What role for social scientists in risk expertise?

When it comes to risks – health and environmental risks, like those linked to the use of nanotechnologies, pesticides, etc. – three main groups of actors are easily identified, brought together through boundary organisations such as environmental and sanitary risk agencies: the natural and technical scientists, who provide their expertise to assess risks (especially toxicologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists); the policy makers, who take decisions regarding risk management and risk regulation; the lay public, who are more and more involved in participatory frameworks. Sometimes three other groups of actors are added: the ‘economists’ who can for instance conduct cost–benefit assessments or multi-criteria analyses (especially ecological economists, public economists, political economists and social economists); the ‘philosophers’/‘ethicists’ who can use ethics to highlight moral choices and responsibilities in face of risks; and the ‘jurists’/‘legal experts’ who can justify authorisation or interdiction according to law. Inversely, there is a group of actors which is not clearly identified, that of social scientists, even though a considerable quantity of social science knowledge on risk has been produced. Why is there such a discrepancy? This article, based on a critical review of the literature, aims to make sense of the fuzziness surrounding the involvement of social scientists when it comes to risk expertise. The article shows that one reason for this puzzling situation is to be found in the gap between what social scientists often want to do when they are called in as risk experts and what natural scientists and public policy makers actually expect from them.     

Mobile phone masts,social rationalities and risk: negotiating lay perspectives on technological hazards

This paper examines the responses of 37 participants in six focus groups to media representations of the health risks associated with mobile phone masts (‘base stations’) in the light of theoretical debates concerning non‐expert understandings of risks (variously characterised as ‘lay rationality’, lay epidemiology’, popular epidemiology’, ‘public knowledges’, ‘social rationality’ and ‘intuitive risk judgements’). In particular, the study discusses the extent to which two particular manifestations of such understandings – non‐mediated contextual and personal knowledges (‘multiple information sources’), and risk comparisons made between mobile phone masts and a variety of other perceived health risks – are prominent in respondents’ discursive constructions of risk. The paper suggests that analyses of risk responses such as these should differentiate clearly between classes of risks, and avoid suggestions that any particular type of risk response can be unproblematically mapped onto other risk scenarios.     

Public meetings about local cancer clusters: exploring the relative influence of official versus symbolic risk messages on attendees’ post‐meeting concern

Scholars have long lobbied for a view of risk communication that supplants a conventional ‘transmission’ model of risk communication with an alternative that considers the complex social environment that accompanies any risk communication effort. Along these lines, this study examines the relative influence of official health messages versus symbolic risk messages on public meeting attendees’ post‐meeting concern about cancer clusters in six US communities. As part of a larger study of cancer clusters, we obtained written responses from 125 individuals who attended a government‐sponsored public meeting in their community. We asked respondents whether attending the meeting influenced their concerns and, if so, why. The results found that, despite the largely reassuring messages that health officials were giving, most attendees reported feeling more concerned after the meetings in their communities. Regarding why, explanations that denoted symbolic risk messages – unofficial sources of risk information and procedural cues – outnumbered explanations that pointed to official risk messages – scientific presentations – by a score of three to one. The results lend support for a broader view of risk communication, which accounts not only for multiple sources of risk information but also for procedural cues regarding the trustworthiness of an investigation.     

The Implementation and Use of Benchmarking in Local Government: A Case Study of the Translation of a Management Accounting Innovation

Benchmarking is a management accounting innovation (MAI) that can be used for performance measurement and management in both the private and the public sectors. Although public sector accounting researchers have reported some success with the use of benchmarking, frequently charged problems exist in implementing and using this management technique. To look beyond the technical and institutional explanations, this paper takes a translation approach and presents a case study of a local government benchmarking network. We conclude that there is a link between benchmarking implementation problems and initiators’ failure to build a strong network of benchmarking allies. Implementation is facilitated if actors, other than the initiators, recognize the possibility of making benchmarking more relevant and less cost focused. However, even when a network of actors has a favourable attitude towards benchmarking, benchmarking may still appear as an unruly ‘actant’. Furthermore, the perception of implementation failure and success is heterogeneous and connected to various actors’ adoption of benchmarking. We also conclude that there is a connection between the use of benchmarking and 1) actors’ possibilities to use benchmarking in the struggle for resources and 2) the perception of benchmarking information as ‘factual’ or ‘factual enough’. However, the perception of benchmarking information as ‘factual’ or ‘factual enough’ seems not only a matter of correct or incorrect ratios but also of whether such information serves actors’ interests. A final conclusion is that the use of benchmarking increases when actors other than the initiators complement the original idea and ‘counter interest’ the initiators.     

What's in a frame? Social organization,risk perception and the sociology of knowledge

A central problem in the sociology of knowledge has been to show that sane people can intelligibly have quite different alternative understandings of the same problem, such as a kind of risk, without abandoning the idea that there is a real problem about which to disagree, and to show the social basis of both plurality and viability. In recent decades, attempts to make this problem tractable have focused on the idea of a ‘frame’. Theories of frames offer accounts of the range of content, as distinguished from theories of processes of diffusion, of which risk amplification theory is the best known example. In this article, several theories of frames – those of Goffman, D'Andrade, Moscovici, Gamson, Schön and Rein, and of prospect theory – found are to be inadequate, because of their lack of clarity and plausibility in their answers to four key questions: ‘what is the relationship between sense‐making and bias?’, ‘how are frames to be individuated?’, ‘where do frames come from?’, and ‘how far and how can people move between frames?’. The article makes the case for a neo‐Durkheimian institutional theory developed by Douglas and others. This approach derives frames as concrete applications to specific contexts from thought styles, which are in turn the product of solidarities or institutional styles of social organization, because it can offer clear, testable, parsimonious hypotheses with which to answer these four questions. The theory therefore provides an account of the institutional logic of framing, and presents reasons for preferring this to non‐institutional approaches such as the various kinds of cognitivism. The article offers three conceptual innovations with which to develop the neo‐Durkheimian theory, in order better to deal with the crucial fourth question about the scope for mobility between frames. These innovations and some specific hypotheses about the scope for mobility between frames are supported by consideration of some exploratory qualitative empirical research on privacy risk perception. The theory provides a more satisfactory strategy for tackling the core problem than most others, by showing plurality to be limited, by showing clear and specific social bases for plurality of frames, by neither wholly endorsing nor wholly rejecting any basic bias, and by showing that their conflictual and systemic interdependence is what makes for viability.     

Performing risk and the project: Risk maps as mediating instruments

In this paper, we analyze the relationship between management control and risk management by investigating the use of risk maps in an inter-organizational project collaboration in the Norwegian petroleum industry. The various ways in which risk maps are drawn upon in the course of the project reveal sources of perceived ‘usefulness’ that are not primarily to do with increased attention toward early warning signals and the defensive production of audit trails, as suggested by previous research. Rather, the study shows how risk maps act as mediating instruments which allow distributed actors to adjudicate interests, build confidence in and associate with ‘the project’ and its progress over time. Drawing on social studies of science and technology, the study shows how the graphical representations of risk maps manage to engage the user and act as mediating platforms where ‘performances’ around the notion of risk can happen. The paper thus extends and complements existing explanations of the pervasiveness of enterprise risk management technology and discusses its interrelation with project management and inter-organizational controls. More broadly, the paper illustrates how the government of risk is related to mediating instruments and how such mediation happens in the interplay between text and conversation.     

Siting controversies analysis: framework and method for questioning the procedure

Siting controversies are commonplace, as well against the construction of roads, railways, nuclear waste disposals, as against windfarms. Local citizens resist against siting decisions taken by the authorities, following a dynamics often quoted as ‘Not In My Back Yard’. Yet contested for its lack of analytical value, NIMBY is still used strategically by actors to qualify citizens as irrational and egoistic. Beyond this labeling, many factors are investigated to understand the dynamics behind siting controversies. In this paper, we focus on the impact of the legal procedure structuring the implantation of windfarms in the Walloon Region (Belgium), and its translations within different decision-making processes in specific case studies. To that regard, we consider the legal procedure as a ‘public policy instrument’. It is neither neutral nor natural, and carry values and interests. It organizes interpersonal relations between actors, and is potentially catalyzer of frustrations. In addition, this legal procedure is the object of translations within different contexts, including different actors participating to specific decision-making processes. The empirical approach of this paper is based on case studies data and on the use of an innovative methodology called ‘Open Process Workshop’. This methodology consists of a structured workshop with key stakeholders, during which the legal procedure is questioned. Overall, we demonstrate that the focus on the legal procedure – and its translations within different decision-making processes – allows systemic analysis providing deep understandings of controversies and reaffirming the interlinks between ‘the social’ and ‘the technical’ in such controversies. In addition, we argue that the methodology used fosters the production of innovative knowledge, mutual understanding, and collective learning between the participants.     

A characterisation of the methodology of qualitative research on the nature of perceived risk: trends and omissions

The issue of how risk is ‘perceived’ is one of significant research interest and immense practical importance. In spite of this wide interest, however, it is probably fair to say that most emerging ‘risk’ crises – whether related to natural or technological phenomena – come as a surprise to researchers and to society as a whole. Prediction of human responses to novel potential hazards (or novel manifestations of old hazards) is neither reliable nor complete; strategies to ameliorate inappropriate concerns when they arise (or to make realistic inappropriate absences of concern) do not appear totally effective. It therefore seems apt to ask the question: just what have we learned about ‘risk perception’? In this paper we conduct a structured review of qualitative research on perceived risk – to be followed by a subsequent analysis of quantitative research in a later paper – focusing upon methodological issues. Qualitative research often precedes quantitative research, and ideally informs it; it seeks depth and meaning from few subjects rather than identifying patterns within larger samples and populations. Without adequate qualitative research, quantitative research risks misanalysis of the target phenomenon, at the very least by the omission of relevant factors and inclusion of irrelevant ones. Our analysis here – of qualitative studies conducted across a range of disciplines, not all of which will be familiar to the readers of this journal – suggests that this research suffers from an incomplete coverage of the ‘risk perception universe’, typified by a focus on atypical hazards and study samples. We summarise the results of this research, while pointing out its limitations, and draw conclusions about future priorities for research of this type.     

Exploring the transition potential of renewable energy communities

Renewable energy communities are grassroots initiatives that invest in ‘clean energy’ in order to meet consumption needs and environmental goals and thereby – often unwittingly – conduce to the spread of renewables. Our aim in the present study is to explore the potential of renewable energy communities in the Netherlands, as social niches, to contribute to transitions in the energy system. To do so, we propose three proxies for measuring the transition potential of social niches, based on proxies for technological innovations derived from the literature. In addition, we reinterpret the notion of niches and the way transition occurs by arguing that niches are complex systems in which both technological and social innovations develop simultaneously and that during a transition entire niches link up with the regime. Furthermore, we make a distinction between internally and externally oriented niches based on their orientation and application focus. We use a comparative case study analysis complemented by a systematic literature and documentary review to show that these communities are already changing the Dutch energy system, by connecting to regime actors. Their further advancement depends on strengthening their links to established actors, but also on providing a favorable regulatory framework.     

Bank capital allocation under multiple constraints

We study how a bank allocates capital across its business units when facing multiple constraints over several periods. If a constraint tightens – be it because of stricter regulation or higher risk – capital flows to the more efficient unit, i.e. the unit offering a higher marginal return on required capital. Relative efficiency helps explain how a policy measure targeting a specific business unit – e.g. imposing requirements for market risk, or ring-fencing lending – spills over to another, seemingly unrelated unit. It also helps explain the bank’s response to the tightening of a constraint that is contemporaneously slack but likely to bind later on.     

‘Above the fray’: Interests,discourse and legitimacy in the audit field

Legitimacy is a crucial concern for the institutional field of auditing, given its reliance on perceived legitimacy for its political mandate and license to practice, in addition to its wider credibility and trust amongst stakeholders such as clients, investors and the public. In this paper, we explore the role of interest-discourse in the discursive strategies of legitimization in the audit field. We develop an Ethnomethodologically informed Discourse Analysis (EDA) perspective that enables us to theorise how institutional actors account for interests as a means for de-legitimization and re-legitimization. We ask: how do institutional actors in the audit field establish who or what is ‘above the fray’ and who or what is ‘interested’? We illustrate our argument by examining how the ‘Big Four’ audit firms handled a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ in the accountancy profession following the recent financial crisis, focussing in particular on a Parliamentary inquiry into market concentration in the audit industry in the UK. First, we show how de-legitimization is achieved through the discursive strategies of stake attribution, stake interrogation and stake mis-alignment. Second, we show how re-legitimization is achieved through the discursive strategies of stake inoculation, stake confession, stake alignment and stake transcendence. We conclude by examining the implications of the discursive processes we have studied for the future of the audit field in the UK.     

The apparatus of fraud risk

‘Fraud risk’ is ontologically different from fraud. Fraud itself is a disruptive event; fraud risk can and must be governed. This essay draws on Foucault’s concept of an apparatus (dispositif) to explain the emergence of this difference. The analysis begins with a concrete case and explicates the history of fraud risk which flows through a specific organizational setting. First, it is claimed that fraud risk must be understood in relation to the broader historicity of risk in which risk expands its reach as an organizing practice category. Second, it is argued that the diverse elements of the fraud risk apparatus – words, laws, best practice guides, risk maps, websites, compliance officers, text books, regulatory judgments and many more – have a trajectory of formation. This trajectory begins with auditing and expands into risk management, regulation and security more generally. Fraud risk management emerges as a highly articulated, transnational web of ideas and procedures which frame the future within present organizational actions, and which intensify the responsibility of senior managers. Overall, the paper challenges the common sense idea that the present shape of fraud risk management is a functional necessity demanded by fraud events. The purpose is to display the historically contingent regime of truth for speaking about fraud, risk and responsibility in organizations. The paper suggests that this ‘regime of truth’ consists in a form of managerial and regulatory knowledge with a ‘grammar’ governing rules for talking about and acting on risky subjects and organizations. The rise of ‘fraud risk’ management and its prominent position within the field of corporate governance in the 21st century is emblematic of an ongoing neoliberal project of individualization and responsibilization.     

Moral economics

An adequate normative economics – one that is consistent with recent developments in our discipline (and in philosophy and psychology) and that resonates with widely held moral intuitions – will have to address the following challenges. First, utility cannot be both the basis of our predictions of economic behaviour and the evaluation of the outcomes of this behaviour. Second, we need to conceive of individual well-being and other desiderata in ways that are interpersonally comparable and that go beyond efficiency and fairness. Third, the representation of the economy as a ‘morality-free zone’ (requiring that contracts, including employment contracts, are complete) must give way to a recognition of the unaccountable exercise of power by private actors, even in a perfectly competitive equilibrium, and the way that this may violate democratic principles and limit the freedom and compromise the dignity of other actors. Fourth, the commitment to ‘liberal neutrality’ (thereby sidestepping the evaluation of preferences) and the related assumption of ‘unrestricted preferences’ in mechanism design and public policy must be abandoned, making room for a concern about the nature of our preferences and the ways that institutions shape our values.     

The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience,credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders

This paper explores how foresight researchers involved in environmental, nature and planning issues attempt to balance salience, credibility and legitimacy while generating knowledge in interaction with policy-makers and other social actors. Engaging stakeholders in foresight processes can increase the robustness of foresight knowledge, broaden the spectrum of issues addressed, and create ‘ownership’ of the process. While in foresight practices stakeholder participation becomes more and more popular to resort to as enabling factor for generating salient, legitimate and credible foresight knowledge, participation can also compromise these qualities. We analysed two foresight projects conducted at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, one that developed future visions for Dutch nature policy and another that focused on future pathways for Dutch urban sustainable development policy. We illustrate that the dynamics of the research setting – changes in the socio-political context and the internal dynamics of the participatory efforts – complicated the balancing process. We conclude that one of the main challenges for futures practitioners is, therefore, to work within the dynamics of the research setting, and to position themselves strategically in this setting; by acting as ‘reflective futures practitioners’.     

Sharing 'worlds of risk'; improving communication with crew resource management

The risk society thesis by Ulrich Beck has been one of the more extensively discussed frameworks in environmental management. This paper tries to give an overview over Beck's extant and fragmented work and ventures to identify the main contributions and implications. It starts with a discussion of the background and principles of Beck's work and identifies the core ideas as well as the theoretical underpinnings. On that basis the paper shows the manifestation of Beck's early ideas in contemporary environmental politics revealing the influence of the risk society thesis especially for environmental management. Following on to more contemporary parts of Beck's work the paper then shows that ‘risk’ and ‘globalization’ are in fact manifestations of the same phenomenon. Both challenge and invert the role of governments on the one side and the role of various social actors on the other side. The paper concludes by discussing major consequences of Beck's thinking for the current agenda of corporate actors in particular.     

The social amplification of risk on Twitter: the case of ash dieback disease in the United Kingdom

It has long been recognised that the traditional media play a key role in representing risk and are a significant source of information which can shape how people perceive and respond to hazard events. Early work utilising the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) sought to understand the discrepancy between expert and lay perceptions of risk and patterns of risk intensification and attenuation with reference to the media. However, the advent of Web 2.0 challenges traditional models of communication. To date there has been limited consideration of social media within the SARF and its role in mediating processes of risk perception and communication. Against this backdrop, we focus on the social media platform Twitter to consider the social amplification of risk in relation to ash dieback disease (Hymenoscyphus fraxineus); a tree health issue that attracted intense media attention when it was first identified in the UK in 2012. We present an empirical analysis of 25,600 tweets in order to explore what people were saying about ash dieback on Twitter, who was talking about it and how they talked about it. Our discussion outlines the themes around which talk about ash dieback was orientated, the significance of users’ environmental ‘affiliations’ and the role of including links (URLs) to traditional media coverage. We utilise the notion of ‘piggybacking’ to demonstrate how information is customised in line with group/individual identities and interests and introduce the concept of the ‘frame fragment’ to illustrate how information is selected and moved around Twitter emphasising certain features of the messages. The paper affords a detailed consideration of the way in which people and organisations simultaneously appropriate, construct and pass on risk-relevant information. A conclusion is that social media has the potential to transform the media landscape within which the SARF was originally conceived, presenting renewed challenges for risk communication.     

PERFORMANCE AUDITING AND THE NARRATING OF A NEW AUDITEE IDENTITY

This paper analyzes how performance auditing affects the auditee in different and sometimes unexpected ways. On the basis of a detailed case study of the Danish Ministry of Transport's encounter with performance auditing we argue that performance audit is a practice that generates multiple effects and that some of these effects can be characterized as a reconfiguration of the organizational identity of the auditee. In this process, accountabilities are reformulated and reallocated which sometimes lead to ‘blame games’ and strong feelings of discomfort. We draw on actor‐network theory and a narrative approach to study how performance audit reports produce narratives that picture new possible identities that the auditee in question must take into consideration. We argue that auditee identities are partly shaped by relations to ‘significant others’, such as the National Audit Office, the politicians and the press who all give accounts of who the Ministry is and ought to be. Furthermore, we argue that accounting and management information systems are enrolled as important ‘nonhuman’ actors that enable the suggested identity positions.     

Cosmopolitan risk community in a bowl: a case study of China’s good food movement

Abstract

Ulrich Beck fundamentally transformed our way of thinking about human interdependence through his three core theses on risk, individualisation and cosmopolitanisation. However, two commonly observed deficiencies in Beck’s grand theory were its Eurocentric orientation and a lack of empirical grounding. Based on 5 focus groups and 14 interviews with participants of the emerging Clean Food Movement in China, this paper extends the Beckian discussion outside Europe. Through examining how individuals understand both ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ risks associated with contemporary food consumption, this paper demonstrates that in the face of unpredictable and incalculable harms, risks are not seen as a ‘thing’, but are translated into ‘causal relations’. Subsequently, for Chinese stakeholders, the best way to safeguard food risks is to enact more visible and functioning interdependent relations in the food system. This in turn has given rise to new forms of communities which cut across conventional geographic, socio-economic and political boundaries. The paper deepens a Beckian theorisation in two ways. First, it demonstrates that the ‘enabling’ effect of risk towards a cosmopolitan society is not limited to obvious global crises, such as climate catastrophes and financial meltdown. In fact, the mundane yet intimate concern of putting ‘good’ food in one’s dinner bowl already presses actors to form new social solidarities that are cosmopolitan in nature. Second, it goes beyond Beck’s assertion that the risk society has culminated in a cosmopolitan moment, and explores how a performative cosmopolitan community reshapes the ‘relations of definition’ to mitigate risks on the ground.     

Measuring executive personality using machine-learning algorithms: A new approach and audit fee-based validation tests

We present a novel approach for measuring executive personality traits. Relying on recent developments in machine learning and artificial intelligence, we utilize the IBM Watson Personality Insights service to measure executive personalities based on CEOs’ and CFOs’ responses to questions raised by analysts during conference calls. We obtain the Big Five personality traits – openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism – based on which we estimate risk tolerance. To validate these traits, we first demonstrate that our risk-tolerance measure varies with existing inherent and behavioural-based measures (gender, age, sensitivity of executive compensation to stock return volatility, and executive unexercised-vested options) in predictable ways. Second, we show that variation in firm-year level personality trait measures, including risk tolerance, is largely explained by manager characteristics, as opposed to firm characteristics and firm performance. Finally, we find that executive inherent risk tolerance helps explain the positive relationship between client risk and audit fees documented in the prior literature. Specifically, the effect of CEO risk-tolerance – as an innate personality trait – on audit fees is incremental to the effect of increased risk appetite from equity risk-taking incentives (Vega). Measuring executive personality using machine-learning algorithms will thus allow researchers to pursue studies that were previously difficult to conduct.