[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v63y2023i4p4093-4124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does executive accountability enhance risk management and risk culture?

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Sheedy
  • Dominic S. B. Canestrari‐Soh
Abstract
We evaluate a novel regulation designed to address ongoing risk management failures: Australia's Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR). This mixed methods study draws on a survey and 41 interviews with accountable persons and their reports across 15 organisations. Consistent with theory and previous experimental research, the study demonstrates the benefits of enhanced accountability for promoting more diligent ‘system 2’ behaviour. We provide evidence that BEAR promotes greater felt accountability among senior executives which in turn stimulates more proactive and diligent risk management behaviour. This behaviour has the potential to attenuate many of the behavioural biases associated with risk management failures.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Sheedy & Dominic S. B. Canestrari‐Soh, 2023. "Does executive accountability enhance risk management and risk culture?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(4), pages 4093-4124, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:4:p:4093-4124
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.13087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13087
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.13087?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard Davies & Maria Zhivitskaya, 2018. "Three Lines of Defence: A Robust Organising Framework, or Just Lines in the Sand?," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 9(S1), pages 34-42, June.
    2. Dalla Via, Nicola & Perego, Paolo & van Rinsum, Marcel, 2019. "How accountability type influences information search processes and decision quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 79-91.
    3. Cormac Bryce & Thorsten Chmura & Rob Webb & Joel Stiebale & Carly Cheevers, 2019. "Internally Reporting Risk in Financial Services: An Empirical Analysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 493-512, May.
    4. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    5. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    6. Power, Michael, 2009. "The risk management of nothing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 849-855, August.
    7. Lim, Chu Yeong & Woods, Margaret & Humphrey, Christopher & Seow, Jean Lin, 2017. "The paradoxes of risk management in the banking sector," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 75-90.
    8. Mikes, Anette, 2011. "From counting risk to making risk count: Boundary-work in risk management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 226-245.
    9. John C. Coates IV, 2007. "The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    10. repec:eme:bsppss:09657960410563540 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Andrew Ellul & Vijay Yerramilli, 2013. "Stronger Risk Controls, Lower Risk: Evidence from U.S. Bank Holding Companies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(5), pages 1757-1803, October.
    12. Michael Power, 2004. "The risk management of everything," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(3), pages 58-65, March.
    13. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    14. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    15. Shane Magee & Cornelia Schilling & Elizabeth Sheedy, 2019. "Risk Governance In The Insurance Sector—Determinants And Consequences In An International Sample," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 86(2), pages 381-413, June.
    16. Volker Stein & Arnd Wiedemann, 2016. "Risk governance: conceptualization, tasks, and research agenda," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(8), pages 813-836, November.
    17. Allen, Terry, 2018. "Strengthening the link between seniority and accountability: the Senior Managers and Certification Regime," Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, Bank of England, vol. 58(3), pages 1-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    2. Mina Ličen & Sergeja Slapničar, 2022. "Can process accountability mitigate myopic biases? An experimental analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-26, March.
    3. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    4. Jennifer Kunz & Mathias Heitz, 2021. "Banks’ risk culture and management control systems: A systematic literature review," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 439-493, December.
    5. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    6. Klein Jr., Vitor Hugo & Reilley, Jacob T., 2024. "The temporal dynamics of enterprise risk management," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. F. Todd DeZoort & Paul D. Harrison, 2018. "Understanding Auditors’ Sense of Responsibility for Detecting Fraud Within Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(4), pages 857-874, June.
    8. Dalla Via, Nicola & Perego, Paolo & van Rinsum, Marcel, 2019. "How accountability type influences information search processes and decision quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 79-91.
    9. Sylvie Héroux & Mélanie Roussy, 2020. "Three cases of compliance with governance regulation: an organizational learning perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(2), pages 449-479, June.
    10. Vicky Arnold, 2018. "The changing technological environment and the future of behavioural research in accounting," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(2), pages 315-339, June.
    11. Ravi Kashyap, 2024. "The Concentration Risk Indicator: Raising the Bar for Financial Stability and Portfolio Performance Measurement," Papers 2408.07271, arXiv.org.
    12. Malik, Muhammad Farhan & Zaman, Mahbub & Buckby, Sherrena, 2020. "Enterprise risk management and firm performance: Role of the risk committee," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    13. Baud, Céline & Lallemand-Stempak, Nathalie, 2024. "Quantitative technologies and reflexivity: The role of tools and their layouts in the case of credit risk management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    15. Christiansen, Ulrik & Thrane, Sof, 2014. "The prose of action: The micro dynamics of reporting on emerging risks in operational risk management," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 427-443.
    16. Simon Ashby & Trevor Buck & Stephanie Nöth-Zahn & Thomas Peisl, 2018. "Emerging IT Risks: Insights from German Banking," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 43(2), pages 180-207, April.
    17. Emmanuel Laffort & Nicolas Dufour, 2019. "Fraud phenomenon seen from Luhmann's systemic perspective," Working Papers hal-02010162, HAL.
    18. Andrea Kampmann & Burkhard Pedell, 2022. "Using Storytelling to Promote Organizational Resilience: An Experimental Study of Different Forms of Risk Communication," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 695-725, December.
    19. Zhang, Xing & Li, Fengchao & Ortiz, Jaime, 2021. "Internal risk governance and external capital regulation affecting bank risk-taking and performance: Evidence from P.R. China," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 276-292.
    20. Lim, Chu Yeong & Woods, Margaret & Humphrey, Christopher & Seow, Jean Lin, 2017. "The paradoxes of risk management in the banking sector," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 75-90.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:63:y:2023:i:4:p:4093-4124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.