What Do Organizations Think Are Their Risks and Uncertainties? Risk Self-Assessments Within Securities Reports as a New Source for Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research

  • Terje GrønningEmail author
Part of the FGF Studies in Small Business and Entrepreneurship book series (FGFS)


One of the major complexities of innovation as well as entrepreneurship and technological change processes is that larger or lesser financial and non-financial risks and uncertainties are parts of these processes, since the courses as well as outcomes of the processes are not known in beforehand. Assuming that managers and employees within entrepreneurship, innovation and technology firms are themselves concerned about this aspect of their businesses, it becomes pertinent for researchers to gain an understanding of what their perceptions regarding risks and uncertainties are. Relevant research designs could include e.g. surveys or interviews, whereas this chapter focuses on a possible supplementary approach consisting in using the securities reports submitted to the authorities as a new kind of source for relevant information. The chapter makes use of illustrative quotes from the sections in the securities reports of four biotechnology companies located in the USA and Japan, countries where self-assessments regarding risks the company is facing was made mandatory from 2005 and 2004 respectively. The chapter also includes a section with some suggestions as for how this new source may be utilized within future entrepreneurship, innovation and technology research, and concludes with stating that there are significant promises in connection with using the source, although there are also some challenges.


Annual reports Medical biotechnology Retrospective reports Risk perceptions Securities reports 



I want to acknowledge two anonymous referees and the editors of this volume for helpful feedback, as well as the Japan Foundation and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for research grants in 2012 and 2015 respectively.


  1. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). How do entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty? Journal of Management, 31(5), 776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, T. J. (2014). An integrative framework for multinational risk management. In T. J. Andersen (Ed.), Contemporary challenges in risk management: Dealing with risk, uncertainty and the unknown (pp. 131–146). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. AnGes MG. (2007). Yuka shoken houkokushu. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  4. AnGes MG. (2011). Yuka shoken houkokushu. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  5. AnGes MG. (2015). Yuka shoken houkokushu. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  6. Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17(3), 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bao, Y., & Datta, A. (2014). Simultaneously discovering and quantifying risk types from textual risk disclosures. Management Science, 60(6), 1371–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bromiley, P., McShane, M., Nail, A., & Rustambekov, E. (2015). Enterprise risk management: Review, critique, and research directions. Long Range Planning, 48(4), 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. L., Chen, H., Dhaliwal, D. S., Lu, H.-M., & Steele, L. B. (2014). The information content of mandatory risk factor disclosures in corporate filings. Review of Accounting Studies, 19(1), 396–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carna Biosciences. (2015). Yuuka shoken houkokusho. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  11. Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drucker, P. (1959). Landmarks of tomorrow: A report on the new ‘post-modern’ world. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
  13. FSA. (2015). Kigyo naiyou-tou no kaiji ni kansuru rui jiko ni tsuite (Kigyo naiyo-tou kaiji gaidorain). Tokyo: Financial Services Agency. Retrieved from
  14. Glueck, W. F., & Willis, R. (1979). Documentary sources and strategic management research. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 95–102.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, K.-W., & Li, Z. (2011). A multilabel text classification algorithm for labeling risk factors in SEC form 10-K. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 2(3), Article 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Humpherys, S. L., Moffitt, K. C., Burns, M. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Felix, W. F. (2011). Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis. Decision Support Systems, 50(3), 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Langley, A. (2009). Studying processes in and around organizations. In D. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 409–429). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Loughran, T., McDonald, B., & Yun, H. (2009). A wolf in sheep’s clothing: The use of ethics-related terms in 10-K reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1987). Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Science, 33(11), 1404–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1), 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayew, W. J., Sethuraman, M., & Venkatachalam, M. (2013). MD&A disclosure and the firm’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Accounting Review, 90(4), 1621–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, K. D. (1992). A framework for integrated risk management in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, K. D., & Waller, H. G. (2003). Scenarios, real options and integrated risk management. Long Range Planning, 36(1), 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molina-Azorín, J. F., López-Gamero, M. D., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. M. (2012). Mixed methods studies in entrepreneurship research: Applications and contributions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24(5–6), 425–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moss, T. W., Payne, G. T., & Moore, C. B. (2014). Strategic consistency of exploration and exploitation in family businesses. Family Business Review, 27(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwenk, C. R. (1985). The use of participant recollection in the modeling of organizational decision process. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 496–503.Google Scholar
  30. SEC. (n.d.). How to read a 10k. Retrieved from
  31. Shirata, C. Y., & Sakagami, M. (2008). An analysis of the “going concern assumption”: Text mining from Japanese financial reports. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 5(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trans Genic. (2006). Yuka shoken houkokushu. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  33. Trans Genic. (2010). Yuka shoken houkokushu. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  34. Trans Genic. (2014). Yuka shoken houkokushu. Tokyo: Kanto Zaimu Kyoku. Retrieved from
  35. Tsang, E. W. (2002). Self-serving attributions in corporate annual reports: A replicated study. Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vical Inc. (2015). Form 10-K (annual report) filed 02/26/15 for the period ending 12/31/14. Washington, DC: United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education (IPED)University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations