This paper contributes to the ongoing debate about the relevance of management accounting. In doing so, we widen the definition of 'relevance' from the largely managerialist focus dominating this debate to examine how management accounting innovations get imbued with a broader range of societal interests and how actors representing vested interests go about entrenching and resisting such innovations. We explore these issues with reference to the institutionalisation of Economic Value Added (EVA) as a governance mechanism for Chinese and Thai state-owned enterprises. Adopting the comparative, institutional field perspective, we theorise our observations through the conceptual lens of institutional work, or the human agency involved in creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions. We extend extant research on institutional work by exploring how the evolution of such work was conditioned by differences in field cohesiveness, defined in terms of how consistent and tightly coordinated key interests clustered around EVA are. Our analysis also draws attention to how different types of institutional work support and detract from each other in the process of upholding such cohesiveness. We discuss the implications for future research on the societal relevance of management accounting innovations and institutional work.