IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/67152.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reputation and accountability relationships: managing accountability expectations through reputation

Author

Listed:
  • Busuioc, E. M.
  • Lodge, Martin

Abstract

Accountability is said to be about the management of expectations. Empirical studies reveal considerable variation in organizational interest, intensity and investment in accountability relationships. Less is known, however, as to what explains these observed variations. Drawing on accountability and reputation-concerned literatures, this paper argues that a reputation-based perspective to accountability offers an underlying logic that explains how account-giving actors and account-holding forums actually manage these expectations, how organisations make sense of and prioritise among accountability responsibilities. Reputational considerations act as a filtering mechanism of external demands and help account for variations in degrees of interest in, and intensity of, accountability. The resulting accountability outcomes are co-produced by the reputational investment of both account-giver and account-holder, resulting in distinct accountability constellations and outcomes

Suggested Citation

  • Busuioc, E. M. & Lodge, Martin, 2017. "Reputation and accountability relationships: managing accountability expectations through reputation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 67152, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:67152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67152/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood, 2007. "What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 191-210, June.
    2. Giandomenico Majone, 2001. "Two Logics of Delegation," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 103-122, February.
    3. Martin Messner, 2009. "The Limits of Accountability," Post-Print hal-00486747, HAL.
    4. Callander, Steven, 2008. "A Theory of Policy Expertise," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 3(2), pages 123-140, July.
    5. Messner, Martin, 2009. "The limits of accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 918-938, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Bovens & Anchrit Wille, 2021. "Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 856-876, July.
    2. Arjen Boin & Paul ‘t Hart, 2022. "From crisis to reform? Exploring three post-COVID pathways [Institutional crises and reforms in policy sectors: The case of asylum policy in Europe]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(1), pages 13-24.
    3. Koen Verhoest & Jan Boon & Stefan Boye & Heidi H. Salomonsen, 2023. "How does organizational task matter for the reputation of public agencies?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 158-176, January.
    4. Craig Carroll & Rowena Olegario, 2020. "Pathways to Corporate Accountability: Corporate Reputation and Its Alternatives," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 173-181, May.
    5. Cyril Benoît, 2021. "Politicians, regulators, and regulatory governance: The neglected sides of the story," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 8-22, November.
    6. Tobias Bach & Marlene Jugl & Dustin Köhler & Kai Wegrich, 2022. "Regulatory agencies, reputational threats, and communicative responses," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1042-1057, October.
    7. Cristina Campanale & Sara Giovanna Mauro & Alessandro Sancino, 2021. "Managing co-production and enhancing good governance principles: insights from two case studies," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(1), pages 275-306, March.
    8. Jan Boon & Heidi H. Salomonsen & Koen Verhoest, 2021. "A reputation for what, to whom, and in which task environment: A commentary," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 428-441, April.
    9. Phillips Susan D., 2019. "Putting Humpty Together Again: How Reputation Regulation Fails the Charitable Sector," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Nicholas Bautista‐Beauchesne, 2022. "Building anti‐corruption agency collaboration and reputation: Hanging together or separately hanged," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1399-1419, October.
    11. Alexander Buhmann & Johannes Paßmann & Christian Fieseler, 2020. "Managing Algorithmic Accountability: Balancing Reputational Concerns, Engagement Strategies, and the Potential of Rational Discourse," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 265-280, May.
    12. Sharon Gilad & Pazit Ben-Nun Bloom & Michaela Assouline, 2018. "Bureaucrats' processing of organizational reputation signals," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 1(1).

    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. Raphael Zumofen, 2016. "Public accountability: a summary analysis [Accountability publique - Une analyse synthétique]," Post-Print hal-03623871, HAL.
    2. Tweedie, Dale & Luzia, Karina, 2023. "In place, with power: (Re)conceptualising accountability in national non-government organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    4. Diab, Ahmed A., 2021. "The appearance of community logics in management accounting and control: Evidence from an Egyptian sugar beet village," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Bert Scholtens & Feng‐Ching Kang, 2013. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Earnings Management: Evidence from Asian Economies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 95-112, March.
    6. Robbins, Geraldine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2015. "From secrecy to transparency: Accounting and the transition from religious charity to publicly-owned hospital," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 19-32.
    7. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    8. Goddard, Andrew, 2021. "Accountability and accounting in the NGO field comprising the UK and Africa – A Bordieusian analysis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Rasool Sarihi Asfestani & Mehraban Hadi Peykani & Akbar Eetebaryan, 2017. "Design and Presentation of Professional Ethics Criteria and Indicators for the Promotion of Political Accountability within Iranian’s Government Organizations (Case Study: National Chief Executive Dev," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 7(2), pages 226-232.
    10. Messner, Martin, 2015. "Research orientation without regrets," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 76-83.
    11. Mutiganda, Jean Claude, 2013. "Budgetary governance and accountability in public sector organisations: An institutional and critical realism approach," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(7), pages 518-531.
    12. Bay, Charlotta, 2018. "Makeover accounting: Investigating the meaning-making practices of financial accounts," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 44-54.
    13. Mia Kaspersen & Thomas Riise Johansen, 2016. "Changing Social and Environmental Reporting Systems," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(4), pages 731-749, June.
    14. Harvey, Charles & Maclean, Mairi & Price, Michael, 2020. "Executive remuneration and the limits of disclosure as an instrument of corporate governance," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Béatrice Vincent & Carole Jean-Amans & Marie-Annick Montalan, 2016. "Tensions contradictoires et accountability dans un processus de décisions collectives d'achat de produits de santé," Post-Print hal-03830819, HAL.
    16. Urquía-Grande, Elena & Lorain, Marie-Anne & Rautiainen, Antti Ilmari & Cano-Montero, Elisa Isabel, 2021. "Balance with logic-measuring the performance and sustainable development efforts of an NPO in rural Ethiopia," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    17. Casenave, Eric & Klarmann, Martin, 2020. "The accountability paradox: How holding marketers accountable hinders alignment with short-term marketing goals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 95-108.
    18. Vassili Joannides & Stéphane Jaumier, 2011. "Accounterability ou l'accountability par la bande," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00645359, HAL.
    19. Vassili Joannides, 2012. "Accounterability and the problematics of accountability," Post-Print hal-00676561, HAL.
    20. Yu, Ai, 2021. "Accountability as mourning: Accounting for death in the time of COVID-19," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    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:ehl:lserod:67152. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.