The Nordic research on accounting in inter-organizational relationships – the foundations of a microprocessual research approach to classical issues

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the Nordic research on accounting in inter-organizational relationships (IORs) and relates the Nordic contributions to the international literature. Additionally, it examines alternative approaches to the understanding of accounting in IORs and proposes some directions for future research. Design/methodology/approach Thirty-one papers were identified and assessed in terms of their topic, inter-organizational setting, theoretical approach, research methods and results. This study followed a six-step process from formulating objectives, through establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria, to paper selection and mutual assessments. Findings The Nordic literature presents a distinct approach to the understanding of accounting in IORs. The Nordic studies are characterized by theoretical pluralism, in-depth case studies and an interest towards micro-processes in a variety of inter-organizational settings and from the point of view of multiple parties. Originality/value The authors propose two specific areas of research: the interconnections between accounting measures, monetary flows and value creation as well as the role of accounting in creating stability and instability in IORs. These areas of research emphasize a stronger engagement with the core issues of managing appropriation and cooperation concerns and provide an outlook for novel insights into classical issues and increased integration within the field.

Trust, distrust, and open‐book accounting in three client‐vendor relationships

“…Reviews of inter‐organizational control and cost management studies point to a dominance of TCE and related frameworks (Ahlgren & Lind, 2023; Caglio & Ditillo, 2008; Dekker, 2016). TCE is also a central framework in some studies that focus specifically on OBA (Agndal & Nilsson, 2010; Chiu et al, 2019).…”

“…Research on OBA and (dis)trust has regarded organizations, rather than their subunits or employees, as the actors that trust or distrust (e.g., Cooper & Slagmulder, 2004; Dekker, 2004; Dekker et al, 2013; Phua et al, 2011; Vosselman & van der Meer‐Kooistra, 2009). Dekker (2016), Ahlgren and Lind (2023), and Håkansson and Lind (2006) explain this by a dominance of “market‐based” frameworks, such as TCE that are concerned primarily with broadly defined governance structures and that consider trust as part of a relationship context (e.g., Williamson, 1993) rather than as a dynamic process. Even when studies do adopt a more dynamic approach to OBA and (dis)trust, they still understand (dis)trust as accumulating at the relationship level (e.g., Arino & de la Torre, 1998; Tomkins, 2001; Vélez et al, 2008; Windolph & Moeller, 2012).…”

“…The lack of interest in “the data” may seem surprising given that exchanged data can only support inter‐organizational value creation when broken down in detail. It may, however, be explained by the “outside view” of most studies (Dekker, 2016); in contrast to intra ‐organizational management control research, which has conducted detailed analyses of control practices within organizations, inter‐organizational research has been concerned largely with control archetypes and control problems rather than microlevel interaction (Ahlgren & Lind, 2023). The resulting “blanket view” of OBA and data may then explain diverging findings regarding the interaction between OBA and (dis)trust.…”

Deals and value measuring in interactive health-care services

“…A large number of studies exist on VM in business relationships and how VM can be used to mitigate appropriation concerns (Baiman and Rajan, 2002; Costello, 2013; Johansson and Siverbo, 2011; Neumann, 2010; Stouthuysen et al , 2017). However, these studies have a firm level focus (Ahlgren and Lind, 2022; Håkansson and Lind, 2007) and depart from the legal boundary of the firm in their analysis of the appropriation concerns. As such, they have a unidirectional view on business relationships.…”