45Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1Cost Center Practices in Ger.docx

45Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Cost Center Practices in Germany and the United States:
Impact of Country Differences on Managerial Accounting
Practices
Kris Portz, St. Cloud State University
John C. Lere, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee
Abstract
As business becomes increasingly global, it is important for
managers to appreci-
ate that practices that work well in one country may not work as
well in other
countries. This article compares cost center practices under
Grenzplankostenrech-
nung (GPK), a common approach to cost accounting in
Germany, and typical
cost center practices in the United States. Differences between
Germany and the
United States on Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension
and in workforce
and management education provide possible explanations for
differences in the
responsibility assigned to cost center managers between
Germany and the United
States. Differences in cost center practices concerning
classification of costs, mea-
sures to use when considering changes in costs, and the size and
scope of the cost
center between Germany and the United States all support these
differences in

cost center manager responsibility.
Keywords: cost centers, German cost accounting, Hofstede,
responsibility accounting
Introduction
Although business is global, differ-
ences in countries may mean that the
practice of business is not universal.
Certain country differences can impact
the effectiveness of managerial account-
ing practices and, as a consequence, af-
fect the appropriateness of the practices.
These country differences include dif-
ferences in culture, defined using Hofst-
ede’s taxonomy (2001), and workforce
and management education, which are
discussed in the present paper. Failure to
recognize the impact of country differ-
ences on the appropriateness of mana-
gerial accounting practices may lead to
a number of dysfunctional actions. A
company may benchmark against the
wrong set of companies. Managers and
accountants may accept “one size fits all”
solutions which do not fit all situations.
Companies may implement home-
country practices in subsidiaries located
in countries where the home-country
practices will be ineffective. The last de-
cade’s growth in international manageri-
al accounting research (Haka and Heit-
ger 2004, 21) is a sign of the potential
importance of recognizing the impact

of country differences on differences in
managerial accounting practices.
This article considers the impact of
country differences on differences in
cost center practices between Germa-
ny and the United States. The goals of
the article are to 1. describe cost center
practices that are an important part of
Grenzplankostenrechnung (GPK), a
common approach to cost accounting
in Germany, 2. contrast these practices
with cost center practices commonly
employed in the United States, and 3.
offer possible empirically testable ex-
planations for these major differences in
practices based on country differences.
The remainder of the article is divid-
ed into four sections. The next section
provides an analysis of previous research
and indicates where the present article
fits within the literature. This section is
followed by a section that describes dif-
ferences between cost center practices
common in Germany and cost center
practices common in the United States.
Section three describes important dif-
ferences in culture and education be-
tween Germany and the United States.
It also discusses how the differences be-
tween Germany and the United States
provide possible explanations for the
differences in cost center practices. The
article ends with a discussion of impli-

cations for managers and suggestions
for future research.
Analysis of Previous
Research
Because three recent articles re-
view the literature on international
management accounting (Harrison
and McKinnon 1999; Chenhall 2003;
46Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Portz and Lere
Haka and Heitger 2004), this article
does not include a detailed review. A
common thread to these articles is that
the dominant approach to distinguish-
ing countries is based on culture differ-
ences and that Hofstede’s taxonomy is
the most common approach to distin-
guishing culture (Harrison and McK-
innon, 1999; Chenhall 2003, 152-3;
Haka and Heitger 2004, 32). Haka and
Heitger (2004) do, however, consider
environmental factors that can have an
impact on how managerial account-
ing systems are designed in addition
to culture. They divide these factors
into four categories: (1) organization of
economic activity (2) political and legal
processes (3) culture (4) infrastructure

sophistication.
The present article considers envi-
ronmental factors that fall into two of
these categories: culture as defined us-
ing Hofstede’s taxonomy (culture) and
workforce and management education
(infrastructure sophistication).
The present article is unique in
that it considers managerial account-
ing practices in Germany. Germany
has not been included in prior work
on the impact of country differences
on managerial accounting practice
differences. Unlike most previous
work, this article bases its analysis
on data from secondary sources. This
approach permits a more general de-
scription of practices that is not sub-
ject to company specific differences
and the perceptions of respondents.
This does, of course, mean that the
practices compared may not reflect
the precise practices of any specific
company. Being more general, how-
ever, the description of practices may
be more indicative of the impact of
country differences on the practices.
A Review of German
and U.S. Cost Center
Practices
Although cost center practices vary
somewhat from firm to firm in the

United States, there is enough similar-
ity across firms that it is reasonable to
speak of common cost center practices
for the United States. Germany pro-
vides a unique opportunity for com-
parison. The Institute of Management
Accountants (IMA) has recently con-
ducted a number of studies of Gren-
zplankostenrechnung (GPK), a very
common approach to cost account-
ing in Germany (Kilger, Pampel, and
Vikas 2002, 15). Because cost center
practices are a very significant part of
GPK, the IMA studies provide a ba-
sis for describing common cost center
practices in Germany.
Differences in cost center practices
between Germany and the United
States can be divided into four cat-
egories: differences in the definition
of a cost center, differences in output
and activity measures used in the cost
centers, differences in the way in which
costs are classified in cost centers, and
differences in the responsibilities as-
signed to the heads of cost centers.
Cost Center Definition
In order for a subunit of a company
to be a cost center under GPK, it is
necessary that a single output measure
can be identified for that subunit. This
single output measure is intended to

describe the operations of the cost cen-
ter (Sharman 2003, 32). In the United
States, the only limitation imposed
on a cost center is that the decisions
made by the head of the cost center
are primarily ones that have an impact
on cost (Horngren, Datar, and Foster
2006, 197). Therefore, the limitations
placed on a United States cost center
are much less restrictive than the limi-
tations imposed under GPK. This al-
lows for cost centers that encompass
much broader operations.
Achieving the goal that operations of
the cost center can be represented by a
single output measure tends to result in
cost centers in Germany that are more
narrowly focused than are cost centers in
United States firms. For example, a cost
center in the United States that drills
parts might be divided into at least two
cost centers in Germany. One cost cen-
ter would set up the drilling machines;
the second cost center would operate
the machines to perform the drilling
operation. Such a division would per-
mit the firm to describe the operations
of each cost center by a single measure.
The output of the machine setup cost
center might be machine setups while
the output of the drilling cost center
might be parts drilled.
Achieving a narrow focus in GPK

cost centers tends to yield small cost
centers. Friedl, Küpper, and Pedell in-
dicate that a GPK cost center is typi-
cally composed of ten workers or less
(2005, 57). Because the less restric-
tive United States definition of a cost
center tends to yield cost centers with
broader operations than does the GPK
definition, cost centers in the United
States tend to be larger.
The difference in the definition of
a cost center also means that a com-
pany with a GPK system will typi-
cally have many more cost centers than
will a company following traditional
United States practices. An example
of this difference in number of cost
centers is provided by Sick Kids (a To-
ronto children’s hospital). At Sick Kids,
implementation of GPK resulted in a
dramatic increase in cost centers. For
example, in pilot departments, imple-
mentation raised the number of cost
centers from 29 to 97 (Mackie 2006,
35-6). Another example of the large
number of cost centers under GPK
is provided by DeutscheTelekom,
DT (German Telecom). The Inte-
“... a company with a GPK system will typically have
many more cost centers than will a company following
traditional United States practices.”

47Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Portz and Lere
grated Cost and Accounting Sys-
tem (IKE), an extension of GPK, at
DeutscheTelekom, DT, “captures cost
information about the efforts of ap-
proximately 120,000 people working
in 40,000 cost centers.” (Sharman and
Vikas 2004, 34).
Output and Activity Measures
The importance of an output mea-
sure in defining a cost center under
GPK results in differences between
Germany and the United States in the
measures used in cost centers. Measures
used in a GPK cost center are intended
1. to represent the output of the cost
center, not the output of the firm and 2.
to relate to the usage of resources.
This emphasis on measures of cost
center output is so basic to GPK that,
according to Krumwiede (2005, 34),
CIBA Specialty Chemicals doesn’t use
“GPK per se because of its complexity
and because, in chemical manufactur-
ing, it’s difficult to predict the output
quantity as some batches produce
more or less product than expected.
GPK requires that you are able to
predict outcomes fairly well, as in the
auto industry.”

In the United States, measures used
often do not represent the output of the
cost center. Under activity-based costing
(ABC), the measures selected represent
cost drivers for activities performed in
the cost center. Such a measure may
or may not represent the output of the
cost center (Horngren, Datar, and Fos-
ter 2006, 144-5). Other measures com-
monly used in the United States, such
as direct material cost, direct labor cost,
and direct labor hours represent mea-
sures with which a particular portion of
the cost center’s cost varies rather than
cost center output (Horngren, Datar,
and Foster 2006, 32).
Because GPK measures are also se-
lected to relate to resource usage, some
measures that represent the output of a
cost center might not be as appropriate
for use in GPK. For example, a measure
such as number of setups might not be
an appropriate GPK output measure.
While it may represent the output of a
cost center, it may not be as closely tied
to resource usage as are other measures.
If there are differences in the setups
performed by the cost center such that
some setups take longer, a measure such
as setup hours might better relate to use
of resources. In such a case, setup hours
would be preferred to number of setups

as an output measure for the cost center
(Keys and van der Merwe 1999, 3).
The emphasis on resource usage
means that many measures commonly
used in the United States may not be
appropriate output measures under
GPK. While the relationship between
cost and some measures used in the
United States is one of cause and effect,
the relationship is often only a statisti-
cal one. As discussed below, measures
only having a statistical relationship
with cost may not provide GPK man-
agers with the information appropriate
to their responsibilities.
The GPK focus on defining cost
centers with one measure of output
that is related to resource usage leads
to cost classification under GPK
that is narrower than is typical in the
United States. A fundamental feature
of GPK is that cost center’s costs are
divided into those that are (1) propor-
tional and (2) fixed.
Classifications of Costs
in a Cost Center
Classification of costs in a cost cen-
ter into proportional costs and fixed
costs is a third important way in which
GPK cost center practices differ from
those of the United States. For that
portion of the center’s cost deemed to

be proportional, an increase (decrease)
in the output measure for the cost cen-
ter is accompanied by a proportional
increase (decrease) in cost. The remain-
ing costs of the cost center are classi-
fied as fixed. Traditionally, costs in the
United States are divided into variable
costs and fixed costs. As used in the
United States, the term “variable cost”
is a more general term. It is typically
applied to costs whose total change in
proportion to change in some measure
of activity or volume which may or may
not be a measure of output (Horngren,
Datar, and Foster 2006, 30).
The very precise meaning of “pro-
portional costs” under GPK can eas-
ily cause confusion. As used in the
United States, “variable costs” as well
as activity-based costing costs that vary
with unit-level, batch-level, and prod-
uct-level activities are typically propor-
tional costs to the measure with which
they vary. Therefore, a United States
cost center may include many costs
that vary proportionately with some
measure. As used in GPK, however,
“proportional costs” are limited to only
those costs that are proportional to
changes in cost center output. Because
a GPK cost center is defined so that its
operations can be represented by one
output measure, its proportional costs

all vary with the same measure.
The importance of the proportion-
al/fixed cost dichotomy to GPK firms
is illustrated by Krumwiede’s (2005,
32-3) discussion of Magna Steyer, a
supplier of original equipment to auto
manufacturers. “Magna accountants
told me they don’t use ABC … because
ABC doesn’t separate fixed and [pro-
portional] costs.”
Responsibilities of Cost Center
Managers
The final area in which GPK cost
center practices differ from United
States cost center practices relates to
the assignment of responsibilities to
cost center managers. There are two
important aspects of this assignment:
“Measures used in a GPK cost center are intended (1) to
represent the output of the cost center, not the output of
the firm and (2) to relate to the usage of resources.”
48Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Portz and Lere
The manager is responsible for see-•
ing that costs adjust in response to
changes in output of the cost center.
A manager may be responsible for •

more than one cost center.
A major distinction between Ger-
man and United States cost center
practices relates to the primary respon-
sibility of cost center managers. GPK
considers the cost center manager’s
prime responsibility to be seeing that
costs adjust in response to changes
in the output of the cost center. This
link between the objective of manag-
ers and GPK is clearly indicated in the
definition of GPK translated from the
introduction to the preeminent Ger-
man cost accounting textbook. GPK
is “a comprehensive and sophisticated
method of planning and monitoring
costs based on resource drivers. Select-
ing the resource drivers and separating
the costs into fixed and proportional
components ensures that cost fluctua-
tions caused by changes in operating
levels, as defined by marginal analysis,
are accurately predicted as changes in
authorized costs and incorporated into
variance analysis.” (Kilger, Pampel, and
Vikas 2002, 7). “Authorized” is used in
the translation for a word that conveys
the meaning of target or allowed costs.
Therefore, this definition underscores
the emphasis on assuring that costs
adjust in response to changes in cost
center output.
This emphasis on cost adjustment
focuses the manager’s effort and at-

tention on one thing, responding to
changes in the output of the cost cen-
ter. As a result, GPK is likely to lead
to greater responsiveness of costs to
changes in cost center output than do
systems common in the United States
in which the manager has broader re-
sponsibilities.
Because the primary responsibility
of a cost center manager in the United
States is typically more broadly defined
as to control all costs incurred within
the cost center (Horngren, Datar, and
Foster 2006, 197), opportunities for
cost reduction such as by reducing
cost center output and by tradeoffs
that reduce one cost while increasing
another cost by a smaller amount are
more likely to be identified and imple-
mented by cost center managers in the
United States than by cost center man-
agers in Germany (Friedl, Küpper, and
Pedell 2005, 61).
A second difference between Ger-
many and the United States in assign-
ment of responsibilities to cost center
managers relates to the number of
cost centers managed. Although only
one manager is typically in charge of
each cost center in both Germany and
the United States, a GPK cost center
manager is often responsible for more
than one cost center while cost cen-

ter managers in the United States are
typically responsible for only one cost
center. When GPK was implemented
at Sick Kids, managers who had previ-
ously been responsible for a single cost
center were now responsible for four or
five GPK cost centers (Mackie 2006,
36).
Table 1 summarizes these impor-
tant differences between cost centers
under GPK and cost centers typical in
the United States.
Influences on Cost
Center Design
In developing a link between coun-
try differences and cost center practice
differences, this article considers the
difference between the major respon-
sibilities assigned to cost center man-
agers under GPK and in the United
States to be the one directly related to
differences in country culture and edu-
cation. Differences between Germany
and the United States in: (1) classifi-
cation of costs (2) measures used (3)
limitations used in defining a cost cen-
Table 1
Summary of Cost Center Practices in Germany
(Grenzplankostenrechnung) and in the United States

Germany United State
Definition of a cost center Limited so that a single
measure can represent cost
center output
Limited such that decisions
made by head primarily
affect cost
Size of cost center Fairly small Larger
Number of cost centers in
firm
Large number Relatively few
Output or activity measures One measure that represents
output of the cost center as
opposed to output of the
firm; relates to resources
used by center
Multiple measures are com-
mon and often represent
something with which costs
of the center vary; relation-
ship between cost and mea-
sure may result from resource
use or because of statistical
association
Classification of costs in a
cost center
Fixed and proportional;

proportional costs change in
proportion to changes in cost
center output
Fixed and variable; variable
costs change directly with
some measure, which may or
may not be a measure of cost
center output
Primary responsibility of cost
center managers
To control costs such that the
proportional costs change in
proportion to the changes in
cost center output
To control all costs incurred
within the cost center
Typical number of cost cen-
ters controlled by manager
Several One
49Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Portz and Lere
ter all support this difference in assign-
ment of responsibilities.
The section begins by discussing

cross-country culture and education
differences as possible explanations for
the differences in major responsibilities
assigned to cost center managers.
Culture Influence
on Major Responsibilities
A number of social researchers
(Kluckholn and Strodtbeck 1961, Hall
1977, Hofstede 2001, and Trompenaars
and Hampden-Turner 1998) have de-
signed theoretical frameworks to ex-
plain why people from different coun-
tries do things in different ways. This
article uses Hofstede’s taxonomy, which
distinguishes a country’s culture based
on its position on five dimensions:
power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism/collectivism, masculine/
feminine, and Confucian dynamism.
Although they differ somewhat on
each dimension, Germany and the
United States differ most significantly
on the uncertainty avoidance dimen-
sion (Hofstede 2001, 87, 151, 215,
286, 356). Germany is considered a
strong uncertainty avoidance country
while the United States is considered
a weak uncertainty avoidance country.
According to Hofstede: “Many read-
ers of my earlier work have interpreted
‘uncertainty avoidance’ as ‘risk avoid-
ance’… . But uncertainty avoidance
does not equal risk avoidance.” “More

than an escape from risk, uncertainty
avoidance leads to an escape from am-
biguity.” (Hofstede 2001, 148).
Based on Hofstede’s discussion of
strong and weak uncertainty avoidance
cultures, one would expect systems in
which managers are faced with rela-
tively little ambiguity in strong uncer-
tainty avoidance cultures. Managers in
weak uncertainty avoidance cultures are
more likely to function in systems pre-
senting them with greater ambiguity.
Assignment of cost center manager
responsibility under GPK is consistent
with the strong uncertainty avoid-
ance culture found in Germany. Un-
der GPK, a firm has narrowly defined
cost centers where a manager who is
responsible for the cost center focuses
on controlling proportional costs. As
a result, cost center managers are able
to become very competent at manag-
ing narrowly focused operations with
a repetitive output. Such a structure
tends to reduce the ambiguity that a
manager faces.
Strong uncertainty avoidance also
results in a preference for focusing
on accomplishing a set of tasks. Once
workers know their duties, their pri-
mary goal is to complete their assigned
tasks (Schmidt 2007, 47). Because of

the focus on managing costs so that
they respond to changes in output,
managers have well-defined roles with-
in cost centers and can focus on their
designated repetitive, consistent, pre-
dictable tasks. This too tends to reduce
the ambiguity faced by managers.
Because of its weak uncertainty
avoidance culture, managers in the
United States generally prefer less
structure and more flexibility. Manag-
ers are often encouraged to work inter-
departmentally to improve productiv-
ity and efficiency. The strict cost-center
criteria of GPK is inconsistent with a
desire for flexibility by United States
managers. Small cost centers focus-
ing on narrow tasks may make United
States managers feel too confined or
even constrained from being creative.
As a result, the prevalent United States
culture may make it difficult for man-
agers to accept the structure and rigid-
ity of GPK.
Education Influence
on Major Responsibilities
Significant differences also exist be-
tween workforce and management ed-
ucation in Germany and in the United
States. In Germany, young people are
trained as skilled workers for specific
jobs through apprenticeships. Practi-
cal work with on the job training al-

ternates with classroom courses over
an apprenticeship period. At the end
of the apprenticeship, workers receive a
certificate, which is highly valued and
instills a sense of occupational pride.
Therefore, German managers over-
see highly qualified individuals who
are specially trained for their positions
(Schmidt 2007, 52). The United States
workforce generally lacks such specific
training. Workers are often considered
“jack of all trades” with little formal
training for specific jobs other than
what may be acquired on the job.
Most German managers are edu-
cated as technical experts. In fact, over
60 percent of German manufacturing
companies are run by engineers with
Ph.D. degrees. Any management skills
are usually learned on the shop floor.
Managers in the United States, on
the other hand, tend to be educated as
MBAs rather than as technical experts.
An effective manager in the United
States leads or guides a group. A man-
ager usually does not produce person-
ally but is good at making others in the
group produce through “motivation”
(Schmidt 2007, 53).
Because German workers are in-
nately self-motivated and often work
hard for the good of the group, efforts
to “motivate” them would be seen as

unnecessary hand-holding and an in-
sult to their professional pride. There-
fore, German managers see little rea-
son to learn about motivating or even
supervising personnel. They assume
work will be done well without any
prodding (Schmidt 2007, 53). Overall,
United States firms give management
authority to make strategic decisions
whereas German businesses see man-
agers as less of a key factor to success.
Differences between workforce
education in Germany and the United
States are consistent with the differ-
ence in assignment of responsibility
between GPK and United States cost
center practices. A narrow focus in
cost center manager responsibility in
Germany facilitates well-defined spe-
cific jobs for which young people can
be trained. Because the United States
workforce generally lacks such specific
training, such well-defined jobs are
not necessary to facilitate education.
50Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Portz and Lere
The difference in education between
German managers and United States
managers is also consistent with differ-
ences in the assignment of responsibil-

ities between GPK and United States
cost practices. United States managers
tend to be educated to manage which
implies a broader range of responsibili-
ties including motivating while man-
agement education tends to be very in-
formal in Germany and therefore may
not support as broad responsibilities.
Cost Classification,
Measures Used, and Cost
Center Definition
In order for managers under GPK
to fulfill the responsibility of ensur-
ing that changes in output levels are
reflected in changes in costs, the man-
agers must know which costs are ex-
pected to respond to changes in output
levels. Therefore, the GPK emphasis
on classifying costs into proportional
versus fixed identifies the costs that the
managers can and are expected to con-
trol, the proportional costs.
Identifying proportional costs,
those that change in proportion with
cost center output, as opposed to vari-
able costs, those that vary with some
measure, also enhances the ability of
GPK managers to fulfill their respon-
sibility. Because the output measure
for a cost center is chosen to relate to
resource usage, the GPK concept of a
proportional cost is more strongly tied
to cause and effect than is the concept

of a variable cost. While there may be
a cause and effect relationship between
a variable cost and cost center output,
variable costs often have only a statisti-
cal association with some measure that
is often not cost center output. There-
fore, the identification of proportional
costs provides a GPK cost center man-
ager with information on costs that he
or she should be able to control as cost
center output changes while identifi-
cation of variable costs may or may not
provide such information.
The United States cost center man-
ager, however, is typically responsible
for managing the costs of a cost center
in ways that include, but are not lim-
ited to, the cost control responsibility
of a GPK cost center manager. Iden-
tification of variable costs as well as
those costs identified under activity-
based costing as changing with chang-
es in the amount of unit-level activity,
batch-level activity, or product-level
activity is appropriate to support the
broader responsibilities of a United
States cost center manager. Because
a cost center manager in the United
States is responsible for controlling
costs in a much wider variety of ways,
he or she can potentially make use of a
much broader set of measures. In addi-
tion, the broader focus of a cost center
in the United States may mean that

the cost center does not have a single
output measure. Therefore, multiple
output measures may be appropriate in
the United States.
Cost centers with a narrow focus are
necessary in order to assign responsibil-
ity for ensuring that proportional costs
change in response to changes in cost
center output to GPK cost center man-
agers. Only with a very narrow focus can
a cost center’s operations be described
using one output measure. This narrow
focus explains the relatively small size of
cost centers under GPK and their rela-
tively large number per firm.
The GPK practice of assigning mul-
tiple cost centers to a manager likely
arises because the GPK definition of
a cost center leads to many, fairly small
cost centers. If a unique manager was
assigned to each cost center, a company
would have an extremely large number
of cost center managers, each with a
fairly limited set of responsibilities.
This would not seem to be an efficient
use of resources.
In the United States, the respon-
sibilities of a cost center manager are
typically broader than those under
GPK. In order to make the types of
decision typically made by a United
States cost center manager, the cost
center must be more broadly defined

to allow for cost trade offs. This is con-
sistent with the larger size of a typi-
cal United States cost center and with
the smaller number of cost centers in a
typical United States firm.
Discussion
This section discusses cross-country
differences in culture and education as
potential explanations for cost center
practice differences and offers impli-
cations of these explanations. These
implications are divided into ones of
interest to managers considering im-
plementing GPK and ones of interest
to those considering future research.
Implications for Managers
When considering potential imple-
mentation of GPK, it is important to
consider both the types of decisions
that a company wishes its managers to
make and the possibility that culture
and education differences between the
United States and Germany may make
GPK less effective in a United States
company than in a German company.
GPK cost center practices focus
managers’ decisions primarily on cost
reduction as a response to changes in
cost center output. Therefore, it is im-
portant for a company to consider the

extent to which it wants managers to
look for ways to reduce cost center
cost 1. by reducing the cost center out-
put, 2. by looking for tradeoffs among
costs and 3. by considering other ways
to reduce costs that are not related to
changes in cost center output.
Typical United States cost center
practices are better designed to support
decisions related to these types of cost
reduction than are GPK practices.
In addition, because culture and
education differences imply different
preferences and preparation for respon-
sibilities, it is also important for firms
considering implementing GPK cost
center practices to consider
if firm managers will be effective 1.
with the narrower job focus and lim-
ited ability to be involved in strategic
or interdepartmental decision mak-
ing under GPK and
if the focus on narrow tasks will make 2.
51Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1
Portz and Lere
managers feel too confined or even
constrained from being creative.

Suggestions for Future
Research
This article uses differences in cost
center practices between the United
States and Germany to explore pos-
sible relationships between (1) culture
and (2) education of the workforce and
managers and managerial accounting
practices. In doing so, it suggests sev-
eral directions for further research.
One direction for future research is
to determine if the differences in cost
center practices are related to differ-
ences in culture, education, or both.
An approach to answering this ques-
tion would involve identifying Ger-
man companies whose employees (1)
are German, but have been educated
in the United States, (2) are German
and have been educated in Germany
or (3) have been educated in Ger-
many, but have spent substantial time
in the United States. Comparisons of
the cost center practices among com-
panies whose employees fit in these
three categories may shed light on the
impact of each factor.
Differences between German
workforce and management education
and workforce and management edu-
cation in the United States are con-
sistent with culture differences related
to uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede

2001, 170). Therefore, another ques-
tion of interest is whether differences
in both cost center practices and edu-
cation arise because of differences in
country culture. Culture may be the
main factor behind cost center practice
differences directly and also indirectly
through differences in the workforce
and management education.
References
Chenhall, R. H. 2003. Management con-
trol systems design within its organi-
zational context: findings from con-
tingency-based research and directions
for the future. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 28:127-168.
Friedl, G., H. Küpper, and B. Pedell. 2005.
Relevance added: combining ABC
with German cost accounting. Strategic
Finance 86(12):56-61.
Haka, S. F. and D. L. Heitger. 2004. In-
ternational managerial accounting re-
search: a contracting framework and
opportunities. The International Journal
of Accounting 39:21 - 69.
Hall, E. T. 1977. Beyond Culture. Garden
City, NY: Anchor Press.
Harrison, G. and J. McKinnon. 1999.
Cross-cultural design in management
control systems design: a review of the

current state. Accounting, Organizations
and Society 24:483-506.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences:
Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institu-
tions, and Organizations Across Nations,
2d edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Horngren, C., S. Datar and G. Foster. 2006.
Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Keys, D.E. and A. van der Merwe. 1999.
German vs. United States cost manage-
ment. Management Accounting Quar-
terly (Fall):1-8.
Kilger, W., J. Pampel and K. Vikas. 2002.
0. Introduction: Marginal Costing as a
Management Accounting Tool, Flexible
Plankostenrechnung und Deckungbeitrag-
srechnung, 11th edition. Wiesbaden:
Gabler. Translation by S. Offenbacker
published in Management Accounting
Quarterly 5 (2) (Winter 2004): 15.
7-28.
Kluckholn, F.R. and F.L. Strodtbeck. 1961.
Variations in Value Orientations. Evan-
ston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Krumwiede, K.R. 2005. Rewards and reali-
ties of German cost accounting. Strate-
gic Finance 86 (10):26-34.

Mackie, B. 2006. Merging GPK and ABC
on the Road to RCA. Strategic Finance
87 (5):35-6.
Schmidt, P.S. 2007. Understanding Ameri-
can and German Business Cultures. Mon-
treal, Canada: Meridian World Press.
Sharman, P.A. 2003. Bring on German
cost accounting. Strategic Finance (De-
cember):30-8.
Sharman, P.A. and K. Vikas. 2004. Lessons
from German cost accounting. Strategic
Finance 86(6):28-35.
Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner.
1998. Riding the Waves of Culture: Un-
derstanding Diversity in Global Business,
2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
About the Authors
Kris Portz, CPA, Inactive (PhD - Uni-
versity of Nebraska at Lincoln) is profes-
sor of accounting at St. Cloud State Uni-
versity in St. Cloud, Minnesota. During
fall 2005, she served as faculty director
of a study abroad program in Ingolstadt,
Germany where she lived for four months
and taught at the Fachhochschule - Ingol-
stadt.
John C. Lere (PhD - University of
Wisconsin-Madison) is professor emeritus
at St. Cloud State University and visiting

professor at the University of Wisconsin—
Milwaukee. He served as visiting profes-
sor at the Norwegian School of Econom-
ics and Business Administration during fall
2003. He is the author of two books and
numerous articles
Copyright of American Journal of Business is the property of
American Journal of Business and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

45Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1Cost Center Practices in Ger.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 45Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1Cost Center Practices in Ger.docx

Similar to 45Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1Cost Center Practices in Ger.docx (20)

More from gilbertkpeters11344

More from gilbertkpeters11344 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

45Spring 2010 • Vol. 25, No. 1Cost Center Practices in Ger.docx