Enterprise Risk Management in Accounting Research: A Literature Review

Abstract

This study aims to clarify the characteristics of studies on enterprise risk management (ERM) in accounting and present future research subjects through a literature review. There are few review studies in accounting, compared to adjacent fields such as management and finance. We selected 25 academic papers from the EBSCO database, and conducted a systematic review from three points of view: (1) ERM frameworks; (2) factors that promote or obstruct the introduction of ERM; and (3) the impact of ERM. We find that: (1) there are the conflicting results for ERM frameworks; (2) research on ERM frameworks is one of the features in accounting; and(3) accounting and finance journals follow different topics of interest related to ERM. In addition, this study contributes to the development of ERM research in accounting by clarifying and organizing the research on the introduction of ERM from the perspective of accounting, clarifying the characteristics of ERM research in accounting through a comparison with studies in adjacent fields, and identifying the conflicting findings on the impact of introducing ERM.

The relationship between enterprise risk management and managerial judgement in decision‐making: A systematic literature review

“…A systematic review is particularly advantageous in ERM, as the existing literature is fragmented and lacks coherence (Fujita et al., 2018). Consequently, narrative and integrative reviews are less likely to ‘identify, analyse, and interpret all available evidence’ relevant to our specific research question in the way a systematic review can (Fan et al., 2022, p. 4).…”

“…While we discovered nine previous literature reviews (Anton & Nucu, 2020;Bromiley et al, 2015;Choi et al, 2015;Fujita et al, 2018;Krause & Tse, 2016;Lima et al, 2020;Olson & Wu, 2010;Vasvári, 2015;Verbano & Venturini, 2013), only two follow a transparent and systematic research protocol (Anton & Nucu, 2020;Lima et al, 2020). While Fujita et al (2018) and Verbano and Venturini (2013) follow systematic literature review approaches, the method sections are limited and thus transparency about the review process is low. In addition, Fujita et al (2018) reviewed accounting research only, and Verbano and Venturini (2013) reviewed risk management literature prior to 2009.…”

“…While Fujita et al (2018) and Verbano and Venturini (2013) follow systematic literature review approaches, the method sections are limited and thus transparency about the review process is low. In addition, Fujita et al (2018) reviewed accounting research only, and Verbano and Venturini (2013) reviewed risk management literature prior to 2009. Furthermore, none of the aforementioned reviews examine the relationship between ERM artefacts and MJDM.…”

“…While Fujita et al. (2018) and Verbano and Venturini (2013) follow systematic literature review approaches, the method sections are limited and thus transparency about the review process is low. In addition, Fujita et al.…”

“…In addition, Fujita et al. (2018) reviewed accounting research only, and Verbano and Venturini (2013) reviewed risk management literature prior to 2009. Furthermore, none of the aforementioned reviews examine the relationship between ERM artefacts and MJDM.…”