10 1108 - Aaaj 08 2020 4837

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-3574.htm

Assessing and managing the Assessing and


managing the
impact of COVID-19: a study of six impact of
COVID-19
European cities participating in a
circular economy project
Cristiana Parisi and Justyna Bekier Received 30 August 2020
Revised 11 January 2021
Department of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School, 3 April 2021
Frederiksberg, Denmark 15 June 2021
Accepted 21 June 2021

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the role of performance measurement systems as technologies of
government for the assessment and management of the effects of COVID-19 in the context of six cities involved
in a large European project.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the field study of a large European project, this paper relies on a
comparative case study research approach (Yin, 2003). This research design allows insights into the role of
central and local key performance indicators (KPIs) in managing the ongoing pandemic.
Findings – This paper explores the role of accounting in the assessment of the COVID-19 pandemic. Its
findings illustrate how the “adjudicating” and “territorialising” roles (Miller and Power, 2013) of local and
central accounting technologies rendered the COVID-19 pandemic calculable.
Originality/value – This paper connects central and local performance management systems in the context
of the COVID-19 pandemic. It relies on a governmentality approach to discuss how different programmes and
the relative KPIs were impacted by the ongoing global crisis.
Keywords COVID-19, Performance measurement, Governmentality, Circular economy, Cities,
European union
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Cities play a fundamental role in the transition from a linear to a circular economy, as they are
complex networks of private and public actors in charge of specific policies influencing citizens’
well-being, the environment and the economy of the territory (OECD, 2020). Circular economy
has been subject to numerous definitions and conceptualisations over the last decade (Murray
et al., 2017) as it has been considered the latest attempt to implement sustainable practices in
line with the Brundtland Commission’s Report (WCED, 1987). Despite the circular economy
growing as a business construct within urban systems (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019),
there is yet little formal academic debate within the sustainability accounting literature on the
role of cities in the transition to circular economy and its measurement in social, environmental
and economic terms (Czarniawska, 2010). The outbreak of the novel COVID-19 pandemic at the
turn of 2020 (World Health Organization, 2020) with its unanticipated and dire consequences
for the global community, exacerbated the complexity faced by cities in their transition towards
circular economy due to the “behavioural responses to the virus itself [. . .] and [the] government
interventions aimed at locking down much of the economy” (Foss, 2020, p. 1323).
Accounting as a technology of governing has been studied in numerous public and private
contexts (Mennicken and Miller, 2012). Moreover, the role of accounting has been explored to

The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive feedback received from the guest editors, and from the
Accounting, Auditing &
two anonymous reviewers. This publication is based on the work conducted during the European project Accountability Journal
REFLOW in the Horizon 2020 framework. The authors wish to express their gratitude for the support of the © Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-3574
European Commission under grant agreement No. 820937 and the contribution of all partners of this project. DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2020-4837
AAAJ unpack the elements of rationalisation and operationalisation in the case of natural, localised
disasters (Lai et al., 2014; Sargiacomo, 2015). For example, studies have shown how
accounting created a sense of interdependency between the actors involved in flood recovery
(Lai et al., 2014) and the role of accounting in making “exceptional” governance possible in the
case of an earthquake (Sargiacomo, 2015; Sargiacomo and Walker, 2021).
Existing studies on the role of accounting within crises have mostly focussed on their
aftermath (Lai et al., 2014; Sargiacomo, 2015; Sargiacomo and Walker, 2021). In fact, only a
limited number of studies have focussed on the role of accounting in assessing and managing
the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Thus far, researchers have focussed on how
accounting can play a role in defining the value of life when representing the number of
fatalities due to COVID-19 (Yu, 2021). Moreover, Parker (2020) studied the impact of COVID-
19 in the government and community occupational health through analysing cost control
agendas within offices. However, researchers have devoted limited attention to the role of
performance measurement systems in this setting.
Based on the fieldwork performed within six European cities involved in a large European
project currently under way, this paper explores the role of performance management systems
as technologies of governing to evaluate and manage the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The European project, which is the object of this study, aims at creating a model for cities’
transition towards circular economy and implementing it in six European cities of different sizes,
including capital cities and small towns. In the context of the project, each of the six pilot cities is
characterised by a complex network both at a local and project level. The contract stipulated by
the project participants with the European Commission, called Grant Agreement, is based on
specific tasks and reports that the participants must prepare according to a predefined calendar.
Moreover, specific “central” key performance indicators (KPIs) have been included in the contract
between the partners and the European Commission to assess the success of the circular
transition of the six pilot cities at the end of the project. Finally, pilot city consortia agreed to
develop specific “local” KPIs in the first year of the project in order to capture the local
understanding of a successful transition to circular economy. Both sets of KPIs will be used to
assess the fulfilment of the project participants’ contract with the European Commission.
The disruption caused by COVID-19 also echoed throughout this project. Within a short
time, pilot cities were forced to make sense of and respond to the situation, often with
cancellations, postponements or revisions of planned activities. A risk assessment framework
was implemented project-wide to provide a space to reflect on the potential impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic, not least via the performance indicators set for the pilot cities.
In this paper, we explore how accounting became involved in the response of the project’s
pilot cities to the current pandemic and how it influenced the diverse discourses and practices of
governance in this unique situation. We rely on Foucault (2007) notion of “governmentality”,
which has been used by accounting scholars to explore the manifold implications of accounting
in processes of control. Specifically, we are interested in ways governmentality research has
shed light on accounting as a technology of governance mobilised by actors within the project
and results in ways of assessing and governing the aftermath of COVID-19.
To this end, we explore the role of the two sets of KPIs, central and local, reflecting both the
European and the cities’ programmes for the definition and implementation of circular
economy (Rose and Miller, 1992). Previous literature on governmentality has started to
address the relationship between “central” and “local” programmes quite recently (see Ahrens
et al., 2020; Newberry, 2020). Thus far, studies on governmentality have highlighted the
tensions between the KPIs as accounting technologies translating conflicting central and local
programmes. However, little attention has been paid to the role of both programmes and KPIs
in the assessment and management of an ongoing crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
In order to explore the role of central and local KPIs in this setting, the paper relies on the
“adjudicating” and “territorialising” roles of accounting (Miller and Power, 2013). Accounting
plays an important “adjudicating” role in classifying, enumerating and comparing performance Assessing and
by making it part of accounting regimes (Miller, 2001; Miller and Power, 2013, p. 585). Moreover, managing the
accounting technologies create visibilities that make specific programme attributes manifest
while obscuring others (Dean, 2010). In particular, KPIs render those attributes visible by making
impact of
them calculable, thus constituting the space in which they operate (“territorialising”) (Miller, 1994). COVID-19
Our paper aims at complementing the extant literature by exploring the role of KPIs as
technologies of government guiding cities in the COVID-19 pandemic. It answers the question
of how these technologies and practices of governing give rise to specific forms of visibility
by making specific aspects of the pandemic calculable (Mennicken and Miller, 2012).
Moreover, this paper seeks to understand the role of accounting technologies not only as a
translation of local and central governmental programmes related to circular economy
transition, but also as a social practice implicated in wider socio-political and -economic
discourses and practices due to the current pandemic.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the literature
regarding the technologies of governance and accounting. Section 3 sets out the
methodology, while section 4 illustrates the findings based on the cities’ KPIs and the
relative response to COVID-19. The concluding section presents the theoretical contribution
and implications for literature and future research.

2. Accounting as a technology of government


Governmentality as a “systematic way of thinking about government” (Dean, 2010, p. 211)
“render[s] reality thinkable” to make it “amendable to calculation and programming” (Miller
and Rose, 2008, p. 16). In the work of Foucault, concerns with government and reality are
incorporated into the technologies of government (Foucault, 2007; Raffnsøe et al., 2019).
Governmental technologies can be considered “the complex of mundane programmes,
calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and procedures through which authorities
seek to embody and give effect to governance ambitions” (Rose and Miller, 1992, p. 175).
However, technologies of government are “not a matter of the implementation of idealised
schema in the real by an act of will, but the complex assemblage of diverse forces, [. . .]
techniques, [. . .] devices [. . .] that promise to regulate decisions and actions of individuals,
groups, organisations, in relation to authoritative criteria” (Rose, 1996, p. 42). This use of
governmental technologies contributes to rendering the world governable and individuals’
calculable (Miller and O’Leary, 1987, 1994).
The role of accounting in governmentality studies enabled regimes to be assessed and
made operable. Examples can be the way accounting allowed the implementation of new
manufacturing technologies (Miller and O’Leary, 1994), influenced sustainable supply chain
governance (Spence and Rinaldi, 2014) or enabled the development of consumer credit (Jeacle
and Walsh, 2002). Accounting technologies produce specific forms of visibility through the
“supposedly impersonal logic of quantification [that] configures persons, domains and
actions as objective and comparable” (Mennicken and Miller, 2012, p. 7).
Government programmes are linked to accounting technologies for the realisation of their
strategic ambition (Rose and Miller, 1992), thus performing their territorialising and
adjudicating qualities (Mennicken and Miller, 2012; Miller and Power, 2013). The link between
accounting technologies and government programmes has been explored within urban
studies. For example, Argento et al. (2020) found that the multiple roles of these technologies
hindered the development of the smart city programmes in the city of Helsinki. Moreover,
Westerdahl (2020) explored the role of accounting technologies in the programme changes of
the public housing sector in Sweden.
Notably, however, internal debates over the accounting technologies themselves and their
link to central and local programmes have seldom been addressed (Rose and Miller, 1992;
Ahrens et al., 2020). To do so, this paper adopts a concept of control that reflects Foucault’s
AAAJ (2007) view of governmentality as a dynamic set of techniques and forces “operating in a
heterogeneous space, constituted through multiple determinations” (Collier, 2009, p. 99). This
approach allows an understanding of governmentality not as an institution or a “dispositif”
(Foucault, 2007) but as a modality of control characterised by dynamic tensions in the
definition of programmes at the central, project level and at the local, city level.
The accounting literature on governmentality has started to explore the difference
between central and local programmes and the relative KPIs as accounting technologies
relatively recently. Examples include the Newcastle City Council’s use of accounting to create
new forms of counter-conduct aimed at reacting against austerity funding cuts (Ahrens et al.,
2020). Moreover, tensions between accounting technologies at the individual entity and
government levels have been analysed in the context of the reform of natural disaster funds in
New Zealand (Newberry, 2020). Consequently, little is known about how accounting as a
governmental technology plays a role in the definition and interpretation of programmes in
the management of ongoing crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
To explore this element, this paper studies the role of accounting as a technology of
government within the COVID-19 pandemic. The six cities involved relied on the central and
local KPIs to assess and manage the impact of this unprecedented crisis and its socio-
economic and environmental repercussions.

3. Methodological approach and fieldwork


The empirical part of this paper originates from the field study of a large European project.
The work on the project started in September 2017 with the definition of the consortium
and the agreement on the project content. The project operations were officially
commenced in June 2019. The project’s aim is to enable cities’ transition towards
regenerative practices based on circular economy principles. The project consortium is
composed of 28 partner organisations, including municipalities, academic institutions,
makerspaces, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and citizen associations. The work of the consortium is led by a
project coordinator who is directly responsible towards the European Commission. The
consortium is organised into teams, broadly categorized on two levels as pilot cities and
work packages. On the one hand, pilot city consortia at a minimum consist of municipality
representatives, citizens’ organisations and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
On the other hand, at the project level, work packages gather partners with a specific
competency profile to support all pilot cities on various themes. Examples can be partners
focussing on urban governance, sustainable technology or social, environmental and
economic performance measurement and impact assessment. Individual roles of risk
manager, scientific manager and technological manager are also assigned amongst project
members to ensure quality results.
The authors who conducted the empirical part of the investigation attended all the official
project meetings, where the whole consortium or various groups of partners such as cities,
work package leaders, the risk manager and relevant stakeholders discussed the COVID-19
situation. Due to the pandemic, the meetings were held online using the Zoom platform. Zoom
allowed the recording and transcription of all communication.
Following the comparative case study research approach (Yin, 2003), this part of the
fieldwork resulted in 30 interviews lasting up to 90 min each conducted with the pilot cities
and the relevant project partners. These interviews discussed the relevance of COVID-19 for
the project in general and for the cities in particular. The key aspects that the cities focussed
on were the “central” and “local” project KPIs and their ability to fulfil them during the
pandemic. The interviews were conducted over Zoom and were recorded and subsequently
transcribed. Moreover, internal notes were kept and shared by the researchers involved in the
fieldwork, where the informal communication was recorded. This included concerns,
attitudes and observed practices as well as personal notes. Meetings and interview data were Assessing and
compared and complemented with the data from the project’s documentation: Grant managing the
Agreement, emails, meeting agendas and other official project documentation. Data have
been analysed during the fieldwork and organised into various themes including the
impact of
perceived severity of the impact of COVID-19, diverse rationales and programmes at central COVID-19
and local level, and prioritisation of project’s vs pilot’s programmes and KPIs. In the following
section, attention will be given especially to the impact of the two categories of KPIs in
assessing and managing the central and local programmes in the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic.

4. The cities and COVID-19


Each city participating in the project chose a specific problem to address within the realm of
circular economy. For example, cities focus their projects on plastic, textiles, local municipal
markets or energy efficiency. The aim is to have a city-centred approach to circular economy
that will develop beyond the life of the project itself and can be replicated by other interested
cities internationally.
The performance evaluation at the end of the project period will be based on two sets of
indicators: the first one being the so-called “central KPIs”, which were agreed upon during
the development of the participants’ contract with the European Commission (“Project
Grant Agreement”, 2019). The second type of indicators, i.e. “local KPIs”, have been defined
by the cities themselves in a process facilitated by two project member organisations.
Central KPIs are similar across all pilot cities; out of the set of nine KPIs, only two are city-
specific. These KPIs focus on the number of stakeholders reached by the project, their interest
in replicating the processes and solutions designed in the project, the overall increase in the
citizens’ awareness and the improvement in the cities’ overall welfare. The circular economy
programme of government draws on central KPIs as accounting technologies to ensure that
the solutions devised in the project are propagated to other international cities that consider
them relevant and are willing to invest in them (Miller and O’Leary, 1994).
Furthermore, the cities created local KPIs on a voluntary basis to keep track of the
elements that they considered central to the positive outcome of their programmes. The local
KPIs have been defined by the cities in the first year of the project as technologies of
government to achieve the circular economy objectives they consider desirable (Miller and
Rose, 1990). These indicators are an outcome of a six-stage process, starting with a long-list of
best-practice KPIs found across the industry practitioners, international organisations and
well-known sustainability frameworks. The long-list was then narrowed to a short set of KPIs
through co-creation meetings between respective pilot cities and their primary stakeholders
and a facilitator from the project (Parisi et al., 2020).
Characteristics and examples of the two types of indicators, “central” and “local”, are
presented in Table 1.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent containment measures, including full
lockdown in some countries, did not leave the project unaffected. Not only did most of the
work move online under social distancing guidelines, but also some key activities in pilot
cities had to be cancelled or indefinitely postponed, placing on hold the implementation of the
envisioned action plans. As we read in one of the project deliverables: “in [one of the cities], the
municipal markets are closed, and in [another] all events have been cancelled for months
ahead. Across all pilot cities, all outreach and communication activities that were designed to
take place physically are cancelled” (Parisi et al., 2020).
In response to the disruption caused by COVID-19, several documents and meetings,
including a “risk management register”, management-level meetings and bilateral meetings
between the pilot cities and project coordination team, have been used to make sense of the
AAAJ Central KPIs Local KPIs

Characteristics Characteristics
(1) Defined before project start in accordance with the (1) Defined by the pilot cities during the project
requirements by the European Commission through a co-creation process
(2) Stated in the project contract (Grant Agreement) (2) Communicated to the European Commission
(3) Similar for all pilot cities with minor differences to through one of the project’s deliverables
reflect the material focus of the pilot cities (3) Different for each city depending on their
context and goals
Examples Examples
P1: Number of material-specific city resources E1: Circular material use rate
identified E2: Recycling rate of material at project sites
P2: Number of specific material streams identified E3: CO2 emission change
P3: Number of governance/business models developed E4: Reduction in energy use
P4: % material regenerated S1: Number of citizens engaged in project activities
P5: Overall stakeholder satisfaction with models S2: increase in awareness about circularity of
P6: Number of new applications for material developed materials amongst citizens
P7: Willingness to pay for regenerated products and
materials
P8: Number of local makers and businesses reached
through showcases
Table 1. P9: Number of citizens reached through educational
Project KPIs programmes

situation and to explore the feasibility of the existing programme as defined by the project
Grant Agreement and by the cities’ own regimes (Rose and Miller, 1992).
Initially, the situation was assessed by partners at the work package level (i.e. excluding
pilot cities) at the “risk management meeting” and “work package meeting” on 19 March, and
later on 25 March by work packages and pilot cities at a “steering committee meeting”
including all the project partners. In all meetings, participants discussed both the central
programme and the interest of the project continuing its operations, as well as the difficulties
experienced by the pilot cities. The initial responses were mixed depending on the
participant’s role in the project.
On the one hand, the work packages and the internal risk management team were
focussed on finding solutions that could be implemented for the project to continue operations
and sought “measures [the project] could possibly take to minimise the risk of negative
impacts” (Risk management meeting minutes, March 19 2020). Their approach was to “think
about the competences [. . .] in the consortium [and] think creatively how [to] re-adjust
activities to run online” (Steering Committee meeting minutes, March 25 2020).
On the other hand, pilot cities were more concerned about the feasibility of implementing
their planned activities and the impact that COVID-19 would have on their operations. One
member of a pilot city consortium argued that “it’s a matter of completely shifting the scope, not
a matter of postponement [. . .] we need to re-think the pilot plans” (Municipality representative
in a pilot city consortium, March 2020). In another pilot city, the FabLab representative also
raised concerns about their ability to move forward with the planned activities: “We are very
impacted by the situation. We are completely closed, [. . .] some activities cannot be done online”
(FabLab representative in a pilot city consortium, March 2020).
Overall, the initial response from the pilot cities to the uncertainty of the COVID-19
situation was pessimistic and driven by the feasibility of their KPIs. Shortly after the
pandemic outbreak, it became clear that some tools would be necessary to make sense of and
manage the situation. Hence, in late April 2020 the “risk management register” was
implemented amongst pilot cities. The work package leader responsible for pilot coordination Assessing and
saw it as a good way to manage the situation: managing the
What I can say is that for now the template is working really well. We see a lot more. . . [pilot cities] impact of
can define a lot more details about their problems, and it really starts to emerge how similar they are COVID-19
in certain parts, and how different they are in others. So overall, it’s quite interesting, and of course
there are some red threads we can find common for everybody. For some cities, I think there is a lot
more at risk than in others. [. . .] I think we’ve managed at least a little bit to take a detour and. . .
everybody has been very creative [laughs]. (Designer and FabLab representative, coordinator of
pilot cities, April 2020).
Two months later, in June 2020, bilateral meetings took place between the project
coordination team and the pilot city teams. The aim of these meetings was to build on the
positive experience of using the “risk management register” and further create perspective
from which the situation could be assessed and managed through the accounting
technologies available (Miller and Rose, 2008; Miller and Power, 2013). In so doing, both
the central and local KPIs became a means to understand the feasibility of concurrent
programmes at central and local level (Miller, 1990). While the programme enforced by KPIs
within the contract with the European Commission was considered more achievable, the local
programme created by the cities themselves was considered more challenging.
During these bilateral meetings, pilot cities reflected on their ability to meet both sets of
KPIs, expressing cautious optimism for the future of the project. For example, one of the pilot
city team members described the central KPIs as “flexible” and envisioned a change in
activities that would allow not only the meeting of the agreed upon target, but also exceeding
the expectations due to their focus on replicability.
[. . .] The indicators were pretty, pretty flexible. So, for example, we have indicators in terms of the
public attitude. And yes, we were thinking about having a workshop with that number of people. But
that number of people [. . .] can be online and offline, sometimes online. It’s an opportunity to gather
even more people if we think about that indicator. (Project manager in regional IT association,
member of pilot city consortium, June 2020).
Further reflections on pilot cities’ ability to meet the central KPIs were made, indicating
potential changes to planned activities that would allow meeting the predetermined targets:
Actually, it depends on the ways the situation is going to evolve in the next months. But I think it’s
fair to say we are on track for meeting the KPIs. Maybe, I do not know, if the situation will demand it,
we will change live meetings with the public. We are going to change them and turn them into
webinars. But I think that’s about it. The rest of it is feasible. (Municipality representative, leader of a
pilot city consortium, June 2020).
When it comes to the local programmes and relative accounting technologies, the cities found
themselves with spaces for agency that were not envisaged in the immediate aftermath of the
crisis. In fact, it seemed that local KPIs significantly affected the practices of government and
the ability to respond to the local programmes (Ahrens et al., 2020). A team member from the
same pilot city consortium added a reflection on how the activities reflected in the KPIs were
affected, and the city’s reaction was as follows:
One of the things we are monitoring [is] energy consumption. . . and we are including schools, and
because in terms of the school activity, there was a disruption, we will pay much attention of how we
interpret that data. [COVID-19] was a risk identified [. . .]. And if it goes for two more years, we will
need to. . . it does not mean that we do not meet the indicators, just that we will need to adapt the
interpretation of this based on the situation and the context of consumption, reduced consumption
because of reduced activity. (Project manager of regional IT association, member of pilot city
consortium, June 2020).
AAAJ A project manager of another pilot city team echoed the ability to proceed with the project and
meeting the local KPIs as follows:
The indicator of a 25% increase in recycled [material] is still doable. COVID-19 was of course a
setback, but we believe we’ll get there at the end. (Independent consultant to the municipality, leader
of a pilot city consortium, July 2020)
The central and local KPIs with their ability to create forms of visibility made COVID-19
calculable and governable. In fact, both the central and local KPIs, while responding to
different regimes, identified distinctive possibilities for intervention and concealed other
aspect of the pandemic (Mennicken and Miller, 2012). Hence, the accounting technologies
played a territorialising and adjudicating role (Miller and Power, 2013) by making the
COVID-19 subject to quantification and evaluation. In fact, KPIs as calculative practices
devised in order to articulate and make both central and local programmes operable
(Miller, 2001) and to assess their results (Miller and Power, 2013), created fields of
visibilities that influenced the evaluation of the impact of the current pandemic. This role
of the calculative practices in the project is also linked to the territorialising role of
accounting; in that, the use of KPIs contributed to make COVID-19 subject to calculation
(Miller and Power, 2013).
Initially, the cities’ concern was the standstill of their activities, and the consequent
inability to trial solutions in line with the city programmes. These were expressed by all pilot
city teams; however, based on the both the central and local KPIs, the cities proposed a
different practice and programme (Newberry, 2020), designed to address the expectations
laid out by the performance indicators in innovative ways.
It was noticeable how pilot cities did not seem to distinguish between the central and the
local KPIs, as the dynamic dialogue around the most relevant governmentality practices
stemmed from both accounts (Foucault, 2007). After the initial pessimistic projections
expressed during the Steering Committee meeting (25 March, 2020), the pilot cities moved
ahead from the COVID-19 pandemic by revisiting KPIs and reformulating their programmes
accordingly. Both sets of KPIs – “central” KPIs and “local” KPIs – were mentioned in cities’
reflections about the way forward.
For example, a pilot city team now considered COVID-19 an opportunity to reconsider
their plans and redesign scenarios to focus on the role of material flows during the pandemic:
We were wondering [. . .] if something new would happen after the summer, we would probably have
to reframe some content of the pilot. Not just because we cannot meet people live and so on, but
maybe because if COVID-19 would come back, it would be very interesting and crucial also to
reframe some of our activities and the conceptualisation of our pilots according to these. (Project
manager in a municipality, member of pilot city consortium, June 2020).

5. Discussion and conclusions


This paper suggests that Foucault’s notion of “governmentality” (Foucault, 2007) can be
conveniently used to explore the role of accounting technologies in the COVID-19 pandemic.
In line with this view on governmentality, it explores the ways programmes defined at the
central level can be contested at the local level (Ahrens et al., 2020). This paper contributes to
the accounting research on governmentality by offering examples of the roles of accounting
in the competing regimes emerging because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It illustrates how the
perception of the gravity of the pandemic was influenced by the concurrence of central and
local KPIs devised to implement the central and local programmes. Moreover, this paper
contributes to the existing literature by exploring the respective roles of central and local
regimes and the relative calculative practices. In fact, in our case, the cities never questioned
the KPIs in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis but used them to shape their programmes in
order to normalise the current situation.
The accounting literature presents examples of ways accounting technologies become Assessing and
associated with specific rationales (Hopwood, 1987; Power, 1997). It also provides accounts of managing the
the contradictory nature of rationales and programmes and the relative role of accounting
(Miller and O’Leary, 1994). Notably, however, little attention has been paid to the complex
impact of
process underlying such rationales and programmes, especially in the case of global, COVID-19
potentially long-lasting crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings of this paper
illustrated how the central and local KPIs created to translate the European and the cities’
programmes played a similar role in the assessment of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. In fact,
both sets of KPIs rendered some characteristics of COVID-19 visible and subject to
assessment and evaluation; in other words, they played an adjudicating role (Mennicken and
Miller, 2012; Miller and Power, 2013). The paper illustrates the underlying processes leading
to the assessment of the impact of the pandemic through different stages involving the KPIs
in order to adjust the relative programmes.
Finally, this paper contributes to the discussion concerning the territorialising quality of
accounting (Miller and Power, 2013). In fact, this paper illustrates how KPIs contributed to the
definition of COVID-19 as an accounting subject, thus making it calculable and manageable
by the cities in the project.
Future research should investigate how different KPIs are devised and implemented both
at the central and local levels. The interplay between the actors involved in the definition of
accounting technologies may contribute to our understanding of their use as governmentality
technologies.

References
Ahrens, T., Ferry, L. and Khalifa, R. (2020), “Governmentality and counter-conduct: a field study of
accounting amidst concurrent and competing rationales and programmes”, Management
Accounting Research, Vol. 48, pp. 1-14.
Argento, D., Grossi, G., J€a€askel€ainen, A., Servalli, S. and Suomala, P. (2020), “Governmentality and
performance for the smart city”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 204-232.
Collier, S.J. (2009), “Topologies of power. Foucault’s analysis of political government beyond
‘governmentality’”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 78-108.
Czarniawska, B. (2010), “Translation impossible? Accounting for a city project”, Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 420-437.
Dean, M. (2010), Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications,
London.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019), “Circular economy in cities”, available at: https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/CE-in-Cities-Project-Guide_Mar19.pdf
(accessed 18 December 2020).
Foss, N. (2020), “Behavioral strategy and the COVID-19 disruption”, Journal of Management, Vol. 46
No. 8, pp. 1322-1329.
Foucault, M. (2007), in Senellart, M. (Ed.), Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the College de
France, 1977-1978, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Hopwood, A.G. (1987), “The archaeology of accounting systems”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 207-234.
Jeacle, I. and Walsh, E.J. (2002), “From moral evaluation to rationalization: accounting and the shifting
technologies of credit”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 737-761.
Lai, A., Leoni, G. and Stacchezzini, R. (2014), “The socializing effects of accounting in flood recovery”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 579-603.
AAAJ Mennicken, A. and Miller, P. (2012), “Accounting, territorialization and power”, Foucault Studies,
Vol. 13, pp. 4-24.
Miller, P. (1990), “On the interrelations between accounting and the state”, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 315-338.
Miller, P. (1994), “Accounting as social and institutional practice: an introduction”, Hopwood, A. and
Miller, P. (Eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 1-39.
Miller, P. (2001), “Governing by numbers: why calculative practices matter”, Social Research, Vol. 68
No. 2, pp. 379-396.
Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1987), ““Accounting and the construction of the governable person”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 235-265.
Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1994), “Governing the calculable person”, Hopwood, A.G. and Miller, P.
(Eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 95-115.
Miller, P. and Power, M. (2013), “Accounting, organizing, and economizing: connecting accounting
research and organization theory”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7, pp. 557-605.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990), “Governing economic life”, Economy and Society, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008), Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal
Life, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017), “The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration
of the concept and application in a global context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140,
pp. 369-380.
Newberry, S. (2020), “Policy conflict: the influence of fiscal targets on reform of New Zealand’s natural
disaster fund”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 189-206.
OECD (Eds) (2020), The Circular Economy in Cities and Regions: Synthesis Report, OECD Urban
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Parisi, C., Beye, A., Bekier, J. and Keremis, A. (2020), “Cities’ circular action plans”, available at: https://
zenodo.org/record/3872703#.YNDJBWj7Q2x (accessed 13 July 2020).
Parker, L.D. (2020), “The COVID-19 office in transition: cost, efficiency and the social responsibility
business case”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1943-1967.
Power, M. (1997), The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Raffnsøe, S., Mennicken, A. and Miller, P. (2019), “The Foucault effect in organization studies”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 155-182.
Rose, N. (1996), Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY.
Rose, N. and Miller, P. (1992), “Political power beyond the State: problematics of government”, The
British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 173-205.
Sargiacomo, M. (2015), “Earthquakes, exceptional government and extraordinary accounting”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 67-89.
Sargiacomo, M. and Walker, S.P. (2021), “Disaster governance and hybrid organizations: accounting,
performance challenges and evacuee housing”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4323.
Spence, L.J. and Rinaldi, L. (2014), “Governmentality in accounting and accountability: a case study of
embedding sustainability in a supply chain”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 39
No. 6, pp. 433-452.
Westerdahl, S. (2020), “Yield and the city: Swedish public housing and the political significance of
changed accounting practices”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-
print, doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102161.
World Health Organization (2020), “WHO announces COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic”, available at: Assessing and
https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/
news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic (accessed 13 October 2020). managing the
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,
impact of
Thousand Oaks. COVID-19
Yu, A. (2021), “Accounting as mourning: accounting for death in the time of COVID-19”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 90, pp. 1-12.

Corresponding author
Cristiana Parisi can be contacted at: cp.om@cbs.dk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like