The Experts below are selected from a list of 63546 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Joan T Schmit - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
supporting strategic success through enterprise wide reputation Risk management
The Journal of Risk Finance, 2016Co-Authors: Nadine Gatzert, Joan T SchmitAbstract:Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a coherent and effective enterprise Risk management (ERM) framework that includes necessary steps and processes for integrating reputation Risk management into an organization’s overall ERM approach which is intended to support corporate strategic success. In particular, reputation creation, enhancement, and protection are critical to an organization’s success, yet highly challenging given the wide ranging and somewhat opaque nature of the concept. These qualities call for a strong ERM approach to reputation that is holistic and integrative, yet existing knowledge of how to do so is limited. Design/methodology/approach – The paper evaluates and synthesizes existing reputation literature in developing an enterprise-wide reputation Risk management framework incorporating necessary steps, processes, and considerations. We address Risk strategy, Risk assessment, Risk Governance, and Risk culture as key elements of ERM and conclude with suggestions for future r...
-
supporting strategic success through enterprise wide reputation Risk management
2015Co-Authors: Nadine Gatzert, Joan T SchmitAbstract:Concern over an organization’s reputation is at a heightened level and has become a top strategic business Risk. Reputation creation, enhancement, and protection are critical to an organization’s success, yet highly challenging given the wide ranging and somewhat opaque nature of the concept as well as the variety of potential events causing harm. These qualities call for a strong enterprise Risk management (ERM) approach to reputation that is holistic and integrative, yet existing knowledge of how to do so is limited. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and synthesize existing reputation literature in developing an enterprise-wide reputation Risk management framework incorporating necessary steps, processes, and considerations. We address Risk strategy, Risk assessment, Risk Governance, and Risk culture as key elements of ERM and conclude with suggestions for future research.
Nadine Gatzert - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
supporting strategic success through enterprise wide reputation Risk management
The Journal of Risk Finance, 2016Co-Authors: Nadine Gatzert, Joan T SchmitAbstract:Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a coherent and effective enterprise Risk management (ERM) framework that includes necessary steps and processes for integrating reputation Risk management into an organization’s overall ERM approach which is intended to support corporate strategic success. In particular, reputation creation, enhancement, and protection are critical to an organization’s success, yet highly challenging given the wide ranging and somewhat opaque nature of the concept. These qualities call for a strong ERM approach to reputation that is holistic and integrative, yet existing knowledge of how to do so is limited. Design/methodology/approach – The paper evaluates and synthesizes existing reputation literature in developing an enterprise-wide reputation Risk management framework incorporating necessary steps, processes, and considerations. We address Risk strategy, Risk assessment, Risk Governance, and Risk culture as key elements of ERM and conclude with suggestions for future r...
-
supporting strategic success through enterprise wide reputation Risk management
2015Co-Authors: Nadine Gatzert, Joan T SchmitAbstract:Concern over an organization’s reputation is at a heightened level and has become a top strategic business Risk. Reputation creation, enhancement, and protection are critical to an organization’s success, yet highly challenging given the wide ranging and somewhat opaque nature of the concept as well as the variety of potential events causing harm. These qualities call for a strong enterprise Risk management (ERM) approach to reputation that is holistic and integrative, yet existing knowledge of how to do so is limited. The aim of this paper is to evaluate and synthesize existing reputation literature in developing an enterprise-wide reputation Risk management framework incorporating necessary steps, processes, and considerations. We address Risk strategy, Risk assessment, Risk Governance, and Risk culture as key elements of ERM and conclude with suggestions for future research.
Lynn J. Frewer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
including social impact assessment in food safety Governance
Food Control, 2010Co-Authors: Marion Dreyer, S F Cope, Ortwin Renn, Lynn J. FrewerAbstract:Abstract This paper applies the concepts of social impact assessment (SIA) to the SAFE FOODS Risk analysis model highlighting the role that concern assessment , defined as a structured and systematic inclusion of (also wider) social concerns into Risk Governance, could play in the integration of SIA in food safety Governance. SIA is discussed in terms of the European policy background, the historical context, and the introduction of the social impact concept to food safety Governance. The proposal focuses on three stages: “preliminary framing”, “concern assessment” (serving as a scoping mechanism), and potentially a comprehensive “social impact assessment”. This three-step approach can provide orientation on the required extent and design of stakeholder/public participation and insight into the Risk-benefit communication process.
-
consumer perceptions of best practice in food Risk communication and management implications for Risk analysis policy
Food Policy, 2010Co-Authors: S F Cope, Lynn J. Frewer, Julie Houghton, G Rowe, A R H Fischer, J De JongeAbstract:As a consequence of recent food safety incidents, consumer trust in European food safety management has diminished. A Risk Governance framework that formally institutes stakeholder (including consumer) consultation and dialogue through a transparent and accountable process has been proposed, with due emphasis on Risk communication. This paper delivers actionable policy recommendations based on consumer preferences for different approaches to food Risk management. These results suggest that Risk communication should be informed by knowledge of consumer Risk perceptions and information needs, including individual differences in consumer preferences and requirements, and differences in these relating to socio-historical context associated with regulation. In addition, information about what is being done to identify, prevent and manage food Risks needs to be communicated to consumers, together with consistent messages regarding preventative programs, enforcement systems, and scientific uncertainty and variability associated with Risk assessments. Cross-cultural differences in consumer perception and information preferences suggest a national or regional strategy for food Risk communication may be more effective than one applied at a pan-European level.
-
the views of key stakeholders on an evolving food Risk Governance framework results from a delphi study
Food Policy, 2009Co-Authors: M T A Wentholt, Gene Rowe, Ariane Konig, Hans J P Marvin, Lynn J. FrewerAbstract:Evidence of a decline in public trust associated with food Risk Governance over recent years has called into question the appropriateness of the current dominant Risk analysis framework. Within the EU-funded SAFE FOODS project a novel Risk analysis framework has been developed that attempts to address potential shortcomings by increasing stakeholder (including consumer) input, improving transparency, and formally incorporating benefit and non-health aspects into the analysis. To assess the viability of this novel framework, the views of food Risk experts from the EU and beyond were sought using a distributed online questionnaire process called Delphi. In this paper the main results of this survey are described, revealing varying levels of support for the key innovations of the novel framework. Implications of our results for the new and old frameworks, for the future of Risk analysis, and for the policy community more widely, are discussed.
Hannelore Mees - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
conditions for citizen co production in a resilient efficient and legitimate flood Risk Governance arrangement a tentative framework
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2017Co-Authors: Hannelore Mees, Ann Crabbe, Peter P J DriessenAbstract:Across Europe, there is an increasing trend towards citizen involvement in the implementation of flood Risk Governance. Policy-makers increasingly advocate co-produced flood Risk Governance (FRG), ...
-
a framework for evaluating flood Risk Governance
Environmental Science & Policy, 2016Co-Authors: Meghan Alexander, Sally J Priest, Hannelore MeesAbstract:Calls to strengthen flood Risk Governance are echoed across Europe amidst a growing consensus that floods will increase in the future. Accompanying the pursuit of societal resilience, other normative agendas relating legitimacy (e.g. accountability and public participation), and resource efficiency, have become attached to discussions concerning flood Risk Governance. Whilst these represent goals against which ‘success’ is socially and politically judged, lacking from the literature is a coherent framework to operationalise these concepts and evaluate the degree to which these are achieved. Drawing from cross-disciplinary and cross-country research conducted within the EU project STAR-FLOOD, this paper presents a framework for evaluating the extent to which flood Risk Governance arrangements support societal resilience, and demonstrate efficiency and legitimacy. Through empirical research in England, this paper critically reflects on the value of this approach in terms of identifying entry points to strengthen Governance in the pursuit of these goals.
Thomas Walker - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
on the role of the chief Risk officer and the Risk committee in insuring financial institutions against litigation
Managerial Finance, 2017Co-Authors: Arash Amoozegar, Kuntara Pukthuanthong, Thomas WalkerAbstract:Purpose In most financial institutions, chief Risk officers (CROs) and their Risk management (RM) staff fulfill a role in managing Risk exposures, yet their lack of involvement in the Governance has been cited as an influential factor that contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Various legislative and regulatory bodies have pressured financial firms to improve their Risk Governance structures to better weather potential future crises. Assuming that CROs and Risk committees are given sufficient power to influence the corporate Governance of financial institutions, can CROs and Risk committees protect financial institutions from violating litigable securities law? Can they improve bank performance? The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The authors employ a principal component analysis to construct a single measure that captures various aspects of RM in a firm. The authors compare the Risk Governance characteristics of sued firms with their non-sued peers and consider one of the final outcomes of Risky behavior: shareholder litigation. The authors compute ROA and buy-and-hold abnormal returns to capture operating and stock performance and examine whether Risk Governance improves bank performance by reducing litigation Risk. Findings Proper Risk Governance reduces a firm’s litigation probability. The addition of the RM factor to models that have been previously proposed in the literature improves the accuracy of those models in identifying companies that are most susceptible to class action lawsuits. Better RM improves the financial and stock price performance of financial institutions. Research limitations/implications The data collection is laborious as the information about CRO Governance has to be hand-collected from the 10-K report. A broader sample employing, e.g., non-US banks may provide additional insights into the relationship between RM practices, shareholder litigation, and bank performance. Practical implications The study shows that a bank’s RM functions play a critical role in improving bank and operating performance and in reducing shareholder litigation. Banks should emphasize the RM function. Originality/value This is the first study to examine the mechanism behind the positive association between RM and bank performance. The study shows that better RM improves overall bank performance by decreasing litigation Risk.
-
on the role of the chief Risk officer and the Risk committee in insuring financial institutions against litigation
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Arash Amoozegar, Kuntara Pukthuanthong, Thomas WalkerAbstract:Purpose: In most financial institutions, chief Risk officers (CROs) and their Risk management staff fulfill a role in managing Risk exposures, yet their lack of involvement in the Governance has been cited as an influential factor that contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Various legislative and regulatory bodies have pressured financial firms to improve their Risk Governance structures to better weather potential future crises. Assuming that CROs and Risk committees are given sufficient power to influence the corporate Governance of financial institutions, can CROs and Risk committees protect financial institutions from violating litigable securities law? Can they improve bank performance?Design/methodology: We employ a principal component analysis to construct a single measure that captures various aspects of Risk management in a firm. We compare the Risk Governance characteristics of sued firms with their non-sued peers and consider one of the final outcomes of Risky behavior: shareholder litigation. We compute ROA and buy-and-hold abnormal returns to capture operating and stock performance and examine whether Risk Governance improves bank performance by reducing litigation Risk.Findings: Proper Risk Governance reduces a firm’s litigation probability. The addition of our Risk management factor to models that have been previously proposed in the literature improves the accuracy of those models in identifying companies that are most susceptible to class action lawsuits. Better Risk management improves the financial and stock price performance of financial institutions.Research limitations/implications: The data collection is laborious as the information about CRO Governance has to be hand-collected from the 10K report. A broader sample employing, e.g., non-U.S. banks may provide additional insights into the relationship between Risk management practices, shareholder litigation, and bank performance.Practical implications: Our study shows that a bank’s Risk management functions play a critical role in improving bank and operating performance and in reducing shareholder litigation. Banks should emphasize the Risk management function.Originality/value: This is the first study to examine the mechanism behind the positive association between Risk management and bank performance. The study shows that better Risk management improves overall bank performance by decreasing litigation Risk.
