دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی مدیریت ریسک سازمانی - امرالد 2017

Abstract

Purpose − This paper investigates the evolution of enterprise risk management (ERM) out of fragmented disciplinary perspectives to provide a foundation for promoting interdisciplinary research and proposes a design science approach for more effective ERM implementation in organizations. Design/methodology/approach − This conceptual paper synthesizes ERM research and practice from multiple disciplines. Findings − Corporate risk management concepts were born in academic finance and developed further in the finance subset known as risk management and insurance. With the advent of ERM, efforts must broaden beyond applying statistical models to quantifiable risks. Other disciplines have expanded ERM research by embracing techniques to investigate risk management practices to produce knowledge that integrates practice and theory. ERM is promoted as integrated risk management, yet silos still remain in both practice and research. Originality/value − Provides a foundation and a proposal for moving ERM past academic and organizational silos, which is necessary to achieve the ERM philosophy and increase organizational resilience. Understanding the evolution and fragmented nature of ERM research and practice provides a foundation for interdisciplinary cooperation necessary to achieve the holistic ERM philosophy. A next frontier is effective ERM implementation. This paper argues for an organizational design science approach for mitigating the resistance to change that confounds effective implementation of ERM in organizations facing an increasingly uncertain environment and outlines future research for applying the approach to implementing the ISO 31000 risk management process.

7. Conclusions and future research

Advancement of enterprise risk management (ERM) research and practice has been hampered by a complex evolution involving fragmented disciplinary treatment, competing professional associations and standards, and siloed corporate risk management functions. To reduce confusion about ERM, this paper provides a history of risk management research and practice resulting in a table describing the basic differences between ERM and traditional risk management (TRM). With this foundation, this paper summarizes the contributions of accounting scholars moving beyond the limited potential of quantitative analysis by conducting field studies to understand what enterprises are actually doing. The paper also documents the contribution of scholars from other disciplines, such as management and systems engineering.

Over the previous few decades, various types of risk and uncertainty have been described that do not yield to disciplinary solutions and are often made worse. Broad, complex problems cannot be effectively handled by a single profession or discipline. Much of the academic work on ERM first came from finance then an essential expansion from accounting scholars with some work starting in other disciplines. Future research will require creativity and concerted interdisciplinary efforts for the holistic ERM philosophy to become effective. Collaboration among scholars from multiple disciplines is essential for the advancement of ERM.