting practices, they would ensure successful managerial decisions that would ultimately lead to optimising organisational performance (e.g. [ 48 , 53 , 56 , 58 ]). Thus, the extent of improved performance that an organisation would achieve would depend on its careful utilisation of appropriate strategic management techniques. As noted by Roslender and Hart (2003), p. 4 and further supported by subsequent literature (e.g. [ 34 , 58 ]), “the adoption of strategically oriented management accounting techniques and accountants’ participation in strategic management processes”, is a core research premise. In line with the carefulness notion mentioned above, the contingency perspective has been widely utilised in the effort to understand strategic management accounting practices and performance impact (e.g. [ 8 , 12 , 30 , 34 , 58 ]). The underlying foundation in the contingency perspective is based on the notion “that an organisation maximises its efficiency by matching between structure and environment” [ 22 , p. 49]. According to Otley [ 68 ]:

The contingency approach to management is based on the premise that there is no universally appropriate accounting system that applies equally to all organisations in all circumstances. Rather, it is suggested that particular features of an appropriate accounting system will depend on the specific circumstances in which an organisation finds itself. Thus, a contingency theory must identify specific aspects of an accounting system which are associated with certain defined circumstances and demonstrate an appropriate matching (p. 413).

Thus, the central foundation in the contingency perspective is that no one single accounting system is universally fit for all organisation in all circumstances (e.g. [ 41 ]). No one accounting control system can be seen as “best” for all situations; rather, the appropriateness of any control system would depend on the organisation's ability to adapt effectively to the environment surrounding its operations [ 41 , 58 , 86 ].

From reviewed literature, numerous researchers have flagged key contingency factors that should be considered in relation to strategic management accounting practice. Four factors were identified as critical contingency factors in the strategic management accounting systems design in Cadez and Guilding's [ 8 ] study, namely: business strategy, strategy formulation pattern, market orientation and firm size. On their part, Islam and Hu [ 41 ] identify core organisational effectiveness factors to include technology, environmental volatility, organisational structure, information system and size of the organisation.

Analysed together, the conceptualisation in the aforementioned studies [ 8 , 41 ] reflect perspectives that have been recognised in the 1980s. For example, Merchant [ 50 ] describe contingency factors to include firm size, product diversity, extent of decentralisation and budgetary information use. In their study of accounting information systems, Gordon and Narayanan [ 26 ] classify three core contingency factors to include perceived environmental uncertainty, information characteristics and organisational structure. Based on a study that examined the extent to which accountants were involved in the strategic management process, CIMA Footnote 2 reports three key contingency factors: “organisational influences, accountant led influences and practicalities” (p. 12). Exploring strategic management accounting practices in the Palestinian context, Ojra [ 58 ] conceptualised a comprehensive contingency perspective that considered (1) organisational structure (involving formalisation and decentralisation), (2) organisational size, (3) technology and (4) organisational strategy. In more recent literature, Pavlatos [ 70 ] suggests seven factors that affect strategic management accounting usage in the hospitality industry (hotels) in Greece, namely, “perceived environmental uncertainty, structure, quality of information systems, organisational life cycle stage, historical performance, strategy and size” (p. 756).

The contingency framing in this study draws from the theoretical guideline which suggests that both the internal and external environments of organisations should be considered in the effort to advance strategic management accounting literature (e.g. [ 58 , 70 ]). The conceptual framing in this study includes two external (perceived environmental uncertainty—competitive intensity, and market turbulence) and three internal (organisational structure—formalisation, and decentralisation, and organisational strategy) factors.

Perceived environmental uncertainty and strategic management accounting usage

From the perceptual lens, the environment could be viewed as certain or uncertain only to the extent that decision makers perceive it to be (e.g. [ 1 , 11 ]). Perceived environmental uncertainty is described as the absence of information relating to organisations, activities and happenings in the environment [ 20 ]. According to Cescon et al. [ 11 ], organisations must give due attention to their operational environment because engaging with environmental uncertainty factors would enable them identify key change drivers.

Prior literature has documented that perceived uncertainty significantly influences the extent to which firms would embrace strategic management accounting practices (e.g. [ 49 , 58 , 70 ]). According to that foundation, how firms respond from the point of strategic management accounting practices that they would endorse would depend on the nature of environmental uncertainties that surround their operational activities.

Studying the hotel property setting, Pavlatos [ 70 ] documents a positive correlation between the degree of environmental uncertainty and the use of strategic management accounting tools. In other words, the higher the perceived environmental uncertainty, the higher the need for use of strategic management accounting tools. Intensified use of strategic management accounting tools is essential because that will enable the hotels to manage the uncertainties, and be more effective in managerial decision-making, and ultimately improves organisational performance [ 70 ]. The notion of a significant influence of environmental uncertainty on strategic management accounting practices is supported by prior literature (e.g. [ 15 ]). According to them, managers who operate in highly uncertain environments would require information that is timely, current and frequent. Other scholars have also argued that environmental uncertainty would be associated with more pro-active and externally focused accounting systems (e.g. [ 32 , 38 ]).

In their study of Italian manufacturing companies, Cescon et al. [ 11 ] found a positive association of perceived environmental uncertainty and strategic pricing usage as a feature of the strategic decision-making SMA technique. In other words, the more the perceived environmental uncertainty, the higher the usage of the strategic pricing feature of the strategic decision-making SMA component.

In the perceived environmental uncertainty literature, two core dimensions have been distilled, namely competitive intensity and market turbulence (e.g. [ 30 , 58 ]). Market turbulence—a subset of environmental turbulence [ 47 ], is defined by Calantone et al. [ 10 ] as characterised by continuous changes in customers’ preference/demands, in price/cost structures and in the composition of competitors. In settings where there is high market turbulence, organizations would need to modify their products and approaches to the market more frequently [ 44 ]. On the other hand, the notion of competitive intensity relates to the logic that organisations compete for numerous resources, such as raw materials, selling and distribution channels, as well as quality, variety and price of products [ 26 , 46 ]. Achieving organisation-environment alignment in highly competitive environments requires that organisations have the capacity to effectively detect environmental signals and timely communicate environmental information (e.g. [ 88 ]).

Exploring Australian hospitality industry, McManus [ 49 ] examined the association of competition intensity and perceived environmental uncertainty on customer accounting techniques usage. The study suggests that competition intensity positively associates with customer accounting practices but also found that higher perceived environmental uncertainty would not lead to greater usage of customer accounting techniques in the explored hotels. In a much similar conceptualisation, Cescon et al. [ 11 ] examined the association of environmental uncertainty and competitive forces on strategic management accounting techniques usage in large Italian manufacturing firms. Empirically, that study found that external factors (environmental uncertainty and competitive forces) positively associate with SMA usage (strategic pricing, balanced scorecard, risk analysis, target costing, life-cycle costing). Based on the two-dimensional conceptualisation, Ojra [ 58 ] examined the relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty and SMA usage in Palestinian firms. Ojra [ 58 ] hypothesised a positive correlation of perceived environmental uncertainty (conceptualised to include competition intensity and market turbulence) but found no support. To the contrary, Ojra [ 58 ] documents a potential for negative influence of perceived environmental uncertainty on strategic management accounting techniques usage, however only significant for the market turbulence dimension. In other words, Ojra [ 58 ] suggests that market turbulence associates negatively with strategic management accounting techniques usage in medium Palestine firms.

Organisational structure (formalisation) and strategic management accounting usage

Across the various streams of management, formalisation has been mentioned as a key contingency factor in understanding the operational dynamics of organisations (e.g. [ 58 , 63 , 64 ]). With regard to strategic management accounting discourse, this notion has been numerously supported (e.g. [ 26 , 58 , 85 ]).

Studying the influence of formalisation in the functional relationship between the accounting and marketing departments, Opute et al. [ 64 ] suggest a positive association. In other words, they argue that the more formalised the processes in the firm, the higher the achieved integration between both functional areas. However, Opute et al. [ 64 ] note that whether this positive association is achieved would depend on the integration component (information sharing, unified effort and involvement) considered.

In the strategic management accounting domain, there is mixed evidence of the association of organisational structure on strategic management accounting usage. For example, Ojra [ 58 ] hypothesised that less formalised organisational structure would lead to higher use of strategic management accounting techniques in Palestinian firms but found no support for that hypothesis. In that study, no support was found for the notion that less formalised structures would lead to higher use of strategic management accounting techniques, both for total SMA as well as for all the dimensions of SMA. Thus, that study concludes that formalisation has no significant influence on strategic management accounting techniques usage in Palestinian firms. That conclusion supports the findings in Gordon and Narayanan [ 26 ], but contrast the view in Tuan Mat’s [ 85 ] exploration of management accounting practices.

Organisational structure (decentralisation) and strategic management accounting usage

Similar to formalisation, management scholars have noted decentralisation as a core organisational structure factor that should be given due attention in the drive to enhance the understanding of contingency theory (e.g. [ 58 , 62 , 63 ]). Organisational structure has been noted to influence the strategic management accounting practices of a firm (e.g. [ 58 , 70 ]). Within that foundation, decentralisation (or its opposite) has been flagged as a major factor. A contention that has been underlined numerously in the discourse is that strategic management accounting usage would be higher in organisations that embrace decentralised structure. Following that foundation, Pavlatos [ 70 ] hypothesised that SMA usage is higher in decentralised hotels than in centralised hotels in Greece. The results support the hypothesis: there is higher need for strategic management accounting practices in decentralised firms, as lower-level managers require more information to aid decision-making.

The above conclusion supports as well as contrasts prior literature, namely Chenhall [ 14 ] and Verbeeten [ 87 ], respectively. According to Chenhall [ 14 , p. 525], “strategic management accounting has characteristics related to aspects of horizontal organisation as they aim to connect strategy to the value chain and link activities across the organisation…”. Chenhall [ 14 ] adds that a typical approach in horizontal organisation is identifying customer-oriented strategic priorities and then exploiting process efficiency, continuous improvements, flattened structures and team empowerment, to initiate change, a conclusion that suggests that higher use of strategic management accounting practices would seem ideal in such decentralised organisational structure. The reason for that outcome is that in decentralised structure, lower-level managers can adapt their MACS as necessary to meet requirements [ 52 ], a logic that finds support in McManus [ 49 ] who found that customer accounting usage is higher in Australian hotels that are decentralised than those that are centralised. In contrast to that logic, Verbeeten [ 87 ] found decentralisation to associate negatively with major changes in the decision-influencing components of MACS.

Insight about the less developed context, namely about Palestinian firms lend support to, as well as contrast past literature. According to Ojra [ 58 ], decentralisation has a tendency to associate negatively with strategic management accounting usage. Therefore, although statistically insignificant, the results indicate that explored Palestinian firms that endorse decentralised decision-making process would seemingly have lesser need for strategic management accounting practices. On the evidence that decentralisation may have a negative influence on strategic management accounting usage, Ojra [ 58 ] supports Verbeeten [ 87 ] but contrasts Pavlatos [ 70 ].

Organisational strategy and strategic management accounting usage

An internal organisational factor that has been considered important in the understanding of contingency perspective of management accounting relates to organisational strategy (e.g. [ 8 , 17 , 58 ]). Hambrick [ 33 ] defined strategy as:

A pattern of important decisions that guides the organisation in its relationship with its environment; affects the internal structure and processes of the organisation; and centrally affects the organisation’s performance (p.567).

In the strategic management accounting discourse, organisational strategy has been mentioned as one of the key factors that would condition strategic management accounting practices of a firm (e.g. [ 9 , 58 , 70 , 86 ]). For example, Turner et al. [ 86 ] note that in hotel property setting, strategic management accounting use would hinge on the market orientation business strategy of the firm. Given the notion that strategic management accounting would aid management decision-making and lead ultimately to improved organisational performance, there is some legitimacy in expecting that organisations that align their strategic management accounting practices to the strategic orientation of the firm would achieve a higher organisational performance.

Following Miles and Snow’s [ 51 ] strategy typology (prospector, defender, analyser, and reactor), efforts to understand the association of strategy to strategic management accounting tools usage have also tried to understand how the various strategy typologies play out in this association. For example, Cadez and Guilding [ 9 ] considered the prospector, defender and analyser typologies in the Slovenian context, while Ojra [ 58 ] considered the prospector and defender typologies in the Palestinian contexts.

Cadez and Guilding [ 9 ] report that companies that endorse the analyser strategy, which is a deliberate strategy formulation approach, are not highly market oriented, but tend to show high usage of SMA techniques, except for competitor accounting technique. Further, they report that prospector strategy-oriented companies also pursue a deliberate strategy formulation approach, but are highly market oriented, and SMA techniques usage is fairly high (for competitor accounting) and averagely high (for strategic costing). For very high prospector-oriented companies, they are highly market oriented, have a strong strategy drive and a very high SMA techniques usage. For the defender strategy-type companies, they suggest that such companies are not only average in their market orientation, but also in their usage of SMA techniques.

In the study of Palestinian companies, Ojra [ 58 ] offers insights that resonate relatively with the findings in Cadez and Guilding [ 9 ]. Ojra [ 58 ] suggests that prospector companies have a higher usage of SMA techniques than defender-type companies. So, SMA technique usage is positively associated to prospector strategy (see also [ 8 ]. Elaborating the findings, Ojra [ 58 ] reports that prospector-type companies focused more on four SMA techniques (mean values reported), namely SMAU-Planning, Control and Performance Measurement (4.601), SMAU-Strategic Decision Making (4.712), SMAU-Competitor Accounting (4.689) and SMAU-Customer Accounting (4.734), statistical results that are significantly higher than the results for 'defender'-type companies. Cinquini and Tenucci [ 17 ] lend support to Ojra [ 58 ]: 'defender'-type companies give more attention to the Costing dimension of SMA.

Without emphasising the strategy typologies, Pavlakos (2015) comments that organisational strategy affects SMA usage in the Greek hotel industry.

Strategic management accounting and organisational performance

A central tenet in the strategic management accounting foundation is that management accounting would significantly aid organisations to achieve sustained competitiveness [ 7 , 82 ]. Implicitly, these scholars argue that in order to stay competitive in the marketplace, organisations should not only focus on cost-volume-profit issues, but rather embrace a broad externally focused management accounting approach that is strategically driven and provides financial information that enables management to effectively formulate and monitor the organisation's strategy. Thus, management accounting should also focus on competitor information as that will enable management effectively organise the firm's strategic structure.

Over the years, there is growing recognition of the importance of strategic management accounting to organisations, leading therefore to increasing research attention. One area that has received attention in the strategic management accounting discourse relates to the organisational performance enhancement notion (e.g. [ 23 , 56 , 58 , 77 , 86 ]).

Insights from Malaysia also add to the discourse on the impact of strategic management accounting usage on organisational performance. In their study of Malaysian electrical and electronic firms, Noordin et al. [ 56 ] examined the extent of usage of strategic management accounting and influence on the performance of the participating firms. The study found that in explored Malaysian companies, the extent of strategic management accounting usage was significantly related to organisation’s performance. That conclusion supports Cadez and Guilding [ 8 ] who contend that there is a positive association between strategic management accounting usage and organisational performance.

In a performance perspective that considers the ISO 9000 Quality Management System (QMS) aspect, Sedevich-Fons [ 77 ] examined the connection between strategic management accounting and quality management systems performance. The findings show that strategic management accounting and quality management are complementary and their effective implementation would enhance overall performance. Sedevich-Fons [ 77 ] notes further that when both are used in conjunction that would spread SMA techniques and enable full exploitation of Quality Management Systems.

Insights from the less developed economy context also associate organisational performance to the implementation of strategic management accounting practices (e.g. [ 3 , 57 , 58 ]). In a conceptual approach that aimed to address one major gap in previous literature, Ojra [ 58 ] examined both the financial and non-financial dimensions of organisational performance. According to Ojra [ 58 ], strategic management accounting usage does not impact the financial dimension of organisational performance but exerts significant positive impact on non-financial performance. That finding resonates with Perera et al. [ 71 ] conclusion that various forms of management accounting associate positively with the use of non-financial measures.

On their part, Oboh and Ajibolade [ 57 ], in their investigation of the association between strategic management accounting practices and strategic decision-making in Nigerian banks, found that explored Nigerian banks “practice SMA not as a concept, but as a principle of operation, and that SMA contributes significantly to strategic decision-making in the area of competitive advantage and increased market share” (p.119).

Alabdullah [ 3 ] offers evidence that adds support to the insights in the aforementioned studies [ 57 , 58 ]. In a study that explored the Jordanian service sector, Alabdullah [ 3 ] found that strategic management accounting enables performance in the service sector in Jordan. If strategic management accounting is effectively implemented, that will enable optimal strategic decision-making and ultimately improve organisational performance.

Research methodology

Research design.

Qualitative research method [ 18 , 76 ] is used in this study to achieve the objectives of this research. Following the methodological approach, as well as responding to the research call, in a past study on the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting [ 41 ], a study which was literature review-based, literature review-based qualitative research approach was deemed fit in this study.

A systematic review approach (e.g. [ 5 , 39 , 81 ]) is used in this research on the topic of strategic management accounting. Using the systematic review approach in this study is appropriate because it enables a systematic and transparent approach in identifying, selecting, and evaluating relevant published literature on a specific topic or question [ 42 , 83 ]. Furthermore, systematic review approach was deemed appropriate for this study as it has been documented to aid core research gaps identification and steering future research (e.g. [ 40 , 59 , 66 ]).

Alves et al. [ 5 ] forward a two-stage guideline for systematic review of literature: planning the review and conducting the review and analysis. As they noted, researchers should describe how the systematic approach was planned (in the former) and also describe the phases of the review and selection of literature (in the latter). In this research, effort was made to combine the best evidence: careful planning was used to determine literatures for inclusion or exclusion (e.g. [ 5 , 65 , 67 ]). The planning was focused at identifying relevant publications in various academic journals on the topic of strategic management accounting. First, the theoretical themes to be considered in the conceptual premise of this study were confirmed and academic resource for tracking relevant publications determined [ 5 , 66 , 83 ].

In the preliminary stage of the literature review, electronic search was carried out to identify relevant literature relating to strategic management accounting. Three steps were taken in the systematic review: we searched the literature, analysed and synthesised the literature, and wrote the review. Several databases were scanned using key search terms to capture relevant literature [ 81 ]. Core search terms were used, such as strategic management accounting, historical aspects of strategic management accounting, contingencies of strategic management accounting practices, strategic management accounting and organisational strategy, strategic management accounting and organisational performance, amongst others. Relevant publications were also found using data extraction tools such as Google Scholar, Emerald Insight and Research Gate.

Using the aforementioned methodological approach, a collection of relevant articles published in academic journals was identified. Identifying the relevant literature in this study followed methodological guideline [ 69 ]: criteria of language, relevance and type of research to identify relevant studies were embraced, and articles that contained non-English contents and also articles that did not fit closely to the thematic premise of this study were excluded. It is important to emphasise here that this study recognises that not all publications relating to the topic of strategic management accounting may have been considered in this research. However, for the scope of this piece of research, the body of literature covered in this study was deemed adequate for the conceptual framing.

Table 1 shows a sample of selected literature covered in this piece of research, pinpointing clearly the focus, context of the studies and findings from the studies.

The analysis

The interpretive approach of analysis was followed in processing the qualitative data to achieve reliable meaning in this study (e.g. [ 59 , 65 , 67 , 84 ]). Following that precedence, an iterative approach that involved reading reviewed literature back and forth, was used in this study. Using that approach, a synthesis of literature was undertaken to capture the core threads, debates and themes in the literature (e.g. [ 65 , 67 ]). Guided also by that methodological approach, relevant directions for future research have been flagged towards enhancing the knowledge about strategic management accounting and performance association.

Subjectivity is a major concern in qualitative researches (e.g. [ 18 , 76 ]). To address that concern, steps taken in this research to validate the articles incorporated into this research include rigor of conduct and strength of evidence by cross-referencing, as well as undertaking a duplicate check (e.g. [ 76 , 81 ]).

The findings

Prompted by the central threads that emerged from the analysis of the selected literature, the findings from this study are organised along three core themes: strategic management accounting techniques, contingencies of strategic management accounting techniques usage and the organisational performance implications of strategic management accounting usage.

The importance of management accounting, and in particular the strategic management accounting element as a tool for enabling top management to make effective decisions that enable organisation compete effectively in the marketplace, is gaining increasing mention in management discourse. In that discourse, five core categorisations of SMA techniques: strategic costing; strategic planning, control and performance measurement; strategic decision-making; competitor accounting; and customer accounting. While literature distils numerous forms of strategic management accounting techniques that organisations may embrace towards enabling effective management decision-making and organisational performance, evidence was found in reviewed literature that in some organisations, practitioners do not believe that strategic management accounting as a separate concept is a notion they subscribe to (e.g. CIMA Footnote 3 ; [ 48 , 55 ]). For example, CIMA Footnote 4 documents that participants unanimously do not subscribe to the notion, a conclusion which lends support to prior literature [ 48 , 55 ] that notes that strategic management accounting as a term, did not exist in the lexicon of accounting practitioners.

Grounded on the substance that effective use of the SMA techniques would improve organisational performance, immense research effort has focused on how organisations can effectively align the SMA usage towards achieving desired performance improvement. Premised in that theoretical domain, this study examined existing literature on the contingency factors of competitive intensity, market turbulence, formalisation, decentralisation and organisational strategy and SMA usage. Cumulative evidence obtained from the review of literature reinforces the need for organisations to pay particular attention to their operational environment in their use of SMA techniques. Reinforcing the fit principle, the cummulative evidence underlines that optimising the benefits of the strategic management accounting techniques in enabling effective customer orientation and boosting organisational performance is dependent on the organisation's ability to effectively align strategic management accounting practices to its operational environment. In other words, what works for an organisation would depend on the organisational dynamics, internal, as well as external. For example, formalisation may work for some but not for some, as decentralisation could work for some but not for some. Similarly, the utility of SMA techniques would hinge on the competitive intensity and market turbulence features of an organisation. Thus, aligning SMA practices to the internal and external features of an organisation is essential to enable them adapt effectively to their circumstances, make rational decisions and optimise their performance. So, alignment is critical because there is no one-size fits all approach for achieving customer orientation and organisational performance goals.

The third focal point of this study relates to the association of SMA techniques usage to organisational performance. Reviewed literature shows that organisations are achieving higher performance through the use of SMA techniques. In other words, effective use of SMA techniques would improve organisational performance. The plausibility in that performance outcome lies in the fact that organisations are able to utilise appropriate SMA measures to ensure effective, customer, competitor, strategic decision-making, costing, and planning and control orientation in their operational activities. Further on the performance point, literature also suggests that management control systems (MCS)–performance relationship is mediated by business strategy (e.g. [ 2 ]). Also, that study documents that the impacts (both indirect and total) of MCS on performance are stronger for family businesses than non-family businesses.

Conclusions

Conclusions and implications.

One of the major challenges that organisations are facing in today's dynamic marketplace is to steer their organisations in a way that they can stay competitive. In the contemporary world, where globalisation and technological evolution have expanded the options that customers have (e.g. [ 31 , 61 , 65 , 67 ]), organisations must strive hard to win the loyalty of customers. For organisations wishing to achieve that, strategic management accounting practices offer a strategic pathway. Organisations must embrace strategic management accounting practices that would enable them understand the market, their competitors, and the customers and leverage the intelligence from that knowledge to organise their operations towards profitably satisfying the customer. To effectively do that, organisations must avoid the mistake of focusing only on the internal issues; rather, their effort must be tailored towards embracing strategic management accounting practices that would enable them to be fully informed of the market trends, customer dynamics and competitor trends. Thus, organisations must ensure that good costing, planning, control and performance measurement; strategic decision-making, customer accounting and competitor accounting measures are embraced to enable them compete effectively.

Furthermore, in that drive to compete effectively in the market and profitably satisfy customers, organisations would not only need to embrace appropriate strategic management accounting techniques but also do that bearing in mind the environments that surround the operational activities. In other words, organisations must give due attention to the contingencies of their operational setting. Organisations must ensure a good blend of critical factors that would enable their optimal operation. Due attention must be given to organisational structure (centralisation or decentralisation of decision-making process), external environment (dynamism and turbulence), technological development, strategic approach, size of the organisation, amongst others. Doing that is critical for corporate success because there is no one size fits all approach—the outcome achieved would depend significantly on the dynamics surrounding the operational activities of the firm.

Thirty-three months on after Covid 19 was documented, Footnote 5 the pandemic is still ever present and has remained a daunting global challenge. Competing effectively in the dynamic marketplace is a major challenge for organisations, and with the Corona pandemic exerting unprecedent effects on organisations globally, most organisations are facing a more daunting challenge to survive (e.g. [ 65 , 67 ]). Organisations must strive to strategically orientate their management accounting practices to enable them find ways to effectively navigate the daunting challenges they face in this Corona era.

Implications of this study

The implications of this study are organised along managerial and theoretical implications.

Managerial Implications —Managers are reminded that optimal use of strategic management accounting techniques would boost organisational performance. Achieving high levels of organisational performance would however hinge on an organisation's ability to effectively align its SMA techniques usage to its internal and external dynamics. In other words, managers must bear in mind that there is no one-size fits all approach; therefore, they should endorse SMA techniques usage that fits their operational dynamics.

Theoretical Implications —In line with the central objective of this paper to sensitise the need for enhancing the understanding of the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting, the theoretical implications of this study are tailored towards specifying core gaps in the reviewed literature.

Overall, evidence from reviewed literature underlines the criticality of SMA techniques usage to organisational performance. Thus, if organisations strategically align SMA techniques usage to their operational setting, this would positively impact organisational performance. Within the goal of enhancing the literature on how to optimise the performance impact, much gaps still exist from the point off illuminating how differences in marketing and national culture differentiate SMA acceptance, usage, contingencies and performance impact.

Finally, on the point of performance, reviewed literature documents an obvious gap in the literature from the point of illuminating SMA techniques usage impact along the performance dimensions. As noted by Ojra [ 58 ], for some societies (especially ones that are Islamic cultured), non-financial performance is of central importance. Theoretical development from the point of SMA techniques usage, contingencies and non-financial performance impact is scanty.

Limitations of the study

Based on systematic review approach, this study aimed to drive further knowledge development on the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting, drawing on the evidence from reviewed literature to understand the core debates in the literature and pinpoint directions for future research. Two core limitations of this research relate to the conceptual framework and volume of literature reviewed.

The conceptual framing of this study embraced only three themes in the SMA discourse, namely perceived environmental uncertainty, organisational structure and organisational strategy. Elaborated, the contingency premise considered in this study relates to perceived environmental uncertainty (competitive intensity, and market turbulence), organisational structure (formalisation and decentralisation), and organisational strategy. This study recognises that there are other contingencies of strategic management accounting practices that have not been included in the conceptual framing of this study.

To capture the central debates in the SMA discourse, extant literature was reviewed. It is however important to acknowledge that this study may have ignored some literature relevant to the conceptual premise of this study. Finally, although efforts were made by the researchers to ensure validity in this research by adopting an analytical approach that involved thorough reading of literature to ensure valid meaning in the interpretation, it must be reminded that subjectivity is a concern in every qualitative research.

Future research directions

In explaining the theoretical implications of this study, core gaps in the literature were underlined (Section “ Implications of this study ”), while the limitations of this study were acknowledged in Section “ Limitations of the study ”. Building on these, this Section “ Future research directions ” extends the contribution of this study by specifying core directions for further knowledge development on the contingency perspective of strategic management accounting.

No doubt, this study has limitations, amongst which are the conceptual framework and the literature review scope. In their study, Naranjo-Gil et al. [ 54 , p. 688] note that “future research is needed to examine other factors to add a more comprehensive view of management accounting”. Given the conceptual limitation of this study, this study reinforces the research call by Naranjo-Gil et al. [ 54 ]. Future research could expand the work done in this research and knowledge development by incorporating contingency factors that have not been considered in the conceptual framing of this study. More research is required in that regard, both from the point of a systematic literature review approach, as well as from the point of empirical investigations that seek to illuminate the contextual (industrial sectors and geographical settings) differentiators to the contingency impacts on the use of strategic management accounting techniques.

Furthermore, more research effort is required from the point of gaining deeper understanding of the various strategic management accounting techniques. Marketing dynamics (e.g. [ 62 ]) and national culture [ 35 , 60 ] differ from one setting to another, therefore exploring the nature of strategic management accounting techniques that organisations endorse and why are core premises for research.

As flagged in the findings, there is a growing support of the notion that accounting practitioners do not subscribe to the use of the term strategic management accounting (e.g. CIMA Footnote 6 ; [ 48 , 55 ]). Further research could help to shed more light not only on why practitioners may not subscribe to the use of the term strategic management accounting, but also on the understanding of how practitioners would prefer to describe the management accounting practices that they embrace, and also why the specific practices are prioritised.

Furthermore, on the point of the content of strategic management accounting, researchers have also noted that not much effort is given to highlighting clearly the accounting information that organisations should give much attention to towards boosting organisational performance (e.g. [ 53 , 89 ]). Future research should aim to fill this gap. Doing that is critical to fully optimising the performance benefits of strategic management accounting [ 56 ].

Reviewed literature has documented that the extent to which strategic management accounting practices would aid management decision-making and organisational performance would depend on the contingency dynamics of the organisation (e.g. [ 11 , 58 ]). Understanding the contingency premise of strategic management accounting utility in driving effective management decision-making and organisational performance is a critical research premise, and future research should aim to shed more light on that. No one size fits all approach that works for all organisations in all contexts. Therefore, future research should seek to enhance the 'fit' foundation of strategic management accounting relevance and performance outcome. In that regard, future research should seek to illuminate further how perceived environmental uncertainty, decentralisation, formalisation, strategy and other contingency factors not considered in this study, would influence strategic management accounting techniques usage and organisational performance impact. In the particular case of perceived environmental uncertainty, more research is not only required from the point of understanding the influence of the construct, but also clarifying the competitive intensity and market turbulence associations.

An insight that emerged from the reviewed literature relates to the fact that majority of efforts to improve strategic management accounting discourse have considered mainly financial aspects of organisational performance (e.g. [ 58 , 86 ]). Focusing only on financial performance is inadequate as the customer perspective of performance is neglected [ 45 , 58 ]. The importance of focusing on customer performance has been re-echoed in further literature: organisational-level customer satisfaction associates positively to financial performance (e.g. [ 24 , 86 ]), and customer performance enables business strategy and an organisation's ability to deliver value to its shareholders as well as customers [ 25 ]. Supporting prior research (e.g. [ 49 , 58 , 86 ]), this study underlines the need for more studies that illuminate non-financial performance aspects and strategic management accounting association.

Finally, the Corona pandemic, which remains a global crisis, has exerted unprecedent global economic damage. Organisations are facing daunting challenges as a result of the Corona pandemic and are still seeking ways to successfully navigate these challenges. Future research should illuminate what strategic management accounting practices organisations are endorsing in the effort to effectively navigate the Corona-crisis-induced challenges.

Availability of data and materials

This study is based on the review of literature.

Management Accounting in support of the strategic management process. https://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Thought_leadership_docs/Management%20and%20financial%20accounting/Academic-Research-Report-Strategic-Management-Process.pdf .

January 9—WHO Announces Mysterious Coronavirus-Related Pneumonia in Wuhan, China.

Abbreviations

• Strategic management accounting

Strategic management accounting usage

Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

Management accounting and control system

Management control systems

Quality management system

Achrol R, Stern L (1988) Environmental determinants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing channels. J Mark Res 25:36–50

Google Scholar  

Acquaah M (2013) Management control systems, business strategy and performance: A comparative analysis of family and non-family businesses in a transition economy in sub-Saharan Africa. J Fam Bus Strat 4:13–146

Alabdullah TTY (2019) Management accounting and service companies’ performance: research in emerging economies. Austral Account Bus Finance J 13(4):100–118

Alamri AM (2019) Association between strategic management accounting facets and organizational performance. Balt J Manag 14(2):212–234

Alves H, Fernandes C, Raposo M (2016) Social media marketing: A literature review and implications. Psychol Mark 33(12):1029–1038

Atkinson AA, Kaplan RS, Matsumura EM, Young SM (2011) Management accounting information for decision making and strategy execution, 6th edn. Times Prentice Hall, Hoboken

Bromwich M (1990) The case for strategic management accounting: the role of accounting information for strategy in competitive markets. Account Organ Soc 15(1/2):27–46

Cadez S, Guilding C (2008) An exploratory investigation of an integrated contingency model of strategic management accounting. Account Organ Soc 33:836–873

Cadez S, Guilding C (2012) Strategy, strategic management accounting and performance: a configurational analysis. Ind Manag Data Syst 112(3):484–501

Calantone R, Garcia R, Dröge C (2003) The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. J Prod Innov Manag 20:90–103

Cescon F, Costantini A, Grassetti L (2019) Strategic choices and strategic management accounting in large manufacturing firms. J Manag Governance 23:605–635

Chenhall R (2003) Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Account Organ Soc 28:127–168

Chenhall R (2007) Theorising contingencies in management control systems research. In: Chapman CS, Hopwood AG, Shields MD (eds) Handbook of management accounting research. Elsevier, New York, pp 163–205

Chenhall R (2008) Accounting for the horizontal organization. In: Chapman CS, Hopwood AG, Shields MD (eds) Handbook of management accounting research. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 1207–1233

Chenhall RH, Morris D (1986) The impact of structure, environment and interdependence on the perceived usefulness of management accounting systems. Account Rev 61:16–35

CIMA (2005) Official terminology. CIMA Publishing, London

Cinquini L, Tennuci A (2010) Strategic management accounting and business strategy: a loose coupling? J Account Organ Change 33:228–259

Creswell JW (2014) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Cuganesan S, Dunford R, Palmer I (2012) Strategic management accounting and strategy practices within a public sector agency. Manag Account Res 23:245–260

Daft RL, Sormunen J, Parks D (1988) Chief executive scanning, environmental characteristics and company performance: an empirical study. Strateg Manag J 9(2):123–139

Dai J, Vasarhelyi MA (2017) Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. J Inf Syst 31(3):5–21

Dik R (2011) Arab management accounting systems under the influence of their culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation submitted at Dortmund University of Technology, Germany

El Deeb MS (2012) Towards a strategic management accounting: framework for cost management in Egyptian healthcare industry. Egyptian Accounting Review, Cairo University, Faculty of Commerce, Issue No. 2-year 2.

Fornell C, Mithas S, Morgesson FV III, Krishnan MS (2006) Customer satisfaction and stock prices: high returns, low risk. J Mark 70:3–14

Franco-Santos M, Lucianetti L, Bourne M (2012) Contemporary performance measurement systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research. Manag Account Res 23(2):79–119

Gordon LA, Narayanan VK (1984) Management accounting systems, perceived environmental uncertainty and organization structure: an empirical investigation. Account Organ Soc 9(2):33–47

Granlund M (2011) Extending AIS research to management accounting and control issues: a research note. Int J Account Inf Syst 12(1):3–19

Groot T, Selto F (2013) Advanced management accounting. Pearson, Harlow

Guilding C, Cravens KS, Tayles M (2000) An international comparison of strategic management accounting practices. Manag Account Res 11(1):113–135

Guilding C, McManus L (2002) The incidence, perceived merit and antecedents of customer accounting: an exploratory note. Account Organ Soc 27(1/2):45–59

Guesalaga R, Gabrielsson M, Rogers B, Ryals L, Cuevas JM (2018) Which resources and capabilities underpin strategic key account management. Ind Mark Manag 75:160–172

Haldma T, Lääts K (2002) Contingencies influencing the management accounting practices of Estonian manufacturing companies. Manag Acc Res 13(4):379–400

Hambrick D (1980) Operating the concept of business-level strategy in research. Acad Manag Rev 5:567–576

Henri J-F, Boiral O, Roy M-J (2016) Strategic cost management and performance: the case of environmental costs. Br Account Rev 48:269–282

Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

Holm M, Ax C (2019) The interactive effect of competition intensity and customer service competition on customer accounting sophistication—Evidence of positive and negative associations. Manag Account Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2019.07.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Hoque Z (2004) A contingency model of the association between strategy, environmental uncertainty and performance measurement: Impact on organisational performance. Int Bus Rev 13:485–502

Hwang EJ (2005) Strategic management and financial performance in South Korean apparel retail stores, an unpublished Ph.D. Thesis submitted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, US.

Ibidunni AS, Ufua DE, Opute AP (2021) Linking disruptive innovation to sustainable entrepreneurship within the context of small and medium firms: a focus on Nigeria. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2021.1975355

Irene BN, Opute AP, Ibidunni AS (2020) Competency-based entrepreneurship education: analysis of the disruptive innovation theory in African HEIs. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Inderscience Publishers

Islam J, Hu H (2012) A review of literature on contingency theory in managerial accounting. Afr J Bus Manag 6(15):5159–5164

John KSt, McNeal KS (2017) The strength of evidence pyramid: one approach for characterizing the strength of evidence of geoscience education research (GER) community claims. J Geosci Educ 65(4):363–372

Jusoh R (2010) The influence of perceived environmental uncertainty, firm size, and strategy on multiple performance measure usage. Afr J Bus Manage 4(10):1972–1984

Kandemir D, Yaprak A, Cavusgil ST (2006) Alliance orientation: conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. J Acad Mark Sci 34(3):324–340

Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2001) Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: part I. Account Horiz 15(1):87–104

Khandwalla P (1977) The design of organizations. Harcourt Brace Jovanovoich, New York

Kohli AJ, Jaworski BJ (1990) Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. J Mark 10:1–8

Langfield-Smith K (2008) Strategic management accounting: how far have we come in 25 years? Acc Audit Acc J 21:204–228

McManus L (2012) Customer accounting and marketing performance measures in the hotel industry: evidence from Australia. Int J Hosp Manag 33:140–152

Merchant KA (1985) Control in business organizations, Ballinger Publishing Company, New York

Miles RE, Snow CC (1978) Organizational strategy, structure and process. McGraw-Hill, New York

Moers F (2006) Performance measure properties and delegation. Account Rev 81(4):897–924

Mohammed BAH, Maelah R, Amir AM (2019) Strategic management accounting information and performance of private hospitals in Malaysia. Int J Econ Manag Account 27(2):473–502

Naranjo-Gil D, Maas V, Hartmann F (2009) How CFO’s determine management accounting innovation: an examination of direct and indirect effects. Eur Account Rev 18(4):667–695

Nixon B, Burns J (2012) The paradox of strategic management accounting. Manag Account Res 23:229–244

Noordin R, Zainuddin Y, Fuad, Mail R, Sariman NK (2015) Performance outcomes of strategic management accounting information usage in Malaysia: Insights from electrical and electronics companies. Procedia Econ Finance 31:13–25

Oboh CS, Ajibolade SO (2017) Strategic management accounting and decision making: a survey of the Nigerian banks. Future Business Journal 3:119–137

Ojra J (2014) Strategic management accounting practices in Palestinian companies: Application of contingency theory perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation submitted at University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

Ojra J, Opute AP, Sabti A (2020) Influence of culture on the effectiveness of internal audit: a literature review. Int Rev Bus Res Pap 16(2):46–65

Opute AP (2012) Maximizing effectiveness in team sports: The personal audit tool. Team Perform Manag 18(1 & 2):78–101

Opute AP (2017) Exploring personality, identity and self-concept among young customers. In: Young consumer behaviour. Routledge (Taylor and Francis) Publications, New York

Opute AP, Madichie N (2017) Accounting-marketing integration Dimensions and antecedents: insights from a Frontier Market. J Bus Ind Mark 32(8):1144–1158

Opute AP, Madichie N (2014) Integration of functional areas of business: a research Agenda. Afr J Bus Econ Res 9(1):29–54

Opute AP, Dedoussis E, Tzokas N (2013) Building blocks of Accounting-Marketing integration in UK financial services organizations. J Mark Oper Manag Res 1(4):323–336

Opute AP, Irene BN, Iwu CG (2020) Tourism service and digital technologies: a value creation perspective. Afr J Hosp Tour Leisure 9(2):1–18

Opute AP, Kalu KI, Adeola O, Iwu CG (2021) Steering sustainable economic growth: entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. J Entrep Innov Emerg Econ 7(2):216–245

Opute AP, Iwu CG, Adeola O, Mugobo V, Okeke-Uzodike OE, Fagbola S, Jaiyeoba O (2020) The covid-19-pandemic and implications for businesses: innovative retail marketing viewpoint. Retail Mark Rev 16:1-18

Otley DT (1980) The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis. Account Organ Soc 10:413–428

Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, London

Pavlatos O (2015) An empirical investigation of strategic management accounting in hotels. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 27(5):756–767

Perera S, Harrison G, Poole M (1997) Customer-focused manufacturing strategy and the use of operations-based non-financial performance measures: a research note. Acc Organ Soc 22(6):557–572

Porter ME (1985) The competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York

Roslender R (1995) Accounting for strategic positioning: responding to the crisis in management accounting. Br J Manag 6:45–57

Roslender R (1996) Relevance lost and found: critical perspectives on the promise of management accounting. Crit Perspect Account 7:533–561

Roslender R, Hart S (2002) Integrating management accounting and marketing in the pursuit of competitive advantage: the case for strategic management accounting. Crit Perspect Account 14(2):77–255

Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2012) Research methods for business students. Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow

Sedevich-Fons L (2018) Linking strategic management accounting and quality management systems. Bus Process Manag J. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2018-0038

Shank JK, Govindarajan V (1992) Strategic cost management: tailoring controls to strategies. J Cost Manag Fall:14–24

Shank JK, Govindarajan V (1993) Strategic cost management: the new tool for competitive advantage. Free Press, New York

Sidhu BK, Roberts JH (2008) The marketing/accounting interface: lessons and limitations. J Market Manag 24(7–8):669–686

Silverman D (ed) (2016) Qualitative research, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles, CA

Simmonds K (1981) Strategic management accounting. Manag Account 59(4):26–29

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339

Thomas DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. Am J Eval 27(2):237–246

Tuan Mat T (2010) Management accounting and organizational change: impact of alignment of management accounting system, structure and strategy on performance. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/149

Turner MJ, Way SA, Hodari D, Witteman W (2017) Hotel property performance: the role of management accounting. Int J Hosp Manag 63:33–43

Verbeeten FHM (2010) Effects of business strategy, structure and technical innovativeness on change in management accounting and control systems at the business unit level: an empirical study. Int J Manag 27:123–143

Yasai-Ardekani M, Haug R (1997) Contextual determinants of strategic planning processes. J Manage Stud 34:729–767

Zakaria M (2015) Strategic management accounting information usage and the performance of SMEs in Malaysia. Int J Sci Commerce Human 3(1):99–113

Zamecnik R, Rajnoha R (2015) Strategic business performance management on the base of controlling and managerial information support. Procedia Econ Finance 26:769–776

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

No external funding was obtained.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

GPROM Academic and Management Solutions, Paderborn, Germany

Abdullah Promise Opute

University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, UK

Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia

Mohammad Mobarak Alsolmi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OJ—the lead author—has made substantial contributions in the design of this study, in the design of the methodological approach and analysis of data, as well as in writing up the conclusions for this study. OA—the corresponding author—has made substantial contributions in the design of this study, the review of literature, the methodological approach and analysis of data, as well as in writing up the conclusions for this study. AM has contributed substantially to the design of this study, review of literature, methodological approach, as well as in writing up the conclusions for this study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah Promise Opute .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

There are no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ojra, J., Opute, A.P. & Alsolmi, M.M. Strategic management accounting and performance implications: a literature review and research agenda. Futur Bus J 7 , 64 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00109-1

Download citation

Received : 25 May 2021

Accepted : 30 October 2021

Published : 27 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00109-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Competition intensity
• Market turbulence
• Formalisation
• Decentralisation
• Organisational strategy
• Organisational performance

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Dynamics of Competition and Strategy: A Literature Review of Strategic Management Models and Frameworks

2018, 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET)

Related Papers

ANTONIO JAVIER REVILLA TORREJON

Jurnal Ilmiah Ekonomi Bisnis

Suzanna Lamria Siregar

Strategic Management Journal

kudret çeltekligil

William Bogner

Dan Schendel

European Management Journal

Asad Hussain

In this paper we present a framework, the rivalry matrix, outlining a range of viable approaches which businessmen, modelers, and consultants can use to frame problems and issues in competitive rivalry. We then discuss the rationale of each of the main modeling approaches contained in the matrix. We follow this discussion with case examples, which illustrate the processes involved in modeling competitive dynamics within each of the four cells of the rivalry matrix. We conclude with the description of a practical process for analyzing competitive dynamics.

Olivier Furrer

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Business Ethics

Sylvia Maxfield

DBA-Africa Management Review

John Mahasi

john Mathews

Lenos Trigeorgis

Isaac Wanasika

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Shelby Hunt

Muhammad Faizan Akbar

anthony ogus

George Deitz

Industrial and Corporate Change

David Teece

The Journal of Socio-Economics

European Journal of Marketing

New Zealand Economic Papers

Managerial and Decision Economics

Andreas Panagopoulos

Kalle A. Piirainen , Markku Tuominen

Ioannis Katsikis

Erwin Schwella

Journal of International Entrepreneurship

Hamid Etemad

Paper delivered at the …

S. Metcalfe

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management

Patricia Thornton

WaDoO MaTHuO

Journal of Management

Abagail McWilliams

Academy of Management Perspectives

Jonathan Doh

Oğuz N . Babüroğlu

Organization Studies

Oğuz Nuri Babüroğlu

Advances in Strategic Management

Noushi Rahman

Strategic Organization

International Journal of Business and Systems Research

Bruce Walsh

Morgen Witzel

Problems and perspectives in management

W. David Holford

Entrepreneurship and the Firm

Journal of Marketing Education

Sreedhar Madhavaram

Journal of Economics & Management / University of Economics in Katowice

Karolina Mucha-Kuś

olalekan sabitu

Journal of Business Research

Erik Van Raaij

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Editors-in-Chief:

Michael J. Leiblein

Jeffrey J. Reuer

The Strategic Management Review (SMR) publishes ideas that matter for strategic management research (see introductory video ). Specifically, the SMR features provocative essays and forward-looking reviews to guide the questions tackled by research in the field.

The journal also aims to promote integration of strategic management research by encouraging research closely connected with the field’s canonical problems as defined by management practice. The SMR complements existing strategic management outlets that emphasize empirical research.

Call for Proposals

Follow smr on linkedin.

Advertisement

How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions

• Review Paper
• Open access
• Published: 12 May 2023
• Volume 17 , pages 1899–1933, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Philipp C. Sauer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1823-0723 1 &
• Stefan Seuring   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4204-9948 2  

24k Accesses

44 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) have become a standard tool in many fields of management research but are often considerably less stringently presented than other pieces of research. The resulting lack of replicability of the research and conclusions has spurred a vital debate on the SLR process, but related guidance is scattered across a number of core references and is overly centered on the design and conduct of the SLR, while failing to guide researchers in crafting and presenting their findings in an impactful way. This paper offers an integrative review of the widely applied and most recent SLR guidelines in the management domain. The paper adopts a well-established six-step SLR process and refines it by sub-dividing the steps into 14 distinct decisions: (1) from the research question, via (2) characteristics of the primary studies, (3) to retrieving a sample of relevant literature, which is then (4) selected and (5) synthesized so that, finally (6), the results can be reported. Guided by these steps and decisions, prior SLR guidelines are critically reviewed, gaps are identified, and a synthesis is offered. This synthesis elaborates mainly on the gaps while pointing the reader toward the available guidelines. The paper thereby avoids reproducing existing guidance but critically enriches it. The 6 steps and 14 decisions provide methodological, theoretical, and practical guidelines along the SLR process, exemplifying them via best-practice examples and revealing their temporal sequence and main interrelations. The paper guides researchers in the process of designing, executing, and publishing a theory-based and impact-oriented SLR.

Similar content being viewed by others

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The application of systematic or structured literature reviews (SLRs) has developed into an established approach in the management domain (Kraus et al. 2020 ), with 90% of management-related SLRs published within the last 10 years (Clark et al. 2021 ). Such reviews help to condense knowledge in the field and point to future research directions, thereby enabling theory development (Fink 2010 ; Koufteros et al. 2018 ). SLRs have become an established method by now (e.g., Durach et al. 2017 ; Koufteros et al. 2018 ). However, many SLR authors struggle to efficiently synthesize and apply review protocols and justify their decisions throughout the review process (Paul et al. 2021 ) since only a few studies address and explain the respective research process and the decisions to be taken in this process. Moreover, the available guidelines do not form a coherent body of literature but focus on the different details of an SLR, while a comprehensive and detailed SLR process model is lacking. For example, Seuring and Gold ( 2012 ) provide some insights into the overall process, focusing on content analysis for data analysis without covering the practicalities of the research process in detail. Similarly, Durach et al. ( 2017 ) address SLRs from a paradigmatic perspective, offering a more foundational view covering ontological and epistemological positions. Durach et al. ( 2017 ) emphasize the philosophy of science foundations of an SLR. Although somewhat similar guidelines for SLRs might be found in the wider body of literature (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Fink 2010 ; Snyder 2019 ), they often take a particular focus and are less geared toward explaining and reflecting on the single choices being made during the research process. The current body of SLR guidelines leaves it to the reader to find the right links among the guidelines and to justify their inconsistencies. This is critical since a vast number of SLRs are conducted by early-stage researchers who likely struggle to synthesize the existing guidance and best practices (Fisch and Block 2018 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ), leading to the frustration of authors, reviewers, editors, and readers alike.

Filling these gaps is critical in our eyes since researchers conducting literature reviews form the foundation of any kind of further analysis to position their research into the respective field (Fink 2010 ). So-called “systematic literature reviews” (e.g., Davis and Crombie 2001 ; Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Durach et al. 2017 ) or “structured literature reviews” (e.g., Koufteros et al. 2018 ; Miemczyk et al. 2012 ) differ from nonsystematic literature reviews in that the analysis of a certain body of literature becomes a means in itself (Kraus et al. 2020 ; Seuring et al. 2021 ). Although two different terms are used for this approach, the related studies refer to the same core methodological references that are also cited in this paper. Therefore, we see them as identical and abbreviate them as SLR.

There are several guidelines on such reviews already, which have been developed outside the management area (e.g. Fink 2010 ) or with a particular focus on one management domain (e.g., Kraus et al. 2020 ). SLRs aim at capturing the content of the field at a point in time but should also aim at informing future research (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ), making follow-up research more efficient and productive (Kraus et al. 2021 ). Such standalone literature reviews would and should also prepare subsequent empirical or modeling research, but usually, they require far more effort and time (Fisch and Block 2018 ; Lim et al. 2022 ). To achieve this preparation, SLRs can essentially a) describe the state of the literature, b) test a hypothesis based on the available literature, c) extend the literature, and d) critique the literature (Xiao and Watson 2019 ). Beyond guiding the next incremental step in research, SLRs “may challenge established assumptions and norms of a given field or topic, recognize critical problems and factual errors, and stimulate future scientific conversations around that topic” (Kraus et al. 2022 , p. 2578). Moreover, they have the power to answer research questions that are beyond the scope of individual empirical or modeling studies (Snyder 2019 ) and to build, elaborate, and test theories beyond this single study scope (Seuring et al. 2021 ). These contributions of an SLR may be highly influential and therefore underline the need for high-quality planning, execution, and reporting of their process and details.

Regardless of the individual aims of standalone SLRs, their numbers have exponentially risen in the last two decades (Kraus et al. 2022 ) and almost all PhD or large research project proposals in the management domain include such a standalone SLR to build a solid foundation for their subsequent work packages. Standalone SLRs have thus become a key part of management research (Kraus et al. 2021 ; Seuring et al. 2021 ), which is also underlined by the fact that there are journals and special issues exclusively accepting standalone SLRs (Kraus et al. 2022 ; Lim et al. 2022 ).

However, SLRs require a commitment that is often comparable to an additional research process or project. Hence, SLRs should not be taken as a quick solution, as a simplistic, descriptive approach would usually not yield a publishable paper (see also Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ).

Furthermore, as with other research techniques, SLRs are based on the rigorous application of rules and procedures, as well as on ensuring the validity and reliability of the method (Fisch and Block 2018 ; Seuring et al. 2021 ). In effect, there is a need to ensure “the same level of rigour to reviewing research evidence as should be used in producing that research evidence in the first place” (Davis and Crombie 2001 , p.1). This rigor holds for all steps of the research process, such as establishing the research question, collecting data, analyzing it, and making sense of the findings (Durach et al. 2017 ; Fink 2010 ; Seuring and Gold 2012 ). However, there is a high degree of diversity where some would be justified, while some papers do not report the full details of the research process. This lack of detail contrasts with an SLR’s aim of creating a valid map of the currently available research in the reviewed field, as critical information on the review’s completeness and potential reviewer biases cannot be judged by the reader or reviewer. This further impedes later replications or extensions of such reviews, which could provide longitudinal evidence of the development of a field (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Durach et al. 2017 ). Against this observation, this paper addresses the following question:

Which decisions need to be made in an SLR process, and what practical guidelines can be put forward for making these decisions?

Answering this question, the key contributions of this paper are fourfold: (1) identifying the gaps in existing SLR guidelines, (2) refining the SLR process model by Durach et al. ( 2017 ) through 14 decisions, (3) synthesizing and enriching guidelines for these decisions, exemplifying the key decisions by means of best practice SLRs, and (4) presenting and discussing a refined SLR process model.

In some cases, we point to examples from operations and supply chain management. However, they illustrate the purposes discussed in the respective sections. We carefully checked that the arguments held for all fields of management-related research, and multiple examples from other fields of management were also included.

2 Identification of the need for an enriched process model, including a set of sequential decisions and their interrelations

In line with the exponential increase in SLR papers (Kraus et al. 2022 ), multiple SLR guidelines have recently been published. Since 2020, we have found a total of 10 papers offering guidelines on SLRs and other reviews for the field of management in general or some of its sub-fields. These guidelines are of double interest to this paper since we aim to complement them to fill the gap identified in the introduction while minimizing the doubling of efforts. Table 1 lists the 10 most recent guidelines and highlights their characteristics, research objectives, contributions, and how our paper aims to complement these previous contributions.

The sheer number and diversity of guideline papers, as well as the relevance expressed in them, underline the need for a comprehensive and exhaustive process model. At the same time, the guidelines take specific foci on, for example, updating earlier guidelines to new technological potentials (Kraus et al. 2020 ), clarifying the foundational elements of SLRs (Kraus et al. 2022 ) and proposing a review protocol (Paul et al. 2021 ) or the application and development of theory in SLRs (Seuring et al. 2021 ). Each of these foci fills an entire paper, while the authors acknowledge that much more needs to be considered in an SLR. Working through these most recent guidelines, it becomes obvious that the common paper formats in the management domain create a tension for guideline papers between elaborating on a) the SLR process and b) the details, options, and potentials of individual process steps.

Our analysis in Table 1 evidences that there are a number of rich contributions on aspect b), while the aspect a) of SLR process models has not received the same attention despite the substantial confusion of authors toward them (Paul et al. 2021 ). In fact, only two of the most recent guidelines approach SLR process models. First, Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) incrementally extended the 20-year-old Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) three-stage model into four stages. A little later, Paul et al. ( 2021 ) proposed a three-stage (including six sub-stages) SPAR-4-SLR review protocol. It integrates the PRISMA reporting items (Moher et al. 2009 ; Page et al. 2021 ) that originate from clinical research to define 14 actions stating what items an SLR in management needs to report for reasons of validity, reliability, and replicability. Almost naturally, these 14 reporting-oriented actions mainly relate to the first SLR stage of “assembling the literature,” which accounts for nine of the 14 actions. Since this protocol is published in a special issue editorial, its presentation and elaboration are somewhat limited by the already mentioned word count limit. Nevertheless, the SPAR-4-SLR protocol provides a very useful checklist for researchers that enables them to include all data required to document the SLR and to avoid confusion from editors, reviewers, and readers regarding SLR characteristics.

Beyond Table 1 , Durach et al. ( 2017 ) synthesized six common SLR “steps” that differ only marginally in the delimitation of one step to another from the sub-stages of the previously mentioned SLR processes. In addition, Snyder ( 2019 ) proposed a process comprising four “phases” that take more of a bird’s perspective in addressing (1) design, (2) conduct, (3) analysis, and (4) structuring and writing the review. Moreover, Xiao and Watson ( 2019 ) proposed only three “stages” of (1) planning, (2) conducting, and (3) reporting the review that combines the previously mentioned conduct and the analysis and defines eight steps within them. Much in line with the other process models, the final reporting stage contains only one of the eight steps, leaving the reader somewhat alone in how to effectively craft a manuscript that contributes to the further development of the field.

In effect, the mentioned SLR processes differ only marginally, while the systematic nature of actions in the SPAR-4-SLR protocol (Paul et al. 2021 ) can be seen as a reporting must-have within any of the mentioned SLR processes. The similarity of the SLR processes is, however, also evident in the fact that they leave open how the SLR analysis can be executed, enriched, and reflected to make a contribution to the reviewed field. In contrast, this aspect is richly described in the other guidelines that do not offer an SLR process, leading us again toward the tension for guideline papers between elaborating on a) the SLR process and b) the details, options, and potentials of each process step.

To help (prospective) SLR authors successfully navigate this tension of existing guidelines, it is thus the ambition of this paper to adopt a comprehensive SLR process model along which an SLR project can be planned, executed, and written up in a coherent way. To enable this coherence, 14 distinct decisions are defined, reflected, and interlinked, which have to be taken across the different steps of the SLR process. At the same time, our process model aims to actively direct researchers to the best practices, tips, and guidance that previous guidelines have provided for individual decisions. We aim to achieve this by means of an integrative review of the relevant SLR guidelines, as outlined in the following section.

3 Methodology: an integrative literature review of guidelines for systematic literature reviews in management

It might seem intuitive to contribute to the debate on the “gold standard” of systematic literature reviews (Davis et al. 2014 ) by conducting a systematic review ourselves. However, there are different types of reviews aiming for distinctive contributions. Snyder ( 2019 ) distinguished between a) systematic, b) semi-systematic, and c) integrative (or critical) reviews, which aim for i) (mostly quantitative) synthesis and comparison of prior (primary) evidence, ii) an overview of the development of a field over time, and iii) a critique and synthesis of prior perspectives to reconceptualize or advance them. Each review team needs to position itself in such a typology of reviews to define the aims and scope of the review. To do so and structure the related research process, we adopted the four generic steps for an (integrative) literature review by Snyder ( 2019 )—(1) design, (2) conduct, (3) analysis, and (4) structuring and writing the review—on which we report in the remainder of this section. Since the last step is a very practical one that, for example, asks, “Is the contribution of the review clearly communicated?” (Snyder 2019 ), we will focus on the presentation of the method applied to the initial three steps:

(1) Regarding the design, we see the need for this study emerging from our experience in reviewing SLR manuscripts, supervising PhD students who, almost by default, need to prepare an SLR, and recurring discussions on certain decisions in the process of both. These discussions regularly left some blank or blurry spaces (see Table 1 ) that induced substantial uncertainty regarding critical decisions in the SLR process (Paul et al. 2021 ). To address this gap, we aim to synthesize prior guidance and critically enrich it, thus adopting an integrative approach for reviewing existing SLR guidance in the management domain (Snyder 2019 ).

(2) To conduct the review, we started collecting the literature that provided guidance on the individual SLR parts. We built on a sample of 13 regularly cited or very recent papers in the management domain. We started with core articles that we successfully used to publish SLRs in top-tier OSCM journals, such as Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) and Durach et al. ( 2017 ), and we checked their references and papers that cited these publications. The search focus was defined by the following criteria: the articles needed to a) provide original methodological guidance for SLRs by providing new aspects of the guideline or synthesizing existing ones into more valid guidelines and b) focus on the management domain. Building on the nature of a critical or integrative review that does not require a full or representative sample (Snyder 2019 ), we limited the sample to the papers displayed in Table 2 that built the core of the currently applied SLR guidelines. In effect, we found 11 technical papers and two SLRs of SLRs (Carter and Washispack 2018 ; Seuring and Gold 2012 ). From the latter, we mainly analyzed the discussion and conclusion parts that explicitly developed guidance on conducting SLRs.

(3) For analyzing these papers, we first adopted the six-step SLR process proposed by Durach et al. ( 2017 , p.70), which they define as applicable to any “field, discipline or philosophical perspective”. The contrast between the six-step SLR process used for the analysis and the four-step process applied by ourselves may seem surprising but is justified by the use of an integrative approach. This approach differs mainly in retrieving and selecting pertinent literature that is key to SLRs and thus needs to be part of the analysis framework.

While deductively coding the sample papers against Durach et al.’s ( 2017 ), guidance in the six steps, we inductively built a set of 14 decisions presented in the right columns of Table 2 that are required to be made in any SLR. These decisions built a second and more detailed level of analysis, for which the single guidelines were coded as giving low, medium, or high levels of detail (see Table 3 ), which helped us identify the gaps in the current guidance papers and led our way in presenting, critically discussing, and enriching the literature. In effect, we see that almost all guidelines touch on the same issues and try to give a comprehensive overview. However, this results in multiple guidelines that all lack the space to go into detail, while only a few guidelines focus on filling a gap in the process. It is our ambition with this analysis to identify the gaps in the guidelines, thereby identifying a precise need for refinement, and to offer a first step into this refinement. Adopting advice from the literature sample, the coding was conducted by the entire author team (Snyder 2019 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ) including discursive alignments of interpretation (Seuring and Gold 2012 ). This enabled a certain reliability and validity of the analysis by reducing the within-study and expectancy bias (Durach et al. 2017 ), while the replicability was supported by reporting the review sample and the coding results in Table 3 (Carter and Washispack 2018 ).

(4) For the writing of the review, we only pointed to the unusual structure of presenting the method without a theory section and then the findings in the following section. However, this was motivated by the nature of the integrative review so that the review findings at the same time represent the “state of the art,” “literature review,” or “conceptualization” sections of a paper.

4 Findings of the integrative review: presentation, critical discussion, and enrichment of prior guidance

4.1 the overall research process for a systematic literature review.

Even within our sample of only 13 guidelines, there are four distinct suggestions for structuring the SLR process. One of the earliest SLR process models was proposed by Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) encompassing the three stages of (1) planning the review, (2) conducting a review, and (3) reporting and dissemination. Snyder ( 2019 ) proposed four steps employed in this study: (1) design, (2) conduct, (3) analysis, and (4) structuring and writing the review. Borrowing from content analysis guidelines, Seuring and Gold ( 2012 ) defined four steps: (1) material collection, (2) descriptive analysis, (3) category selection, and (4) material evaluation. Most recently Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) proposed four steps: (1) planning the review, (2) identifying and evaluating studies, (3) extracting and synthesizing data, and (4) disseminating the review findings. Most comprehensively, Durach et al. ( 2017 ) condensed prior process models into their generic six steps for an SLR. Adding the review of the process models by Snyder ( 2019 ) and Seuring and Gold ( 2012 ) to Durach et al.’s ( 2017 ) SLR process review of four papers, we support their conclusion of the general applicability of the six steps defined. Consequently, these six steps form the backbone of our coding scheme, as shown in the left column of Table 2 and described in the middle column.

As stated in Sect.  3 , we synthesized the review papers against these six steps but experienced that the papers were taking substantially different foci by providing rich details for some steps while largely bypassing others. To capture this heterogeneity and better operationalize the SLR process, we inductively introduced the right column, identifying 14 decisions to be made. These decisions are all elaborated in the reviewed papers but to substantially different extents, as the detailed coding results in Table 3 underline.

Mapping Table 3 for potential gaps in the existing guidelines, we found six decisions on which we found only low- to medium-level details, while high-detail elaboration was missing. These six decisions, which are illustrated in Fig.  1 , belong to three steps: 1: defining the research question, 5: synthesizing the literature, and 6: reporting the results. This result underscores our critique of currently unbalanced guidance that is, on the one hand, detailed on determining the required characteristics of primary studies (step 2), retrieving a sample of potentially relevant literature (step 3), and selecting the pertinent literature (step 4). On the other hand, authors, especially PhD students, are left without substantial guidance on the steps critical to publication. Instead, they are called “to go one step further … and derive meaningful conclusions” (Fisch and Block 2018 , p. 105) without further operationalizations on how this can be achieved; for example, how “meet the editor” conference sessions regularly cause frustration among PhDs when editors call for “new,” “bold,” and “relevant” research. Filling the gaps in the six decisions with best practice examples and practical experience is the main focus of this study’s contribution. The other eight decisions are synthesized with references to the guidelines that are most helpful and relevant for the respective step in our eyes.

The 6 steps and 14 decisions of the SLR process

4.2 Step 1: defining the research question

When initiating a research project, researchers make three key decisions.

Decision 1 considers the essential tasks of establishing a relevant and timely research question, but despite the importance of the decision, which determines large parts of further decisions (Snyder 2019 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ), we only find scattered guidance in the literature. Hence, how can a research topic be specified to allow a strong literature review that is neither too narrow nor too broad? The latter is the danger in meta-reviews (i.e., reviews of reviews) (Aguinis et al. 2020 ; Carter and Washispack 2018 ; Kache and Seuring 2014 ). In this respect, even though the method would be robust, the findings would not be novel. In line with Carter and Washispack ( 2018 ), there should always be room for new reviews, yet over time, they must move from a descriptive overview of a field further into depth and provide detailed analyses of constructs. Clark et al. ( 2021 ) provided a detailed but very specific reflection on how they crafted a research question for an SLR and that revisiting the research question multiple times throughout the SLR process helps to coherently and efficiently move forward with the research. More generically, Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) listed six key contributions of an SLR that can guide the definition of the research question. Finally, Snyder ( 2019 ) suggested moving into more detail from existing SLRs and specified two main avenues for crafting an SLR research question that are either investigating the relationship among multiple effects, the effect of (a) specific variable(s), or mapping the evidence regarding a certain research area. For the latter, we see three possible alternative approaches, starting with a focus on certain industries. Examples are analyses of the food industry (Beske et al. 2014 ), retailing (Wiese et al. 2012 ), mining and minerals (Sauer and Seuring 2017 ), or perishable product supply chains (Lusiantoro et al. 2018 ) and traceability at the example of the apparel industry (Garcia-Torres et al. 2019 ). A second opportunity would be to assess the status of research in a geographical area that composes an interesting context from a research perspective, such as sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in Latin America (Fritz and Silva 2018 ), yet this has to be justified explicitly, avoiding the fact that geographical focus is taken as the reason per se (e.g., Crane et al. 2016 ). A third variant addresses emerging issues, such as SCM, in a base-of-the-pyramid setting (Khalid and Seuring 2019 ) and the use of blockchain technology (Wang et al. 2019 ) or digital transformation (Hanelt et al. 2021 ). These approaches limit the reviewed field to enable a more contextualized analysis in which the novelty, continued relevance, or unjustified underrepresentation of the context can be used to specify a research gap and related research question(s). This also impacts the following decisions, as shown below.

Decision 2 concerns the option for a theoretical approach (i.e., the adoption of an inductive, abductive, or deductive approach) to theory building through the literature review. The review of previous guidance on this delivers an interesting observation. On the one hand, there are early elaborations on systematic reviews, realist synthesis, meta-synthesis, and meta-analysis by Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) that are borrowing from the origins of systematic reviews in medical research. On the other hand, recent management-related guidelines largely neglect details of related decisions, but point out that SLRs are a suitable tool for theory building (Kraus et al. 2020 ). Seuring et al. ( 2021 ) set out to fill this gap and provided substantial guidance on how to use theory in SLRs to advance the field. To date, the option for a theoretical approach is only rarely made explicit, leaving the reader often puzzled about how advancement in theory has been crafted and impeding a review’s replicability (Seuring et al. 2021 ). Many papers still leave related choices in the dark (e.g., Rhaiem and Amara 2021 ; Rojas-Córdova et al. 2022 ) and move directly from the introduction to the method section.

In Decision 3, researchers need to adopt a theoretical framework (Durach et al. 2017 ) or at least a theoretical starting point, depending on the most appropriate theoretical approach (Seuring et al. 2021 ). Here, we find substantial guidance by Durach et al. ( 2017 ) that underlines the value of adopting a theoretical lens to investigate SCM phenomena and the literature. Moreover, the choice of a theoretical anchor enables a consistent definition and operationalization of constructs that are used to analyze the reviewed literature (Durach et al. 2017 ; Seuring et al. 2021 ). Hence, providing some upfront definitions is beneficial, clarifying what key terminology would be used in the subsequent paper, such as Devece et al. ( 2019 ) introduce their terminology on coopetition. Adding a practical hint beyond the elaborations of prior guidance papers for taking up established constructs in a deductive analysis (decision 2), there would be the question of whether these can yield interesting findings.

Here, it would be relevant to specify what kind of analysis is aimed for the SLR, where three approaches might be distinguished (i.e., bibliometric analysis, meta-analysis, and content analysis–based studies). Briefly distinguishing them, the core difference would be how many papers can be analyzed employing the respective method. Bibliometric analysis (Donthu et al. 2021 ) usually relies on the use of software, such as Biblioshiny, allowing the creation of figures on citations and co-citations. These figures enable the interpretation of large datasets in which several hundred papers can be analyzed in an automated manner. This allows for distinguishing among different research clusters, thereby following a more inductive approach. This would be contrasted by meta-analysis (e.g., Leuschner et al. 2013 ), where often a comparatively smaller number of papers is analyzed (86 in the respective case) but with a high number of observations (more than 17,000). The aim is to test for statistically significant correlations among single constructs, which requires that the related constructs and items be precisely defined (i.e., a clearly deductive approach to the analysis).

Content analysis is the third instrument frequently applied to data analysis, where an inductive or deductive approach might be taken (Seuring et al. 2021 ). Content-based analysis (see decision 9 in Sect.  4.6 ; Seuring and Gold 2012 ) is a labor-intensive step and can hardly be changed ex post. This also implies that only a certain number of papers might be analyzed (see Decision 6 in Sect.  4.5 ). It is advisable to adopt a wider set of constructs for the analysis stemming even from multiple established frameworks since it is difficult to predict which constructs and items might yield interesting insights. Hence, coding a more comprehensive set of items and dropping some in the process is less problematic than starting an analysis all over again for additional constructs and items. However, in the process of content analysis, such an iterative process might be required to improve the meaningfulness of the data and findings (Seuring and Gold 2012 ). A recent example of such an approach can be found in Khalid and Seuring ( 2019 ), building on the conceptual frameworks for SSCM of Carter and Rogers ( 2008 ), Seuring and Müller ( 2008 ), and Pagell and Wu ( 2009 ). This allows for an in-depth analysis of how SSCM constructs are inherently referred to in base-of-the-pyramid-related research. The core criticism and limitation of such an approach is the random and subjectively biased selection of frameworks for the purpose of analysis.

Beyond the aforementioned SLR methods, some reviews, similar to the one used here, apply a critical review approach. This is, however, nonsystematic, and not an SLR; thus, it is beyond the scope of this paper. Interested readers can nevertheless find some guidance on critical reviews in the available literature (e.g., Kraus et al. 2022 ; Snyder 2019 ).

4.3 Step 2: determining the required characteristics of primary studies

After setting the stage for the review, it is essential to determine which literature is to be reviewed in Decision 4. This topic is discussed by almost all existing guidelines and will thus only briefly be discussed here. Durach et al. ( 2017 ) elaborated in great detail on defining strict inclusion and exclusion criteria that need to be aligned with the chosen theoretical framework. The relevant units of analysis need to be specified (often a single paper, but other approaches might be possible) along with suitable research methods, particularly if exclusively empirical studies are reviewed or if other methods are applied. Beyond that, they elaborated on potential quality criteria that should be applied. The same is considered by a number of guidelines that especially draw on medical research, in which systematic reviews aim to pool prior studies to infer findings from their total population. Here, it is essential to ensure the exclusion of poor-quality evidence that would lower the quality of the review findings (Mulrow 1987 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ). This could be ensured by, for example, only taking papers from journals listed on the Web of Science or Scopus or journals listed in quartile 1 of Scimago ( https://www.scimagojr.com/ ), a database providing citation and reference data for journals.

The selection of relevant publication years should again follow the purpose of the study defined in Step 1. As such, there might be a justified interest in the wide coverage of publication years if a historical perspective is taken. Alternatively, more contemporary developments or the analysis of very recent issues can justify the selection of very few years of publication (e.g., Kraus et al. 2022 ). Again, it is hard to specify a certain time period covered, but if developments of a field should be analyzed, a five-year period might be a typical lower threshold. On current topics, there is often a trend of rising publishing numbers. This scenario implies the rising relevance of a topic; however, this should be treated with caution. The total number of papers published per annum has increased substantially in recent years, which might account for the recently heightened number of papers on a certain topic.

4.4 Step 3: retrieving a sample of potentially relevant literature

After defining the required characteristics of the literature to be reviewed, the literature needs to be retrieved based on two decisions. Decision 5 concerns suitable literature sources and databases that need to be defined. Turning to Web of Science or Scopus would be two typical options found in many of the examples mentioned already (see also detailed guidance by Paul and Criado ( 2020 ) as well as Paul et al. ( 2021 )). These databases aggregate many management journals, and a typical argument for turning to the Web of Science database is the inclusion of impact factors, as they indicate a certain minimum quality of the journal (Sauer and Seuring 2017 ). Additionally, Google Scholar is increasingly mentioned as a usable search engine, often providing higher numbers of search results than the mentioned databases (e.g., Pearce 2018 ). These results often entail duplicates of articles from multiple sources or versions of the same article, as well as articles in predatory journals (Paul et al. 2021 ). Therefore, we concur with Paul et al. ( 2021 ) who underline the quality assurance mechanisms in Web of Science and Scopus, making them preferred databases for the literature search. From a practical perspective, it needs to be mentioned that SLRs in management mainly rely on databases that are not free to use. Against this limitation, Pearce ( 2018 ) provided a list of 20 search engines that are free of charge and elaborated on their advantages and disadvantages. Due to the individual limitations of the databases, it is advisable to use a combination of them (Kraus et al. 2020 , 2022 ) and build a consolidated sample by screening the papers found for duplicates, as regularly done in SLRs.

This decision also includes the choice of the types of literature to be analyzed. Typically, journal papers are selected, ensuring that the collected papers are peer-reviewed and have thus undergone an academic quality management process. Meanwhile, conference papers are usually avoided since they are often less mature and not checked for quality (e.g., Seuring et al. 2021 ). Nevertheless, for emerging topics, it might be too restrictive to consider only peer-reviewed journal articles and limit the literature to only a few references. Analyzing such rapidly emerging topics is relevant for timely and impact-oriented research and might justify the selection of different sources. Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) provided a discussion on the use of gray literature (i.e., nonacademic sources), and Sauer ( 2021 ) provided an example of a review of sustainability standards from a management perspective to derive implications for their application by managers on the one hand and for enhancing their applicability on the other hand.

Another popular way to limit the review sample is the restriction to a certain list of journals (Kraus et al. 2020 ; Snyder 2019 ). While this is sometimes favored by highly ranked journals, Carter and Washispack ( 2018 ), for example, found that many pertinent papers are not necessarily published in journals within the field. Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) quite tellingly cited a reviewer labeling the selection of top journals as an unjustified excuse for investigating the full body of relevant literature. Both aforementioned guidelines thus discourage the restriction to particular journals, a guidance that we fully support.

However, there is an argument to be made supporting the exclusion of certain lower-ranked journals. This can be done, for example, by using Scimago Journal quartiles ( www.scimagojr.com , last accessed 13. of April 2023) and restricting it to journals in the first quartile (e.g., Yavaprabhas et al. 2022 ). Other papers (e.g., Kraus et al. 2021 ; Rojas-Córdova et al. 2022 ) use certain journal quality lists to limit their sample. However, we argue for a careful check by the authors against the topic reviewed regarding what would be included and excluded.

Decision 6 entails the definition of search terms and a search string to be applied in the database just chosen. The search terms should reflect the aims of the review and the exclusion criteria that might be derived from the unit of analysis and the theoretical framework (Durach et al. 2017 ; Snyder 2019 ). Overall, two approaches to keywords can be observed. First, some guides suggest using synonyms of the key terms of interest (e.g., Durach et al. 2017 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ) in order to build a wide baseline sample that will be condensed in the next step. This is, of course, especially helpful if multiple terms delimitate a field together or different synonymous terms are used in parallel in different fields or journals. Empirical journals in supply chain management, for example, use the term “multiple supplier tiers ” (e.g., Tachizawa and Wong 2014 ), while modeling journals in the same field label this as “multiple supplier echelons ” (e.g., Brandenburg and Rebs 2015 ). Second, in some cases, single keywords are appropriate for capturing a central aspect or construct of a field if the single keyword has a global meaning tying this field together. This approach is especially relevant to the study of relatively broad terms, such as “social media” (Lim and Rasul 2022 ). However, this might result in very high numbers of publications found and therefore requires a purposeful combination with other search criteria, such as specific journals (Kraus et al. 2021 ; Lim et al. 2021 ), publication dates, article types, research methods, or the combination with keywords covering domains to which the search is aimed to be specified.

Since SLRs are often required to move into detail or review the intersections of relevant fields, we recommend building groups of keywords (single terms or multiple synonyms) for each field to be connected that are coupled via Boolean operators. To determine when a point of saturation for a keyword group is reached, one could monitor the increase in papers found in a database when adding another synonym. Once the increase is significantly decreasing or even zeroing, saturation is reached (Sauer and Seuring 2017 ). The keywords themselves can be derived from the list of keywords of influential publications in the field, while attention should be paid to potential synonyms in neighboring fields (Carter and Washispack 2018 ; Durach et al. 2017 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ).

4.5 Step 4: selecting the pertinent literature

The inclusion and exclusion criteria (Decision 6) are typically applied in Decision 7 in a two-stage process, first on the title, abstract, and keywords of an article before secondly applying them to the full text of the remaining articles (see also Kraus et al. 2020 ; Snyder 2019 ). Beyond this, Durach et al. ( 2017 ) underlined that the pertinence of the publication regarding units of analysis and the theoretical framework needs to be critically evaluated in this step to avoid bias in the review analysis. Moreover, Carter and Washispack ( 2018 ) requested the publication of the included and excluded sources to ensure the replicability of Steps 3 and 4. This can easily be done as an online supplement to an eventually published review article.

Nevertheless, the question remains: How many papers justify a literature review? While it is hard to specify how many papers comprise a body of literature, there might be certain thresholds for which Kraus et al. ( 2020 ) provide a useful discussion. As a rough guide, more than 50 papers would usually make a sound starting point (see also Paul and Criado 2020 ), while there are SLRs on emergent topics, such as multitier supply chain management, where 39 studies were included (Tachizawa and Wong 2014 ). An SLR on “learning from innovation failures” builds on 36 papers (Rhaiem and Amara 2021 ), which we would see as the lower threshold. However, such a low number should be an exception, and anything lower would certainly trigger the following question: Why is a review needed? Meanwhile, there are also limits on how many papers should be reviewed. While there are cases with 191 (Seuring and Müller 2008 ), 235 (Rojas-Córdova et al. 2022 ), or up to nearly 400 papers reviewed (Spens and Kovács 2006 ), these can be regarded as upper thresholds. Over time, similar topics seem to address larger datasets.

4.6 Step 5: synthesizing the literature

Before synthesizing the literature, Decision 8 considers the selection of a data extraction tool for which we found surprisingly little guidance. Some guidance is given on the use of cloud storage to enable remote team work (Clark et al. 2021 ). Beyond this, we found that SLRs have often been compiled with marked and commented PDFs or printed papers that were accompanied by tables (Kraus et al. 2020 ) or Excel sheets (see also the process tips by Clark et al. 2021 ). This sheet tabulated the single codes derived from the theoretical framework (Decision 3) and the single papers to be reviewed (Decision 7) by crossing out individual cells, signaling the representation of a particular code in a particular paper. While the frequency distribution of the codes is easily compiled from this data tool, the related content needs to be looked at in the papers in a tedious back-and-forth process. Beyond that, we would strongly recommend using data analysis software, such as MAXQDA or NVivo. Such programs enable the import of literature in PDF format and the automatic or manual coding of text passages, their comparison, and tabulation. Moreover, there is a permanent and editable reference of the coded text to a code. This enables a very quick compilation of content summaries or statistics for single codes and the identification of qualitative and quantitative links between codes and papers.

All the mentioned data extraction or data processing tools require a license and therefore are not free of cost. While many researchers may benefit from national or institutional subscriptions to these services, others may not. As a potential alternative, Pearce ( 2018 ) proposed a set of free open-source software (FOSS), including an elaboration on how they can be combined to perform an SLR. He also highlighted that both free and proprietary solutions have advantages and disadvantages that are worthwhile for those who do not have the required tools provided by their employers or other institutions they are members of. The same may apply to the literature databases used for the literature acquisition in Decision 5 (Pearce 2018 ).

Moreover, there is a link to Step 1, Decision 3, where bibliometric reviews and meta-analyses were mentioned. These methods, which are alternatives to content analysis–based approaches, have specific demands, so specific tools would be appropriate, such as the Biblioshiny software or VOSviewer. As we will point out for all decisions, there is a high degree of interdependence among the steps and decisions made.

Decision 9 looks at conducting the data analysis, such as coding against (pre-defined) constructs, in SLRs that rely, in most cases, on content analysis. Seuring and Gold ( 2012 ) elaborated in detail on its characteristics and application in SLRs. As this paper also explains the process of qualitative content analysis in detail, repetition is avoided here, but a summary is offered. Since different ways exist to conduct a content analysis, it is even more important to explain and justify, for example, the choice of an inductive or deductive approach (see Decision 2). In several cases, analytic variables are applied on the go, so there is no theory-based introduction of related constructs. However, to ensure the validity and replicability of the review (see Decision 11), it is necessary to explicitly define all the variables and codes used to analyze and synthesize the reviewed material (Durach et al. 2017 ; Seuring and Gold 2012 ). To build a valid framework as the SLR outcome, it is vital to ensure that the constructs used for the data analysis are sufficiently defined, mutually exclusive, and comprehensively exhaustive. For meta-analysis, the predefined constructs and items would demand quantitative coding so that the resulting data could be analyzed using statistical software tools such as SPSS or R (e.g., Xiao and Watson 2019 ). Pointing to bibliometric analysis again, the respective software would be used for data analysis, yielding different figures and paper clusters, which would then require interpretation (e.g., Donthu et al. 2021 ; Xiao and Watson 2019 ).

Decision 10, on conducting subsequent statistical analysis, considers follow-up analysis of the coding results. Again, this is linked to the chosen SLR method, and a bibliographic analysis will require a different statistical analysis than a content analysis–based SLR (e.g., Lim et al. 2022 ; Xiao and Watson 2019 ). Beyond the use of content analysis and the qualitative interpretation of its results, applying contingency analysis offers the opportunity to quantitatively assess the links among constructs and items. It provides insights into which items are correlated with each other without implying causality. Thus, the interpretation of the findings must explain the causality behind the correlations between the constructs and the items. This must be based on sound reasoning and linking the findings to theoretical arguments. For SLRs, there have recently been two kinds of applications of contingency analysis, differentiated by unit of analysis. De Lima et al. ( 2021 ) used the entire paper as the unit of analysis, deriving correlations on two constructs that were used together in one paper. This is, of course, subject to critique as to whether the constructs really represent correlated content. Moving a level deeper, Tröster and Hiete ( 2018 ) used single-text passages on one aspect, argument, or thought as the unit of analysis. Such an approach is immune against the critique raised before and can yield more valid statistical support for thematic analysis. Another recent methodological contribution employing the same contingency analysis–based approach was made by Siems et al. ( 2021 ). Their analysis employs constructs from SSCM and dynamic capabilities. Employing four subsets of data (i.e., two time periods each in the food and automotive industries), they showed that the method allows distinguishing among time frames as well as among industries.

However, the unit of analysis must be precisely explained so that the reader can comprehend it. Both examples use contingency analysis to identify under-researched topics and develop them into research directions whose formulation represents the particular aim of an SLR (Paul and Criado 2020 ; Snyder 2019 ). Other statistical tools might also be applied, such as cluster analysis. Interestingly, Brandenburg and Rebs ( 2015 ) applied both contingency and cluster analyses. However, the authors stated that the contingency analysis did not yield usable results, so they opted for cluster analysis. In effect, Brandenburg and Rebs ( 2015 ) added analytical depth to their analysis of model types in SSCM by clustering them against the main analytical categories of content analysis. In any case, the application of statistical tools needs to fit the study purpose (Decision 1) and the literature sample (Decision 7), just as in their more conventional applications (e.g., in empirical research processes).

Decision 11 regards the additional consideration of validity and reliability criteria and emphasizes the need for explaining and justifying the single steps of the research process (Seuring and Gold 2012 ), much in line with other examples of research (Davis and Crombie 2001 ). This is critical to underlining the quality of the review but is often neglected in many submitted manuscripts. In our review, we find rich guidance on this decision, to which we want to guide readers (see Table 3 ). In particular, Durach et al. ( 2017 ) provide an entire section of biases and what needs to be considered and reported on them. Moreover, Snyder ( 2019 ) regularly reflects on these issues in her elaborations. This rich guidance elaborates on how to ensure the quality of the individual steps of the review process, such as sampling, study inclusion and exclusion, coding, synthesizing, and more practical issues, including team composition and teamwork organization, which are discussed in some guidelines (e.g., Clark et al. 2021 ; Kraus et al. 2020 ). We only want to underline that the potential biases are, of course, to be seen in conjunction with Decisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. These decisions and the elaboration by Durach et al. ( 2017 ) should provide ample points of reflection that, however, many SLR manuscripts fail to address.

4.7 Step 6: reporting the results

In the final step, there are three decisions on which there is surprisingly little guidance, although reviews often fail in this critical part of the process (Kraus et al. 2020 ). The reviewed guidelines discuss the presentation almost exclusively, while almost no guidance is given on the overall paper structure or the key content to be reported.

Consequently, the first choice to be made in Decision 12 is regarding the paper structure. We suggest following the five-step logic of typical research papers (see also Fisch and Block 2018 ) and explaining only a few points in which a difference from other papers is seen.

(1) Introduction: While the introduction would follow a conventional logic of problem statement, research question, contribution, and outline of the paper (see also Webster and Watson 2002 ), the next parts might depend on the theoretical choices made in Decision 2.

(2) Literature review section: If deductive logic is taken, the paper usually has a conventional flow. After the introduction, the literature review section covers the theoretical background and the choice of constructs and variables for the analysis (De Lima et al. 2021 ; Dieste et al. 2022 ). To avoid confusion in this section with the literature review, its labeling can also be closer to the reviewed object.

If an inductive approach is applied, it might be challenging to present the theoretical basis up front, as the codes emerge only from analyzing the material. In this case, the theory section might be rather short, concentrating on defining the core concepts or terms used, for example, in the keyword-based search for papers. The latter approach is exemplified by the study at hand, which presents a short review of the available literature in the introduction and the first part of the findings. However, we do not perform a systematic but integrative review, which allows for more freedom and creativity (Snyder 2019 ).

(3) Method section: This section should cover the steps and follow the logic presented in this paper or any of the reviewed guidelines so that the choices made during the research process are transparently disclosed (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Paul et al. 2021 ; Xiao and Watson 2019 ). In particular, the search for papers and their selection requires a sound explanation of each step taken, including the provision of reasons for the delimitation of the final paper sample. A stage that is often not covered in sufficient detail is data analysis (Seuring and Gold 2012 ). This also needs to be outlined so that the reader can comprehend how sense has been made of the material collected. Overall, the demands for SLR papers are similar to case studies, survey papers, or almost any piece of empirical research; thus, each step of the research process needs to be comprehensively described, including Decisions 4–10. This comprehensiveness must also include addressing measures for validity and reliability (see Decision 11) or other suitable measures of rigor in the research process since they are a critical issue in literature reviews (Durach et al. 2017 ). In particular, inductively conducted reviews are prone to subjective influences and thus require sound reporting of design choices and their justification.

(4) Findings: The findings typically start with a descriptive analysis of the literature covered, such as journals, distribution across years, or (empirical) methods applied (Tranfield et al. 2003 ). For modeling-related reviews, classifying papers against the approach chosen is a standard approach, but this can often also serve as an analytic category that provides detailed insights. The descriptive analysis should be kept short since a paper only presenting descriptive findings will not be of great interest to other researchers due to the missing contribution (Snyder 2019 ). Nevertheless, there are opportunities to provide interesting findings in the descriptive analysis. Beyond a mere description of the distributions of the single results, such as the distribution of methods used in the sample, authors should combine analytical categories to derive more detailed insights (see also Tranfield et al. 2003 ). The distribution of methods used might well be combined with the years of publication to identify and characterize different phases in the development of a field of research or its maturity. Moreover, there could be value in the analysis of theories applied in the review sample (e.g., Touboulic and Walker 2015 ; Zhu et al. 2022 ) and in reflecting on the interplay of different qualitative and quantitative methods in spurring the theoretical development of the reviewed field. This could yield detailed insights into methodological as well as theoretical gaps, and we would suggest explicitly linking the findings of such analyses to the research directions that an SLR typically provides. This link could help make the research directions much more tangible by giving researchers a clear indication of how to follow up on the findings, as, for example, done by Maestrini et al. ( 2017 ) or Dieste et al. ( 2022 ). In contrast to the mentioned examples of an actionable research agenda, a typical weakness of premature SLR manuscripts is that they ask rather superficially for more research in the different aspects they reviewed but remain silent about how exactly this can be achieved.

We would thus like to encourage future SLR authors to systematically investigate the potential to combine two categories of descriptive analysis to move this section of the findings to a higher level of quality, interest, and relevance. The same can, of course, be done with the thematic findings, which comprise the second part of this section.

Moving into the thematic analysis, we have already reached Decision 13 on the presentation of the refined theoretical framework and the discussion of its contents. A first step might present the frequencies of the codes or constructs applied in the analysis. This allows the reader to understand which topics are relevant. If a rather small body of literature is analyzed, tables providing evidence on which paper has been coded for which construct might be helpful in improving the transparency of the research process. Tables or other forms of visualization might help to organize the many codes soundly (see also Durach et al. 2017 ; Paul and Criado 2020 ; Webster and Watson 2002 ). These findings might then lead to interpretation, for which it is necessary to extract meaning from the body of literature and present it accordingly (Snyder 2019 ). To do so, it might seem needless to say that the researchers should refer back to Decisions 1, 2, and 3 taken in Step 1 and their justifications. These typically identify the research gap to be filled, but after the lengthy process of the SLR, the authors often fail to step back from the coding results and put them into a larger perspective against the research gap defined in Decision 1 (see also Clark et al. 2021 ). To support this, it is certainly helpful to illustrate the findings in a figure or graph presenting the links among the constructs and items and adding causal reasoning to this (Durach et al. 2017 ; Paul and Criado 2020 ), such as the three figures by Seuring and Müller ( 2008 ) or other examples by De Lima et al. ( 2021 ) or Tipu ( 2022 ). This presentation should condense arguments made in the assessed literature but should also chart the course for future research. It will be these parts of the paper that are decisive for a strong SLR paper.

Moreover, some guidelines define the most fruitful way of synthesizing the findings as concept-centric synthesis (Clark et al. 2021 ; Fisch and Block 2018 ; Webster and Watson 2002 ). As presented in the previous sentence, the presentation of the review findings is centered on the content or concept of “concept-centric synthesis.” It is accompanied by a reference to all or the most relevant literature in which the concept is evident. Contrastingly, Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) found that author-centric synthesis discusses individual papers and what they have done and found (just like this sentence here). They added that this approach fails to synthesize larger samples. We want to note that we used the latter approach in some places in this paper. However, this aims to actively refer the reader to these studies, as they stand out from our relatively small sample. Beyond this, we want to link back to Decision 3, the selection of a theoretical framework and constructs. These constructs, or the parts of a framework, can also serve to structure the findings section by using them as headlines for subsections (Seuring et al. 2021 ).

Last but not least, there might even be cases where core findings and relationships might be opposed, and alternative perspectives could be presented. This would certainly be challenging to argue for but worthwhile to do in order to drive the reviewed field forward. A related example is the paper by Zhu et al. ( 2022 ), who challenged the current debate at the intersection of blockchain applications and supply chain management and pointed to the limited use of theoretical foundations for related analysis.

(5) Discussion and Conclusion: The discussion needs to explain the contribution the paper makes to the extant literature, that is, which previous findings or hypotheses are supported or contradicted and which aspects of the findings are particularly interesting for the future development of the reviewed field. This is in line with the content required in the discussion sections of any other paper type. A typical structure might point to the contribution and put it into perspective with already existing research. Further, limitations should be addressed on both the theoretical and methodological sides. This elaboration of the limitations can be coupled with the considerations of the validity and reliability of the study in Decision 11. The implications for future research are a core aim of an SLR (Clark et al. 2021 ; Mulrow 1987 ; Snyder 2019 ) and should be addressed in a further part of the discussion section. Recently, a growing number of literature reviews have also provided research questions for future research that provide a very concrete and actionable output of the SLR (e.g. Dieste et al. 2022 ; Maestrini et al. 2017 ). Moreover, we would like to reiterate our call to clearly link the research implications to the SLR findings, which helps the authors craft more tangible research directions and helps the reader to follow the authors’ interpretation. Literature review papers are usually not strongly positioned toward managerial implications, but even these implications might be included.

As a kind of normal demand, the conclusion should provide an answer to the research question put forward in the introduction, thereby closing the cycle of arguments made in the paper.

Although all the works seem to be done when the paper is written and the contribution is fleshed out, there is still one major decision to be made. Decision 14 concerns the identification of an appropriate journal for submission. Despite the popularity of the SLR method, a rising number of journals explicitly limit the number of SLRs published by them. Moreover, there are only two guidelines elaborating on this decision, underlining the need for the following considerations.

Although it might seem most attractive to submit the paper to the highest-ranking journal for the reviewed topic, we argue for two critical and review-related decisions to be made during the research process that influence whether the paper fits a certain outlet:

The theoretical foundation of the SLR (Decision 3) usually relates to certain journals in which it is published or discussed. If a deductive approach was taken, the journals in which the foundational papers were published might be suitable since the review potentially contributes to the further validation or refinement of the frameworks. Overall, we need to keep in mind that a paper needs to be added to a discussion in the journal, and this can be based on the theoretical framework or the reviewed papers, as shown below.

Appropriate journals for publication can be derived from the analyzed journal papers (Decision 7) (see also Paul and Criado 2020 ). This allows for an easy link to the theoretical debate in the respective journal by submitting it. This choice is identifiable in most of the papers mentioned in this paper and is often illustrated in the descriptive analysis.

If the journal chosen for the submission was neither related to the theoretical foundation nor overly represented in the body of literature analyzed, an explicit justification in the paper itself might be needed. Alternatively, an explanation might be provided in the letter to the editor when submitting the paper. If such a statement is not presented, the likelihood of it being transferred into the review process and passing it is rather low. Finally, we want to refer readers interested in the specificities of the publication-related review process of SLRs to Webster and Watson ( 2002 ), who elaborated on this for Management Information Systems Quarterly.

5 Discussion and conclusion

Critically reviewing the currently available SLR guidelines in the management domain, this paper synthesizes 14 key decisions to be made and reported across the SLR research process. Guidelines are presented for each decision, including tasks that assist in making sound choices to complete the research process and make meaningful contributions. Applying these guidelines should improve the rigor and robustness of many review papers and thus enhance their contributions. Moreover, some practical hints and best-practice examples are provided on issues that unexperienced authors regularly struggle to present in a manuscript (Fisch and Block 2018 ) and thus frustrate reviewers, readers, editors, and authors alike.

Strikingly, the review of prior guidelines reported in Table 3 revealed their focus on the technical details that need to be reported in any SLR. Consequently, our discipline has come a long way in crafting search strings, inclusion, and exclusion criteria, and elaborating on the validity and reliability of an SLR. Nevertheless, we left critical areas underdeveloped, such as the identification of relevant research gaps and questions, data extraction tools, analysis of the findings, and a meaningful and interesting reporting of the results. Our study contributes to filling these gaps by providing operationalized guidance to SLR authors, especially early-stage researchers who craft SLRs at the outset of their research journeys. At the same time, we need to underline that our paper is, of course, not the only useful reference for SLR authors. Instead, the readers are invited to find more guidance on the many aspects to consider in an SLR in the references we provide within the single decisions, as well as in Tables 1 and 2 . The tables also identify the strongholds of other guidelines that our paper does not want to replace but connect and extend at selected occasions, especially in SLR Steps 5 and 6.

The findings regularly underline the interconnection of the 14 decisions identified and discussed in this paper. We thus support Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ) who requested a flexible approach to the SLR while clearly reporting all design decisions and reflecting their impacts. In line with the guidance synthesized in this review, and especially Durach et al. ( 2017 ), we also present a refined framework in Figs.  1 and 2 . It specifically refines the original six-step SLR process by Durach et al. ( 2017 ) in three ways:

Enriched six-step process including the core interrelations of the 14 decisions

First, we subdivided the six steps into 14 decisions to enhance the operationalization of the process and enable closer guidance (see Fig.  1 ). Second, we added a temporal sequence to Fig.  2 by positioning the decisions from left to right according to this temporal sequence. This is based on systematically reflecting on the need to finish one decision before the following. If this need is evident, the following decision moves to the right; if not, the decisions are positioned below each other. Turning to Fig.  2 , it becomes evident that Step 2, “determining the required characteristics of primary studies,” and Step 3, “retrieving a sample of potentially relevant literature,” including their Decisions 4–6, can be conducted in an iterative manner. While this contrasts with the strict division of the six steps by Durach et al. ( 2017 ), it supports other guidance that suggests running pilot studies to iteratively define the literature sample, its sources, and characteristics (Snyder 2019 ; Tranfield et al. 2003 ; Xiao and Watson 2019 ). While this insight might suggest merging Steps 2 and 3, we refrain from this superficial change and building yet another SLR process model. Instead, we prefer to add detail and depth to Durach et al.’s ( 2017 ) model.

(Decisions: D1: specifying the research gap and related research question, D2: opting for a theoretical approach, D3: defining the core theoretical framework and constructs, D4: specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria, D5: defining sources and databases, D6: defining search terms and crafting a search string, D7: including and excluding literature for detailed analysis and synthesis, D8: selecting data extraction tool(s), D9: coding against (pre-defined) constructs, D10: conducting a subsequent (statistical) analysis (optional), D11: ensuring validity and reliability, D12: deciding on the structure of the paper, D13: presenting a refined theoretical framework and discussing its contents, and D14: deriving an appropriate journal from the analyzed papers).

This is also done through the third refinement, which underlines which previous or later decisions need to be considered within each single decision. Such a consideration moves beyond the mere temporal sequence of steps and decisions that does not reflect the full complexity of the SLR process. Instead, its focus is on the need to align, for example, the conduct of the data analysis (Decision 9) with the theoretical approach (Decision 2) and consequently ensure that the chosen theoretical framework and the constructs (Decision 3) are sufficiently defined for the data analysis (i.e., mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive). The mentioned interrelations are displayed in Fig.  2 by means of directed arrows from one decision to another. The underlying explanations can be found in the earlier paper sections by searching for the individual decisions in the text on the impacted decisions. Overall, it is unsurprising to see that the vast majority of interrelations are directed from the earlier to the later steps and decisions (displayed through arrows below the diagonal of decisions), while only a few interrelations are inverse.

Combining the first refinement of the original framework (defining the 14 decisions) and the third refinement (revealing the main interrelations among the decisions) underlines the contribution of this study in two main ways. First, the centrality of ensuring validity and reliability (Decision 11) is underlined. It becomes evident that considerations of validity and reliability are central to the overall SLR process since all steps before the writing of the paper need to be revisited in iterative cycles through Decision 11. Any lack of related considerations will most likely lead to reviewer critique, putting the SLR publication at risk. On the positive side of this centrality, we also found substantial guidance on this issue. In contrast, as evidenced in Table 3 , there is a lack of prior guidance on Decisions 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14, which this study is helping to fill. At the same time, these underexplained decisions are influenced by 14 of the 44 (32%) incoming arrows in Fig.  2 and influence the other decisions in 6 of the 44 (14%) instances. These interrelations among decisions to be considered when crafting an SLR were scattered across prior guidelines, lacked in-depth elaborations, and were hardly explicitly related to each other. Thus, we hope that our study and the refined SLR process model will help enhance the quality and contribution of future SLRs.

Data availablity

The data generated during this research is summarized in Table 3 and the analyzed papers are publicly available. They are clearly identified in Table 3 and the reference list.

Aguinis H, Ramani RS, Alabduljader N (2020) Best-practice recommendations for producers, evaluators, and users of methodological literature reviews. Organ Res Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120943281

Article   Google Scholar  

Beske P, Land A, Seuring S (2014) Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: a critical analysis of the literature. Int J Prod Econ 152:131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.026

Brandenburg M, Rebs T (2015) Sustainable supply chain management: a modeling perspective. Ann Oper Res 229:213–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-1853-1

Carter CR, Rogers DS (2008) A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int Jnl Phys Dist Logist Manage 38:360–387. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816

Carter CR, Washispack S (2018) Mapping the path forward for sustainable supply chain management: a review of reviews. J Bus Logist 39:242–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12196

Clark WR, Clark LA, Raffo DM, Williams RI (2021) Extending fisch and block’s (2018) tips for a systematic review in management and business literature. Manag Rev Q 71:215–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00184-8

Crane A, Henriques I, Husted BW, Matten D (2016) What constitutes a theoretical contribution in the business and society field? Bus Soc 55:783–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316651343

Davis J, Mengersen K, Bennett S, Mazerolle L (2014) Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. Springerplus 3:511. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-511

Davis HTO, Crombie IK (2001) What is asystematicreview? http://vivrolfe.com/ProfDoc/Assets/Davis%20What%20is%20a%20systematic%20review.pdf . Accessed 22 February 2019

De Lima FA, Seuring S, Sauer PC (2021) A systematic literature review exploring uncertainty management and sustainability outcomes in circular supply chains. Int J Prod Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2021.1976859

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Devece C, Ribeiro-Soriano DE, Palacios-Marqués D (2019) Coopetition as the new trend in inter-firm alliances: literature review and research patterns. Rev Manag Sci 13:207–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0245-0

Dieste M, Sauer PC, Orzes G (2022) Organizational tensions in industry 4.0 implementation: a paradox theory approach. Int J Prod Econ 251:108532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108532

Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM (2021) How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 133:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Durach CF, Kembro J, Wieland A (2017) A new paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain management. J Supply Chain Manag 53:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12145

Fink A (2010) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper, 3rd edn. SAGE, Los Angeles

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Fritz MMC, Silva ME (2018) Exploring supply chain sustainability research in Latin America. Int Jnl Phys Dist Logist Manag 48:818–841. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-01-2017-0023

Garcia-Torres S, Albareda L, Rey-Garcia M, Seuring S (2019) Traceability for sustainability: literature review and conceptual framework. Supp Chain Manag 24:85–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-04-2018-0152

Hanelt A, Bohnsack R, Marz D, Antunes Marante C (2021) A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. J Manag Stud 58:1159–1197. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12639

Kache F, Seuring S (2014) Linking collaboration and integration to risk and performance in supply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 19:664–682. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2013-0478

Khalid RU, Seuring S (2019) Analyzing base-of-the-pyramid research from a (sustainable) supply chain perspective. J Bus Ethics 155:663–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3474-x

Koufteros X, Mackelprang A, Hazen B, Huo B (2018) Structured literature reviews on strategic issues in SCM and logistics: part 2. Int Jnl Phys Dist Logist Manage 48:742–744. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-09-2018-363

Kraus S, Breier M, Dasí-Rodríguez S (2020) The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. Int Entrep Manag J 16:1023–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00635-4

Kraus S, Mahto RV, Walsh ST (2021) The importance of literature reviews in small business and entrepreneurship research. J Small Bus Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955128

Kraus S, Breier M, Lim WM, Dabić M, Kumar S, Kanbach D, Mukherjee D, Corvello V, Piñeiro-Chousa J, Liguori E, Palacios-Marqués D, Schiavone F, Ferraris A, Fernandes C, Ferreira JJ (2022) Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. Rev Manag Sci 16:2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

Leuschner R, Rogers DS, Charvet FF (2013) A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and firm performance. J Supply Chain Manag 49:34–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12013

Lim WM, Rasul T (2022) Customer engagement and social media: revisiting the past to inform the future. J Bus Res 148:325–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.068

Lim WM, Yap S-F, Makkar M (2021) Home sharing in marketing and tourism at a tipping point: what do we know, how do we know, and where should we be heading? J Bus Res 122:534–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.051

Lim WM, Kumar S, Ali F (2022) Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute.’ Serv Ind J 42:481–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941

Lusiantoro L, Yates N, Mena C, Varga L (2018) A refined framework of information sharing in perishable product supply chains. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 48:254–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-08-2017-0250

Maestrini V, Luzzini D, Maccarrone P, Caniato F (2017) Supply chain performance measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 183:299–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.11.005

Miemczyk J, Johnsen TE, Macquet M (2012) Sustainable purchasing and supply management: a structured literature review of definitions and measures at the dyad, chain and network levels. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 17:478–496. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258564

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mukherjee D, Lim WM, Kumar S, Donthu N (2022) Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. J Bus Res 148:101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042

Mulrow CD (1987) The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 106:485–488. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 134:178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

Pagell M, Wu Z (2009) Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J Supply Chain Manag 45:37–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2009.03162.x

Paul J, Criado AR (2020) The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? Int Bus Rev 29:101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

Paul J, Lim WM, O’Cass A, Hao AW, Bresciani S (2021) Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). Int J Consum Stud. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695

Pearce JM (2018) How to perform a literature review with free and open source software. Pract Assess Res Eval 23:1–13

Rhaiem K, Amara N (2021) Learning from innovation failures: a systematic review of the literature and research agenda. Rev Manag Sci 15:189–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00339-2

Rojas-Córdova C, Williamson AJ, Pertuze JA, Calvo G (2022) Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes. Rev Manag Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00577-x

Sauer PC (2021) The complementing role of sustainability standards in managing international and multi-tiered mineral supply chains. Resour Conserv Recycl 174:105747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105747

Sauer PC, Seuring S (2017) Sustainable supply chain management for minerals. J Clean Prod 151:235–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.049

Seuring S, Gold S (2012) Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 17:544–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609

Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

Seuring S, Yawar SA, Land A, Khalid RU, Sauer PC (2021) The application of theory in literature reviews: illustrated with examples from supply chain management. Int J Oper Prod Manag 41:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2020-0247

Siems E, Land A, Seuring S (2021) Dynamic capabilities in sustainable supply chain management: an inter-temporal comparison of the food and automotive industries. Int J Prod Econ 236:108128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108128

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Spens KM, Kovács G (2006) A content analysis of research approaches in logistics research. Int Jnl Phys Dist Logist Manage 36:374–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030610676259

Tachizawa EM, Wong CY (2014) Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains: a systematic literature review. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 19:643–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2014-0070

Tipu SAA (2022) Organizational change for environmental, social, and financial sustainability: a systematic literature review. Rev Manag Sci 16:1697–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00494-5

Touboulic A, Walker H (2015) Theories in sustainable supply chain management: a structured literature review. Int Jnl Phys Dist Logist Manage 45:16–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2013-0106

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tröster R, Hiete M (2018) Success of voluntary sustainability certification schemes: a comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 196:1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.240

Wang Y, Han JH, Beynon-Davies P (2019) Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 24:62–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2018-0148

Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q 26:xiii–xxiii

Wiese A, Kellner J, Lietke B, Toporowski W, Zielke S (2012) Sustainability in retailing: a summative content analysis. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 40:318–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590551211211792

Xiao Y, Watson M (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res 39:93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Yavaprabhas K, Pournader M, Seuring S (2022) Blockchain as the “trust-building machine” for supply chain management. Ann Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04868-0

Zhu Q, Bai C, Sarkis J (2022) Blockchain technology and supply chains: the paradox of the atheoretical research discourse. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 164:102824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102824

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

EM Strasbourg Business School, Université de Strasbourg, HuManiS UR 7308, 67000, Strasbourg, France

Philipp C. Sauer

Chair of Supply Chain Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, The University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Stefan Seuring

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The article is based on the idea and extensive experience of SS. The literature search and data analysis has mainly been performed by PCS and supported by SS before the paper manuscript has been written and revised in a common effort of both authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Seuring .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sauer, P.C., Seuring, S. How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Rev Manag Sci 17 , 1899–1933 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3

Download citation

Received : 29 September 2022

Accepted : 17 April 2023

Published : 12 May 2023

Issue Date : July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Methodology
• Replicability
• Research process
• Structured literature review
• Systematic literature review

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research