دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی بهترین روش ساده برای حکمرانی و افشای مدیریت ریسک توسط هیئت مدیره و مدیر ارشد - SSRN 2018

Introduction

Globally, the higher education (HE) sector is experiencing rapid changes. In particular, the need for transparency, full disclosure and accountability, competition, ‘commodification’, ‘corporatisation’, ‘commercialisation’, ‘managerialism’, ‘marketisation’, regulation and large student numbers have increased, whilst government funding has often decreased (Soobaroyen et al., 2014, 2016a, b; Ntim et al., 2017). Many of these reforms have been driven by the neoliberal concept of new public management (NPM), which advocates improvement in the delivery of public services through the adoption of efficient private sector practices, such as those relating to auditing, financial reporting, governance, and risk management. Meanwhile the higher education sector is ‘big business’ nationally and internationally, with the sector’s educational, social, economic and cultural importance easily evident. For example, and based on the past 6 years data collected, the public HE sector in the UK, consisting of approximately 164 higher education institutions (HEIs), together generated a total income of about £35 billion a year with an average income per a UK HEI of about £193 million, ranging from a minimum of £1.4 million to a maximum of £1.7 billion. They taught a total number of about 2 million students per year, ranging from a minimum of 338 to a maximum of 378,000 students – an average of just under 19,000 students per an HEI per year. Approximately, 300,000 students are of non-UK/EU (international) origins, generating about £8 billion in total income to the UK economy. The sector has total assets of about £250 billion, averaging about £330 million per HEI, ranging from a minimum of about £3 million to a maximum of over £3 billion. The sector together employs a total of about 500,000 staff, with the average HEI spending about £186 million a year, ranging from a minimum of £1.2m to a maximum of £1.1 billion. In fact, some individual HEIs, such as Cambridge and Oxford Universities, are able to generate total assets (total income) of over £2 billion (£1 billion) a year, which are larger than or at least similar to those generated by some of the UK FTSE 100 or US S&P 500 companies. These cultural, economic, educational and social contributions of HEIs are also evident in most countries, around the world – from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

Conclusion

As noted previously, the governance and risk items that both guides contain are not meant to be prescriptive, but suggestive, un-exhaustive, and flexible, which can be added to or taken from in order to suit specific individual HEIs’ needs. It is also expected to be adaptable from country to country, and time to time in order to suit specific country/HEI or time specific needs and challenges. Indeed, there are inherent overlaps and/or repetitions between subcategories and among individual items. Similarly, some categories or items may not be relevant to certain HEIs or HEIs in some countries. There may also be terminological differences, such as “governors”, “councillors” or “trustees” and/or “governing boards” or “governing councils”, which in the main tend to have similar meanings. Thus, its overall objective is provide a simple best practice framework that may not only be able to help generate new insights and ideas, but also within which governance and risk management discussions and debates can take place among and within governing boards, governors, councils, councillors, senior managers and trustees of all types of HEIs around the world. It is hoped that practitioners will find it useful in their day-to-day decision making with respect to best risk management and governance disclosure practices.