Author
Listed:
- Zaneta Akudbil Azuma-Kotei
- Awad Elsayed Awad Ibrahim
Abstract
The concept of risk has evolved from a pre-modern understanding, where it was viewed solely as uncertainty with negative outcomes, to a modern perspective that encompasses both negative and positive outcomes. Despite ongoing debates in the literature, there is no universally accepted definition of risk. Drawing on Saussure’s linguistic theory and Wittgenstein’s (2005. Philosophische Untersuchungen (Philosophical investigations). In S. T. Wissenschaft (Ed.), Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Tagebucer 1914–1916. Philosophische Untersuchungen (Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Diaries 1914–1916. Philosophical investigations), (18th ed.). Suhrkamp) philosophy, this study examines how specific groups within the community perceive risk and the potential reasons behind differing interpretations. Using a case study approach, the research focuses on practitioners with an interest in a UK bank (Bank A). Interviews were conducted with risk reporting analysts, regulators, investors, and managers at Bank A. The findings suggest that definitions of corporate risk are shaped by the practices and procedures specific to each group directly affected, rather than a unified understanding. It is crucial, therefore, to evaluate and incorporate these differing perspectives during the implementation of accounting regulations. While all participants described risk as the uncertainties associated with both expected and unexpected events, their views diverged on the effects and implications of these events, which could result in either positive or negative outcomes. Thus, risk transcends both pre-modern and modern views and cannot be fully understood without considering the conceptual meanings and subjective judgments of those directly involved.
Suggested Citation
Zaneta Akudbil Azuma-Kotei & Awad Elsayed Awad Ibrahim, 2025.
"The Concept of Corporate Risk: Perspectives of Risk Disclosure’s Users and Preparers,"
Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 354-377, September.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:acceur:v:22:y:2025:i:3:p:354-377
DOI: 10.1080/17449480.2024.2419660
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
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:taf:acceur:v:22:y:2025:i:3:p:354-377. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAIE20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.