Lean Accounting Tool Packages and Firm Typologies: Evidence from an Exploratory Factor Analysis in Manufacturing

Abstract

This paper explores how Lean Accounting (LA) is implemented in manufacturing firms by identifying tool packages and the typologies of companies applying them. Despite growing interest in LA, prior research has focused primarily on individual tools or case studies, leaving the configuration of management accounting practices across organizations underexplored. The study aims to identify coherent packages of Lean Accounting tools used in practice and to determine how these packages correspond to different levels of implementation among manufacturing firms. An online questionnaire was used to collect data from 128 enterprises. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify tool groupings, followed by clustering to classify firms by their LA adoption profiles. The analysis resulted in three tool packages and three types of firms that differ in the advancement of LA implementation. The results show that firms at higher stages of implementation report greater awareness of cultural and technical barriers to LA transformation. This paper contributes to the literature by empirically identifying Lean Accounting tool packages and by proposing a typology of firms based on their implementation profiles. The novelty of this study lies in combining factor- and cluster-based approaches to explore management accounting practice configurations within the Lean paradigm—an area previously dominated by case studies. The findings enrich current knowledge on how different firms adopt Lean Accounting and how they perceive the challenges of its implementation.

1. Introduction

Contemporary manufacturing organizations are increasingly adopting the concept of lean management, aimed at eliminating waste and optimizing processes to enhance the value delivered to the customer [1]. However, transitioning to a lean environment necessitates an appropriate adaptation of management accounting systems, which in their traditional form may not align with the specific requirements of lean organizations [2]. In response to these challenges, the concept of lean accounting was introduced, with the goal of simplifying management accounting and tailoring it to the needs of organizations implementing lean [3].

Existing research on lean accounting has predominantly focused on individual tools and methods, while fewer empirical studies have investigated the packages of management accounting tools employed by lean enterprises [4]. Understanding which sets of management accounting tools are utilized in practice may provide valuable insights for both researchers and managers who make decisions in the area of management accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the tool packages used within lean accounting and to assess the extent to which they have been implemented in manufacturing enterprises. More specifically, this research centers on the following questions:

• Can distinct packages of tools be identified within lean accounting?
• What are the primary challenges related to the transformation of management accounting toward leanness, and do perceptions of these challenges differ depending on the level of lean accounting implementation?
• Can manufacturing firms be classified into groups based on the degree of lean accounting implementation, and what are the characteristics of these groups?

The findings of this study can enhance understanding of the role of management accounting tool packages in the context of lean management and offer practical recommendations for managers implementing these solutions within their organizations.

The paper is structured as follows. The second section presents a review of the literature on lean management, lean accounting, and management accounting systems in the context of lean transformation. The third section describes the research methodology, including the data collection process and analytical methods applied. The fourth section outlines the study’s findings, including the identification of tool packages and the classification of enterprises according to their level of lean accounting implementation. The fifth section discusses the results and their implications for practice and further research.

2. Literature Review/Theoretical Framework

2.1. Accounting in the Context of the Lean Management Concept

Research on the implementation of lean management underscores the need to modify management accounting systems so that they support lean management strategies and provide pertinent managerial information [5,6,7,8]. Traditional cost accounting and performance measurement systems often fail to capture the distinctive characteristics of lean organizations, which emphasize waste elimination and continuous improvement [2,9,10].

The literature suggests that successfully implementing lean management requires management accounting systems adapted to the organization’s new operational model [4,11]. Such adaptations should encompass both reporting tools and methods for assessing operational efficiency [12]. To evaluate how well a management accounting system meets the needs of a given enterprise, including lean organizations, one may employ the criteria proposed by Merchant [13]. These criteria include alignment with the organization’s strategic goals, the ability of managers to exercise control over measured variables, the timeliness and accuracy of the information generated, its clarity, and overall economic efficiency. Merchant [13] emphasized that alignment with strategic objectives is crucial for the effectiveness of management accounting systems, as other criteria lose significance in its absence.

2.2. Lean Accounting—Concept and Application

Lean accounting emerged in response to the limitations of traditional accounting systems in organizations implementing lean. The key objective of this concept is to simplify reporting processes, align financial metrics with genuine operational needs, and enhance the transparency of financial data [8,10].

Maskell and Baggaley [14] define lean accounting as “all accounting, control, and measurement methods that reflect the lean philosophy and support its implementation.” Sobańska [15] emphasizes that this concept focuses on eliminating unnecessary reports, simplifying cost calculations, and providing information in a way that supports value stream management. According to Wnuk-Pel [10], lean accounting should not only supply data on organizational performance but also promote continuous improvement processes and assist in making operational decisions.

A fundamental element of lean accounting is replacing traditional cost-calculation methods with an approach based on value stream analysis—examining the entire process of delivering value to the customer rather than merely focusing on individual product costs [14]. This shift reflects a move from a cost-oriented to a process-oriented perspective, consistent with lean principles [4].

In sum, lean accounting is a comprehensive information system that integrates management accounting with the lean philosophy. Its implementation should proceed in stages, parallel to the development of lean practices within the organization [16]. Despite growing interest in this concept, there is still a paucity of studies on comprehensive packages of lean accounting tools, highlighting a significant research gap [4].

By definition, lean management accounting practices and tools are intended to complement the lean management concept. They support its fundamental tenets: reducing waste, measuring value for and of the customer, enabling continuous flow, and adhering to the principle of continuous improvement.

Maskell and Baggaley [16] suggest that transitioning to lean management accounting must be approached incrementally, introducing new methods and tools as the firm adopts lean management techniques in various areas of its operations. Nevertheless, an enterprise should not wait until the end of its lean transformation to implement an accounting system, because such a system can facilitate monitoring of the changes being introduced. However, they acknowledge that traditional methods remain necessary during the transition phase.

A review of the literature leads to the conclusion that there is no fixed listing of methods classified as a Lean Management Accounting System; rather, the scope is somewhat fluid. Certain methods raise no classification concerns and are widely mentioned by various authors:

• Value stream costing [10,15,17];
• Performance boards [16,18];
• SOFP (Sales, Operations, and Financial Planning) [2,10,19];
• Target costing [15,20];
• Kaizen costing [21,22].

Some of the tools cited by these authors are typical of lean management, such as 5S, value stream mapping, and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. At the same time, they serve to improve information gathering and processing within the accounting system, demonstrating their versatility.

According to Łada and Grandys-Więckowska, numerous examples indicate that certain individual methods classified as lean management accounting are presented as universal management accounting tools, used not only by lean enterprises. These include target costing, open-book accounting, activity-based costing, and performance measurement systems that account for quality, productivity, and other aspects central to lean [23] (pp. 156–166). One explanation for this observation is that many of these methods support value-based management by streamlining operational activities. The diverse instruments of lean management accounting can thus be employed to manage both the organization as a whole and its individual functional areas, regardless of whether or not a lean strategy has been adopted. Especially significant are its modern solutions, adapted to the current requirements and needs of management, which can be symbiotically integrated with traditional monetary measurement methods. This integration fosters improved alignment with the obligatory and regulatory requirements of financial reporting.

Referring to management accounting practices, Otley [24] used the term “package” to indicate that there are relationships among a set of management accounting practices—rather than among practices and methods used in isolation—and that these are implemented as integrated “packages.” Although it is difficult to determine a closed set of practices encompassed by lean management accounting, some practices can be identified as constituting its core. What remains lacking, however, are studies on what constitutes the package used to support a lean management strategy [4].

2.3. Tool Packages in Management Accounting

Management Control Systems (MCSs) constitute an integral component of organizational management, supporting the achievement of strategic goals by coordinating activities and monitoring efficiency [25,26]. A key perspective in this context is contingency theory [24], which highlights that management accounting should not be examined in isolation but rather as part of a broader organizational control system. Otley [24] noted that accounting tools not only measure performance but also shape decision-making processes and employee behavior, necessitating consistency with a firm’s strategic and operational context.

The concept of management control packages (MCPs) was introduced to address the need for a more comprehensive approach to examining MCS [27]. Research suggests that organizational control systems comprise various elements, including cultural, planning, cybernetic, and administrative controls, as well as remuneration and reward mechanisms [27,28,29]. Within this framework, scholars investigate how these elements interact and influence managerial effectiveness. Studies indicate that organizations can achieve comparable outcomes using different configurations of control tools, a phenomenon referred to as equifinality [29].

In the context of research on management accounting system packages, studies of the complementarity and substitutability of control tools have been especially significant. Bedford [30] points out that some elements of a package can reinforce one another, whereas others can act as substitutes, reducing the necessity of certain mechanisms.

Another important research direction has been to determine how different package configurations affect organizational performance. Malmi and Brown [27] observed that the effectiveness of a package depends on how well it aligns with a firm’s strategy. Grabner and Moers [28] emphasized that not all elements of the control system need to be tightly interlinked—some can operate independently, and their effectiveness may stem from their loosely configured fit with the organization’s environment.

Research on packages in various types of organizations has shown that their configuration may shift depending on the enterprise’s stage of development. Startups often commence operations with informal cultural control mechanisms, progressively adopting more formalized systems [31,32]. This approach can also be pertinent to companies implementing lean accounting, which frequently rely on a culture of continuous improvement and the gradual adaptation of accounting tools to evolving operational requirements.

In the context of lean accounting in manufacturing enterprises, relatively few studies have examined tool packages, as most research has focused on single methods such as value stream costing, eliminating traditional budgeting, or nonfinancial indicators supporting the lean philosophy [2]. A package-oriented perspective, however, can offer deeper insight into the synergies among diverse management accounting mechanisms and their impact on organizational performance. Consequently, in adopting the concept of management control systems (MCS), research extends beyond examining individual tools to analyze performance control, behavioral aspects, and social dimensions in a lean production context [3].

Fullerton et al. [4] observed that lean organizations employ packages of accounting tools that encompass both operational measurement and strategic control, as well as cultural mechanisms. They also highlighted that a key element of lean accounting is integrating accounting systems with lean management principles, enabling more effective waste reduction and closer alignment of measurement methods with actual operational processes.

An analysis of the available literature suggests that organizations adopting lean accounting should configure their management accounting tool packages to reflect their stage of lean management implementation. In the early phase of transformation, companies frequently use less formalized management accounting tools, focusing on simplified cost measurement and operational performance indicators [2]. During this period, flexibility and the capacity to adapt accounting tools to rapidly changing business processes are crucial [31]. As lean systems mature, organizations adopt more comprehensive solutions, such as value stream costing or systems that measure the long-term savings resulting from waste elimination [4]. Fully developed lean organizations integrate management accounting with strategic management tools, allowing for a precise adjustment of control mechanisms to specific operational characteristics and long-term resource optimization [3].

Managing tool packages requires a holistic approach that accounts for both technical and cultural aspects of the organization. As Rathwatta and Gooneratne [33] note, effective management of tool packages depends on integrating multiple perspectives, such as costs, performance, customers, and competitors. In the case of Lean Accounting, it is crucial that tools like value stream costing, balanced scorecards, or lifecycle cost analysis are consistent with one another and support the organization’s strategic objectives. Moreover, resolving conflicts among tools may require mechanisms like interdepartmental meetings and informal communication.

Despite growing interest in the topic of packages in management accounting, there remains a lack of empirical studies on management accounting packages in lean contexts. This research gap is particularly evident in Poland. As Rutowicz [34] notes, the implementation of management accounting tools in Poland often proceeds without considering their synergy with the business model, resulting in inconsistencies. There is a particular need for empirical research identifying specific package configurations in lean enterprises operating on the Polish market.

For the purposes of this study, we define a management accounting tool bundle as a set of interdependent practices implemented in an integrated manner—mutually reinforcing, coordinating, and supporting the organization’s strategic objectives. This definition is based on Malmi and Brown’s [27] concept, which stresses that analyzing individual management control tools without considering their synergies leads to an incomplete understanding of accounting systems’ effectiveness. In the context of lean enterprises, package integration implies that practices such as value stream costing, Sales, Operations, and Financial Planning (SOFP), and visual performance management do not operate in isolation but rather form a cohesive whole that supports waste elimination and continuous improvement [2,4].

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection

This study focused on Polish manufacturing companies implementing the Lean Management concept. The primary selection criterion was the company’s declaration of having adopted lean systems such as the Toyota Production System (TPS), Achieving Competitive Excellence (ACE), Continuous Improvement Project (CIP), World Class Manufacturing (WCM), or Six Sigma. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, and the questionnaire was distributed electronically through various channels, including direct outreach to selected firms, Lean consulting companies, and industry associations. Personalized messages and follow-up reminders were used where possible to increase participation. Given the wide distribution approach and the nature of purposive sampling, the total number of companies contacted was not tracked, and thus an exact response rate cannot be determined.

The questionnaire was divided into five sections, each designed to collect information on various aspects of the enterprise’s operations and approach to the Lean concept. The first section focused on company data: ownership structure, affiliation with a capital group, location, size, and industry sector. These details provided the context necessary for understanding the specific characteristics of each participant. The second section focused on the respondents themselves. The third section addressed the level of Lean Management implementation in the enterprise. The fourth section was dedicated to Lean Accounting; here, respondents were asked to assess the degree to which Lean Accounting tools had been implemented in their organization. This enabled an evaluation of how widely these methods were applied in practice. The final section concentrated on identifying barriers to implementing Lean Accounting, requiring respondents to indicate the challenges they encountered during the implementation process.

A five-point Likert scale was employed (1 = no implementation, 5 = full implementation). Prior to the main survey, the questionnaire was pilot-tested and evaluated by two practitioners experienced in Lean Management, three academic experts in management, and a statistician specializing in data analysis within the field of management. Their feedback helped eliminate ambiguities and align the instrument with the study requirements.

Before commencing the primary stage of the study, the questionnaire underwent reliability and validity testing. Measurement properties were assessed with regard to key components of construct validity, following the guidelines of Bagozzi and Phillips [35]. In accordance with their approach, the instrument’s evaluation comprised an assessment of content validity, internal consistency of operationalizations (unidimensionality, convergence, and reliability), and discriminant validity.

The identification of barriers to lean accounting implementation (

Table 1. Barriers of LA implementation in manufacturing enterprises.

S.N.	Barriers to the Implementation of Lean Accounting	Sources
B1	Lack of accounting staff	[38,39]
B2	Lack of adequate computing resources (software)	[38,40,41]
B3	Management inertia	[1,42,43,44]
B4	Poor communication between operational, financial and accounting areas	[4,38,45,46,47,48]
B5	Lack of appropriate knowledge and competences of the department responsible for management accounting	[39,49,50,51,52,53]
B6	The need to meet statutory requirements	[48,54]
B7	Dependency on parent company	[55,56,57,58,59]
B8	Resistance to change	[38,60,61,62,63]

Source: [36].

) was presented in a [36] publication, while the selection of lean accounting methods and tools was discussed in Stronczek [37].

As a result of the questionnaire-based survey, 128 complete responses were ultimately obtained from manufacturing companies following verification.

Table 2. Characteristics of the Surveyed Sample.

Characteristic	Number of Firms	Share (%)
Small enterprises (≤50 employees)	4	3.12%
Medium enterprises (51–250 employees)	42	32.81%
Large enterprises (>250 employees)	82	64.06%
Exclusively Polish capital	40	31.25%
Foreign capital	28	21.88%
Mixed capital	60	46.88%
Companies belonging to capital groups	97	75.80%
Companies with an independent management accounting system	87	68.00%

presents the characteristics of the analyzed sample.

3.2. Data Analysis Techniques

To analyze the collected data, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. This method enables the identification of key components among the initial variables describing the phenomenon under investigation. By grouping variables into sets with the highest correlations, it is possible to detect underlying structures without the need to formulate preliminary assumptions [64] (pp. 208–229).

To assess the suitability of the dataset for factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was performed. This test measures the sampling adequacy for each variable in the model as well as for the model as a whole. The resulting statistic indicates the proportion of variance among variables that may be common variance. All calculations and result visualizations were carried out using R (version 4.3.2).

4. Results and Discussion

In this study, the analysis was conducted on a previously identified and cataloged set of methods and tools characteristic of lean accounting. This selection, carried out based on a review of the relevant literature and described in Stronczek (2022) [37], covered the identified Lean Accounting practices subsequently included in the survey. These practices encompassed target costing, value stream costing, the Balanced Scorecard, open-book accounting, environmental life cycle costing, joint cost analysis with suppliers and customers, and visual performance monitoring systems.

To identify the tool packages used in lean management accounting, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed.

For the purposes of the analysis, the practices “Performance measures are aligned with operational goals (ZW2)” and “Information on performance quality is readily available (ZW3)” were merged and treated as “Data Availability” (ZW23). Meanwhile, “A significant portion of performance metrics is visualized on the shop floor (ZW1),” “Charts depicting defect rates are posted on the shop floor (ZW4),” and “Productivity information is accessible on the shop floor (ZW5)” were combined into “Shop-floor Data” (ZW145).

The analysis yielded four coherent tool packages, each reflecting different approaches to cost and efficiency management in lean organizations:

• Cost Management Package
  This bundle focuses on strategically controlling costs and optimizing resources from a long-term perspective, comprising Target Costing (TC), Value Chain Target Costing (TCVC), and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). High factor loadings (above 0.6) indicate strong interrelationships among these methods. Their combined implementation can facilitate long-term cost optimization and improve alignment of cost strategies with changing market conditions.
• Performance Measurement Package
  This bundle includes tools for evaluating operational effectiveness: the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Value Chain Costing (VCC), and visual performance monitoring systems. The high correlation among these variables suggests that companies adopting them place considerable emphasis on process transparency and operational, results-based management. Visualization tools for performance (ZW1, ZW4, ZW5) also form part of this package, albeit with somewhat lower factor loadings.
• Sustainability Package
  Centered on ecological aspects and long-term financial transparency, this bundle encompasses Value Stream Costing (VSC), Environmental Life Cycle Costing (LCA), Open Book Accounting (OA), and performance measurement systems accounting for quality, productivity, and other attributes characteristic of lean methods (LPM). The combination of these methods points to a management accounting approach that integrates ecological considerations with long-term financial clarity.
• Supplier and Customer Collaboration Package
  This bundle reflects strategies for cost management across the entire supply chain. Joint cost analysis with suppliers (AKD) and customers (AKK) underscores the importance of inter-organizational collaboration for cost optimization. The negative loading for operational performance measures (ZW2: −0.438) may suggest that companies prioritizing external collaboration make less intensive use of internal performance indicators. This package confirms that cost management in lean enterprises extends beyond internal initiatives to include strategic supply chain management.

The results are summarized in

Table 3. Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis on Lean Management Accounting Practices in the Surveyed Manufacturing Enterprises.

	factor loadings
Package 1 (PA1)
Target Costing (TC)	0.797
Value Chain Target Costing (TCVC)	0.626
Life Cycle Costing (LCC)	0.682
Package 2 (PA2)
Balanced Scorecard (BSC)	0.660
Value Chain Costing (VCC)	0.765
A significant portion of performance measurements is visualized on the shop floor (ZW1)	0.439
Charts depicting defect metrics are posted on the shop floor (ZW4)
Productivity information is accessible on the shop floor (ZW5)
Package 3 (PA3)
Value Stream Costing (VSC)	0.919
Environmental Life Cycle Costing (LCA)	0.602
Open Book Accounting (OA)	0.567
Performance measurement systems that account for quality, productivity, and other lean-related aspects (LPMs)	0.382
Package 4 (PA4)
Joint cost analyses with suppliers (AKD)	0.542
Joint cost analyses with recipients/customers (AKK)	0.559
Performance measures aligned with operational goals (ZW2)	−0.438
Information on performance quality is readily available (ZW3)

The variance explained is 0.541.

, and the standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based on the correlation matrix are presented in

Table 4. Standardized Loadings (Pattern Matrix) Based on the Correlation Matrix.

	PA1	PA2	PA3	PA4	h2	u2	com
VSC	0.13	0.01	0.919	0.02	0.86	0.14	1.0
TC	0.80	0.15	0.14	0.12	0.69	0.31	1.2
TCVC	0.63	0.38	0.35	0.08	0.66	0.34	2.3
LCC	0.68	−0.13	0.38	0.20	0.67	0.33	1.9
LCA	0.24	0.22	0.60	0.22	0.52	0.48	1.9
BSC	−0.08	0.66	0.23	0.03	0.50	0.50	1.3
OA	0.23	0.30	0.57	0.22	0.51	0.49	2.3
VCC	0.23	0.77	−0.05	0.07	0.65	0.35	1.2
LPM	0.30	0.07	0.38	0.08	0.24	0.76	2.0
AKD	0.21	0.13	0.22	0.54	0.40	0.60	1.8
AKK	0.32	0.07	0.24	0.56	0.48	0.52	2.1
ZW145	0.44	0.44	0.16	0.23	0.48	0.54	2.8
ZW23	0.27	0.02	0.34	−0.44	0.38	0.62	2.6

Note: Variables with the highest loadings on each factor are highlighted in color to indicate their strong association with the corresponding latent construct. These variables were used to interpret and name the tool packages. The color-coding facilitates visual identification of tool groupings based on empirical results.

.

To assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was performed, yielding a value of 0.74, which confirms sampling adequacy, as values above 0.6 are considered acceptable for exploratory factor analysis [64]. In addition, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was conducted and found to be significant (p < 0.05), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix and justifying the application of EFA.

The identified packages served as a starting point for cluster analysis, which was carried out using a hybrid approach.

First, a hierarchical clustering method was employed to divide the responses into three groups, allowing for the preliminary determination of cluster centroids required for k-means. Subsequently, using k-means, the companies (responses) were grouped into three clusters, for which mean values were calculated based on the responses diagnosing the implementation of lean management accounting practices. The clustering results are presented in

Table 5. Resulting Clusters, Means, and Standard Deviations for K-Means Clustering.

Group	Gr. 1		Gr. 2		Gr. 3
	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ
VSC	2.36	1.100	2.76	0.923	3.65	0.683
TC	4.00	0.494	2.82	0.626	4.06	0.235
TCVC	3.52	1.018	1.97	0.797	3.62	0.771
LCC	3.48	1.042	2.59	0.783	4.00	0.343
LCA	2.40	1.170	1.71	0.906	2.71	0.936
BSC	2.95	1.306	1.74	1.214	1.63	0.886
OA	2.45	1.365	1.88	0.686	2.63	0.793
VCC	3.05	1.188	1.29	0.629	1.35	0.623
LPM	4.17	0.986	3.91	0.668	4.6	0.534
AKD	2.90	1.122	2.09	0.933	2.94	1.162
AKK	3.19	0.943	2.62	1.015	3.31	0.940
ZW145	4.33	0.882	2.73	1.202	3.96	0.763
ZW23	4.40	0.607	4.41	0.723	4.6	0.371

Note Color highlighting is used to indicate the highest and lowest mean values for each variable across the three groups. This aids in interpreting the implementation profiles of Lean Accounting practice.

and Figure 1.

The clustering results made it possible to distinguish three categories of enterprises differing in the degree of Lean Accounting (LA) implementation:

• Group 1 includes 42 enterprises and has been labeled the group with a medium level of advancement in implementing lean management accounting practices. Three practices show the highest average scores in this group, while two others exhibit the lowest.
• Group 2 consists of 34 enterprises and has been identified as the group with the lowest level of lean management accounting practice implementation. In this group, 10 practices record the lowest mean scores among all three groups.
• Group 3 comprises 52 entities and, for the purposes of the analysis, has been designated as the group of enterprises with the most advanced implementation of lean management accounting practices. As many as 10 out of the 13 practices identified for analysis exhibit the highest mean scores in this group.

The next stage of the analysis involved examining how the factors constituting barriers to the transformation of management accounting toward leanness are perceived within the individual groups, which differ in terms of the level of lean management accounting implementation. The mean values of responses (within each group) to the questions aimed at identifying transformation barriers are presented in

Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations (by Group) for Responses on Factors Constituting Barriers to the Transformation of Management Accounting Toward Leanness.

Barriers	Gr 1		Gr 2		Gr 3
	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ	$\overline{\mathit{x}}$	σ
B1	2.52	1.194	2.95	0.971	3.11	0.971
B2	2.48	1.194	2.96	0.844	3.20	1.108
B3	3.52	1.159	3.68	0.805	3.76	0.899
B4	4.00	0.577	3.82	0.759	3.83	0.926
B5	2.84	1.460	2.86	1.080	2.80	1.290
B6	2.52	1.190	3.19	0.990	3.07	1.060
B7	2.76	1.420	2.98	1.660	3.26	1.160
B8	4.00	1.155	4.16	0.797	4.11	0.795

.

Group 1 includes enterprises at a medium level of lean accounting implementation. In this group, there is a noticeable optimism in the perception of barriers. Only one obstacle—poor communication between operational and financial-accounting departments—recorded a higher average score here than in the other groups. This difficulty is therefore perceived by enterprises with intermediate LA implementation as a key impediment to their transformation. It is also worth noting that resistance to change received the same mean score ($\overline{x}$ = 4.00) in this group, a value that was high across all groups. Managerial inertia was also identified as a relatively significant barrier ($\overline{x}$ = 3.52).

Group 2 comprises enterprises with the lowest level of lean management accounting implementation. In this group, the barriers B5, B6, and B8 received higher scores than in the other groups. Based on the mean values, the most critical obstacles for these enterprises are resistance to change ($\overline{x}$= 4.16), poor communication between operational and financial/accounting departments ($\overline{x}$ = 3.82), followed by managerial inertia ($\overline{x}$ = 3.68), and the need to meet regulatory requirements ($\overline{x}$ = 3.19).

Group 3 consists of enterprises with the most advanced implementation of lean management accounting practices. Four out of the eight identified barriers to implementing Lean Accounting had higher average scores in this group compared to the others: lack of accounting personnel, insufficient computational resources, managerial inertia, and dependence on the parent company. However, the most significant barriers for this group, based on the mean values, include resistance to change ($\overline{x}$ = 4.11), poor communication between operational and financial-accounting departments ($\overline{x}$ = 3.83), and managerial inertia ($\overline{x}$ = 3.76).

It appears that respondents representing enterprises in this group demonstrate a high level of self-awareness regarding the difficulties their organizations faced during the implementation process. A higher degree of lean accounting practice implementation in this case goes hand in hand with a greater awareness of the associated challenges.

5. Conclusions

The conducted study contributes to the development of knowledge on Lean Accounting by focusing on the identification of management accounting tool packages applied in lean enterprises. As highlighted in the literature review by Alves et al. [65], prior research on Lean Accounting has largely relied on individual case studies, which limits the generalizability of findings and the ability to assess the long-term impact of LA on enterprise performance. This analysis helps fill that gap by revealing patterns in the use of management accounting tool packages and their potential relevance to the effective transformation of accounting systems in lean organizations.

The study contributes to the existing literature in three ways. First, it identifies Lean Accounting tool packages, grouping them through exploratory factor analysis. Second, it classifies the surveyed manufacturing companies according to their degree of Lean Accounting implementation, distinguishing three levels of advancement. Third, it examines the barriers to transforming management accounting toward leanness, highlighting differences in their perception depending on the level of implementation.

The existence of Lean Accounting tool packages has been confirmed, indicating a coherent approach to implementing this concept in the surveyed organizations. The segmentation of enterprises enabled the identification of differences in the degree of LA implementation, which may prove useful in further research on the dynamics of adoption. Barriers to LA implementation are both technical and cultural in nature, with the most advanced organizations demonstrating a higher awareness of transformational challenges. The high level of self-awareness in Group 3 suggests the presence of potential adaptive mechanisms that may be critical for the effective implementation of Lean Accounting in other organizations.

The study’s findings also have practical implications for managers operating in lean enterprises. As noted by Rathwatta and Gooneratne [33], the simultaneous use of multiple management accounting tools as a cohesive package may enhance understanding of an organization’s strategic goals, but it also requires careful management of the interactions and potential contradictions between tools. In the context of Lean Accounting, practitioners should pay particular attention to the integration of individual methods and tools.

The limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting its results. The research focused exclusively on manufacturing enterprises, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other sectors. Furthermore, the survey-based approach relies on respondents’ self-assessments, which may introduce a degree of subjectivity into the data. In addition, due to the use of indirect distribution channels, the exact survey response rate could not be determined. This limitation may result in response rate bias, which should be taken into account when interpreting both the results and their managerial implications.

Based on the study’s results, several directions for future research can be identified. First, there is a need to deepen the analysis of the influence of contextual and organizational factors—such as industry, business model, ownership structure, or the presence of an independent management accounting system—on the configuration and adoption levels of Lean Accounting tool packages.

Secondly, future studies should examine the long-term effects of Lean Accounting implementation and explore how organizations address the barriers encountered in the transformation of management accounting systems.

Finally, an important direction for future research involves investigating how sustainability considerations and regulatory compliance—particularly in the context of EU Green Deal policies and ESG reporting frameworks—influence the structure, adoption, and reliability of Lean Accounting systems.

In conclusion, the conducted study provides empirical evidence that Lean Accounting is not implemented through isolated techniques, but rather through structured and internally consistent packages of tools and practices. The applied combination of factor and cluster analysis offers a replicable approach for identifying such configurations in other organizational contexts. The proposed typology of firms enriches the understanding of implementation diversity, while the observed link between advancement level and awareness of barriers highlights the role of organizational maturity in shaping adaptive capacity. These findings contribute to bridging the gap between descriptive case-based research and scalable analytical models of Lean Accounting adoption.