Management accounting professionals in the SMART economy

Dobroszek, Justyna; Paientko, Tetiana; Waliñska, Ewa Article Management accounting professionals in the SMART economy Central European Economic Journal (CEEJ) Provided in Cooperation with: Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw Suggested Citation: Dobroszek, Justyna; Paientko, Tetiana; Waliñska, Ewa (2024) : Management accounting professionals in the SMART economy, Central European Economic Journal (CEEJ), ISSN 2543-6821, Sciendo, Warsaw, Vol. 11, Iss. 58, pp. 320-338, https://doi.org/10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/324618 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISSN: 2543-6821 (online) Journal homepage: http://ceej.wne.uw.edu.pl To cite this article Dobroszek, J., Paientko, T., Walińska, E. (2024). Management Accounting Professionals in the SMART Economy. Central European Economic Journal, 11(58), 320-328. DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 Management Accounting Professionals in the SMART Economy Justyna Dobroszek, Tetiana Paientko, Ewa Walińska Open Access. © 2024 J. Dobroszek, T. Paientko, E. Walińska, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Justyna Dobroszek University of Lodz, Faculty of Management, Matejki 22/26, 90-237 Łódź, Poland corresponding author: [email protected] Tetiana Paientko Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft (HTW) Berlin, Fachbereich 3, Wirtschaftsund Rechtswissenschaften, Treskowallee 8, C 438, 10318 Berlin, Germany Ewa Walińska University of Lodz, Faculty of Management, Matejki 22/26, 90-237 Łódź, Poland Management Accounting Professionals in the SMART Economy Abstract The article aims to identify the characteristics and traits of management accountants operating in a smart environment. As technology and digital transformation reshape the business landscape, management accountants are critical in navigating this new terrain. Our approach is based on the theory of change (ToC), which provides a framework for understanding the changes in business practices and management accounting necessitated by the emergence of smart technologies. To develop our conceptual model, we extensively reviewed the literature, examining both theoretical and empirical studies to identify the emerging competencies required of management accountants in this context. We build a conceptual SMART management accounting model whose components are (S) Strategic, (M) Meaningful, (A) Agile, (R) Resilient, and (T) Transparent. Each component represents a set of specific attributes and characteristics that management accountants should possess to thrive in a smart environment. Keywords management accountant | smart organisations | smart workers | industry 4.0 | traits JEL Codes M40, M41, O10 1. Introduction Socio-economic conditions are undergoing rapid transformation. It is influenced by globalisation along with the accompanying development of technology. Technology, on the one hand, improves the day-today functioning of organisations by improving the efficiency of operations and employees’ work (Moll et al., 2019). On the other hand, it is seen as a threat to eliminating humans from many professional and social areas (Frey & Osborne, 2017). The turning point of the progressive change was the fourth industrial revolution, I4.0, along with its advanced smart technology and further development of Industry 5.0 (Ghobakhloo et al., 2023). This is reflected in the manufacturing sector, specifically in creating smart factories (Lee & Lee, 2015). Smart factories define efficient, agile, and flexible manufacturing using the latest Internet of Things and Industrial Internet technologies, consisting of smart sensors and sensing, computing and predictive analytics, and resilient control technologies. These technologies must be integrated to transmit, interpret, and analyse data and control the production process as intended (Lee, 2015; Moll et al., 2019). Smart factories define efficient, agile, and flexible manufacturing using the latest Internet of Things and industrial Internet technologies, consisting of smart sensors and sensing, computing and predictive analytics, and resilient control technologies. Smart factories or, more broadly, smart organisations must become integral to smart economies, smart governments, or smart cities (Gupta et al., 2023). The smart economy is driven by innovation, creating an ecosystem to foster an entrepreneurial spirit in society. It should provide productivity and labour CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 322 market flexibility and have its brand globally. Smart economies must have a smart administration, that is, open to information sharing and cooperation, with transparency in decision-making, and systematically improving the efficiency of its services through smart technological solutions. Smart economies cooperating with the smart government are an environment for smart people, i.e., a society ready for lifelong learning characterised by open-mindedness, flexibility to adapt to the transformations of the environment, and creativity. Smart economy, smart companies, and smart management cannot progress without the integration of knowledge management, which helps to respond to the challenges of Industry 5.0 faster and more efficiently (Caputo et al., 2019; Cilo et al., 2022). Adamik and Fernandez-Sikora (2021) pointed out that the smart economy should create smart solutions to complex strategic problems to ensure human functioning and be more demanding of smart organisations and their environment. The smart economy must be based on a solid futureoriented foundation, so not only the technological innovations that are the main component of the Industry 4.0 concept (digital solutions, robotics, realtime processing of big data, internet connectivity, artificial intelligence, neural networks), but also the so-called soft innovations, i.e., social justice, the rule of law, transparency, accountability, social cohesion, people’s wisdom, sustainability, and shared visions and goals (Kramer & Pfitzer, 2016). Thus, in the smart economy, the pillar is the integration and cooperation based on knowledge and innovative solutions of smart people, machines, and systems, leading to changes on its various levels to increase their quality, speed, and, therefore, the efficiency of different processes and activities and create added value in the long perspectivity (Fonseca, 2018). The smart economy requires specific competence and creates technological and organisational challenges for companies (Moll et al., 2019). It means the creation by organisations of smart workplaces of human resources to implement smart work. Hassan (2016) states that smart work refers to a new approach to work made possible by advanced technological solutions integrated with the economic, environmental, and social spheres. Smart work means working more efficiently, increasing cost-effectiveness, and effectively combining employee roles. Smart work also requires smart employees characterised by smart competencies. This refers to the managerial function, which determines the development of the business and its various areas, and individual specialists with whom the functioning of the company and effective management is possible. Smart work in Industry 4.0 requires the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools (Del Giudice et al., 2023). Given that in smart conditions, knowledge and information are a “key currency” in various human interactions, machine interfaces, or negotiations, and that is a pillar of smart management and decision-making. Management accountant is a generator of relevant information for the need to support management, improve its efficiency, and ultimately improve profitability and create value for the organisation. In turn, increasingly developed technological solutions foster his role as a business partner in cooperation with managers and other business partners inside and outside the organisation (Järvenpää, 2007). The new environment is challenging for management accountants and requires identifying new skills and competencies in the scope of SMART management. The current literature is focused mainly on general requirements for the new generation of managers. Industry 4.0 is characterised by integrating digital technologies, automation, standardization, and data analytics into all business operations. Managers need to understand and harness these technologies to make informed decisions. They must go beyond spreadsheets and financial reports to work with data from the Internet of Things devices, AI-driven systems, and blockchain, allowing them to provide real-time insights and support strategic choices (Chatterjee et al., 2020; Hallem et al., 2022; Ribeiro et al., 2021). In smart management and Industry 4.0, data takes centre stage. Managers must be skilled in collecting, processing, and interpreting vast data. They should be able to transform data into actionable insights for executives, aiding in better decision-making and helping companies stay competitive in rapidly changing markets (Akter et al., 2016; Duan et al., 2019; Dubey et al., 2020). Traditional risk management focuses on financial risks. However, in Industries 4.0 and 5.0, managers must address new risks related to cybersecurity, data privacy, and technological disruptions. Understanding these risks and developing strategies to mitigate them is essential (Lezzi et al., 2018). CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 323 The article aims to identify the characteristics and traits of management accountants operating in a smart environment. Our research employed a multifaceted methodology, beginning with a foundational theory of change to guide our exploration. We conducted a comprehensive literature review, examining existing research on management accountants’ evolving role in emerging SMART technologies. This review provided the foundation for a deeper conceptualization of the topic, allowing us to identify key themes and trends. Building on this foundation, we developed several propositions that capture the unique challenges and opportunities facing management accounting professionals in the rapidly changing SMART economy. By integrating these methodological components, we aim to provide a well-rounded analysis that sheds light on the evolving landscape of management accounting. The paper is structured as follows: literature review tracked by methodology, the core section devoted to developing the conceptual framework for SMART management accountants, and the article is closed with conclusions and limitations. The article contributes to developing the theoretical background for studying management skills and competencies in the SMART era. 2. Literature review 2.1. From smart organisation to smart management Filos (2006) defined the smart organisation “as the threshold for distinguishing winners from losers in the digital economy”. The European Commission juxtaposed the smart organisation with one that is knowledge-driven, learning, connected to the global Internet, dynamically adapting to new organisational practices and forms, and agile in creating and exploiting opportunities offered in the digital environment (Filos, 2006). A smart organization is a dynamic entity adept at generating, obtaining, organizing, and disseminating both codified and non-codified knowledge. It harnesses this knowledge to enhance operational efficiency, promote sustainability, and bolster competitiveness within the global marketplace. It has a clear strategic vision, culture, and a supportive incentive system for attaining achievements of a social and environmental nature (Matheson et al., 1998; Stępień et al., 2023). Smart organisations are equated with success, the fulfilment of successfully intended goals, and this is due to the creation and selection of information from their own and external. The professional vision thus obtained is used to modify organisational behaviour and build internal structures to transfer and apply the accumulated knowledge effectively. Adamik (2020) defined a smart organisation as “a continuous process of organisational improvement in structure and method of operation, implemented through methodical acquisition and application of knowledge to survive and grow sustainably”. A smart organisation, however, cannot just be an “island unto itself”. It is a network of other organisations forming alliances with suppliers, customers, employees, and competitors. As a rule, an organisation in a network or cluster is characterised by flat hierarchies, dynamic structures, empowerment of individuals, and high respect for individual capabilities, intellect, and knowledge (Filos, 2006). Carley (2001) stressed that one of the essential skills of this type of organisation in the era of Industry 4.0. is precisely the creation and development of business networking. It is fostered by a knowledge environment formed by ICT hardware, software, human resources, data, and information (Adamik & Sikora-Fernandez, 2021). As a result, smart organisations include three components: the ICT, the organisational, and the knowledge dimensions. Networking at the ICT level enables organisations to move to extended or virtual organisational forms and, within them, build cross-functional teams. The knowledge dimension refers to sharing information of people working in different teams, which is related to the integration and complementarity of competencies. The organisational dimension is associated with the flexibility and agility of teams, which, through cooperation, shape partnerships to effectively achieve strategic goals and create added value (Filos, 2006). Goldman et al. (1995) identified four strategic dimensions of agile behaviour that are key to smart organisations. These are customer focus, commitment to intraand interorganisational collaboration, organising to master change and uncertainty, and leveraging the influence of people (entrepreneurial culture) and knowledge (intellectual capital). In addition to the network structure promoted for smart organisations, a hierarchical structure is still visible in the market. Therefore, viewing this entity CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 324 as a hyper-connected organisation is the best solution. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), it can maximise (hierarchical) efficiency at the corporate level and network teams as scale and complexity increase while maintaining the ability to create value. Smart organisations require smart management along with smart methods for them to fulfil the role they are called to play. Smart management has a link to active management theory grounded in finance. According to it, smart management requires the manager to manage the organisation and its areas flexibly and efficiently to ensure competitive advantage and profitability despite risks and constraints. Although such an explanation can be considered common to management, smart management requires a change in mechanisms that will allow more efficient use of resources, including modern methods and technologies for analysing and processing information, and ensure cooperation between advanced technology and human capital. In the literature, references can be found to specific areas of smart management, i.e., in transportation or supply chain (Stefansson & Lumsden, 2008; Wu et al., 2016). These cases emphasise smart management’s importance in adding value and identifying key elements that fulfil this direction. Big data, Internet of Thing infrastructure, advanced analytics, data mining and business intelligence, automation, digitization, standardization, streamlining, openness to data exchange, integration, process, and product innovation (Wu et al., 2016). Stefansson and Sternberg (2007), on the other hand, pointed out that close cooperation with partners, mutual exchange of data and information through shared and decentralized databases, and, thanks to the technologies supporting this process, practical application of information for planning, control, and real-time decision-making are the keys to the success of smart management. Associated with smart management is the achievement of goals, which should be by the SMART concept, i.e., specifiable, measurable, achievable, relevant, and timebound (MacLeod, 2012). By formulating goals using the SMART concept, one can be sure of achieving organizational success, which will be reflected in high performance. This includes nonfinancial perspective, i.e., performances in the sphere of environment and society. However, it is impossible to shape smart organizations and implement smart management to achieve SMART goals without smart human resources and smart work. Smart prospects are the result of the development of technology, including the application of advanced smart solutions flowing from the concept of Industry 4.0. (Cascio & Montealegre, 2016). 2.2. Smart working for smart workers The competitive advantage of companies will depend not only on the adaptation of innovative technologies but also on changes in labour, work environment, and human resource strategies. The placement of human beings in the environment of Industry 4.0 has given rise to the smart human resource, where smart human manifests itself in the critical treatment of the human, the intangible. In contrast, resources point to human knowledge, know-how, and their application to achieve greater productivity and self-esteem (Abellán-Sevilla & Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, 2023). The idea of smart human resources in business, in turn, has defined the smart worker or smart worker 4.0 (Abellán-Sevilla & Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, 2023; Pillai & Srivastava, 2022; Errichiello & Pianese, 2018). The main intention of operating an employee in a technology environment is to support and maximize his or her potential, thus making him or her do his or her job more smartly. This may also involve eliminating operational, repetitive activities with low added value. According to Meindl et al. (2021), smart working refers to employees’ use of advanced technological solutions (artificial intelligence (AI), cloud, big data, automation, standardization) to support decisionmaking processes, manage knowledge, stimulate creativity, and design and enhance employee safety and satisfaction. All these skills are the foundation for the development of Industry 5.0, which assumes high use of robotics and AI, focusing more on humanmachine collaboration, sustainability, and social responsibility. A smart employee is an employee who performs work differently, using digital tools, but also possesses specific skills and abilities (Dornelles et al., 2022). According to Errichiello & Pianese, (2018), smart work manifests itself in flexibility, that is, doing work regardless of time and place, translating into remote work. Smart work means flexible schedules, locations, and forms of employment (Hassan, 2016). Flexibility at work is fostered by the following elements: the redesign of physical workspaces along with information and communication technologies for employees and significant changes in employees’ work procedures and traditional management (Clapperton & Vanhoutte, 2014). These are called the three levers: bricks of Bytes and Behavior, which refer to the physical, technological, and behavioural dimensions CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 325 (Clapperton & Vanhoutte, 2014; De Kok, 2016). Orlikowski (1992) also pointed out that smart work is based on a combination of at least two elements: institution, location, and technology. According to the researcher, smart work is carried away from offices and factories, where employees communicate with others through new technology. Smart working, in effect, can mean an atypical style of work that does not fit into the standard form of employment, i.e., telecommuting, telework, e-work, mobile work, but is expected to generate benefits for both parties (Robertson & Vink, 2012; Rudolph & Schröder, 2003). Hassan (2016) defined a conceptual framework for smart work. These include work policy change, application, managerial support, measurement, and feedback. Smart working responds to changing economic and social transformations, including adopting family-friendly solutions and work-life balance. Smart working is more effective for assessing and monitoring workload and achievements. In addition, employees have a better sense of wellbeing, resulting in more effective cooperation (Coffey et al., 2016). This is also supported by the research of Golden (2012), who emphasises that smart working improves employees’ health and well-being and gives work or life satisfaction without raising ongoing labour costs and even improving work efficiency. Smart working is bound by autonomy, which is referred to as backbone. It is intended to proactively foster strategic goal achievement (Boute & Van Mieghem, 2019). Smart working creates opportunities to work more efficiently and effectively, increasing organisational performance. It refers to “new ways of working made possible by technological advances and made necessary by economic, environmental, and social pressures” (Hassan, 2016). It appears to be, as Morsi (2002) (as cited in Hassan, 2016) states, “the best way to face rapidly changing business demands and remain competitive”. Smart working defines smart workers who have flexible skills. They are well-informed and well-connected through technology, and they do not work under strict director supervision but more as partners, which promotes self-actualisation, better self-perception, and satisfaction, thus leading to business growth (Hassan, 2016). Smart working for competent workers means adapting advanced and innovative technologies by organisations and using them with soft skills, namely flexibility, openness, partnership, willingness to selfdevelopment and continuous learning, and emotional intelligence. This means that socio-emotional skills are essential for the formation of smart workers. 2.3. Features of smart workers and their personality traits Organisations that want to achieve the smart title must ensure that working conditions are adapted to a smart environment through technology and that employees are retrained or upgraded. Employees operating in smart organisations and working conditions should have specific characteristics and approaches. In particular, they emphasise lifelong learning, openmindedness, creativity, and elasticity in adapting to change and good decision-making (Kumar, 2017), and enhancing work productivity. Adamik and Fernandez-Sikora (2021) stressed that smart employees working under the conditions of concept Industry 4.0 should have the following competencies and skills: subject matter knowledge, ability to learn, ability to work in a team, ability to work in a multicultural environment, ability to work remotely, knowledge of foreign languages and IT, ability to share knowledge, and in attitudes they see such as attitude to continuous development, goal orientation, openness to new experiences, creativity, flexible thinking, agility, high tolerance for uncertainty and sociability. Writing about competencies and skills, it is worth recalling Barbar and Plucker (2002), according to whom such labels as intelligence, expertise, ability, and talent inhibit the evolution and contextual nature of the individual-environment relationship (social, cultural, ecological, relational). According to the researchers, these constructs can be described more as functional relationships acquired, updated during various transactions, through which individuals appear to possess knowledge and skills. In addition, some traits are established within the individual, in a sense “innate”. If correctly grasped and guided during transactions, they can shape an individual with the given labels of intelligence or expertise, which were previously perceived differently. In this regard, the characteristics of smart workers, who rely mainly on networking and interaction in their work, should be described through traits, attitudes, or nature/ disposition. In addition to the traits that define smart workers, personality and its components are expressed in behaviour and interactions with others and a given situation. Tupes and Christal (1961) grouped five CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 326 traits of smart human beings, which also translates to workers. These are flexibility, extroversion and openness, emotional stability, awareness (dependability), and culture and intellect. The same characteristics were indicated by McCrae & Costa (1991), i.e., extraversion of neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness. Based on the indicated personality types, (Kumar, 2017) set a specific framework for the characteristics and roles of smart people in smart cities. This model can be transferred to smart workers in smart organisations. As a result, the extrovert dimension of personality implies better interpersonal skills, readiness for change, and proactive decision-making, which translates into better leadership, teamwork, and willingness to take on new projects. Under agreeableness is understood as the development of cooperation, organisation, confidence, contentment, and harmony. Conscientiousness stands for focus, responsibility, dependability, interest in novelty, skating better organisation, and success. Emotional stability is expressed through satisfaction with life and work, low stress levels, calmness, confidence, and optimism. These traits influence better control of emotions, while an optimistic attitude and composure alleviate conflictual and unclear circumstances. The last dimension is openness to experience, creativity, curiosity, sensitivity, or innovation. Each dimension is conducive to fulfilling roles in a smart environment. For example, the first dimension of personality translates into better performance and smarter use of ICT infrastructure and services, respectively; the second dimension allows the formation of a friendly and satisfying work environment; the third dimension boils down to improving work organisation and following a plan, the fourth dimension enables one to go through difficulties in a “painless” way. In contrast, the fifth dimension contributes to developing innovation and creating a sustainable work environment (Kumar, 2017). As a result, it can be concluded that a smart personality is a personality with a positive attitude, empathy, and support. It can be possessed by both an extrovert and an introvert (Montag & Elhai, 2019). In the latter’s case, it is worth adding that technology that enables long-distance communication can influence increased openness so that smart organisations can favour introverts in presentations and discussions in the broader group. On the other hand, considering the four types of temperaments and their characteristics, i.e., choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic, and melancholic, it can be concluded that sanguine is the most appropriate for a smart environment. It is a confident, extroverted (outward-facing), relatively stable person whose main characteristics include being sociable, open, talkative, sensitive, relaxed, full of life, and a leader. It is a strong, balanced type but simultaneously empathetic and selfdistant (Strelau, 1985). Smart workers are not only associated with intellect and possession of textbook knowledge. Smart workers are a certain kind of personality predisposition, character, and abilities, which together translate into the ability to, among other things, perform different tasks, enter different roles and different cooperations, and work both independently and in a group. A smart worker should have nonspiritual abilities and social-emotional skills, such as conscientiousness or emotional stability (Bergner, 2020; He et al., 2019). Salgado et al. (Salgado-Gálvez et al., 2013) position that higher cognitive abilities lead to tremendous success at work and are more critical when significant intellectual challenges characterise the job. In contrast, Seibert et al., (1999) emphasise that under conditions of greater individual freedom of action, such conditions are created by smart working, social-emotional, or character-related skills that are crucial. The researchers point out that they perform well in unpredictable and challenging situations. So, they can be instrumental in today’s dynamic, changing, unexpected business and economic conditions. Berger (2020) confirmed this thesis in her research, pointing out that social-emotional skills, particularly openness, go beyond cognitive ability in the context of predictive entrepreneurship. In her view, more than intelligence in terms of intellectual wisdom is needed to become an entrepreneur, for example. However, an individual must also be open-minded, curious, and like unconventional ideas and viewpoints (i.e., openness). A smart worker is an agile worker embedded in a smart environment identified with elements of Industry 4.0, i.e., can quickly adopt and understand new technology and work with it effectively. A smart worker is also a business partner who can talk to co-workers and contractors, i.e., has his arguments and listens. A smart worker is also a “lifelong employee” who, although he knows that the company’s high achievements are essential, such a perspective does not blind his eyes to observing the world and society and using his own experiences to improve the business and professional environment. A smart worker is different from the best or ideal employee, including not making CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 327 mistakes but being a practical, sustainable, and social human being. Smart workers are best reflected by the statement (Kumar, 2017), “A person may have a brilliant mind and an outstanding intelligence, but with certain personality traits, a person cannot be one of the smart people”. 2.4. Roles of management accountants and the environment of industries 4.0 and 5.0 Considering the ideas of smart organisation, smart management, and smart workers, a suitable example is the silhouette of a management accountant. A management accountant plays an important role in the organisation, as he is most generally predisposed to support business activities. This factor distinguished him from the general profession of the accountant, who books and deals with taxes and financial reporting (Riahi-Belkaoui, 2018). The role lof the management accountant has also been and continues to be subject to change due to the evolution of economies and socio-business trends. Initially, they were responsible for planning and controlling economic processes; in the long run, their function was seen as holistic management support (Byrne & Pierce, 2007). At the same time, it was mainly reduced to preparing internal reports and analyses without active involvement in management and decision-making. Management accountants were perceived as aloof professionals confined to their department and, in many cases, as a certain “enemy” to other employees due to the constant pressure to reduce costs to ensure business profitability - an operational orientation (Burns & Vaivio, 2001; Parker, 2000). In recent years, the image of management accountants has been “warmed up” due to the emphasis on its business approach, that is, actively supporting the management and decisionmaking process (Granlund & Lukka, 1998; Taylor & Scapens, 2016). The management accountant has thus changed his image from the so-called “bean counter” to “business partner” or even “change agent” (Byrne & Pierce, 2007; Granlund & Lukka, 1998). The new perception of the specialist in question signifies a growing emphasis on a more strategic, forwardlooking perspective of the organisation, whose goals can be realised through internal and external collaborative efforts (Wadan et al., 2019). Mistry et al. (2014), as well as Albelda (2011), have paid particular attention to the role of management accounting practice toward the development and support of sustainability, which involves expanding reporting and analysis, new tools and metrics for measuring achievements, i.e., not only targeting financial, but also non-financial aspects, and orienting management and decision-making toward environmental and social aspects, not just economic, and therefore value rather than exclusive profitability. Opinions and studies, for example, by CIMA or Adams and Frost (2008), show that management accounting practices have been and continue to be guided by the core values of economic prosperity. As a result, several rationales are being presented (regulations, greater expectations for managers to orient management toward sustainability, voices of accounting professionals), emphasising the need for management accountants to engage in sustainability actively (Mistry et al., 2014; Wijethilake et al., 2017). Perhaps such a perspective will emerge in a new role for the management accounting professional, such as a “social partner”. Thus, the practice of management accounting is further evaluated in the direction of value and strategic management, and this trend may be fostered by the smart environment, which is based on the concept of I4.0., i.e., advanced and smart technologies. Its framework assumes the availability of necessary information in real-time thanks to integrating various network links that circulate value or value chains (Wadan et al., 2019). Structural changes require management changes, and thus, changes in the role and perception of the management accountant being an active link in management. Jedrzejka (2019) stresses that accounting shows significant potential for automatisation and robotisation, which will translate into a change like tasks from specialists in this field towards business consulting and automation management or management consultant. The transformation in the sphere of tasks, where even tighter integration of management accounting with financial accounting and management, more intensive coordination of internal and external processes and data thanks to technology, and the need to share knowledge will affect the emergence of new roles and a new walkthrough of qualities and competencies that the “new” management accountant should possess in the so-called digital environment (Schäffer & Weber, 2015). Yazdifar and Tsamaney (2005) now emphasise the importance of coordination competencies, strategic thinking, systems knowledge and IT scope, business knowledge, and interpretive skills. However, the Industry 4.0 environment will deepen their essence and form new characteristics of CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 334 the SMART economy, where digital technologies, data analytics, and automation are seamlessly integrated into business operations. They excel in harnessing these technologies for informed decision-making and providing real-time insights. Additionally, they navigate the complexities of big data, cybersecurity risks, and the rapid pace of change in Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0. Continuous learning and adaptability are central to their approach, allowing them to stay current with emerging technologies and industry standards. SMART management accountants excel in combining digital solutions, artificial intelligence, and data processing with principles of sustainability, transparency, accountability, and social responsibility. This paper has several limitations, including its reliance on a conceptual framework without empirical validation, which may necessitate future research for validation. Additionally, the traits outlined may only encompass part of the full spectrum of skills required in diverse SMART management accountant roles, and their relative importance may vary across industries. Furthermore, the study needs more specific case examples or quantitative data to illustrate the practical application of these traits. To address these limitations, future research can involve empirical studies to validate the framework’s effectiveness in real-world scenarios, considering industry-specific nuances. Incorporating case studies and surveys among SMART management accountants can provide quantitative insights into trait significance and practical utility. References Abellán-Sevilla, A.-J., & Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M. (2023). Smart Human Resource Analytics for Happiness Management. Journal of Management Development, 42(6), 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JMD-03-2023-0064 Adamik, A. (2020). SMEs on the Way to the Smart World of Industry 4.0. Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics, 139–156. Adamik, A., & Sikora-Fernandez, D. (2021). Smart Organizations as a Source of Competitiveness and Sustainable Development in the Age of Industry 4.0: Integration of Micro and Macro Perspective. Energies, 14(6), 1572. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061572 Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2008). Integrating Sustainability Reporting into Management Practices. Accounting Forum, 32(4), 288–302. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.05.002 Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). How to Improve Firm Performance Using Big Data Analytics Capability and Business Strategy Alignment? International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 113–131. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018 Albelda, E. (2011). The Role of Management Accounting Practices as Facilitators of the Environmental Management: Evidence from EMAS Organisations. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 2(1), 76–100. https:// doi.org/10.1108/20408021111162137 Ambe, I. M. (2010). Agile Supply Chain: Strategy for Competitive Advantage. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 1, 5–5. https://doi.org/10.20460/ JGSM.2010415835 Ancona, D. (2012). Sensemaking: Framing and Acting in the Unknown. The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart People or Smart Contexts? Cognition, Ability, and Talent Development in an Age of Situated Approaches to Knowing and Learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3703_3 Bergner, S. (2020). Being Smart Is Not Enough: Personality Traits and Vocational Interests Incrementally Predict Intention, Status and Success of Leaders and Entrepreneurs Beyond Cognitive Ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 204. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2020.00204 Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389007082129 Boute, R. N., & Van Mieghem, J. A. (2019). Digital Operations: Framework and Future Directions. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3400186 Burns, J., & Vaivio, J. (2001). Management Accounting Change. Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1006/ mare.2001.0178 CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 335 Byrne, S. M., & Pierce, B. (2007). Towards a More Comprehensive Understanding of the Roles of Management Accountants (SSRN Scholarly Paper 991378). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=991378 Caputo, F., Garcia-Perez, A., Cillo, V., & Giacosa, E. (2019). A Knowledge-Based View of People and Technology: Directions for a Value Co-CreationBased Learning Organisation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(7), 1314–1334. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JKM-10-2018-0645 Carley, K. M. (2001). Smart Agents and Organizations of the Future. https://www. semanticscholar.org/paper/Smart-Agents-andOrganizations-of-the-Future-Carley/6b9a4baa7b9285 8a1001c74f588f07d30c7b8f24 Cascio, W. F., & Montealegre, R. (2016). How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 349–375. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352 Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Vrontis, D. (2022). AI and Digitalization in Relationship Management: Impact of Adopting AI-Embedded CRM System. Journal of Business Research, 150, 437–450. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.033 Cillo, V., Gregori, G. L., Daniele, L. M., Caputo, F., & Bitbol-Saba, N. (2022). Rethinking Companies’ Culture Through Knowledge Management Lens During Industry 5.0 Transition. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(10), 2485–2498. https://doi. org/10.1108/JKM-09-2021-0718 Clapperton, G., & Vanhoutte, P. (2014). The Smarter Working Manifesto. Sunmakers. Coffey, J. K., Wray-Lake, L., Mashek, D., & Branand, B. (2016). A Multi-Study Examination of Well-Being Theory in College and Community Samples. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9590-8 Dale, S., Frost, M., & Ison, S. (2023). The Theory of Change and Realistic Evaluation Applied to the Evaluation of a Transport Intervention: The Case of the Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 98, 102282. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102282 De Kok, A. (2016). The New Way of Working: Bricks, Bytes, and Behavior. In J. Lee (Ed.), The Impact of ICT on Work (pp. 9–40). Springer Singapore. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-612-6_2 De Silva, M. J., Breuer, E., Lee, L., Asher, L., Chowdhary, N., Lund, C., & Patel, V. (2014). Theory of Change: A Theory-Driven Approach to Enhance the Medical Research Council’s Framework for Complex Interventions. Trials, 15(1), 267. https://doi. org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-267 Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Orlando, B., & Mustilli, M. (2023). Toward the Human-Centered Approach. A Revised Model of Individual Acceptance of AI. Human Resource Management Review, 33(1), 100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100856 Dornelles, J. de A., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2022). Smart Working in Industry 4.0: How Digital Technologies Enhance Manufacturing Workers’ Activities. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 163, 107804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107804 Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial Intelligence for Decision Making in the Era of Big Data – Evolution, Challenges and Research Agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2019.01.021 Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Bryde, D. J., Giannakis, M., Foropon, C., Roubaud, D., & Hazen, B. T. (2020). Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence Pathway to Operational Performance Under the Effects of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Environmental Dynamism: A Study of Manufacturing Organisations. International Journal of Production Economics, 226, 107599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijpe.2019.107599 Errichiello, L., & Pianese, T. (2018). Smart Work Centers as “Creative Workspaces” for Remote Employees. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 14-21 Pages. https://doi.org/10.23726/ CIJ.2018.746 Filos, E. (2006). Smart Organizations in the Digital Age: In I. Mezgar (Ed.), Integration of ICT in Smart Organizations (pp. 1–38). IGI Global. https://doi. org/10.4018/978-1-59140-390-6.ch001 Fonseca, L. M. (2018). Industry 4.0 and the Digital Society: Concepts, Dimensions and Envisioned Benefits. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 12(1), 386–397. https://doi. org/10.2478/picbe-2018-0034 Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? Technological Forecasting and CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 336 Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2016.08.019 Gänßlen, S., Losbichler, H., Niedermayr, R., Rieder, L., Schäffer, U., & Weber, J. (2013). Die Kernelemente des Controllings—Das Verständnis von ICV und IGC. Controlling & Management Review, 57(3), 56–61. https:// doi.org/10.1365/s12176-013-0757-7 Garrido, S., Muniz, J., & Batista Ribeiro, V. (2024). Operations Management, Sustainability & Industry 5.0: A Critical Analysis and Future Agenda. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 10, 100141. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.clscn.2024.100141 Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Foroughi, B., Babaee Tirkolaee, E., Asadi, S., & Amran, A. (2023). Industry 5.0 Implications for Inclusive Sustainable Manufacturing: An Evidence-Knowledge-Based Strategic Roadmap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 417, 138023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138023 Golden, L. (2012). The Effects of Working Time on Productivity and Firm Performance, Research Synthesis Paper (SSRN Scholarly Paper 2149325). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2149325 Goldman, S. L. (1995). Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer. Granlund, M., & Lukka, K. (1998). Towards Increasing Business Orientation: Finnish Management Accountants in a Changing Cultural Context. Management Accounting Research, 9(2), 185–211. https:// doi.org/10.1006/mare.1998.0076 Gupta, A., Panagiotopoulos, P., & Bowen, F. (2023). Developing Capabilities in Smart City Ecosystems: A Multi-Level Approach. Organization Studies, 44(10), 1703–1724. https://doi. org/10.1177/01708406231164114 Haleem, A., Javaid, M., & Singh, R. P. (2022). An Era of ChatGPT as a Significant Futuristic Support Tool: A Study on Features, Abilities, and Challenges. BenchCouncil Transactions on Benchmarks, Standards and Evaluations, 2(4), 100089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tbench.2023.100089 Hassan, S. A. G. (2016). Smart Work and Efficiency at the Work Place. Theses and Dissertations. https:// fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/289 He, H., Shang, Y., Yang, X., Di, Y., Lin, J., Zhu, Y., Zheng, W., Zhao, J., Ji, M., Dong, L., Deng, N., Lei, Y., & Chai, Z. (2019). Constructing an Associative Memory System Using Spiking Neural Network. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13. https://www.frontiersin. org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00650 Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., Berger, E. L., Jackson, B., & Yuen, T. (2011). What Is Resilience? The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600504 Järvenpää, M. (2007). Making Business Partners: A Case Study on How Management Accounting Culture Was Changed. European Accounting Review, 16(1), 99–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180701265903 Jędrzejka, D. (2019). Robotic Process Automation and Its Impact on Accounting. The Theoretical Journal of Accounting, 2019(105 (161)), 137–166. https://doi. org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6061 Kirshner, B., Zion, S., Lopez, S., & HipolitoDelgado, C. (2021). A Theory of Change for Scaling Critical Civic Inquiry. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(3), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619 56X.2021.1942708 Kisperska-Moron, D., & Swierczek, A. (2009). The Agile Capabilities of Polish Companies in the Supply Chain: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Production Economics, 118(1), 217–224. Kramer, M. R., & Pfitzer, M. W. (2016, October). The Ecosystem of Shared Value. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/10/the-ecosystem-ofshared-value Kubisch, J. P. C., & A. C. (1998). Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems. https://www. semanticscholar.org/paper/Applying-a-Theoryof-Change-Approach-to-the-of-and-Kubisch/ b5ae8eceb15ffaf10e2268af2a045c62b4e13f51 Kumar, S. G., & Syed Ziaul Mustafa, H. (2017). Smart People for Smart Cities: A Behavioral Framework for Personality and Roles. In Advances in Smart Cities. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Lee, I., & Lee, K. (2015). The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, Investments, and Challenges for Enterprises. Business Horizons, 58(4), 431–440. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.03.008 Lee, J. (2015). Smart Factory Systems. InformatikSpektrum, 38(3), 230–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00287-015-0891-z Lezzi, M., Lazoi, M., & Corallo, A. (2018). Cybersecurity for Industry 4.0 in the Current CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 337 Literature: A Reference Framework. Computers in Industry, 103, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compind.2018.09.004 Mackenzie, M., & Blamey, A. (2005). The Practice and the Theory: Lessons from the Application of a Theories of Change Approach. Evaluation, 11(2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389005055538 MacLeod, L. (2012). Making SMART Goals Smarter. Physician Executive, 38(2), 68–70, 72. Matheson, D., Matheson, J., & Matheson, J. E. (1998). The Smart Organization: Creating Value Through Strategic R&D. Harvard Business School Press. McCRAE, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). The NEO Personality Inventory: Using the Five-Factor ModeI in Counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(4), 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991. tb01524.x Meindl, B., Ayala, N. F., Mendonça, J., & Frank, A. G. (2021). The Four Smarts of Industry 4.0: Evolution of Ten Years of Research and Future Perspectives. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 168, 120784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120784 Mistry, V., Sharma, U., & Low, M. (2014). Management Accountants’ Perception of Their Role in Accounting for Sustainable Development: An Exploratory Study. Pacific Accounting Review, 26(1/2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-06-2013-0052 Moll, J., & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2019). The Role of Internet-Related Technologies in Shaping the Work of Accountants: New Directions for Accounting Research. The British Accounting Review, 51(6), 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.04.002 Montag, C., & Elhai, J. D. (2019). A New Agenda for Personality Psychology in the Digital Age? Personality and Individual Differences, 147, 128–134. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.03.045 Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The KnowledgeCreating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427. Parker, C. (2000). Performance Measurement. Work Study, 49(2), 63–66. https://doi. org/10.1108/00438020010311197 Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing Research and Development at the Intersection of Learning, Implementation, and Design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X11421826 Pillai, R., & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2022). Smart HRM 4.0 for Achieving Organizational Performance: A Dynamic Capability View Perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJPPM-04-2022-0174 Riahi-Belkaoui, A. (2018). The Problematics of Truth in Business and Accounting (SSRN Scholarly Paper 3206970). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3206970 Ribeiro, A., Amaral, A., & Barros, T. (2021). Project Manager Competencies in the Context of the Industry 4.0. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 803–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.233 Robertson, M., & Vink, P. (2012). Examining New Ways of Office Work Between the Netherlands and the USA. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41(supplement 1), 5086–5090. Rudolph, H., & Schröder, E. (2003). Arbeitnehmerüberlassung: Trends und Einsatzlogik (Temporary Work: Trends and Patterns of Utilisation). Mitteilungen Aus Der ArbeitsmarktUnd Berufsforschung, 30(1). Salgado-Gálvez, M. A., Zuloaga-Romero, D., & Cardona-Arboleda, O. D. (2013). Evaluación Probabilista del Riesgo Sísmico de Bogotá y Manizales con y sin la Influencia de la Caldas Tear. Revista de Ingeniería, 38, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.16924/ revinge.38.1 Sauter, R., Bode, M., & Kittelberger, D. (2015). Auswirkungen von Industrie 4.0 auf die Produktionsnahe Steuerung der Wertschöpfung. Controlling: Zeitschrift Für Erfolgsorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung, 27(8/9). Schäffer, U., & Weber, J. (2015). Controlling im Wandel—Die Veränderung eines Berufsbilds im Spiegel der Zweiten WHU-Zukunftsstudie. Controlling, 27(3), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.15358/0935-03812015-3-185 Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive Personality and Career Success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416 CEEJ • 11(58) • 2024 • pp. 320-328 • ISSN 2543-6821 • DOI: 10.2478/ceej-2024-0021 338 Smart. (2023, November 14). https://dictionary. cambridge.org/dictionary/english/smart Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience Definitions, Theory, and Challenges: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5(1), 25338. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338 Stefansson, G., & Lumsden, K. (2008). Performance Issues of Smart Transportation Management Systems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(1), 55–70. https://doi. org/10.1108/17410400910921083 Stefánsson, G., & Sternberg, H. (2007). Freight Transport Operation Management. The 5th International Workshop in Supply Chain Management and Information Systems. Stępień, S., Smędzik-Ambroży, K., Polcyn, J., Kwiliński, A., & Maican, I. (2023). Are Small Farms Sustainable and Technologically Smart? Evidence from Poland, Romania, and Lithuania. Central European Economic Journal, 10(57), 116-132. https://doi. org/10.2478/ceej-2023-0007 Strelau, J. (1985). Temperament—Osobowość— Działanie. Państwowe Wydawn. Naukowe. Sullivan, H., Barnes, M., & Matka, E. (2002). Building Collaborative Capacity Through `Theories of Change’: Early Lessons from the Evaluation of Health Action Zones in England. Evaluation, 8(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008002514 Taylor, L. C., & Scapens, R. W. (2016). The Role of Identity and Image in Shaping Management Accounting Change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(6), 1075–1099. https://doi. org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2014-1835. Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings. Personnel Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, United States Air Force. Wadan, R., Teuteberg, F., Bensberg, F., & Buscher, G. (2019). Understanding the Changing Role of the Management Accountant in the Age of Industry 4.0 in Germany. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.702 Wijethilake, C., Munir, R., & Appuhami, R. (2017). Strategic Responses to Institutional Pressures for Sustainability: The Role of Management Control Systems. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(8), 1677–1710. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-072015-2144 Wu, L., Yue, X., Jin, A., & Yen, D. C. (2016). Smart Supply Chain Management: A Review and Implications for Future Research. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 27(2), 395–417. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2014-0035 Yatirajula, S. K., Kallakuri, S., Paslawar, S., Mukherjee, A., Khan, N. A., Thornicroft, G., & Maulik, P. K. (2022). Methodological Adaptations to a Theory of Change Model: Experiences from the ARTEMIS Cluster Randomized Trial in India. SSM - Mental Health, 2, 100149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ssmmh.2022.100149 Yazdifar, H., & Tsamenyi, M. (2005). Management Accounting Change and the Changing Roles of Management Accountants: A Comparative Analysis Between Dependent and Independent Organizations. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 1(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/18325910510635353