Does eva beat earnings? A literature review of the evidence since biddle et al. (1997)
Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Standard
Does eva beat earnings? A literature review of the evidence since biddle et al. (1997). / Toft, Jon Svennesen; Lueg, Rainer.
In: Corporate Ownership & Control , Vol. 12, No. 3, 01.03.2015, p. 8-18.Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Does eva beat earnings?
T2 - A literature review of the evidence since biddle et al. (1997)
AU - Toft, Jon Svennesen
AU - Lueg, Rainer
PY - 2015/3/1
Y1 - 2015/3/1
N2 - 17 years ago, Biddle et al. (1997) demonstrated that sophisticated residual income-based figures are not as superior to traditional accounting-based performance measures in tracking shareholder value as consulting firms have claimed. During these 17 years, the intensive discussion of which type of measure tracks shareholder value creation the best continued, both from a theoretical and a practical perspective. This article compares the new findings from advanced research between 1997 and 2014 to assess the ongoing validity of Biddle et al.’s (1997) conclusions. We separate articles into two groups: the ones that find accounting-based performance measure to perform best, and the ones who speak in favor of residual income-based performance measures. In order to do this, we have scanned 618 articles that relate to the findings of Biddle et al. (1997) and analyze the 21 articles that actually contributed new evidence. We find that the conceptual discussion still favors management control systems based on the more sophisticated residual income-based measures. Yet empirically, the vast majority of new studies with advanced research designs still find that accounting numbers are by no means inferior in measuring shareholder value creation.
AB - 17 years ago, Biddle et al. (1997) demonstrated that sophisticated residual income-based figures are not as superior to traditional accounting-based performance measures in tracking shareholder value as consulting firms have claimed. During these 17 years, the intensive discussion of which type of measure tracks shareholder value creation the best continued, both from a theoretical and a practical perspective. This article compares the new findings from advanced research between 1997 and 2014 to assess the ongoing validity of Biddle et al.’s (1997) conclusions. We separate articles into two groups: the ones that find accounting-based performance measure to perform best, and the ones who speak in favor of residual income-based performance measures. In order to do this, we have scanned 618 articles that relate to the findings of Biddle et al. (1997) and analyze the 21 articles that actually contributed new evidence. We find that the conceptual discussion still favors management control systems based on the more sophisticated residual income-based measures. Yet empirically, the vast majority of new studies with advanced research designs still find that accounting numbers are by no means inferior in measuring shareholder value creation.
KW - Accounting-based performance measures
KW - Boston consulting group
KW - Consulting
KW - Economic value added
KW - EVA
KW - Literature review
KW - Management control
KW - McKinsey
KW - Residual income-based performance measures
KW - Shareholder value
KW - Stern stewart
KW - Total shareholder return
KW - Management studies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84931043054&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.22495/cocv12i3p1
DO - 10.22495/cocv12i3p1
M3 - Journal articles
AN - SCOPUS:84931043054
VL - 12
SP - 8
EP - 18
JO - Corporate Ownership and Control
JF - Corporate Ownership and Control
SN - 1727-9232
IS - 3
ER -