Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The risk organisation: or how organisations reconcile themselves to failure

Huber, Michael, Rothstein, Henry·2013·Journal of Risk Research
DOI 10.1080/13669877.2012.761276
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13669877.2012.761276

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 60

  1. 10.1016/j.aos.2010.07.003 · DOI
  2. Beck U., 1992, Risk society
  3. Beck, U. and B. Holzer. 2008. Organizations in world risk society. InInternational handbook of organizational crisis management, ed. C.M. Pearson, C. Roux-Dufort and J.A. Clair, 3–24. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. · DOI
  4. 10.2307/2090074 · DOI
  5. Better Regulation Commission, 2006, Risk, responsibility and regulation
  6. Black J., 2005, Public Law, 2005, 512
  7. 10.1080/13669877.2011.587886 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/0170840600214003 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Capability Review Team, 2007, Capability review of the department for environment, food and rural affairs
  10. Clarke L., 1999, Mission improbable: Using fantasy documents to tame disaster
  11. 10.1146/annurev.so.19.080193.002111 · DOI
  12. Cohen M., 1974, Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president
  13. 10.2307/2392088 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), 2004, Enterprise risk management framework
  15. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2002, Risk management strategy
  16. di Lampedusa G., 1996, The leopard
  17. 10.1080/03085140802358099 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/BF00143739 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1177/0170840608101474 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/13669877.2011.634513 · DOI
  21. Hamilton W., 1853, Discussions on philosophy and literature
  22. HEFCE, 2006, Strategic Plan 2006–11
  23. Hood C., 2011, The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government
  24. 10.1093/0198280998.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hood C., 2001, The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes, 10.1093/0199243638.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Huber M., 2008, Who owns knowledge? Knowledge and the law, 107
  27. Huber, M. 2010. Colonized by risk: The emergence of academic risks in British higher education. InAnticipating Risks and Organizing Risk Regulation, ed. B. Hutter, 114–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  28. 10.1017/CBO9780511488580 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/13669877.2011.636838 · DOI · Paper page
  30. LaPorte, T. 1982. On the design and management of nearly error-free organizational control systems. InAccident at Three Mile Island, ed. D. Sills, V. Shelanski and C.P. Wolf, 185–200. Boulder: Westview. · DOI
  31. LaPorte T., 1991, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 19
  32. 10.1177/017084069101200203 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1177/0170840608101478 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Luhmann N., 1998, Observations on modernity, 63, 10.1515/9781503617230-005 · DOI
  35. 10.1086/226550 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1016/j.aos.2011.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1177/0170840608101475 · DOI
  38. Musselin, C. 2007. Are universities specific organizations?’ InTowards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, ed. G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky and M. Torka, 63–86. Bielefeld: Transcript. · DOI
  39. National Audit Office (NAO), 2002, The 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease
  40. National Audit Office (NAO), 2009, A second progress update on the administration of the single payment scheme by the rural payments agency
  41. Office of Government Commerce (OGC), 2007, Management of risk: Guidance for practitioners
  42. Perrow C., 1984, Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies
  43. Porter T., 1995, Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life
  44. Power M., 1997, The audit society
  45. Power M., 2004, The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty, 10.1108/eb023001 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Power M., 2007, Organized uncertainty, 10.1093/oso/9780199253944.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1016/j.aos.2009.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1177/0170840608101482 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Raban C., 2006, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 10, 39, 10.1080/13603100600644522 · DOI
  50. Roberts K., 1993, New challenges to understanding organizations, 1
  51. 10.1080/1369857031000066023 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01999.x · DOI
  53. 10.1080/03085140500465865 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Sagan S., 1993, The limits of safety, 10.1515/9780691213064 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Turner B., 1978, Man-made disasters
  56. Vaughan D., 1996, The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture and deviance at NASA
  57. Vaughan D., 2005, Organizational Encounters with Risk
  58. Weber M., 1970, From Max Weber: Essays in sociology
  59. 10.1057/palgrave.emr.1500073 · DOI
  60. 10.2307/2391875 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 31

Metadata

Authors
Huber, M., & Rothstein, H.
Venue
Journal of Risk Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-06
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
651-675
ISSN
  • 1366-9877
  • 1466-4461
DOI
10.1080/13669877.2012.761276
Cited by
31
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The risk organisation: or how organisations reconcile themselves to failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13669877.2012.761276
The paper
Huber, M., & Rothstein, H. (2013). The risk organisation: or how organisations reconcile themselves to failure. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2012.761276

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.