Corporate Budgeting: Literature Review of Benefits and Drawbacks
This paper presents a comprehensive literature review of corporate budgeting, examining both its theoretical foundations and its practical implications for organizations. Drawing on multiple scholarly sources, the review defines corporate budgeting, outlines its core benefits — including planning, forecasting, and fiscal transparency — and critically analyzes documented drawbacks such as managerial dishonesty, inflexibility, and misaligned incentives. The paper also surveys research on how budgeting systems relate to firm size, decentralization, and CEO turnover. In its second part, the review identifies gaps in the existing literature and discusses three broad approaches to reform: maintaining traditional budgets, abandoning them through Beyond Budgeting methods, or improving them through better budgeting practices.
- Introduction to Corporate Budgeting: Definition, purpose, and role of corporate budgets
- Benefits of Corporate Budgeting: Forecasting, pricing, flexibility, and capital access
- Budgeting Systems, Firm Size, and CEO Turnover: Merchant's model, firm size, and Hornstein's CEO findings
- Drawbacks and Criticisms of Corporate Budgeting: Dishonesty, inflexibility, and misaligned managerial incentives
- Gaps in the Literature and Proposed Reforms: Missing solutions and flexible budgeting alternatives
- Conclusion: Three reform approaches: traditional, Beyond Budgeting, better budgeting
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper balances multiple perspectives — presenting both the traditional case for budgeting and strong scholarly critiques — giving the review intellectual credibility and depth.
- It integrates a wide range of sources (academic journals, practitioner outlets like Harvard Business Review, and textbooks), demonstrating breadth of research across theoretical and applied domains.
- The two-part structure clearly separates primary synthesis from meta-analysis, allowing the reader to first understand the topic and then evaluate the state of knowledge about it.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective thematic synthesis in a literature review. Rather than summarizing sources one by one, it groups findings around recurring themes — planning benefits, incentive distortion, inflexibility, and reform proposals — and identifies where sources agree, contradict, or leave gaps. This approach is especially evident in the second section, where the author moves from summarizing literature to identifying what the literature has yet to resolve.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into two clearly labeled parts. Part I opens with a definition and rationale for corporate budgeting, then progressively introduces benefits before pivoting to criticisms. Part II shifts register from descriptive to evaluative: it restates the research problem, synthesizes key conclusions, identifies literature gaps, and proposes solutions. The conclusion neatly maps three reform approaches — traditional, Beyond Budgeting, and better budgeting — providing a concise framework that ties the review together.
Introduction to Corporate Budgeting
Corporate budgeting is defined as the process by which a company estimates its finances and plans operations accordingly (Hornstein, 2013). When businesses develop a corporate budget, the first step is usually a project plan. The next step involves determining the amount of time required, the expenses of the project, and the goals to be achieved. For any business looking to define a budget in preparation for a major goal, it is important for a firm to understand its limitations regarding employees, resources, and the consequences of any major or minor changes. A budgeting system is an amalgamation of information flows together with administrative practices and procedures that is more often than not a vital part of the short-term planning and control system of an entity. Scholars have distinguished the significance of budgeting and have undertaken a great deal of associated research, but the outcomes up until now have been difficult to incorporate and are frequently contradictory (Merchant, 1981).
A budget can be defined as a quantitative plan of revenues and expenses intended for use over a given period of time. It is a financial plan that outlines the financial implications of responding to a given need. Simply put, a budget lays down the cost of implementing a corporate plan. The fundamental question in budgeting is why a certain amount of money should be allocated to a given element of expenditure instead of another. It essentially involves deciding which expenditures to give more or less priority, taking into account resource scarcity and the unlimited nature of expenditure elements. Corporate budgeting is an opportunity to make the right choices that will ensure the organization meets its set goals and objectives.
Corporate budgeting encompasses fiscal transparency, ensuring openness and accountability in the budget process, unit accounts, budgetary projections, and implementation. It requires ensuring ready access to reliable and accurate information on corporate activities, the amount of money allocated to them, and whether the allocated money was spent in the stipulated manner. In essence, transparency and accountability in financial management denotes not only the clarity of the budget process but also the depth, quality, and reliability of the financial information provided. The fundamental role of a corporate budgeting policy is to strike a proper balance between corporate spending and revenue sources. A budget control policy ensures that all corporate expenditure is legally authorized and that sufficient budgetary control mechanisms are in place to track and report on actual revenue and expenditure relative to budgeted amounts. In addition, a budget control policy stipulates regulations for accountability in terms of expenditure (Mikesell, 2013).
A corporate budget is normally regarded by accountants as a component for the control of corporate operations by executive management, and it might even be perceived as a tangible demonstration of the concept of management by exception. Moreover, accountants have tended to perceive themselves as the proper guardians of this control mechanism. In particular, accountants customarily assume that accounting functions as a control device for management, used for identifying and correcting poor performance. This attitude is most apparent in corporate budgeting (Parker, 1977). Parker considers whether the control element of corporate budgeting has been exaggerated and overstressed by accountants. One of the key benefits identified for corporate budgeting is that it prompts management planning and facilitates the formulation of expected performance. Through corporate budgeting, managers are compelled to look ahead, and this forced planning is a considerable contribution of corporate budgeting to management. In addition, corporate budgeting establishes plans with respect to the individuals accountable for carrying them out. It is a suitable controlling mechanism insofar as it is a statement of the performance anticipated from every manager, against which their actual performance can ultimately be compared and scrutinized.
Benefits of Corporate Budgeting
A budget is defined as a written statement of management's plans for a particular period of time, expressed in financial terms. A realistic budget will benefit the organization compared to having no budget at all. One key benefit is forecasting: a realistic budget assists the organization in projecting yearly expenses and helps in perceiving costs as they arise. A second benefit is setting the right prices. It is important to note that aspects such as the prices of rival products are not the only factors taken into consideration when setting the rates, charges, and prices of products (Weygandt et al., 2009).
A third benefit is flexibility. Having a realistic budget permits the corporation to track the performance of the business throughout its financial year, making it possible to cut back expenses or increase spending in order to maximize growth prospects. Conducting corporate budgeting enables a company to identify different areas where expenses can be reduced to increase its competitive edge. In addition, a realistic budget will facilitate a corporation in obtaining capital and credit. Venture capitalists are generally reluctant to provide financing to any business that lacks financial statements and information demonstrating that it is financially healthy. Therefore, having a realistic budget enables financial corporations to demonstrate their financial position (Weygandt et al., 2009).
Budgeting Systems, Firm Size, and CEO Turnover
Merchant (1981) examines the manner in which various corporate-level budgeting systems are associated with the size of a company, its diversity, and degree of decentralization, and how different choices in system design and use are associated with organizational performance and the motivation and attitudes of managers. Factors linked to corporate budgeting include managerial behavior and attitudes toward budgeting features such as participation, objective difficulty, and budget pressure. Outcomes of the developed model indicate that budget, as included in the corporate control approach, is associated with corporate structure. Larger companies tend to make comparatively greater use of more formal administrative controls compared to personal controls. In all companies, the more formal and complex budgeting practices are generally well accepted by managers, but in larger corporations they appear to be more positively associated with performance (Merchant, 1981).
The article by Hornstein (2013) highlights how investments vary before, during, and after Chief Executive Officer (CEO) turnover events. "When a firm has minimal agency and informational asymmetry problems it should make efficient capital budgeting decisions. Many firms over-invest prior to CEO turnover, halt investments in the period surrounding the turnover, and then greatly increase their level of expenditures" (Hornstein, 2013, p. 41). This pattern is rational and feasible because there is considerable uncertainty emanating from CEO turnovers. If investment increases both before and after a CEO turnover, the budget may increase in the area of investments solely to fulfill the requirements of those looking to promote such changes during the transition. That is a central purpose of corporate budgeting — to allow companies the means by which to achieve certain goals. Money is an integral aspect of any kind of change within a business, and budgets provide concrete motivation to move ahead with desired or necessary changes.
Lidia (2014) delineates the challenges of the budgeting process and the factors that lead to the decision to implement this management tool. Fundamentally, budgets are management components that are generally acknowledged for their capacity to support planning and efficacious management of corporate resources and activities. However, it is important to note that preparing and using budgets does come with challenges and problems. The author considers the problems of the budgeting procedure together with the factors that determine the adoption and utilization of corporate budgeting. The outcomes of the synthesis indicate that budgets are beneficial components and provide several advantages irrespective of the problems that arise, which confirms their significance and continued use in corporations.
Conclusion
This synthesis encompasses the analysis of issues contained in corporate budgeting. In the present-day economic and market conditions, budgets are among the most debated managerial components and tools. In accordance with Lidia (2014), the literature debates both the advantages and the disadvantages of budgets along with the problems that emerge in their use. Taking this into consideration, three broad approaches have emerged. The first approach entails sustaining the budgetary process — the traditional approach to corporate budgeting. The second approach represents the contrasting position, involving the replacement of budgets with the Beyond Budgeting method. The third approach lies between these two and encompasses the enhancement of budgets, also referred to as better budgeting.
References
Babbini, C. (1999). Is traditional budgeting under siege? CMA Management, 73(9), 52.
Barsky, N. P., & Morris, J. T. (2016). Corporate budgeting: Perceptions of a next generation of corporate leaders. Management Accounting Quarterly, 17(4), 1–10.
Campbell, A., Shaw, D., Adams, W. W., & Jensen, M. C. (2002). Corporate budgeting is broken. Harvard Business Review, 80(3), 125–128.
Hornstein, A. S. (2013). Corporate capital budgeting and CEO turnover. Journal of Corporate Finance, 20, 41–58.
Jensen, M. C. (2001). Corporate budgeting is broken — let's fix it. Harvard Business Review, 79(10), 94–101.
Lidia, T. G. (2014). Difficulties of the budgeting process and factors leading to the decision to implement this management tool. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 466–473.
Merchant, K. A. (1981). The design of the corporate budgeting system: Influences on managerial behavior and performance. Accounting Review, 813–829.
Mikesell, J. (2013). Fiscal administration (9th ed.). Mason: Cengage Learning.
Parker, L. (1977). A reassessment of the role of control in corporate budgeting. Accounting and Business Research, 7(26), 135–143.
Weygandt, J. J., Kimmel, P. D., & Kieso, D. E. (2009). Managerial accounting: Tools for business decision making. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.