La prospettiva della performatività e gli strumenti di misurazione e gestione della performance

Author/s Lino Cinquini, Silvana Revellino, Maria Serena Chiucchi
Publishing Year 2024 Issue 2023/3 Language Italian
Pages 20 P. 5-24 File size 259 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2023-003001
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The contents of this issue of Management Control allow us to reflect on the per-formative nature of the calculation, quantification and qualification tools that govern the measurement and management of performance within organizations and society. Performance measurement and management tools, also called “de-vices”, are made up of a set of signs, or symbols, consisting not only of numbers, calculations and algorithms but also from graphic representations, images and nar-ratives. Attributing a “performative” nature to this set of signs means recognizing that these signs, rather than representing reality, provoke and create it (Muniesa, 2014). Such signs can be ascribed to the category of objects, but objects are never inanimate entities, but rather “actants” (Akrich, 1990; Akrich and Latour, 1992; Latour, 1987; Callon, 1999), i.e. able to suggest and inspire entire courses of ac-tion, promote the opening up of new scenarios and stimulating the imagination of new horizons. The collection of articles in this issue certainly offers an opportunity to encourage dialogue and integration between the different approaches and areas of research on performance measurement and management. For example, quali-tative and quantitative works could support each other; experimental works could integrate with surveys, intra-organizational research could inform inter-organizational research, and vice versa.

Keywords: Performance management, Measurement management, Performative calculation, Evaluation infrastructures, Performance devices

  1. Ahrens T., Chapman C. S. (2002), The Structuration of Legitimate Performance Measures and Management: Day-to-Day Contests of Accountability in a U.K. Restaurant Chain, Management Accounting Research, 13(2), pp. 1-21.
  2. Ahrens T. and Chapman C. S. (2004), Accounting for Flexibility and Efficiency: A Field Study of Management Control Systems in a Restaurant Chain, Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(2), pp. 271-301.
  3. Akrich M. (1990), De la sociologie des techniques à une sociologie des usages, Techniques et Culture, 16, pp. 83-110.
  4. Akrich M., Latour B. (1992), A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies, In W.E. Bijker, J. Law, eds, Shaping Technology/Building Society, Cambridge, Mass., the MIT Press, pp. 259-264.
  5. Alaimo C., Kallinikos J. (2021), Managing by Data: Algorithmic Categories and Organizing, Organization Studies, 42(9), pp. 1385-1407.
  6. Alawattage C., Graham C., e Wickramasinghe D. (2019), Microaccountability and biopolitics: Microfinance in a Sri Lankan village, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 72, pp. 38-60.
  7. Alawattage C., Jayathileka C., Hitibandara R., Withanage S. (2023), Moral economy, performative materialism, political rhetorics of sustainability accounting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 95, 102507.
  8. Annisette M., Richardson A. J. (2011), Justification and accounting: applying sociology of worth to accounting research, Accounting, Auditing e Accountability Journal, 24(2), pp. 229-249.
  9. Annisette M., Vesty G., Amslem T. (2017), Accounting values, controversies, and compromises in tests of worth, In C. Cloutier, J.P. Gond, e B. Leca (Eds.), Justification, evaluation and critique in the study of organizations: Contributions from French pragmatist sociology (Research in the sociology of organizations) (Vol. 52, pp. 209e239). Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited.
  10. Arjaliès D.L., Bansal P. (2018), Beyond numbers: How investment managers accommodate societal issues in financial decisions, Organization Studies, 39(5-6), pp. 691-719.
  11. Arjaliès D.L., Gibassier D. (2023), Can Financialization Save Nature? The Case of Endangered Species, Contemporary Accounting Research, online first.
  12. Ascani I., Gatti M., Chiucchi M.S. (2021), Pandemia e sistema di budgeting: quali effetti sulla figura del controller?, Management Control, 3, pp. 65-86. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2021-003004
  13. Baker M., Gray R., Schaltegger S. (2023), Debating accounting and sustainability: from incompatibility to rapprochement in the pursuit of corporate sustainability, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 36(2), pp. 591-619.
  14. Baker C. R. (2014), Breakdowns of accountability in the face of natural disasters: The case of Hurricane Katrina, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(7), pp. 620-632.
  15. Bandola-Gill J., Grek S., e Ronzani M. (2021), Beyond winners and losers: Ranking visualizations as alignment devices in global public policy, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 74, pp. 27-52.
  16. Bebbington J., Larrinaga C. (2014), Accounting and sustainable development: An exploration, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(6), pp. 395-413.
  17. Bigo V. (2018), On silence, creativity and ethics in organization studies, Organization Studies, 39(1), pp. 121-133.
  18. Beelitz A., Merkl-Davies D. (2012), Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy: ‘CEO-speak’ after an Incident in a German Nuclear Power Plant, Journal of Business Ethics, 108, pp. 101-120.
  19. Begkos C., e Antonopoulou K. (2020), Measuring the unknown: Evaluative practices and performance indicators for digital platforms, Accounting, Auditing e Accountability Journal, 33(3), pp. 588-619.
  20. Boiral O. (2013). Sustainability reports as simulacra? An external account of A and A+ GRI reports, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 26(7), pp. 1036-1071.
  21. Borgstedt P., Nienaber A.M., Liesenkötter B., Schewe G. (2019), Legitimacy strategies in corporate environmental reporting: A longitudinal analysis of German DAX companies’ disclosed objectives, Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), pp. 177-200.
  22. Brown J. (2009), Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), pp. 313-342.
  23. Brown J., Dillard J. (2013), Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the “death of environmentalism” debates. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(1), pp. 1-18.
  24. Brown J., Dillard J., Hopper T. (2015), Accounting, accountants and accountability regimes in pluralistic societies: Taking multiple perspectives seriously, Accounting, Auditing e Accountability Journal, 28(5), pp. 626-650.
  25. Brown J., Tregidga H. (2017), Re-politicizing social and environmental accounting through Rancière: On the value of dissensus, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 61, pp. 1-21.
  26. Burritt R.L., Herzig C., Schaltegger S., Viere T. (2019), Diffusion of environmental management accounting for cleaner production: evidence from some case studies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 224, pp. 479-491.
  27. Busco C., Quattrone P. (2015), Exploring how the Balanced Scorecard engages and unfolds: Articulating the visual power of accounting inscriptions, Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(3), pp. 1236-1262.
  28. Busco C., Quattrone P. (2018a), Performing business and social innovation through accounting inscriptions: An introduction. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 67, 15-19.
  29. Busco C., Quattrone P. (2018b), In search of the “perfect one”: How accounting as a maieutic machine sustains inventions through generative ‘in-tensions’, Management Accounting Research, 39, pp. 1-16.
  30. Callon M. (1999), Actor-Network Theory: The Market Test, In: Law J. and Hassard J. (Eds.), ActorNetwork Theory and After, Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review, Oxford, pp. 181-195.
  31. Callon M., Meadel C., Rabeharisoa V. (2002), The Economy of Qualities, Economy and Society, 31(2) pp. 194-217
  32. Callon M., Law J. (2005), On qualculation, agency and otherness, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), pp. 717-733.
  33. Carroll A.B., Shabana K.M. (2010), The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp. 85-105.
  34. Casarin V. (2023), Calculative frames, compromising metrics, and the multiple values of innovation: The case of technology incubation in the UK, Accounting, Organizations and Society, pp. 1-21.
  35. Castellano N., Felden C. (2021), Management Control Systems for Sustainability and Sustainability of Management Control Systems, Management Control, 2, pp. 5-10. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2021-002001
  36. Cenciotti R., Borgogni L. (2018), L’influenza dei valori nelle scelte individuali, In Alessandri G., Borgogni L., Psicologia del lavoro: dalla teoria alla pratica, Vol. I. L'individuo al lavoro, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  37. Chapman C.S. (1998), Accountants in Organisational Networks, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(8), pp. 737-66.
  38. Chapman C. (2005), Controlling Strategy. Management, Accounting,and Performance Measurement, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, pp. 191.
  39. Chapman C., Chua W.F., Fiedler T. (2021), Seduction as control: Gamification at Foursquare, Management Accounting Research, 53, 100765. DOI: 10.1016/J.MAR.2021.100765
  40. Chen C.X., Lill J.B., Lucianetti L. (2023), Performance measurement system diversity and product innovation: Evidence from longitudinal survey data, Accounting, Organizations and Society.
  41. Chenhall R.H., Hall M., Smith D. (2013), Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(4), 268e287.
  42. Chiucchi M.S. (2013), Intellectual Capital Accounting in Action: Enhancing Learning through Interventionist Research, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), pp. 48-68.
  43. Cho C.H., Laine M., Roberts R.W., Rodrigue M. (2015), Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, pp. 78-94.
  44. Cinquini L., Nørreklit H., (2015), Research perspectives in Performance Management, Management Control, 2, pp. 5-12.
  45. Cochoy F. (2002), Une Sociologie du Packaging ou l’Aê ne de Buridan Face au Marche ̈ [A sociology of packaging, or Buridan’s ass in the face of the market] (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris)
  46. Cochoy F. (2008), Calculation, qualculation, calqulation: Shopping cart arithmetic, equipped cognition and the clustered consumer. Marketing Theory, 8(1), pp. 15-44.
  47. Cooper D.J., Ezzamel M., Qu S. (2017), Popularizing a management accounting idea: The case of the balanced scorecard, Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(2), pp. 991-1025.
  48. Crvelin D., Löhlein L. (2022), Commensuration by form: Lists and accounting in collective action networks, Accounting Organizations and Society, 100, 101333.
  49. Davila T. (2000), An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems design in new product development. Account. Org. Soc., 25(4/5), pp. 383-409.
  50. Davila A., Foster G., Oyon D. (2009), Accounting and control, entrepreneurship and innovation: venturing into new research opportunities, Eur. Account. Rev., 18(2), pp. 281-311.
  51. Davila A., Foster G., Li M. (2009), Reasons for management control systems adoption: insights from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies. Account. Org. Soc., 34(3-4), pp. 322-347.
  52. de Bakker F.G., Rasche A., Ponte S. (2019), Multi-stakeholder initiatives on sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda for business ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3), pp. 343-383.
  53. de Bakker F.G., Matten D., Spence L.J., Wickert C. (2020), The elephant in the room: The nascent research agenda on corporations, social responsibility, and capitalism, Business e Society, 59(7), pp. 1295-1302.
  54. Di Maggio P., Powell W. (1983), The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Orgnizational Fields, American Sociological Review, 48(April), p. 32 e ss.
  55. D’Onza G. (2022), L’orientamento delle aziende ad uno sviluppo sostenibile: quale contributo da parte dei sistemi di management e controllo?, Management Control, 1, pp. 5-15. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2022-001001
  56. Espeland W.N., Stevens M.L. (1998), Commensuration as a social process, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp. 313-343.
  57. Espeland W.N., Stevens M.L. (2008), A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology, 49, pp. 401-436.
  58. Esposito E. (2013), Economic circularities and second-order observation: The reality of ratings, Sociologica 2, DOI: 10.2383/74851
  59. Esposito E., Stark D. (2020), What’s Observed in a Rating? Rankings as Orientation in the Face of Uncertainty, In D. Stark (Ed.), The Performance Complex: Competition and Competitions in Social Life (pp. 123-143). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  60. Espeland W.N., e Sauder M. (2007), Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds, American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), pp. 1-40. DOI: 10.1086/517897
  61. Ezzamel M., Robson K., Stapleton P. (2012), The logics of budgeting: Theorization and practice variation in the educational field, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, 281e303.
  62. Ferreira A., Moulang C. and Hendro B. (2010), Environmental management accounting and innovation: an exploratory analysis, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 23(7), pp. 920-948.
  63. Foucault M. (1972-1977), The Confession of the Flesh, interview with Alain Grosrichard et al., In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, trans. Gordon et al., ed. Gordon (New York, 1980).
  64. Foucault M. (1991), Governmentality, trans. Rosi Braidotti and Colin Gordon, In Foucault et al., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, ed. Burchell, Gordon, and Peter Miller, The University of Chicago Press.
  65. Friis I., Hansen A. (2015), Line-item budgeting and film-production. Exploring some benefits of budget constraints on creativity, Qualitative Reseach in Aounting e Management, 12(4), pp. 321-345.
  66. Giovannoni E., Quattrone P. (2018), The Materiality of Absence: Organizing and the case of the incomplete cathedral, Organization Studies, 39(7), pp. 849-871.
  67. Grabner I. (2014). Incentive system design in creativity-dependent firms, The Accounting Review, 89(5), 1729e1750.
  68. Gray R. (1992), Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), pp. 399-426.
  69. Gray R. (2010), Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organizations and the planet, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), pp. 47-62.
  70. Gross M., e McGoey L. (eds.) (2015), Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies, London, Routledge.
  71. Gunarathne A.N., Lee K.H. (2019), Environmental and managerial information for cleaner production strategies: an environmental management development perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117849.
  72. Hahn R., Kühnen M. (2013), Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research, Journal of Cleaner Production, 59, pp. 5-21.
  73. Halme M., Rintamäki J., Knudsen J.S., Lankoski L., e Kuisma M. (2020), When is there a sustainability case for CSR? Pathways to environmental and social performance improvements, Business e Society, 59(6), pp. 1181-1227.
  74. Hazelkorn E. (2015). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: the Battle for World‐Class Excellence. (2nd ed.), Palgrave Macmillan.
  75. Henri J.F, e Wouters M. (2020) Interdependence of management control practices for product innovation: The influence of environmental volatility, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 86, pp. 1-14.
  76. Hristov I., Chirico A. Ranalli F. (2022), La pianificazione della sostenibilità nelle aziende familiari: il ruolo dei key value drivers, Management Control, 3, pp 109-134.
  77. Jeacle I., Carter C. (2011), TripAdvisor we trust: Rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 36(4), pp. 293-309.
  78. Jeacle I., e Carter C. (2012). Fashioning the popular masses: Accounting as mediator between creativity and control. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 25(4), pp. 719-751.
  79. Jordan S., e Messner M. (2012). Enabling control and the problem of incomplete performance indicators, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(8), pp. 544-564.
  80. Jørgensen B., e Messner M. (2010). Accounting and strategising: A case study from new product development, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), pp. 184-204.
  81. Karpik L. (2010), Valuing the unique: The economics of singularities, Princeton University Press.
  82. Kornberger M., Carter C. (2010), Manufacturing competition: How accounting practices shape strategy making in cities, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(3), pp. 325-349.
  83. Kornberger M., Pflueger D., e Mouritsen J. (2017). Evaluative infrastructures: Accounting for platform organization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 60, pp. 79-95.
  84. Kostera M. (2000), A letter from the empty stage. Studies in Culture, Organizations and Societies, 6(1), pp. 1-5.
  85. Latour B. (1987), Science in action. How to follow scientist and engineers through society, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
  86. Latour B. (2005), Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  87. Lampel J., Lant T., Shamsie J. (2000), Balancing Act: Learning from Organizing Practices in Cultural Industries, Organization Science, 11(3), pp. 263-269.
  88. Malmi T., Brown D.A. (2008), Management control systems as a package – Opportunities, challenges and research directions, Management Accounting Research, 19(4), pp. 287-300.
  89. Martinez D.E., Cooper D.J. (2019), Assembling performance measurement through engagement, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 78, 1e22.
  90. Mauro S. G., Cinquini L., Malmmose M., Norreklit H. (2023), University research by the numbers: Epistemic methods of using digitized performance measures and their implications for research practices, Financial Accountability & Management, pp. 1-27.
  91. Mazmanian M., Beckman C.M. (2018), ‘Making’ your numbers: Engendering organizational control through a ritual of quantification, Organization Science, 29(3), pp. 357-379.
  92. Mennicken A. (2016), Numbers and Lists: Ratings and Rankings in Healthcare and the Correctional Services, London, LSE manuscript.
  93. Mennicken A., Espeland W. (2019), What’s new with numbers? Sociological approaches to the study of quantification, Annual Review of Sociology, 45, pp. 223-245.
  94. Mikes A., Morhart F. (2017), Bringing Back Charlie Chaplin: Accounting as Catalyst in the Creation of an Authentic Product of Popular Culture, Management Accounting Research, 35, pp. 66-82.
  95. Miller P. (1998), The margins of accounting, The European Accounting Review, 7(4), pp. 605-621.
  96. Molecke G., & Pinkse J. (2017), Accountability for social impact: A bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises, Journal of Business Venturing, 32, pp. 550-568.
  97. Mouritsen J., Hansen A., Hansen C.O. (2009). Short and long translations: management accounting calculations and innovation management, Account. Org. Soc., 34, pp. 738-754.
  98. Muniesa F. (2014), The Provoked Economy: Economic Reality and the Performative Turn, London, Routledge
  99. Nørreklit H. (a cura di) (2017), A Philosophy of management accounting: A pragmatic constructivist approach, New York, Routledge.
  100. Orlikowski W.J., Scott S.V. (2019), Performing Apparatus: Infrastructures of Valuation in Hospitality, In M. Kornberger, G. C. Bowker, J. Elyachar, A. Mennicken, P. Miller, J. R. Nucho, e N. Pollock (Eds.), Thinking Infrastructures (Vol. 62, pp. 169-179). Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI: 10.1108/S0733-558X20190000062010
  101. Orlitzky M., Schmidt F.L., Rynes S.L. (2003), Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis, Organization Studies, 24 (3), pp. 403-441.
  102. Pollock N. L., D’Adderio L. (2012), Give me a two-by-two matrix and I will create the market: Rankings, graphic visualisations and sociomateriality, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37, pp. 565-586.
  103. Porter T.M. (1996), Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
  104. Quattrone P. (2009), Books to be practiced: Memory, the power of the visual, and the success of accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1) pp. 85-118.
  105. Quattrone P. (2016), In search of what accounting is not: Speculations on the future of valuing, transparency, and a new aesthetics for governing capitalism and democracy, In B. Czarniawska, T. Söderberg e R. Söderberg (eds.), A Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, pp. 11-25.
  106. Quattrone P., Ronzani M., Jancsary D., Höllerer M.A. (2021), Beyond the visible, the material and the performative: Shifting perspectives on the visual in Organization Studies, Organization Studies, 42(8), pp. 1197-1218.
  107. Ratner H., Plotnikof M. (2022), Technology and Dis/Organization: Digital data infrastructures as partial connections, Organization Studies, 43(7), pp. 1049-1067.
  108. Revellino S (2020), Accounting for carbon emissions: simulating absence through experimental sites of material politics, Sustain, Accounting, Manag. Policy J., 11(3), pp. 613-640,
  109. Revellino S. and Mouritsen J. (2009), The multiplicity of controls and the making of innovation, European Accounting Review, 18(2), pp. 341-369.
  110. Revellino S., Mouritsen J. (2015), The performativity of calculative practices and the dynamics of innovation, Management Accounting Research, 28, pp. 31-49.
  111. Revellino S. and Mouritsen J. (2017), Ex-citable accounting and the development of pervasive innovation, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 14(4), pp. 448-466.
  112. Revellino S., Mouritsen J. (2023), Intellectual capital, innovation and the bushy form of knowledge capitalization, Journal of Management and Governance.
  113. Rindova V.P., Martins L.L., Srinivas S.B., Chandler D. (2018), The good, the bad, and the ugly of organizational rankings: A multidisciplinary review of the literature and directions for future research, Journal of Management, 44(6), pp. 2175-2208. DOI: 10.1177/0149206317741962
  114. Ronzani M., Gatzweiler M.K. (2022), The lure of the visual: Multimodality, simplification, and performance measurement visualizations in a megaproject, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 97, pp. 1-19.
  115. Saifer A., Dacin M.T. (2022), Data and Organization Studies: Aesthetics, emotions, discourse and our everyday encounters with data, Organization Studies, 43(4), pp. 623-636.
  116. Sargiacomo M. (2015), Earthquakes, exceptional government and extraordinary accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 42, pp. 67-89.
  117. Sauder M., Espeland W.N. (2009), The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, pp. 63-82.
  118. Schultz M., Mouritsen J. and Gabrielsen G. (2001) Sticky reputation: Analyzing a ranking system, Corporate Reputation Review, 4, pp. 24-41.
  119. Simons R. (1990), The Role of Management Control Systems in Creating Competitive Advantage: New Perspectives, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15(1/2), pp. 127-43.
  120. Simons R. (1991), Strategic Orientation and Top Management Attention to Control Systems, Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp. 49-62.
  121. Simons R. (1995), Levers of Control. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
  122. Speckbacher G. (2017), Creativity Research in Management Accounting: A Commentary, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 29(3), pp. 49-54.
  123. Stark D., Pais (2020), I. Algorithmic management in the platform economy, Sociologica, 14, pp. 47-72.
  124. Townley B., Cooper D.J., Oakes B. (2003), Performance measures and the rationalization of organizations, Organisation Studies, 24(7), pp. 1045-1071.
  125. Vishwanathan P., van Oosterhout H.J., Heugens P., Duran P., e van Essen M. (2019), Strategic CSR: a concept building meta-analysis, Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), pp. 314-350.
  126. Vola P., Gelmini L. (2022), Climate change skills for the new CFOs. A preliminary analysis on TCFD by Italian listed companies, Management Control, Suppl. 2, pp 189-209. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2022-002-S1009
  127. Walker S.P. (2008). Accounting, paper shadows and the stigmatised poor, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(4), pp. 453-487.
  128. Wickert C., Scherer A., Spence L. (2016), Walking and talking corporate social responsibility: Implications of firm size and organizational cost, Journal of Management Studies, 53, pp. 1169-96.
  129. Wickert C., & Risi D. (2019), Corporate Social Responsibility. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  130. Wood D.J. (1991), Corporate social performance revisited, Academy of Management Review, 16(4), pp. 691-718.
  131. Yu L., Mouritsen J. (2020), Accounting, simultaneity and relative completeness: The sales and operations planning forecast and the enactment of the ‘demand chain’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 84,
  132. Yu A. (2021), Accountability as mourning: Accounting for death in the time of COVID-19, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 90, 101198.

Lino Cinquini, Silvana Revellino, Maria Serena Chiucchi, La prospettiva della performatività e gli strumenti di misurazione e gestione della performance in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 3/2023, pp 5-24, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2023-003001