Amsterdam Business School
The construction of accountability: a case study at de Volksbank
Name: Joost Dickhoff Student number: 10859136
Thesis supervisor: dr. S.W. Bissessur Date: 12 August 2018
Word count: 16545
MSc Accountancy & Control, specialization Accountancy Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Joost Dickhoff who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
In 2017, de Volksbank won the FD Henri Sijthoff-price for having the best annual report in the category of non-listed companies. This thesis will use Latour’s (2013) ‘the modes of existence’ to explain the social phenomenon of accountability in the annual report of de Volksbank, the fifth largest bank of The Netherlands measured by balance sheet total. The theory of Latour is used to explain how de Volksbank succeeded in creating the value of accountability and transparence and what elements of the theory (i.e. which modes of existence) are to be found in this social phenomenon. The case exposes the concept of network as a process that is employed to achieve reporting goals. The thesis responds to the calls of Joannides (Crit. Persp Acc. 23 (2012), 244) on more research on accountability demand while giving account.
Contents
1 Introduction ... 7
2 Case setting ... 10
3 Theoretical framework ... 12
3.1 Sijthoff criteria and integrated reporting ... 12
3.2 Prior literature ... 13
3.3 The project of Latour ... 15
3.3.1 Mode of existence: network ... 16
3.3.2 Mode of existence: preposition ... 18
3.3.3 Modes of existence: reference & reproduction ... 20
3.3.4 Mode if existence: organization ... 22
3.3.5 Mode of existence: law ... 23
3.3.6 Instauration ... 23 3.3.7 Ontological plurality ... 24 3.4 Propositions ... 24 4 Methodology ... 26 4.1 Research design ... 26 4.2 Selection of interviewees ... 27 4.3 Document analysis ... 28 4.4 Analysis of results ... 29
5 Results and findings ... 31
5.1 Proposition 1 ... 31
5.1.1 Input ... 31
5.1.2 Tools ... 32
5.1.3 Actors ... 32
5.1.5 Output ... 33 5.1.6 Process ... 34 5.1.7 Values... 34 5.2 Proposition 2 ... 35 5.3 Proposition 3 ... 36 5.4 Proposition 4 ... 37 5.5 Proposition 5 ... 38 5.6 Proposition 6 ... 38 5.7 Proposition 7 ... 39 5.8 Proposition 8 ... 40 5.9 Proposition 9 ... 41
6 Discussion and conclusion ... 43
References ... 45
Appendices ... 49
Appendix A: testing criteria for document analysis ... 49
Appendix B: list of questions for document analysis ... 50
Appendix C: list of questions for semi structured interviews ... 51
Appendix D: overview of interviewed employees ... 55
Appendix E: transcripts interviews ... 56
Appendix E1: Transcript interview IV1 ... 56
Appendix E2: Transcript interview IV2 ... 65
Appendix E3: Transcript interview IV3 ... 79
Appendix E4: Transcript interview IV4 ... 94
Appendix E5: Transcript interview IV5 ... 107
Appendix E6: Transcript interview IV6 ... 119
Appendix E7: Transcript interview IV7 ... 133
Appendix G: list of codes ... 145 Appendix H: overview network ... 152 Appendix I: table of the modes of existence ... 153
1 Introduction
This thesis presents a case study examining the promulgation of an integrated report in a Dutch bank, de Volksbank. In 2017, de Volksbank won the Sijthoff-award for the best annual report in the category non-listed firms. This is an award that is brought into being by the Financieele Dagblad, a Dutch financial newspaper. It was first awarded in 1954 and is intended to be a stimulating force for Dutch companies to improve its public disclosures (Financieele Dagblad, 2016). Not only the annual report is judged but also the website, interim disclosures and analyst reports. In the judgment, a large number of criteria are used to come to a conclusion. Accountability and transparency are valued highly in the judgement. By winning the Sijthoff-award de Volksbank proved to have an annual report that is very accountable and transparent. The main question this thesis will try to answer is how did de Volksbank succeed in making an annual report that is valued highly on accountability and transparency? I will use Latour’s ‘modes of existence' to explain this social phenomenon.
Accountability can be seen as separating ethical and strategic elements but eventually give us an understanding ‘how the things are as they are’ (Roberts, 1991, p. 367). There is some research about how it can be derived, for example through the following of procedures. In this study various approaches to accountability are explored but it is concluded that administrators should ‘build on the processes which enable the construction of a more robust and privately anchored experience of
accountability’ (Sinclair, 1995, p. 234). Thus it should be investigated how context or the applicable
network relates to accountability.
Most literature about accountability or transparency examines questions about who, to whom, for what and by which means (Joannides, 2012). These questions do not say anything about how accountability or transparency can be achieved. Firms need to be accountable (who), that it needs to be accountable to shareholder, customers, society at large and employees (to whom) in order to have and continue to have a license to operate(for what). This is done by publishing an annual report and having regular stakeholder engagement meetings (which means). But all of this does not say anything about how it can be achieved or why the approach works. Joannides states that it is difficult to operationalize accountability and calls for more research on accountability systems (Joannides, 2012, p. 244).
Accounterability is posed as an alternative for the problem of accountability.
Accounterability is ‘resisting accountability demands while giving an account’ (Joannides, 2012, p. 244). It is posed as a solution to the difficulty of operationalizing accountability. This is however done on an individual basis and not on an institutional level. This means that the
environment (network in the terms of Latour) is not taken into account. Joannides also calls for more investigation on the operationalization of accountability. This thesis answers to that call.
Furthermore, little is known about how systems can be of help constructing transparency. Barlev, Citron, & Haddad (2017) build upon the works about transparency of for example Bushman et all. (2004) and Heald (2003) that study what transparency is, but not about how it is achieved. Writing in the field of fiscal transparency, Heald gives various distinct definitions of transparency (real-time versus retrospective and event versus process). His idea of process transparency comes closest to an indication about how to reach transparency, namely by describing how inputs are transformed into outputs. But how to do this in an institutional setting such as a bank is not clear. It is also not clear why this approached would be effective. Heald himself is calling for more research in which context is incorporated.
Bushman and Smith (2003) describe three different channels in which financial accounting information is used and influences transparency. However this influence is on the level of countries rather than individual companies and does thus not tell how transparency is brought into being at an individual bank. In another article Bushman is urging for more research on the nature of transparency of banks (Bushman, 2016).
The current debate in literature seems to take accountability and transparency for granted; it is simply there in one way or another. This also counts for the annual report itself. Numerous researches are done in which annual reports are investigated but little or no research is done about how annual reports get their ontological status. This thesis will use of the theory of Bruno Latour. to construct how both the value of accountability and transparency can be arrived.
Value is either just an object or it is judged by a subject, which is not the annual report itself, and thus cannot contain any value other than its own bodily integrity. The theory of Latour gives value a place in the ontological plurality. This means that in contrast to the theory giving the meaning, the meaning thus already exists in reality. It is even more interesting that the annual account of de Volksbank was valued by an independent party. That is why this makes a good opportunity for a case study using Latour’s writings.
In his book An Inquiry into the Modes of Existence (Latour, 2013) Latour develops a system of coordinates to understand reality instead of the dichotomy of object and subject. He introduces various ‘modes of existence’ which have particular truth conditions.
The research is twofold. First it explores the idea that values such as transparency, accountability and clearness are able to be explained within the ontological plurality of Latour,
thereby investigating why de Volksbank won the Sijthoff-award. Secondly, it examines the ontological plurality that constitutes the social reality in which an annual report can come about.
The structure of this thesis is as follows. In the next chapter the case setting is briefly discussed. In chapter three the theoretical framework will be discussed and the theory of Latour is explained. In chapter four a description of the research method will be given. In chapter five the results of the conducted research are described, after which the discussion and conclusion will follow in chapter six.
2 Case setting
De Volksbank is the fifth largest Dutch bank measured by balance sheet total. DVB has a long history which goes back to 1817 (De Volksbank, 2017, p. 19). It has mostly been a bank that has been closely rooted in society because it is predominantly a retail and savings bank serving the common good. In 1987 two large regional saving banks merged into SNS. In the following years, a number of mergers and acquisitions took place. The SNS Group and the insurer REAAL Group merged into SNS REAAL in 1997. The company had its IPO in 2006 after which a number of companies were acquired, including Bouwfonds’ property finance activities (SNS Bank, 2014, p. 6).
From 2009 onwards, the results of Property Finance gave more and more pressure on the results and solvency of SNS Bank. This ultimately led to the nationalization of SNS REAAL, including SNS Bank, on 1 February 2013. A restructuring plan was made which prescribed to disentangle the bank and insurer into separate companies. With the nationalization, the Dutch State is now the sole shareholder of SNS Bank, which was renamed de Volksbank (hereafter DVB) in the end of 2015.
Nowadays, DVB sees itself as a bank “that considers and anticipates the needs of customers, society, employees and shareholder(s). As our success hinges on the extent to which we live up to our stakeholders’ expectations, we regularly engage in dialogue with them to exchange ideas and share experiences in a constructive manner (De Volksbank, 2017, p. 19). It is a bank with a mission: Banking with a human touch. This is set out in a manifesto and is “geared to the public appeal to give meaning to helpful banking” (De Volksbank, 2017, p. 26). It targets the Dutch market only and offers clear and transparent products with regard to mortgages, savings and payments.
In order to be of service to the public and to anticipate to the needs of shareholder and society, the External Reporting department has drafted a challenging strategy to serve this need. This strategy was to win the FD Henri Sijthoff-award and produce the best in class annual report. After the disentanglement of the insurer, a research was done by PWC on the best practices of public reporting of banks. This research was translated into a dummy annual reporting roadmap in which recommendations about how to produce a good annual report. It contained a structure, peer review and to which laws and regulations DVB had to comply. This dummy annual reporting roadmap was used in the subsequent years and update annually. In October 2017, the Financieele Dagblad announced de Volksbank to be the winner of the Sijthoff-award 2016 in the category non-listed companies.
It is within this case setting that this research is done by conducting document analysis and having interviews with employees that had a relevant and significant role in the process of making the award-winning annual report. Thus the question arises, why has de Volksbank won the Sijthoff-award?
3 Theoretical framework
In this chapter first the criteria of the Sijthoff will be discussed in more detail. One element of judgement by the jury of the Sijthoff award is integrated reporting which will be briefly discussed in relation to the values this concept entails. Secondly, a general outline of the theories that are already frequently used by other authors about ontology in accounting literature is given. Thirdly, as a critique on these theories, the modes of existence of Latour are described in more detail. This theory leads to various propositions that are used in this research. An overview of the propositions will be given lastly.
3.1 Sijthoff criteria and integrated reporting
The general criteria that the Sijthoff jury is using for their judgement are that the annual report, as a minimum, will comply with all relevant laws and regulations, changes in accounting policy are discussed, the management report and annual accounts are audited and approved by an independent accountant and the public reporting must entail as much transparency as can be provided for various stakeholders (employees, customers, investors and others). In addition, a high degree of accountability is needed in various elements in the annual report. As can also be read in the reports of the Sijthoff award a certain degree of integrated reporting is required (Financieele Dagblad, 2016; Financieele Dagblad, 2017).
Not complying with relevant laws and regulations, and in particular not being transparent (enough), can lead to reduced trust of investors and society at large (White, 2005). Since de Volksbank is a bank and has as strategic goal to regain the trust of society, it is paramount that this element is applied. Besides, not complying with relevant laws and regulations can lead either to holding the board of director accountable or to penalties and sanctions imposed by regulating authorities (PWC, 2014).
Integrated reporting leads to greater transparency (Philips et al., 2011; International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), 2013). By the use of integrated reporting a clear link between sustainability and long term performance arises and more insight is given about how a company creates value in the long run, including the risks it encounters (Busco et al., 2013). Besides, investors have more confidence in companies that are more complete in their disclosures which in turn leads to more possibilities on capital markets (Fung, 2014). In short, integrated reporting is valued highly by investors and capital markets due to the enhanced transparancy. However none of these researches have shown how an annual report is made or how transparency and accountablity is achieved within a company.
3.2 Prior literature
Various authors are in search of theories that can explain the nature or ontology of accounting. Roberts uses structuration theory and compares it, among others, with actor-network theory (ANT). He has argued that “understanding accounting in its organizational context has and continues to
prove much more difficult than was at first imagined” (Roberts J. , 2014, p. 140) and that it is important
that the pursuit of understanding accounting continues to find for example the way in which meaning is structured into accounting artefacts. Mouck (2014) bases his argument on the book of John Searl, The Construction of Social Reality, which provides him tools to demonstrate that financial accounting representations can be characterized as epistemologically objective facts, but at the same time have an ontological subjective mode of existence. For example, net income can be constructed using financial accounting rules which are epistemologically objective facts. But the rules themselves can be without objective basis, making it subjective. It depends on the rules if net income is reliable or not. He pictures the job of standard setting as to “continually amending
the rules in an effort to keep “the game” within the bounds of acceptable perceptions of reality” (Mouck, 2014,
p. 525).
Other accounting academics “focus on the relation of interpretative research to the
subjective/objective dichotomy appearing in methodological literature of social sciences” (Kakkuri-Knuuttila,
Lukka, & Kuorikoski, 2008, p. 267). They argue that although there are unique subjectivist features in interpretive studies, there are also objectivist features. In this manner they turn around the social theory critique that scientific accounting research “cannot be an objective ‘mirror of
reality’ by claiming that interpretive studies cannot be exclusively subjectivist and still they remain theoretically relevant” (Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008, p. 267). Latour gives an alternative for this dichotomy as
can be read below. Other literature is for example more concerned with the ontology of profit (Lukka, 1990) or earnings reports (Macintosh, 2009). However, no research has yet exmainedthe ontology of the annual report document.
The theories of Latour are used frequently in previous research and writings in academic (accounting) literature. However, these are mostly based on his work on ANT. To explain for example the enactment of accountability in a project (Burga & Rezania, 2017) or to explain the implementation of management accounting in a case study in Italy (Pipan & Czarniawska, 2010). Another study has tried to emphasize the importance of ANT as a research tool or strategy (Lowe, 2001). The paper explores “the manner in which human actors and objects of technology may
empirical understanding of the situation is very important but runs the risk of possible errors of interpretation and understanding.
Latour’s sociology of translation is used by Chua to explain how and why new accounting systems are experimented with. Sociology of translation is “how a certain notion of reality
came to be socially constructed and how and why a fact-building network emerged and survived Machiavellian-like - what are the human and non-human resources, stratagems, ploys and persuasive strategies used by actors with divergent interests to initiate, maintain or, in certain cases, destroy knowledge networks?” (Chua, 1995, p. 115).
Other writings (Dambrin & Robson, 2011) are for example about performance measures in which Latour’s model of sociology of translation is used. This has great resemblence with his mode of existence reference. It shows how performance measures do not represent or resemble the real world or a certain performance, but “refer to a series of articulations and interpretations made by
their various users” (Dambrin & Robson, 2011, p. 430). Latour writings about scientific knowledge
and how it is constructed are also used in accounting literature (e.g. Lowe, 2004; Chua, 2004). One way of looking at reality is by an oligopticon: seeing somethinig small but doing this well. This is however not a bird’s-eye view and “it is a fragile construct that depends on the many conenctions
and transformations that link the ‘thing in the world’ to its representation” (Boll, 2014, p. 5). The author
uses this oligopticon to interpret tax audits. In addition, Latour has also wrote about politics which is used in accounting literature. For example, the economization of corporate social responisibility can be explained by the political analysis of Latour as being a power inbalance of humans and objects governing the political stucture (Malsch, 2013).
Bryer (2014) uses the modes of existence in combination with the notion of social praxis of Marx. She argues for ontological plurality in understanding participation in budgeting. She claims that budgeting systems are examples of modes of existence because actors interact with budgets and reports, both being abstract and concrete tools. She goes on to say that “following
Latour suggests that greater social levels of participation in budgeting, that is, involving more actors in more extensive planning and control aspects, may enhance the scope for integrating a wider range of perspectives in ontologies by enabling the actors to develop their socially “reflexive capabilities” and “sources of innovation… (in) ontologies” (2013: 292)” (Bryer, 2014, p. 512). Bryer claims that budgeting systems are examples of
modes of existence1 and misinterprets the article of Latour and makes up her own modes of
existence and ontological plurality. The theory of Latour, as he intended it, is a new way of defining social reality and is not (widely) used before to explain the reality of accounting sciences.
Therefore this thesis will add to existing literature and perhaps makes way for new research proposals.
3.3 The project of Latour
Latour (2013) starts his book by giving an example of a case at which a scientist is asked to elaborate about climate change in a room with industrialists responsible for sustainable development. One of them asks why they should believe the scientist, any more than people who are skeptic about climate change. Instead of arguing that the evidence at hand is objective knowledge, the scientist replies by saying that they should trust the institution of science.
Scientific objectivity has frequently been associated with the term rationalism, a term that rejects irrationality in the case of science. As a way to describe the common world we live in, science investigates the manufacturing of objectivity in a new way. Rationalists object this thought by saying this is a form of relativism of the inquiries that are made. Latour (2013) thinks differently and argues that he prepares scientists for a realistic defense of the objectivity that the rationalists pursuit.
Science as an institution comprises the notion of value, the value of objectivity. He proposes to use science and science research to define this value. Latour is trying to establish or install the values we tried to defend throughout history in institutions, such as science.
Another point Latour (2013) makes is that since the Western enlightenment modern people are supposed to have separated facts from values. However, one cannot conclude that the earth is something out there, completely separated from us. It is the opposite, we are part of the earth and the earth is part of us. The old dichotomy of subject and object is thus becoming problematic, therefore Latour is arguing for a new system of coordinates that is true to the experiences and values that people hold. The answer to this question will be the modes of existence.
By comparing conflicts of values in pairs – scientific versus religious, for example, or legal versus political, or scientific versus fictional and so on – we shall observe very quickly that a large proportion of the tensions (..) of one mode is judged in terms of the conditions of veridiction of a different mode. We shall have to spend a good deal of time on this essential issue; it clearly presupposes that we accept the pluralism of modes and thus the plurality of keys by means of which their truth or falsity is judged (Latour, 2013, pp. 17-18).
The modes of existence should thus solve the conflicts that arise between values of different modes. The most important test that you can do, the only one worthwhile to do is to test the truth or falsity of an experience. This depends on specific experiential conditions. This seems to
be a relativist argument but is not. Latour argues that in the case of law, certain experiences only get their truth condition (their felicity condition) in a certain particular setting. For instance, your pen is just a tool for writing, but when I steal it, it will be in a juridical setting al of a sudden. The truth for that matter lies in the difference in experience of the same pen. To know were and what mode is applicable, various types of experience are needed to differentiate and track down each particular truth and falsity conditions. In short, you have to look at the process in which the experience came about.
Other theories describe a pluralism of representation but a monism of being. In his theory, Latour turns this around. Thus he argues for ontological pluralism. He introduces fifteen2
various modes of existence of which six are relevant for this research and will be discussed in the next subsections (see Appendix I).
3.3.1 Mode of existence: network
The first mode of existence is the concept of network. According to Latour, if you follow the courses of action you can discover the value system of the situation you are investigating. This means that if you explore for example the winning of the Sijthoff-award by de Volksbank, you should look at all the courses of action that are taken. In order to do so, it is important not to confuse these courses of action with domains (i.e. law, science, politics or religion). But because these domains are full of elements of other domains (for example in the economy, there are many cases of law, or in science there are many cases of politics) this distinction is not useful to make. Instead of domains, Latour thus argues for networks.
In a network, it is necessary to see the connections between the different elements and trace these connections back to its origins. The difficulty is that the elements are heterogeneous, that is to say that, for example, a computer can be used to make an annual account, can be part of a technical issue and is offered by a third party with whom a contract is made. In this case more than one association of a network can be made regarding the computer. Latour makes a distinction between networks as results and networks as process. Network as results are “technological arrangements such as, for example, a network for rail transport, water supply, sewers, or cell phones” (Latour, 2013, p. 31).
A network as process can be seen as the setups involved combining the heterogeneous elements that allow for example oil to run through the network. When there is a crises (the
2 The fifteen modes of existence are: reproduction, metamorphosis, habit, technology, fiction, reference, politics, law, religion, attachment, organization, morality, network, preposition and double click.
network does not function anymore, you do not have Wi-Fi anymore) the two notions come together. You have to explore how the network is setup so you can trace back the fault in the network and make it working again. So “a discontinuous series of heterogeneous elements on the one hand and on the other something that circulates in a continuous once all the elements are in place, when maintenance is assured and there is no crisis” (Latour, 2013, pp. 32-33).
The notion of network can thus be specified: “it designated a series of associations revealed thanks to trial – consisting in the surprises of the ethnographic investigation3 – that
makes it possible to understand through what series of small discontinuities it is appropriate to pass in order to obtain a certain continuity of action” (Latour, 2013, p. 33). The surprise is something that people who are in the network have learned already, for example the surprise that in order to publish the annual report the Financial Committee of de Volksbank first has to approve the report after which the Board of Directors can have a say about it. Only after these two governance elements are passed, the Supervisory Board can approve the report. But not only internal bodies have a role in the publications; also the external accountant has a big influence. It is only after they have established the fact that there are no material findings and the governance is followed, that they will approve the publication of the auditor’s report in the annual report.
The network does not qualify values. The network of business is not made from business, as is the same with the technical network of gas, i.e. a gas network is not made up of gas but of pipes, contracts, technicians, etc. Exactly the same applies to networks as a mode of existence: what is circulating within the network supplies value, it is not made up of it. Thus networks are limited for its use, i.e. you cannot mix up Law or Science because these comprise other networks. Within a network there are particular types of connections or associations that we have to learn to qualify and thereby the value that circulates within the network. Business is not made of ‘business’ but there is indeed something ‘business like’ circulating in the network. This is different from the idea of domains which have distinct borders. With this in mind, the following proposition is posed:
Proposition 1: the annual report of de Volksbank was brought about in a network as process which brings about the values accountability and transparency.
3 Latour brings his theory in the form of an ethnographic investigation. This is done because the book also poses the question why Westerners have never been modern. He thus poses the investigation as an anthropological one, searching for the way how the Moderns can be modern and how they interact with other cultures (the Others). “The surprises registered are only those of the observer: it is she, the ignorant one, who discovers as she goes along what her informants already now” (Latour, 2013, p. 34).
3.3.2 Mode of existence: preposition
According to Latour it is important to distinguish between the networks, but how can you distinguish them? How can you know if you are in a network of science or of law? To answer this question a distinction between first degree mistakes and second degree mistakes is made. A first degree mistake is not seeing that a tower in the distance is squared but round. This can be corrected by the senses, with time and means, and you can get rectified knowledge of it (by using a map or information from a book or internet). These types of mistakes stay within same the trajectory, the same path or mode of existence. A second degree mistake is when the way in which the truth or falsity of a phenomenon is mistaken for another. It is when you make a mistake not within the same mode of existence but of the mode itself. It is not a mistake of the senses but of direction. If you look at my laptop for example, and you mistake it for a book then you are making a first degree mistake. But if you see me working in my office with my laptop, discussing something on a screen with my co-workers, and think that I am in the network of science, then you make a second degree mistake. This type of mistake is a category mistake.
This way of looking to the world is different from for example a skeptical approach. Or as Latour puts it: “In other words, the skeptics, like their adversaries, unfortunately worked on a single type of
mistake, and this is why their philosophies have so little to say about the conflicts of values in which the Moderns have found themselves entangled. As a result, by obsessively following only the obstacles to the acquisition of objective knowledge, they risk being mistaken about the very causes of the mistakes.” (Latour, 2013, p. 53).
Each mode of existence has its own ‘veridiction4’ and has nothing to do with epistemological
definitions of truth or false. However, each mode does have its own qualifiers that make the phenomenon true or false. On the one hand, you can make a distinction between true and false within a mode and on the other between the different uses of true and false according to the chosen mode you experience. Each mode has its own felicity and infelicity conditions, a path of veridiction that will tell if the chosen trajectory is true or false.
The name for the right trajectory that Latour uses is ‘preposition’: “using it in its most literal,
grammatical sense, to mark a position-taking that comes before a proposition is stated, determining how the proposition is to be grasped and thus constituting its interpretive key” (Latour, 2013, p. 57). The right
preposition helps you to understand and grasp the experience you have of the world in question: it is the interpretative key. If you wander in a bookstore for example, you will look for signposts such as ‘novel’ or ‘magazines’. These are labels that can be interpreted as prepositions. If you
4 Latour uses the word veridiction to distinguish it from verification which is used to qualify rectified knowledge, thus only one mode of existence while he explores fifteen.
read the novel you will not take the writing as literally true, while if you read the magazine this can be very much the case. Thinking that a novel is literally true would be a category mistake, a second degree mistake. Therefore, you need preposition, the right interpretative key, to be able to understand everything that follows (without however really knowing what).
It is important to understand that to judge if something is true or false is not only applicable to objective knowledge, but that each mode has its own felicity and infelicity conditions. Each mode can be spoken to and about in its own language, to speak in the right tonality. A particular process in business gives the making of an annual report specific truth and falsity conditions which you have to respect. Therefore, proposition 2 is as follows:
Proposition 2: the existents working on the annual report had the right preposition, namely business and more specific: making an annual report.
The modes of existence can be combined and then a crossing is formed. A crossing makes it possible to discover the contrasts that define what is specific about a particular mode of existence. If the previous modes of existence are now combined we are capable to discover not only the trajectory of associations (which network we are in), but also to qualify the type of connections that allow the network to be in place (the preposition). This leads to the third proposition:
Proposition 3: the existent knew both that they were in a network and knew that they had to make a transparent annual report, and win the Sijthoff-award: they had the right preposition.
Latour was a proponent of Actor Network Theory (ANT). However, in his writings about the modes of existence he distinguishes himself from this line of reasoning:
“And yet, we understand this now, this method has retained some of the limitations of critical thought:
the vocabulary it offers is liberating, but too limited to distinguish the values to which the informants cling so doggedly. It is thus not entirely without justification that this theory is accused of being Machiavellian: everything can be associated with everything, without any way to know how to define what may succeed and what may fail. A tool in the war against the distinction between force and reason, it risked succumbing in turn to the unification of all associations under the sole reign of the number of links established by those who have, as it were, “succeeded.” In this new inquiry, the principle of free association no longer offers the same metalanguage for all situations; it has to become just one of the forms through which we can grasp any course of action whatsoever. The freest, to be sure, but not the most precise”
3.3.3 Modes of existence: reference & reproduction
Correspondence between the world and statements of the world is very important to determine the distinction between reality and truth. If we talk about correspondence between the world and statements of the world, it is not clear what we are dealing with, the world or science. It looks as if the world and knowledge of the world are amalgamated in matter. This is a category mistake according to Latour. On the one hand you have knowledge and on the other the existent the knowledge is about. Either the knowledge is within the existent or carried along by a man or woman, an object- known or knowing-subject. These should be experienced in their own right. Unfortunately the amalgamated notion of correspondence has served as the judge of all other modes in Western thinking. Therefore he argues to separate knowledge and the existent and introduces two new modes of existence: reference and reproduction. Each mode has its own veridiction and specific breaks in continuity, something Latour calls hiatus.
To illustrate this point, Latour uses an example of a map and a mountain in France (Mont Aiguille) you can use while you go on a hike. The signposts on the map do not resemble real things, but because you experience that they refer to others that you encountered you can rely on this network and find your way. All networks have their own chains of reference, all tiled and covered (like a map) with something Latour calls immutable mobiles. This can be understood in two ways. The first is that the term documents the development of technologies of visualization and inscription that are in the heart of scientific life. All the books and scientific papers are an example of this. The second sense is the final result of a correspondence that takes place without experienced discontinuity. As is the same with the notion of the two senses of network, the two notions of immutable mobiles can also be in place at the same time: if everything is working you can have correspondence everywhere in the network.
Knowledge is presented as immutable mobiles that circulate within a network. Latour wants to abolish the distinction between object-known and knowing-subject. It is a process between these two. In order to refer, you have to bring back: you must always go from the map and into reality, constantly checking if you are on the right track. Only by following this trajectory, are the signposts on the map charged with meaning. In this manner a continuity is formed that allows access to the real world. To understand the world it is not enough to divide the world between objects and subjects. A mountain, to use the example of Latour, maintains itself. “What is maintained in it and through it does not have the same properties of inscription, documentation,
or information as the properties that come and go along chains of reference” (Latour, 2013, p. 82). The
knowledge of the mountain is thus not maintained by the mountain. The world consist of much more than objects and subjects: chains of reference in a network and existents that reproduce
themselves, that express or enunciate themselves. The chains of reference can however not be substituted by what they know.
Objective knowledge that is materialized can go its own way. We can explore existents in the world from great distance because of the chains of reference. This is what makes objective knowledge possible:
“The following argument ought to be advanced with more diplomacy than we are capable of for the
moment, but the category mistake would be to believe that the world before the invention of knowledge was already made of “objective knowledge.” This does not keep us from saying (on the contrary, it is what allows us to say) that after chains of reference have been set up and gradually charged with reality, yes, undeniably, there is objective reality and there are scientist subjects capable of thinking it” (Latour,
2013, p. 90).
Latour introduces the modes of existence reproduction and reference. Reproduction is “the mode
of existence through which any entity whatsoever crosses through the hiatus of its repetition, thus defining from stage to stage a particular trajectory, with the whole obeying particularly demanding felicity conditions: to be or no longer to be!” (Latour, 2013, p. 91). We are thus reproducing ourselves, again and again. The hiatus is the
leap between t and t+1, if you do not succeed in the leap you stop existing (or it will be severely changed). Beings of reproduction insist on existing but in a very special way: they cannot go back.
Reference as mode of existence is defined by: “the establishment of chains defined by the hiatus
between two forms of different natures and whose felicity condition consists in the discovery of a constant that is maintained across these successive abysses, tracing a different form of trajectory that makes it possible to make remote beings accessible by paving the trajectory with the two-way movement of immutable mobiles” (Latour,
2013, p. 92). Knowledge is depicted as chains of reference between an object-known and a knowing-subject. The chain is formed over and over again (knowledge is remembered or recollected), each time a different one. Each time the existent (a whale) will be different too because it has leaped over the hiatus of the mode of existence reproduction. A remote being is for example a mountain. On the one hand you thus have existents such as a mountain, and on the other hand the existents that bear information about the mountain. Knowledge is given a separate ontological status. This leads to the next proposition:
Proposition 4: the people in the network knew how to make an annual report that would win the Sijthoff-prize: they established chains of reference or had access to the knowledge.
Latour sees knowledge as something that is in a network that is in place, it has a process behind it before you can even access it. It is not possible to look at a tree and ‘double click’ it
after which all kinds of knowledge will pop up (i.e. it is an elk tree) like a freeze-frame. This is a displacement of knowledge. Knowledge is not static; it comes to you by chains of reference. He uses a separate mode of existence to stress this importance: Double Click. It is not being aware of the fact that everything is imbedded in a network and moves around in this network as in a process. This concept is also useful for all the other modes. In a case a hiatus (a single point of a network or investigation) is being displaced with that one instance of knowledge and not the whole process of the coming and going of immutable mobiles. I will use this idea to test if the ideas of the existents in the network are true to experience.
Proposition 5: not experiencing modes like network, preposition, reproduction or reference is due to Double Click.
3.3.4 Mode if existence: organization
Organizations are the new phantoms according to Latour as he questions what corporate bodies really are. It seems organizations do not have borders (or at least not one that can be defined) and they seem to keep on expanding and contracting like an accordion. Organizations do not have real subsistence. To explain organizations Latour explores the act of organizing which he described as two or more people being held by a story. For example, a story could contain a scenario that on December the 7th at 9h30 we will meet in our office in room 3, on the 11th floor
in building A. This story engages the participants and will most probably fulfill their assigned roles in it. The meeting has a hold on the people that it concerns in such a way that they find themselves in two positions at the same time. On the one hand they are free at any moment to write the story and in this way they are above themselves, they are the authors. On the other hand, if they act according to the story, the script, it is as if they are not free to modify the story; they are below themselves, in which they are the characters. After the script has run, it disappears into the void.
The point is that there are a lot of scripts running in the same time. Or as Latour puts it using an example of Peter and Paul who meet:
“For even if each of these scripts has been written, validated, or in any case approved by Peter or by Paul,
nothing, absolutely nothing, ensures that they are mutually compatible and that they will achieve their outcomes at the same moment while designating the same place and the same role. To organize is not, cannot be, the opposite of disorganizing. To organize is to pick up, along the way and on the fly, scripts with staggered outcomes that are going to disorganize others. This disorganization is necessary, since the same beings must constantly attempt to juggle attributions that are, if not always contradictory, then at least distinct.” (Latour, 2013, p. 393).
In the case of organizations, nobody is really owner of the script (above) or is the subject of the script (below). You are free to write the script but not free to modify it. The script watches over the subjects in the agreement as if it holds them accountable. In this sense organization is transcendent with respect to the subjects involved and defines eventually what an organization is. But this does not mean the script dominates them. After the script has run the script disappears and everything must be set in motion again and again.
The scripts are entangled and stacked on tack of each other, assigning inconsistent roles, therefore Latour speaks of dis- or reorganization. Because one script can influence the other scripts, the one script has to be adjusted or all the others. This is a continuous movement. Organizations never work because of the scripts but on the other hand, due to the scripts, work after all, after a lot of effort of reorganization. The idea to ask for the DNA or essence of an organization is curious because it presupposes the idea that above the script there is something, a frame, in which the scripts can be put. Latour denies such a level. This all leads to the following proposition.
Proposition 6: the making of the annual report are scripts
3.3.5 Mode of existence: law
Although Latour describes his mode of existence law as if you experience it when it is needed in court. It attaches quasi-subjects with quasi-objects, or leads to a trail between these. With this Latour means that in his system of thinking, law is something that will lead rules or laws to be interpreted and connect these to various instances in the world. It links cases and actions via means. For example the rules and guidelines of an annual report are of course things that must be interpreted, translated to the case of de Volksbank and recorded so the trail can be made in case someone checks if the law is followed. In this case the accountant would do so. The annual report is in this case the means and a quasi-object: quasi because an annual report reproduces itself and must be seen in a network as process, thus not leading to the trap of Double Click. Furthermore, Latour does not recognize the distinction between subject and object. The quasi-subject would in this case be a member of the board of directors (and not the organization de Volksbank since this has no substance according to Latour), but only one instance of them.
Proposition 7: the making of the annual report is an instance of Law.
3.3.6 Instauration
For existents to come into being Latour describes a process of instauration. This is an important idea because it describes why a being gets its ontological status in the first place. The process or
trajectory is only possible for beings that are capable of making people do something, that speaks to them or unsettles them. The stress that the making of an annual report brings about is an example of a being that can be unsettling.
Instauration has three features. The first one is that the source of the action is lost. In the making of an annual account for example someone acts after which others come into action. This is a question of who is acting. The second feature is that the constructor and constructed are in a sort of dialogue with each other. It is not clear who makes who. If an artist makes a sculpture for example, the artist begins with a big piece of marble. But as he progresses, the marble begins to ‘speak’ to him. A bit more there, and there. The constructor and constructed have a reciprocal relationship. It is a question of direction. The last element of instauration is the qualification of good or bad, it introduces a value judgement. Is it well made?
The annual report is something that is instaurated, not simply representations of the mind. It is being as being-as-other, somewhere talking to you, unsettling you. If it was just representation, why does it not go away when you want to have rest or sleep? Therefore, the seventh proposition is derived:
Proposition 8: the making of the annual report is done by instauration
3.3.7 Ontological plurality
As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, Latour argues for ontological plurality. The modes of existence all depend on specific truth conditions. The modes describe different elements of daily experience and there are in total fifteen modes that Latour describes. Of these modes six of them are discovered in the process of making an annual report as can be read above. Thus the following proposition is derived:
Proposition 9: the making of the annual report of de Volksbank entails multiple modes of existence.
3.4 Propositions
With this theoretical framework it can be investigated why de Volksbank has won the Sijthoff-award. The research will continue by interviewing different existents (employees) of de Volksbank. In the next chapter more information about the methodology of the research is given. The following propositions will be used:
1. The annual report of de Volksbank was brought about in a network as process which brings about the values accountability and transparency;
2. The existents working on the annual report had the right preposition, namely business and more specific: making an annual report;
3. The existent knew both that they were in a network and knew that they had to make a transparent annual report, and win the Sijthoff-award: they had the right preposition; 4. The people in the network knew how to make an annual report that would win the
Sijthoff-award: they established chains of reference or had access to the knowledge; 5. Not experiencing modes like network, preposition, reproduction or reference is due to
Double Click;
6. The making of the annual report are scripts;
7. The making of the annual report is an instance of Law; 8. The making of the annual report is done by instauration; and
4 Methodology
In this chapter the methodology of the case study is that is conducted at de Volksbank is discussed. First the research design will be elaborated on after which the process of selecting interviewees is described. In order to enhance the construct validity of the research, document analysis is performed and a database is made using the principles of data collection that Yin (2018) argues for. This is described in section 4.3. Hereafter is shown how the results are analyzed using coding and Atlas.ti. A number of quality measures are used and are incorporated in the research. These are described in the various subsections in this chapter.
4.1 Research design
As mentioned in the beginning of this thesis, a case study is conducted at de Volksbank. In order to arrive from the research questions to the conclusions, a research design is needed. This is done to avoid that the evidence will not be able to address the research questions (Yin, 2018, p. 26). In the previous chapter the propositions and the theory from which these came about were discussed. The research question is designed in order to be appropriate for the setting to do a case study. The case study consists of conducting interviews and document analysis. The latter is discussed in section 4.3, while more information about the selection of interviewees is given in section 4.2.
According to Emans (2004), it is essential to have an interview guide in order not to improvise the questions or wording during the interview. This is often poorly done and ill advised. The interviews are structured. The interview guide is developed with semi-structured questions.
Theory can be divided into elements of categories and properties and depicts a systematic relationship between these two (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The theory that is described in chapter three is formulating the categories to which reality can be divided. These categories stand on its own while the properties are an aspect of the category. For each mode of existence in the case a number of questions are formulated. For example, to explore whether the annual account was made in a network (the category), questions were asked about who and what is needed to get an idea about the network (the properties). In the case of the mode of existence of organizations (the category), the interviewee is asked for experiences that makes him or her feel above the script and below the script (the properties). These are questions that are highly related to the experiences that are described in the theory of Latour. In this way, (ecological) validity is achieved by making sure that the results stay as close to reality as possible (Baarda, 2014). In
addition, to enhance validity, triangulation is used. Reference is made to Appendix C for the whole questionnaire.
Given the fact that the research findings are the result of direct interference of the researcher (the research is performed within my working environment (i.e. I was a member of the External Reporting department) it is important to give insight into the influence the researcher had in the investigation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Rodgers, 2013). This is done by disclosing an audit trail which states the quality measures that the researcher has put in place, how the selection of interviewees is done and how the data is collected and analyzed (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In addition to triangulation and the audit trail, a member check is performed (e.g. Boeije, 2014; Baarda 2014) to have more validity of the qualitative research. The quality measures are described throughout this chapter. Each interview is recorded and a transcript is made with the help of the computer program Express Scribe Transcription Software. These transcripts were read by the interviewees who gave explicit approval to use it in my investigation. This also lowers the risk of potential bias of the researcher (DePoy & Gitlin, 2013).
4.2 Selection of interviewees
By using shorter case study interviews it is investigated if already established findings can be confirmed by the interviewee (Yin, 2018, p. 119). By making use of standard list of questions or criteria to select the interviewees, the bias in the selection of interviewees is minimized.
A large number of people are involved in the making of the annual report of de Volksbank (approximately 50 to near a 100). I have selected the most relevant and significant employees in the process of the annual report, which are given below. Most relevant and significant in this case is that they actually do the work but do have the largest impact on the content and quality. The employees are involved in the process of making the annual report from different perspectives. Since I am an employee of de Volksbank myself, I had easy access to everyone. The following employees were selected and interviewed:
1) Project manager Accounting Reporting & Control; 2) Senior risk manager (Enterprise Risk Management); 3) External Reporting senior employee;
4) External Reporting senior employee; 5) Director Investor Relations;
6) Manager Policies & Monitoring; and 7) Vice-secretary Supervisory Board.
The project manager AR&C, senior risk manager, director Investor Relations and manager Policies & Monitoring all were member of the Financial Committee (‘Finco’) or had a(n) (standing) invitation to participate in that meeting. If in the process questions or difficulties arose, these were directed to the Finco in which a decision was made. Besides the Finco, a core team or editorial board is formed in which the senior risk manager, a senior employee External Reporting and the vice-secretary of the Supervisory Board were seated. This team was responsible for the content and quality of the report. The vice-secretary of the Supervisory Board was the first writer of the governance section of the annual report and in close contact to the Supervisory Board. The director Investor Relations is the right hand of the CFO in the process. The selected employees are therefore a good representation of all the various roles that have a relevant and significant impact on content and quality. After these seven interviews were held, saturation was achieved (Baarda, 2014, p. 154).
4.3 Document analysis
As Yin (2018) points out four principles are necessary to establish construct validity and reliability of evidence. Three of these principles are relevant to the case at hand. The first principle is the use of multiple sources of evidence. In order to have more construct validity document analysis is done in order to have more sources of evidence, e.g. triangulation. The research is conducted by interviewing 7 employees of de Volksbank and next to that a document analysis is performed. Reference is made to Appendix D and G for more information about the documents used and interviewees.
The second principle is to create a case study database. This is done to organize and document the data that is collected for the case and increase the reliability of this research. In the database a distinction is made between the data and the research report. The computer program
Atlas.ti is used to analyze the database. An overview of the documents used is given in Appendix F. Due to confidentiality the database is not publicly accessible.
The third principle that is used in this research is to have maintained a chain of evidence or audit trail. This is done to enhance the construct validity of the information that is used in this study. Third parties should be able to follow the derivation of the collected evidence from the research question and connect these to the case findings. In this way the research findings can be traced back to the evidentiary process. In section 4.1 a description is given of how the questions are developed by making use of the theory. In Appendix A to C lists of questions are given to explain how the document selection has been done and which questions were used in analyzing the documents. In addition, the interview protocol is showed and in the previous section the selection criteria for interviewees were discussed.
4.4 Analysis of results
After all the data (interview transcripts and documents) were collected an analysis followed by eventually making use of the computer program Atlas.ti. The coding was inititally done on paper and using Excel. After this was done the list of codes were transferred into Atlas.ti for furhter analysis. The analysis made it possible to systematically arrange the data and to give bigger insight in the data. Besides, after the analysis it is possible to report the findings in a structured manner to others (e.g. Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Boeije, 2014). For each interview it is recorded with who the interview was held, how long the interview was and how many pages transcript it produced (see Appendix D). In the case of documents a list of what type of document it concerned, the date and the number of pages was recorded (see Appendix F).
Boeije (2014) indicates that coding is an important tool for the analysis of qualitative data. Therefore, in the analysis of the data much use is made of coding. This can be done either theory driven or data driven. In this research the coding is done theory driven. The research is designed to test the various propositions incorporating the ideas of Latour. The categories in the coding are thus generated from the theoretical framework and the data is molded into these categories. This is also known as coding down. In addition, coding helps to reduce data to common or broad categories (Lockyer, 2004).
The coding took place in three consecutive steps: open coding, axial coding and selective coding (e.g. Baarda, 2014; Boeije, 2014). In the open coding fase, the fragments of the interviews or documents were labelled. After this was done, the synomyms are jointed together. The next fase was to find categories or axial coding. When the axial coding was done, the search for
connections between the categories began in order to understand was was happening in the case: selective or focused coding (Charmaz, 2004). In this step the theoretical framework of Latour is closely kept in mind. For the whole coding list reference is made to Appendix G.
The coding down molds the categories into the theory of Latour in the selective coding stage. By giving the theoretical framework in chapter three and the description above of how the coding was done the credibility of the research is enhanced (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
In this chapter the methodology of the research was given. In the next chapter the results and findings of the research are described for each separate proposition. This research report concludes with a discussion chapter which comes after the results and findings.
5 Results and findings
The results and findings are linked to the research question and the propositions that were derived from it. For each proposition the results of the research are given. The results are substantiated with reference to the data from the empirical investigation. The results are backed up by citations from the interviews and relevant passages from selected documents. Because the interviews were held in Dutch, the original quotation is given in the footnote in Dutch, while the quotation used in the text is an English translation. Reference is made to Appendix E for the full transcripts of the interview.
5.1 Proposition 1
Proposition 1 is as follows: The annual report of de Volksbank was brought about in a network as process
which brings about the values accountability and transparency.
This proposition comes from the expectation that the annual report of de Volksbank is brought about in a network as process. In a network as process there are particular types of connections between existents that produce value within the network. The connections are between for example tools, actors and results that characterize and are part of the network. The network as process described below and split in input, tools, actors (actor, coordinator, writer and or reviewer), stakeholders and output (this grouping was the result of axial coding). Thereafter, the process is given and lastly the values that are created in the network are described.
5.1.1 Input
As all interviewees indicated, the process begins with a planning (1:3, 1:31, 2:1, 2:27, 3:2, 3:21, 4:7, 4:15, 4:18, 4:19, 5:2, 5:10, 6:6, 6:33, 6:44 and supported by documents 10:5, 12:6, 12:7, 13:1, 14:6, 15:1, 16:2, 20:1 and 21:3). The department External Reporting makes a dummy annual report (1:27, 4:21, 5:4, 5:10, 5:29, 6:1, 6:33, 10:7, 15:1) and synopsis (2:27, 6:2, 6:7, 6:10, 10:7) in which all elements and subjects to be included in the annual report are described. To make the dummy and synopsis the annual report of the previous year functions as a starting point (1:2, 1:33, 2:28, 2:31, 4:29, 5:22, 6:7, 7:10, 7:13, 32:5). Later in the process the organization produces numbers (1:8, 1:18, 1:19, 2:31, 3:8, 3:31, 4:16, 4:30, 5:11, 5:17, 6:21, 11:2 and 26:1) which are given meaning with quantitative text explanations ((1:17, 1:20 and 2:31). Normal text are also produced to explain for example what the labels have done this year or how the risk governance works (1:9, 2:2, 3:33, 4:17, 7:3, 11:3).
5.1.2 Tools
The existents in the network use various tools in the making of the annual report. A laptop is used (2:20). Although only one interviewee 2 has indicated that a laptop is used, all other members also use it. Normal Windows Office applications are installed on the laptop and helps creating the report: Excel (1:22, 2:22, 5:17, 6:21, 7:13 and 20:1), PowerPoint (1:23) and Word (1:21, 2:21, 3:34, 5:17, 6:18 & 6:20). In order to produce numbers a general ledger (4:25, 5:15, 5:17, 6:23), databases (3:32, 6:23) and a consolidation system (4:26, 5:16, 5:17, 6:22, 6:23) are created and applied.
In order to convert the texts in Word and numbers in Excel into a format that is appropriate for the publication of an annual report, the External Reporting department uses a layout system (3:34, 4:27, 5:17, 6:19, 6:20). In addition, a kickoff is held in which everybody involved in the process is briefed what to do and what the milestones in the planning are (5:3, 5:52, 15:1).
5.1.3 Actors
A large number of actors are involved in the making of the annual report. Below a table is given of the actors, the role and the reference to the documentation. The role of actor is given if the department is mostly involved with the production of numbers or if it is as team as a whole.
Name Role Reference
Control Actor 3:17, 5:9, 6:6 &15:1
Regulatory Reporting Actor 3:16, 15:1, 26:1
Team Actor 2:65, 3:62, 4:3, 4:8, 4:30, 4:59, 4:64, 4:66, 5:8, 5:52, 6:57, 9:4, 9:5, 15:1
External Reporting Coordinator 1:13, 2:10, 2:19, 3:18, 4:2, 4:4, 4:10, 5:1, 5:29, 6:1, 6:5, 6:36, 6:44, 10:4, 10:6, 10:8, 12:1, 12:5, 13:1, 14:6, 15:1, 19:1, 24:1, 28:1
Board of Directors Reviewer 1:12, 1:62, 2:3, 2:6, 2:50, 2:51, 3:2, 3:7, 3:24, 4:22, 5:14, 5:32, 5:33, 5:45 6:14, 6:14, 6:36, 6:38, 6:44, 6:50, 14:3, 14:6, 15:1, 16:1, 21:2
Editorial Board Reviewer 1:15, 1:57, 2:3, 2:4, 3:19, 5:32, 6:4, 6:12, 6:13, 6:35, 6:36, 6:38, 7:2, 8:3 10:3, 14:2, 15:1
Finco Reviewer 2:5, 3:7, 3:19, 3:22, 3:25, 4:20, 5:13, 5:32, 5:33, 6:14, 8:4, 15:1, 19:1
Journalist Reviewer 1:10, 2:3, 6:11, 6:28, 6:32, 6:35, 6:36, 7:14, 10:6, 14:1, 15:1
Responsible director Reviewer 1:6, 2:3, 5:33, 11:1, 13:1, 20:1, 24:1
Supervisory Board Reviewer 3:7, 3:19. 3:27, 4:22, 5:14, 5:33, 6:16, 6:44, 7:4, 14:4, 14:6, 15:1, 16:1 18:1, 18:3, 18:4, 21:2, 22:1
Name Role Reference Policies Writer/reviewer 4:1, 4:5, 5:28, 5:29, 15:1 ALM Writer 4:11, 13:1, 15:1 Communication Writer 1:56, 1:57, 2:13, 14:6, 15:1 CSR Writer 1:14, 3:12, 12:1, 15:1, 25:1 Finance Writer 2:16, 3:13, 3:15, 4:9, 15:1 HR Writer 1:14, 3:11, 5:9, 6:6, 12:4, 12:5, 15:1 Labels Writer 2:18, 3:!2, 5:9, 12:3, 15:1 Legal Writer 3:11, 4:14, 5:9, 7:6, 7:12, 12:2, 15:1 Marketing Writer 5:9, 6:6, 12:1, 12:3, 15:1 Risk Writer 2:15, 2:17, 3:14, 4:13, 5:9, 6:6, 13:1, 15:1, 16:3, 22:1, 25:1, 25:2 Secretary Writer 3:10, 5:9, 6:6, 6:44, 12:1, 12:5, 15:1, 18:3 Strategy Writer 1:14, 1:57, 2:11, 3:12, 5:9, 8:5, 12:1, 15:1
Table 1: list of actors
5.1.4 Stakeholders
A number of stakeholders are mentioned by the interviewees or in the documentation. Because I did not explicitly ask which stakeholders are present, the list of stakeholders that is mentioned is not exhaustive. The accountant is for example taken to be a stakeholder in the process given the independent position it takes (4:23, 5:4, 5:11, 5:29, 5:31, 5:32, 6:50, 6:55, 11:4, 14:5, 14:6, 20:1, 28:1, 31:1). In addition to the accountant, the sole shareholder of de Volksbank, NLFI, needs to be taken into account (3:26, 6:50, 6:55, 31:1). Although NLFI holds all the shares, the bank funds itself by various financial instruments for which investors are attracted (5:48, 5:49, 6:50, 6:51, 6:55, 31:1). Also the customers are of interest (5:48, 5:49, 6:50, 6:51, 6:55, 31:1). Lastly, peers are looked at and can be a reason to take up certain disclosures or not (2:39, 3:58, 5:23, 5:25, 6:9, 6:24, 6:27, 6:50, 6:53, 6:55, 8:2, 10:7, 29:2, 31:1).
5.1.5 Output
The final result of the process is of course the published annual report. But before that is achieved, it first starts with a concept that is called the Christmas edition (1:7, 3:6, 5:7). Following this concept a number of other concepts are made (3:5, 4:21, 5:5, 5:6, 5:10, 5:12, 7:4, 7:5, 18:2, 20:1).
