Enterprise risk management and continuous re-alignment in the pursuit of accountability: A German case

COSO defines ERM as a set of activities that lead to organizational alignment and accountability, given structured work with stable, mobile and combinable information objects. This study argues against this representation by offering three insights developed from case research. We observe ERM as a practice that oscillates between IT-based representations and social interpretations, which never “adds-up” but creates circulation and movement instead. Rather than to produce a common understanding of corporate affairs, ERM communalizes the process of identifying risks and chances and promotes a quest for accountability. Thus, ERM does not focus on improving performance or compliance. Nevertheless, by separating subjects and objects in the organizational context, ERM creates space for otherness and heterogeneity. To the extent that these are mobilized as resources, ERM might offer “intelligence” beyond the coherence and homogeneity, which accounting systems represent.

[1]  M. Callon,et al.  On Qualculation, Agency, and Otherness , 2005 .

[2]  Mahmoud Ezzamel,et al.  Order and accounting as a performative ritual: Evidence from ancient Egypt , 2009 .

[3]  Janine Nahapiet,et al.  The roles of accounting in organizations and society , 1980 .

[4]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[5]  M. Power The risk management of nothing , 2009 .

[6]  N. Macintosh,et al.  Accounting as simulacrum and hyperreality: perspectives on income and capital - The twilight of the real , 2000 .

[7]  A. Merrill,et al.  On the market , 1998, Nature Medicine.

[8]  Margaret Woods A contingency theory perspective on the risk management control system within Birmingham City Council , 2009 .

[9]  N. Rose,et al.  Political power beyond the State: problematics of government. 1992. , 1992, The British journal of sociology.

[10]  Barbara Czarniawska Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity , 1997 .

[11]  N. Blaikie A critique of the use of triangulation in social research , 1991 .

[12]  A. Mikes Risk Management and Calculative Cultures , 2008 .

[13]  M. Lounsbury Institutional Rationality and Practice Variation: New Directions in the Institutional Analysis of Practice , 2007 .

[14]  A. Hopwood,et al.  On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates , 1983 .

[15]  A. Giddens,et al.  New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. , 1977 .

[16]  W. Chua Accounting, measuring, reporting and strategizing – Re-using verbs: A review essay , 2007 .

[17]  Kari Lukka,et al.  The problem of generalizability: anecdotes and evidence in accounting research , 1995 .

[18]  M. Oliverio Internal control—integrated framework: who is responsible? , 2001 .

[19]  Thomas Ahrens,et al.  Styles of Accountability , 1996 .

[20]  Michael Power,et al.  The risk management of everything: rethinking the politics of uncertainty , 2004 .

[21]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[22]  A. George,et al.  Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences , 2005 .

[23]  T. Ahrens,et al.  Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory , 2005 .

[24]  T. Ahrens Talking Accounting: An Ethnography Of Management Knowledge In British And German Brewers , 1997 .

[25]  Martin Messner,et al.  The Limits of Accountability , 2009 .

[26]  R. Scapens,et al.  Accounting systems and systems of accountability — understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts , 1985 .

[27]  John Roberts,et al.  No-one is perfect: the limits of transparency and an ethic for ‘intelligent’ accountability , 2009 .

[28]  Stephen K. Bailey,et al.  The Limits of Accountability. , 1973 .

[29]  Alnoor Bhimani,et al.  Risk management, corporate governance and management accounting: Emerging interdependencies , 2009 .

[30]  G. Azzone,et al.  The organizational dynamics of Enterprise Risk Management , 2010 .

[31]  R. Scapens Researching management accounting practice: The role of case study methods , 1990 .

[32]  Judith Butler,et al.  Giving an Account of Oneself , 2004, diacritics.

[33]  Harm-Jan Steenhuis,et al.  Building theories from case study research: the progressive case study , 2006 .

[34]  Keith Robson,et al.  ACCOUNTING NUMBERS AS 'INSCRIPTION': ACTION AT A DISTANCE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCOUNTING. , 1992 .

[35]  T. Jick Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. , 1979 .

[36]  R. Greenwood,et al.  Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes , 1993 .

[37]  M. Power Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management , 2007 .

[38]  W. Olsen,et al.  Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Can Really Be Mixed , 2004 .

[39]  S. Anand Enterprise Risk Management-Integrated Framework , 2012 .

[40]  B. Latour Science in Action , 1987 .

[41]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[42]  A. Mikes From counting risk to making risk count: Boundary-work in risk management , 2011 .