Risk Culture, Risk Governance, and Balanced Incentives

10.1596/25790 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Governance ◽  
Risk Culture

Cognitive risk culture and advanced roles of actors in risk governance: a case study

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruchi Agarwal ◽  
Sanjay Kallapur
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cognitive Risk ◽  
Risk Culture ◽  
The Uk

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to explore the best practices for improving risk culture and defining the role of actors in risk governance.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents an exemplar case of a British insurance company by using a qualitative case research approach.FindingsThe case study shows how the company was successful in changing from a compliance-based and defensive risk culture to a cognitive risk culture by using a systems thinking approach. Cognitive risk culture ensures that everybody understands risks and their own roles in risk governance. The change was accomplished by adding an operational layer between the first and second lines of defense and developing tools to better communicate risks throughout the organization.Practical implicationsPractitioners can potentially improve risk governance by using the company’s approach. The UK regulator’s initiative to improve risk culture can potentially be followed by other regulators.Originality/valueThis is among the few studies that describe actual examples of how a company can improve risk culture using the systems approach and how systems thinking simultaneously resolves several other issues such as poor risk reporting and lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities.

scholarly journals Does risk culture affect banks’ volatility? The case of the G-SIBs

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Coluccia ◽  
Stefano Fontana ◽  
Elvira Anna Graziano ◽  
Matteo Rossi ◽  
Silvia Solimene
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Banking Sector ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Risk Indicators ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Alternative Measure ◽  
Risk Culture ◽  
Risk Committee

The recent financial crisis highlights the weaknesses of the traditional measures of risk in the banking sector, as Banking Authorities have missed considering the behavioural aspect of the risk culture, which is an essential tool for the value creation process of risk management (Financial Stability Board, 2014; Carretta et al., 2015; Schwizer, 2013; Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales, 2015), usually measured using the survey method. Our paper addresses a central question: What is an alternative measure of risk that estimates the banking risk-taking behaviour, also considering their risk culture? By analysing a panel of the thirty Global Systematically Important Banks (G-SIBs) from 2006 and 2013, our paper provides empirical evidence that the presence of a Risk Committee, the size of the Risk Committee and the number of the Risk Committee’s meetings have a positive impact on a bank’s volatility. Using multiple regression analysis on panel data, we verify the relationship between the bank asset risk and explicative variables that measure risk governance, banks’ size and traditional banks’ risk indicators. Our study extends the literature by providing evidence that separates RCs as having a significant impact on reducing firms’ volatility and as being an important risk governance tool in the hands of boards. Moreover, given the recent emphasis of regulatory bodies on strengthening the risk management and risk reporting systems of financial firms and the overwhelming trend of firms to form a separate RC, our study responds to the opportunity to investigate this relationship.

CONCEPTUALISING RISK CULTURE ON ERM IMPLEMENTATION IN CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Ching Ching Wong
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Risk Identification ◽  
The Body ◽  
Risk Indicators ◽  
Construction Companies ◽  
Risk Appetite ◽  
Risk Culture ◽  
Risk Treatment ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
The Relationship

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is an effective technique in managing risk within an organization strategically and holistically. Risk culture relates to the general awareness, attitudes and behaviours towards risk management in an organisation. This paper presents a conceptual model that shows the relationship between risk culture and ERM implementation. The dependent variable is ERM implementation, which is measured by the four processes namely risk identification and risk assessment; risk treatment; monitor and consult; communicate and consult. The independent variables under risk culture are risk policy and risk appetite; key risk indicators; accountability; incentives; risk language and internal relationships. This study aims to empirically test the relationship between risk culture and ERM implementation among Malaysian construction public listed companies. Risk culture is expected to have direct effects and significantly influence ERM. This study contributes to enhance the body of knowledge in ERM especially in understanding significant of risk culture that influence its’ implementation from Malaysian perspective.

scholarly journals Ugandan stakeholder hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control: new directions for gene drive risk governance

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Hartley ◽  
Robert D. J. Smith ◽  
Adam Kokotovich ◽  
Chris Opesen ◽  
Tibebu Habtewold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malaria Control ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Control Programme ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Malaria Control Programme ◽  
Gene Drive ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
New Directions ◽  
High Level

Abstract Background The African Union’s High-Level Panel on Emerging Technologies identified gene drive mosquitoes as a priority technology for malaria elimination. The first field trials are expected in 5–10 years in Uganda, Mali or Burkina Faso. In preparation, regional and international actors are developing risk governance guidelines which will delineate the framework for identifying and evaluating risks. Scientists and bioethicists have called for African stakeholder involvement in these developments, arguing the knowledge and perspectives of those people living in malaria-afflicted countries is currently missing. However, few African stakeholders have been involved to date, leaving a knowledge gap about the local social-cultural as well as ecological context in which gene drive mosquitoes will be tested and deployed. This study investigates and analyses Ugandan stakeholders’ hopes and concerns about gene drive mosquitoes for malaria control and explores the new directions needed for risk governance. Methods This qualitative study draws on 19 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Ugandan stakeholders in 2019. It explores their hopes for the technology and the risks they believed pertinent. Coding began at a workshop and continued through thematic analysis. Results Participants’ hopes and concerns for gene drive mosquitoes to address malaria fell into three themes: (1) ability of gene drive mosquitoes to prevent malaria infection; (2) impacts of gene drive testing and deployment; and, (3) governance. Stakeholder hopes fell almost exclusively into the first theme while concerns were spread across all three. The study demonstrates that local stakeholders are able and willing to contribute relevant and important knowledge to the development of risk frameworks. Conclusions International processes can provide high-level guidelines, but risk decision-making must be grounded in the local context if it is to be robust, meaningful and legitimate. Decisions about whether or not to release gene drive mosquitoes as part of a malaria control programme will need to consider the assessment of both the risks and the benefits of gene drive mosquitoes within a particular social, political, ecological, and technological context. Just as with risks, benefits—and importantly, the conditions that are necessary to realize them—must be identified and debated in Uganda and its neighbouring countries.

Principles and Structures of European Risk Governance, or: How (not) to Play a Trust Game

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-174
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Service Provision ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Trust Game ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Private Institutions ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Regulatory Functions ◽  
The Eu

Ever more risky service activities are carried out across borders, creating spillovers and externalities. At the same time, if freedom to provide services is legally enabled, states can cooperate in multiple ways to mitigate the potential risks accruing from crossborder activities. Global Administrative Law Scholarship distinguishes five types of administrative regulation: “administration by formal international organizations; administrations based on collective action by transnational networks of governmental officials; distributed administration conducted by national regulators under treaty regimes, mutual recognition arrangements or cooperative standards; administration by hybrid intergovernmental–private arrangements; and administration by private institutions with regulatory functions. In practice many of these layers overlap or combine […]”. In the area of risky cross–border service provision, the EU has moved from a more decentralised version of networks and mutual recognition characterised by coordination and minimum harmonization of rules and standards to a more centralized commandand–control system with European authorities and supervision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document